Jan. 20, 2009

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

The day we say goodbye to the worst president in United States history. What will you do to celebrate?

I’m assuming some sort of posts ad naseuem regarding either celebrating the victory of Obama or other clever devices such as “I’ll be happily celebrating the preventing of the chosen one from being inaugurated,” but seriously, what will you do to celebrate the end of the presidency which alienated all international support, took a surging economy and turned it into, well, this, and has left us engaged in two separate wars that have cost numerous lives and left us no closer to securing our country’s safety?

2

[quote]slimjim wrote:
The day we say goodbye to the worst president in United States history. What will you do to celebrate?
[/quote]

Carter has been out of office for about 28 years already.

3

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
slimjim wrote:
The day we say goodbye to the worst president in United States history. What will you do to celebrate?

Carter has been out of office for about 28 years already.[/quote]

Quoted for truth, something to the effect of Americas best days are behind us…

4

[quote]slimjim wrote:
The day we say goodbye to the worst president in United States history. What will you do to celebrate?

I’m assuming some sort of posts ad naseuem regarding either celebrating the victory of Obama or other clever devices such as “I’ll be happily celebrating the preventing of the chosen one from being inaugurated,” but seriously, what will you do to celebrate the end of the presidency which alienated all international support, took a surging economy and turned it into, well, this, and has left us engaged in two separate wars that have cost numerous lives and left us no closer to securing our country’s safety? [/quote]

A surging economy??? Are you kidding?

Let’s go back to 2000 - Clinton’s final yr.

Dow - down nearly 30% from Jan 2000 to Dec 2000
Nasdaq - down 50% from Jan 2000 to Dec 2000

Dot com bubble - the beginning of the wage decline.

2001 - Earnings scandals - Enron, WorldCom,etc. This all happened in the 90’s and came to light in 2001.

Then 9/11 happened causing companies to freeze capital expenditures.

Surging economy in January 2001 - please - go do your homework.

Incomes started rising again in 2003 after the tax cuts took effect. We are not where we are at because of one specific economic policy of Bush.

We are where we are at due to the fed gov via fannie and freddie pushing Banks to lend money to those who could not otherwise afford them.

5

So you guys aren’t going to celebrate I take it?

6

Well, I’ve been waiting for this day for a damn long time.

Hopefully we’ll never hear from the cocksucker ever again, the guy who will go down as one of the crookedest presidents in a much crooked time, and who, in eight years, destroyed all of America’s credibility and took us to the gutter.

Adieu, you villainous swine. Back to the rock you crawled out from…

7

[quote]slimjim wrote:
So you guys aren’t going to celebrate I take it?[/quote]

I did not think you could defend that surging economy in Jan 2001 comment.

8

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Well, I’ve been waiting for this day for a damn long time.

Hopefully we’ll never hear from the cocksucker ever again, the guy who will go down as one of the crookedest presidents in a much crooked time, and who, in eight years, destroyed all of America’s credibility and took us to the gutter.

Adieu, you villainous swine. Back to the rock you crawled out from…[/quote]

And Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and Barney Frank had nothing to do with defending Fannie and Freddie and the peddling of bad paper? Yeah. In 2005 when McCain and 3 other repub senators tried to bring a bill to the senate floor - the dems blocked it.

If Bush has taken us to the gutter - then those guys were in the front seat reading the map.

I don’t blame the dems 100% because I think the repubs should have sounded the alarm if they knew something was wrong. But I have to go 75% dems fault and 25% repubs fault on this mortgage mess.

9

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
slimjim wrote:
So you guys aren’t going to celebrate I take it?

I did not think you could defend that surging economy in Jan 2001 comment.[/quote]

Oh you got me, you are so right and I am so wrong. Bush took a country that was in shambles and led us to where we are now, the epoch of our greatness.

The Politics forum tends to be mental masturbation for most of you guys anyways, huh? You generally post on here only to reinforce your own point of view.

Most of you will probably disagree with that last and give me examples of how you’ve learned and grown on here, but truly, the majority are only on here to dismiss those things that disagree with their beliefs and to pat each other on the back when a like-minded individual tells them what they want to hear.

Perhaps I misspoke with ‘surging,’ but relative to where we are now the economy was indeed surging. Is it your contention that our economy was in dire straits at the end of Clinton’s administration and Bush brought it out of the doldrums? Congratulations Bushy, I was sorely mistaken.

10

[quote]slimjim wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
slimjim wrote:
So you guys aren’t going to celebrate I take it?

I did not think you could defend that surging economy in Jan 2001 comment.

Oh you got me, you are so right and I am so wrong. Bush took a country that was in shambles and led us to where we are now, the epoch of our greatness.

The Politics forum tends to be mental masturbation for most of you guys anyways, huh? You generally post on here only to reinforce your own point of view.

Most of you will probably disagree with that last and give me examples of how you’ve learned and grown on here, but truly, the majority are only on here to dismiss those things that disagree with their beliefs and to pat each other on the back when a like-minded individual tells them what they want to hear.

Perhaps I misspoke with ‘surging,’ but relative to where we are now the economy was indeed surging. Is it your contention that our economy was in dire straits at the end of Clinton’s administration and Bush brought it out of the doldrums? Congratulations Bushy, I was sorely mistaken.[/quote]

I did not say that the problems were deeper then than they are now. However, Bush did not inherit a “strong” economy which is what dems like to portray. He did indeed inherit a weak economy. But I am not blaming that on Clinton or anyone else. I understand that economies go up and down. We have this thing called the business cycle.

The economy under Bush did indeed rebound starting in 2003 and climbed until 2008. You can’t deny that. The problem we find ourselves in now is not about any one economic policy. At the heart of this problem is the push by the fed gov using fannie and freddie - to loan to people who were not qualified borrowers in an effort to get minorities and the poor into homes of their own.

That is what happened and it was not caused by Bush. I fault Bush as I said in my post above that he and the repubs did not sound the alarm loud enough if they knew and it appears they did know enough to suspect problems at fannie and freddie.

You do know that this administration brought it the attention of congress in 2003 and Barney Frank said that there was no problem at fannie and freddie. And in 2005 McCain and 3 others put a bill out to reign in fannie and freddie but it was blocked by the dems. The repubs did not have 60 votes to stop a filibuster.

That does not bother you? You still blame all this on Bush? How can you overlook the dems in this? Their hands were actually much deeper into fannie and freddie.

Also, just for your info, Clinton was the one who took over a surging economy in Jan of 1993. Go back and check the growth of the 4th quarter of 1992 - it was 5%. No one knew it at the time because the numbers obviously were not out that early and it takes a little while to feel it.

And hey, I don’t like the way Bush has spent too much money either. But I sure do not think that Obama will curb spending.

11

[quote]slimjim wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
slimjim wrote:
So you guys aren’t going to celebrate I take it?

I did not think you could defend that surging economy in Jan 2001 comment.

Oh you got me, you are so right and I am so wrong. Bush took a country that was in shambles and led us to where we are now, the epoch of our greatness.

The Politics forum tends to be mental masturbation for most of you guys anyways, huh? You generally post on here only to reinforce your own point of view.

Most of you will probably disagree with that last and give me examples of how you’ve learned and grown on here, but truly, the majority are only on here to dismiss those things that disagree with their beliefs and to pat each other on the back when a like-minded individual tells them what they want to hear.

Perhaps I misspoke with ‘surging,’ but relative to where we are now the economy was indeed surging. Is it your contention that our economy was in dire straits at the end of Clinton’s administration and Bush brought it out of the doldrums? Congratulations Bushy, I was sorely mistaken.[/quote]

If you want to see mental masturbation just look at your two posts on this thread. Politics is not your balliwick.

12

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
slimjim wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
slimjim wrote:
So you guys aren’t going to celebrate I take it?

I did not think you could defend that surging economy in Jan 2001 comment.

Oh you got me, you are so right and I am so wrong. Bush took a country that was in shambles and led us to where we are now, the epoch of our greatness.

The Politics forum tends to be mental masturbation for most of you guys anyways, huh? You generally post on here only to reinforce your own point of view.

Most of you will probably disagree with that last and give me examples of how you’ve learned and grown on here, but truly, the majority are only on here to dismiss those things that disagree with their beliefs and to pat each other on the back when a like-minded individual tells them what they want to hear.

Perhaps I misspoke with ‘surging,’ but relative to where we are now the economy was indeed surging. Is it your contention that our economy was in dire straits at the end of Clinton’s administration and Bush brought it out of the doldrums? Congratulations Bushy, I was sorely mistaken.

I did not say that the problems were deeper then than they are now. However, Bush did not inherit a “strong” economy which is what dems like to portray. He did indeed inherit a weak economy. But I am not blaming that on Clinton or anyone else. I understand that economies go up and down. We have this thing called the business cycle.

The economy under Bush did indeed rebound starting in 2003 and climbed until 2008. You can’t deny that. The problem we find ourselves in now is not about any one economic policy. At the heart of this problem is the push by the fed gov using fannie and freddie - to loan to people who were not qualified borrowers in an effort to get minorities and the poor into homes of their own.

That is what happened and it was not caused by Bush. I fault Bush as I said in my post above that he and the repubs did not sound the alarm loud enough if they knew and it appears they did know enough to suspect problems at fannie and freddie.

You do know that this administration brought it the attention of congress in 2003 and Barney Frank said that there was no problem at fannie and freddie. And in 2005 McCain and 3 others put a bill out to reign in fannie and freddie but it was blocked by the dems. The repubs did not have 60 votes to stop a filibuster.

That does not bother you? You still blame all this on Bush? How can you overlook the dems in this? Their hands were actually much deeper into fannie and freddie.

Also, just for your info, Clinton was the one who took over a surging economy in Jan of 1993. Go back and check the growth of the 4th quarter of 1992 - it was 5%. No one knew it at the time because the numbers obviously were not out that early and it takes a little while to feel it.

And hey, I don’t like the way Bush has spent too much money either. But I sure do not think that Obama will curb spending.

[/quote]

nobel effort. Too full of actual facts, logic and reason. I doubt he’ll get it.

13

I could never understand the liberals’ visceral hatred of George W. It is not enough to disagree with his policies, but they also carry a deep irrational emotional antipathy toward him.

George W. has always been a class act who rarely, if ever, uttered a harsh word about his political opponents. I for one am glad he was at the helm for the last 8 years

14

[quote]Razorslim wrote:
I could never understand the liberals’ visceral hatred of George W. It is not enough to disagree with his policies, but they also carry a deep irrational emotional antipathy toward him.

George W. has always been a class act who rarely, if ever, uttered a harsh word about his political opponents. [/quote]

Come on now. He may have stayed above the fray personally, but his surrogates and proxies engaged in plenty of nasty attacks. Questioning people’s patriotism because they opposed his policies was standard practice. The 2000 South Carolina primary against McCain stands as probably the low point, but there were plenty of other contenders.

15

[quote]slimjim wrote:

The day we say goodbye to the worst president in United States history. What will you do to celebrate?[/quote]

I’ll celebrate by actually learning American history and the history of the presidents so that I could make informed comments who is considered the worst president(s) in history.

I’d suggest you do the same - maybe even start sooner.

16

[quote]dhickey wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
slimjim wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
slimjim wrote:
So you guys aren’t going to celebrate I take it?

I did not think you could defend that surging economy in Jan 2001 comment.

Oh you got me, you are so right and I am so wrong. Bush took a country that was in shambles and led us to where we are now, the epoch of our greatness.

The Politics forum tends to be mental masturbation for most of you guys anyways, huh? You generally post on here only to reinforce your own point of view.

Most of you will probably disagree with that last and give me examples of how you’ve learned and grown on here, but truly, the majority are only on here to dismiss those things that disagree with their beliefs and to pat each other on the back when a like-minded individual tells them what they want to hear.

Perhaps I misspoke with ‘surging,’ but relative to where we are now the economy was indeed surging. Is it your contention that our economy was in dire straits at the end of Clinton’s administration and Bush brought it out of the doldrums? Congratulations Bushy, I was sorely mistaken.

I did not say that the problems were deeper then than they are now. However, Bush did not inherit a “strong” economy which is what dems like to portray. He did indeed inherit a weak economy. But I am not blaming that on Clinton or anyone else. I understand that economies go up and down. We have this thing called the business cycle.

The economy under Bush did indeed rebound starting in 2003 and climbed until 2008. You can’t deny that. The problem we find ourselves in now is not about any one economic policy. At the heart of this problem is the push by the fed gov using fannie and freddie - to loan to people who were not qualified borrowers in an effort to get minorities and the poor into homes of their own.

That is what happened and it was not caused by Bush. I fault Bush as I said in my post above that he and the repubs did not sound the alarm loud enough if they knew and it appears they did know enough to suspect problems at fannie and freddie.

You do know that this administration brought it the attention of congress in 2003 and Barney Frank said that there was no problem at fannie and freddie. And in 2005 McCain and 3 others put a bill out to reign in fannie and freddie but it was blocked by the dems. The repubs did not have 60 votes to stop a filibuster.

That does not bother you? You still blame all this on Bush? How can you overlook the dems in this? Their hands were actually much deeper into fannie and freddie.

Also, just for your info, Clinton was the one who took over a surging economy in Jan of 1993. Go back and check the growth of the 4th quarter of 1992 - it was 5%. No one knew it at the time because the numbers obviously were not out that early and it takes a little while to feel it.

And hey, I don’t like the way Bush has spent too much money either. But I sure do not think that Obama will curb spending.

nobel effort. Too full of actual facts, logic and reason. I doubt he’ll get it.[/quote]

Ah yes, the man who misspells ‘noble’ questions my intelligence and reasoning…nice bit of irony there.

I also enjoy the fact that the one part of my post that you guys zeroed in on is in regards to the economy, completely disregarding my contentions about our military endeavors and international relations, giving credence to the common stereotype that conservatives don’t give a shit about anything but their own coffers.

What are you? The fucking politics forum cheerleader? Way to make your own points, parrot.

17

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
slimjim wrote:

The day we say goodbye to the worst president in United States history. What will you do to celebrate?

I’ll celebrate by actually learning American history and the history of the presidents so that I could make informed comments who is considered the worst president(s) in history.

I’d suggest you do the same - maybe even start sooner.[/quote]

Nice non-sequitar, come back when you’ve read up and have your informed comments to enlighten us with

18

[quote]Razorslim wrote:
I could never understand the liberals’ visceral hatred of George W. It is not enough to disagree with his policies, but they also carry a deep irrational emotional antipathy toward him.

George W. has always been a class act who rarely, if ever, uttered a harsh word about his political opponents. I for one am glad he was at the helm for the last 8 years[/quote]

Come on now, you act as if this isn’t a part of being in public office and as it conservatives don’t engage in exactly the same behavior. Bring up Hillary Clinton and watch the vultures swarm.

19

[quote]slimjim wrote:

Ah yes, the man who misspells ‘noble’ questions my intelligence and reasoning…nice bit of irony there.

I also enjoy the fact that the one part of my post that you guys zeroed in on is in regards to the economy, completely disregarding my contentions about our military endeavors and international relations, giving credence to the common stereotype that conservatives don’t give a shit about anything but their own coffers. [/quote]

No, there is plenty to talk about - it’s just the “surging economy” comment was particularly stupid and thus, the low-hanging fruit of a bad post.

Which international endeavors should we cover - Iraq? Afghanistan? Should we include Bush’s support of AIDS relief in Africa? Or the humanitarian efforts in the wake of the tsunami, when our Navy was getting food into the bellies of the victims while the UN was forming subcommittees on international oversight for the preliminary response to considering tsunami relief?

On international relations - should we analyze how a number of European governments, including France…France shifted to a pro-America administration?

I made a comment here while back that the PWI was still seeking to fill the position of “Left of Center Poster With Some Reasonably Informed Positions” - that position has not been filled, and we are still taking applications, just FYI to the posters-at-large.

20

[quote]slimjim wrote:

Nice non-sequitar, come back when you’ve read up and have your informed comments to enlighten us with[/quote]

Actually it isn’t a non-sequitur - it follows itself just fine. You made a comment that Bush is the “worst president ever”, and I responded that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

Fairly straightforward.