Bull-Market Cheers for Bush

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, in theory yes. But the one thing you and both agree on is that they act in the best interest of themselves. But the people get what they deserve. They are afterall still elected.
You keep trying to shift the blame from the liars who started the war to those who were taken in by their lies. The only reasonable conclusion is, that makes you one of the liars.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
um...if its anyone's fault for the war it's congress. They gave the go ahead.
Thanks for yet another a piss poor neocon attempt to shift blame from the scum sucking Bushwhacko liars to those who acted in good faith on the lies they were told. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Republicans (mainly neocons) were in control of Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Reso...nited_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16.

The current congress would've approved it in a landslide as well.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ntdz

The current congress would've approved it in a landslide as well.

No, the current congress is aware of the lies made by Bush and his Neocons now.

Do you understand the concept of 'the past'? You know, stuff that happened BEFORE right now. Yea, we call that 'the past'. When speaking, we often speak in 'past-tense'. This means that we are talking about 'the past', or stuff that happened BEFORE right now. Hopefully this will clarify why what you just said is stupid.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ntdz

The current congress would've approved it in a landslide as well.

No, the current congress is aware of the lies made by Bush and his Neocons now.

Do you understand the concept of 'the past'? You know, stuff that happened BEFORE right now. Yea, we call that 'the past'. When speaking, we often speak in 'past-tense'. This means that we are talking about 'the past', or stuff that happened BEFORE right now. Hopefully this will clarify why what you just said is stupid.

Bahahahahaha :laugh: This is the best you guys can do now?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
This isn't the first magnificent illusion created with the artifice of debt- reference Enron, Global Crossing, et al...

The Stock Exchange guys loved them, too... at least during the good times, as long as the money held out...

All this supply side stuff really depends on deficits that allows the perps to get over on the rest of us. I wanna try it with a balanced budget. I really, really, do- we can shatter the illusion once and for all time.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ntdz

The current congress would've approved it in a landslide as well.

No, the current congress is aware of the lies made by Bush and his Neocons now.

Why do you intentionally act like you can't understand what we mean? Do you know what WOULD HAVE means? If not, take some language lessons. If you do know what it means, get psychiatric help.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ntdz

The current congress would've approved it in a landslide as well.

No, the current congress is aware of the lies made by Bush and his Neocons now.

Why do you intentionally act like you can't understand what we mean? Do you know what WOULD HAVE means? If not, take some language lessons. If you do know what it means, get psychiatric help.

I know exactly what you guys mean. A lot of work to do before Nov 08. :laugh:
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ntdz

The current congress would've approved it in a landslide as well.

No, the current congress is aware of the lies made by Bush and his Neocons now.

Why do you intentionally act like you can't understand what we mean? Do you know what WOULD HAVE means? If not, take some language lessons. If you do know what it means, get psychiatric help.

I know exactly what you guys mean. A lot of work to do before Nov 08. :laugh:

wtf you smokin man?
 

Arglebargle

Senior member
Dec 2, 2006
892
1
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: blackangst1
um...if its anyone's fault for the war it's congress. They gave the go ahead.
congress is responsible for being lied to by the administration?

The administration is responsible for being lied to by informants?

When they don't vette the information properly, because it tells them what they want to hear anyway, yes, they are responsible. When they accept dubious sources, suspect testimony, unreliable witnesses, flawed information, and fairy tale stories, because they tell them what they want to hear, yes, the administration is responsible.

Aside from not wanting to appear unpatriotic, I think Congress, at the time of the enabling resolution, did not appreciate the lengths that this administration would go to.

I just wish I could find my little video clip of a bitchy Rumsfeld, peeved by qiestions about the Treasury Secratary's claim that the Iraq incursion might cost $100 billion dollars, saying "It'll cost $25 billion, $50 billion tops!" Even with a phased pullout started now, I would not be surprised to see the final cost go way over $1 trillion. The military is going to have to seriously re-equip after this; much of the equipment is breaking down because of constant deployment. That bill has not yet come to roost either.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ntdz

The current congress would've approved it in a landslide as well.

No, the current congress is aware of the lies made by Bush and his Neocons now.

Why do you intentionally act like you can't understand what we mean? Do you know what WOULD HAVE means? If not, take some language lessons. If you do know what it means, get psychiatric help.

I know exactly what you guys mean. A lot of work to do before Nov 08. :laugh:

wtf you smokin man?

Right now, chicken.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: DealMonkey

2.) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ is about as biased as they come.

It's not so much that realclearpolitics is biased. They just post links to editorials from left and right, along side various polling data. It just so happens that the author of this particular editorial is an ideologue called Larry Kudlow. He spews the same tripe on CNBC at 2pm every day. It's always the economy is great, the greatest story never told, goldilocks economy, and every other cliche in the book.

Fair enough. I tend to distrust blogs in general.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
um...if its anyone's fault for the war it's congress. They gave the go ahead.
Thanks for yet another a piss poor neocon attempt to shift blame from the scum sucking Bushwhacko liars to those who acted in good faith on the lies they were told. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Republicans (mainly neocons) were in control of Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Reso...nited_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16.

The current congress would've approved it in a landslide as well.

You're conveniently forgetting it wasn't a resolution for war, it was granting the President leeway to use the military for very specific reasons and only after exhausting all peaceful/political avenues first.

Conditions that I don't believe were fully met.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For what it is worth, which is virtually nothing with this crowd, Bush does have more character than most politicians.

That's just nuts.

Bush has very little character, far lower than most politicians IMO.

Let's do a brief off the top of my head review:

Party boy didn't want to go to Viet Nam and took the easy out, daddy's influence got him into a guard spot where he used drugs and partied and did not meet the obligation.

Bush had a rep at Harvard of supporting the war in Viet Nam, and when challenged on what he'd just said, he'd sneer, deny he said it and leave, as a habit.

Bush took Saudi bailouts for his bad oil ventures.

Bush did an unethical deal to buy the Texas Rangers which screwed the local citizens.

Bush took a board position for Harken where he did not do much but 'tell a few jokes', other than that he chaired an audit committee where he lerned the books were being cooked and it was going to come out, and ignored the rule against selling his stock on insider info and sold it for a nice amount, then failed to file the SEC forms the law required so he wouldn't get caught, and then the SEC investigators were prevented from charring him because the SEC head was appointed by Bush, Sr. and the head of the investigations was the same personal lawyer of his who had done the Texas Rangers deal, so the staffers could only make a statement that he was *not* exonerated.

Bush drove drunk - and then used Alberto Gonzales in a scheme to cover it up in the campaign - and later made Gonzales Attorney General of the US.

Bush has completely sold out the interests of the American public to the republican donors, more than any president in history by far IMO.

Bush mocked a woman who was filing an appeal he reviewed for her capital punishment.

Bush felt he learned how to manipulate Christians.

When the minister who had been involved in Bush's being born again suggested Bush could do more for the poor, he was no longer welcome at the White House.

Bush has allowed the worst sorts of unethical political operatives to get away with terrible things.

Just look at the manner in which nearly every Democrat running for President acts when it comes to Iraq. They were all for it four years ago when the majority of Americans supported it. But now that is has grown unpopular they are tripping over themselves to prove how anti-war they are. And as Hillary is now proving, it is no longer enough to say that you are unhappy with how the war is being waged, a very valid complaint, but now you must make statements about how you would have never led the country to war yourself. It does not take character to stand up in front of a crowd of anti-war people and say ?I would have never started this war if I was President? however it does take character to tell them that you in fact did support the war, but like her husband she lacks that trait.

You continue to misrepresent the history. Bush said the vote for the bill was not a vote for war, but only a vote for leverage to get inspectors in. Then he lied and kicked them out.

Whether you disagree with Bush or not you should at least understand that it take a lot more character to continuously back an unpopular decision than it does to change your standing based on every whim of the American people.

It does not take character to get into the war for dishonest reasons, to lie about the bill by kicking out the inspectors to invade, to fail to deny the misakes for years and praise the screwups for political cover, to set up policies to pay off the donating private contracters while leaving the troops with low pay and little armor, to allow $8 billion of Iraqi money to 'disappear', and on and on.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
This economy is living on borrowed time. Anybody who doesn't believe that is just sticking their head in the sand.
 

db

Lifer
Dec 6, 1999
10,575
292
126
Government figures about how well we are doing economically are now so political, that no savvy business man uses them b/c they are BS.
Those gov't figures are for easily-fooled chumps--people who won't think for themselves and always repeat what they hear their heroes say, rather than thinking for themselves.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,630
2,014
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
This economy is living on borrowed time. Anybody who doesn't believe that is just sticking their head in the sand.

Don't forget it will all be the Democrats fault too.

Well, if everything that has happened over the past 6 years is the Republicans fault, just because they have been in office, then its only fair to blame everything on the Democrats as long as they are controlling things. You guys manage to blame Bush for 9-11 and the economy going south after the tech bubble burst, even though both of those were set up during the Clinton years. Its going to be interesting to watch and see how hypocritical you guys really are over the next couple of years.

 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
um...if its anyone's fault for the war it's congress. They gave the go ahead.
Thanks for yet another a piss poor neocon attempt to shift blame from the scum sucking Bushwhacko liars to those who acted in good faith on the lies they were told. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Republicans (mainly neocons) were in control of Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Reso...nited_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16.

The current congress would've approved it in a landslide as well.

You're conveniently forgetting it wasn't a resolution for war, it was granting the President leeway to use the military for very specific reasons and only after exhausting all peaceful/political avenues first.

Conditions that I don't believe were fully met.

While the language of the resolution was just authorizing force, it was pretty well understood that we were going to war.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
This economy is living on borrowed time. Anybody who doesn't believe that is just sticking their head in the sand.

Don't forget it will all be the Democrats fault too.

Well, if everything that has happened over the past 6 years is the Republicans fault, just because they have been in office, then its only fair to blame everything on the Democrats as long as they are controlling things. You guys manage to blame Bush for 9-11 and the economy going south after the tech bubble burst, even though both of those were set up during the Clinton years. Its going to be interesting to watch and see how hypocritical you guys really are over the next couple of years.


You'll need more than 3 weeks to blame the democrats.... additionally, Bush can veto any democrat bills and congress will not have the 2/3 vote to override him which nulls the democrats' power quite efficiently... do you not see this? Do you really think the minor majority gives them equal power to what the republicans have had for 6 years?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
um...if its anyone's fault for the war it's congress. They gave the go ahead.
Thanks for yet another a piss poor neocon attempt to shift blame from the scum sucking Bushwhacko liars to those who acted in good faith on the lies they were told. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Republicans (mainly neocons) were in control of Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Reso...nited_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16.

The current congress would've approved it in a landslide as well.

You're conveniently forgetting it wasn't a resolution for war, it was granting the President leeway to use the military for very specific reasons and only after exhausting all peaceful/political avenues first.

Conditions that I don't believe were fully met.

While the language of the resolution was just authorizing force, it was pretty well understood that we were going to war.

They hoped he had enough intelligence.. congress does NOT see all the intel the president sees. The blame lies with him. Not congress for giving authority. He abused that authority.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,679
11,023
136
Originally posted by: Arglebargle
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: blackangst1
um...if its anyone's fault for the war it's congress. They gave the go ahead.
congress is responsible for being lied to by the administration?

The administration is responsible for being lied to by informants?

When they don't vette the information properly, because it tells them what they want to hear anyway, yes, they are responsible. When they accept dubious sources, suspect testimony, unreliable witnesses, flawed information, and fairy tale stories, because they tell them what they want to hear, yes, the administration is responsible.

Aside from not wanting to appear unpatriotic, I think Congress, at the time of the enabling resolution, did not appreciate the lengths that this administration would go to.

I just wish I could find my little video clip of a bitchy Rumsfeld, peeved by qiestions about the Treasury Secratary's claim that the Iraq incursion might cost $100 billion dollars, saying "It'll cost $25 billion, $50 billion tops!" Even with a phased pullout started now, I would not be surprised to see the final cost go way over $1 trillion. The military is going to have to seriously re-equip after this; much of the equipment is breaking down because of constant deployment. That bill has not yet come to roost either.

No video clip, but some great quotes on the projected costs:
http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
This economy is living on borrowed time. Anybody who doesn't believe that is just sticking their head in the sand.

Don't forget it will all be the Democrats fault too.

Well, if everything that has happened over the past 6 years is the Republicans fault, just because they have been in office, then its only fair to blame everything on the Democrats as long as they are controlling things. You guys manage to blame Bush for 9-11 and the economy going south after the tech bubble burst, even though both of those were set up during the Clinton years. Its going to be interesting to watch and see how hypocritical you guys really are over the next couple of years.

You'll need more than 3 weeks to blame the democrats.... additionally, Bush can veto any democrat bills and congress will not have the 2/3 vote to override him which nulls the democrats' power quite efficiently... do you not see this?

Do you really think the minor majority gives them equal power to what the republicans have had for 6 years?

Of course he does, he's a Bushco supporter no matter what.

They must be paid handsomely.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
So Prof, what has happened to the MEDIAN income during this time adjusted for inflation?