oh, no he didn't... (Biden)

[nick1985]

So you're the one who stole my bong !!!

rofl

 

[JEDIYoda]

LOL! Yeah... right!

Let's get something straight: I will lose my f'n mind if anyone in this administration tries to take credit for anything in Iraq, up to and including the withdrawal.

I do not condone our initial invasion of Iraq, and I'm no fan of Bush; but, everything that has occurred there, including the withdrawal and the SOFA, are solely to the credit of the previous administration's positive efforts (and follies). Obama's admin has done absolutely nothing to alter the course of events and status' that Bush's admin had already refined and set into motion -- nothing.

Biden is quite the jokester, isn't he?

You are what we call an idiot. If Bush was still in office we would NOT be withdrawing at all from Iraq!!

YES--Obama can take credit for us withdrawing from Iraq--total credit!
What are you smoking to be able to claim that the withdrawal from Iraq is due to the previous administrations positive efforts.....hmmmm

 

[nick1985]

You are what we call an idiot. If Bush was still in office we would NOT be withdrawing at all from Iraq!!

YES--Obama can take credit for us withdrawing from Iraq--total credit!
What are you smoking to be able to claim that the withdrawal from Iraq is due to the previous administrations positive efforts.....hmmmm

Didnt we start drawing down towards the end of Bush's administration in Iraq?

 

[JEDIYoda]

What the fuck is on top of his head? It looks like lint.

The same stuff that you keep picking out of your teeth....

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Didnt we start drawing down towards the end of Bush's administration in Iraq?

Correct.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7752580.stm

Article is dated Thursday, 27 November 2008.

The Iraqi parliament has voted to accept a deal on the future presence of US troops in the country.

The decision, praised by US President George Bush, means US troops will leave Iraqi streets by mid-2009 and will quit Iraq entirely by the end of 2011.

The agreement is the result of a year of negotiations with the US, with the Iraqis requesting several changes.

The Iraq withdrawal plan was already approved and in place before Obama was inaugurated. Once again, those pesky facts the left loves to ignore...

 

[Carmen813]

Correct.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7752580.stm

Article is dated Thursday, 27 November 2008.

The Iraqi parliament has voted to accept a deal on the future presence of US troops in the country.

The decision, praised by US President George Bush, means US troops will leave Iraqi streets by mid-2009 and will quit Iraq entirely by the end of 2011.

The agreement is the result of a year of negotiations with the US, with the Iraqis requesting several changes.

Once again, those pesky facts the left loves to ignore...

And from the bottom of your own article:

It was necessary to determine the role of US military forces in Iraq as their UN mandate expires on 31 December of this year.

Silly Rightists, never reading the whole text. For further review see: 2nd amendment.

 

[nick1985]

2nd amendment.

Oh a gun grabber?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

And from the bottom of your own article:

Silly Rightists, never reading the whole text. For further review see: 2nd amendment.

Wow, your reading comprehension is atrocious. Despite my best judgment (there's a reason I haven't seen your posts since the switch to vb), here, let me spell it out for you all simple like, since you obviously lack even basic reading skills.

That lovely little section you quoted is saying that this agreement to withdraw the troops from Iraq was needed because the UN troop mandate in Iraq expired at the end of the year. Hence, Bush and the US made a plan in November to start withdrawing from Iraq due to the December 31st deadline. Is basic reading really that hard? There was a UN deadline at the end of the year, Bush and the US made an agreement with the Iraq in November on withdrawal plans due to that impending deadline. The part you quoted only strengthens my argument that Bush had already started the withdrawal and Obama has nothing to do with it? Thanks for making my position stronger?

I mean, seriously? You latch on to that and seriously misunderstand it then make a ridiculous comment? Wow. Just stop.

What's next? You're going to misinterpret and misquote something else to try and say that Obama is really the only reason we are withdrawing from Iraq? Classic leftist stuff here, folks.

 

[nick1985]

And then he goes on to attack gun-owners.

lol

 

[Fern]

The Republicans have already forgotten that the Great Recession happened with Bush in the presidency.
-snip-

And the Democrats in Control of Congress. And Congress's responbility is domestic stuff - i.e., our economy.

Fern

 

[heyheybooboo]

Didnt we start drawing down towards the end of Bush's administration in Iraq?

IIRC, we have been in a 'holding pattern' since the end of 08/early 09 at 120-130k troops.






--

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

And then he goes on to attack gun-owners.

lol

I know...classic stuff, right?

And the Democrats in Control of Congress. And Congress's responbility is domestic stuff - i.e., our economy.

Fern

That fact eludes many of the But Bush...!'ers. Congress is ultimately responsible for our budget, spending, etc...the president can only sign or veto, and then Congress has the ability to overturn the veto with a vote. The "Great Recession" started with a Republican president and a Democrat congress, thus Bush really had little to no sway over Congress because his party was in the minority in both chambers from 2006 onwards (didn't the Republicans lose the House before the 2006 elections anyway?). Bush also never had a supermajority like Obama does now. There is a big difference between having a majority in Congress and having a filibuster proof supermajority. Many of the Bush spending bills were actually the result of negotiations with the Democrats, because their votes were required to pass anything.

But bah...them pesky facts again.

 

[Carmen813]

I know...classic stuff, right?



That fact eludes many of the But Bush...!'ers. Congress is ultimately responsible for our budget, spending, etc...the president can only sign or veto, and then Congress has the ability to overturn the veto with a vote. The "Great Recession" started with a Republican president and a Democrat congress, thus Bush really had little to no sway over Congress because his party was in the minority in both chambers from 2006 onwards (didn't the Republicans lose the House before the 2006 elections anyway?).

But bah...them pesky facts again.

Actually, I didn't attack gun owners. In fact if you look up posts I have made about gun ownership, you will see that I do not support measures such as the assault weapons ban. I attacked people who pick and choose what to read. The gun lobby really loves the part that says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" while ignoring the part about a well regulated militia.

My point was that Bush was forced to act before the end of his term due to a U.N. Mandate. I do no for a minute doubt that if that mandate was not in place, Bush would have continued to delay. Hell, the idea of a fixed withdrawal date was the antithesis of Republican's war strategy.

Perhaps if you spent less time making personal attacks and more time working on your reading comprehension, I wouldn't need to come back here and hold your hand through it point by point.

As for why I don't make many posts since vb...I feel that I do...but you know, I spend a lot of time not understanding what I'm reading while I work on my graduate degree.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That fact eludes many of the But Bush...!'ers. Congress is ultimately responsible for our budget, spending, etc...the president can only sign or veto, and then Congress has the ability to overturn the veto with a vote. The "Great Recession" started with a Republican president and a Democrat congress, thus Bush really had little to no sway over Congress because his party was in the minority in both chambers from 2006 onwards (didn't the Republicans lose the House before the 2006 elections anyway?).

But bah...them pesky facts again.

IMO both parties were asleep at the wheel and are equally culpable. I don't recall either party recognizing the problem with unsecured derivatives or taking any meaningful action to regulate them prior to the collapse. But if I'm wrong...someone please show me.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Actually, I didn't attack gun owners. In fact if you look up posts I have made about gun ownership, you will see that I do not support measures such as the assault weapons ban. I attacked people who pick and choose what to read. The gun lobby really loves the part that says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" while ignoring the part about a well regulated militia.

My point was that Bush was forced to act before the end of his term due to a U.N. Mandate. I do no for a minute doubt that if that mandate was not in place, Bush would have continued to delay.

Perhaps if you spent less time making personal attacks, and more time working on your reading comprehension, I wouldn't need to come back here and hold your hand through it point by point.

As for why I don't make many posts since vb...I feel that I do...but you know, I spend a lot of time not understanding what I'm reading while I work on my graduate degree.

Rabble, rabble, rabble. But Bush...! woulda, coulda, shoulda!

But thanks for posting that quote to reinforce my argument that the withdrawal was already agreed upon during the end of Bush's second term and Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it. I am still confused as to why you took a defiant position and posted a quote from the article that made my position stronger, except to get the "But Bush woulda...! I know...I can read his mind!" out there.

As for the last part, whoosh!

 

[Sinsear]

They need to claim victory somewhere now that their promise of free healthcare for all has failed.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

IMO both parties were asleep at the wheel and are equally culpable. I don't recall either party recognizing the problem with unsecured derivatives or taking any meaningful action to regulate them prior to the collapse. But if I'm wrong...someone please show me.

I have never claimed that the Republicans were innocent in the "Great Recession". I was merely refuting all of this tiresome But Bush...! nonsense. All sides are to blame, but one side continually screams BUT BUSH...! It was old a year ago, and it's beyond silly now.

Congress controls spending and the budget. Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006. Look at the debt and deficits continue to rise, and they skyrocketed in 2009.

But Bush...!

 

[Carmen813]

Rabble, rabble, rabble. But Bush...! woulda, coulda, shoulda!

But thanks for posting that quote to reinforce my argument that the withdrawal was already agreed upon during the end of Bush's second term and Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it. I am still confused as to why you took a defiant position and posted a quote from the article that made my position stronger, except to get the "But Bush woulda...! I know...I can read his mind!" out there.

As for the last part, whoosh!

See this is where your argument against me falls apart. You should be coming back at me with "But leftists don't think that Bush paid any attention to the U.N. when weapon inspections were going on, why do you use a U.N. mandate for withdrawal as evidence that the U.N. somehow forced Bush to act?"

Why do I have to do all the work for you...

As for the "Bu bu bush" stuff, I can't help but laugh. The same people who say that in one sentence are the people who in the next go "dem demercrats did dat!"

 

[woolfe9999]

I know...classic stuff, right?



That fact eludes many of the But Bush...!'ers. Congress is ultimately responsible for our budget, spending, etc...the president can only sign or veto, and then Congress has the ability to overturn the veto with a vote. The "Great Recession" started with a Republican president and a Democrat congress, thus Bush really had little to no sway over Congress because his party was in the minority in both chambers from 2006 onwards (didn't the Republicans lose the House before the 2006 elections anyway?). Bush also never had a supermajority like Obama does now. There is a big difference between having a majority in Congress and having a filibuster proof supermajority. Many of the Bush spending bills were actually the result of negotiations with the Democrats, because their votes were required to pass anything.

But bah...them pesky facts again.

The recession began in Q4 of 2007 when that Congress has been in power for like 10 months. The seeds of that recession, caused by a busted housing bubbled go way back before that. The recession wasn't the fault of the dem Congress or Obama. It wasn't really Bush's fault either. It's origins are complicated. There are many responsible parties.

- wolf

 

[WHAMPOM]

LOL! Yeah... right!

Let's get something straight: I will lose my f'n mind if anyone in this administration tries to take credit for anything in Iraq, up to and including the withdrawal.

I do not condone our initial invasion of Iraq, and I'm no fan of Bush; but, everything that has occurred there, including the withdrawal and the SOFA, are solely to the credit of the previous administration's positive efforts (and follies). Obama's admin has done absolutely nothing to alter the course of events and status' that Bush's admin had already refined and set into motion -- nothing.

Biden is quite the jokester, isn't he?

Ya mean like Bush&Co promised would happen by 2003?? Er 04, 05, 06, in the year 2525 if mankind still survives?? Don't forget the flowers raining on the troops as they marched down Bagdad's streets.

 

[heyheybooboo]

IMO both parties were asleep at the wheel and are equally culpable. I don't recall either party recognizing the problem with unsecured derivatives or taking any meaningful action to regulate them prior to the collapse. But if I'm wrong...someone please show me.

There is abounding culpability but as I understand it from 2002 to 2007 the 'market' exploded from less than $50 trillion to in excess of $550 trillion.

And before folks get their panties in a wadd over the $550 trillion figure, they need to understand what a 'bookie' does - LOL.





--

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

The recession began in Q4 of 2007 when that Congress has been in power for like 10 months. The seeds of that recession, caused by a busted housing bubbled go way back before that. The recession wasn't the fault of the dem Congress or Obama. It wasn't really Bush's fault either. It's origins are complicated. There are many responsible parties.

- wolf

That has basically been my point all along, but you said it in a more even-keeled manner.

This But Bush...! nonsense is seriously beyond ridiculous and tired.

 

[Fern]

There is abounding culpability but as I understand it from 2002 to 2007 the 'market' exploded from less than $50 trillion to in excess of $550 trillion.
-snip-

Which market?

If you mean the market for collaterized debt obligations, what difference does that make? The underlying mortgages are what went bust. Without the CDO market they would just have been held by individual banks who would still have been hammered forclosures. It's the substance (forclosures) that matter, not the form (of ownership).

(As an aside, I still stick to my belief that the stupid mark-to-market implemented following Enron are a big, if not primary, part of the problem)

Fern

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There is abounding culpability but as I understand it from 2002 to 2007 the 'market' exploded from less than $50 trillion to in excess of $550 trillion.

And before folks get their panties in a wadd over the $550 trillion figure, they need to understand what a 'bookie' does - LOL.





--

I see your insinuation...but first, please acknowledge the load of shit in your own pants before complaining about the strench coming from others...and then maybe we'll get somewhere here.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The recession began in Q4 of 2007 when that Congress has been in power for like 10 months. The seeds of that recession, caused by a busted housing bubbled go way back before that. The recession wasn't the fault of the dem Congress or Obama. It wasn't really Bush's fault either. It's origins are complicated. There are many responsible parties.

- wolf

this