What IS Bushes fault????

[CPA]

Originally posted by: techs
Stop the b.s.
What exactly is Bushes fault?
What exactly were the things he is responsible for?

As President and Leader of his party he:
Pushed and passed huge tax cuts which favored the very few rich. so you and other ATOTers (a fair representation of wage earners, IMHO) didn't get any benefit. I know for sure I did and I'm not one of the very rich.
He proposed and got passed huge spending increases on top of his tax cuts resulting in staggering deficits. okay, so I'm to believe noone in Congress did as well, bwahahahahaha
He said "Deficits don't matter" and his party and bushies followed that insane reasoning.
Bushes policies resulted in the largest decrease in the value of the US dollar. Ever. Fed's policies did that more than his. With the exception of the appointment of the Chief, the Fed is independent of the government.
He pushed and passed a tax cut that actually subsidized the purchase of the largest, most fuel IN-efficient s.u.v."s He pushed and passed an increase in Section 179 business expenses that allowed an increase in what you could immediately expense rather than amortize. At least be truthful in your points
He told us we didn't have to worry about the gas problems since a majority of us would be driving hydrogen cars in, well, nine years of now. what? prove it
Bush pushed deregulation and lack of oversight of markets, resulting in the huge sub prime mortage fiasco. there was no more deregulation than at any other time in history. And the housing boom started prior to his tenure. where was the oversight then?
Bush pushed biased trade with China that resulted in American wage stagnation. already responded by Elfenix. We also don't need to include nuclear technology trading that occurred during Clinton's era, do we?
Bush fought proposals to increase corporate fuel economy numbers, and in fact proposed to revamp them to make it easier to make less fuel efficient cars (well he failed to make cars less fuel efficient, so I am only blaming him for not pushing to make them more efficient) okay, valid point, but that doesn't stop states (California, for one) from making their own legislation about this
Bushes complete reversal of policy on North Korea resulted in them actually testing a bomb. And then he went back to the policies of Clinton and Albright and actually got a deal with N. Korea. Though he could have done it without N. Korea actually testing a bomb.what complete reversal. Everyone wanted diplomatic discussions. The US did that. NK felt US was weak because of our involvement in Iraq, so they tested us. We stood our ground, NK gave in. Plus, I fail to see how NK's noncompliance was solely because of the US. Where was China, Japan and other surrounding countries during this period?
Bush buried his head in the sand while people suffered and died in New Orleans. If you believe Kanye West. But the real culprits were Mayor Nagen, the Louisian Governor AND LOUSIANA'S OWN STATED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION. Oh, and let's not forget the citizen's themselves. But, hey, noone should be responsible for their actions anymore, should they?
Bush, well, Iraq. Nuff said on this one. whatever

Gee, that's just off the top of my head.
Bush Denial Syndrome, the disease where the President is powerless to do anything and everything that happens isn't the President fault. Also, the absolute conviction the world will come to an end if a Republican is not elected President.
See why its a disease?

I'm not in denial, there are several things I don't agree with that he has done, but most of your points are shortsighted or not entirely factual.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Deudalus
Oh how I love these threads.

Its like one fringe liberal sets up a softball for the rest of the fringe liberals to step up and knock out of the park.

Then everyone heads to the bar and gets the booth, not the table so they can circle jerk each other in complete anonymity.


So seriously now, what do threads like these do other than make me wish my ignore button worked?
Did you think a conservative was going to come in here and fight with you?
Do you really think your pathetic diatribe would convert some non-believer?
Or is it simply a fringe liberal "roll call"? <--------------

BVG

Bush
Voter
Guilt

:laugh:

Ahh labeling everyone who doesn't want to fill a link in that circle jink as being a Bush voter or having "Bush voter guilt" is so mature as well.

And you guys wonder why liberal is considered a dirty word.

You do realize that Republican candidates (for better or worse) have won past elections because they are fighting to see who can be the most conservative. They WANT to be labeled a conservative.

In contrast, Kerry for example and others lash out at being called "Number whatever most LIBERAL member of the Senate" and blame losing elections on being labeled a liberal. They DO NOT WANT to be labeled a liberal.

Hell thats why liberals call themselves progressives now adays because they know if they call themselves liberals no one will take them seriously.


Now why do you think that is? Is it because of some "vast right wing conspiracy" to ruin the use of the word liberal?

Or is it because you dumb bastards ruined it yourselves?


FWIW go ahead and pick on me some more and label me however you like because I don't tow the line.

But come November when you tards prance out Michael Stipe, The Dixie Chicks, Eddie Vedder, and the cast of Grey's Anatomy to talk people into voting for you and you manage to snag defeat from the jaws of victory again don't blame me.

Independents like myself just aren't welcome back into the Democrat party yet, unfortunately the party is still too bitter.

But maybe 4 years of McCain will change that.:roll:

dude lighten up didn't you see the smiley?

Here is another label for ya!

BLH

Blind
Liberal
Hater

:laugh: <---- Look there's a smiley RIGHT THERE!!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Ahh labeling everyone who doesn't want to fill a link in that circle jink as being a Bush voter or having "Bush voter guilt" is so mature as well.

And you guys wonder why liberal is considered a dirty word.

You do realize that Republican candidates (for better or worse) have won past elections because they are fighting to see who can be the most conservative. They WANT to be labeled a conservative.

In contrast, Kerry for example and others lash out at being called "Number whatever most LIBERAL member of the Senate" and blame losing elections on being labeled a liberal. They DO NOT WANT to be labeled a liberal.

Hell thats why liberals call themselves progressives now adays because they know if they call themselves liberals no one will take them seriously.


Now why do you think that is? Is it because of some "vast right wing conspiracy" to ruin the use of the word liberal?

Or is it because you dumb bastards ruined it yourselves?


FWIW go ahead and pick on me some more and label me however you like because I don't tow the line.

But come November when you tards prance out Michael Stipe, The Dixie Chicks, Eddie Vedder, and the cast of Grey's Anatomy to talk people into voting for you and you manage to snag defeat from the jaws of victory again don't blame me.

Independents like myself just aren't welcome back into the Democrat party yet, unfortunately the party is still too bitter.

But maybe 4 years of McCain will change that.:roll:

You still posting this crap? Republicans spent a lot of time trying to turn the word liberal into a pejorative term. Liberals, no matter how far to the left, didn't ruin the term any more then the crazy freaks on the right ruined the term conservative.

I love how you continue to attempt to paint one of the most inclusive parties in American history as somehow rejecting you. No matter how much you want it to, the Democratic party you describe doesn't exist. (by the way, it was very independent of you to call it the "Democrat party") You are just trying to make blanket statements about a huge political party through your observations of people on one extreme of it. That's either really stupid or really dishonest. (I think the latter)

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: techs
Stop the b.s.
What exactly is Bushes fault?
What exactly were the things he is responsible for?

As President and Leader of his party he:
Pushed and passed huge tax cuts which favored the very few rich. so you and other ATOTers (a fair representation of wage earners, IMHO) didn't get any benefit. I know for sure I did and I'm not one of the very rich.
He proposed and got passed huge spending increases on top of his tax cuts resulting in staggering deficits. okay, so I'm to believe noone in Congress did as well, bwahahahahaha
He said "Deficits don't matter" and his party and bushies followed that insane reasoning.
Bushes policies resulted in the largest decrease in the value of the US dollar. Ever. Fed's policies did that more than his. With the exception of the appointment of the Chief, the Fed is independent of the government.
He pushed and passed a tax cut that actually subsidized the purchase of the largest, most fuel IN-efficient s.u.v."s He pushed and passed an increase in Section 179 business expenses that allowed an increase in what you could immediately expense rather than amortize. At least be truthful in your points
He told us we didn't have to worry about the gas problems since a majority of us would be driving hydrogen cars in, well, nine years of now. what? prove it
Bush pushed deregulation and lack of oversight of markets, resulting in the huge sub prime mortage fiasco. there was no more deregulation than at any other time in history. And the housing boom started prior to his tenure. where was the oversight then?
Bush pushed biased trade with China that resulted in American wage stagnation. already responded by Elfenix. We also don't need to include nuclear technology trading that occurred during Clinton's era, do we?
Bush fought proposals to increase corporate fuel economy numbers, and in fact proposed to revamp them to make it easier to make less fuel efficient cars (well he failed to make cars less fuel efficient, so I am only blaming him for not pushing to make them more efficient) okay, valid point, but that doesn't stop states (California, for one) from making their own legislation about this
Bushes complete reversal of policy on North Korea resulted in them actually testing a bomb. And then he went back to the policies of Clinton and Albright and actually got a deal with N. Korea. Though he could have done it without N. Korea actually testing a bomb.what complete reversal. Everyone wanted diplomatic discussions. The US did that. NK felt US was weak because of our involvement in Iraq, so they tested us. We stood our ground, NK gave in. Plus, I fail to see how NK's noncompliance was solely because of the US. Where was China, Japan and other surrounding countries during this period?
Bush buried his head in the sand while people suffered and died in New Orleans. If you believe Kanye West. But the real culprits were Mayor Nagen, the Louisian Governor AND LOUSIANA'S OWN STATED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION. Oh, and let's not forget the citizen's themselves. But, hey, noone should be responsible for their actions anymore, should they?
Bush, well, Iraq. Nuff said on this one. whatever

Gee, that's just off the top of my head.
Bush Denial Syndrome, the disease where the President is powerless to do anything and everything that happens isn't the President fault. Also, the absolute conviction the world will come to an end if a Republican is not elected President.
See why its a disease?

I'm not in denial, there are several things I don't agree with that he has done, but most of your points are shortsighted or not entirely factual.

It's entertaining to see BDS in action until you realize a Marxist is in line to be president.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that I fault Bush for is his signing that fucking Medicare bill.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80

It's entertaining to see BDS in action until you realize a Marxist is in line to be president.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that I fault Bush for is his signing that fucking Medicare bill.

You truly must have a raging case of BDS yourself if you can only think of one bad thing Bush did during his tenure.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

It's entertaining to see BDS in action until you realize a Marxist is in line to be president.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that I fault Bush for is his signing that fucking Medicare bill.

You truly must have a raging case of BDS yourself if you can only think of one bad thing Bush did during his tenure.

See my post above.

He also appears not to know what Marxism is if he thinks that any Marxist is in line to President.

And Bush didn't just sign that fucking Medicare bill, his administration proposed it and sold it.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

It's entertaining to see BDS in action until you realize a Marxist is in line to be president.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that I fault Bush for is his signing that fucking Medicare bill.

You truly must have a raging case of BDS yourself if you can only think of one bad thing Bush did during his tenure.

I can probably think of 10 bad things Obama is going to do if he becomes president.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

It's entertaining to see BDS in action until you realize a Marxist is in line to be president.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that I fault Bush for is his signing that fucking Medicare bill.

You truly must have a raging case of BDS yourself if you can only think of one bad thing Bush did during his tenure.

See my post above.

He also appears not to know what Marxism is if he thinks that any Marxist is in line to President.

And Bush didn't just sign that fucking Medicare bill, his administration proposed it and sold it.

Yes and I am pissed at him for that attempt to be a "uniter." You know the left is going to hate you anyway, always take polar opposite position and keep the status quo.

 

[Fern]

Geeesh, I hate making any posts that look like a defense of GWB, but this is too silly.

Originally posted by: techs
Stop the b.s.
What exactly is Bushes fault?
What exactly were the things he is responsible for?

As President and Leader of his party he:
Pushed and passed huge tax cuts which favored the very few rich.
The top 50% pay about 96% - 97% of income taxes. So, the bottom 50% pays 3% or 4%. Ain't much to cut down there. So, this is lib/Dem bullsh!t.

There IS a problem with hedge fund managers paying too little in taxes because their earnings are taxed as cap gains. But it's Chuck Shumer who has prevented reform on that matter.

He proposed and got passed huge spending increases on top of his tax cuts resulting in staggering deficits.
Yep. he should have been vetoing the Rep controlled Congress.

He said "Deficits don't matter" and his party and bushies followed that insane reasoning.
Bushes policies resulted in the largest decrease in the value of the US dollar. Ever.
Largest ever? Got a link?

Reduced value of the dollar does have benefits. Helps with exports and balance of trade. It's not necessarily a bad thing.

He pushed and passed a tax cut that actually subsidized the purchase of the largest, most fuel IN-efficient s.u.v."s
What are you talking about?

If you're referring to section 280(F) that alows for expensing of vehicles with a weight exceeding 6,000 lbs, that was around long before GWB became President.

Why not mention tax credits for hybrids that came about under his admin?

He told us we didn't have to worry about the gas problems since a majority of us would be driving hydrogen cars in, well, nine years of now.
I have no idea what you're referring to here, nor how it is a problem.

Bush pushed deregulation and lack of oversight of markets, resulting in the huge sub prime mortage fiasco.
I'll leave this to the mortgage bankers here. But IMO, this is the bankers and home purchasers fault anyway. I don not subscribe to the belief that the government's job is to protect you from yourself.

I note while we are having Senate hearings on Dodd et al getting nice bennies from Countrywide, the Dems are passing a bailout plan for the bankers/homeowners.


Bush pushed biased trade with China that resulted in American wage stagnation.
We've got some unfair trade deals I think. I don't agree with your wage stagnation claim though.

NAFTA is a *gift* from Clinton.

Bush fought proposals to increase corporate fuel economy numbers, and in fact proposed to revamp them to make it easier to make less fuel efficient cars (well he failed to make cars less fuel efficient, so I am only blaming him for not pushing to make them more efficient)
So now it's the President's fault that American's like V8's and SUVs?

Bushes complete reversal of policy on North Korea resulted in them actually testing a bomb. And then he went back to the policies of Clinton and Albright and actually got a deal with N. Korea. Though he could have done it without N. Korea actually testing a bomb.
This was Clinton's fault. Trust withOUT verifying.

IMO, the GWB admin played this one right, they got China involved.


Bush buried his head in the sand while people suffered and died in New Orleans.
The fault for this debacle rests largely with the people of NO and their local/state government

Bush, well, Iraq. Nuff said on this one.
Yep, this is primarily his responsibility, even though pretty much all of Congress (including Dems) let him do it.

Gee, that's just off the top of my head.
We can tell

Bush Denial Syndrome, the disease where the President is powerless to do anything and everything that happens isn't the President fault.
Everything isn't the President's doing. They really don't have that much power, particularly when Congress does their job. Basically, they just have the *bully pulpit*; even their vetoes can be overridden. The real power is in Congress. IMO, even the Judicial Branch has more power..

Also, the absolute conviction the world will come to an end if a Republican is not elected President.
I suspect we'll son see

See why its a disease?
:roll:

See bolded.

Fern

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80
I can probably think of 10 bad things Obama is going to do if he becomes president.

And that's something special? Any hack can pick '10 bad things' that the other side will do if they get into power.

Originally posted by: JS80
Yes and I am pissed at him for that attempt to be a "uniter." You know the left is going to hate you anyway, always take polar opposite position and keep the status quo.

That you actually think that GW pushed for the MMA 2003 in order to be a 'uniter' only demonstrates what a cluelessly naive blind hack you are. I mean... WTF? Appealing to 'the left' had absolutely jack sh!t to do with his support of that legislation. In fact, 'the left' were strongly opposed to it.

Wow...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
Oh how I love these threads.

Its like one fringe liberal sets up a softball for the rest of the fringe liberals to step up and knock out of the park.

Then everyone heads to the bar and gets the booth, not the table so they can circle jerk each other in complete anonymity.


So seriously now, what do threads like these do other than make me wish my ignore button worked?
Did you think a conservative was going to come in here and fight with you?
Do you really think your pathetic diatribe would convert some non-believer?
Or is it simply a fringe liberal "roll call"? <--------------

The phrase 'the truth hurts' seems especially applicable for answering you.

You don't see a lot of threads arguing Hitler did bad, because there's no one saying otherwise. But we still have many if not defending Bush as much, minimizing his wrongs.

It's still an ongoing debate. You seem to be arguing that because the Bush defenders are not likely to listen to the facts, there's no point in saying them. Interesting argument.

But I don't agree.

 

[ericlp]

Bush has no faults...

The only fault he has is that the American people were so stupid they elected him to run a second term.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

See bolded.

Fern

Fern, just so you know Clinton's approach to North Korea was incredibly smart and incredibly good. If you do some reading up on it you'll see that. His policy kept NK from getting a bomb for years before they would have otherwise. Bush's policy at the beginning of his presidency directly led to the dismantling of the system and it was a foreign policy catastrophe.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Ahh labeling everyone who doesn't want to fill a link in that circle jink as being a Bush voter or having "Bush voter guilt" is so mature as well.

And you guys wonder why liberal is considered a dirty word.

I don't consider it a dirty word.

Neither did JFK.

"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

You do realize that Republican candidates (for better or worse) have won past elections because they are fighting to see who can be the most conservative. They WANT to be labeled a conservative.

In contrast, Kerry for example and others lash out at being called "Number whatever most LIBERAL member of the Senate" and blame losing elections on being labeled a liberal. They DO NOT WANT to be labeled a liberal.

Hell thats why liberals call themselves progressives now adays because they know if they call themselves liberals no one will take them seriously.

Now why do you think that is? Is it because of some "vast right wing conspiracy" to ruin the use of the word liberal?

Sometimes. Other times they run away from it, when politics demands that.

The thing Republicans pretty consistently do is pursue power without regard to the principles of it. Remember the 'compassionate conservative.

I don't remember ever seeing the phrase 'most conservative Senator' throwin around for any Republican candidate. The point being that in a general election, being on 'the fringe', 'the extreme' is damaging to pretty much any candidate. Note Kennedy's skill above in positioning himself away from the edge and towards the middle as he defends his being a liberal. So 'most liberal' has less to do with any substance, than simply trying to say 'fringe' and hurt the candidate.

Yes, you got it right, there is a cast right-wing conspiracy that has used big budget sophisticated advertising techniques to demonize the once-proud word liberal in the minds of many Americans, the less informed, the more sheepish, and to hype the word conservative. Ronald Reagan was a big part of the selling of the poison.

It's some of the worst sort of political marketing, to avoid the issues and instead manipulate people with 'buzzwords'.

Go read the thread on parents' political affiliation and see how many say their parents are not informed at all but just pull the 'R' lever automatically.

Or is it because you dumb bastards ruined it yourselves?

Liberals didn't ruin the word, but they failed to sell out for corporate backing in the past to get the tools to counter the Republican propaganda.

And they have some fault for not defending it with enough passion. One result is that they're catching up a little - on the corporate sell-out, and competing better.

Luckily, they're also riding the wave of the public reaction to the disastrous but predictable (to liberals) results of the Bush presidency.

You will find liberal is a less dirty word - and not one to most informed people.

You know what are dirty words:

Corporatism
Debt (huge debt)
laissez-faire
trickle-down
Neo-Conservative
Right-wing
Tom DeLay
Corruption
K Street Project
Preventive War
WMD
Republican Governng Competence
Death Squad
Contra
Free Trade Treaty
Compassionate Conservative
CIA covert coup
Illegal wiretapping (and illegal wiretapping amnesty)
Federalist Society (and its four radical Supreme Court Justices)
Fox News/Rupert Murdoch

FWIW go ahead and pick on me some more and label me however you like because I don't tow the line.

Go ahead and use straw men more to try to pretend you don't get criticized for poor post content, and it's all a big mean unfair attack.

Independents like myself just aren't welcome back into the Democrat party yet, unfortunately the party is still too bitter.

The Democratic Party would have to stop standing for liberal values for you to be 'welcome'. And sorry, but it's not worth it.

Seriously, why don't you read the book I linked above, and start to see how you are manipulated? You will then be more free, more of a real 'Independant'.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

It's entertaining to see BDS in action until you realize a Marxist is in line to be president.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that I fault Bush for is his signing that fucking Medicare bill.

You truly must have a raging case of BDS yourself if you can only think of one bad thing Bush did during his tenure.

Saying Bush signed the Medicare bill is like saying he signed the bill for the Iraq war (I considered a more fun but less apt analogy, 'like saying Da Vinci signed the Mona Lisa').

The Medicare Bill was *one of the Bush administration's two top domestic priorities in his first term* (the other being the tax cut for the rich). His administration fought big battles to get that bill passed not only over broad Democratic opposition, but no small amount of Republican opposition, requiring the Republican leadership to use a lot of arm-twisting to get its members, as much of rubber stamps as they were, to sign off. You saw the actuary who knew the administration was lying to Congress about the cost threatened by Bush's political appointee over him, you saw the vote held over when they lost in a manner as far as I know never before seen, all night the leadership out threatening and bribing members on the floor to get votes switched, long after the vote was scheduled to be completed. Remember how one Republican, too tired to keep quiet, said the leadership had threatened his son's political career if he didn't change his vote, and offered $100,000 for his son's campaign if he did switch it. All orchestrated by the Bush White House, e.g., Rove.

The reason was to reward the GOP #1 donor industry with $150 billion in windfall profits at the taxpayers' expense by not negotiating (outlawing negotiating) the drug prices.

The phrase 'signed the bill' implies it just sort of showed up, probably from the Democracts, and he went along. Hardly.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JS80
I can probably think of 10 bad things Obama is going to do if he becomes president.

And that's something special? Any hack can pick '10 bad things' that the other side will do if they get into power.

Originally posted by: JS80
Yes and I am pissed at him for that attempt to be a "uniter." You know the left is going to hate you anyway, always take polar opposite position and keep the status quo.

That you actually think that GW pushed for the MMA 2003 in order to be a 'uniter' only demonstrates what a cluelessly naive blind hack you are. I mean... WTF? Appealing to 'the left' had absolutely jack sh!t to do with his support of that legislation. In fact, 'the left' were strongly opposed to it.

Wow...

The left was only against it because Bush proposed it. They would have all hailed the god Clinton if it was done under him.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JS80
I can probably think of 10 bad things Obama is going to do if he becomes president.

And that's something special? Any hack can pick '10 bad things' that the other side will do if they get into power.

Originally posted by: JS80
Yes and I am pissed at him for that attempt to be a "uniter." You know the left is going to hate you anyway, always take polar opposite position and keep the status quo.

That you actually think that GW pushed for the MMA 2003 in order to be a 'uniter' only demonstrates what a cluelessly naive blind hack you are. I mean... WTF? Appealing to 'the left' had absolutely jack sh!t to do with his support of that legislation. In fact, 'the left' were strongly opposed to it.

Wow...

The left was only against it because Bush proposed it. They would have all hailed the god Clinton if it was done under him.

STFU :roll:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: JS80
-snip-
The left was only against it because Bush proposed it. They would have all hailed the god Clinton if it was done under him.

I think you might have a point.

If Kenndy wrote it and the Dems passed it, but GWB vetoed it I'll bet Craig would be here posting about how Repubs hate old people. Maybe even go on for several paragraphs about it's the government and society's responsibility to see to it that old people get their drugs.



Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JS80
-snip-
The left was only against it because Bush proposed it. They would have all hailed the god Clinton if it was done under him.

I think you might have a point.

If Kenndy wrote it and the Dems passed it, but GWB vetoed it I'll bet Craig would be here posting about how Repubs hate old people. Maybe even go on for several paragraphs about it's the government and society's responsibility to see to it that old people get their drugs.



Fern

I think most people on the left don't have a problem with the benefit itself, but the way it was implemented. Who doesn't allow the government to negotiate for cheaper drug prices? How insane is that? It is corporate welfare at its worst.

It's funny that Bush and others complain about how government is inefficient and wasteful, and then go out of their way to make it moreso.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JS80
-snip-
The left was only against it because Bush proposed it. They would have all hailed the god Clinton if it was done under him.

I think you might have a point.

If Kenndy wrote it and the Dems passed it, but GWB vetoed it I'll bet Craig would be here posting about how Repubs hate old people. Maybe even go on for several paragraphs about it's the government and society's responsibility to see to it that old people get their drugs.



Fern

He doesn't have a point, because the left's opposition to the bill was in how it was expressly written as one big corporate welfare program, and not in its intent.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
Oh how I love these threads.

Its like one fringe liberal sets up a softball for the rest of the fringe liberals to step up and knock out of the park.

Then everyone heads to the bar and gets the booth, not the table so they can circle jerk each other in complete anonymity.


So seriously now, what do threads like these do other than make me wish my ignore button worked?
Did you think a conservative was going to come in here and fight with you?
Do you really think your pathetic diatribe would convert some non-believer?
Or is it simply a fringe liberal "roll call"? <--------------

IOW, you got NOTHING. The reality of the last 8 years is one huge wall of sordid facts you can neither deny nor contravene.

Bush has been SO BAD, you don't have one single postive counter-example to offer, and this is making you whine like the Big Baby Bush Bitch that you are.

Sucks to be you.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JS80
-snip-
The left was only against it because Bush proposed it. They would have all hailed the god Clinton if it was done under him.

I think you might have a point.

If Kenndy wrote it and the Dems passed it, but GWB vetoed it I'll bet Craig would be here posting about how Repubs hate old people. Maybe even go on for several paragraphs about it's the government and society's responsibility to see to it that old people get their drugs.



Fern

Fern, you're being a jerk.

You make a false attack, based on your speculation, not any substance.

I don't hold a gun to your head to read my posts. If you think they're too long, don't read them. But don't then whine if you do.

I've always said better longer with content, than shorter and crap.

I resent your attack that's garbage that I'd support the bill if sponsored by democrats.

I've repeatedly stated my position, and it's based on principle (something you can't speak to, obviously), not party. You also miss that democrats are unlikely to do this.

They have their mistakes, like the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that I've criticized several times, but overall they get it a lot better, IMO.

You have no business avoiding the discussion of the actual issues and instead posting your dishonest attack not based on any substance.