Our dear president Bush's farewell gift

[Aerin]

You just don't want him to join up in this conversation because he practices wicca.

Honestly, all of your points about Barr's voting record are completely fair and pretty accurate; when Barr was in Congress he was the epitome of the nonconservative. Don't you think, though, that someone can realize the error of their ways and change their views on policies?

Republicans have a word for that. Flip-flop.

[Beckwin]

Don't you think, though, that someone can realize the error of their ways and change their views

I dunno, are you supporting Obama yet?

[terranova]

I wonder when other nations will get tired of our government cleverly taking over areas..and decide to invade America.

[Rhinox]

[quote=pohibaba]

The Republicans ruined the economy because they Democratically controlled congress kept voting for war spending all the while adding their extra projects on top?

Or did I miss something along the lines of "shut the fuck up, there's no difference between the two"?

So wait, are you saying that the Democrats should have cut funding for the war? And they're bad for not having done that but the Republicans are A-OK despite also not cutting funding for the war?

Can't we all just agree that they're equally evil and take a stand by voting Libert- wait, he's a Republican; sounds OK to me.

lolBarr

I'm glad you were once again able to add something insightful and original to the conversation; you're a credit to these boards.

EDIT: To be clear, this was directed at the Rhino kid and only the Rhino kid.[/quote:3sheref0]

I just love the fact that you're obviously not bright enough to put up a decent argument against what Beckwin has to say so you single me out for Piggybacking on what Beckwin said because I agree with him 100%.

just stop and it might actually not be too late.

[archibaldcrane]

your obviously not bright enough

[Rhinox]

fuck yea

[Gregorio]

I just love the fact that you're obviously not bright enough to put up a decent argument against what Beckwin has to say so you single me out for Piggybacking on what Beckwin said because I agree with him 100%.

just stop and it might actually not be too late.

You say he failed to put up a decent argument against "lolBarr" like it is some sort of legitimate debating point.

[Rhinox]

I just love the fact that you're obviously not bright enough to put up a decent argument against what Beckwin has to say so you single me out for Piggybacking on what Beckwin said because I agree with him 100%.

just stop and it might actually not be too late.

You say he failed to put up a decent argument against "lolBarr" like it is some sort of legitimate debating point.

Hi, nice to meet you. please reread the whole thread carefully.

thanks

[Churchill]

The Republicans ruined the economy because they Democratically controlled congress kept voting for war spending all the while adding their extra projects on top?

Or did I miss something along the lines of "shut the fuck up, there's no difference between the two"?

So wait, are you saying that the Democrats should have cut funding for the war? And they're bad for not having done that but the Republicans are A-OK despite also not cutting funding for the war?

I didn't say either were okay, I just think it's asenine to blame one party or the other for the economy. It's also asenine to think either party is different. But apparently you read the first sentence and went for the kill, good job Hannity.

[Maxxthepenguin]

The Republicans ruined the economy because they Democratically controlled congress kept voting for war spending all the while adding their extra projects on top?

Or did I miss something along the lines of "shut the fuck up, there's no difference between the two"?

So wait, are you saying that the Democrats should have cut funding for the war? And they're bad for not having done that but the Republicans are A-OK despite also not cutting funding for the war?

I didn't say either were okay, I just think it's asenine to blame one party or the other for the economy. It's also asenine to think either party is different. But apparently you read the first sentence and went for the kill, good job Hannity.

You can blame ideals, people, and policies for a failed economy.

And the parties are different, don't be retarded.

[Brill Weave]

I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one. I just have a very hard time trusting anything that the British media tries to show as fact. For example, the BBC aired an interview with a supposed Dow representative talking about further compensation for people harmed in the Bhopal tragedy(long story short faulty equipment let to the release of poison gas in the area killing over 15,000 people in the first month alone in India.)

Without checking facts or references the BBC put this guy on tv and as a result the company ended up losing over 2 billion dollars in the stock market. And the guy that they put on tv? Had absolutely no affiliation with the company whatsoever. So the Brits obviously are much more responsible journalists(sarcasm.)

Don't get me wrong, I hate GW. But this is nothing but sensationalized story telling imo.

[Beckwin]

The Republicans ruined the economy because they Democratically controlled congress kept voting for war spending all the while adding their extra projects on top?

Or did I miss something along the lines of "shut the fuck up, there's no difference between the two"?

So wait, are you saying that the Democrats should have cut funding for the war? And they're bad for not having done that but the Republicans are A-OK despite also not cutting funding for the war?

I didn't say either were okay, I just think it's asenine to blame one party or the other for the economy. It's also asenine to think either party is different. But apparently you read the first sentence and went for the kill, good job Hannity.

pro-fucking-tip: congress was in republican control until 2006 (I think from 96 or 98? can't recall). From 2006 to present, Bush has made all his vetoes except 1.

2. May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial legislation that the President disapproved of, H.R. 2206, was enacted as Pub.L. 110-28 with the President's approval.

8. December 28, 2007: Pocket Vetoed H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008[19]

9. March 8, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2082, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[20] [21]. Override attempt failed in House, 225-188.

And cutting funding without the promise of withdrawal is a troop risk. Oh, and the "extra projects" that Dems have gone for in this Congress? Stem cell research, Children's health insurance, disaster relief, requiring lobbying transparency/disclosure, energy independence/clean energy, genetic nondiscrimination (particularly significant for health insurance). Currently working on: restoring Habeas Corpus, Iraq War De-Escalation, executive branch reform act (this one is pretty fucking cool), combating voter deception/disenfranchisement, and trying to get lower costs on prescription drugs through medicare. OMG SUCH TERRIBLE THINGS

I'm not gonna claim that things have been super-amazing 180 omg wonderful since the Democrats took control of Congress but goddam, enough with the libertarian "man they're all the same party, fuck this" childish crap.

[Churchill]

You're right Obama's going to fix everything and the parties are starkly divided and different. No one adds in special projects for their hometowns and the taxes go to paying everything and we can easily afford to keep funding all of this shit plus the war plus sending aid to other countries.

Also, we're not pulling out of Iraq, let no one fool you there.

[Beckwin]

Yeah, I totally just said that everything is perfect with current politics and parties, and that Obama is going to be our great messiah.

Err wait, I thought I said to cut the childish Libertarian talking points.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You can blame ideals, people, and policies for a failed economy.

And the parties are different, don't be retarded.

You know Bush has presided over the 3rd longest stretch of un-interrupted growth since it was recorded. Sure there are "crisis", but a "failed economy" seems to coincide more with the economy under Carter.

And you can add another one to the list of differences, nationalizing oil.

[Maxxthepenguin]

You can blame ideals, people, and policies for a failed economy.

And the parties are different, don't be retarded.

You know Bush has presided over the 3rd longest stretch of un-interrupted growth since it was recorded. Sure there are "crisis", but a "failed economy" seems to coincide more with the economy under Carter.

And you can add another one to the list of differences, nationalizing oil.

Communities should have the right to say yes or no to drilling oil in their area IMO. No drinking a community's milkshake without its consent.

And please cite your source that 3rd longest stretch of un-interrupted growth, it has to be some really weird metric, because our country is in major debt and american citizens are, in general, far worse off then they were 7 and a half years ago. You can't entirely blame policies for all of it, but certain things like the mortgage crisis were preventable with less of a "dont mess with anything" mindset and more of a "keep the american people from getting fucked" mindset.

[Churchill]

Not really, the market is just becoming more honest for itself because of what happened 18 years ago.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I didn't say right to choose, I said nationalize oil, i.e. the government controlling oil.

I can cite another NSFL article if you want, or you can find a chart somewhere. Clinton and Reagan were the other two. There's also plenty of data that refutes this idea that the "poor are getting poorer and rich are getting richer."

Edit: Don't mess with anything mindset? Both Bush II and Clinton strengthened the community re-investment act.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I didn't say right to choose, I said nationalize oil, i.e. the government controlling oil.

I can cite another NSFL article if you want, or you can find a chart somewhere. Clinton and Reagan were the other two. There's also plenty of data that refutes this idea that the "poor are getting poorer and rich are getting richer."

Edit: Don't mess with anything mindset? Both Bush II and Clinton strengthened the community re-investment act.

It wasn't the god damn CRA. Giving the loans wasn't the problem and CRA was only business loans IIRC. It was the banks rushing to create this awesome investment product where people invested in loans that poor people got out of desperation and couldn't possibly pay. They weren't even informed of the full details, they just saw a way to get the money that they lacked. They had skyrocketing debt because of niggling little details in the loans that they weren't informed about (and, frankly, the person selling the mortgage to them didn't know about either.) If the govt tightened regulations and laws, making such legal but effectively predatory loans impossible, we wouldn't have had the crisis. It would have done EVERYONE a ton of good if the government just said no. Instead we got laws passed where banks could change rates without telling the consumer of the loan.

I don't know what the chart is. You say growth, but you don't say what the growth is of. There are many, many different statistics you could be charting.

The nationalized oil is something relatively new to the table and I don't know much about its benefactors and detractors tbh. I was just stating my opinion.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

GDP growth I guess. Whatever economists use to determine economic growth. Like last quarter were grew .5%. Whatever the hell that's measuring.