Fuggin-Abobbythekidd wrote:You can clearly see the left shoulder and head have formed. Now when the right shoulder forms LOOK OUT!AZGrizFan wrote:
Looking at those graphs, I will back off my 10x number. It's only 8.5x worse.
Let me get this straight...Dems were all on board to go into Iraq...and you dismiss their approval? And you also wanted Bush to go into Affy and stabilize a government? You think that is realistic? How much money is Obama tossing down the toilet in Affy - in what he claimed is his war...the right war? How is that going again?93henfan wrote:Aaaaand here come the Republifanboiz right on cue.
Obama didn't get us fist deep in Afghanistan without securing the prize or stabilizing the government there, didn't suddenly abandon it for all intents and purposes to start another war, this time unprovoked, and didn't invent the bailout like his predecessor. Certainly, he has done little to stop the bleeding, but to try to move the blame from where this current mess originated is, while pretty crafty, completely ludicrous.
Who forced the Fanny and Freddie money to be included? Who still leaves them out of any banking regulations and oversight? Bush? 
Exactly.Cluck U wrote:Let me get this straight...Dems were all on board to go into Iraq...and you dismiss their approval? And you also wanted Bush to go into Affy and stabilize a government? You think that is realistic? How much money is Obama tossing down the toilet in Affy - in what he claimed is his war...the right war? How is that going again?93henfan wrote:Aaaaand here come the Republifanboiz right on cue.
Obama didn't get us fist deep in Afghanistan without securing the prize or stabilizing the government there, didn't suddenly abandon it for all intents and purposes to start another war, this time unprovoked, and didn't invent the bailout like his predecessor. Certainly, he has done little to stop the bleeding, but to try to move the blame from where this current mess originated is, while pretty crafty, completely ludicrous.
The bailout of banks, while not my bag of tea, apparently worked as best as it was intended to...how many banks failed? And how much of that money to the banks was paid back?
Now, how much of the Fannie and Freddie money has been paid back?
The Dems not only played along with Bush and supported his efforts...they took the baton and broke the course record on their shift...all the while trashing Bush for his effort to help them get started on their spending spree.
We were "on track" before Obama took office? Apprently winning does create short term memory loss.AZGrizFan wrote:Exactly.Cluck U wrote:
Let me get this straight...Dems were all on board to go into Iraq...and you dismiss their approval? And you also wanted Bush to go into Affy and stabilize a government? You think that is realistic? How much money is Obama tossing down the toilet in Affy - in what he claimed is his war...the right war? How is that going again?
The bailout of banks, while not my bag of tea, apparently worked as best as it was intended to...how many banks failed? And how much of that money to the banks was paid back?
Now, how much of the Fannie and Freddie money has been paid back?
The Dems not only played along with Bush and supported his efforts...they took the baton and broke the course record on their shift...all the while trashing Bush for his effort to help them get started on their spending spree.
Cappy, they say that it's darkest just before the light. Well, it's about to get VERY light...America took a 2-year detour and now we're back on track in the family car and that wealth-redistributin' socialist can "sit in the back" with the rest of our "enemies".
Let's just say we weren't NEARLY as far off the track as Obama's fucked up policies/ideologies have taken us.kalm wrote:We were "on track" before Obama took office? Apprently winning does create short term memory loss.AZGrizFan wrote:
Exactly.
Cappy, they say that it's darkest just before the light. Well, it's about to get VERY light...America took a 2-year detour and now we're back on track in the family car and that wealth-redistributin' socialist can "sit in the back" with the rest of our "enemies".
AZGrizFan wrote:Let's just say we weren't NEARLY as far off the track as Obama's **** up policies/ideologies have taken us.kalm wrote:
We were "on track" before Obama took office? Apprently winning does create short term memory loss.
IMG FAILkalm wrote:[img]AZGrizFan wrote:
Let's just say we weren't NEARLY as far off the track as Obama's **** up policies/ideologies have taken us.
http://images.clipartof.com/small/6288- ... icture.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/img]
shit!AZGrizFan wrote:IMG FAILkalm wrote:
[img]
http://images.clipartof.com/small/6288- ... icture.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/img]
Seriously?93henfan wrote:
And Obama continued the reckless bailouts started by Bush. Obama could have said no more $ for AIG, Citi, Fannie, Freddie, GM, Chrysler, etc, etc. but no, he kept right up at it despite the majority of the electorate being against it. Major fail on Obama's part.93henfan wrote:Let's be fair though, AZ. A lot of us, myself included, said that whomever inherited Bush's complete cluster **** of a situation was in for a very rough term. Let's not forget that the bailouts were started by Bush. He pleaded with Congress to pass his bill so he could deliver billions on a platter to Wall Street.AZGrizFan wrote:
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jesus, it's funny as HELL to go back to 2008 and read all the political threads predicting EXACTLY this from the conservatives here.
You ****' donks are dumb as posts.
Completely agree with you. I was simply calling out the selective amnesia.BDKJMU wrote:And Obama continued the reckless bailouts started by Bush. Obama could have said no more $ for AIG, Citi, Fannie, Freddie, GM, Chrysler, etc, etc. but no, he kept right up at it despite the majority of the electorate being against it. Major fail on Obama's part.93henfan wrote:
Let's be fair though, AZ. A lot of us, myself included, said that whomever inherited Bush's complete cluster **** of a situation was in for a very rough term. Let's not forget that the bailouts were started by Bush. He pleaded with Congress to pass his bill so he could deliver billions on a platter to Wall Street.
Bush had a democratic congress to deal with.93henfan wrote:Completely agree with you. I was simply calling out the selective amnesia.BDKJMU wrote:
And Obama continued the reckless bailouts started by Bush. Obama could have said no more $ for AIG, Citi, Fannie, Freddie, GM, Chrysler, etc, etc. but no, he kept right up at it despite the majority of the electorate being against it. Major fail on Obama's part.
Absolutely not!kalm wrote:We were "on track" before Obama took office? Apprently winning does create short term memory loss.AZGrizFan wrote:
Exactly.
Cappy, they say that it's darkest just before the light. Well, it's about to get VERY light...America took a 2-year detour and now we're back on track in the family car and that wealth-redistributin' socialist can "sit in the back" with the rest of our "enemies".
SeattleGriz wrote:It has officially gone from Bush's fault, to Obama's fault.
Wait a minute. It's not all his fault. There was also Carter and Clinton.grizzaholic wrote:SeattleGriz wrote:It has officially gone from Bush's fault, to Obama's fault.
Where is Cappy's favorite....RR? I am sure he deserves some of this credit...kalm wrote:Wait a minute. It's not all his fault. There was also Carter and Clinton.grizzaholic wrote:
No way. Reagan was terrific for this country. His economic policies have been pretty much embraced by both parties for the past 30 years and look how well we're doing now.grizzaholic wrote:Where is Cappy's favorite....RR? I am sure he deserves some of this credit...kalm wrote:
Wait a minute. It's not all his fault. There was also Carter and Clinton.
Shows you how much I actually read of his. I thought he hated him as well.kalm wrote:No way. Reagan was terrific for this country. His economic policies have been pretty much embraced by both parties for the past 30 years and look how well we're doing now.grizzaholic wrote:
Where is Cappy's favorite....RR? I am sure he deserves some of this credit...
AZGrizFan wrote:Bush had a democratic congress to deal with.93henfan wrote:
Completely agree with you. I was simply calling out the selective amnesia.
kalm wrote:No way. Reagan was terrific for this country. His economic policies have been pretty much embraced by both parties for the past 30 years and look how well we're doing now.grizzaholic wrote:
Where is Cappy's favorite....RR? I am sure he deserves some of this credit...
Smaller government, low top marginal tax rates, and most especially financial de-regulation and free trade all continued under Clinton.CID1990 wrote:kalm wrote:
No way. Reagan was terrific for this country. His economic policies have been pretty much embraced by both parties for the past 30 years and look how well we're doing now.
That's strange, because I remember that one of the major defenses of Bill Clinton from the left was that he erased a lot of the Reaganomics legacy. I guess I'm just dreaming.
I'm not saying they didn't. I'm just saying that Clinton has been lauded before for rolling back many of Reagan's fiscal policies. Whenever he or Hill talked about how they balanced the budget ad nauseum there was usually a reference to the days of soak the rich policies as being what they rolled back. Almost every pundit who worhipped at the altar of Hill-Bill put them forward as a repudiation of Reagan.kalm wrote:Smaller government, low top marginal tax rates, and most especially financial de-regulation and free trade all continued under Clinton.CID1990 wrote:
That's strange, because I remember that one of the major defenses of Bill Clinton from the left was that he erased a lot of the Reaganomics legacy. I guess I'm just dreaming.
