What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be? - Page 3 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Sunday, January 18, 2009 7:02 PM on j-body.org
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:how long was he holding office as a senator?


how many time did he show up?


Chris
There is a bit of a difference between running a presidential campaign and playing golf.

Aside from that, do you really feel that someone you consider to be "the enemy" doing something you think is wrong - that it is a valid excuse for "your guy" being a clown? Two people doing their jobs badly do not "balance each other out," rather they are just two guys doing a bad job. Other people are not an excuse for your performance or your deeds - ever. This kinda thinking is how we got into our culture of no personal responsibility.






Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Monday, January 19, 2009 3:12 AM on j-body.org
bk3k wrote:Aside from that, your use of the old "teach a man to fish" analogy, I really can't see where it fits here. So you're saying that giving money to average people is "giving them a fish," but giving that money to corporations instead is "teaching them(I assume you mean the average person) how to fish?" Perhaps you could explain that one a bit? Because when you give money to poorer people, they will spend 100% of what you give them anyways, and through their spending, the money ends up with those corporations anyways. But simply giving money to corporations for nothing is not gonna create jobs, why would it? Companies don't create as many jobs as they can afford, they create only as many as they need to in order to pull in money from consumers. If consumers have more money out there waiting for them, they must create jobs(manufacturing, transportations, retail sales) to get that money.

And either way, either with traditional welfare or the corporate welfare you suggest, its still welfare. A better approach IMO, is to invest most of this money in infrastructure, which directly creates jobs for those involved. And creating jobs, creates income, stimulating the economy. Handing out money, probably isn't the most ideal solution. On the other hand, Obama is currently taking his advise on what to do with the economy from a "who's who dream team" of professionals in that area, and they likely know something I don't. So we'll see...

If you read what I said again, you will see that when I quoted the cliche, I was talking about the bailouts and the handouts to average people. It's all throwing good money after bad, which only do something in the very short term. I don't think the corporate bailouts worked, or will work if they try it again. Even if they give out the other $350B with requirements that the banks actually use it to write new loans, it's only going to change things short term, and in a very small way. You do realize that if the government hands out all that money to the banks, and they use it to write new loans, we're going to see major inflation as well in the coming years, right?

Bottom line is they need to cut taxes, and otherwise get the f$&k out of the way. It will be a little bumpy for a while, but the end result will be far better, and last far longer, than just throwing bailout money around.

And as far as having a "whos who" cabinet...What happened to the premise that he ran on, about how Washington has been run by insiders for too long? How can people who voted for him seriously be happy with that? He hasn't yet been sworn in, and he's already backed away from some things that got him elected, and started saying that he can't do things the way he planned, etc.






Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Monday, January 19, 2009 2:53 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:I read here about how you all bitch the "sky will fall" about him "redistributing the wealth." And how how much he is a "socialist." How he eats babies for a breakfast and how he squeezes toothpaste from the middle and all the idiocy that sore loosers will say.

LOL. Typical liberal exageration. What you have read here is debate on policies. If you can't accept that his policies are socialist, and there are plenty of people who don't want to see them put in place, you've got the problem, not the people who disagree with you.
Mt.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:My question is: What the FU-CK are you doing in a Cavalier site? Shouldn't you be in Rolls-Royce site or a Bugatti site bitching that all your millions and billions of dollars will now be be affected under Obama? Seriously you numb-skulls bitch as if you're Ted-Turner or Bill Gates or some some oil tycoon and that Robin Hood will steal from you and give to the poor.

Because increasing the taxes on those brackets, and on businesses, will hurt the economy, which will result in less jobs. Simple economics that you refuse to accept because you've had so much liberal kool-aide that you can't see straight. And because I want the opportunity to increase my income without being punished for it if/when I do.
Mt.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:I guess since you are so f-ing wealthy it was ok when Ronald Reagan's new tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% for the folks making $360K+ while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% (- the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased together). In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income. I guess it is ok when you have tax incentives when you build out side of the US and get taxed more when build in-house. I guess it is ok when we subsidize a failed banking system with tax payer's money (no capitalist mentality here). It is ok when oil companies get tax money for "exploring" when they are making record profits. I guess it is just fine when we went to occupy Iraq with tax-payer's money and did a no bid contract and put ex-CEO Dick Chaney's Haliburton to control Iraq's oil was just right thing to do. I guess it is ok that tax-payer's $9 Billions in cash was lost in Iraq for cash "transactions and restructuring" in the beginning in Iraq. I guess it is ok when Reagan decided to go Jumbo Jet and Nancy Reagan spend an ungodly amount of tax-payer's money in re-decorating the White House, or when Bush doubled his salary as soon as he stepped in office. It is justifiable to give corporate welfare, but just plain wrong to get needy welfare, correct?
Do I need to go on?

LMFAO. How about a $150M innauguration? It's OK because it's a liberal, but everyone jumped all over Bush for $40M in 2005.

And if you've paid attention, I'm not for the corporate welfare either. I don't think it was the right thing to do to throw money at the problem. And everyone screams that we can't afford a tax cut because of the defecit, but where the hell are we getting the money to hand out? It's worse on that side because they're giving out more money. At least with a tax cut, they're just taking less from people.

Mt.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:You all bitch on the socialist and all the BS, but it's clear you don't have a grasp on what it is. If you went to a public school... you used socialism, you driven a paved road or highway or crossed a bridge you used socialism. You like or need to get protection from police that is socialism. You like it when you got the "stimulus check" again socialism. You want to get some money when you retire in a form of social security, hell.... there goes that sinful word "(Social)-ism..." RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do I need to go on?

Socialism is ALL over the freaking world and it is there because of the imbalance between the rich and poor or CEO or workers as they try to maximize profits the immoral way. Top rank people want to keep it all, lower rank people has a tough time getting by, who do you call? If there was a balance in wages there would be no Welfare at least for bottom rank folks. Corporations don't need welfare, that is if you run your business correct like true Capitalist. I'll give you Costco, Ben and Jerry's and Enterprise rent a car as prime examples.
And here is the kicker for religious folks... Socialism is in tune with Christian values... Help you fellow brother/sister out.

Lastly it is ridiculous to crucify pre-maturely Obama for something that he has not been sworn in yet. The other guys... criticize all you want... it is now done and in the history book.

No one is crucifying him. You want to see crucifying, listen to what the MSM is doing to Bush, even though he's done.

However, when you see something being proposed that you strongly disagree with, what are you supposed to do? STFU and watch it happen? No, you speak out about it, and try to get others to understand the point.

Bottom line is that while you love to claim we're fear mongering, it's Obama and his administration that are fear mongering, to try and get everyone on board with their plan. "If we don't act now, the economy will continue to decline and more jobs will be lost. If we don't pass this plan now, 3,000,000 jobs will be lost. (or for 3,000,000 jobs to be created, we must pass it-take your pick which version of the rhetoric you listen to)

This is bullsh!t. The best thing he could do is to lower taxes for everyone. Nothing stimulates an economy more. Lowering taxes on the bottom bracket, or the zero bracket, will not get anything moving. This isn't negativity, this is proposing a plan that has a better chance, but because people don't get behind the golden boy, they're being negative. The new term is "Obama Nay-sayers". Fine. I'm a proud Obama Nay-Sayer if that's the case. Go ahead and put me on that list.






Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Monday, January 19, 2009 8:54 PM on j-body.org
With all the attempts to save teh economy they are only going to delay the downfall. The longer it is delayed teh worse it will be when it does happen. They need to just back away and let the economy finish its downward trend. There is a natural cycle of an economy and artificially keeping it up will only make it fall harder.



Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:33 AM on j-body.org
mitdr774 wrote:With all the attempts to save teh economy they are only going to delay the downfall. The longer it is delayed teh worse it will be when it does happen. They need to just back away and let the economy finish its downward trend. There is a natural cycle of an economy and artificially keeping it up will only make it fall harder.

Absolutely, except that in this case, it was government meddling that made it crash so hard, because they caused the housing market to expand rapidly, and at the expense of the very people they were claiming to help. While personal responsibility came into play, people who are of lower income, who don't have much, can easily be persuaded into these rediculous mortgages when the mortgage company is telling them they can afford to own a home of their own. So now many of them have nothing, and the government expects everyone to believe that the only hope is for more government dependancy.





Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:27 AM on j-body.org
What is this "natural cycle" you speak of!???


wonder if that could be the "global warming" crap too?


hmm


Chris





"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:59 AM on j-body.org
Come on now Al Gore told us that global warming is real problem and we need to be green to stop it. Damn that was hard to do with a straight face.

We have only had 3 or 4 ice ages so far, Im no scientist but I would assume that the earth warmed up between those periods.

From what I have seen and been told by a family friend that works in the financial area we are well overdue for a low in the economic cycle.



Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:39 PM on j-body.org
DING FRY"S DONE



but, Gore did invent the internet right?






man, in that heat.... (1960's Nam Pic of Gore looking to see if his Rifle is clean?) he still has all is cold weather gear on?



Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:46 PM on j-body.org
I wonder if he really knew how to shoot that. Maybe he should have been lugging around a B.A.R. if he wanted to warm up.



Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:50 PM on j-body.org
What about the fact, that he went over because dady had to prove that his son was no better then any other, so he went to "WAR"


WHERE THE FRACK IS THE FRACKING MAG?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(I like BSG)


Combat my a$s!


Chris


"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:58 PM on j-body.org
brass is not biodegradeable. Al fought in Nam with 100% recycled materials.






Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:26 PM on j-body.org
Wow where do we start

1. Supreme court elected president, not by the people
2. Most days on vacation of any president in history
3. Most money spent during presidency of any president
4. Worst Natural Disaster on American Soil in 75 years and alot of people died because of a lack of response
5. Highest Oil Prices in history
6. Started a meaningless war that cost over 4000+ American lives
7. Made the Patriot Act law which is the biggest unconstitutional act ever created
8. Destroyed our reputation with nearly all our allies and unified our enimies
9. Increased the national debt more than any other president despite coming into office with the largest surplus in 50 years.
10. Worst Financial Crisis since the great depression
11. And last but not least the worst attack on American soil since Pearl harbor


I don't think you really need to wait 10-15 years to realize he's truely the worst president we have ever had. He took the country from being in the best shape to being its almost worst.



1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85





Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Thursday, January 22, 2009 2:34 AM on j-body.org
Rodimus, clearly you, like Goodwrench and many others, simply listen to all of the liberal rhetoric, and the MSM's. Half of what you posted is complete bullsh!t. And how can you possibly say that the worst attack on US soil was even close to his fault? He was in office for just over 7 months. I would argue that could be blamed on Clinton's softness on defense.

Open your eyes and look at facts. As I've said before, I don't believe he was one of our best, but he was certainly far from our worst. And lets not forget that he achieved in his first term, the highest approval rating that any president has ever achieved, and that was after doing things. It's amazing that the incoming president has huge approval ratings and he hasn't done a f&#king thing but give tons of speaches.

People simply have the wool pulled over their eyes by the media, who is absolutely biased for the left, which can be proven by looking at coverage of similar events and actions between Bush and Obama. Things Bush was crucified for in the media are some of the very same things Obama is being praised or excused for.

Stop falling for it, people!






Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:29 AM on j-body.org
Its a recorded fact he spent more days on vacation than any other in history. He was on vacation when the intelligence reports came through about 9/11 and he ignored them. You can't blame the media for him doing a lousy job. 4000+ US soldiers didnt die in a meaningless war while Clinton was in office either.

A president is not necessarily judged by history in what he specifically does, it has to do with the country during that time. He took over with the best financial situation in history and left with one of the worst. Theres been more money spent in Iraq than what Clinton spent in 8 years, and for what? So a bunch of ungrateful towelheads that hate our guts and will stab us in the back at first chance can have elections? Not worth putting our country in Financial ruin and wasting military power.



1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85





Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:22 PM on j-body.org
Rodimus Prime wrote:...You can't blame the media for him doing a lousy job....

I can blame the media for convincing all of the blind sheep, as yourself, that he did a lousy job. He took office at the beginning of an economic downturn. It's recorded that the end of Clinton's reign we were entering into a downturn. On top of that, we had 9/11 happen, which caused a huge economic slump immediately. From that, he put tax cuts in place, and our economy got moving again, and began growing again. During that time, his approval ratings reached the 90's, higher than any president has ever achived. Then, the media began the bashing, and the campaign to tear him down, and convince the American public that he lied and took us into a war he had no business taking us into. However, some of the very people in the Democratic party, that have been screaming out against Bush since then, supported going into Iraq based on all of the intelligence we had, that if you look at factually, gave every indication that Hussein was working on WMD's. We know for a fact that he possesed all of the materials at one point, but they never caught him red handed, so the liberals started using that to say that he lied about it. It's all bullsh!t. I'm absolutely sick of hearing people mindlessly repeating the lies that have been put out there by the liberals and the MSM. I'm looking for some video clips right now, but I will show you exactly how obvious it is that the media hated Bush and tore him to shreds every chance they got, but some of the same issues they talk about now, with Obama in the Whitehouse, have a completely different tone.
Rodimus Prime wrote:A president is not necessarily judged by history in what he specifically does, it has to do with the country during that time. He took over with the best financial situation in history and left with one of the worst. Theres been more money spent in Iraq than what Clinton spent in 8 years, and for what? So a bunch of ungrateful towelheads that hate our guts and will stab us in the back at first chance can have elections? Not worth putting our country in Financial ruin and wasting military power.

He did not take over during the best time. It's documented, as I said above, that the economy started to decline in the last year of Clinton. And the war did not put us into financial ruin. Wake the hell up. Seriously.





Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Thursday, January 22, 2009 7:18 PM on j-body.org
My parents stock portfolios tanked in 1998.



Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Thursday, January 22, 2009 9:14 PM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:
Rodimus Prime wrote:A president is not necessarily judged by history in what he specifically does, .

He did not take over during the best time. It's documented, as I said above, that the economy started to decline in the last year of Clinton. And the war did not put us into financial ruin. Wake the hell up. Seriously.



Hold on!

Are you saying, that the previous presidents work has a effect on the next?


So, could it be deducted that clintens greatness was a result of Regan's Trickle Down?


Wow..

its ALMOST as if


I LEARNED THAT IN HIGH SCHOOL ECON CLASS!


strange.

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Friday, January 23, 2009 4:30 AM on j-body.org
Quote:

LOL. Typical liberal exageration. What you have read here is debate on policies. If you can't accept that his policies are socialist, and there are plenty of people who don't want to see them put in place, you've got the problem, not the people who disagree with you.

When you learn what "socialist" and "liberal" is and put it in coherent thought, then you can talk... type. Until then....

Quote:

Because increasing the taxes on those brackets, and on businesses, will hurt the economy, which will result in less jobs. Simple economics that you refuse to accept because you've had so much liberal kool-aide that you can't see straight. And because I want the opportunity to increase my income without being punished for it if/when I do.

Lower the tax on wealthy folks who make $360K+ and raise on the low to middle class as if it will not "hurt the economy, which will result in less jobs."
I can't believe I read that, then again it is you that wrote it.

Quote:

LMFAO. How about a $150M innauguration? It's OK because it's a liberal, but everyone jumped all over Bush for $40M in 2005.
And if you've paid attention, I'm not for the corporate welfare either. I don't think it was the right thing to do to throw money at the problem. And everyone screams that we can't afford a tax cut because of the defecit, but where the hell are we getting the money to hand out? It's worse on that side because they're giving out more money. At least with a tax cut, they're just taking less from people.


No, it is ok for spending that. Mostly for security reasons because there are people like you who despise the thought for black man to be a US president (after reading topics on black folks as if you have unsolved issues with them... lol daughter dating one?), some lunatics go the extra step and threatened, and god forbid some loon goes for the next step. But yhea it was for security reasons and keep watch of all the millions of people. It is sad when you have to have more security in your own home then when you visit another country.
Bush's $40 million heh, if that is true... just remember how much less of a crowd showed up. Who was it? Family members, religious folks, oil tycoons, CEOs and Texas.
Take food for thought... Michelle Obama's ball room dress cost $600, Nancy Reagan's in 1981 $12,000. Did roles switched on "conservative spending?" If so, I didn't get the memo.

Quote:

No one is crucifying him. You want to see crucifying, listen to what the MSM is doing to Bush, even though he's done.

However, when you see something being proposed that you strongly disagree with, what are you supposed to do? STFU and watch it happen? No, you speak out about it, and try to get others to understand the point.

Bottom line is that while you love to claim we're fear mongering, it's Obama and his administration that are fear mongering, to try and get everyone on board with their plan. "If we don't act now, the economy will continue to decline and more jobs will be lost. If we don't pass this plan now, 3,000,000 jobs will be lost. (or for 3,000,000 jobs to be created, we must pass it-take your pick which version of the rhetoric you listen to)

This is bullsh!t. The best thing he could do is to lower taxes for everyone. Nothing stimulates an economy more. Lowering taxes on the bottom bracket, or the zero bracket, will not get anything moving. This isn't negativity, this is proposing a plan that has a better chance, but because people don't get behind the golden boy, they're being negative. The new term is "Obama Nay-sayers". Fine. I'm a proud Obama Nay-Sayer if that's the case. Go ahead and put me on that list.


Just put on a tinfoil hat and count the stars.

Quote:

Rodimus, clearly you, like Goodwrench and many others, simply listen to all of the liberal rhetoric, and the MSM's. Half of what you posted is complete bullsh!t. And how can you possibly say that the worst attack on US soil was even close to his fault? He was in office for just over 7 months. I would argue that could be blamed on Clinton's softness on defense.

Open your eyes and look at facts. As I've said before, I don't believe he was one of our best, but he was certainly far from our worst. And lets not forget that he achieved in his first term, the highest approval rating that any president has ever achieved, and that was after doing things. It's amazing that the incoming president has huge approval ratings and he hasn't done a f&#king thing but give tons of speaches.

People simply have the wool pulled over their eyes by the media, who is absolutely biased for the left, which can be proven by looking at coverage of similar events and actions between Bush and Obama. Things Bush was crucified for in the media are some of the very same things Obama is being praised or excused for.

Stop falling for it, people!





THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Friday, January 23, 2009 9:51 AM on j-body.org
"people like you who despise the thought for black man to be a US president"


I have yet to see where he said that he didnt like Obama because he was black. Maybe I missed it but I do not recall seeing it. Why do all the Obama nut swingers always try to say that those that didnt vote for him are racist. Its amost as bad as those @!#$s Sharpton and Jackson that make every issue about race even when it isnt. I didnt vote for him because I dont like his policies/agendas. I dont give a @!#$ what race he is.



Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Friday, January 23, 2009 4:00 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:

LOL. Typical liberal exageration. What you have read here is debate on policies. If you can't accept that his policies are socialist, and there are plenty of people who don't want to see them put in place, you've got the problem, not the people who disagree with you.

When you learn what "socialist" and "liberal" is and put it in coherent thought, then you can talk... type. Until then....

LMAO. You, as the rest of the liberals, can continue to wish that people like me would STFU, but it's not going to happen. Although the media may get their way if the "fairness doctrine" (read "attempt to silence conservatism in media") gets passed.
Quote:

Quote:

Because increasing the taxes on those brackets, and on businesses, will hurt the economy, which will result in less jobs. Simple economics that you refuse to accept because you've had so much liberal kool-aide that you can't see straight. And because I want the opportunity to increase my income without being punished for it if/when I do.

Lower the tax on wealthy folks who make $360K+ and raise on the low to middle class as if it will not "hurt the economy, which will result in less jobs."
I can't believe I read that, then again it is you that wrote it.

LMAO. You have your head firmly planted in your @ss still. I was refering to what you suggest is the correct way to go, and which this administration suggest we should do (and is going to do if no one in congress stands up to them), which is to raise the taxes on businesses, as well as people making over $150K (last I checked: they keep lowering the bracket that was originally $250K). I was NOT talking about the 80's, where this country saw the most consistant, long term decline in the unemployment rate, because of tax cuts!

And hey, guess what? (this one should get you scrambling for some bullsh!t chart about deficit again-LMAO): There was recently a study done on the Bush tax cuts of 2003, where the GDP was declining for over a year and a half prior to them going into effect, and by a year and a half later, it was increasing dramaticly. There were many statistics that measure the economy that had the same result. I'm sure you'll claim some BS reason why the study is wrong, but the bottom line is that statistics don't lie.

Quote:

Quote:

LMFAO. How about a $150M innauguration? It's OK because it's a liberal, but everyone jumped all over Bush for $40M in 2005.
And if you've paid attention, I'm not for the corporate welfare either. I don't think it was the right thing to do to throw money at the problem. And everyone screams that we can't afford a tax cut because of the defecit, but where the hell are we getting the money to hand out? It's worse on that side because they're giving out more money. At least with a tax cut, they're just taking less from people.


No, it is ok for spending that. Mostly for security reasons because there are people like you who despise the thought for black man to be a US president (after reading topics on black folks as if you have unsolved issues with them... lol daughter dating one?), some lunatics go the extra step and threatened, and god forbid some loon goes for the next step. But yhea it was for security reasons and keep watch of all the millions of people. It is sad when you have to have more security in your own home then when you visit another country.
Bush's $40 million heh, if that is true... just remember how much less of a crowd showed up. Who was it? Family members, religious folks, oil tycoons, CEOs and Texas.
Take food for thought... Michelle Obama's ball room dress cost $600, Nancy Reagan's in 1981 $12,000. Did roles switched on "conservative spending?" If so, I didn't get the memo.

LOL. You fail again. The inauguration was not $110M more expensive because of security. Granted there was more security, but a huge part of the money spent was strictly in making it such a huge event, because of how "historic" it was. And look up Bush 2005 inauguration on youtube. You will see a huge croud filling the mall at that time, as well. Of course it's not 2 million, but that number has more to do with the hype of the first black president, and on the media hype, than on true policies. And to make it even better, the media was already trying to crucify Bush in 2005, but it still drew a huge crowd. Even more funny, but even with all the media hype, the number of people tuning in to the inauguration this year did not touch the number that tuned into Reagan's. LOL.

Just keep drinking up that kool-aide. Don't mind the funny aftertaste.






Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Friday, January 23, 2009 4:55 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

LMAO. You, as the rest of the liberals, can continue to wish that people like me would STFU, but it's not going to happen. Although the media may get their way if the "fairness doctrine" (read "attempt to silence conservatism in media") gets passed.

Still not willing to pick up a history book and learn about words you don't even know about, in fact avoiding the topic altogether. Congratulations, you just escaladed from ignorant to stupid. Loosing more credibility on the issues you defend.

Quote:

LMAO. You have your head firmly planted in your @ss still. I was refering to what you suggest is the correct way to go, and which this administration suggest we should do (and is going to do if no one in congress stands up to them), which is to raise the taxes on businesses, as well as people making over $150K (last I checked: they keep lowering the bracket that was originally $250K). I was NOT talking about the 80's, where this country saw the most consistant, long term decline in the unemployment rate, because of tax cuts!

I talked initially on the 80's and you responded, now you are skewing.
You laud the decline? During that time the average for the 80s was to what we have today; near 8%. You do realize during your hero's term there was a near 11% unemployment rate? With the rich tax cuts also came many factories going overseas as the upper sections didn't have to pay US wages anymore and a nice tax break came about when they did so. Nice triple combo.
But there is no wrong with that.
Oh and here is stats in which you can shove the figures up your rectum, maybe there you can input info to your memory instead of opening a book and read.
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=248

Quote:

And hey, guess what? (this one should get you scrambling for some bullsh!t chart about deficit again-LMAO): There was recently a study done on the Bush tax cuts of 2003, where the GDP was declining for over a year and a half prior to them going into effect, and by a year and a half later, it was increasing dramaticly. There were many statistics that measure the economy that had the same result. I'm sure you'll claim some BS reason why the study is wrong, but the bottom line is that statistics don't lie.

lol Oh this is good... I would like to get a insight on that.

Quote:

LOL. You fail again. The inauguration was not $110M more expensive because of security. Granted there was more security, but a huge part of the money spent was strictly in making it such a huge event, because of how "historic" it was. And look up Bush 2005 inauguration on youtube. You will see a huge croud filling the mall at that time, as well. Of course it's not 2 million, but that number has more to do with the hype of the first black president, and on the media hype, than on true policies. And to make it even better, the media was already trying to crucify Bush in 2005, but it still drew a huge crowd. Even more funny, but even with all the media hype, the number of people tuning in to the inauguration this year did not touch the number that tuned into Reagan's. LOL.

50,000 Police officers from around the nation cost money. And yes it was historic, since Obama was the "combo breaker." Personally, I don't care it was historic, but I can see and understand it being something special for many folks. Oh and media has been crucifing Bush since he was selected form the Supreme court. Face it, the man was DUD since day one.
As for Reagan getting more "tuned-in." Doesn't surprise me, everybody was at home and unemployed... so nothing else was on TV.

Quote:

Just keep drinking up that kool-aide. Don't mind the funny aftertaste.

Sorry, I don't get your infantile quote


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.


Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Friday, January 23, 2009 6:30 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:

LMAO. You, as the rest of the liberals, can continue to wish that people like me would STFU, but it's not going to happen. Although the media may get their way if the "fairness doctrine" (read "attempt to silence conservatism in media") gets passed.

Still not willing to pick up a history book and learn about words you don't even know about, in fact avoiding the topic altogether. Congratulations, you just escaladed from ignorant to stupid. Loosing more credibility on the issues you defend.

There is a big difference in avoiding a topic, and ignoring stupidity. The discussion of what terms mean was brought up before, and you won't accept the fact that the use of words can change over time, as they are used to label a different set of ideals. As far as socialism goes, yeah, we have socialist programs already, which should be scaled back, as they are failing. However, the topic right now is what increase in socialist programs and policies are being slid into out nation, and why they need to be stopped. Once an increase in them is avoided, the discussion for what to chisle away at can resume. Unfortunately, too many people refuse to see what is being proposed right before their eyes.

But go ahead and keep reassuring yourself that I'm losing credibility. Hopefully it's helping you sleep at night.

Quote:

Quote:

LMAO. You have your head firmly planted in your @ss still. I was refering to what you suggest is the correct way to go, and which this administration suggest we should do (and is going to do if no one in congress stands up to them), which is to raise the taxes on businesses, as well as people making over $150K (last I checked: they keep lowering the bracket that was originally $250K). I was NOT talking about the 80's, where this country saw the most consistant, long term decline in the unemployment rate, because of tax cuts!

I talked initially on the 80's and you responded, now you are skewing.
You laud the decline? During that time the average for the 80s was to what we have today; near 8%. You do realize during your hero's term there was a near 11% unemployment rate? With the rich tax cuts also came many factories going overseas as the upper sections didn't have to pay US wages anymore and a nice tax break came about when they did so. Nice triple combo.
But there is no wrong with that.
Oh and here is stats in which you can shove the figures up your rectum, maybe there you can input info to your memory instead of opening a book and read.
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=248

Sorry, I forgot who I'm dealing with. Without spelling everything out and connecting the dots, you can't follow along.

You mentioned the 80's, and the tax brackets that Reagan gave the biggest cut to (because they had by far the highest rate), and I mentioned that if you raise that bracket again, which the current administration wants to do, that it would hurt the economy. If you had half a brain, you would have been able to figure that out, but clearly I have to continue to speak in first grade English to you.

But to illustrate exactly what I have been telling you all along, but you just don't get, I took data from that link, and put 79-89 into an Excel chart. Here you go:



I doubt you will get it, but I'm sure it will help many other intelligent people on this site understand how tax cuts actually work, and how trickle down policies work. Policies that change peoples' behaviour take time to go into effect, which is partly why Clinton enjoyed a second wave of growth in the economy from similar policies, but 8 years later he handed off the country to Bush with it in the beginning of the downturn, once his crap began taking effect.

Quote:

Quote:

And hey, guess what? (this one should get you scrambling for some bullsh!t chart about deficit again-LMAO): There was recently a study done on the Bush tax cuts of 2003, where the GDP was declining for over a year and a half prior to them going into effect, and by a year and a half later, it was increasing dramaticly. There were many statistics that measure the economy that had the same result. I'm sure you'll claim some BS reason why the study is wrong, but the bottom line is that statistics don't lie.

lol Oh this is good... I would like to get a insight on that.

I didn't post it in that response to your idiocy because I'm adding it to a different post with other information, but since you asked, click here
Quote:

As for Reagan getting more "tuned-in." Doesn't surprise me, everybody was at home and unemployed... so nothing else was on TV.

You keep telling yourself that. Bottom line is that he still has huge approval ratings, because the majority of people in this country understand what you don't (and what the current Democratic Party don't want people to understand): Reagan did great things for the American economy. What you can't seem to understand is that there is a deliberate effort among liberals to destroy Reagan's reputation, and a successful plot to destroy Bush's, because they can't push their agenda if the people believe that conservative fiscal governing works. It's all part of the political game with them. The reason why the Republican party is failing right now is because they are trying to appeal to Democrat supporters by being moderate, instead of cutting through it and standing up for their beliefs and sticking to their guns.
Quote:

Quote:

Just keep drinking up that kool-aide. Don't mind the funny aftertaste.

Sorry, I don't get your infantile quote

It's hardly infantile, so I guess I shouldn't expect you to get it. Look into the etymology of the phrase, and with a little bit of luck, you might understand it. Or maybe you'll accuse me of being racist as spoiler did on page 1.





Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Friday, January 23, 2009 9:49 PM on j-body.org
is a stereotype to low income african americans.
Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Saturday, January 24, 2009 12:22 AM on j-body.org
QUIKLILCAV- I think your my brother from another mother!!!! You see what I see. It is so hard to explain to these brain washed CNN watching a-holes that despite what the mass media wants to press on you as the truth you sometimes have to do a little research yourself and realize what actually is. Independent thinkers are just too far and few in between. Here is to not jumping on the band wagon!

CHECK OUT MY LAST MESSAGE ON MY STOP COMPARING OBAMA......................thread it sums up his first 3 days as president and all the "good" things he has done! Makes me feel all warm inside! EVERYBODY NOW..(jbody chants )O BA MA, O BA MA, O BA MA, O BA MA!!! (END SARCASM )
Re: What do you think Bush's presidential legacy will be?
Saturday, January 24, 2009 6:28 AM on j-body.org
spoiler wrote:is a stereotype to low income african americans.

Fail. Try again.





Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search