Two doors. One you know will drop you off a 50 foot cliff, the other is uncertain. Which do you go through? Kinda sad.. but yea, that's where we are at. To be frank people are tired of the same and are willing to gamble.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Vote for Change! Change what? How? He doesn't even fucking really know how. ATG, going with someone who you know nothing about is far more scarier than picking one where you knowing what you are going to get.
Well, let's see... Republicans spent more than Democrats have in a long time between 2001 and 2006. The Federal Debt is at a record level. We're spending $2 billion a week on Iraq. A large portion of the world hates us more than ever, and Republicans really haven't done jack in dealing with the healthcare issues we face or border security.DBBrinson1 wrote:
WHAT?Turquoise wrote:
Perhaps, but... the growth really didn't kick in until the Republicans took over, but by the same token, things really started to fall by 2006 as well.Kmarion wrote:
103rd, 102nd, 101st were all Dems .. half of the 90's. This decade is looking to be almost split it seems also.
To put it more bluntly, the Republicans were great when they had a Democrat president to balance them out, but once they ran both Houses and the presidency, things started to go to shit.
How did things go to shit?
We did not cause 9-11. We did not foster the euro. How did things go to shit due to the Republicans? Unemployment was at its lowest. The media cried recession even when we weren't.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-05-06 20:02:09)
Hey, I'm just explaining. I could think of a bunch more that makes me want to kick Bush's the Governments teeth in. Israeli charity while we teeter with our own economic problems is a start.Turquoise wrote:
Wars -- Much bigger one was unnecessaryKmarion wrote:
I know.. Wars, Airline bailouts , Major disasters, 2004 Hurricanes season, Katrina, African charity (No President has done more for Africa in terms of $), Refurbishing the intelligence agencies after Clinton raped them... etc.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but from 2001 to 2006, government spending went up tremendously.
Bailouts -- NEVER necessary
Katrina -- Ok, I'll give you that one, but we're wasting a shitload on a levee system that will fail again. Move New Orleans up river for fuck sake.
Charity -- What's that? Oh yeah.. foreign aid, something a TRUE conservative would be either against or very frugal on.
Intelligence Agencies -- Ok, I'll give you that one too.
That's it.Kmarion wrote:
Two doors. One you know will drop you off a 50 foot cliff, the other is uncertain. Which do you go through? Kinda sad.. but yea, that's where we are at. To be frank people are tired of the same and are willing to gamble.
Maybe we need a Republican Congress? Like the majority we had when Clinton reduced the deficit. ..lol.Turquoise wrote:
Well, let's see... Republicans spent more than Democrats have in a long time between 2001 and 2006. The Federal Debt is at a record level. We're spending $2 billion a week on Iraq. A large portion of the world hates us more than ever, and Republicans really haven't done jack in dealing with the healthcare issues we face or border security.DBBrinson1 wrote:
WHAT?Turquoise wrote:
Perhaps, but... the growth really didn't kick in until the Republicans took over, but by the same token, things really started to fall by 2006 as well.
To put it more bluntly, the Republicans were great when they had a Democrat president to balance them out, but once they ran both Houses and the presidency, things started to go to shit.
How did things go to shit?
We did not cause 9-11. We did not foster the euro. How did things go to shit due to the Republicans? Unemployment was at its lowest. The media cried recession even when we weren't.
What can I say.. when I'm right.. I'm Wright right.As I write this, she’s been nuked in Carolina and is, er, clinging to a bitter four-point lead in Indiana with 82% in. I said this morning that if she got blown out down south then she’d have to pull off a blowout of her own in the midwest to keep the superdelegates jittery about Obama’s Wright baggage. Hasn’t happened. Take it away, Steve Kornacki:Slate’s keeping an eye on RCP’s running popular-vote totals and notes that not only will Obama widen his delegate margin tonight, he’ll erase the PV gains she made in Pennsylvania. In fact, as of this moment, even if Florida and Michigan are counted RCP gives her a popular vote lead of just 3,000+ votes — a margin of less than one-tenth of one percent. And that’s assuming that the popular vote totals from the caucuses in Iowa, Washington, Maine, and Nevada (which weren’t reported) aren’t counted at all. If you estimate for those states, he ends up with a lead of more than 100,000. Which means she has nothing left to commend her to the supers except an electabilty argument unsupported by a single key metric or even circumstantial evidence that Pastorgate has done Obama grievous damage at the polls. Are they going to take the nomination from the first serious black candidate for president without any compelling data to hang their decision on? Not a chance. It’s over. Let’s move on.The North Carolina results do not suggest any significant erosion in Obama’s standing in the state during what has been a very rough few weeks for him.
This alone is enough to derail the Clinton strategy. A win in North Carolina would have been powerful evidence that Democrats are turning on Obama and that the character attacks had rendered him unelectable. A very narrow loss might have helped the Clintons make this case as well. But a landslide defeat?…
North Carolina also essentially locks in Obama’s edge in the popular vote. His margin should undo whatever benefit Clinton reaped from her win in Pennsylvania. No fair and reasonable calculation of the cumulative popular vote at the end of this process will show Clinton ahead. It is now mathematically inconceivable.
Against these realities, the Indiana results almost don’t matter. Obviously, if Obama ends up ahead when all the votes are tallied, the race will end on the spot, and Clinton won’t even have license to pursue meaningless wins in West Virginia and Kentucky. But even if Clinton hangs on, it will be for show.
She could have used some more of that.. it worked nicely for her the first time.
Again... WAR ISN'T CHEAP. We don't spend enough on our troops either. Again, the Republicans didn't attack the WTC. Your brethren voted along with the Republicans.Turquoise wrote:
Well, let's see... Republicans spent more than Democrats have in a long time between 2001 and 2006. The Federal Debt is at a record level. We're spending $2 billion a week on Iraq. A large portion of the world hates us more than ever, and Republicans really haven't done jack in dealing with the healthcare issues we face or border security.DBBrinson1 wrote:
WHAT?Turquoise wrote:
Perhaps, but... the growth really didn't kick in until the Republicans took over, but by the same token, things really started to fall by 2006 as well.
To put it more bluntly, the Republicans were great when they had a Democrat president to balance them out, but once they ran both Houses and the presidency, things started to go to shit.
How did things go to shit?
We did not cause 9-11. We did not foster the euro. How did things go to shit due to the Republicans? Unemployment was at its lowest. The media cried recession even when we weren't.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2008-05-06 20:34:46)
Nah, there's a lot of us that haven't forgotten the many questionable dealings of the clintons.Kmarion wrote:
She could have used some more of that.. it worked nicely for her the first time.
You've hit the proverbial nail on the head. As I've said in other threads...legislative branch with one party, executive with the other, and things seem to go much better overall. Rubberstamps are going to be the undoing of us.Turquoise wrote:
To put it more bluntly, the Republicans were great when they had a Democrat president to balance them out, but once they ran both Houses and the presidency, things started to go to shit.
That might happen after electing a Democrat president.Kmarion wrote:
Maybe we need a Republican Congress? Like the majority we had when Clinton reduced the deficit. ..lol.Turquoise wrote:
Well, let's see... Republicans spent more than Democrats have in a long time between 2001 and 2006. The Federal Debt is at a record level. We're spending $2 billion a week on Iraq. A large portion of the world hates us more than ever, and Republicans really haven't done jack in dealing with the healthcare issues we face or border security.DBBrinson1 wrote:
WHAT?
How did things go to shit?
We did not cause 9-11. We did not foster the euro. How did things go to shit due to the Republicans? Unemployment was at its lowest. The media cried recession even when we weren't.
True.. seems to be the trend.Turquoise wrote:
That might happen after electing a Democrat president.Kmarion wrote:
Maybe we need a Republican Congress? Like the majority we had when Clinton reduced the deficit. ..lol.Turquoise wrote:
Well, let's see... Republicans spent more than Democrats have in a long time between 2001 and 2006. The Federal Debt is at a record level. We're spending $2 billion a week on Iraq. A large portion of the world hates us more than ever, and Republicans really haven't done jack in dealing with the healthcare issues we face or border security.
Which is exactly why they're NOT my "brethren." I may consider the Democrats the lesser of 2 evils, but I'm still very much an independent in mindset. I agree with the Republicans on a number of issues, but I'm just very disappointed with their leadership.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Again... WAR ISN'T CHEAP. We don't spend enough on our troops either. Again, the Republicans didn't attack the WTC. Your brethren voted along with the Republicans.
I'm not a Constitutionalist. I don't think it's our right to have healthcare, but I do think the government would at least do a better job with insurance than the private sector has.DBBrinson1 wrote:
NEWSFLASH** Nowhere in the Constitution are you guaranteed fucking health care.. And border security? Your party's answer is to pardon everyone and open the border up. Good grief?
hmm?liquix wrote:
the last comment was pointless, foolish
Either you didn't read it or you didn't understand it.liquix wrote:
the last comment was pointless, foolish
Unemployment at its lowest? Doesn't matter much if wages in real dollars have drastically declined and consumer debt is at its peak...for the first time in 60+ years, Americans have earned less each year than the previous. Recession? Have you checked the price of commodities lately?DBBrinson1 wrote:
WHAT?Turquoise wrote:
Perhaps, but... the growth really didn't kick in until the Republicans took over, but by the same token, things really started to fall by 2006 as well.Kmarion wrote:
103rd, 102nd, 101st were all Dems .. half of the 90's. This decade is looking to be almost split it seems also.
To put it more bluntly, the Republicans were great when they had a Democrat president to balance them out, but once they ran both Houses and the presidency, things started to go to shit.
How did things go to shit?
We did not cause 9-11. We did not foster the euro. How did things go to shit due to the Republicans? Unemployment was at its lowest. The media cried recession even when we weren't.
And to ATG..
Bush did not participate in Abu. Borrowing your retrospectoscope "Mission Accomplished" should been displayed for her sailors' eyes, not yours or mine.
The housing thing was a bad idea, almost as bad as encouraging illegals to our country with promises of jobs. Bush stood strong against North Korea instead of paying them off like Billy.
Oil through the roof? Yea buddy!
Food shortage? I blame liberals who really scare policy through social reform without serious thought.
About our debt? War ain't fucking cheap, and in my humble opinion, we didn't spend enough on our guys and gals.
Vote for Change! Change what? How? He doesn't even fucking really know how. ATG, going with someone who you know nothing about is far more scarier than picking one where you knowing what you are going to get.
