Reply With Quote
I know your ad hominem attacks are all bull but no way is this the worst administration ever. You obviously don't recall Andrew Johnson or Warren G. Harding.
Watching Democrats squabble like a bunch of High School girls is damn fine entertainment.
Massa: Rahm Emanuel "Would Sell His Own Mother" For Votes
If you haven't heard the radio interview with Massa, it's at the link; I highly recommend it. Pure comedy gold."Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn, Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) said. "He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
Rep. Massa describes a confrontation with Emanuel in a shower: "I am showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me."
By the way; we here Obama ing quite a bit about Republicans being the fly in the ointment on Obamacare but, if you can't even get your own party behind the effort, why would even pretend to expect the opposition would buy off on it?
Worst.administration.ever. In fact, I'd say this is the worst cluster of a government we've ever had. C'mon November!
I know your ad hominem attacks are all bull but no way is this the worst administration ever. You obviously don't recall Andrew Johnson or Warren G. Harding.
or either bush.
Harding did manage to not impede the country from quickly leaving a depression.
Hmmm...Bush41 managed to wage a "successful" war in Iraq, bucked his own party on taxes, and set the stage for a reduction in military expenditures. Not that all of those float my boat, but by the modern standards of what makes for a "successful" presidency, he wasn't that bad. Sure, he lost re-election, thanks to an economic downturn and a robust 3rd party challenge.
Of course, we're taught that Harding was a bad man because of Teapot Dome. Compared with quite a few of his predecessors he was a piker. More than anything, he was more unaware (when he should have been aware).
What a surprise. You predicted it beforehand.
Don't you love it when your own nightmares come true?
Still better than W.
I know that Perot had a lot to do with the GHW Bush's loss, but I always felt that it was GHWB's own party that did him because of his gutsy move on taxes. Plus, you're right about the downturn, which was brought on by Greenspan raising interest rates at an inopportune time for GHWB. That was the last time that Greenspan ever risked the economy taking a downturn due to interest rates that close to an election...even to the detriment of the country during the nineties sometimes when he SHOULD have increased them or left them higher.
Yeah how could we forget those years. I had just gotten out of college when johnson took office.
Yes, it was. The bursting of the tech bubble and its aftermath comes to mind in connection with this too. Greenspan apparently wouldn't take the chance of something similar happening before 2004.
I know you're being obtuse, but you do understand how ridiculous it is for him to call the Obama administration the worst ever..nevermind the fact that Obama has barely been in office for over a year, he hasn't to up the country compared to Johnson or Harding.Yeah how could we forget those years. I had just gotten out of college when johnson took office.
As much as people bash W. he probably isn't ranked in the top 5 of worst Presidents of all time and neither is his administration.
Well, he's only a year in and look where we're headed...
This administration is a total up. Corrupt. Incompetent. Wrong-minded. Did I mention incompetent? I'm going to hedge my bets and say, by the end of his term, he will rank up there with Johnson and Harding. He's already flown past Jimmy Carter...
And, you're right, W. wasn't anywhere near this category.
I think incompetence would be starting an unecessary war.. but hey that's just me..
I felt much the same about Bush. There are some strong resemblances, so far.
No, you're right. Obviously, we disagree on your characterization of what cons utes an unnecessary war.
So, apparently does the Congress who have continued to support, fund, and pass the legislation necessary for this and the previous administration to continue our military activities around the globe.
Bush was a two-term president who was re-elected convincingly.
People are already wanting 2012 to be here so they can throw Obama out of office. I'd say there is no resemblance except where Obama has continued to right-minded foreign policies and terrorism-related policies, ins uted by President Bush, that is so enraging his base.
An unecessary war is one that didn't hve to be fought.. which sums up Iraq nicely.. that's fine go back to complaining about Obama..
We broke Iraq, so we're buying it.
Again, we disagree and reasonable people can do that. There are many people who believe the invasion of Iraq was the necessary and right thing to do. I will grant you this, however, many of those people fled to safe ground and started re-writing history as the war -- driven by a political narrative -- became unpopular here at home.
Mostly Democrats.
You know, all the ones we've quoted ad nauseum saying how evil and dangerous Saddam Hussein was -- right up until March of 2003.
That's okay. I'm convinced history will vindicate President Bush. I'm equally convinced history will condemn Barack Obama.
Bush 43 blamed Greenspan for Bush 41 losing, and I think it really really influenced Greenspan's policy decisions. He WANTED to stay in office...he loved doing it...his book reads like a megalomaniacal paean to himself... you are right that he was absolutely responsible for the bubbles repeating themselves over and over again...and i don't see Bernanke changing much.Yes, it was. The bursting of the tech bubble and its aftermath comes to mind in connection with this too. Greenspan apparently wouldn't take the chance of something similar happening before 2004.
so now you are blaming everybody else.. poor bush. he was duped..
History already says Bush ed up Iraq.
Yoni thinks they are still translating the do ents.
Duped? No. I believe today, that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. By all indications, so does the President. I never claimed anyone duped him into doing anything.
I said the Democrats changed their tune when it became apparent President Bush intended to follow through on his pledge to hold Iraq accountable and use the authority granted him by Congress to use military force to enforce the Security Council resolutions and stop Iraq WMD programs -- that EVERYONE believed he had.
I don't think President Bush ever claimed to have been duped by anyone either.
And, further, I continue to believe history will prove he was on the right side of this issue all along.
Of course, Democrats will be able to claim they were on the right side of the issue -- at one time or another and sometimes multiple times when they weren't on the other side of the issue.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
