FAT Lying SACK of

[Wild Cobra]

Emotionally, there is no doubt. But there's no consensus among economists that 9/11 significantly affected our economy one way or the other.

OK. You are one that believe the rising national debt doesn't matter?

Now also remember, I just included that in a list. Don't make it out that I make that the major thing.

With 9/11, we had immediate market drops. We have how many billions in cleanup, recovery, and rebuilding? Then if we took no action, what of the fear of it happening again? Remember how many people wouldn't fly for a long time? Afraid to? It can be argued that the military action was not needed, or that at least in Iraq. I will disagree, but does that borrowing really hurt us? I would argue it has made more jobs rather than hurt the economy.

I don't know what the key factor for the economy would be. All I know is that we were moving in the right direction untill after the 2006 elections. We can all take situations and try to pin a value on them. I prefer not to. I just know better than to look at just who is the president. You liberals tend to only give credit or blame to the sitting president. Policies often take time to have effects. Congress makes the policies, not the president.

9/11 was one of several things. What about Katrina. How much did that cost us? What about the other global disasters we helped with? I think it's safe to say that president Bush has dealt with more disasters during his presidency than any other president.

[Wild Cobra]

You're seriously trying to claim that Bush, Inc. wanted to change regulations in Patriot-Act passing, post-9/11 political climate? And the Democrats who couldn't even put forth a filibuster without the nuclear option being rubbed in their noses held him back? Links, please.

Your are ignoring what I am saying. Please stop that. The republicans didn't have enough votes for many things even though they were the majority. You are acting as if congress is suppose to be partisan.

As for the threat of the nuclear option, that's a whole other story. I don't ewant to go much into that, I got tired of debating it then. The bottom line for me is that by cons ution, the senate votes to approve or disapprove the presidents choices. A filibuster is a senate rule that is fine for senate operations until it interferes with joint operations. The nuclear option was to take it to court. President Bush I think would have won the case because requiring a filibuster to break with 60 votes violates the intent of the cons ution for appointments.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

LOLOLOLOL When I saw the le to this thread...somehow...someway...I just knew you were talking about that scatmunching disciple of satan Rush Limbaugh. rofl

[Wild Cobra]

LOLOLOLOL When I saw the le to this thread...somehow...someway...I just knew you were talking about that scatmunching disciple of satan Rush Limbaugh. rofl

Shows where your bias is. My bias was thinking it was about Michael Moore.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

OK. You are one that believe the rising national debt doesn't matter?

Ummm. No.

Now also remember, I just included that in a list. Don't make it out that I make that the major thing.

I simply pointed out it didn't belong in your list.

With 9/11, we had immediate market drops.

And immediate market recoveries.

We have how many billions in cleanup, recovery, and rebuilding?

Government spending on rebuilding generally creates jobs and helps the economy. There is no consensus among economists that 9/11 was positive or negative for the economy.

All I know is that we were moving in the right direction untill after the 2006 elections.

...

You liberals tend to only give credit or blame to the sitting president.

Freddie and Fannie *might* have been an issue no matter who was president. But if we hadn't been bleeding money in Iraq, we'd be in a of a better situation to address it.

Policies often take time to have effects. Congress makes the policies, not the president.

Following 9/11 Bush/Cheney had pretty much carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. They chose Iraq over the US economy. Own that and stop trying to blame democrats.

What about Katrina

Natural disasters stimulate the economy. Temporary raise in gas prices vs overwhelming boom in construction and small business.

I think it's safe to say that president Bush has dealt with more disasters during his presidency than any other president.

I don't know about that. But of the two biggest disasters we faced, he handled both as irresponsibly as one could imagine. And he invented one of his own by taking our country into an unnecessary war.

I agree that Bush cannot be blamed entirely for the economy. But he did nothing to prevent or help the problem and quite a bit to hurt it.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Your are ignoring what I am saying. Please stop that. The republicans didn't have enough votes for many things even though they were the majority. You are acting as if congress is suppose to be partisan.

As for the threat of the nuclear option, that's a whole other story. I don't ewant to go much into that, I got tired of debating it then. The bottom line for me is that by cons ution, the senate votes to approve or disapprove the presidents choices. A filibuster is a senate rule that is fine for senate operations until it interferes with joint operations. The nuclear option was to take it to court. President Bush I think would have won the case because requiring a filibuster to break with 60 votes violates the intent of the cons ution for appointments.

Please link to the measures that the Republicans attempted to pass from 2001 - 2006 to help the economy that the democrats voted down.

[Wild Cobra]

I have to go soon, I'm only going to address two parts

But if we hadn't been bleeding money in Iraq, we'd be in a of a better situation to address it.

Thing is, until we started beconing a "Welfare Nation," the only times we carried a deficit was suring war time or recession. We have become a nation that bleeds itself annually because of the endless social programs. We used to pay down the debt between wars, until the war on poverty became the biggest cost of the federal governemt on a regular basis.

I don't know about that. But of the two biggest disasters we faced, he handled both as irresponsibly as one could imagine. And he invented one of his own by taking our country into an unnecessary war.

I agree that Bush cannot be blamed entirely for the economy. But he did nothing to prevent or help the problem and quite a bit to hurt it.

I disagree with that. New Orleans for example was improperly handeld at the Mayor and Govorner levels. President Bush couldn't just come in without the govorners request. I assume you mean 9/11 for the other one. I'll agree things could have been done better there, but fault? I say no.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I disagree with that. New Orleans for example was improperly handeld at the Mayor and Govorner levels. President Bush couldn't just come in without the govorners request.

You get no arguement from me that the local officials handled Katrina badly. But the federal government had every opportunity and responsibility to respond. When 9/11 went down, do you think the federal government waited for an invite from locals? And, Katrina was a multi-state disaster. New Orleans wasn't the only casualty. Survivors were begging, screaming, and crying for help while the federal government did nothing. FEMA had the data on Hurricane Pam, they had every reason to anticipate what was going to happen. I'll be happy to get into government response to national disaster and Katrina in another thread.

[Nbadan]

You get no arguement from me that the local officials handled Katrina badly. But the federal government had every opportunity and responsibility to respond. When 9/11 went down, do you think the federal government waited for an invite from locals? And, Katrina was a multi-state disaster. New Orleans wasn't the only casualty. Survivors were begging, screaming, and crying for help while the federal government did nothing. FEMA had the data on Hurricane Pam, they had every reason to anticipate what was going to happen. I'll be happy to get into government response to national disaster and Katrina in another thread.

I remember that like it was yesterday....5 freaking days to get bottled water to New Orleans....no excuses, FEMA ed up royally...

[kwhitegocubs]

I'd have to say that I agree about 9/11 having a negative impact. We mitigated it by dropping interest rates down below 2% instead of letting it play out cleanly. That....hasn't helped so much at this point. Though I like that we are dropping them back to 0 again.

Some day the trade deficit and National Debt are going to be too much for these shenanigans to work and, BAM, we are going to have Carter-style inflation.

[TheMadHatter]

The greatest part about Obama winning decisively is that I no longer feel ANY need to argue with conservatives anymore.

No more pointing out their flawed logic, no more pointing out their outright lies. I just don't care. Believe whatever the you want Conservatives, your party's viability in future national elections will be diminished for a long time coming. I sincerely hope you nominate Palin in 2012, just to solidify how out of touch your party is. America is laughing at you right now, not with you.

[TheMadHatter]

Who cares what WildCobra has to say. His party is a minority now, he has no political voice or influence.

If he wants to believe outright lies let him. Let him rot in ignorance along with his party. The party that will no doubt be stupid enough to nominate Palin and lose miserably in 2012. The GOP will be out of political power for the next 10-15 years at a minimum.

[SnakeBoy]

I'm going to go ahead and agree with the libs in this thread. Nothing the previous administration did has any impact on the current administration. The minority party in either house cannot prevent the majority party from doing anything.

Everything that happens over the next four years is the democrats fault entirely. Sounds good to me.

[ChumpDumper]

So that's two threads in which Mild Cobra tries to depict a downturn in the economy after the 2006 elections without giving any specifics.

[spurster]

For the nth time, both parties put up "reform" bills for Frannie and Freddie, but they refused to compromise with the Dems blocking things when the GOP was the majority and the GOP blocking things when the Dems were the majority.

[implacable44]

Wouldn't it beel cool if we had someone that told us the truth though? Damn, all Limpballs does is spread lies 24-7 and Clear Channel gives him $500 large....where is the corporate responsibility? This is clearly why we need the Fairness Doctrine...

stupid..just stupid dude. The Fairness Doctrine.. You re . BOTH parties are to blame for this garbage - WHo is proposing all this bail out stuff you ignorant bastage ? The Pelosi -Reid led gang of lib s. Get a freaking clue. You give the President entirely too much power for the economy. ya big dummy

[johnsmith]

This shameless lying that the wing-nuts of talk radio are engaging in, show how desperate they are. Obama is not even in office, and they are trying to hang on us the recession a.k.a. depression they manufactured in their support of the neo-con philosophy.

When this group came into office, we had a budget surplus... we were actually on the way to start paying down the debt.

In 8 short years, they have tripled the debt, and we are in the red from day one of the yearly budget.

Instead of going into a corner and shutting up, while we try and dig ourselves out of this mess, they are trying to hang it on Obama.

NOT THIS TIME YOU USELESS BAGS OF SKIN AND HOT AIR..not this time.

We keep reminding the general media of their duplicity.. one more yelp out of them and its time for the fairness doctrine....




LA Times

It's just not fair.

[ChumpDumper]

Eh, this election has proved that right wing talk radio isn't all powerful. They overplayed their hand.

[Wild Cobra]

So that's two threads in which Mild Cobra tries to depict a downturn in the economy after the 2006 elections without giving any specifics.

Who cares about specifics. I'm saying I predicted such a problem several months ago. Do you dispute that?

Like a good stock broker, I don't give my methodology!

[ChumpDumper]

Who cares about specifics.

Obviously not you.

You are full of and can't back anything up.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I thought this thread was about Charles Barkley

[ChumpDumper]

BTW, many posters were predicting an economic downturn for years now.

And gave specific reasons for it.

Now you are saying you predicted an economic downturn "several months ago" after you said it had already started two years ago.

Bold.

[~~~~~~]

Speaking of liars.

[Wild Cobra]

Obviously not you.

You are full of and can't back anything up.

Why should I back up my methodology, especially to a hack like you? I am only climing that I said we would have a bad economy regardless who was president, and the sitting president would get blamed. If I should feel compelled to back anything up, that is all.

Why didn't you ask me months ago? You know, after this time, I forget half the reasons I cane to such a conclusion.

The way I arrive at vmy conclusions are my own. I will disclose things as I see fit. Not because some crybaby like yourself cannot say I didn't make the past claim, so you have to attack me some other way.

ing internet bully. Get a life.

Isn't there a "Troll Forum" for asses like you?

[Nbadan]

Speaking of liars.