You also forgot vacation sites.

That's awfully rich to worry about Obama taking vacations.

nascar, do you think Obama takes a lot of vacations?

waken up from what? a change back to the fools that broke the bank as opposed to the ones that don't have a clue? its a slippery slope now. we have no outs....can you say "the blind leading the blind, with the help of the corrupt?". americans are not sleeping they are dumb! no republican or democrat will solve our problems(especially the walking zombies in your dumb little poll)....and the idiots that rant on here believing it makes a difference are part of the ...well , i won't go there. now i've heard it all..the democrats are decieving and the republicans are honest.....lol....ok. thats whats wrong with the US...do you even think before you type? this political corner is a wealth of wisdom......lol...lol..or laughs, yeah thats it......its the laughs.

Gingrich, much better alternative. Romney, a better alternative.

Huckabee, eh. I'd just stay home and let others decide.

Palin, my dog Bugsy is a better alternative than her. I will vote for Obama if Palin is the nom.

i agree and disagree. I agree that there are real big problems in this country that need top priority.

I disagree that gay rights shouldnt be a set aside until other things change.

How hard could it be to appeal DADT and DOMA? Pretty damn easily if Republicans wouldnt stop being d-bags and homophobes.

Its a big issue to the 10% of the population that care about their partner the same way you care about your wife (if you are married - dont know)

Good lord, at least there is still SOME sanity left in the world.

While I disagree, I understand why some people would vote for a Republican against Obama next time around, though at this point I'm really starting to consider just voting for a small party and letting everyone else decide because I'm getting sick of him too. Two years after getting to know Palin, it scares the hell out of me that there is even ONE person in this country who would vote for her, let alone enough to elect her potentially.

Argue Obama's inexperience all you want, but at least he has SOME grasp of the issues. Sarah Palin has exhibited not one ounce of depth or understanding of complexities on even one single issue in two years in the public eye. And how that is not terrifying to people is absolutely beyond me.

Her and Jesus are tight... thats why the tea party people love her.

I dont think there is any way she will be on the republican ticket.

After quitting her post as govener, she basically surrendered any possibility of holding a public office again, IMO. No way a quitter should even be allowed on the ticket.

She should stick to her current job of Fox News Entertainer and Twitter Reporter.

What is terrifying is having Eric Holder as AG. It is terifying to have an Attorney General who doesn't care about the law and just does whatever he feels like doing. He has no problem with sanctuary cities. He thinks it's fine for cities to snub their nose at federal law and ignore immigration laws. That is fine with Holder. But when states try to enforce federal law, Holder sues them and has the gall to say these states are "interfering with federal law".

And then there is the case of the guys intimidating voters in what a long-time civil rights activist called the "worst case of voter intimidation he had ever seen". But Holder dropped the charges simply because of the color of the defendants skin. If that's not terrifying to you then I don't know what is.

then why did the stimulus make the unemployment rate go up when he said if it was passed would keep unemployment from going abve 8%

tell me what Palin did specifically to make Alaska worse off , what did she screw up up there , she had executive experience , obama had none

the american people are waking up to the fact that we have a person in the white house who has no experience ....obama is a smart guy , knows a lot of things , but if you don't think he is in over his head you're dead wrong. the media did a great job of this during the election peroid , the convinced the american people that obama would be a messiah and that palin would have no clue

he's had 18 months and tell me how we are better off today than we were 18 months ago , i don't see it anywhere

tell me what palin would have done that would have made us worse off today if she had been elected , she couldn't have been any worse than obama to this point

That doesn't make a lot of sense here Gales. The stimulus made unemployment go up???

Interesting.

and this guy didn't even need Sighty's Magic 8-Ball

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487425,00.html

well it did , they said if it got passed unemployment wouldn't go above 8% , after it went through we went straight up to 10% , guess it worked , just the opposite of what they thought

[quote=gales0678;671145]well it did , they said if it got passed unemployment wouldn't go above 8% , after it went through we went straight up to 10% , guess it worked , just the opposite of what they thought[/QUOT

surely you took logic classes in college. This would be a logical fallacy unless of course you can show how the stimulus caused unemployment to go up.

And you can find a million economists who will say the stimulus lowers unemployment.

[quote=dalakhani;671272]

it's really black and white , bush left office in jan , we were told in early feb that the stimulus had to get passed immediatly in order for unemployment to not go above 8% , it went to 10%+ after it was passed

no one will ever no what would have happened to unemployment if it didn't get passed

but in the real world not in your fantasy little world inside the beltway dala
it didn't work


if palin guaranteed something like this and it didn't happen the media would be killing her every day , obama and his team get a pass, but , they obviously have made things worse since Bush headed back to Texas

Yeah, but you said it "doesn't make a lot of sense " and what this guy pointed out was a logical possible senerio.

and I don't see unemployment lower.....

i didn't necessarily agree with the stimulus, but i would be hard pressed to say it 'made' unemployment go up. unemployment did go up-would it have done so regardless, probably. would it have gone up higher without the stimulus-maybe. but to say it made the jobless rate go up-come on.

Your trying to tell me that O'Dumbass is doing a good job as President? It has been over one year since he has been President what has he done for umemployment, our economy, and illegals crossing into our country? Not one dam thing. All he cared about was getting his health care bill that the majority of the Amrerican public didn't want passed.

While Holder may certainly have problems to worry about, the Black Panther thing being one of them, this post is just too rich top to bottom.

When "states" try to enforce federal law he sues "them?" Them and states are both plural. Examples please. Or are you just trying to make it sound worse than it is to try to score a point? I bet the house on the latter. It's what you guys do.

And who was the last attorney general? And you're worried about an AG who doesn't follow the law and just does whatever he feels like doing?

Consistency will surely never accidentally be listed in the "plus" column when discussing the conservative mindset.

Thanks for a good laugh, Rupert.

The liberal mindset is short on the logic necessary to analyze the conservative mindset. Quite a conundrum there.

And the laughter always echoes from the asylum, though they don't sound too happy. Wait until November -- then the real fun begins.

Most people in the country have now correctly sized up this administration as socialist. They don't like it. They prefer freedom. And, wow, are you liberals going to get a rude awakening. I personally can't wait -- I'll be watching the big TV with some popcorn and a cold beer, smiling from ear to ear as America sends this joke of a Congress packing.

The opposition party does that at every midterm. Glad you will get the enjoyment out of thinking you discovered some new political creature that has been invented and will happen for the first time ever because of Obama. Good for you.

And a conservative making fun of a liberal for being short on logic. Talk about a smile from ear to ear as I can't stop laughing at a total lack of self-awareness on your part.

Do you honestly not see that these two sentences directly contradict each other? You basically say that no one will ever know how well - or even if - it worked. Then you say, "it didn't work."

If you simply mean that it did not successfully keep unemployment below 10%, then you are obviously correct. Nobody would dispute that. That's like arguing the sky is blue.

But if you mean that it didn't succeed in keeping unemployment lower, well....as you said....you can't know that.

So....your argument here is either wrong by your own admission or so obvious that there is no point in even making it.

how about the arguement that it was a waste of $1,000,000,000,000 of taxpayers dollars?

Is that similar to the sky is blue comment?


my lord a trillion dollars has a ton of zero's

Speaking of ways to waste a trillion dollars, in the end if it was a waste or not, I'd rather "waste" a trillion bucks trying to do something to help our economy that waste it invading other countries and killing people.

That's just me though, I know how much some people love war, maybe not you personally, but I don't want to step on any toes.

At least the census people are working.

:rolleyes:

I sent back the form, have been visited twice (by two different people, the 1rst a local) and was just called on the phone to verify a census worker had visited. :mad::mad:

Of course not. Whether or not it was a wise decision is a position two reasonable people could disagree about, and I think there are valid points to be made on each side.

Whether or not it kept unemployment below 10% is not like that. It didn't, and nobody is saying that it did. Those that predicted it would accomplish that statistical feat were incorrect. That's obvious too. It also didn't cure cancer, or improve top Republicans' education levels, or other difficult things to accomplish. That doesn't really prove that it "worked," or "didn't work."

I agree. That entire Hussein family got a bum deal just because of a little bit of torture and genocide. Nothing even near what the State of Arizona is doing now.

I love how when someone says something.. the return 100% of the time is "Well Bush wasted all this money too"

No fucl<ing sh1t Bush wasted WAY TOO MUCH :$:

No fucl<ing sh1t Bush royally fucl<ed up by going to war with Iraq & we will be repaying that for as long as the two of us live... AND then our hypothetical homosexual offspring will still be paying for it.

How is that an excuse for this new guy who spends like Bush on freaking steriods? How does that make the $1,000,000,000,000 spendulus program not a horrid waste of tax payers money?

THEY BOTH FUCl<ING SUCK BALLS.



Damn. I wish we could re-incarnate Reagan and make Clinton live forever and just do 8 years Reagan, 8 years Clinton, 8 years Reagan, 8 years Clinton. for ever and ever. that should at least make everyone happy!

Let's say Ronald Regan or Bill Clinton took over in January, 2009 instead of Obama. How do you think the economy would be doing right now? What would Afghanistan and the Gulf of Mexico look like?
I'm pretty sure the answer to those three questions is:

economy - crap
Afghanistan - crap
Gulf - crap

In other words....not that much different from the way it looks now. Presidents don't have magic wands, no matter how much you wish they did.

Examples please? Huh? Have you ever heard of Arizona? I said "states" rather than "state" because Holder's policy is obviously to sue states that pass this type of legislation and there will be more to follow. Other states are already in the planning stages of coming up with similar laws to Arizona. Are you suggesting that Holder doesn't sue states that try to enforce immigration laws?

You are just arguing over semantics. Here is an analogy. Let's say a guy is prejudice against black people and this guy is about to open a business. He needs to hire employees and he starts interviewing people. He interviews a black woman who is well-qualified but he doesn't hire her because she is black. Would it be incorrect for me to say he won't hire "black people"? Would you say, "Hey Rupert. Why did you say "black people" plural? It should not have been plural. So far there was only one black person (the only one interviewed so far) that he didn't hire. Why are you making it plural? Are you trying to make it sound worse?"

Bush freaking blew, so its not right to just start this hypothetical converation in 2009.

Substitute Bush for Reagan and Obama for Clinton, and I would say that things would be significantly different right now.

& I've posted many times that one man cant single handidly ruin or save the world. Tho supposedly Bush ruined the world all by himself.

So you agree that if Reagan or Clinton took office in '09 things in the country would look a lot like they do now? Some things (health care) would be different, but many of the big things - like the 3 examples I gave - would look the same.

But okay, let's take your example and say RR took office in 2001 instead of Bush. Would 9-11 still have happened? I think the answer is yes. Would America/NATO have invaded Afghanistan in response? Yes. Would the surplus of 2000 have been spent on large tax cuts? Probably still yes. Would the era of deregulation (begun under Clinton) have continued under RR as it did under Bush? Almost certainly yes. Would the world/American economy have collapsed in 2008? Almost certainly yes. Would DADT have been repealed? Probably not. etc. etc.

You say "Bush freaking blew," but with the possible exception of Iraq, how different would 8 years under RR really have been? I realize these counterfactuals are pure guesswork, but I think they illustrate an interesting and important point.

I agree with you.

if 2000-2008 would have been under RR, and not Bush, things would be totally different. Bush doesnt even deserve to be in the history books as POTUS next to Reagan.

Would 9/11 have happened? Most likely yes.

You do realize that just cutting out the Iraq war alone saves us a ton of :$: and assets. So RR focuses entirely on Al Queda after 9/11.. instead of all this other mess.. Afghanistan wouldnt nearly be in the mess it is now without the Iraq war.

On the Economy? RR was an economic master. Bush an economic moron.

Do you understand the differences of the economy in the 80's when Reagan entered, to when he left?

Reagan cut taxes and also DOUBLED the total federal revenue at the same time!!

Here are some more facts:

Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:

This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10

The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11

From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12





so yes.. I truely believe it would have been a world of difference.

So you actually think the economic growth of the 1980s and 1990s came about because of policies enacted by the men sitting in the oval office during those decades, or perhaps their colleagues in the U.S. capital? If you actually think that, the only thing I can do is refer you to my earlier "magic wand" comment, and call it day. The U.S. president has relatively little control over the U.S. economy. Exactly how much control is up for debate, but it is certainly FAR less than you seem to think.
RR and Bubba receive far more credit than they deserve for the state of the economy during their presidencies.
W. and Obama receive far too much blame.

Oh well.

I agree. Economies are cyclical. Presidents can implement policies that may slightly help or slighly hinder the economy, but overall there is only so much they can do. They're not going to be able to stop a recession from happening. They may be able to delay it slightly through stimulus and that type of thing, but they're not going to be able to stop it.

Yeah but odds were strong in 2008 that the Dems would hold 2010. Not too many times in history has the winning party replaced a disaster like Dubya.

It's kind of frightening how bad both sides of the aisle are.

Hell no. God and baby Jesus no.

I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing your words. You wrote them. Own them.

Obviously I have heard of Arizona, and that is one, so I was right about you trying to make it sound worse than it was. It's not like it was all that surprising to see it coming. When there is a "them" and when there are "states," then you can feel free to talk about it like it's some kind of epidemic. When there is only one example, talk about that one example. If it's so shockingly horrific, you shouldn't need to try to make it sound worse than it is.

Until then, though I know this isn't high on your list of priorities, a little intellectual honesty would be a good addition to your repertoire.