Yeah... Just like Reagan.

 

Even if you do think that the President has a direct and immediate effect on the economy with his policies (Which is absurd) then don'cha think 9/11 played a major part in the economic downturn?

444875[/snapback]

 

Wait... Did you just contradict yourself? First you said "The recession is Clinton's Fault". Now when the evidence to the contrary is irrefutable (thanks to Rune's thorough research), you say the President doesn't have an effect. Which is it Fish??? :mischief

???

 

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm416.cfm

???

 

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm416.cfm

445342[/snapback]

 

The Heritage Foundation :lol :lol , One of the most slanted groups in all of politics. I assume that chart was to help your case, it's didn't load for me but if that's what it was supposed to do. Then why the hell are you presenting me The Heritage Foundation? That's the same thing as me going to The Daily Worker saying that all of Bush's policys are wrong and then expecting you to believe it.

What would you liberal maniacs do if Kerry was in office? There'd be no more Bush bashing.

then they'd talk about (for 4 years) how great Kerry was, and how much Bush sucks)...pretty much, I don't see their rhetoric ever getting interesting....or maybe they'd start bashing Guliani or whoever the 2008 GOP candidate would be. Who knows? Lame.

I seriously believe Kerry will be a horrible president, but not face criticism because he will find a way to blame Bush for everything. All his campaign has been is basically bush bashing.

pretty much libs will blame it on bush....conservatives will blame it on Kerry.

 

I will blame it on Kerry.

You can directly attribute the failure of the economy to Bush because of the simple fact that he gave Billions of dollars in tax cuts to the rich which squandered the economy.

 

 

Giving tax cuts grows the economy. What do the rich do with that money? They invest it, growing the economy.

 

What happens if you use the money for welfare?

The economy doesn't budge.

Americans are just too stupid to know what is good for them. Only 37% approved of the Revolutionary war, what a mistake that war was. :thumbup

Oh please...

 

It's pretty much undisputable that Bush screwed this economy over

 

 

 

Oh, please. It's very, very disputable.

 

Do you think that a President has a secret lever next to his desk that controls the economy?

 

There is a 3 to 5 year curve of effect with most economic decisions. If you want to thank/blame a president for the economy you live in, look back three to five years.

444843[/snapback]

 

 

You can directly attribute the failure of the economy to Bush because of the simple fact that he gave Billions of dollars in tax cuts to the rich which squandered the economy.

444868[/snapback]

 

I got a nice check back too. I guess I'm rich now.

???

 

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm416.cfm

445342[/snapback]

 

The Heritage Foundation :lol :lol , One of the most slanted groups in all of politics. I assume that chart was to help your case, it's didn't load for me but if that's what it was supposed to do. Then why the hell are you presenting me The Heritage Foundation? That's the same thing as me going to The Daily Worker saying that all of Bush's policys are wrong and then expecting you to believe it.

445451[/snapback]

 

 

Exactly my point for posting that. I can find as much info about how good bush is doing as you can find about how bad he is doing. The important thing is to analyze facts and sort them out wihtout bias. And in fact without even seeing the information your critisizing it. How about read it, discuss it, negate what you feel is wrong.

Rudy vs Hillary in 2008 is going to be so much better than this garbage

???

 

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm416.cfm

445342[/snapback]

 

The Heritage Foundation :lol :lol , One of the most slanted groups in all of politics. I assume that chart was to help your case, it's didn't load for me but if that's what it was supposed to do. Then why the hell are you presenting me The Heritage Foundation? That's the same thing as me going to The Daily Worker saying that all of Bush's policys are wrong and then expecting you to believe it.

445451[/snapback]

 

 

Exactly my point for posting that. I can find as much info about how good bush is doing as you can find about how bad he is doing. The important thing is to analyze facts and sort them out wihtout bias. And in fact without even seeing the information your critisizing it. How about read it, discuss it, negate what you feel is wrong.

447001[/snapback]

 

As I said it wouldn't load for me.

 

Still do you honestly think that A Non Partisan group with the foremost experts on American Economics is the same as The Heritage Foundation. I wouldn't say my group is just some hole in the wall group who had facts supporting my claims without really any merit to it.

What would you liberal maniacs do if Kerry was in office? There'd be no more Bush bashing.

446325[/snapback]

 

Like I totally know! I mean Conservatives are like the most responsible group on the earth. They would never blame things on Presidents of the opposite party.

 

You need to realize that if you have a firm belief in one party you're automatically a hipocrite. No matter what side you're on.

I hope no one takes this as a direct offense, but it seems that while true that people on both sides of the spectrum often critisize opposing presidents, the liberals are usually more prone to personal attacks. For example, reagan is senile, bush is stupid, and nixon is evil. Whereas the reps. will critsize presidents for being poor presidents such as they did with Carter. By the way the clinton being a sex-maniac comments came as often from the left as tey did from the right, for comical purposes more than true critisicism

I hope no one takes this as a direct offense, but it seems that while true that people on both sides of the spectrum often critisize opposing presidents, the liberals are usually more prone to personal attacks. For example, reagan is senile, bush is stupid, and nixon is evil. Whereas the reps. will critsize presidents for being poor presidents such as they did with Carter. By the way the clinton being a sex-maniac comments came as often from the left as tey did from the right, for comical purposes more than true critisicism

448376[/snapback]

Exactly, liberals will say Bush is a bad president because they say he is stupid, despite all that he has done as president, but the conservative criticizing a liberal president will look at what they did in office. For example, Clinton's reducing of our military power, the Dems in Vietnan. But the most confusing is Carter. The guy brought depression and inflation at the same time. They had to invent the word "stag-flation" to describe his presidency.

Obviously not all liberals do this, but it is a very common tactic especially among liberals in media. I once spoke with the president of a democrat group on my college campus after someone mentioned president bush, and the conversation went as follows: (Ill be LC, he will be DP)

 

 

DP: Bush is stupid

LC: Why do you say that?

DP: Because he just is...Bush is stupid

LC: No he isnt, bush is not stupid at all, in fact he's a Yale graduate and a good businessman

DP: No, no hes stupid hahaha

 

Then a third person decides to say: "I dont like bush much either; the only good republican was reagan"

 

DP: No way! Reagan's an a**hole!!

LC: Why?!

DP: Because he is...He's a [expletive] a**hole

 

This is a true story posted on for laughs

I hope no one takes this as a direct offense, but it seems that while true that people on both sides of the spectrum often critisize opposing presidents, the liberals are usually more prone to personal attacks. For example, reagan is senile, bush is stupid, and nixon is evil. Whereas the reps. will critsize presidents for being poor presidents such as they did with Carter. By the way the clinton being a sex-maniac comments came as often from the left as tey did from the right, for comical purposes more than true critisicism

448376[/snapback]

 

While you are right that some people use personal attacks, you are wrong to assume that only liberals do this. I have seen plenty of Republicans do this as well.

I hope no one takes this as a direct offense, but it seems that while true that people on both sides of the spectrum often critisize opposing presidents, the liberals are usually more prone to personal attacks. For example, reagan is senile, bush is stupid, and nixon is evil. Whereas the reps. will critsize presidents for being poor presidents such as they did with Carter. By the way the clinton being a sex-maniac comments came as often from the left as tey did from the right, for comical purposes more than true critisicism

448376[/snapback]

 

While you are right that some people use personal attacks, you are wrong to assume that only liberals do this. I have seen plenty of Republicans do this as well.

448451[/snapback]

 

 

You're right, but it is a more common practice for liberals, possibly because liberals control most media outlets.

I hope no one takes this as a direct offense, but it seems that while true that people on both sides of the spectrum often critisize opposing presidents, the liberals are usually more prone to personal attacks. For example, reagan is senile, bush is stupid, and nixon is evil. Whereas the reps. will critsize presidents for being poor presidents such as they did with Carter. By the way the clinton being a sex-maniac comments came as often from the left as tey did from the right, for comical purposes more than true critisicism

448376[/snapback]

 

While you are right that some people use personal attacks, you are wrong to assume that only liberals do this. I have seen plenty of Republicans do this as well.

448451[/snapback]

 

 

You're right, but it is a more common practice for liberals, possibly because liberals control most media outlets.

448455[/snapback]

 

... When someone says this: "liberals control most media outlets", I drop the conversation, because you are officially unrecoverable. Sorry dude, but to say something like that it is automatic "conspiracy theory" in my book.

I hope no one takes this as a direct offense, but it seems that while true that people on both sides of the spectrum often critisize opposing presidents, the liberals are usually more prone to personal attacks. For example, reagan is senile, bush is stupid, and nixon is evil. Whereas the reps. will critsize presidents for being poor presidents such as they did with Carter. By the way the clinton being a sex-maniac comments came as often from the left as tey did from the right, for comical purposes more than true critisicism

448376[/snapback]

 

While you are right that some people use personal attacks, you are wrong to assume that only liberals do this. I have seen plenty of Republicans do this as well.

448451[/snapback]

 

 

You're right, but it is a more common practice for liberals, possibly because liberals control most media outlets.

448455[/snapback]

 

... When someone says this: "liberals control most media outlets", I drop the conversation, because you are officially unrecoverable. Sorry dude, but to say something like that it is automatic "conspiracy theory" in my book.

448462[/snapback]

 

Let me reprase that, media nowdays has been more balanced b/w conservatives and liberals. But it defintely isnt a conspiracy, theres a book called What Liberal Media, in whic using facts the author disproves that media has a liberal bias, BUT he also proves early in the book that there was a time when media was liberally biased in the U.S and thats why some people believe it still is. Good read.

For example, Clinton's reducing of our military power

448388[/snapback]

 

Do you have a clue what you're talking about?

 

Bush won two wars easily. Now most of the technology he used was just a dream during Bush 1 and Reagan and their's no possible way Bush could have rebuilt an army that fast, if it was reduced to the way you stated.

 

Now answer me this Bush took office in 2001 within a little over 2 years he was in two wars and won those wars. To say he built an army from nothing that fast is absurd, Clinton did nothing to reduce our army only make it stronger with technology.

 

That hack Hannity based his entire arguement against Clinton saying that he didn't build enough tanks like Reagan did which is so far out seeing that the picture of a tank battle across eastern europe of course was no longer viable when The Cold War ended.

Let me reprase that, media nowdays has been more balanced b/w conservatives and liberals. But it defintely isnt a conspiracy, theres a book called What Liberal Media, in whic using facts the author disproves that media has a liberal bias, BUT he also proves early in the book that there was a time when media was liberally biased in the U.S and thats why some people believe it still is. Good read.

448474[/snapback]

 

I actually don't think the media is biased to any party... My opinion is that the media reports whatever is convinient to the corporations that own them. In other words if the corporations that own the media benefit from making the President at the moment look like a Superstar, that is what is going to be reported. However, there are certain stories that because of the value ($$$) they can't drop and that is why they couldn't resist blowing up the Monica Lewinsky scandal or the Abu Grahib scandal... Anything that has sex, violence or blood is a good sell. :thumbdown The media in this country (and many other countries) is in bed with whomever runs the government.... But that is a whole other topic.

Let me reprase that, media nowdays has been more balanced b/w conservatives and liberals. But it defintely isnt a conspiracy, theres a book called What Liberal Media, in whic using facts the author disproves that media has a liberal bias, BUT he also proves early in the book that there was a time when media was liberally biased in the U.S and thats why some people believe it still is. Good read.

448474[/snapback]

 

I actually don't think the media is biased to any party... My opinion is that the media reports whatever is convinient to the corporations that own them. In other words if the corporations that own the media benefit from making the President at the moment look like a Superstar, that is what is going to be reported. However, there are certain stories that because of the value ($$$) they can't drop and that is why they couldn't resist blowing up the Monica Lewinsky scandal or the Abu Grahib scandal... Anything that has sex, violence or blood is a good sell. :thumbdown The media in this country (and many other countries) is in bed with whomever runs the government.... But that is a whole other topic.

448483[/snapback]

 

 

In 'bed with whoever runs the govt' now thats a conspiracy theory. And when I say liberal or conservative I do not mean democrat or republican by the way or ny other political party, i mean ideologies

Let me reprase that, media nowdays has been more balanced b/w conservatives and liberals. But it defintely isnt a conspiracy, theres a book called What Liberal Media, in whic using facts the author disproves that media has a liberal bias, BUT he also proves early in the book that there was a time when media was liberally biased in the U.S and thats why some people believe it still is. Good read.

448474[/snapback]

 

I actually don't think the media is biased to any party... My opinion is that the media reports whatever is convinient to the corporations that own them. In other words if the corporations that own the media benefit from making the President at the moment look like a Superstar, that is what is going to be reported. However, there are certain stories that because of the value ($$$) they can't drop and that is why they couldn't resist blowing up the Monica Lewinsky scandal or the Abu Grahib scandal... Anything that has sex, violence or blood is a good sell. :thumbdown The media in this country (and many other countries) is in bed with whomever runs the government.... But that is a whole other topic.

448483[/snapback]

 

 

In 'bed with whoever runs the govt' now thats a conspiracy theory. And when I say liberal or conservative I do not mean democrat or republican by the way or ny other political party, i mean ideologies

448493[/snapback]

 

No, it is not a conspiracy theory. It actually make more sense if you think about it. Who determines if such and such corporation can acquire such and such media outlet? The government. Who gives tax breaks to corporations? The government. Who authorizes a corporation to own more than one market and merge? The government. In other words, if you are a Media giant, would you bite the hand that feeds you? Of course not. It makes sense then that these corporations treat the government with silk gloves, specially now when most of our media is owned practically by three big corporations.