• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Barack Obama’s Staggering Incompetence

No, those projected surpluses were never real to begin with. Clinton only had such a good economy by luck, not by policy. There are experts who claim the economy would be even worse if not for the tax cuts.

Riddle me this...

If Clinton had a surplus, why did the debt still increase during the surplus years?

If I have a surplus in my budget, my bank account moves more positive. What happened?

Wait ... what ... ??? There was no surplus?

Then was Bush lying when he became president and said he was cutting taxes to "give back" money from the surplus to the people who were "overcharged?"


"Finally, along with funding our priorities and paying down debt, my plan returns about one out of every four dollars of the surplus to the American taxpayers, who created the surplus in the first place. A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged. And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." ~ George Bush, 2.24.2001

So the justification for the tax cuts at the time was because there was a surplus, but now you're saying there was no surplus, i.e., there was no justification for the tax cuts. I sure wish righties could provide some semblance of consistency. :roll:
 
Well, we now see the real insanity of the American people having voted back in this empty suit that is everyday proving a disgraceful embarrassment as being in way way way over his head. The guy has no clue. What is his foreign policy, huh? The guy had this false sense of himself, that he was going to walk into a room, be just the opposite of GW and that everybody would worship his every word...what a flop that has been eh? Not making friends of enemies, only making our allies question everything... flip flops and lies all the time, doesn't have a clue as to where he is going as he has no moral compass except for the one that always points directly west [ except in reality its pointing directly left]... and that has proven not to work.

So Gore would have just let 9 11 pass, would have done nothing about it? And yes, liberals always leave everything until a good republican/conservative can come in and save the day... so you are probably right...he would have done nothing like all the other wimps in the party. Except this peace prize winner Obama...escalating Afghanistan only spending more money and lives, then starting the Libyan now the Syrian acts of war? Does he have to give that peace prize back now?

The bizarro-world is only bizarro to left leaners, those types who praised the wonderful world that the Stalinist brought forth to the world [ remember that oh so prescient liberal, John Dewey?] economics is by far the better way to proceed. What a joke.

And you are welcome.

Gore would have listened to his national security advisers and prevented 9-11. Bush was too busy schmoozing and lobbying for tax cuts for Cheney to worry about governing.

As to 9-11, yep, Gore wouldn't have taken the US down the rat hole of torture and vanity invasions. He is a grown up and loves this country too much to demagogue a tragedy like Bush did. The criminals should have been tried in traffic court, with lawyers, for all the world to see. Instead Bush made them into some kind of elemental force that was a threat to the US. So stupid.

But there you go again, demagoguing like Bush. As if 9-11 meant the end of the US or something. Geez you conservatives are insecure.
 
wait ... What ... ??? There was no surplus?

Then was bush lying when he became president and said he was cutting taxes to "give back" money from the surplus to the people who were "overcharged?"


"finally, along with funding our priorities and paying down debt, my plan returns about one out of every four dollars of the surplus to the american taxpayers, who created the surplus in the first place. A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged. And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." ~ george bush, 2.24.2001

so the justification for the tax cuts at the time was because there was a surplus, but now you're saying there was no surplus, i.e., there was no justification for the tax cuts. I sure wish righties could provide some semblance of consistency. :roll:

ouch!
 
No, I disagreed with the invasion of Iraq then and I disagree with invading Syria now. The post you responded to wasn't my opinion ... I was citing U.S. policy. U.S. policy that Republicans/Conservatives were in favor of when I Republican president supported that policy; but are now against that policy with a Democrat as president.
So you are against Obama's policy because he is a Democrat president too?

Or can one be against the policy and be a Republican and have the same reasoning as you? Sounds hypocritical in that you say the Republicans are doing something just because its a democrat...and you are saying that the Republicans can only go against Obama, not for any potential sound reasons, but only because he is a Democrat. That is a silly caricature of Republicans, seems democrats are projecting...besides there are several, many Republicans that are on the side of doing something in Syria...so what the heck are you even talking about?
 
I don't think Truman was that well liked at the time either...but he made good hard decisions and history looks favorably at him now. Same will be with GW, some are just too short sighted to even have a clue about that though... has nothing to do with sanity, has to do with truth. What was Ann Coulter's book named? Wasn't it something like, If Democrats had any Brains they would be Republicans...? I think that might just speak volumes of truth.

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

You're funny.

Truman defeated the Imperialists. That's why he's looked upon favorably today.

What did Bush defeat? Oh yeah, the economy. He killed it.
 
So you are against Obama's policy because he is a Democrat president too?

Or can one be against the policy and be a Republican and have the same reasoning as you? Sounds hypocritical in that you say the Republicans are doing something just because its a democrat...and you are saying that the Republicans can only go against Obama, not for any potential sound reasons, but only because he is a Democrat. That is a silly caricature of Republicans, seems democrats are projecting...besides there are several, many Republicans that are on the side of doing something in Syria...so what the heck are you even talking about?
Republicans are silly caricatures, so how else can they be painted? And no, I'm not against Obama's policy because he's a Democrat. His party affiliation has nothing to do with my opinion. A foreign concept to many Conservatives, I know, but my opinion is consistent with how I felt about invading Iraq.
 
You're apparently not familiar with the law in the state where you claim to have lived. As a matter of fact, Gore was following the law, which allowed for a candidate to request a recount in counties where the vote tallies between the two leading candidates was within a very small margin of victory.
I don't claimed to have lived anywhere, I lived there. Yes, it was an equal protection decision, but I guess that particular one I put forward was my own at the time, was my pet peeve in that it would not have been just to have selected particular counties do a recount...of which you can justly reply, that was the law of Florida....which is true. But it seems unjust that only the ones, the counties, the challenger chose, democratic counties where there were different standards all of which were being used to various degrees, would/could be utilized...which is indeed what the Supreme Court did rule on, saying that was not valid constitutionally.

Plus, if you are going to hit me with the law, which you should, I have to hit back in that there was a state constitutional deadline, a safe harbor date, and the Supreme Court of Florida, which is not the legislature, had no power or jurisdiction under state law to amend that date as set in the state Constitution. And it was past that date on the recounts....So, live by the law, die by the law....or in our case, live by the law, live by the law. We win. And guess what...

We actually, in the history books now, did win. Dontcha just love it? I know I do.


Probably very few. First of all, Gore was declared the winner in just one time zone before the polls closed, not two. And that announcement came about 10 minutes before the polls closed in the Panhandle.
Well, at least you are confirming that it happened. Which leads us to the fact that, even if very few, the election was that close and the very few could have made a great difference. And it could have been a whole bunch, we will never know... in any event, the fact is Bush Won. Ha ha ha...thanks for giving me another opportunity to say that, man that makes me smile...truth and good do, it seems, finally triumph.


What did you win? Oh, that's right ... you stuck America with a president who took us to war over WMD which didn't exist, did nothing to prevent the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, left office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started, had the lowest JAR in U.S. history, crashed the stock market, housing markets, credit markets, and left our economy in the worst condition it's been in since the Great Depression.

Good job, rightwinger! :thumbs:

Bush did an amazing job with the hand he was dealt. And give up the Republicans owned these wars... yes the president led, but he also followed. Remember that little matter of the Iraqi regime change law Clinton signed? All that chemical weaponry that the inspectors had inventoried after the First Gulf War that, even with 17 UN resolutions, Iraq could not account for [ those are WMDs and he had had them, now was saying he didn't, blah blah.... you folks are so full of horse droppings on this stuff...

And you forget that it was the spending promoted by the Democrats that we, the right, held our legislators and GW accountable for, booted a lot of them mid term, that led to all that crap you so aptly describe. Barney, Dodd, Reid, Kennedy, Obama all asking too much and keeping us from policing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, wrong thread to go into such detail, but its all there, have argued it unbeaten many a time.

So, way to go left wingers. :thumbs: ;)

Oh, and just to remind you, in case you had somehow forgotten....BUSH WON. :lamo
 
Wait ... what ... ??? There was no surplus?

Then was Bush lying when he became president and said he was cutting taxes to "give back" money from the surplus to the people who were "overcharged?"


"Finally, along with funding our priorities and paying down debt, my plan returns about one out of every four dollars of the surplus to the American taxpayers, who created the surplus in the first place. A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged. And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." ~ George Bush, 2.24.2001

So the justification for the tax cuts at the time was because there was a surplus, but now you're saying there was no surplus, i.e., there was no justification for the tax cuts. I sure wish righties could provide some semblance of consistency. :roll:
Haven't you learned yet?

If a politicians mouth is moving, he's lying.
 
Gore would have listened to his national security advisers and prevented 9-11. Bush was too busy schmoozing and lobbying for tax cuts for Cheney to worry about governing.

As to 9-11, yep, Gore wouldn't have taken the US down the rat hole of torture and vanity invasions. He is a grown up and loves this country too much to demagogue a tragedy like Bush did. The criminals should have been tried in traffic court, with lawyers, for all the world to see. Instead Bush made them into some kind of elemental force that was a threat to the US. So stupid.

But there you go again, demagoguing like Bush. As if 9-11 meant the end of the US or something. Geez you conservatives are insecure.

Uh huh...
Uh huh, uh huh.
Uh huh, uh huh...

That is it? All you got? Can anybody remind me what the definition of bloviating is? I know this is a dictionary example, but what is the actual definition?
 
Republicans are silly caricatures, so how else can they be painted? And no, I'm not against Obama's policy because he's a Democrat. His party affiliation has nothing to do with my opinion. A foreign concept to many Conservatives, I know, but my opinion is consistent with how I felt about invading Iraq.
Good for you...also why you are here chatting with me...and the people making decisions are where they are.

And your caricature of the Republicans is a caricature come to life of Democrats/libs in action. Just saying.
 
:lamo
You're funny.

Truman defeated the Imperialists. That's why he's looked upon favorably today.

What did Bush defeat? Oh yeah, the economy. He killed it.
Never heard of Saddam I take it... and Bush defeated Gore and Kerry...BUSH WON...thanks, you keep letting me repeat it over and over and over....BUSH WON...:Oopsie :elephantf
 
I don't claimed to have lived anywhere, I lived there. Yes, it was an equal protection decision, but I guess that particular one I put forward was my own at the time, was my pet peeve in that it would not have been just to have selected particular counties do a recount...of which you can justly reply, that was the law of Florida....which is true. But it seems unjust that only the ones, the counties, the challenger chose, democratic counties where there were different standards all of which were being used to various degrees, would/could be utilized...which is indeed what the Supreme Court did rule on, saying that was not valid constitutionally.
It was not an equal protection issue. The evidence of this is plenty. For one, the standards were established prior to the election. If the standards violated equal protection, than that should have been decided then. Secondly, if there actually was an equal protection issue, they would have corrected it for future elections. Instead, they left the election laws in pretty much the same condition as before the 2000 election. Thirdly, even the U.S.S.C. ruled that their decision was a "one-timer" and would not set precedence. Had it truly been an equal protection issue, their decision would have been binding on all elections in every state; they would not apply to that one and only election.

Plus, if you are going to hit me with the law, which you should, I have to hit back in that there was a state constitutional deadline, a safe harbor date, and the Supreme Court of Florida, which is not the legislature, had no power or jurisdiction under state law to amend that date as set in the state Constitution. And it was past that date on the recounts....So, live by the law, die by the law....or in our case, live by the law, live by the law. We win. And guess what...

We actually, in the history books now, did win. Dontcha just love it? I know I do.
Given how badly Bush ****ed America ... no, I don't just love it. Anyone who cares more about America than they care about winning wouldn't love it either.

Well, at least you are confirming that it happened. Which leads us to the fact that, even if very few, the election was that close and the very few could have made a great difference. And it could have been a whole bunch, we will never know... in any event, the fact is Bush Won. Ha ha ha...thanks for giving me another opportunity to say that, man that makes me smile...truth and good do, it seems, finally triumph.
Given it happened with only minutes left until the polls closed, it was likely not a whole bunch. I doubt there were many people still at home with just about 10 minutes until the polls closed who intended on voting anyway that night.

Bush did an amazing job with the hand he was dealt.
WTF??

:lamo :lamo :lamo

Bush was handed an unemployment rate of 4.2%. He turned that into 7.8 (and climbing) when he left. He was handed a budget deficit of 18 billion. He turned that into a budget deficit of 1,017 billion. He was handed a Dow of 10.6K. He turned that into a Dow of 8.3K. He was handed a GDP growing at 2.4%. He left office with a GDP shrinking at 8.9%. So who knows what you're talking about "the hand he was dealt." :roll:

You wanna see a bad hand? Look no further January, 2001. 9% annualized quarterly drop in GDP. 1.2 million jobs lost (that's one month). Foreclosures at an all-time high. A crashing economy which would ultimately cost about 13 trillion dollars.


And give up the Republicans owned these wars... yes the president led, but he also followed. Remember that little matter of the Iraqi regime change law Clinton signed? All that chemical weaponry that the inspectors had inventoried after the First Gulf War that, even with 17 UN resolutions, Iraq could not account for [ those are WMDs and he had had them, now was saying he didn't, blah blah.... you folks are so full of horse droppings on this stuff...
Umm, even Bush finally confessed the WMD for which he invaded weren't there. You must think Bush is one of them "folks are so full of horse droppings on this stuff."

:coffeepap:

And you forget that it was the spending promoted by the Democrats that we, the right, held our legislators and GW accountable for, booted a lot of them mid term, that led to all that crap you so aptly describe. Barney, Dodd, Reid, Kennedy, Obama all asking too much and keeping us from policing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, wrong thread to go into such detail, but its all there, have argued it unbeaten many a time.

So, way to go left wingers.
Ummm, not a penny is spent without the president's approval. And as far policing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- Republicans were the ones who controlled the House and Senate. They were the ones who failed to pass any oversight. Blaming individual members of the minority party doesn't benefit your defense at all.

Oh, and just to remind you, in case you had somehow forgotten....BUSH WON.
So? Republicans won but America lost.
 
Never heard of Saddam I take it... and Bush defeated Gore and Kerry...BUSH WON...thanks, you keep letting me repeat it over and over and over....BUSH WON...:Oopsie :elephantf
Holy ****!!

You're comparing WWII with the war in Iraq???


:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Who was the incompetent that handed Iraq in Iran's direction...ummmmm, begins with an O...no more hints, see if you can figure it out...




#1 -Obama was not in the White House in 2003 When G.W. Bush invaded Iraq which was no threat to the USA.

#2 - G.W. Bush starts with a G.!

You need to get in touch with reality, fella.

Judging from what you have posted it looks like maybe you've OD'ed on the far right kool-aid.

Or maybe the airs too thin up in those mountains and you're not getting enough Oxygen.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
Last edited:
#1 -Obama was not in the White House in 2003 When G.W. Bush invaded Iraq which was no threat to the USA.

#2 - G.W. Bush starts with a G.!

You need to get in touch with reality, fella.

Judging from what you have posted it looks like maybe you've OD'ed on the far right kool-aid.

Or maybe the airs too thin up in those mountains and you're not getting enough Oxygen.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

1. Obama was handed a winning war in Iraq on a silver platter, hard fought and worth saving... anywhere the US goes in and stays its like the Midas touch, it golden...Japan, Germany, South Korea...where we leave it becomes a mess, often a violent mess...Vietnam and Southeast Asia, Lebanon...now Iraq, the middle east.

Best to learn some history so one's positions can sound at least plausible.

2. Sorry, when Bush left Iraq was solidly in the Win column, Obama, due to pressure from the left, screwed the pooch. Just like he does with everything. So, begins with an "O", 15th letter of the alphabet there. Ignore the reality, the 51%, made that dumb mistake after he spent an extra 5T and still has not brought our economy back... he doesn't want it back, he explained to us he does not thing America is exceptional and he is darned well determined to make that a self fulfilling prophecy.

Some people, it is apparent, have not gotten enough oxygen, also begins with an "O", from birth.
 
It was not an equal protection issue. The evidence of this is plenty. For one, the standards were established prior to the election. If the standards violated equal protection, than that should have been decided then. Secondly, if there actually was an equal protection issue, they would have corrected it for future elections. Instead, they left the election laws in pretty much the same condition as before the 2000 election. Thirdly, even the U.S.S.C. ruled that their decision was a "one-timer" and would not set precedence. Had it truly been an equal protection issue, their decision would have been binding on all elections in every state; they would not apply to that one and only election.

Uh, what was the Supreme Court decision again? Huh? And what were the standards that were decided before the elections as described in the law suits and appeals concerning this matter? If you have issues with what the Supreme Court did or did not do afterwards, strive to change it. If not, well...:violin

Given how badly Bush ****ed America ... no, I don't just love it. Anyone who cares more about America than they care about winning wouldn't love it either.
Totally partisan opinion, easily discounted...and if you didn't like it with GW, then I am sure you hate it now under the Obama crushing economic screw up onslaught...right? To be intellectually honest...right?


Given it happened with only minutes left until the polls closed, it was likely not a whole bunch. I doubt there were many people still at home with just about 10 minutes until the polls closed who intended on voting anyway that night.


WTF??

We will never know one way or the other, Bush won even without it. BUSH WON. HA HA HA Ha Ha ha ha ha ha...and you are to this day upset that he won fair and square...

Will take on the rest when I have a bit more time... just too easy tho...:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
1. Obama was handed a winning war in Iraq on a silver platter, hard fought and worth saving... anywhere the US goes in and stays its like the Midas touch, it golden...Japan, Germany, South Korea...where we leave it becomes a mess, often a violent mess...Vietnam and Southeast Asia, Lebanon...now Iraq, the middle east.

Best to learn some history so one's positions can sound at least plausible.

2. Sorry, when Bush left Iraq was solidly in the Win column, Obama, due to pressure from the left, screwed the pooch. Just like he does with everything. So, begins with an "O", 15th letter of the alphabet there. Ignore the reality, the 51%, made that dumb mistake after he spent an extra 5T and still has not brought our economy back... he doesn't want it back, he explained to us he does not thing America is exceptional and he is darned well determined to make that a self fulfilling prophecy.

Some people, it is apparent, have not gotten enough oxygen, also begins with an "O", from birth.
Seriously? You're blaming Obama because he wanted the troops out of Iraq??
 
Hardly, just answered the question is all. Always happy to help anybody, even any flat liners out there, with an easy history lesson. ;)

"Hardly?" That's exactly what you just did. Do you not understand what you post? You ridiculously opined thT Bush will some day be looked upon favorably like Truman. When it's pointed out to you how Truman is viewed favorably because he won WWII (in Asia), you responded with Bush defeating Saddam Hussein.

Who knows how it is you convince yourself that is not comparing WWII with the war in Iraq?
:shrug:
 
The one thing I love about dis pres Obla-bla is how he makes GWB look smarter and smarter and smarter.
Only to those who know little, if anything, about politics.
 
Once G.W. Bush made up his mind to attack Iraq which was no threat to the USA
he never wavered, he kept scratching around until he scraped up enough excuses to convince other pols to join his mad rush to war.

Take a look at the results. The USA gained nothing in Iraq, but lost a lot of American troops and treasure. Iran did gain a shia government in Iraq, so I guess that we can't say that the war was a total loss-it did help Iran.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.


He had the blessing of Democrats and in the 90s Clinton was threatening military action if Saddam didn't rachet down his race towards WMDs and the missles to transport them.

I realize none of this fits your narrative but it's the truth.
 
Back
Top Bottom