|
Post by jwmcc on Feb 5, 2008 9:53:58 GMT -5
"I'm just happy my side of the body politic will be holding on to the White House."
And if they don't this thread will have sig quote worthy material for the next four-six years.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Feb 5, 2008 9:57:32 GMT -5
And when they do win perhaps I will use it myself, for the next four-six.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 5, 2008 10:00:28 GMT -5
If they don't we have a lot more to worry about than sig quotes.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 5, 2008 12:44:13 GMT -5
I am astounded by your characterization of the Bush Presidency, Balls. Absolutely astounded. As I said, prominent members of your party are scrambling to distance themselves from this man, yet you are here trumpeting "Hail To The Chief" for him. Hell, I don't necessarily agree with the ideology behind most Conservative policy-making, but W hasn't even upheld that very well. Notice none of the other participants in this conversation are dumping Gatorade over Shrub's shoulders the way you are. You are right in one area - Bush has accomplished more than JFK - he's accomplished pissing off 67% of the population, butchering a "war on terrorism" that virtually everyone in the country supported at one time, and oversaw the greatest economic turnaround (speaking in terms of volume) in history - only problem is that it was a turnaround in the wrong direction. This is Jason Giambi Sucks Ballsian logic at play again.
You're wrong Tom. I'm not lashing out. I love that the guy who called me a "stupid idiot" is accusing someone of lashing out. You couldn't be more off the mark Tom. If Hilary is the democrat candidate, my only complaint is that she will put the federal government in park for the next 4 years, as she is completely polarizing and Washington will be full of gridlock for the next 4 years. Obama, I still have no idea who this guy is....when he says something substantial, wake me up, so I know which side of the coin he's on. Romney/Huckabee - someone find me some cheap rent in Canada if it means that a religious crackpot will sit in the Oval Office for 4 years. McCain - about the most centrist of all candidates, holds a bit too tightly to the conservative line on some issues, but I can deal with McCain as President.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 5, 2008 13:58:05 GMT -5
Chris--it's not so much about distancing oneself from Bush, and it's not so much about talking UP Bush, as it is talking down JFK who is mistakenly thought of as a much better president than he really was. The JFK presidency for the most part was a disaster. I think he handled the Cuban Missile Crisis brilliantly, and earned another term because of it, and had he lived, he certainly would have been a MUCH better president than LBJ (another disaster), but he didn't live. He died, and his chance to turn it around died with him.
As for Bush's legacy, I think he's done a good job containing the War on Terror off our shores. He lowered taxes, unemployment, and the stock market is better than when he started. He may not be popular, but he's done a lot more than people will ever give him credit for doing.
But he made plenty of mistakes too. After the 2004 election, he had a mandate to do a lot of things, and had the GOP Congress to do it. Nothing got done--except losing the Congress. I don't agree with the soft policy on illegal immigration.
At this point though, the Bush Administration is dead. It has been since the democrats took over Congress. Of course, a year later, and the democrat Congress did absolutely nothing.
This could be one of the better elections in our lifetime--as long as Hillary doesn't get the nod. Like you said--too polarizing.
McCain is far more centrist, and I like that one thing he talks about is cutting spending--which is a staple of the GOP party.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 5, 2008 14:12:21 GMT -5
"talking down JFK who is mistakenly thought of as a much better president than he really was" - you didn't invent this idea, so I'm not gonna go back and forth on this. I think it's inaccurate, but it's arguable.
As for Bush's legacy, I think he's done a good job containing the War on Terror off our shores. He lowered taxes, unemployment, and the stock market is better than when he started. He may not be popular, but he's done a lot more than people will ever give him credit for doing. -- as for this, I couldn't disagree more. Bush has squandered a lot of goodwill toward America and goodwill toward him as a President and the fundamental concept for a war on terrorism through inept mismanagement of what I maintain was once a worthwhile war. As far as unemployment goes - the Bush government has spent frivilously....basically they have purchased all goods from everyone on, on credit, inflating demand, inflating supply, and inflating the need for work. Yeah, ok...you can spin it as a stimulant to the economy, but it's a stimulant with a big cliff to drop off of in the end - in the way of deficit and recession. But, as I see it, I'm sure conservatives will spin it otherwise and actually believe it. I'm confident (or more appropriately saddened) that the Bush Presidency will be historically remembered as a dismal period in American politics. I don't mind people aligning themselves with conservative politics...that's fine...but at least man up and call a spade a spade. Like it or not Republicans, George W Bush is your Jimmy Carter.
Again Tom, I'm not sniping, and Balls, I'm not calling you stupid....but you certainly are a master, like no other I've ever seen, at spinning things to fit your mindset even in the face an army of people shouting to the contrary. That's cool though...I have no issues with this thread...I'm not heated or upset...I just think I approach my civic responsibility of voting in a more micro-managing style. I guess I want to people to vote LIKE me but only for the reasons I see fit, and I want people to vote DIFFERENT than me only for reasons I see legitimate....unreasonable, perhaps, but I think I'm right! HA!!!!
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Feb 5, 2008 14:17:07 GMT -5
Bush has squandered a lot of goodwill toward America
Who the Hell cares?
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 5, 2008 14:17:37 GMT -5
Yeah, NO SHIT, Balls! You're exactly right - cutting spending is a staple of GOP politics, and W has done anything but.
Again, I maintain that centrist (from either party) always make for the better Presidents.
Regardless of how well (or poor) I think Ronald Reagan was as a President in terms of how his economic strategies manifested themselves in the long run....during his Presidency he at least appeared centrist, he was a tremendous unifier, and this country was prosperous under his thumb. I only wish he had more concern for the country's prosperity beyond his Presidency, but the point is he played the centrist role and enjoyed a great deal of success with it.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Feb 5, 2008 14:17:39 GMT -5
I think Carter fared much better post president than he expected. I actually like him now, but thought he sucked when he was in office.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 5, 2008 14:19:32 GMT -5
I will chalk that up to sarcasm Tom.
This is not "A Bronx Tale" and we are not the world's Sonny LoSpecchio
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 5, 2008 14:22:28 GMT -5
That is the nature of the Presidency, Pete.
Presidents are often fondly remembered well after the fact.
Believe it or not, Jimmy Carter is quite a bright fellow and actually had a strong economic ideas- his problem was that he instilled zero confidence, he was a bit mousy, he was unable to unify and rally the public (as well as the Senate and Congress) and his complete lack of a compelling personality basically rendered him useless.....smart guy but a dismal failure nonetheless. This country would have undoubtedly been better off if Ford had won that election.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 5, 2008 14:50:46 GMT -5
Not everything you disagree with is spin. Some things just are what they are. Just because the liberal media demonized him, doesn't make Bush as bad as people make him out to be. As for spending, you're right about that, and it's one of the problems I have with the administration. Frivilous governmental spending is something democrats do.
Ronald Reagan was many things--but I wouldn't call him a centrist. He was just a brilliant speaker and genuine.
I'm curious as to where Reagan appears centrist to you.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 5, 2008 15:13:20 GMT -5
"Not everything you disagree with is spin." -- Umm, I understand this Balls
"Some things just are what they are." -- but respectfully, in your case, most of anything that comes from your mouth (keyboard) in your mind is a case of things just being the way they are. You definitely come across as having the idea that you are mostly an one-man island of all that is right and the overwhelming majority of people are wrong because they simply don't comprehend the real issues as well as you do. This can be said for Jason Giambi, numerous other baseball issues, and frankly politics. You are the only one, out of democrats and Republicans alike, trying to "spin" W as this misunderstood unfairly demonized poor soul. Gimme a break - the guy is a flop and most of your own party either openly or subtly admits it. He's a liability to the electability of your future candidates and the further and faster they distance themselves from him, the better.
As far as Reagan in concerned, you don't remember very clearly if you don't recall that he largely governed from a centrist point. Reagan was able to instill confidence and enact much legislation through a Democrat Congress. The size of federal governing increased significantly under Reagan (not a trademark in any way whatsover of GOP politics). Reagan never actively pursued a reversal of Roe v Wade, he raised taxes at one point(which is sometimes a bitter pill to swallow, but sometimes it has to be done). He pursued diplomacy with Soviet Union (something that his uber-conservative supporters took great umbrage with) despite his outlandish spending on the arms race, and even though he was the ultimate purveyor of "Voodoo Economics" a lot of his economic policy transcended party lines in particular his (attempt) at shoring up tax loopholes that dissuaded money hoarding - unfortunately the efforts weren't enough and certain types of hoarding money (edit) by the rich rather than reinvesting proved to be the downfall of his supply-side policy - but he tried nonetheless.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Feb 5, 2008 15:28:47 GMT -5
Questioner calls Bush 'the bastard,' Hillary Clinton smilesOver the weekend there was an as yet little-noticed incident in Bridgeton, Mo., just outside St. Louis. Sen. Hillary Clinton addressed a town hall meeting there and was taking questions from the audience.
One elderly woman rose and was asking the Democratic candidate about a rumored economic union among the United States, Canada and Mexico that is widely discussed, feared and abhorred among conspiracy fanciers. The woman said the president planned to implement the secret agreement in 2010.
Then the woman called the president "Bush the bastard."
The Democratic crowd immediately roared its approval.
Sen. Clinton nodded her head slightly and smiled.
Then, she proceeded to ...
answer the question, saying "there's not a lot of truth to it." Our colleagues over at the Swamp have posted Glenn Thrush's detailed account of the incident, which you can read here.
It'll be interesting to see if Clinton's silent assent to that crude comment arouses as much criticism and controversy as last year when a Republican woman in South Carolina asked Sen. John McCain about Clinton, calling her "the bitch."
At the time, CNN showed a video clip of the incident and strongly criticized McCain for not admonishing the woman, although the candidate did say belatedly that he respected the New York senator.latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/maria.html
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 5, 2008 15:31:07 GMT -5
Actually, you might have a point--if this board were actually representative of the world, when it isn't. In the case of Giambi, if you think I'm the only one who sees him for the bum he is, you are mistaken. The overwhelming majority of the people are not anti-Republican in ideals.
You also forget one important thing about Reagan--unlike the every election starting in 1992, Reagan was elected not just with a landslide, but an overwhelming landslide. When the people speak like that, you get your agenda through far more often than not, even with a Congress controlled by democrats.
One thing about this election is that running on the theme of "change" isn't exactly accurate. No matter WHO gets in, no one has any connection to the Bush Administration. Change is a 100 percent certainty.
Reagan also CUT taxes, and was able to pursue diplomacy with the USSR because he showed them the strength of the US and forced them to the table. What some people call money hoarding, others call savings.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 5, 2008 15:47:54 GMT -5
That's exactly my point Balls. The whole concept of the "Reagan Democrat" was no small potatoes....he governed from a centrist standpoint, and his appeal transcended party lines - thus centrist, thus my point about Reagan.
I am not arguing against savings, ok. But if you truly understand the concept of Supply-Side economics, an economic policy that has become the trademark of "Reagan Republicans" you would know that savings in lieu of the reinvesting in the economy is the kiss of death. You can read any online essay on Supply-Side economics and see that the fundamental idea relies on spending, not saving. Reagan, in 1986 Tax Reforms, tried his best to actually discourage savings...this isn't me talking, this is history talking. If you like the idea of saving versus spending then you fundamentally disagree with your party's hardline economic stance, which says give bigger tax cuts to the rich (who primarily represent business ownership) and they will use those savings to reinvest in business. Your beloved George Steinbrenner is the greatest example of successful Supply-Side economics at work - he routinely reinvests his profits into the business.
Putting money aside for a rainy day (IRAs, 401ks, stocks, bonds, etc) is fine...but hoarding every disposable cent is not conducive to the economy, and in the 1980s the richest people in this nation did not reinvest thus spelling doom for Reaganomics. Now I have eased up on Reagan for this - initially I had him painted as a shyster out to line the pockets of the the rich by fleecing the middle and lower class with tax breaks only aimed at the rich with no regard to the future effects on the economy. But further enlightenment has shown that Reagan not only believed in fundamental Supply-Side economics, but he tirelessly tried to encourage those most benefited by tax breaks to follow the concept of Supply-Side and reinvest, which didn't happen to any significant extent.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 5, 2008 15:49:53 GMT -5
"Actually, you might have a point--if this board were actually representative of the world, when it isn't. In the case of Giambi, if you think I'm the only one who sees him for the bum he is, you are mistaken. The overwhelming majority of the people are not anti-Republican in ideals."
No, but at LEAST 67% of society are vehemently opposed to W, with a large portion of the remaining 33% being ambivalent, which leaves a shrinking minority espousing his virtues the way you are.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Feb 5, 2008 16:36:28 GMT -5
41 is the only one who thinks Bush is doing an awesome job, and we have nothing to worry about, even the recession.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 5, 2008 16:39:18 GMT -5
There's a recession?
Wow, and all this time Mitt Romney has been telling me that this is a prime "buying opportunity."
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Feb 5, 2008 17:07:35 GMT -5
it is a buying opportunity, if you have money.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 5, 2008 17:18:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 5, 2008 17:29:20 GMT -5
Yeah, the point is, Mitt Romney is such an out-of-touch cocksucker that he chose to, in a national forum, minimize and trivialize the plight of real honest hard-working Americans who stand a very real chance of financially perishing under these economic times by flippantly saying, "Hey, look on the bright side...now is a great buying opportunity." What a cocksucker.
“I can tell you from my own personal experience that every time I’ve seen things really get scary and the markets really collapse that I put aside that fear for a moment and say, ‘Ah-ha, is this a buying opportunity?’ Because my experience has always been what goes down, comes back up,” the former Massachusetts governor said in Boca Raton, Fla.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 5, 2008 18:38:53 GMT -5
I doubt he's getting the nod, so he isn't a threat. But still, he's infinitely better than Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 5, 2008 18:43:21 GMT -5
Why not just add it to your sig quote.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Feb 5, 2008 18:52:36 GMT -5
“I can tell you from my own personal experience that every time I’ve seen things really get scary and the markets really collapse that I put aside that fear for a moment and say, ‘Ah-ha, is this a buying opportunity?’ Because my experience has always been what goes down, comes back up,” the former Massachusetts governor said in Boca Raton, Fla.
Eh, what exactly is the problem here? And I am asking this as a McCain man, I could give a flip for Romney at this point.
He is really just pointing at his experience in turning things around, I hear this same talk at company regional meetings regarding turning around sales numbers.
Stop seeing phantoms lurking around every corner. Its funny you spend so much time trying to whittle down Romney when the real problem is someone you are avidly defending on here, in Hillary Clinton.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Feb 5, 2008 18:53:08 GMT -5
“I can tell you from my own personal experience that every time I’ve seen things really get scary and the markets really collapse that I put aside that fear for a moment and say, ‘Ah-ha, is this a buying opportunity?’ Because my experience has always been what goes down, comes back up,” the former Massachusetts governor said in Boca Raton, Fla.
Eh, what exactly is the problem here? And I am asking this as a McCain man, I could give a flip for Romney at this point.
He is really just pointing at his experience in turning things around, I hear this same talk at company regional meetings regarding turning around sales numbers.
Stop seeing phantoms lurking around every corner. Its funny you spend so much time trying to whittle down Romney when the real problem is someone you are avidly defending on here, in Hillary Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 5, 2008 19:06:57 GMT -5
I f you think I am avidly defending Clinton and throwing my support behind her, then you haven't read anything I've written. You're like Woody Harrelson in White Men Can't Jump. "You don't HEAR Jimmy, you only listen to Jimmy."
He is pointing out his experience in turning things around? Great advice coming from a guy whose net worth is somewhere around 30 million. You know who's recession proof and has the ability to view a dismal economy as a "buying opportunity?" Guys worth 30 million, that's who. That doesn't do squat for a guy living in middle America pulling in 40 grand a year who is afraid that his house is going to be foreclosed. It's insulting Tom...insulting to people who have a real reason to fear for their economic well-being given the current state of the economy. I am happy for you that this is not your fear, but show at least a little compassion toward the overall greater good.
I'm not sure what this issue is that you have with people discussing things on the message board that you deem even slightly less significant than earth shattering news? Yeah, OK, Romney is pretty much a non-factor at this point...does that mean Romney and the silly-ass things he says are off-limits?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 5, 2008 19:07:10 GMT -5
“I can tell you from my own personal experience that every time I’ve seen things really get scary and the markets really collapse that I put aside that fear for a moment and say, ‘Ah-ha, is this a buying opportunity?’ Because my experience has always been what goes down, comes back up,” the former Massachusetts governor said in Boca Raton, Fla.
Eh, what exactly is the problem here? And I am asking this as a McCain man, I could give a flip for Romney at this point.
He is really just pointing at his experience in turning things around, I hear this same talk at company regional meetings regarding turning around sales numbers.
Stop seeing phantoms lurking around every corner. Its funny you spend so much time trying to whittle down Romney when the real problem is someone you are avidly defending on here, in Hillary Clinton.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 5, 2008 19:08:15 GMT -5
And what do you think the Clinton's net worth is at $100000 a speech? Not to mention the money they took in selling out the White House.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 5, 2008 19:21:35 GMT -5
OK, so what's your point Balls. You REALLY spin doctor the shit out of this stuff don't you?
Am I faulting Mitt Romney for being worth 30 mill? No, I'm faulting him for running for President and blatantly saying things in a national forum that show just how out of touch and insensitive he is to the economic concerns of regular Americans. No Clinton has ever said anything that insulting - they AT LEAST had the social wherewithal to act like they understand."
No Clinton has ever told me, "Hey don't worry about the shitty economy, go pick yourself up a new home and a couple large in Amazon stock....now's the time!!!!"
Gotta love it, this red herring malarky to slander anyone named Clinton at all costs has been going on forever. I point out something ridiculous said by a Republican Candidate completely unrelated to anyone named Clinton, yet somehow a correlation is made in the name of the conservative agenda of slagging the Clintons at all costs. What's next...I'm waiting to hear how the current recession is somehow due in large part to Bill's infidelity. I've got news for the Republican party....you're not gonna progress as long as your agenda remains to retro-downgrade the Clinton Presidency 8 years after the fact. We get it...you didn't like the guy who was President LAST decade, nor do you like his "fat-ankled-bitch-wife."
Look, I'm not voting for Hilary, and she's NO William Jefferson Clinton, so stop trying to convince me why she should be president with words like "cunt" and "carpetbagger" and "bitch." I've already made up my mind, some time ago, based on a real evaluation of the issues and the potential of being an effective leader, that neither Barack Obama nor Hilary Clinton are my candidates of choice...but it's not because one is a "bitch" and one is a "negro."
|
|