Dem's flat out Lie about the 100 year war.

[CNorris]

Expect the Democrats to throw lies about McCain and the 100 year war. Be prepared to witness one of the most dishonest and desperate political attacks in US history.
Here is the truth about the 100 year war accusation.


"McCain never actually went so far as to call for a century-long occupation. Rather, in response to a New Hampshire town hall questioner who asked about President Bush’s statement that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 50 years, McCain interrupted and said, “Make it 100.”

“We've been in South Korea ... we’ve been in Japan for 60 years,” he continued. “We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’s fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day."

The point he was making is really postwar. He’s not even taken a position,” said Mark Salter, McCain’s top adviser. “He’s trying to explain whether you could have a presence, a base, in Iraq after war, and the American people would accept it. His argument always was, 'If we are not taking casualties, well, they’ve accepted it in Japan, Korea and Germany.'”

 

[warnerve]

this is good info. mccain has been portrayed as some sort of insane war mongerer for the 100 year comment. if the current level of activity took place for another 100 years, I don't think there'd be an Iraq left whatsoever.------

 

[CNorris]

The fact people can take this out of context is absolutely startling.
Liberals do not seem to understand we have troops stationed all over the world and we will have troops stationed there long after combat operations end.

McCain's mistake was overestimating the voting public's intelligence level. He should have dumbed it down so the liberals can understand. They aren't exactly tuned into reality so you need to explain things they don't want to understand even slower.

 

[CryingEmo]

The fact people can take this out of context is absolutely startling.
Liberals do not seem to understand we have troops stationed all over the world and we will have troops stationed there long after combat operations end.

McCain's mistake was overestimating the voting public's intelligence level. He should have dumbed it down so the liberals can understand. They aren't exactly tuned into reality so you need to explain things they don't want to understand even slower.

What I find startling is all the dead people in Iraq.

 

[cord195148]

What most people don't understand about Iraq is that it is, and always has been, a tribal war. I worked with an Iraqi who informed me that the tribes were fighting one hundred years ago. They are fighting now. They will be fighting one hundred years from now. His family got out after the Gulf war, because they are Christians. He said even his Muslim friends he grew up with from childhood will never trust him because of his faith. Nothing we have done or will do, is going to make a difference.

 

[CryingEmo]

What most people don't understand about Iraq is that it is, and always has been, a tribal war. I worked with an Iraqi who informed me that the tribes were fighting one hundred years ago. They are fighting now. They will be fighting one hundred years from now. His family got out after the Gulf war, because they are Christians. He said even his Muslim friends he grew up with from childhood will never trust him because of his faith. Nothing we have done or will do, is going to make a difference.

True, the situation is so complicated with the sunni's, shiites, kurds, iranians, turks, and now the addition of radical muslims, that most people can barely wrap their mind around it, so how do they expect to make informed judgements about it?

 

[Chad]

it doesn`t really matter what mccain says. he isn`t going to win

 

[CNorris]

it doesn`t really matter what mccain says. he isn`t going to win

:toofunny:

Thats just flat out funny.

Obama swift boated himself by having the most influential philosophical mentor in his adult life a racist hateful anti-Semite America hater that puts pro-terrorist hamas writings in his church newsletter.

Hillary I dont need to even specify.

The Democratic uncivil war will leave the Democratic candidate battered. A shocking number of Obama and Hillary voters are saying they will not vote for the opposing Democratic candidate. Im talking numbers of about 20-30% on both sides. If even 15% of these people are serious come November, the Democrats have lost.

Independants are polling for McCain 2:1 over any Democrat and Obama can not carry the white male vote after he was exposed with the Rev. Wright issue. Just wait until his ties to the 60's domestic terrorist group the weather underground is exposed. Wait until his wife's hatred and America bashing rhetoric is further exposed. Wait until Obama's empty call for unity is exposed by the fact he is the most partisans liberal in the senate and has not sponsored, written or voted for any piece of bi-partisan piece of legislation. Wait until the American people see a huge leap in Iraqi elections in October, get wind of the successes in Iraq like the budget being passed, all 3 main factions now participating in the gov't. THe people will realize we are winning and there is light at the end of the tunnel. They last thing the American public wants is all our effort to be wasteful and to see a bloodbath in Iraq because Obama pulled out irresponsibly.

McCain has sponsored more bi-partisan legislation, participated in more bi-partisan committees and even written very significant bi-partisan bills. The American public wants a candidate that puts American progress and getting things done ahead of his own party's ideology. That candidate is clearly John McCain.

 

[Chad]

:toofunny:

Thats just flat out funny.

Obama swift boated himself by having the most influential philosophical mentor in his adult life a racist hateful anti-Semite America hater that puts pro-terrorist hamas writings in his church newsletter.

Hillary I dont need to even specify.

The Democratic uncivil war will leave the Democratic candidate battered. A shocking number of Obama and Hillary voters are saying they will not vote for the opposing Democratic candidate. Im talking numbers of about 20-30% on both sides. If even 15% of these people are serious come November, the Democrats have lost.

Independants are polling for McCain 2:1 over any Democrat and Obama can not carry the white male vote after he was exposed with the Rev. Wright issue. Just wait until his ties to the 60's domestic terrorist group the weather underground is exposed. Wait until his wife's hatred and America bashing rhetoric is further exposed. Wait until Obama's empty call for unity is exposed by the fact he is the most partisans liberal in the senate and has not sponsored, written or voted for any piece of bi-partisan piece of legislation. Wait until the American people see a huge leap in Iraqi elections in October, get wind of the successes in Iraq like the budget being passed, all 3 main factions now participating in the gov't. THe people will realize we are winning and there is light at the end of the tunnel. They last thing the American public wants is all our effort to be wasteful and to see a bloodbath in Iraq because Obama pulled out irresponsibly.

McCain has sponsored more bi-partisan legislation, participated in more bi-partisan committees and even written very significant bi-partisan bills. The American public wants a candidate that puts American progress and getting things done ahead of his own party's ideology. That candidate is clearly John McCain.

glad you think thats funny. but if you really think americans would put another republican in office then thats :lol: also.

 

[CNorris]

glad you think thats funny. but if you really think americans would put another republican in office then thats :lol: also.

Bush is hardly a republican. Republicans would not put him in the office again either.

McCain is smart enough to employ a strategy for winning and ending the war in Iraq, cut taxes AND spending unlike Bush and stimulate the economy by giving business an incentive to invest locally because their taxes wont be such a burden they are forced to move overseas to turn a profit.

Bush nearly ruined the Republican party but McCain is moderate enough to get elected overwhelmingly and the party will only be more reinvigorated and this party will be here as long as Americans still believe we are a noble nation and we should be a capitalist nation.

 

[Chad]

Bush is hardly a republican. Republicans would not put him in the office again either.

McCain is smart enough to employ a strategy for winning and ending the war in Iraq, cut taxes AND spending unlike Bush and stimulate the economy by giving business an incentive to invest locally because their taxes wont be such a burden they are forced to move overseas to turn a profit.

Bush nearly ruined the Republican party but McCain is moderate enough to get elected overwhelmingly and the party will only be more reinvigorated and this party will be here as long as Americans still believe we are a noble nation and we should be a capitalist nation.

i agree that mccain is a lot better than bush. but a lot of people are just going to see him as a republican. and with all this hype over a having a black man in office i dont think mccain really stands a chance even if he would do a better job. thats all im saying.

 

[CryingEmo]

Bush is hardly a republican. Republicans would not put him in the office again either.

McCain is smart enough to employ a strategy for winning and ending the war in Iraq, cut taxes AND spending unlike Bush and stimulate the economy by giving business an incentive to invest locally because their taxes wont be such a burden they are forced to move overseas to turn a profit.

Bush nearly ruined the Republican party but McCain is moderate enough to get elected overwhelmingly and the party will only be more reinvigorated and this party will be here as long as Americans still believe we are a noble nation and we should be a capitalist nation.

Hopefully he doesn't allow government bailouts of companies like Bear Stearns.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Hopefully he doesn't allow government bailouts of companies like Bear Stearns.

That's such a narrow view of things. Bailing out Bear Stearns actually helped your average Joe maintain some sort of equity in his home. If these investment banks weren't bailed out, the credit crisis would be much worse sending the prices of homes (and middle class equity and their 401k's) in the tank increasing the chances of a prolonged recession while killing their retirement funds..

What people seem to forget is that regulation caused this problem by the amending (in 1995) of the CRA act of 1977. This brilliant liberal philosophy create sub prime and no doc loans so that low and moderate income borrows could buy homes. This created a huge secondary mortgage industry selling bad loans to people who couldn't afford them. If they never enacted the CRA and made amendments in 95 in the first place, you would have never had the sub prime crisis or the massive amounts of investment capital pumped into the real estate market.


So its really funny hearing Democrats complain about the sub prime crisis and what the current administration didn't do when the problem was created by Democrat policies in the first place.

..but you won't hear that on CNN.

 

[CNorris]

That's such a narrow view of things. Bailing out Bear Stearns actually helped your average Joe maintain some sort of equity in his home. If these investment banks weren't bailed out, the credit crisis would be much worse sending the prices of homes (and middle class equity and their 401k's) in the tank increasing the chances of a prolonged recession while killing their retirement funds..

What people seem to forget is that regulation caused this problem by the amending (in 1995) of the CRA act of 1977. This brilliant liberal philosophy create sub prime and no doc loans so that low and moderate income borrows could buy homes. This created a huge secondary mortgage industry selling bad loans to people who couldn't afford them. If they never enacted the CRA and made amendments in 95 in the first place, you would have never had the sub prime crisis or the massive amounts of investment capital pumped into the real estate market.


So its really funny hearing Democrats complain about the sub prime crisis and what the current administration didn't do when the problem was created by Democrat policies in the first place.

..but you won't hear that on CNN.

:goodpost:

 

[B5150]

That's such a narrow view of things. Bailing out Bear Stearns actually helped your average Joe maintain some sort of equity in his home. If these investment banks weren't bailed out, the credit crisis would be much worse sending the prices of homes (and middle class equity and their 401k's) in the tank increasing the chances of a prolonged recession while killing their retirement funds..

What people seem to forget is that regulation caused this problem by the amending (in 1995) of the CRA act of 1977. This brilliant liberal philosophy create sub prime and no doc loans so that low and moderate income borrows could buy homes. This created a huge secondary mortgage industry selling bad loans to people who couldn't afford them. If they never enacted the CRA and made amendments in 95 in the first place, you would have never had the sub prime crisis or the massive amounts of investment capital pumped into the real estate market.


So its really funny hearing Democrats complain about the sub prime crisis and what the current administration didn't do when the problem was created by Democrat policies in the first place.

..but you won't hear that on CNN.

Thank you!

I'll admit up front that I am ignorant to many aspects of politics and what is really going on.

*note the bold above*

Low and moderate income people (insert "should") live in low and moderate income homes. It's called living within your means.

When I bought the home I live in I could qualify for a lot more than I borrowed. But I chose to live within my means.

The only impact that this mortgage/housing crisis has made on me is that it has reduced the equity in my home maybe even by half. But it was an inflated equity.

I wont lie, I regret not selling my house for twice what I owed when I could. But I would have still taken that equity, put as much down as I could have, to achieve the same loan payment (same principle on the new loan) and lived within my means at maybe a little higher standard of living as far as home goes.

I have a tradition 30yr fixed low interest mortgage so I am not effected by any of this other than the collateral inflation and increased cost of living that has now come from this recession.

My wife and I both have FICO scores in the 800's and are very capable of qualifying and maybe could make a mortgage payment of 50% to even 100% more than I do now. But that would be irresponsible. So I don't do it.

I shake my head sometimes and try to figure out how some guy making $45K a year is living in a $350k home driving two brand new SUV's...one of which is towing a 22' boat. I understand now

So now I watch the little investment (and profits) that I able to make for my retirement while living within my means dwindle away. Fortunately my company matches 50% of the first 6%.

I guess what I am not understanding is why would our government (democrats) do such a thing in the first place? Was the huge secondary mortgage industry created as a result of the amendment to the act or did a small secondary mortgage industry pressure and lobby and send kickbacks to our (democratic) government to enact this amendment so that they could become a huge industry?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I guess what I am not understanding is why would our government (democrats) do such a thing in the first place? Was the huge secondary mortgage industry created as a result of the amendment to the act or did a small secondary mortgage industry pressure and lobby and send kickbacks to our (democratic) government to enact this amendment so that they could become a huge industry?

Because its follows the same path/idea as income redistribution. Its in the "greater good" for people to be able to get mortgages for houses (which in turn increases the amount of property tax collected while increasing surrounding property values). What they didn't count on was people exploiting the system both on the lending and borrowing end (gee, THAT never happens ). Its just another example of regulation based on ideology rather than reality. Instead of trickle down economics which puts the burden of smart investing in the hands of the wealthy (which makes some sense) its trickle up economics putting the burden of making smart investing on the low-middle class which as you can see, doesnt work. That's Democratic big government for you in a nutshell.

Once it gets started, prices are based on more perception than reality (same as oil and gold now....its not really based on supply and demand but perception and speculation).

The problem is now the government is almost forced to step and in try to correct the error because its not a free market problem that created it, but a regulation one.



B, love the avi...Eddie the Ed lives on...Up the Irons!

 

[CryingEmo]

That's such a narrow view of things. Bailing out Bear Stearns actually helped your average Joe maintain some sort of equity in his home. If these investment banks weren't bailed out, the credit crisis would be much worse sending the prices of homes (and middle class equity and their 401k's) in the tank increasing the chances of a prolonged recession while killing their retirement funds..

It just seems like corporate wellfare to me. I mean a corporation plays the capitalism game, but if they get in trouble, they get alot of tax dollars. Seems like socialism to me...


The CEO immediately sold his shares worth 65 million and hired a body guard... lol. There goes 65 million tax dollars...


I'm not disagreeing that it did provide some help to the market. I'm open to new ideas.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

McCain's mistake was overestimating the voting public's intelligence level.

This is a sad, but true, comment. The voting public is very easily propagandized with fluffy well-wishes, catch phrases, and fear mongering.

That being said our three choices for candidates are all douches. However, McCain is a strawberry flavored douche so I may just have to go with that one from lack of a better option.

I truly think this election is worse, for me, than Kerry v. Bush.:rant:

 

[CNorris]

This is a sad, but true, comment. The voting public is very easily propagandized with fluffy well-wishes, catch phrases, and fear mongering.

That being said our three choices for candidates are all douches. However, McCain is a strawberry flavored douche so I may just have to go with that one from lack of a better option.

I truly think this election is worse, for me, than Kerry v. Bush.:rant:

Bush nearly single handedly ruined the Republican party. I'm not necessarily saying it is all his fault, but a 4+ years of a very media freidnly republican will go a long way in restoring the party's image so we can have many more years of republican leadership in the future. Even though McCain is dead wrong about global warming and a few other issues, he has more integrity than almost anyone in the senate and he will cut taxes and spending unlike Bush.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

IMHO Bush didn't ruin the republican party, the republican party ruined the republican party--he just happen to be their representative in chief!

And, again, I don't like McCain, but I hate him less than Hillary or Obama (well, I don't hate Obama, I just think he'll be a horrible president).

 

[B5150]

B, love the avi...Eddie the Ed lives on...Up the Irons!

Knew you would

You just made me think about changing my name to E5150!

Here is some metal trivia for you: We know what B is for and we know what 5150 is.

E5150 is not (mine) original. Do you know what E5150 is and what it means?

I'll give you two hints: Man on a Silver Mountain, Mob Rules.

If you google it it will give it away in a heart beat.

 

[Chad]

IMHO Bush didn't ruin the republican party, the republican party ruined the republican party--he just happen to be their representative in chief!

And, again, I don't like McCain, but I hate him less than Hillary or Obama (well, I don't hate Obama, I just think he'll be a horrible president).

agreed on the first part. if they wanted to stop him from screwing things up they could have.

as far as hating all 3. does that mean you`ll not vote or vote for mccain?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

It just seems like corporate wellfare to me. I mean a corporation plays the capitalism game, but if they get in trouble, they get alot of tax dollars. Seems like socialism to me...

Its not a capitalism game when regulation forces banks to give out loans to low and middle income people to maintain a "score" to appease politicans and a regulated ranking system. Do you think banks were happy to be forced into making risky loans in the 90's? The housing bubble and problems were caused by something that was NOT capitalism. If government breaks the system, sometimes government has to fix the system. To try and simplify it into a Democratic or Republican talking point ignores reality.

Socialism is Hillary wanting to bailout the people who can't make their mortgage payment because it was the "evil" corporation that "persuaded" people into signing the contract


One solution helps retain liquidity and equity where it belongs (bailing out Bear Sterns), the other punishes banks for something they were forced into by legislation to do anyway. Government bureaucracy at its best.

And really, we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world so if you want to talk about corporate welfare, ask Europe and see how they are doing.

The CEO immediately sold his shares worth 65 million and hired a body guard... lol. There goes 65 million tax dollars...

So what...the guy probably made them 100x more than that in his lifetime. I don't balk at the idea that some people get really really rich....and the bailout was mostly to insure people they didn't go under and peoples actual money (investment accounts) weren't lost. The stock price means nothing and it certainly isn't worth $2 a share. Thats a complete joke.

I'm not disagreeing that it did provide some help to the market. I'm open to new ideas.

Its not new ideas....its economics that most people who repeat political talking points don't seem to get.


Bailing out the banks actually gives you a chance to fix the situation. Bailing out the people who took the loans will cause such a **** storm in the financial system that you will have double digit interest rates, severe credit restrictions (its already been increased with 3 years of w2 income verification) and banks will not offer mortgages like they could.

The debt is out there...if you want to take a pure free market approach to a problem that was caused by regulation then you better be ready for a world of hurt. If you let these large banks go under, you will hurt more "average joes" much worse than anything else being proposed.

 

[The Paper Route]

McCain = Anti-Gun Trash

 

[Jayhawkk]

Fukk em all, let the interest rate sort em out!

 

[Dwight Schrute]

McCain = Anti-Gun Trash

 

[kwyckemynd00]

agreed on the first part. if they wanted to stop him from screwing things up they could have.

as far as hating all 3. does that mean you`ll not vote or vote for mccain?

I'm afraid of the other two more so than McCain, so I'll begrudgingly vote for him.

 

[DougMan]

McCain's mistake was overestimating the voting public's intelligence level. He should have dumbed it down so the liberals can understand. They aren't exactly tuned into reality so you need to explain things they don't want to understand even slower.

That has to be the most ironic thing I have read all year.

Don't worry just a few more months in Iraq and it will turn around! </sarcasm>

 

[CNorris]

That has to be the most ironic thing I have read all year.

Don't worry just a few more months in Iraq and it will turn around! </sarcasm>

If you have something to say, say it. Anyone that thinks pulling out of Iraq is even an option attempting to belittle someone else's intellectual capacity is like Rosie O'Donnell giving fitness advice.

 

[Chad]

is like Rosie O'Donnell giving fitness advice.

HEY! i hear she can deadlift A LOT!!!:donut:

 

[Brooklyn]

Um...

McCain is a warmongering liberal and big government fascist who knows nothing about the economy. Obama and Clinton, big government socialists. None of them will reduce the size and scope of government or its intervention in personal affairs.

Haven't you people ever heard of Ron Paul?

 

[CNorris]

McCain is a warmongering liberal and big government fascist who knows nothing about the economy. Obama and Clinton, big government socialists. None of them will reduce the size and scope of government or its intervention in personal affairs.

Haven't you people ever heard of Ron Paul?

Cut and run Ron who is living in the 1700's? Cut and run Ron failed. Just like he wants the US to fail in Iraq. Calling McCain a war monger because he understands the gravity of a nuclear armed Iran and understand the devastating consequence of cutting and running in Iraq is simplistic to say the least.

Cut and run Ron is a failure. I could never support the candidate of the nazi's, 911 conspiracy theorists and every far right nut job group on the face of the earth.

 

[WannaBeHulk]

thank god there are republicans here! i work in the media industry and argue these points every week with ignorant co-workers. i think the least educated voters support obama. i've heard, "he's an idealist" and "he'll unite the country." having the most liberal voting record in the country is not going to accomplish any of his claims.

as for bear stearns, the bailout was necessary. If they filed for bankruptcy, it would have been a global meltdown. stock markets would have crashed so hard as all faith in the financial sector would have been lost. and i blame alan greenspan for the housing crises. cutting interest rates to 1% allowed for people to bid competitively for houses driving prices sky-high. it was just a matter of time before the market corrected itself.

and for those democrat bush haters. are you aware that Congress (majority democrat) has a lower approval rating than Bush?

 

[Chad]

and for those democrat bush haters. are you aware that Congress (majority democrat) has a lower approval rating than Bush?

oh so that makes Bush a good guy then?

i think the Devil might have a lower approval ratings than AIDS. but i`ll have to check Fox News.

The dems have tried to pass new bills and get sh!t moving but the republican members of the house and senate always screw it up by not voting for it. OR if it does get passed in the house then Bush will veto it.
so how are they supposed to get anything done and thus improve thier approval rating?

Do you approve of the overall job Bush has done????


FYI- there are A LOT of republican Bush haters too buddy.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

so how are they supposed to get anything done and thus improve thier approval rating?

You could stop the war tomorrow by cutting the funding. They don't need approval for that. They hold the purse strings just like they did in Vietnam.

They could end the war tomorrow but choose not to.



The Democrat party shouts anti-war all the time but when faced to pull the troops out and stop funding, they choke. If you look at Obama's and Hillary plan they say the "want" to pull troops out but if violence breaks out again they will send troops BACK IN. Ask anyone on the ground over there what happens when they leave and the answer is unanimous....violence will break out. Its completely naive and ignorant to think Obama or Clinton will pull troops out and let the TV flash images of Iraqi's dying because we left. They are not going to pull another Vietnam (and repeat the killing fields) because it took them 20 years to get over that. They will use anti-war to get elected then be everything BUT anti-war. Congress did it, the next President (if Democrat) will do the same.

The knock on Bush and this whole administration was that it DIDN'T listen to the military. They made the same mistake they did in Vietnam....they let politicians run a war. Now that the actual military is running things (Petraeus) you actually see improvement. It would be extremely stupid and arrogant to get elected and go back to letting politicians run the war. Obama said he is going to "listen to his generals" so he better expect the same thing they are telling Bush now. If he goes against them he will making the same mistake Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield did.

Obama/Clinton know this. They aren't that stupid. The only ones that are stupid are the people believing that any one of those two will "end the war". There is a reason the economy is the number one talking point now.

 

[Chad]

You could stop the war tomorrow by cutting the funding. They don't need approval for that. They hold the purse strings just like they did in Vietnam.

They could end the war tomorrow but choose not to.

yes they could but they don`t want to come off as anti troop. and pulling the money that keeps the tropps supplied would look really bad.
70% of America is anti war but no one wants to see the troops left high and dry.
the dems have tried to add withdraw time tables into the funding bills but Bush wont sign those.
bottom line is that if Obama or Clinton get into office and they dont end the war, you can say anything you want about the dems not doing anything to stop the war in iraq.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

The Dems can cut the money in a semi-responsible way. They can say the money will be cut on "Day X", which establishes a timeline just how they want Bush to establish a timeline. That wouldn't leave the troops high and dry because it would allow for sufficient evacuation prep. Like Jerry said, they're just playing on the ignorance and naivety of the electorate.

Its all political ass covering, pandering, crap. Don't believe a word any of the bastards and *****es from either party quief out of their spooge traps. The sooner Americans realize that the trash that runs our federal (and state) governments are total scum-bags and are looking out for themselves first, and the citizens they claim to represent second, the better off we will be in the future because people may just start getting involved in the political process and really researching who their votes are putting into office and what they stand for rather than grabbing hold of some fluffy-bunny catch phrase and throwing votes that way.

Hillary and Obama both have their own special way to socialize our healthcare (which will likely cost the average tax payer considerably more then he/she would have paid for a, better, private insurance). They all (McCain included) want to give amnesty to a group of people whom, they believe, will become a decisive voting block regardless of the social and economic repercussions. Similarly, we're in danger of throwing our economy into further turmoil with "green" reforms. On top of it, we've got three people who are more worried about making the rest of the world "like them" than they are about our own national security. The only way our European friends will stop criticizing us is when we're not "#1" and when we will bend over and say "yes please" to their every whim.

This election sucks. I'm essentially "forced" to vote for McCain so that we don't end up with a socialist healthcare system which will lead to very high taxes, highly reduced quality of care, etc, and because he's probably the only one who won't start taxing the hell out of our already beat economy--although he is looking for a great way to play captain planet, in Al Gore's footsteps, and punish polluters in big cars. But, again, Hillary and Obama are planning similar moves.

 

[WannaBeHulk]

oh so that makes Bush a good guy then?

i think the Devil might have a lower approval ratings than AIDS. but i`ll have to check Fox News.

The dems have tried to pass new bills and get sh!t moving but the republican members of the house and senate always screw it up by not voting for it. OR if it does get passed in the house then Bush will veto it.
so how are they supposed to get anything done and thus improve thier approval rating?

Do you approve of the overall job Bush has done????


FYI- there are A LOT of republican Bush haters too buddy.

I was pointing out the fact that it is a combined effort with Bush and Congress, yet Bush takes all the heat in the media. They can deny any spending bill that Bush proposes. Instead, they pass it and include earmarks...

I'm glad Bush vetos their efforts to make us a socialist country. As much as I love for my hard-earned money to pay for worthless social services/programs and earmarks, I also like keeping my money. I want my taxpayer dollars to be allocated to national security and economic support.

so yes, i do approve of Bush and disapprove of Congress. It's the liberal media brainwashing that persuades opinions. Go Fox News!

 

[Chad]

so yes, i do approve of Bush and disapprove of Congress.

so what is it that congress has done that you disapprove of?
i cant think of ANYTHING they have passed that would upset anyone.

and you would want bush in office for another 4 years if he could?

 

[WannaBeHulk]

so what is it that congress has done that you disapprove of?
i cant think of ANYTHING they have passed that would upset anyone.

and you would want bush in office for another 4 years if he could?

EARMARKS!!!

they included so many things in the spending bill that went unexplained and are completely unnecessary.

Why do you think people perceive Americans as the most spoiled human beings? cause democrats want a daddy (US government) who's gonna give and give some more. I'm not for big government thats gonna tax and spend. I thought we were capitalists... did this change?

 

[Chad]

EARMARKS!!!

they included so many things in the spending bill that went unexplained and are completely unnecessary.

Why do you think people perceive Americans as the most spoiled human beings? cause democrats want a daddy (US government) who's gonna give and give some more. I'm not for big government thats gonna tax and spend. I thought we were capitalists... did this change?

im NOT saying that i support the way the Dems have done sh!t in congress so far. they should/could have done way more to help this country.

im just more in shock that you actually support what Bush has done. you sound like he can do no wrong in your eyes.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

so what is it that congress has done that you disapprove of?
i cant think of ANYTHING they have passed that would upset anyone.

They tried to pass an immigration bill that basically had the majority of America up in arms.

They tried to pass a socialized medicine bill the would give health insurance to poor children (which is fine). The problem with that was you qualified as poor if you made 75k/year. SO you tax everyone else to give health insurance to someone making 75k/year. Not exactly poor but if you opposed this bill you were against "helping children". Politics at its best.

They raised minimum wage which sounds great but it also forces small business to cut back on employees or look for cheaper (illegal) labor. What constituency and voting group do you think this helps?

They passed earmark reform that was supposed to have transparency. The result?

Obama request $98 million in earmarks.

Clinton requested $342 million in earmarks.

The greedy Republican McCain asked for ZERO. Nothing. Nada.

 

[RobInKuwait]

They tried to pass an immigration bill that basically had the majority of America up in arms.

They tried to pass a socialized medicine bill the would give health insurance to poor children (which is fine). The problem with that was you qualified as poor if you made 75k/year. SO you tax everyone else to give health insurance to someone making 75k/year. Not exactly poor but if you opposed this bill you were against "helping children". Politics at its best.

They raised minimum wage which sounds great but it also forces small business to cut back on employees or look for cheaper (illegal) labor. What constituency and voting group do you think this helps?

They passed earmark reform that was supposed to have transparency. The result?

Obama request $98 million in earmarks.

Clinton requested $342 million in earmarks.

The greedy Republican McCain asked for ZERO. Nothing. Nada.

Bob,

You have great facts, is there a website that you find them at? I'm always looking for more talking points for liberals/communists.

 

[hardgainer100]

It is interesting how many Republicans, especially Bush, feel Obama and Hillary are unfit to be president because of earmark projects. Your saying the Dems flat out lie about the 100 year war, take a look at another lie. Search for Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain. Talk about people that lie, these are American POW's that know the real side of John McCain, don't think this won't turn up close to election time.:cheers:

 

[CNorris]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[CryingEmo]

Invalid Link Removed

Heh, unfortunately that currency is probably worth more than the current dollar....

 

[AE14]

sad but true, lets just keep spending the worthless dollar on Iraq (lets see how long beforer cnorris' head explodes)

 

[DougMan]

Invalid Link Removed

You consider smoking pot as one of the worst thing you could come up with? Seriously? God forbid someone makes a choice the government disagrees with... that almost sounds like freedom.