We've Gone Backward?

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

OBAMA HAD BOTH HOUSES FOR 2 YEARS!!!! Sorry for the caps, but folks seem to keep forgetting this. That is more time than any President in the last 50 years. And if anything the impact of those 2 years is what should be getting felt now, not the last 18 months (especially if the argument is it takes time). And he squandered it worrying about his legacy (health care). Which is sort of ironic for a President to do in the first year of his intended 8 year stay. That's usually reserved for years 7 and 8.....

i would agree his focus on healthcare was misguided and although in principal, he thought it was a good idea, it's just not gonna work in americia ...

ultimately tho - who would you rather have? ... bush or obama?

Bush. Not a question. Not saying he was the greatest either. But, you made the choices easy.

inmytree

EdsonNascimento wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

and why is that? they are our only 2 choices?



btw, i edited my earlier post.

Again, I don't disagree the process is broken. I'm all for finding change. I hate that Giuliani doesn't run simply because the Christian Right won't allow a twice divorced man with skeletons run. He is THE best person for the job. But, why should he put himself through the ringer of both his own party and then a general election when he can go to Mexico and make millions teaching them how to run their police force?

So, the process is more broken than most folks realize.

But, that being said - we are where we are at NOW. Obama has failed. Romney's our only other choice. I know what hasn't worked. Believe me, Romney is not my first, second or third choice either. But, writing in Rudy Giuliani isn't going to help our best option at the moment.

Rudy...

that's some funny shit...

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Bush. Not a question. Not saying he was the greatest either. But, you made the choices easy.

which clearly shows your partisanship ... dude lied to the country to get you into 2 wars ... wars that you can't afford, that has disgraced your reputation around the world and has resulted in the loss of many many innocent lives ... a prez that spent more time at his ranch and golfing that doing anything ... a prez that had everything given to him and was essentially a moron but not for his name to get by ... you could not pick a worse president ...

but i'm sure your response to that is carter ... :fp:

inmytree

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Rudy

I posted this a while back in another conversation....this is not backwards.

Helping to fend off a depression while having the bailouts almost entirely paid back with interest, passing the largest and most important piece of domestic legislation in decades, ending the bigoted policy of don't ask don't tell, saving the auto industry, ended one war and is bringing the other to a close, oversaw the death of the top commanders of al qaeda, including the person who was responsible for over 3,000 civilian deaths. Not bad for 3 years.

That is funny. First, I'm not saying he hasn't done ANYTHING. But - depression? What depression? There was no DEPRESSION when he took over.

His larges piece of legislation is about to be rightfully declared unconstitional.

Don't ask, don't tell was on its way out. IT was a matter of time.

Saving the auto industry - well, if you're going to blame Bush for the "depression," let's give "credit" where it's due. I was against this, but he's the impetus.

As for the wars - Bush's time table as he was leaving office was almost exactly how it was carried out.

Osama - yes, he gets credit. But, who wouldn't have given that order? That was a tough order to give? Not trying to take it away. It's on his watch. It's part of his legacy. It's not like the decision to drag a rat responsible for 10's of 1,000s of deaths out of its hole (Saddam) at the peril of his own legacy.

you seem very open to other's opinions...

anyhoo, I guess it could be argued that the actions taken by O-bama staved off a depression...

and you clearly don't have any information on the Osama raid....

josevolution

Go ahead vote for Rommney who's stopping you ...

EdsonNascimento

inmytree wrote:

Rudy...

that's some funny shit...

Some nice retorts last night. I'll start and end with the easy ones -

Why?

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Bush. Not a question. Not saying he was the greatest either. But, you made the choices easy.

which clearly shows your partisanship ... dude lied to the country to get you into 2 wars ... wars that you can't afford, that has disgraced your reputation around the world and has resulted in the loss of many many innocent lives ... a prez that spent more time at his ranch and golfing that doing anything ... a prez that had everything given to him and was essentially a moron but not for his name to get by ... you could not pick a worse president ...

but i'm sure your response to that is carter ... :fp:

Umm. No. I'll respond - Obama.

First, Bush did not lie to ME about the wars. He "lied" to the populace. I knew exactly why he was doing what he was doing. I supported it then. I support it now. The Taliban was a problem that has been causing "mischief" (to put it nicely) for us and their own people for YEARS. Saddam Hussein pillaged his own people to a point we could no longer take.

Yes, there are other places similar things are taking place, but

1) As you allude to - there's only so many wars you can fight. So, you pick and choose.
2) Yes, it's about the oil. Duh.
3) The Mid East is clearly a more volatile, world impacting location at the moment (vs. Africa). Sorry if this sounds course, but that's the reality he couldn't say, so he colors the main objectives, so folks buy in. If you feel duped, well, then you were probably one of the folks that wouldn't have understood the REAL reasons anyway. It happens. It goes on all the time both globally and in your office (or wherever you work). You're still welcome to disagree with the wars. But, the whole - he lied to get us there - ummm.. No. He did what he had to. And he was right.

He clearly was not worried about his legacy because he knew this would be unpopular in the long run. Thus, the misguided "Mission Accomplished," which even at the time I cringed at. That was clearly a mis-step. But, it didn't change the overall objective 1 iota. At least he had the balls to do something. Does that mean Bush and we who support the wars don't regret EVERY life that was lost or damaged? Of course not. That's such a stupid argument. But, doing nothing is not always the answer either. It's the easy answer.

Yes, innocent lives are lost. But, how many did the Taliban and Hussein destroy, and on balance are there less or more? I'll answer that for you - it's unfortunate that we have to be the ones involved. Wish it didn't come to that. But, if we don't step in, FAR more innocents are lost (and no, I am still not touching or needing to believe the WMD).

Reality's a bitch. Huh? Welcome to the real world.

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Reality's a bitch. Huh? Welcome to the real world.

fair enough - if you are ok with taxpayers dollars used to fund wars for profiteering at the expense of innocent lives .. then ya - bush is your guy ..

EdsonNascimento

inmytree wrote:

you seem very open to other's opinions...

anyhoo, I guess it could be argued that the actions taken by O-bama staved off a depression...

and you clearly don't have any information on the Osama raid....

I find these types of responses funny. It's usually the folks saying someone else is not open that are, in fact, not open. I took his opinion, and gave clear, concise reasons for my opinions.

The whole staved off - kind of funny - you are actually backing off the original statement. But, again. That's all speculation. It was a recession when he took over. Where it was going is pure speculation. Where it is 4 years later is not (see Dow, worst monthly drop in 2 years).

I have no idea what information you're alluding to, but all Obama basically did was approve the use of intelligence to kill Osama. Again, as I said - He gets credit. It was on his watch. My only point was, I don't think there's a Pres in history that doesn't make that decision. So, yes, he gets credit, but it's not like I'm voting the guy because he made what amounts to a no brainer decision that my 4 year old could have made.

So, I ask you - please respond to my original counter-points and let me know where I'm misguided. Thanks.

inmytree

EdsonNascimento wrote:

inmytree wrote:

Rudy...

that's some funny shit...

Some nice retorts last night. I'll start and end with the easy ones -

Why?

why what...? if you're asking my why I think this is some funny shit, my answer is: I find if funny that you'd support a failed 2008 candidate who is not even in the running in 2012....Rudy was stupid to focus only on Florida is 2008...and if that's the kind of foresight he possessed, I think he'd make a terrible president for Amercia...

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Reality's a bitch. Huh? Welcome to the real world.

fair enough - if you are ok with taxpayers dollars used to fund wars for profiteering at the expense of innocent lives .. then ya - bush is your guy ..

Well - you're confusing 2 issues. Yes, there is profiteering. That's always going to happen. I wish it could be eliminated in all parts of the gov't. There's always a trade off, and we as a country need to correct that. But, if the objective was good (which, again, I can see debate on), then that's a trade off I'm willing to make at this point. But, I believe you think that's why Bush went in. And that is beyond silly. I believe he was aware of that by product and weighed it as part of the decision to go in. You think it was the decision. Well, if you (as in you personally, not the generic you that might allude to the President) set your agenda before you look at the facts, your conclusion will match your reality.

But, again - the innocent lives thing - how many innocents did Hussein and the Taliban destroy? How many more would they have? And at what cost to the overall instability of the region? All difficult assessments that are near impossible for you or me to fully make with the information we have.

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Well - you're confusing 2 issues. Yes, there is profiteering. That's always going to happen. I wish it could be eliminated in all parts of the gov't. There's always a trade off, and we as a country need to correct that. But, if the objective was good (which, again, I can see debate on), then that's a trade off I'm willing to make at this point. But, I believe you think that's why Bush went in. And that is beyond silly. I believe he was aware of that by product and weighed it as part of the decision to go in. You think it was the decision. Well, if you (as in you personally, not the generic you that might allude to the President) set your agenda before you look at the facts, your conclusion will match your reality.

But, again - the innocent lives thing - how many innocents did Hussein and the Taliban destroy? How many more would they have? And at what cost to the overall instability of the region? All difficult assessments that are near impossible for you or me to fully make with the information we have.

dude ... the math isn't even close ... ask an innocent iraqi or afghanistani person and they are probably gonna tell you they preferred it the way it was ...

and you really need to look at the historical impacts of us foreign policy in that region ... to see that you guys not only fuck it up over there for those people - that many of the so called evil you are purging are people you guys put in place ...

EdsonNascimento

inmytree wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

inmytree wrote:

Rudy...

that's some funny shit...

Some nice retorts last night. I'll start and end with the easy ones -

Why?

why what...? if you're asking my why I think this is some funny shit, my answer is: I find if funny that you'd support a failed 2008 candidate who is not even in the running in 2012....Rudy was stupid to focus only on Florida is 2008...and if that's the kind of foresight he possessed, I think he'd make a terrible president for Amercia...

I agree he ran a poor campaign. But, that's the unfortunate reality of politics. At some point, the intelligent folks say - screw this. I don't need this. There are gov'ts abroad that will hire me without me having to deal with this stress/crap. So, we end up with the candidates we so richly deserve. One just hopes we get lucky every 40 years or so.....

He would have made a GREAT President. He successfully ran a LIBERAL based, most populated, complicated anything in the world extremely succesfully (and was so popular, led to a 16 year run of Republican leadership of said LIBERAL Bastion - not sure what the last few years have been, but the city is beginning to feel the Independence). He brought it from a literal shit hole back to its rightful place on top of the world. So, I don't think it's too much of a reach for him to take the country to similar heights. But, neither of our suppositions can be proven.

inmytree

EdsonNascimento wrote:

inmytree wrote:

you seem very open to other's opinions...

anyhoo, I guess it could be argued that the actions taken by O-bama staved off a depression...

and you clearly don't have any information on the Osama raid....

I find these types of responses funny. It's usually the folks saying someone else is not open that are, in fact, not open. I took his opinion, and gave clear, concise reasons for my opinions.

The whole staved off - kind of funny - you are actually backing off the original statement. But, again. That's all speculation. It was a recession when he took over. Where it was going is pure speculation. Where it is 4 years later is not (see Dow, worst monthly drop in 2 years).

I have no idea what information you're alluding to, but all Obama basically did was approve the use of intelligence to kill Osama. Again, as I said - He gets credit. It was on his watch. My only point was, I don't think there's a Pres in history that doesn't make that decision. So, yes, he gets credit, but it's not like I'm voting the guy because he made what amounts to a no brainer decision that my 4 year old could have made.

So, I ask you - please respond to my original counter-points and let me know where I'm misguided. Thanks.

why bother...will it change anything...? again, you clearly have no clue about the OBL raid...none...and I'm not here to educate you...that's your job and you earned an F....

my statement was clear and simple...sure it can be seen as "speculation"...just as your statements can be seen as "speculation"...the fact is, no one can say anything to you that will change your mind...sadly you don't even know that...

you're welcome...

inmytree

EdsonNascimento wrote:

inmytree wrote:

why what...? if you're asking my why I think this is some funny shit, my answer is: I find if funny that you'd support a failed 2008 candidate who is not even in the running in 2012....Rudy was stupid to focus only on Florida is 2008...and if that's the kind of foresight he possessed, I think he'd make a terrible president for Amercia...

I agree he ran a poor campaign. But, that's the unfortunate reality of politics. At some point, the intelligent folks say - screw this. I don't need this. There are gov'ts abroad that will hire me without me having to deal with this stress/crap. So, we end up with the candidates we so richly deserve. One just hopes we get lucky every 40 years or so.....

He would have made a GREAT President. He successfully ran a LIBERAL based, most populated, complicated anything in the world extremely succesfully (and was so popular, led to a 16 year run of Republican leadership of said LIBERAL Bastion - not sure what the last few years have been, but the city is beginning to feel the Independence). He brought it from a literal shit hole back to its rightful place on top of the world. So, I don't think it's too much of a reach for him to take the country to similar heights. But, neither of our suppositions can be proven.

dude, if he can't run a National Campaign, he surely can't run the Amercia...

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Well - you're confusing 2 issues. Yes, there is profiteering. That's always going to happen. I wish it could be eliminated in all parts of the gov't. There's always a trade off, and we as a country need to correct that. But, if the objective was good (which, again, I can see debate on), then that's a trade off I'm willing to make at this point. But, I believe you think that's why Bush went in. And that is beyond silly. I believe he was aware of that by product and weighed it as part of the decision to go in. You think it was the decision. Well, if you (as in you personally, not the generic you that might allude to the President) set your agenda before you look at the facts, your conclusion will match your reality.

But, again - the innocent lives thing - how many innocents did Hussein and the Taliban destroy? How many more would they have? And at what cost to the overall instability of the region? All difficult assessments that are near impossible for you or me to fully make with the information we have.

dude ... the math isn't even close ... ask an innocent iraqi or afghanistani person and they are probably gonna tell you they preferred it the way it was ...

and you really need to look at the historical impacts of us foreign policy in that region ... to see that you guys not only fuck it up over there for those people - that many of the so called evil you are purging are people you guys put in place ...

Ha, ha, ha. No need to check. I am well aware we often trade off the lesser of 2 evils, which later becomes the evil. Again, my response is - welcome to the real world. I also realize while we will leave it a better place, it won't be perfect by any stretch. The latter can only come when they strive to help themselves (which Bush was trying to do and partially succeeded with elections and such). Which goes to your former point. The fact that some/many don't know any better says all you need to know.

I always wonder why everyone wants to come here. We suck. Stay out!

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Ha, ha, ha. No need to check. I am well aware we often trade off the lesser of 2 evils, which later becomes the evil. Again, my response is - welcome to the real world. I also realize while we will leave it a better place, it won't be perfect by any stretch. The latter can only come when they strive to help themselves (which Bush was trying to do and partially succeeded with elections and such). Which goes to your former point. The fact that some/many don't know any better says all you need to know.

I always wonder why everyone wants to come here. We suck. Stay out!

post ww2 .. name one place america has left for the better? ... did you guys change anything in vietnam except massacre many people? ... nicaragua? ... guatemala? ... iran? ... anywhere? ...

ahhhh ... sorry - i originally mistook you for understanding the real reasons why you guys go to war ... it appears you believe that america goes to war for altruistic reasons ... :? ...

that being the case - there's really not a discussion here as we are discussing from opposite ends of our own reality ... and i'm not really interested in getting into the whole war profiteering economic imperialism discussion again ...

Jason P

polaris_x wrote:

post ww2 .. name one place america has left for the better? ... did you guys change anything in vietnam except massacre many people? ... nicaragua? ... guatemala? ... iran? ... anywhere? ...

South Korea is doing fairly well. Their socialist neighbors, not so much.

Jason P

Jason P wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

post ww2 .. name one place america has left for the better? ... did you guys change anything in vietnam except massacre many people? ... nicaragua? ... guatemala? ... iran? ... anywhere? ...

South Korea is doing fairly well. Their socialist neighbors, not so much.

Panama's unemployment is 2.7%. Not too shabby.

EdsonNascimento

inmytree wrote:

dude, if he can't run a National Campaign, he surely can't run the Amercia...

You obviously have no clue about politics, and I would guess have no idea about upper management in any situation. The politics of getting there is completely different than competency. See America, Bank of. Or, MC, G.