ATG
Banned
+5,233|6539|Global Command
...that being a pathetic disgrace.
Now the party loyal are officially turning on him. The thread title is a quote from Newt Gingrich, and when he compares a sitting republican president to Carter you know somethings amiss;
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007 … table=true

Disillusionment with the Administration has become widespread among the conservatives who once were Bush’s strongest supporters. Mickey Edwards, a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma, said recently, “The Republican Administration has shown itself to be completely incompetent to the point that, of Republicans in Iowa, fifty-two per cent thought we should be out of Iraq in six months.” Edwards, who left Congress in 1993 and now teaches at Princeton, is helping to lead an effort among some conservatives to curtail the President’s power in such areas as warrantless wiretapping. “This Administration is beyond the pale in terms of arrogance and incompetence,” he said. “This guy thinks he’s a monarch, and that’s scary as hell.” The grievances against the Administration seem limitless. Many congressional Republicans, for instance, were upset that Bush waited to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld until after the midterm elections.
Click here to read more about George Bushs awesomness.

Last edited by ATG (2007-05-29 14:04:41)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6565
You still gotta put up with him for more than a year, vetoing this, soundbiting that and 'staying the course'. Commiserations.
S3v3N
lolwut?
+685|6528|Montucky

CameronPoe wrote:

You still gotta put up with him for more than a year, vetoing this, soundbiting that and 'staying the course'. Commiserations.
Hooray.
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6364
To early to quote history. How many people here were alive for JC ? not many I'd guess.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6415|North Carolina

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

To early to quote history. How many people here were alive for JC ? not many I'd guess.
I think it took about a year to realize that Carter was incompetent and ineffective.  It took even less time to discover the same about Bush for most people.  It's good to see that the party loyal is finally catching up to this reality.

As for Newt....  no thanks.  He's better than Bush, but that's not saying much.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6694|United States of America

Turquoise wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

To early to quote history. How many people here were alive for JC ? not many I'd guess.
I think it took about a year to realize that Carter was incompetent and ineffective.  It took even less time to discover the same about Bush for most people.  It's good to see that the party loyal is finally catching up to this reality.
It was hard to vote for either candidate when they both have their own words to describe their campaigns. You either had "strategery" or "lock box." Seriously, that probably didn't help them with the casual, idiot voters.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6415|North Carolina

DesertFox- wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

To early to quote history. How many people here were alive for JC ? not many I'd guess.
I think it took about a year to realize that Carter was incompetent and ineffective.  It took even less time to discover the same about Bush for most people.  It's good to see that the party loyal is finally catching up to this reality.
It was hard to vote for either candidate when they both have their own words to describe their campaigns. You either had "strategery" or "lock box." Seriously, that probably didn't help them with the casual, idiot voters.
*shrugs*  Well, as for idiot voters....  Bush did get elected twice.

Of course, the Democrats ran Kerry, of all people....

When corporate money controls both parties, these are the kinds of idiots we get as candidates, but I suppose it's fitting considering the idiocy of the average voter.  Bush really does represent the average simpleton in this country.  The only thing that separates him from the average citizen is his vast wealth.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-05-29 19:41:09)

Reciprocity
Member
+721|6590|the dank(super) side of Oregon

DesertFox- wrote:

It was hard to vote for either candidate when they both have their own words to describe their campaigns. You either had "strategery" or "lock box." Seriously, that probably didn't help them with the casual, idiot voters.
that lock box is lookin' pretty good now.  7 years ago, paying into social security meant I had something to fall back on as a last resort, now it's just another income tax that will likely never provide a safety net for me or my family.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6694|United States of America
Let's make our own party, Turq. We'll call it the Democratic Republicans and appeal the middle ground, but still have each candidate run on what they believe and not what they are told to. No one likes the rich jackholes anyway since, as Teh Matricks Reloaded has learned us, "[w]hat do all men with power want? More power." I'll get to work on that as soon as I get more Sunkist and ice.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6415|North Carolina

Reciprocity wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

It was hard to vote for either candidate when they both have their own words to describe their campaigns. You either had "strategery" or "lock box." Seriously, that probably didn't help them with the casual, idiot voters.
that lock box is lookin' pretty good now.  7 years ago, paying into social security meant I had something to fall back on as a last resort, now it's just another income tax that will likely never provide a safety net for me or my family.
Dude, Social Security has been a wash for the last few decades.  I wish I could blame that on Bush, but seriously, it's the result of bipartisan corruption and incompetence.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6590|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Turquoise wrote:

Dude, Social Security has been a wash for the last few decades.  I wish I could blame that on Bush, but seriously, it's the result of bipartisan corruption and incompetence.
It wasn't a wash 15  years ago when my father died and my mom used it for a time to help feed me and and my siblings.

Last edited by Reciprocity (2007-05-29 19:59:41)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6415|North Carolina

DesertFox- wrote:

Let's make our own party, Turq. We'll call it the Democratic Republicans and appeal the middle ground, but still have each candidate run on what they believe and not what they are told to. No one likes the rich jackholes anyway since, as Teh Matricks Reloaded has learned us, "[w]hat do all men with power want? More power." I'll get to work on that as soon as I get more Sunkist and ice.
lol...  Well, Democratic-Republican was a party early in our country's history.

How about the Silent Majority party?  But yeah, I'm trying to be more middle ground these days, but this also requires certain populist ideals like isolationism -- which are seen as "liberal" nowadays.  Little do some of the younger neocons realize, isolationism was originally the province of the Republicans, as Ron Paul repeatedly demonstrates.

Speaking of whom, if we were to seriously create a "middle" party, Ron Paul would make an awesome frontman for it.  He truly represents the common sense mentality of small government.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6415|North Carolina

Reciprocity wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Dude, Social Security has been a wash for the last few decades.  I wish I could blame that on Bush, but seriously, it's the result of bipartisan corruption and incompetence.
It wasn't a wash 15  years ago when my father died and my mom used it for a time to help feed me and and my siblings.
Touche... sorry to hear about that....   But seriously, I was referring more to how the Baby Bust generation is going to be the first generation to not reap the benefits of Social Security once they reach retirement age.  The Baby Boomers will be the last generation to reap them.

Even today, Social Security works for the people who cash in on it right now, but for the majority of people who won't qualify for it or need it until retirement, the system will be bankrupt by the time the people who are currently in their 40s reach about 65 or so.

In other words, people as young as me (27) are paying into a system that we will never benefit from, barring a horrible accident or disease, of course.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6590|the dank(super) side of Oregon
I was referring more to the fact that Clinton and his Republicans colleagues in congress managed to somewhat straighten out our budget.  that went out the window with Jr, long before 9/11 and the need for terror cash.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6415|North Carolina

Reciprocity wrote:

I was referring more to the fact that Clinton and his Republicans colleagues in congress managed to somewhat straighten out our budget.  that went out the window with Jr, long before 9/11 and the need for terror cash.
Well, it is true that Clinton and the Republican Congress worked well together until the government shutdown thing and then the Lewinsky affair.  We started having budget surpluses instead of budget deficits, but the tax cut plan of 2001 actually generated a lot of tax revenue.  Unfortunately, Bush and his cronies spent even more money than the tax cuts created.  That was a direct result of Iraq.

So yes, Bush did manage to worsen the situation and accelerate the downfall of Social Security, but the institution itself had begun ailing as early as the 80s.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-05-29 20:13:18)

ATG
Banned
+5,233|6539|Global Command
This is one way that fucktard got your surplus; by not funding the national parks let alone the military. Clinton can kiss my ass.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/12-19 … index.html
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6590|the dank(super) side of Oregon

ATG wrote:

This is one way that fucktard got your surplus; by not funding the national parks let alone the military. Clinton can kiss my ass.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/12-19 … index.html
yes, whatever was the impotent republican congress to do?  rendered powerless by the awsomeness that was Clinton.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6415|North Carolina

ATG wrote:

This is one way that fucktard got your surplus; by not funding the national parks let alone the military. Clinton can kiss my ass.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/12-19 … index.html
Can the Republican Congress in office at the time also kiss your ass?

Anyway, if funding for the park system is a great concern to you, than I suppose Bush's consideration of slashing that funding to close the budget gap must also bother you.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6539|Global Command
Maybe they were trying to stop his gutting of the military.
Prove that wasn't the case.


It's kinda like this retarded immigration bill being ramrodded through; there is so much bullshit attached to it it will be hard to pass.

Like those spending bills of old ( Clinton ) " I'll fund the parks if I can close another base or decommission another aircraft carrier. "

( republican congress } " fuck you asshole, let there be gridlock "

see, Clintons still a loser no matter how you try to spin it.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6590|the dank(super) side of Oregon
you're assuming that trimming a bloated, cold war era military is a bad thing.  And I won't necessarily commend a congressman or senator for keeping a home state base open.
smtt686
this is the best we can do?
+95|6641|USA

ATG wrote:

...that being a pathetic disgrace.
Now the party loyal are officially turning on him. The thread title is a quote from Newt Gingrich, and when he compares a sitting republican president to Carter you know somethings amiss;
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007 … table=true

Disillusionment with the Administration has become widespread among the conservatives who once were Bush’s strongest supporters. Mickey Edwards, a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma, said recently, “The Republican Administration has shown itself to be completely incompetent to the point that, of Republicans in Iowa, fifty-two per cent thought we should be out of Iraq in six months.” Edwards, who left Congress in 1993 and now teaches at Princeton, is helping to lead an effort among some conservatives to curtail the President’s power in such areas as warrantless wiretapping. “This Administration is beyond the pale in terms of arrogance and incompetence,” he said. “This guy thinks he’s a monarch, and that’s scary as hell.” The grievances against the Administration seem limitless. Many congressional Republicans, for instance, were upset that Bush waited to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld until after the midterm elections.
Click here to read more about George Bushs awesomness.
yeah but it is still Newt....This really does not carry a lot of weight(even if it is true).
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6415|North Carolina

ATG wrote:

Maybe they were trying to stop his gutting of the military.
Prove that wasn't the case.


It's kinda like this retarded immigration bill being ramrodded through; there is so much bullshit attached to it it will be hard to pass.

Like those spending bills of old ( Clinton ) " I'll fund the parks if I can close another base or decommission another aircraft carrier. "

( republican congress } " fuck you asshole, let there be gridlock "

see, Clintons still a loser no matter how you try to spin it.
...and you're grasping at straws, no matter how you try to spin it.

Look, I think Clinton was a douche because of how he proved to be just as much a free trade whore as the Republicans now are.  I don't take sides in this, because I don't really like either side.

Still, cutting military spending was not a mistake on Clinton's part.  Allowing our intelligence agencies to continue interacting in inefficient ways was the mistake.  The FBI and CIA had long become competing agencies rather than cooperative ones by the time 9/11 occurred, and that wasn't the fault of any one president.  This was the main reason why the hijackers were able to succeed in the first place.

Remember, the amount of money you throw at something doesn't determine its success.  I figured you knew that, being on the right and all.  It's about how you use the money, not the total amount.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6771

Turquoise wrote:

Still, cutting military spending was not a mistake on Clinton's part.
Troops needing food stamps IS a mistake.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6415|North Carolina

usmarine2005 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Still, cutting military spending was not a mistake on Clinton's part.
Troops needing food stamps IS a mistake.
Damn straight it is...  but that's not why we see things like that -- it's because we spend way too much on bureaucracy and not enough on our soldiers.  When you look at the absurdly high salaries of the upper echelon of the military, it becomes quite apparent that money isn't the issue.  It's the distribution of funds.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6771

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Still, cutting military spending was not a mistake on Clinton's part.
Troops needing food stamps IS a mistake.
Damn straight it is...  but that's not why we see things like that -- it's because we spend way too much on bureaucracy and not enough on our soldiers.  When you look at the absurdly high salaries of the upper echelon of the military, it becomes quite apparent that money isn't the issue.  It's the distribution of funds.
But the same goes for every business does it not?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard