... ... ... ...
Tu Stultus Es
The president can't do anything by himself.Spark wrote:
Hang on, I read what was written on the filibuster again. Are you serious? Could it be feasible that a party having lost the general election by a considerable margin could concievably block the entire function of the government by filibuster? And then force the president to do it all himself?
The filibuster is nothing more than a delaying tactic. If the Senate really wants the legislation passed it can do it with a simple majority, it would just mean having to sit through endless speeches and other stuff before it could come to a vote. 99% of the time they just table any legislation that would be filibustered (tabling means they don't bother bringing it to a vote) because it would mean that other business that needs to be done would be ignored during the duration of the filibuster. If the health care bill was subjected to a filibuster, it would gone over with a fine tooth comb and every single point in it would be debated endlessly.
If you want to get a decent idea about how our Senate works and what a filibuster is in practice, rent or download the old Jimmy Stewart movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". It's an old black and white movie and a classic
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
...yet.11 Bravo wrote:
that would be a fair point except this dude hasnt been raised to god status as far as i can tell.Spark wrote:
you were already lambasting him before he even took office! pot and kettle...lowing wrote:
Yeah just as long as everyone waited to see what Obama was going to do in office.
A democrat strong hold like Massachusetts going Republican is a good sign of what is awaiting the socialist, welfare state, entitlement movement this year as well as 2012. A brick wall.
A lot of what people would like to see get done in Washington D.C. is for them to leave us the hell alone.lowing wrote:
There is truth to this. However it also means nothing gets done.h4hagen wrote:
Personally I think its great. American politics weren't meant to be controlled by one party so that compromises would need to be met, and both sides would have input on issues.
Bush was a huge spender. Just because you transfer account control from one rash man to his rash successor doesn't absolve the original of his share of the responsibility.lowing wrote:
Bush dd not drive us over a cliff, not even close. Obama is the one that has driven us in so much debt there is no end in sight. That is not to say I agreed with the initial Bush bailouts, I did't, but Obama has really fucked us up.
In less than a year people have realized just how destructive Obama is to America and is now scrambling to stop him.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-01-20 21:17:32)
Bush was fighting a war and kept us terror free for 8 years. Something is shown for his effrots. How about Obama? Whaaere is the benefit to his 4 times as much spending?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
...yet.11 Bravo wrote:
that would be a fair point except this dude hasnt been raised to god status as far as i can tell.Spark wrote:
you were already lambasting him before he even took office! pot and kettle...A lot of what people would like to see get done in Washington D.C. is for them to leave us the hell alone.lowing wrote:
There is truth to this. However it also means nothing gets done.h4hagen wrote:
Personally I think its great. American politics weren't meant to be controlled by one party so that compromises would need to be met, and both sides would have input on issues.Bush was a huge spender. Just because you transfer account control from one rash man to his rash successor doesn't absolve the original of his share of the responsibility.lowing wrote:
Bush dd not drive us over a cliff, not even close. Obama is the one that has driven us in so much debt there is no end in sight. That is not to say I agreed with the initial Bush bailouts, I did't, but Obama has really fucked us up.
In less than a year people have realized just how destructive Obama is to America and is now scrambling to stop him.
That's an interesting statement, not backed up by economic data. Debt in and of itself is not a bad thing.Bush dd not drive us over a cliff, not even close. Obama is the one that has driven us in so much debt there is no end in sight. That is not to say I agreed with the initial Bush bailouts, I did't, but Obama has really fucked us up.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
lowing wrote:
Bush was fighting a war and kept us terror free for 8 years.
Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-21 04:15:50)
Braddock, you know I meant since 2001 if you wanna argue 7 years fine, point is still valid.Braddock wrote:
http://tjenarvi.com/wp-content/uploads/ … -tower.JPGlowing wrote:
Bush was fighting a war and kept us terror free for 8 years.
Although over a year later Obama lovers are still blaming Bush for the economy etc...However, before Obama, the rule was, whatever happened on their watch the president is responsbile.
So which is it? We gunna still blame Bush after over a year of Obama AND blame Clinton for 911, 9 months into Bushs watch? Or are we going to blaming the president who is on watch?
Let me know
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-21 04:32:56)
A terrorist attack and a crumbling economy are not the same. The former can be prevented with luck and one sensible law - the latter is not so simple.lowing wrote:
Braddock, you know I meant since 2001 if you wanna argue 7 years fine, point is still valid.Braddock wrote:
http://tjenarvi.com/wp-content/uploads/ … -tower.JPGlowing wrote:
Bush was fighting a war and kept us terror free for 8 years.
Although over a year later Obama lovers are still blaming Bush for the economy etc...However, before Obama, the rule was, whatever happened on their watch the president is responsbile.
So which is it? We gunna still blame Bush after over a year of Obama AND blame Clinton for 911, 9 months into Bushs watch? Or are we going to blaming the president who is on watch?
Let me know
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Bush STARTED a war and our biggest terrorist attack in history happened on HIS watch. Lwoing, at least be somewhat realistic in the hit you spew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!lowing wrote:
Bush was fighting a war and kept us terror free for 8 years. Something is shown for his effrots. How about Obama? Whaaere is the benefit to his 4 times as much spending?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
...yet.11 Bravo wrote:
that would be a fair point except this dude hasnt been raised to god status as far as i can tell.Spark wrote:
you were already lambasting him before he even took office! pot and kettle...A lot of what people would like to see get done in Washington D.C. is for them to leave us the hell alone.lowing wrote:
There is truth to this. However it also means nothing gets done.Bush was a huge spender. Just because you transfer account control from one rash man to his rash successor doesn't absolve the original of his share of the responsibility.lowing wrote:
Bush dd not drive us over a cliff, not even close. Obama is the one that has driven us in so much debt there is no end in sight. That is not to say I agreed with the initial Bush bailouts, I did't, but Obama has really fucked us up.
In less than a year people have realized just how destructive Obama is to America and is now scrambling to stop him.
Gee by most accounts the war on terror started on 911. but hey, whatever you say. It could really also be argued that the war was started by the terrorists in 88 after Pan Am 103, and we only fought back after 911.nlsme1 wrote:
Bush STARTED a war and our biggest terrorist attack in history happened on HIS watch. Lwoing, at least be somewhat realistic in the hit you spew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!lowing wrote:
Bush was fighting a war and kept us terror free for 8 years. Something is shown for his effrots. How about Obama? Whaaere is the benefit to his 4 times as much spending?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
...yet.11 Bravo wrote:
that would be a fair point except this dude hasnt been raised to god status as far as i can tell.Spark wrote:
you were already lambasting him before he even took office! pot and kettle...
A lot of what people would like to see get done in Washington D.C. is for them to leave us the hell alone.
Bush was a huge spender. Just because you transfer account control from one rash man to his rash successor doesn't absolve the original of his share of the responsibility.
Ok then we shall be equally as realistic about whose fault the economy is, Obama. any problem with that?
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-21 04:56:13)
Nope they are not the same, 2 distinct issues. But issues non the less. Who are you blaming for each?Spark wrote:
A terrorist attack and a crumbling economy are not the same. The former can be prevented with luck and one sensible law - the latter is not so simple.lowing wrote:
Braddock, you know I meant since 2001 if you wanna argue 7 years fine, point is still valid.
Although over a year later Obama lovers are still blaming Bush for the economy etc...However, before Obama, the rule was, whatever happened on their watch the president is responsbile.
So which is it? We gunna still blame Bush after over a year of Obama AND blame Clinton for 911, 9 months into Bushs watch? Or are we going to blaming the president who is on watch?
Let me know
LMFAO, your saying the Iraq war had anything to do with 9/11? And no the economy was HEADING for the shitter before Obama. Notice the increase in our stock markets since his inaugeration? That, you could say was most definatly NOT Bush's fault.lowing wrote:
Gee by most accounts the war on terror started on 911. but hey, whatever you say. It could really also be argued that the war was started by the terrorists in 88 after Pan Am 103, and we only fought back after 911.nlsme1 wrote:
Bush STARTED a war and our biggest terrorist attack in history happened on HIS watch. Lwoing, at least be somewhat realistic in the hit you spew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!lowing wrote:
Bush was fighting a war and kept us terror free for 8 years. Something is shown for his effrots. How about Obama? Whaaere is the benefit to his 4 times as much spending?
Ok then we shall be equally as realistic about whose fault the economy is, Obama. any problem with that?
Again I say, please be somewhat realistic in the shit you spew.
Fundamentalist religious groups on the first (I.e. Muslim extremists and Bible Belt fundie Christians) and a shitty system who's faults have been known since 1928 but which has been disregarded and covered with "we know better now" for the second.lowing wrote:
Nope they are not the same, 2 distinct issues. But issues non the less. Who are you blaming for each?Spark wrote:
A terrorist attack and a crumbling economy are not the same. The former can be prevented with luck and one sensible law - the latter is not so simple.lowing wrote:
Braddock, you know I meant since 2001 if you wanna argue 7 years fine, point is still valid.
Although over a year later Obama lovers are still blaming Bush for the economy etc...However, before Obama, the rule was, whatever happened on their watch the president is responsbile.
So which is it? We gunna still blame Bush after over a year of Obama AND blame Clinton for 911, 9 months into Bushs watch? Or are we going to blaming the president who is on watch?
Let me know
But hey, feel free to blame Obama. Continue sounding like a broken record for all I care.
I need around tree fiddy.
Yes, because that's a stupid blanket statement not backed up by any evidence. At all.lowing wrote:
Gee by most accounts the war on terror started on 911. but hey, whatever you say. It could really also be argued that the war was started by the terrorists in 88 after Pan Am 103, and we only fought back after 911.nlsme1 wrote:
Bush STARTED a war and our biggest terrorist attack in history happened on HIS watch. Lwoing, at least be somewhat realistic in the hit you spew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!lowing wrote:
Bush was fighting a war and kept us terror free for 8 years. Something is shown for his effrots. How about Obama? Whaaere is the benefit to his 4 times as much spending?
Ok then we shall be equally as realistic about whose fault the economy is, Obama. any problem with that?
Unless you blame Obama for things that happened before he became president.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I am sorry, if there is evidence that we have fought the war on terror with any real effort before 88 post it. Because I can post evidence of terror attacks on US interests that have gone unchallenged for 10 years or better..Spark wrote:
Yes, because that's a stupid blanket statement not backed up by any evidence. At all.lowing wrote:
Gee by most accounts the war on terror started on 911. but hey, whatever you say. It could really also be argued that the war was started by the terrorists in 88 after Pan Am 103, and we only fought back after 911.nlsme1 wrote:
Bush STARTED a war and our biggest terrorist attack in history happened on HIS watch. Lwoing, at least be somewhat realistic in the hit you spew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok then we shall be equally as realistic about whose fault the economy is, Obama. any problem with that?
Unless you blame Obama for things that happened before he became president.
Nope I blame Obama for what he has done since to make it far worse than it has EVER been.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/polit … nding.html
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/se … ke-a-piker
If he'd have worked a bit fucking harder in that first year the following 7 could have been very different... I'll bet next time Bush gets a document titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." thrown on his desk he'll at least open it up and have a gander.lowing wrote:
Braddock, you know I meant since 2001 if you wanna argue 7 years fine, point is still valid.
So Bush is allowed 8 years to fuck the economy up while Obama only gets one to sort it all out?lowing wrote:
Although over a year later Obama lovers are still blaming Bush for the economy etc...However, before Obama, the rule was, whatever happened on their watch the president is responsbile.
I blame both sides, and people like you who blindly support one side and constantly try to force polar agendas rather than thinking of the greater good.lowing wrote:
So which is it? We gunna still blame Bush after over a year of Obama AND blame Clinton for 911, 9 months into Bushs watch? Or are we going to blaming the president who is on watch? Let me know
While the total dollar amount being spent under Obama is higher then Bush, that is not neccasarily the same as increased spending. The value of the dollar has plummeted. Therefore, it takes more dollars to accomplish the same value in spending. Another thing that needs to be considered is the fact that a more then small majority of Obama's spending is going towards something that Bush should never have allowed happen in the first place. It could be argued that some of Obama's spending is actually Bush's fault. Not only the money that is now owed in interest on Bush's spending, but a lot of the bailout money. TARP, Bush's fault. Housing programs, Bush's fault. War spending (IRAQ), Bush's fault. Im sure I could keep going.
nlsme1 wrote:
LMFAO, your saying the Iraq war had anything to do with 9/11? And no the economy was HEADING for the shitter before Obama. Notice the increase in our stock markets since his inaugeration? That, you could say was most definatly NOT Bush's fault.lowing wrote:
Gee by most accounts the war on terror started on 911. but hey, whatever you say. It could really also be argued that the war was started by the terrorists in 88 after Pan Am 103, and we only fought back after 911.nlsme1 wrote:
Bush STARTED a war and our biggest terrorist attack in history happened on HIS watch. Lwoing, at least be somewhat realistic in the hit you spew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok then we shall be equally as realistic about whose fault the economy is, Obama. any problem with that?
Again I say, please be somewhat realistic in the shit you spew.
Housing programs are the fault of the democratic congress.nlsme1 wrote:
While the total dollar amount being spent under Obama is higher then Bush, that is not neccasarily the same as increased spending. The value of the dollar has plummeted. Therefore, it takes more dollars to accomplish the same value in spending. Another thing that needs to be considered is the fact that a more then small majority of Obama's spending is going towards something that Bush should never have allowed happen in the first place. It could be argued that some of Obama's spending is actually Bush's fault. Not only the money that is now owed in interest on Bush's spending, but a lot of the bailout money. TARP, Bush's fault. Housing programs, Bush's fault. War spending (IRAQ), Bush's fault. Im sure I could keep going.
Bush was fighting a war, try fighting a war without spending kinda hard to do.
TARP a fucked up solution to democrats housing fiasco.
I never endorsed Bush's bailouts. However there is no denying Obama has taken it to several levels worse.
General misconception tbh ... can't speak for all of course but I do agree wholeheartedly with Cam, we don't think we are better and we don't think we are more awesome ...lowing wrote:
I think Europeans think, that they hold higher moral ground than the US, that they look down on America from a perch. Europeans think we are all fat lazy and stupid, while they consider themselves sophisticated, refined and intellectually superior.CameronPoe wrote:
Well you can take it from me that I personally don't think everything we do in Europe is awesome. And I was responding to lowing.11 Bravo wrote:
wasnt my point (and i do). read most threads in this section/forum and that pretty much sums it up.
My only problem is, after visiting Germany, I am not sure they are wrong
At least we try and do right by the world, and when we fuck up, Europe spares no expense to voice their opinion about it, yet they hardly ever take the lead in any action if they show up at all that is. You can not fuck up if you do not try, and Europe plays that roll perfectly.
It may appear we think like that but when it comes down to it Americans themselves are way more critical about their own government etc etc than any European will ever be ...
A sidenote to that: Almost everything we discuss in DST is related to the US so go figure
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I can see how Bush could have spent 0$ on the war in Iraq. Yes I'll admit the dems started legilation that started the ball rolling in the housing bubble, but Bush just sat there for 8 yrs taking pictures while the ball rolled downhill and proceeded to grow. Btw a lot of the tarp funds have already been recovered. PLease respond to my other post and stop highstepping it. I quoted myself so you should know what I'm on about.lowing wrote:
Housing programs are the fault of the democratic congress.nlsme1 wrote:
While the total dollar amount being spent under Obama is higher then Bush, that is not neccasarily the same as increased spending. The value of the dollar has plummeted. Therefore, it takes more dollars to accomplish the same value in spending. Another thing that needs to be considered is the fact that a more then small majority of Obama's spending is going towards something that Bush should never have allowed happen in the first place. It could be argued that some of Obama's spending is actually Bush's fault. Not only the money that is now owed in interest on Bush's spending, but a lot of the bailout money. TARP, Bush's fault. Housing programs, Bush's fault. War spending (IRAQ), Bush's fault. Im sure I could keep going.
Bush was fighting a war, try fighting a war without spending kinda hard to do.
TARP a fucked up solution to democrats housing fiasco.
I never endorsed Bush's bailouts. However there is no denying Obama has taken it to several levels worse.
I'm glad that this thread turned into another lowing pile-on. I really am.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well you can thank Lowing for being the OP then.
You mean about the value of the dollar? I am not an economist so I need to see something that shows me that the value of the dollar has dropped so much in less than a year that Obama spending quadruple the amount in less than a year is the actually the same value as Bush's 8 years of spending.nlsme1 wrote:
I can see how Bush could have spent 0$ on the war in Iraq. Yes I'll admit the dems started legilation that started the ball rolling in the housing bubble, but Bush just sat there for 8 yrs taking pictures while the ball rolled downhill and proceeded to grow. Btw a lot of the tarp funds have already been recovered. PLease respond to my other post and stop highstepping it. I quoted myself so you should know what I'm on about.lowing wrote:
Housing programs are the fault of the democratic congress.nlsme1 wrote:
While the total dollar amount being spent under Obama is higher then Bush, that is not neccasarily the same as increased spending. The value of the dollar has plummeted. Therefore, it takes more dollars to accomplish the same value in spending. Another thing that needs to be considered is the fact that a more then small majority of Obama's spending is going towards something that Bush should never have allowed happen in the first place. It could be argued that some of Obama's spending is actually Bush's fault. Not only the money that is now owed in interest on Bush's spending, but a lot of the bailout money. TARP, Bush's fault. Housing programs, Bush's fault. War spending (IRAQ), Bush's fault. Im sure I could keep going.
Bush was fighting a war, try fighting a war without spending kinda hard to do.
TARP a fucked up solution to democrats housing fiasco.
I never endorsed Bush's bailouts. However there is no denying Obama has taken it to several levels worse.