|
4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain
Here we go, bracing for yet another in a series of "Dubya Recessions,"
but this time at the end of his, the worst of just about any of the US presidencies. What effect could this news have on the race? First, a lot of the cognoscenti pundits have been saying for months that Iraq would be the #1 issue. Not anymore, it would seem. With the economy in a steady decline since Bush took office and with the US Dollar at an historic low, Hillary Clinton has a shot at retooling her whole campaign (which flopped mightily in Iowa) into the old standby that worked for Bill...."It's the economy, stupid!" Whether this will work against Obama or not of course remains to be seen, but history proves that "bread and butter" issues are usually at the top of the issues pile any time the country is not in a war, and a stunning majority have already decided that we need to get the hell out of Iraq. If the economy does rise to the #1 issue, Obama's in serious trouble against Clinton going into Tsunami Tuesday...or is it Super Tuesday? They keep changing the name! Incidently, the only pundit who's had it right about the economy winding up as the #1 issue has been Eleanor Clift of Newsweek/McLaughlin Group...that is, IF it happens. Second, CNN polling shows, without a doubt, that Romney also has strong economic credentials among all likely voters, while McCain and Giuliani don't. Giuliani's probably out of the picture after his hopeless showing in Iowa (3%), so that leaves McCain to try to do battle on a field for which he doesn't have good maps. When Iraq was #1 on the voter hit parade, he had the advantage among right winger Republicans. But now, fully 47% of "likelies" said that Romney was the best on economic issues, while the next in line (Clinton) showed in the 'teens, but still way ahead of McCain. Huckabee, of course, has probably the worst showing of all at 3% in this poll. McCain then has a double whammy to face...weak on economic issues AND a very unpopular Iraq platform plank to try to bring to the RNC. If McCain wins the big bow and tries that, a lot of the anti-war Republicans will abandon ship, and since Paul isn't expected to last much longer (at least as a Republican), they MIGHT go "independent"...meaning they could vote for a Dem, if the anti-war message is right (meaning Obama), or whatever third party offering shows up. Paul, with his anti-war and anti-tax rhetoric, fills that bill nicely and, despite his exclamations to the contrary, could very well wind up a Libertarian Party nominee. Lots of "ifs" could make this situation turn the campaign inside out...such as "if" Bernanke doesn't do a Bush-ordered overnight rate cut, and "if" the dollar keeps sinking against all foreign currencies (it will, probably another 15-20% against the Euro) and "if" the hemorrhaging of the prime mortgage market continues (it will, and will get worse.) If all the "ifs" are answered affirmatively, then we have a new ball game and it would then appear that the conventional wisdom of Iraq being the deciding factor will not hold. If that happens, Obama and McCain could suddenly find themselves going up a steep upgrade even if both win New Hampshire, which I say is likely, while Romney and Hillary coast to the nomination, which is likely if the economy takes over as the #1 issue going into Super Tuesday. If the latter happens, Clinton has pretty impressive numbers against Romney in the theoretical match-up...as least for now. What's she need to do? Back to health care, health care, health care...greedy for-profit HMOs, drug companies and "doctor cabals" are raping the economy, and people are already wise to it. If she does that and the economy and health care wind up on top of the issues heap, Hillary beats Obama and, most likely, Romney. Meanwhile, McCain, should this scenario happen before Super Tuesday, may find himself like he always has...on the outside looking in. What would Romney need to do to fend her off and win? Well...his "I've got experience running big corporations" message tickles Wall Streeters, the investment class and the corporate types, but falls flat and builds antipathy among working Americans. His only hope is to counter Hillary on health care by pointing to his Massachusetts accomplishment in that area...even if it doesn't solve a thing. Advantage overall: Hillary...but she has to get there first, especially by climbing deftly and very quickly out of the crater she made for herself in Iowa. If, for some reason, the economy does NOT take center stage among voters, Obama may well steamroller her on Super Tuesday, and if that happens and McCain wins, it'll be a McCain presidency. Who'd win in a Obama/Romney match up? Three-to-two and pick 'em! |
4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain
In article ,
DeserTBoB wrote: Here we go, bracing for yet another in a series of "Dubya Recessions," but this time at the end of his, the worst of just about any of the US presidencies. How do you define "worst?" Just curious. -- NeoLibertarian http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg |
4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain
On Jan 5, 5:42*pm, DeserTBoB wrote:
Here we go, bracing for yet another in a series of "Dubya Recessions," but this time at the end of his, the worst of just about any of the US presidencies. *What effect could this news have on the race? First, a lot of the cognoscenti pundits have been saying for months that Iraq would be the #1 issue. *Not anymore, it would seem. *With the economy in a steady decline since Bush took office and with the US Dollar at an historic low, Hillary Clinton has a shot at retooling her whole campaign (which flopped mightily in Iowa) into the old standby that worked for Bill...."It's the economy, stupid!" *Whether this will work against Obama or not of course remains to be seen, but history proves that "bread and butter" issues are usually at the top of the issues pile any time the country is not in a war, and a stunning majority *have already decided that we need to get the hell out of Iraq. *If the economy *does rise to the #1 issue, Obama's in serious trouble against Clinton going into Tsunami Tuesday...or is it Super Tuesday? *They keep changing the name! *Incidently, the only pundit who's had it right about the economy winding up as the #1 issue has been Eleanor Clift of Newsweek/McLaughlin Group...that is, IF it happens. Second, CNN polling shows, without a doubt, that Romney also has strong economic credentials among all likely voters, while McCain and Giuliani don't. *Giuliani's probably out of the picture after his hopeless showing in Iowa (3%), so that leaves McCain to try to do battle on a field for which he doesn't have good maps. *When Iraq was #1 on the voter hit parade, he had the advantage among right winger Republicans. *But now, fully 47% of "likelies" said that Romney was the best on economic issues, while the next in line (Clinton) showed in the 'teens, but still way ahead of McCain. *Huckabee, of course, has probably the worst showing of all at 3% in this poll. McCain then has a double whammy to face...weak on economic issues AND a very unpopular Iraq platform plank to try to bring to the RNC. *If McCain wins the big bow and tries that, a lot of the anti-war Republicans will abandon ship, and since Paul isn't expected to last much longer (at least as a Republican), they MIGHT go "independent"...meaning they could vote for a Dem, if the anti-war message is right (meaning Obama), or whatever third party offering shows up. *Paul, with his anti-war and anti-tax rhetoric, fills that bill nicely and, despite his exclamations to the contrary, could very well wind up a Libertarian Party nominee. Lots of "ifs" could make this situation turn the campaign inside out...such as "if" Bernanke doesn't do a Bush-ordered overnight rate cut, and "if" the dollar keeps sinking against all foreign currencies (it will, probably another 15-20% against the Euro) and "if" the hemorrhaging of the prime mortgage market continues (it will, and will get worse.) *If all the "ifs" are answered affirmatively, then we have a new ball game and it would then appear *that the conventional wisdom of Iraq being the deciding factor will not hold. *If that happens, Obama and McCain could suddenly find themselves going up a steep upgrade even if both win New Hampshire, which I say is *likely, while Romney and Hillary coast to the nomination, which is *likely if the economy takes over as the #1 issue going into Super Tuesday. *If the latter happens, Clinton has pretty impressive numbers against Romney in the theoretical match-up...as least for now. What's she need to do? *Back to health care, health care, health care...greedy for-profit HMOs, drug companies and "doctor cabals" are raping the economy, and people are already wise to it. *If she does that and the economy and health care wind up on top of the issues heap, Hillary beats Obama and, most likely, Romney. *Meanwhile, McCain, should this scenario happen before Super Tuesday, may find himself like he always has...on the outside looking in. *What would Romney need to do to fend her off and win? *Well...his "I've got experience running big corporations" message tickles Wall Streeters, the investment class and the corporate types, but falls flat and builds antipathy among working Americans. *His only hope is to counter Hillary on health care by pointing to his Massachusetts accomplishment in that area...even if it doesn't solve a thing. Advantage overall: *Hillary...but she has to get there first, especially by climbing deftly and very quickly out of the crater she made for herself in Iowa. *If, for some reason, the economy does NOT take center stage among voters, Obama may well steamroller her on Super Tuesday, and if that happens and McCain wins, it'll be a McCain presidency. *Who'd win in a Obama/Romney match up? *Three-to-two and pick 'em! you need to take responsibility for your own financial income and economic security- it's not "W" or anyone else's fault- no single man is responsible for, or can alter, the economic cycles- they go up and down throughout history, regardless when FDR was president, there was a major depression, that lasted 12 years- try as he did, nothing pulled this country out of it, until the mfg. base got fired up for WWII the only thing I can see maybe "should" be done, is start requiring companies that sell 50% or more of their goods in the USA, to have factories here- and employ US workers, rather than overseas workers the trend of shipping all our mfg. jobs overseas, is killing our job base- the reason the US economy was so strong during the post-war "boom years" of 1945-70, was that we made nearly 60% of the world's mfg. goods here in USA we need to get back to that, because now the only areas of growth, are jobs created using taxpayer money, i.e. gov't and agency jobs not good |
4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:55:52 GMT, Neolibertarian
wrote: In article , DeserTBoB wrote: Here we go, bracing for yet another in a series of "Dubya Recessions," but this time at the end of his, the worst of just about any of the US presidencies. How do you define "worst?" Just curious.snip Oh, there are a myriad of ways to describe a "worst presidency"...the idiocy and disinterest of the public purse of Warren Harding, the callous disregard of Calvin Coolidge, the ineptitude of U.S. Grant, the complete lack of ability or tilted morality of Millard Fillmore, the self interest of William McKinley or Lyndon Johnson, the lack of cognizance of reality of Herbert Hoover...or the calculated destruction of the very document they were sworn to "uphold and protect," in the cases of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. The latter's actions which will probably prove, when viewed through the equalizer of time, to be the far more onerous. Take your pick á la carte, but be mindful that, of all of the above, many got to the bottom simply by being ignorant, unintelligent or by having limited powers of perception or a miscalibrated moral compass. While many righttards will point to Clinton's lying about a blow job from a fat chick, I think lying about yellow cake in Africa just to get Halliburton staged in Iraq to start pumping their oil fields is a far, far more grievous matter...not to mention stating, while serving under oath, that the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of paper." Nice talk from such a self-proclaimed Jesus freak, don't you think? Lying about a blow job gets you an impeachment from the House, but lying about going to a war to benefit oil congloms doesn't? What's wrong with this country? |
4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 16:40:54 -0800 (PST), trippin-2-8-track
wrote: you need to take responsibility for your own financial income and economic security- it's not "W" or anyone else's fault- no single man is responsible for, or can alter, the economic cycles- they go up and down throughout history, regardless snip Why are you addressing me? My finances are in better shape than 90% of Americans, per the government's own figures. I have no debt to speak of, solvent investments that outpaced both the Dow and NASDAQ averages last year, an ERISA-protected pension and real holdings. You, on the other hand, have nothing. when FDR was president, there was a major depression, that lasted 12 years- try as he did, nothing pulled this country out of it, until the mfg. base got fired up for WWII snip ....a depression caused by the looting of the economy by ne'er-do-wells under Harding and Coolidge, exacerbated by the Marie Antionette-style musings of a dullardish Herbert Hoover...THAT depression? FDR's alphabet soup kept a LOT of people from starving during that Republican-made fiscal disaster...and brought the modernity of electricity to the rural South for the first time, after Republican-owned private utilities refused to serve rural customers. the only thing I can see maybe "should" be done, is start requiring companies that sell 50% or more of their goods in the USA, to have factories here- and employ US workers, rather than overseas workers snip Duh...really! How about OWNERSHIP, nut bag? THAT'S the problem! the trend of shipping all our mfg. jobs overseas, is killing our job base- the reason the US economy was so strong during the post-war "boom years" of 1945-70, was that we made nearly 60% of the world's mfg. goods here in USA snip True. we need to get back to that, because now the only areas of growth, are jobs created using taxpayer money, i.e. gov't and agency jobs not good snip Charlie Nudo actually comes up with a FACT...rare in the four years I've been beating him over the head. Very good, Noodles. Did you take your meds today, or what? Fact is, in the latest, dismal job creation figures, over two-thirds of those jobs showing up in that quarter were, as Noodles says, government jobs. These was never counted before Ronnie RayGun, whose allowance of the beginning of the decimation of Industrial America started piling up double digit unemployment figures quarter after quarter in the '80s...until his handlers figured out they could change the rules and fudge the figures...then everything looked great! Don't mind those people who went from good union manufacturing jobs to terminal unemployment...they don't count anymore...that's the real RayGun legacy. I've always placed RayGun in my "ten worst presidents" cadre. Reaons: serving under the influence of Alzheimer's and Nancy Davis. |
4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain
In article ,
DeserTBoB wrote: On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:55:52 GMT, Neolibertarian wrote: In article , DeserTBoB wrote: Here we go, bracing for yet another in a series of "Dubya Recessions," but this time at the end of his, the worst of just about any of the US presidencies. How do you define "worst?" Just curious.snip Oh, there are a myriad of ways to describe a "worst presidency"...the idiocy and disinterest of the public purse of Warren Harding, the callous disregard of Calvin Coolidge, the ineptitude of U.S. Grant, the complete lack of ability or tilted morality of Millard Fillmore, the self interest of William McKinley or Lyndon Johnson, the lack of cognizance of reality of Herbert Hoover...or the calculated destruction of the very document they were sworn to "uphold and protect," in the cases of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. Your "myriad of ways" begs more questions than it answers; and shows you may have little understanding of the office or its history. Besides, you'd need to define "best president" in order for any of your "gages" to have meaning. A worst logically implies a best, if you see what I mean. Who was "best" by your criteria? Help me out here. The latter's actions which will probably prove, when viewed through the equalizer of time, to be the far more onerous. Such likelihood is not as evident as you seem to believe. What has transpired over the last seven years won't be seen as disasters by anyone. How could it? A strong economy, despite too much government spending and borrowing. A largely successful War on Terror which has brought democracy to the Middle East--despite much wailing and gnashing of teeth from all sides. Iran has been forced to stop her nuclear weapons project. Egypt has agreed to hold free elections. Libya has given up her own weapons project. A democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan where stood ages and ages of tyranny before them. And Islamic terrorists have been killed at a seven to one ratio to American troops. No attacks on American soil since 9/11/01, despite repeated threats by those who'd carried out the first attacks. Your myopia is glaringly apparent here. You can't even define what SHOULD have transpired over the last seven years--and if you don't have a clear idea of should have happened, you've nothing from which to judge what actually what did. One thing is nearly certain he George W. Bush's Presidency won't be judged through the prism of the opposition party. Take your pick á la carte, but be mindful that, of all of the above, many got to the bottom simply by being ignorant, unintelligent or by having limited powers of perception or a miscalibrated moral compass. "When ignorance does not know something, it says that what it does not know is stupid." ---Leo Tolstoy None of the Presidents you listed above were/are ignorant men. None were/are unintelligent men. Until you understand that, I assure you, you understand nothing. Of the above, Harding and Johnson seem to have the worst records--so bad that their own political parties rebelled against them at the time. Neither have the accomplishments under their belts that Nixon, for instance, was able to achieve (for good or ill). And the corruption and lies of Nixon pale in comparison to those of Harding and Johnson. Which you should well know by now. Even so, history does not judge Harding or Johnson or Nixon as "ignorant" or "unintelligent." Perhaps they did, in fact, have "mis-calibrated moral compasses," but that is something so common to history as to be unremarkable. The constraints of the office keep this failing from devolving into disaster. While many righttards will point to Clinton's lying about a blow job from a fat chick, Poor example. He was lying, yes, but he was also lying under oath to a federal grand jury. According to my Constitution, that patently qualifies as a "High Crime and Misdemeanor." A little lie for you and me, sure. But we aren't in a high position. The President is, in fact, in a high position. Which is why the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" clause is there in the first place. Even so, were you or I before a federal grand jury, and it's proved we were lying in our testimony, the most likely outcome is that we'd serve time in a federal penitentiary. Right next door to Scooter Libby, for example. Now, as to whether he /should/ have been testifying under oath to a federal grand jury about an extramarital sexual tryst, he /obviously shouldn't have been/. But since he /was/ testifying, he should have been summarily removed from office for perjuring himself--and those GOP idiots who'd come up with the ludicrous idea of impeaching him should have been removed in the 2000 elections. Period. Neither happened--and because neither happened, my country and my Constitution were, in fact, damaged and diminished as a result. I think lying about yellow cake in Africa just to get Halliburton staged in Iraq to start pumping their oil fields is a far, far more grievous matter... No one was lying about al-Zawahie's attempt to procure uranium in Niger. That's just you repeating something you /thought/ you heard. Maybe you should look into it yourself. If you actually should look into it some day, I assure you, you won't find any "lies" as you intend the word here. No one started a war to enrich KB&R. America doesn't get much oil from Iraq. America gets most of her imported oil from Canada and Saudi Arabia--as she did before Op:IF, of course. Your points are not well taken. Perhaps you should just stick to the facts. not to mention stating, while serving under oath, that the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of paper." Nice talk from such a self-proclaimed Jesus freak, don't you think? Lots of Presidents have been Jesus freaks, silly. Lots of Presidents have skirted my Constitution too. I would lay even money on the probability that some on your "Best List" skirted my Constitution far more flagrantly than the present administration. Besides, what real certainty do we have that he said any such thing? Writers who're frankly opposed to his Presidency and his political party have been caught in many false claims about what he's supposedly said in the Oval Office. These writers force me to discount what they say out of hand. Hell, Woodward may have even got the "Slam Dunk" conversation all wrong. But then, we've known for some time Woodward writes fiction. As do many of his peers. Had Bush, in fact, said the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper," this hardly qualifies as an indictment of his Presidency. As any one statement or expletive would not indict /any/ Presidency in and of itself. That's logical fallacy. Lying about a blow job gets you an impeachment from the House, but lying about going to a war to benefit oil congloms doesn't? No one lied "about going to war to benefit oil congloms." I don't believe you have any real evidence to back up such a ludicrous case--really and truly you should just stick to the facts. If Operation: Iraqi Freedom and Operation: Enduring Freedom were enacted to enforce the Carter Doctrine, then the burden is on you to show us the negative consequences. Frankly, I fail to see ANY bad consequences except to the dictatorships and terrorists in the region. The facts are what history will be most concerned with. What are the facts? What's wrong with this country? This country is doing fine--so I'd have to answer: not much. We're in the midst of the world's greatest economy and we live in the strongest, freest nation in the history of mankind. Opulence and wealth abound. Even the poorest among us have cable TV, DVD players, air conditioned dwellings that are larger than middle class apartments in Europe. Obesity is a primary plague of the poor in the United States. Morally, we have what seem serious problems--that are only getting worse as time goes on--but these have challenged Americans since long before 1787. There is no real reason to think that we are any less likely to prevail over these problems than any previous generation. The government of the United States is flirting with bankruptcy, which IS a serious problem. A VERY serious problem, especially since none of the leading candidates for this year's general election have shown a willingness to even name this problem--let alone address it. Of the three leading Dem candidates, they've told us they all plan to add to this liquidity problem exponentially. The only differences between them is by how many factors they intend to add to it. The GOP's are hardly offering anything better. The man who came in third place in the Iowa Caucuses two nights ago is the only one to have even identified this liquidity problem, or to have offered reasonable solutions for solving it. This may be why he's in third place. -- NeoLibertarian http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg |
4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain
On Jan 6, 1:03*am, Neolibertarian wrote:
In article , *DeserTBoB wrote: On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:55:52 GMT, Neolibertarian wrote: In article , DeserTBoB wrote: Here we go, bracing for yet another in a series of "Dubya Recessions," but this time at the end of his, the worst of just about any of the US presidencies. How do you define "worst?" Just curious.snip Oh, there are a myriad of ways to describe a "worst presidency"...the idiocy and disinterest of the public purse of Warren Harding, the callous disregard of Calvin Coolidge, the ineptitude of U.S. Grant, the complete lack of ability or tilted morality of Millard Fillmore, the self interest of William McKinley or Lyndon Johnson, the lack of cognizance of reality of Herbert Hoover...or the calculated destruction of the very document they were sworn to "uphold and protect," in the cases of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. Your "myriad of ways" begs more questions than it answers; and shows you may have little understanding of the office or its history. Besides, you'd need to define "best president" in order for any of your "gages" to have meaning. A worst logically implies a best, if you see what I mean. Who was "best" by your criteria? Help me out here. The latter's actions which will probably prove, when viewed through the equalizer of time, to be the far more onerous. Such likelihood is not as evident as you seem to believe. What has transpired over the last seven years won't be seen as disasters by anyone. How could it? A strong economy, despite too much government spending and borrowing. A largely successful War on Terror which has brought democracy to the Middle East--despite much wailing and gnashing of teeth from all sides. Iran has been forced to stop her nuclear weapons project. Egypt has agreed to hold free elections. Libya has given up her own weapons project. A democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan where stood ages and ages of tyranny before them. And Islamic terrorists have been killed at a seven to one ratio to American troops. No attacks on American soil since 9/11/01, despite repeated threats by those who'd carried out the first attacks. Your myopia is glaringly apparent here. You can't even define what SHOULD have transpired over the last seven years--and if you don't have a clear idea of should have happened, you've nothing from which to judge what actually what did. One thing is nearly certain he George W. Bush's Presidency won't be judged through the prism of the opposition party. Take your pick á la carte, but be mindful that, of all of the above, many got to the bottom simply by being ignorant, unintelligent or by having limited powers of perception or a miscalibrated moral compass. "When ignorance does not know something, it says that what it does not know is stupid." * * * * * *---Leo Tolstoy None of the Presidents you listed above were/are ignorant men. None were/are unintelligent men. Until you understand that, I assure you, you understand nothing. Of the above, Harding and Johnson seem to have the worst records--so bad that their own political parties rebelled against them at the time. Neither have the accomplishments under their belts that Nixon, for instance, was able to achieve (for good or ill). And the corruption and lies of Nixon pale in comparison to those of Harding and Johnson. Which you should well know by now. Even so, history does not judge Harding or Johnson or Nixon as "ignorant" or "unintelligent." Perhaps they did, in fact, have "mis-calibrated moral compasses," but that is something so common to history as to be unremarkable. The constraints of the office keep this failing from devolving into disaster. While many righttards will point to Clinton's lying about a blow job from a fat chick, Poor example. He was lying, yes, but he was also lying under oath to a federal grand jury. According to my Constitution, that patently qualifies as a "High Crime and Misdemeanor." A little lie for you and me, sure. But we aren't in a high position. The President is, in fact, in a high position. Which is why the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" clause is there in the first place. Even so, were you or I before a federal grand jury, and it's proved we were lying in our testimony, the most likely outcome is that we'd serve time in a federal penitentiary. Right next door to Scooter Libby, for example. Now, as to whether he /should/ have been testifying under oath to a federal grand jury about an extramarital sexual tryst, he /obviously shouldn't have been/. But since he /was/ testifying, he should have been summarily removed from office for perjuring himself--and those GOP idiots who'd come up with the ludicrous idea of impeaching him should have been removed in the 2000 elections. Period. Neither happened--and because neither happened, my country and my Constitution were, in fact, damaged and diminished as a result. I think lying about yellow cake in Africa just to get Halliburton staged in Iraq to start pumping their oil fields is a far, far more grievous matter... No one was lying about al-Zawahie's attempt to procure uranium in Niger. That's just you repeating something you /thought/ you heard. Maybe you should look into it yourself. If you actually should look into it some day, I assure you, you won't find any "lies" as you intend the word here. No one started a war to enrich KB&R. America doesn't get much oil from Iraq. America gets most of her imported oil from Canada and Saudi Arabia--as she did before Op:IF, of course. Your points are not well taken. Perhaps you should just stick to the facts. not to mention stating, while serving under oath, that the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of paper." *Nice talk from such a self-proclaimed Jesus freak, don't you think? Lots of Presidents have been Jesus freaks, silly. Lots of Presidents have skirted my Constitution too. I would lay even money on the probability that some on your "Best List" skirted my Constitution far more flagrantly than the present administration. Besides, what real certainty do we have that he said any such thing? Writers who're frankly opposed to his Presidency and his political party have been caught in many false claims about what he's supposedly said in the Oval Office. These writers force me to discount what they say out of hand. Hell, Woodward may have even got the "Slam Dunk" conversation all wrong. But then, we've *known for some time Woodward writes fiction. As do many of his peers. Had Bush, in fact, said the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper," this hardly qualifies as an indictment of his Presidency. As any one statement or expletive would not indict /any/ Presidency in and of itself. That's logical fallacy. Lying about a blow job gets you an impeachment from the House, but lying about going to a war to benefit oil congloms doesn't? No one lied "about going to war to benefit oil congloms." I don't believe you have any real evidence to back up such a ludicrous case--really and truly you should just stick to the facts. If Operation: Iraqi Freedom and Operation: Enduring Freedom were enacted to enforce the Carter Doctrine, then the burden is on you to show us the negative consequences. Frankly, I fail to see ANY bad consequences except to the dictatorships and terrorists in the region. The facts are what history will be most concerned with. What are the facts? What's wrong with this country? This country is doing fine--so I'd have to answer: not much. We're in the midst of the world's greatest economy and we live in the strongest, freest nation in the history of mankind. Opulence and wealth abound. Even the poorest among us have cable TV, DVD players, air conditioned dwellings that are larger than middle class apartments in Europe. Obesity is a primary plague of the poor in the United States. Morally, we have what seem serious problems--that are only getting worse as time goes on--but these have challenged Americans since long before 1787. There is no real reason to think that we are any less likely to prevail over these problems than any previous generation. The government of the United States is flirting with bankruptcy, which IS a serious problem. A VERY serious problem, especially since none of the leading candidates for this year's general election have shown a willingness to even name this problem--let alone address it. Of the three leading Dem candidates, they've told us they all plan to add to this liquidity problem exponentially. The only differences between them is by how many factors they intend to add to it. The GOP's are hardly offering anything better. The man who came in third place in the Iowa Caucuses two nights ago is the only one to have even identified this liquidity problem, or to have offered reasonable solutions for solving it. This may be why he's in third place. -- NeoLibertarian http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - well said N-L in reference to "DeserTBob" and his political persuasions- keep in mind, when the liberal left-wing Democrats rob Peter to pay Paul, they can always count on the support of Paul Paul in this case, being "DeserTBob"- he's unemployed and on SSI, for the past 10 years- even though he's only 50 years old ? It's a faked injury and fraudulent SSI disability claim- he can work, if he wanted to. |
4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain
On Jan 6, 8:58*am, trippin-2-8-track, Google Charlie Nudo or Drums PA.
wrote: in reference to "DeserTBob" and his political persuasions- keep in mind, when the liberal left-wing Democrats rob Peter to pay Paul, they can always count on the support of Paul Paul in this case, being "DeserTBob"- he's unemployed and on SSI, for the past 10 years- even though he's only 50 years old ? * It's a faked injury and fraudulent SSI disability claim- he can work, if he wanted to. So why hasn't he been charged with fraud? You've must have some kind of evidence to be making such a claim , so put up or... |
4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 05:58:41 -0800 (PST),Charlie Nudo of Drums, PA,
posing as trippin-2-8-track (last of his 29 banned Google Groups accounts) wrote: snipping a lot of self-flagelation by some "neolibertarian" in reference to "DeserTBob" and his political persuasions- keep in mind, when the liberal left-wing Democrats rob Peter to pay Paul, they can always count on the support of Paul snip Ron Paul would never get my support. That's for people like you, Noodles. Here's your free tin foil hat! Paul in this case, being "DeserTBob"- he's unemployed and on SSI, for the past 10 years- even though he's only 50 years old ? It's a faked injury and fraudulent SSI disability claim- he can work, if he wanted to. snip You've made enough false and disparaging statements on Usenet (ones that you cannot erase, nor back up) over the years to be in serious legal jeopardy. If you value your $40K vacation shack near Lake Bumler, I'd recommend finding another pastime, Noodles...like throwing your thrift store computer into Lake Bumler before you drive Cheryl and the milkman's kid into never-ending poverty. |
4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain
On Jan 6, 9:49*am, "H. E. Pennypacker"
wrote: On Jan 6, 8:58*am, trippin-2-8-track, Google Charlie Nudo or Drums PA. wrote: in reference to "DeserTBob" and his political persuasions- keep in mind, when the liberal left-wing Democrats rob Peter to pay Paul, they can always count on the support of Paul Paul in this case, being "DeserTBob"- he's unemployed and on SSI, for the past 10 years- even though he's only 50 years old ? * It's a faked injury and fraudulent SSI disability claim- he can work, if he wanted to. So why hasn't he been charged with fraud? You've must have some kind of evidence to be making such a claim , so put up or... for the same reason welfare ho's aren't charged with fraud... who cares ! |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:34 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CollectingBanter.com