History is wrong then.. in your eyes only of course.

Who said we could afford it?

Unlike Reagan and Bush.... The GDP and spending are almost at the same level, while it's way the hell up, it's not skyrocketing. While it's not something to throw a party about, it's damn sure something to stand up and take notice over.

People got behind Clinton for that, and all he did was use fed debt to pay off public debt, not really lowering anything and spending more. If history is repeating itself, then Obama will be loved, it did after all take Clinton 2 terms to pull that off, and Obama has done it in less than 1.

But honestly - I don't expect you to recognize that.

Again, didn't say anything about "we" I said they, keep in the conversation

Again, never brought this shit up, you did, And I could give a shit what that asshole Obama has for a future, just as long as it's as an ex president in 2013.

You keep bringing up how he did it, well he did and it worked, cold war is over, what ever happened afterwards, it still worked.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=8bVblNA3drM

There were pockets of yellow ribbon fools even for the first gulf war......fooled me once, etc...

like i have said before, i voted for obama because i really thought he might get people excited about change and people might actually get more involved in how their country is run..

of course, he was just more of the same and i have now become completely disgusted with the american political system and how both sides conduct business purely on the basis of doing what the large corporations want them to do. when in our history did becoming a congressman mean that you would become a millionaire? public service should mean just that, serving the public...

i really hope we have an economic meltdown. i know what it would mean and that people would suffer greatly, but that is what it will take for people to finally stand up and start creating change..







.

thats because we needed a victory after we were disgraced in vietnam...

but, a lot of americans did not want bush to continue with a ground offensive after we decimated their air and communications....




.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... you totally don't get it.

How do WE afford it today if WE are already bankrupt? WE CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!



Actually, you did... I responded to your response to marketsmart, which was "Which begs to answer the question with everyone getting pissed at Bush for getting into two wars, how can anyone be behind Obama when we are in I don't know how many more?"

You asked why people are pissed at Bush more than Obama over the wars, the answer is in what I wrote.... and I really didn't think I needed to post the duh details, like Bush lying to us to start a war, hiding the costs of the war, and almost 4 trillion in bailouts.

This situation requires serious cognitive thought on the subject, focusing in one or a few aspects at time is what you keep doing, a single question while ignoring or not knowing the obvious is what you're doing, which is why you clearly do not understand what happened or what is going on today, in full details.

That's not a bash, it takes all types to make the world go around.

I never liked him, he was the classic politician, promising everything with no real plan.

In your opinion who do you think can beat Obama, and what exactly is THEIR plan?

Just it, I never said anything about it

So you don't know either? Ok

Hehehe, exactly eh? Could you ignore the facts anymore, openly? Wow.




So you truly didn't see the answers? Wow... see my reply directly above.

So you're content with way it's going?

I love it when the only defense for Obama is McCain would have been worse, please look up the meaning of conjecture !!

It's not about the plan, it's about the execution, Obama is a bad leader. PERIOD

Or maybe you have no concern over the 9.2 unemplyment rate?

Something you do all the time, the facts as started, Reagan spent a lot of money, the USSR tried to keep up, Reagan got the price of oil to go down, that cut the income of the USSR, they are NO MORE
You just keep coming up with why is was bad, yet never acknowledge it worked



You're just answering yourself, I neve asked those questions

I did not vote for Obama, but I'll tell what I like about him in relation to the others, it's also what I hate, but I have to live with.

It's simple..... he is a clear corporatist, and he doesn't hide it for a second. And it's very easy to understand and see what he is doing and will do next, his ties are defined, clear, and repeating like clockwork.

Bush, was a corporatist as well, however he gave so little fucking care to anything, he just did wtf ever he and his people wanted with zero regard, at all, to anyone or the country, and the list is so long of what he did to fuck us and make them richer, it's not possible to list.

This is why Romney is the best Republican, he's about as transparent as a corporatist can get, he is the Republican Obama.

This is also why the other Republicans are pure shit, they are like Bush and simply do wtf ever they want for pure self interest of the elite and use pure stupidity to mask the truth of what is going on, exactly like Bush.

All of them are basically the same, they hold all the power, which is why someone like Ron Paul stands no chance, even if we all voted for him.

Do you understand the question you posed here "Or maybe you have no concern over the 9.2 unemplyment rate" is conjecture?

Well, not really.. conjecture can't be a question and you both asked questions, however your question could be taken as conjecture based on incomplete information, much less than BFT3K could have been, actually his isn't conjecture at all.

Your question should be: Does the 3% gain in unemployment under Obama concern you? Now it's not conjecture.

Actually, I said he made it happen faster, that is acknowledgement to what he did.... however the facts remain, it would have ended either way - something you completely ignore when they were already screwed.





umm....

Yeah.... ok.

Sorry Vendzilla I always thought you supported the wars. As for a vet that bla bla bla that's not a good thing that you've done stupid things, don't know why you're boasting about them.

Why would anyone want to shoot a bunch of desert dwelling civilians where the top gun was invented decades ago?

As for stupid things, I did what was asked of me, if you have a problem with that, go fuck yourself!

This was my original question...

In your opinion who do you think can beat Obama, and what exactly is THEIR plan?

This is your non-answer....

No answer at all - just redirection and drivel, as usual.

The Reagan era was great for punk bands ...

Ok, I'll explain it for you.
The lack of a viable replacement within the GOP has concern for me because it's turned into a negative press attack based on meaningless drivel.
Whoever comes to the forefront of the GOP nomination will get my vote because he's not Obama, which is the only way that asshole got in office.

Never has there been a president that had such a bad record on unemployment since the great depression and for country to do better, thats the number one thing he should have been working on.

There are no excuses

Your reply makes me ill.

So him stopping the fastest unemployment increase in history as he came into office counts for nothing? That's harsh.... you're really busting his balls for 3%?

How about him cutting taxes, giving tax credits for hiring and really a small business, forcing banks to start loaning to more small business, giving funds for those loans for small business, small business registrations ares up through local chambers, States have actually reported parts of his stimulus as a success for jobs and saving them - it was not a total failure by any means, stopping credit fraud which did hit small business, big corps have more money than ever in history and it's not like he can make them hire, stocks have rebounded nicely, he's trying to make a fixed real estate tax so we can better project the future, he's extended tax breaks on equip purchases......... btw, healthcare bill allows for projected insurance costs - something a corp doesn't have now.

You know, that's the short list, shit that actually nothing compared to what he's actually done - if you would actually read up on it.. I don't think you have any clue what Obama has done, at any level, at any point, in any factor - damn sure not related to business.

Read up - stop being a sheep, just stop... ugg.

There is some major ownage being handed out in this thread. Vendzilla you needed to shut your piehole on the first page. However, please continue as I am enjoying this while I sit here enjoying my beer on this beautiful day lol!!!

So ... basically you are AGAINST the wars ... after ... voting for the wars ....??? right.. like a flip-flop :

https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=8120634&postcount=5


nice to see your are no way brighter today :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

... and bad for progressive rock bands.

:1orglaugh ain't that the truth.
actually that genesis tune/video was the only one i liked :1orglaugh

btw i posted this a while back but this station is fantastic for 70's, early 80's punk/alt rock - http://www.punkfm.co.uk/ if you still listen to that stuff.

Eisenhower did everything they say Reagan did

Ronald Reagan was a complete tool --that's why airports and schools are named after him, and why other countries have statues of him. Oh, I forgot the aircraft carrier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Ronald_Reagan

Ronald Reagan honoured with London statue

July 4, 2011

The private unveiling was a solemn occasion – yet it was Ronald Reagan's genius for affability that made him popular

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-london-statue

Yet the unemployment is still 9.2 %? So he's doing all this and it's not working?

As usual, nothing to offer but an empty insult, just like that that empty vessel on your shoulders?

Wait, you went back 6 years in GFY to prove that I didn't want war, I wanted a tactical strike so it would have been BANG and over? Thanks for proving me right?

Big difference between carpet bombing a village and going to war

Fuck You, here's a pic of the Ronald Reagan, my daughters ship
You of course heard they received high honors for their humanitarian efforts in the Philippines? http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=38237
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._5457240_n.jpg

That would be proof of it working... As you can see it's not still unstable and skyrocketing up. Your expecting results no president has ever produced with roughly the same economic standings, in the same period of time. Read that again so you fully understand it.

He has done almost the same thing as Reagan, has created almost the same pattern, but Obama is actually doing it faster, it took Reagan both terms to really turn it around. And he did it with total shit min wage jobs, where tech-edu jobs is on the up with Obama.

As I said.... You don't know what Obama has really done.

Yep... He was a tool.

you can find this with shit tons of presidents, the pope, kings, and wait for it..... Even dictators. Such amazing logic you presented here, grats on sucking up to one of the worst corportist presidents in history.

this is interesting...

What's really funny here is that no one knows when the Taliban came into power. They surely didn't exist when Regan was in office.

Taliban is nothing more than a word we made up to define a large group of people, like us saying Southerners or Yankees. They have always been in power, Reagan is talking to them in that picture.

Actually the Taliban was given the name by The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam political movement from Pakistan, basically a Assembly of Islamic Clergy from the school. The western world had nothing to do with the name...nice try but you fail.

:1orglaugh Morons make me laugh... The word you're looking for is: Tehrik-e-Taliban - You know, the student movement in Pakistan, ie: Pakistanians.

Son, the language is made up of groups of words to create new words and meanings... Taliban is two words combined together, in our use, it's a single word with a single meaning - we made the word mean "Islamist militia group" for the groups of Afghanistan war lords we're fighting - it's our word.

"Since becoming a loanword in English, Taliban, besides a plural noun referring to the group, has also been used as a singular noun referring to an individual."

I can read the wiki too, I just understand what I'm reading, jack ass.

Under Reagan the unemployment rate peaked then when down, under Barry, it peaked and stayed there, kinda a big difference

But then you think that the cold war was coming to an end before Reagan took office, the warsaw pact didn't happen till 91.

Oh and I love that you go on and on on how Obama stopped the it from getting worse, something that can't be proved, remember he said without the stimulus the unemployment rate would go as high as 8%, when the last time it was that good?

Whaa whaa whaa...you failed again.

So sad, but once again not surprised at your lack of knowledge.

Umm... That would mean Obama has hit his peak and is on his way down, and AGAIN, if you actually looked at the numbers you would see Reagan took a bit as well.

As I said, they are almost the same - IF - you would actually go look.

I don't think anything, historians are the ones that think this, I simply repeated what they said. You thinking one man ended it or even started the end, proves this point over and over and over again.


To continue on with the slaughter here.... Obama never said the rate wouldn't go above or below 8% (proof) or anything related to what you said. You, are taking a talking point that is complete bullshit and repeating it as fact, because you've never looked it up.

What you're referring to is a "projection" in a report, not words... it comes from this - which also says, many reports say it will go as high as 11% - and it also says this isn't an easy thing to predict thus expect errors.

You can start here to learn more about the stimulus... that did work, that many economics show that worked that also say not parts worked, exactly what Obama said as well.


Again... you have no idea wtf Obama has done, or the results of what he has done, or truly... any factor outside of a talking point, educate yourself - stop being a sheep.

Great way to back yourself up... but hey, I don't expect much from little shit stains on here.

Reagan would be a democrat if he was just coming onto the scene in 2011. He's way way way left of even the moderate right (is there such a thing?)these days.

The rate did peak and went down right before he was reelected, look at a graph
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/hor...20Approval.jpg

the projection is what Barry used to get the stimulus, I wanted the stmulus to be honest, it just didn't work because of bad leadership, it was suppose to get people back to work, it didn't, you can throw any graphs or economic forcasts all you want, but it was to address the unemployment rate which is still at 9.2%. For the economy to get better, people need to get back to work, be taxed, then the government will have enough money to work with again.

Yeah it did a lot of things, just didn't do anything for the people out of work.

Ummmm.... that's exactly what I've been saying, and that's pretty much what Obama's numbers are doing - other than it was already skyrocketing up when Obama came in - unlike Regan.

It did work -- plenty of economists back that. Bad leadership happened at the state level - good leadership is Obama yelling at the States for being stupid and adjusting it - that's what real leaders do. The entire bill was not suppose to get people back to work, only parts of it - and over time to ensure it was done correctly - hellooooo.... Then, much of it went to help States directly, not to create jobs but to save them, and without f'in question it did that.... and very well.

Technically, it did help people out of work, greatly. What it didn't do is drop the unemployment rate another 3%.... yet. Given enough time, equal to say Reagan - maybe it will.

there use to be conservative democrats at one time I believe