Paul Ryan

[Gordon Gray]

Timm,

Appreciate your perspective.

Regarding GWB doing what he thought was right, I'm somewhat speechless.

He thought it was right to invade Iraq under the guise of finding "weapons of mass destruction", which we all know now was a false premise.

This decision cost this country many American lives and about 2 trillion dollars. Not to mention all of the other casualties incurred by the Iraqi citizens and other country's citizens who participated in the war.

I've also heard some compelling arguments that our actions in Iraq allowed Iran to strengthen its position in the Middle East and has contributed to the current "nuclear" showdown in Iran.

GG

 

[timm]

Gordon.
I feel that since we all have time on our side to look back and judge it is easy playing Monday morning quarterback. Presidents make decisions based off of intelligence all the time. Sometimes it isn't good intelligence. You can say that about dems and reps alike.
Say what u want about bush but I think the reason we were there was to create chaos so that groups couldn't organize for further attacks.

If u recall after 911 there were plenty of predictions about future terrorist attacks on our soil. It didn't happen did it? So if u r going to blame bush for everything else then blame him for that as well. Also blame 8 years of poor intelligence PRIOR to him taking office for 911.

I'm not a bush slappy . Trust me on that. But I am also not so jaded or duped to believe that both parties don't play this stupid game with facts.

 

[Len44]

If u recall after 911 there were plenty of predictions about future terrorist attacks on our soil. It didn't happen did it? So if u r going to blame bush for everything else then blame him for that as well. Also blame 8 years of poor intelligence PRIOR to him taking office for 911.

:wtf: Are you seriously suggesting (or making an accusation) that President Clinton was responsible for 9/11 because of lousy intelligence during his eight years in office?????? But then, Bush somehow magically "restored" the astuteness of the intelligence community the moment he took office???

If so, that is just about the most absurd thing I've ever heard!

I've always thought you were much more discerning regarding...well, pretty much everything.

 

[timm]

:wtf: Are you seriously suggesting (or making an accusation) that President Clinton was responsible for 9/11 because of lousy intelligence during his eight years in office?????? But then, Bush somehow magically "restored" the astuteness of the intelligence community the moment he took office???

If so, that is just about the most absurd thing I've ever heard!

I've always thought you were much more discerning regarding...well, pretty much everything.

No Len -- not at all... You see, I'm not in the blame game... I do understand that situations present themselves for whatever reason and people/presidents need to make decisions. Sometimes they are poor ones... sometimes they are good... Sometimes things can't be controlled and whatever choice you make you are doomed.

But to blame 1 man for the problems we have today... the problems we had yesterday etc... to me -- THAT is absurd. How about this? Democrats and Republicans were both responsible for our debt.... They were both responsible for missing intelligence that could have prevented 911.... They were both responsible for the wars...and payments for those wars.... They were both responsible for raising and decreasing taxes....The bottom line is -- if both parties do not take responsibility for where we are at - then nothing gets done.... Problem is - we have a lot of people pointing fingers, looking across the hallway saying 'they are the reason.....that Bush guy...if it weren't for him....if that president wouldn't have raised the deficit...' It goes on and on....

The fact that I said something positive about Bush - I knew would get people's attention. But, I stated my reasons - and again, I have no agenda, nor do I consider one party all right and one party all wrong.

I'll stand by my statements about why Obama will win the election... Reason? Because the masses of voters can't hear the message most of the time - whether its right or wrong. They vote for who they can relate with - who has better presentation. The message gets so distorted and the facts are so skewed it is really hard to decipher... If you look at things from the top down - things look like X...tilt it on its side and they look like Y.....

 

[twich54]

Timm, good rebuttal, I agree. Len......to think Clinton didn't have blown intelligence, now that's absurd as well.

 

[Len44]

Timm, good rebuttal, I agree. Len......to think Clinton didn't have blown intelligence, now that's absurd as well.

There is not much that Timm said with which I would disagree. My comments were more focused on the suggestion that Bush was so disadvantaged by Clinton's administration and the inference that 9/11 was somehow, bizarrely, President Clinton's fault because he (allegedly) did not adequately mandate good intelligence. That is utter nonsense.

We all know -- hell, the whole world knows -- that Bush was a [very bad] joke and a failure as President. In a column some time back Al Neuharth, the founder of USA Today, rated the Best Presidents (of his time), as well as the Worst, which he said was an easy call: George "W" Bush.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-02-18-column18_ST_N.htm

Bush (like Romney) was/is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corporate America and Big Banks and Wall Street. G. Bush, along with Cheney and Karl Rove, Tom Delay and Jack Abrahmhoff and their ilk, pretty well wrecked the Country. And everybody knows it.

 

[timm]

There is not much that Timm said with which I would disagree. My comments were more focused on the suggestion that Bush was so disadvantaged by Clinton's administration and the inference that 9/11 was somehow, bizarrely, President Clinton's fault because he (allegedly) did not adequately mandate good intelligence. That is utter nonsense.

We all know -- hell, the whole world knows -- that Bush was a [very bad] joke and a failure as President. In a column some time back Al Neuharth, the founder of USA Today, rated the Best Presidents (of his time), as well as the Worst, which he said was an easy call: George "W" Bush.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-02-18-column18_ST_N.htm

Bush (like Romney) was/is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corporate America and Big Banks and Wall Street. G. Bush, along with Cheney and Karl Rove, Tom Delay and Jack Abrahmhoff and their ilk, pretty well wrecked the Country. And everybody knows it.

- Len -- I think something took over you when I said something about Bush.... My point was not about Clinton - nor his admin... I actually have high regard for Clinton and think that the whole impeachment business was a farce.... I also never mentioned anything about the Bush admin's intelligence... (you threw that in there!!) But, back to my point,... it was basically that you can not blame Bush for everything... and if you do choose to blame him for everything... then he has to get credit for good things as well (such as the non-attacks post 9/11...I believe was my example)...

Did you think I was pulling an Obama on Clinton or something - blaming Clinton for Bush's problems?? sorry.... I am smiling and hope you are as well.....and I hope you see the irony... I hate politics....

 

[Len44]

- Len -- I think something took over you when I said something about Bush.... My point was not about Clinton - nor his admin... I actually have high regard for Clinton and think that the whole impeachment business was a farce.... I also never mentioned anything about the Bush admin's intelligence... (you threw that in there!!) But, back to my point,... it was basically that you can not blame Bush for everything... and if you do choose to blame him for everything... then he has to get credit for good things as well (such as the non-attacks post 9/11...I believe was my example)...

Did you think I was pulling an Obama on Clinton or something - blaming Clinton for Bush's problems?? sorry.... I am smiling and hope you are as well.....and I hope you see the irony... I hate politics....

Naw, what "got me started" was this statement: "Also blame 8 years of poor intelligence PRIOR to him taking office for 911." And I was just pointing out that I didn't think Bush's intelligence was better than Clinton's, as you seemed to be making excuses for Bush by blaming the previous administration's poor oversight of the intelligence community. Of course, if we're speaking of just the raw intelligence of these two Presidents, then, of course, they were / are on two completely different levels. :devil:

I appreciate your measured and thoughtful comments. And yes, for the record, I am smiling...

 

[runnin17]

Personally I don't ever think the excuse that the previous guy messed things up is the response any president should ever give.

When Romney wins if he ever utters that his failures are due to Obama then I will have the exact same opinion. I am tired of excuses. Washington as a whole needs to be able to admit when they have made a mistake and make promises that they will actually keep.

If Obama would admit that he has screwed up certain aspects of his presidency then I would have a ton more respect for him. The office of the Presidency needs to be treated with more dignity IMO.

 

[Len44]

Personally I don't ever think the excuse that the previous guy messed things up is the response any president should ever give.

Well, that is a comment of someone who is clearly a Romney supporter. It's like, "OK, we (Bush Republicans) really screwed things up, and you (Obama and you Democrats) didn't clean up the mess quickly enough." What a crazy notion! This after President Clinton handed over a Country that was in terrific economic shape and on track to PAY OFF the national debt. In fact, there was some concern that we were going to be paying off the national debt too fast. (!) And then...along came George Bush...and the rest is (sad) history.

When Romney wins if he ever utters that his failures are due to Obama then I will have the exact same opinion. I am tired of excuses. Washington as a whole needs to be able to admit when they have made a mistake and make promises that they will actually keep.

Really? So when President Bush was asked, point blank, to identify any mistake he had made during his presidency, and he got this blank look on his face, then a look of annoyance, then sputtered for a few moments, then stated that he "couldn't think of any" mistakes he'd made, you would criticize him for that? Or not, since he is, after all, "Saint George," who can do no wrong, even when he is totally screwing up everything he touches, and has ever touched.

If Obama would admit that he has screwed up certain aspects of his presidency then I would have a ton more respect for him. The office of the Presidency needs to be treated with more dignity IMO.

Here you go...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/obama-abc-interview_n_1235281.html

Let me know if you need more.

I will be standing by for the, um, "ton more respect" you will now have for President Obama.

 

[runnin17]

No worries. That "one term proposition" Obama promised about is pretty much the only promise he is going to keep.

 

[Rich]

No worries. That "one term proposition" Obama promised about is pretty much the only promise he is going to keep.

Obama promised in '08 to pass a health care bill to cover the uninsured. He kept that promise.

 

[runnin17]

Obama promised in '08 to pass a health care bill to cover the uninsured. He kept that promise.

And promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, and promised to lower unemployment to 5.4%, and promised not to raise the cost of health care, etc, etc. All those promises he did not keep. Keep drinking the Kool-aid.

 

[Rich]

And promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, and promised to lower unemployment to 5.4%, and promised not to raise the cost of health care, etc, etc. All those promises he did not keep. Keep drinking the Kool-aid.

He hasn't raised taxes on the middle class, he has lowered unemployment from where it was when he came into office, and there is no proof you can cite that he has raised the cost of healthcare, which has been skyrocketing for the past two decades (in case you forgot). As for your last comment, insults like that are a simple refuge for those who lack the intellectual capacity to engage in thoughtful debate.

Just curious which campaign promises you are going to hold Mitt to? The ultra conservative ones he made during the primary, or the almost liberal ones he has made in the general, after shaking his etch-a-sketch?

 

[runnin17]

He hasn't raised taxes on the middle class, he has lowered unemployment from where it was when he came into office, and there is no proof you can cite that he has raised the cost of healthcare, which has been skyrocketing for the past two decades (in case you forgot). As for your last comment, insults like that are a simple refuge for those who lack the intellectual capacity to engage in thoughtful debate.

Just curious which campaign promises you are going to hold Mitt to? The ultra conservative ones he made during the primary, or the almost liberal ones he has made in the general, after shaking his etch-a-sketch?

Mmmmm, that must be some good Kool-aid you are drinking. Unlike many people I actually do my research. You spout that the unemployment rate is lower. Actually it is exactly the same as when Obama took office. It was 7.8% then and it is 7.8% now. If you look at the number of under-employed and people that have simply stopped trying to look for a job then the rate is around 11%. That number was around 10% when Obama took office. So explain to me how Obama has helped the economy.

Also, he has raised taxes on the middle class. It is called Obamacare. Do you research and then come back.

 

[twich54]

Gents, lets all play (as Rich stated) with some respect to each other in the sand box, otherwise I'll put the cover on it !

 

[Gordon Gray]

runnin,

As you may know, the "exchange" portion of the health care bill has not yet taken effect.

That is where the savings, and lowering of overall health care costs, will occur.

The insurance companies have simply raised their rates in the interim.

Yes, and please stop using the term "kool aid". It's condescending and insulting.

GG

 

[Len44]

Yeah, noticed that some posts "disappeared" yesterday...

Good job.

 

[jmschnur]

Mmmmm, that must be some good Kool-aid you are drinking. Unlike many people I actually do my research. You spout that the unemployment rate is lower. Actually it is exactly the same as when Obama took office. It was 7.8% then and it is 7.8% now. If you look at the number of under-employed and people that have simply stopped trying to look for a job then the rate is around 11%. That number was around 10% when Obama took office. So explain to me how Obama has helped the economy.

Also, he has raised taxes on the middle class. It is called Obamacare. Do you research and then come back.

To do a one to one we would have to compare on Inauguration Day in 2013. At the current rate of improvement it is not unreasonable to expect the situation to be better then than now... But it is of course hard to predict .


J

 

[Len44]

To do a one to one we would have to compare on Inauguration Day in 2013. At the current rate of improvement it is not unreasonable to expect the situation to be better then than now... But it is of course hard to predict .
J

While I mostly agree with this statement, is it not unreasonable to also recognize the trajectory of the economy -- both then and now? Bush had set the economy (and the Country) on such as ruinous path that it has taken a herculean effort to first stop the bleeding and then begin the awesome task of turning things around.

And now, Romney wants to take us back to those "wonderful" days of Bush... Sheesh!