See if you can percieve the difference between these two people, one of them is a leader and a man.

"I screwed up."
-- Barack Obama, February 3, 2009

"I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it... I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet... You know I... I hope I... I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't... You just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."
-- George W. Bush, August 13, 2004, when asked if he'd made any mistakes since September 11, 2001

Quote from dave:
"Who was it that said the definition of insanity was doing the same things again and again and expecting a different outcome?"

You mean like supporting w and all he represents for 8 long years, and then doing nothing but bashing Obama, who has been in office all of 2 weeks, over the pettest of issues?

Stay the pathetic course...

Hmmm... From Merriam-Webster (America's foremost publisher of language-related reference works):

LEADER: a person who leads, a person who directs a military force or unit, a person who has commanding authority or influence

MAN: an individual human ; especially : an adult male human

I would state that given the above definitions that EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT fits the definition of a "leader and a man". But I digress, as I am intelligent enough to realize that this was simply meant as just more Bush bashing - and character assassination at that.

I can only conclude that those who still continue to bash Bush and blame everything on his administration only continue to do so because after 8 long years of doing exactly that you have no idea what to do at this point. I believe this is compounded by the fact that Obama so far is coming off no better than Bush.



Now where did you get the idea I supported everything Bush represents? I had PLENTY of issues with Bush - but given the choices, I sided with what I believed to be the lesser of two evils... and yes, I'd do it again! I have yet to see an election in my lifetime where I was excited to be voting FOR someone rather than AGAINST the lesser of the two evils. (I would have been excited to have been given the chance to vote for Ron Paul).

And as I pointed out before - it seems as if there are very few here who are interested in discussing the issues... Instead, write them off as "the pettest of issues". Frankly, passing legislation that would further tank the economy and perhaps start a trade war... not petty in my book. Perhaps we are using different dictionaries.



I am an American. I have the right to free speech as written in the US constitution. If standing up for what I believe in, and pointing out where I believe we have gone wrong and writing and calling my representatives to express my feelings on current legislation is pathetic... I will do exactly that.

Note, if SOMEONE hadn't raised a stink about bringing in folks who don't pay their own taxes, and about passing legislation that could further destroy the economy there would have been no apologies from Obama, and there would have been BIGGER mistakes made.

I mean, one doesn't need a big grasp of economics to realize the outcome of what had been proposed... who hasn't seen Ferris Bueller:



Hmmm... we've gone from "Voodoo" economics to Obamanomics. What repeats itself? Class? Anyone? Anyone?

Now, if the above statement does not describe George W. Bush, I don't one one that does.
I find Obama to be the exact opposite of the above statement.

Yeah, Dave's right. It was about voting for the lesser of the 2 evils. Ron Paul would've been a good one. Too bad they didn't get him or Huckabee for the Republicans. Either one of them would've done better than McCain if they'd been picked...

In his heart of hearts, McCain knew Obama was the better man for the job.....which is why he picked Sarah Palin as a running mate.

I really thought that McCain was chosen simply because the Rs knew whoever they chose would be sacrificed against Obama. They didn't want to ruin the chances of anyone "good" who might run in the future, so they chose him, with his knowledge, to be the sacrifice.

Nah! Too many holes in this theory. First of all, the primary voters made the choice. Second of all, who do the Republicans have that's good?

What?! I wondered why I didn't get any references when I asked where that figure came from... So, I checked for myself, using the most recent and current figures I could find from reputable sources.

Cost of O's stimulus package:


Cost of War In Iraq:


So, the report above states the cost of the wars in BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq has been about $904 billion to date. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is no way in hell 2.5 days of the war in Iraq = O's stimulus plan.

So to clarify and put proper perspective on it:

Obama's stimulus package = Approximately the total cost of the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq to date.

That's a fucking OUTRAGE!!!!! He is going to run up more debt in one fell swoop than it took the cost of both wars to rack up in years!

Maybe the decimal point just got lost, lol!

Oh Dave, If Bush and the right wing nut pundit morons hadn't fucked up so bad there would be no need for a stimulus package!

Who is reponsible for what Dave?

I'm not saying that the past administration hasn't screwed up... But you yourself said it, they made a mess. And what did Bush's "stimulus" package do? Not a damn thing... Did you not see my earlier post? So quick to blame, and yet I find very few mentions that folks around here are happy about this stimulus package - are you looking forward to it? If you do think it's a good idea or even a "it's the best we can do" approach - can you explain your reasoning? I'm seeing very little substance - well except when it comes to pointing out what Bush did - (and possibly even waning support in the form of silence) from the other side on here.

Would you like to comment on the following quote? It's from Ron Paul by the way.



I now return you to your continued Bush bashing, and real topic avoidance.

My opinion is that the original bailout money should have gone to the American taxpayer. We would have put it back into the circular flow. The companies that were going to go under would fail regardless. By bailing out the companies and not the taxpayers directly, flagrant abuse occurred and it was almost predictable.

Now they need more money because of overspending... it's almost mandatory at this point to give the little guy money. Will it help? Well, I don't think it will hurt. Won't know if it helps until a year or so down the road.

It's too late to rethink what should have been... at least this time around. Maybe for the next crash of the economy, they can take at look at this boondoggle and say, "huh... bail out the companies? nah, I'll put my money on the little guys."

So, I think there's simply no turning back on the stimulus stuff... it's too far gone already.

"The U.S. government has already spent $904 billion since 2001 to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and both of those conflicts are far from over."

That's the fucking OUTRAGE!!!!!

I say ram the stimulus package down the opponents' throats, and let them run for cover when the recovery comes. I'd rather spend a trillion building up this country rather than a trillion tearing down others any day!


mikey

Ok, first things first - are you actually being serious with the above statement?!! Can you show me where ANY stimulus or bailout in all of history ever was successful?

On the other hand, in 1993, despite rising unemployment (unemployment was higher in 1993 than it is today), Senate Republicans filibustered Bill Clinton’s “stimulus package” to death, forcing him back towards the political center. The result was years of solid economic growth and falling unemployment rates. Unfortunately, nobody seems to remember that today.

Can you show me any proof that stimulus packages actually work? Joe Biden claims that not a single person doubts than an economic stimulus of $700 billion or more will work. House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) on the other hand is compiling a list of credentialed American economists who would like to add their voices to the list of stimulus spending skeptics. Here is a list as of Jan 16, 2009 - Updated full list of respondents (.pdf)

I remember this stimulus from when I was young. It was a long song by some hippie. It stimulated me and many others. It was a big part of why I legally never had to register for the draft. Hell, it was a movement.

Edited to remove the word almost...

Again with the jokes...