An appropriate honor.

[ishkabibble]

I certainly would not blame the Dems for Congress being partisan. They are pretty spineless. The neocons are the ones who will not reach across the aisle.

The Dems have a single vote majority in the Senate, and that single vote is a neocon in Dem clothing. So it's hard to get anything done.

Since the right likes to blame the previous administration for current events, why aren't they blaming the 6 years of Bush w/ rubber stamp Congress?

[rn79870]

Since the right likes to blame the previous administration for current events, why aren't they blaming the 6 years of Bush w/ rubber stamp Congress?

And again Ish, you bring into focus what others continue to miss. Anyone care to answer that question?

[audtatious]

audatatious,

while congress may be partisan at this point this was really all started by the actions of the Reupublican party over the years it was in power. Threatening to remove the ability to fillibuster a bill is just one example. That being said. I think your wrong. The president has give nvery little on anything. He didn't give on sending our troops to college...he opposed it (along with McCain) and then flipped when he signed it and gave himself and McCain credit for it. Or you could look at the FISA bill which basically gave him everythign he wanted after he threatened to veto any other version. If it was that important to nat.ional security, why not sign something just to protect us and fix it later?

btw its aisle (just givin yea crap)

Then blame the Dems for folding? Let him veto other versions if there is a reason NOT to pass the bill. I have no problem with that at all and I fully expect the "other side" not to approve of possibly bad legislation.

[ishkabibble]

I'm confused. Are we supposed to blame the Dems for folding, or for being partisan? I realize everything is their fault, but I want to make sure I'm blaming them for the right reason.

[audtatious]

I don't see them as partisan just like you don't see the rep side being partisan. The reps, IMO, have reached across the isle far more than the dems. The dems simply state they have other ways to tackle the issues but never seem to come up with any viable solutions. What happened to the Dems pressing forth change and having a plan to lower gas prices and all the other BS they stated prior to getting the majority of the houses?

[ishkabibble]

I didn't see a whole lot of bipartisanship, if any at all, when The Hammer ruled Congress and K Street. The neocons would even crucify their own of they didn't toe the party line.

The only reason they are even slightly working with the Dems now is to save their own hides in the upcoming elections. The midterm and interim elections probably scared the crap out of them.

I disagree with most of the Dem's perspectives, but calling the neocons more willing to compromise than the Dems is laughable. The Dems are spineless and fold under the slightest bit of pressure. They need to be led by people like Kucinich and Feingold rather than Reid and Pelosi.

[audtatious]

Maybe it is more 2-sided than I realize based on the conservative sites I visit. Without spending time to research (time I don't have or I would debate it) I keep looking back at SS reform and the Dems being unwilling to do anything but say "no" yet never present a viable solution or even one which can be discussed.

I've stated time and time again that both sides suck.

[skylndrftr]

Finally!!! something we agree on.

no matter what your point of view I don't htink the current politicians represent our interest in the least. on either side

[smockers83]

Since the right likes to blame the previous administration for current events, why aren't they blaming the 6 years of Bush w/ rubber stamp Congress?

telcoman also quoted me and asked this as well (not sure why because I never blamed Clinton for anything in what he quoted me for). I'm going to comment on it. Where did anyone blame current events on the Clinton admin here in this thread or in this forum? But as a person on the right, how exactly are we to blame today's events on the Clinton administration? I'm not blaming him for today's events although I know some like to bring up not going after bin Laden when he had the chance. Other than that, can someone expand on the issues that have been blamed on Clinton?

[rn79870]

I really intended this OP as a statement with respect to what GW has done on his watch. Even us "Bush bashers" can't blame him for much of what has happened in the world, however, we can blame him for his inept handling of those matters that arose during his tenure.

My final thoughts, Thank heavens for the 22nd. Amendment.

[audtatious]

I think he did a very good job stimulating the economy after 9/11 instead of letting fear take it down a death spiral.

[skylndrftr]

My final thoughts, Thank heavens for the 22nd. Amendment.

lets just hope you don't go on to eat those words

[telcoman]

lets just hope you don't go on to eat those words

The only thing worse than a 3rd Bush presidency would be a McCain following his misguided policies.

Telcoman

[audtatious]

Which policies and exactly why are they misguided?

[rn79870]

lets just hope you don't go on to eat those words

You know Sky, that's always a chance with a 2 party system...but... seriously, from an international, or even a domestic point of view, how could it get any worse?

[BigMACKenzie]

Quote » Then lets cancel out Obama for doing drugs as well. [/quote]There is a HUGE difference between someone who admits using drugs and an addict/A person with a drug "addiction" and or "problem". Obama admits to drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana as a young man (his motives for sharing the truth aside, its all speculation anyways) this is a whole different ballgame than driving up onto your fathers lawn hurling drunken threats at the wee hours of the morning. also, if you look at a cross section of cocaine users, its a fairly extreme drug and doesnt lend itself to casual "weekend warrior" style use. but thats just my exp in the matter.

[audtatious]

Let's put Obama on a pedistal for admitting he used drugs while impaling Bush on a staff for admitting he had an alcohol problem over 20 years ago.

[rn79870]

What is so ironic here is that admitted drug use is a disqualifying factor for many federal jobs, yet, it isn't for the highest office in the land.

[BigMACKenzie]

lol the booze is one thing, but cocaine use? you have to admit there is a large line in the sand between potheads, drinkers, cigarette cmokers and coke.other hard drug users. and I didn't say lets celebrate his use, lets applaud him for his honesty. If bush just came out and admitted to having a taste for the white stuff I would appreciate it much more than the half truths and question dodging. Its less about what they did for me, and more about being honest with us now, thats a better indicator of who they are NOW to me. BTW I am happy bush is sober and clean now, but it still hasn't improved his judgment any. At least we don't have any naked G dubs on the white house lawn ^^

[audtatious]

If it were "continued drug use" or if he were still a drunk then that would be another issue. I don't care about Obama trying drugs and I don't care that Bush did the same and had a drinking problem over 20 years ago. If he were snorting coke from Laura's thighs while drinking a bottle of Wild Turkey then I would say he should not be in office.

[telcoman]

Which policies and exactly why are they misguided?

Invading Iraq based on false information regarding WMD. Then mismanaging the war in Iraq. Mission accomplished bs. Misguided policy on energy, off shore drilling, mismanaging our economic stability, runup with a huge debt, tax cuts for his wealthy friends, covering up Scooter Libby, failure to heed the PDB on impending terrorlst activity resulting in 9/11 attacks. All of the above have resulted in most Americans being worse off today than they were eight years ago. I haven't previously mentioned medicare but he's pissing off tens of millions of voters on that one. I'll leave that topic for a separate post.At least the democrats are concerned with healthcare. Bush and his wealthy republician friends could care less. They don't even care about our veterans and the healthcare they receive let alone the rest of us.

Telcoman

[BigMACKenzie]

If he were snorting coke from Laura's thighs while drinking a bottle of Wild Turkey then I would say he should not be in office.

well I dont have any proof of this, Highly aggressive behavior, slurred speech/impairment while speaking, forgetfulness, impaired judgment. Im no doctor so come to your own conclusions lol

[audtatious]

Invading Iraq based on false information regarding WMD.

WMD was found, just not the huge stockpiles expected other than the 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" we knew he had. WMD is not the only reason Iraq was invaded so maybe you should brush up on the other reasons instead of beating the same 'ole tired horse?

Then mismanaging the war in Iraq. Mission accomplished bs.

Mismanaging after post-invasion I grant you. We never should have sat on our butts waiting for something to happen. Petraeus has us on the right track at this point. As far as mission accomplished, it was. Saddam was ousted which was the mission.

Misguided policy on energy, off shore drilling,

If you mean his press for ethanol then I would agree. If you mean his press for more oil then I would disagree as there are no other viable solutions for the "short term". If you mean nuke energy then I would again disagree.

mismanaging our economic stability, runup with a huge debt, tax cuts for his wealthy friends,

Yes, because everything wrong with the economy started in '01 and Bush writes it all

covering up Scooter Libby,

Even Scott McClellan said that Bush did not know about what was going on so how did Bush cover up and why would he need to?

failure to heed the PDB on impending terrorlst activity resulting in 9/11 attacks.

This as been debated and discussed ad nauseum online and in the press till it is dead. Him not acting on a PDB did not result in the 9/11 attacks as they would have happened regardless as there was no way these terrorists would have been scoped out nor found in time. What would have happened if he did act and put in high security measures based on the PDB? You and others would have roasted him for that as well.Hell, if Clinton had been on watch it still would have happened.

At least the democrats are concerned with healthcare.

Democrats care about anything that can pull responsibility into the Gov and out of the peoples hands

Bush and his wealthy republician friends could care less.

So, only Bush and his buddies are wealthy? Oh please, spare me. You are just like the majority of Democrats I argue with as you know better than everyone else. Have it your way and we can be the United Socialist States of America.......or part of Mexico or China

[audtatious]

well I dont have any proof of this, Highly aggressive behavior, slurred speech/impairment while speaking, forgetfulness, impaired judgment. Im no doctor so come to your own conclusions lol

No proof and no doctor. Plus his "addiction" was over 20 years ago. Sorry, not everyone can be such an eloquent speaker like the rock star Obama who causes his love-lust fans to faint.

[BigMACKenzie]

what it really comes down to for me is the whole "i'm not evil, just horribly horribly incompetent and embarrassingly forgetful" defense that this administration has embraced with such vigor. Not acceptable and there is no denying that this has been the administrations formal stance in several cases. You can explain away all of telcomans points but by doing so it shows that this is the only explanation left. Also: I freely admitted both candidates had run ins with illicit substances and that it wasnt a factor bc like me, you believe current use/abuse is much more relevant. Why then did you make a personal attack on Obama for being a pretty/handsome man whose youthfulness inspires physical attraction in some of his supporters? Granted bush talks like a meth addled freak some times but why go after Obama for being charismatic? I thought thats a trait we would look for in a leader. He is light years away from that well meaning yet mechanical man Kerry. Lets not become afraid and defensive because we have a vibrant, smooth well spoken democrat running for office. I think its better to try and put someone like that into office than each party just throwing forward another elder statesmen whose "Number" has come up bc of age and tenure into the meat grinder. I am also sure that G-dub soaks many a pair of Neo-con ladies panties, you don't see anything but a shudder emerge from any liberal over such a prospect. I think its bc only the radical Christian right is afraid of sexuality maybe?

Edit: and if the state the economy is in right now doesnt qualify as a "death spiral" I would like to know what your definition of one is. Also I appreciate your honesty here and keeping things like a well mannered debate and not a hissy fit. I really agree with Al Franken when he said that we as a country need conservatives. You guys are organized, keep a schedule and a whole host of other important "keep the cogs well oiled" type things. We need you as much as you need creative, wacky, outside the box sometimes impulsive guys like me. And both sides have ppl that can do both as well. to sum it up: Its aboot the teamwork baby

[smockers83]

LOL on the comments about the economy. The economy has been pretty good under Bush and pretty stable--GDP on average has increased in the neighborhood of 2-2.5% each year. However, a lot of the consumer sentiment has fallen because of the media portrayed "recession". The only things truly shaky about the economy are gas and food prices. Unemployment isn't a problem right now--the upward tick of a half percent recently isn't due to lost jobs, its due to students done with school or just graduated who can't find jobs. You want a death spiral scenario for our economy? How about the gov doing what 51% of the public now thinks it should do and enact protectionist measures to protect our economy. How about out of control inflation or even stagflation; GDP falling dramatically. That would be much closer to an economic "death spiral" than what we're supposedly in now.

[skylndrftr]

Even Scott McClellan said that Bush did not know about what was going on so how did Bush cover up and why would he need to?

The man is the president of the US (shudder). He is very clear that he is 'the decider'. Shouldn't that mean hes responsible for what happens in the White Hosue on his watch?

[ishkabibble]

WMD was found, just not the huge stockpiles expected other than the 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" we knew he had. WMD is not the only reason Iraq was invaded so maybe you should brush up on the other reasons instead of beating the same 'ole tired horse?

Hardly anything of note was found.

It was the main reason conveyed to the public. The horse deserves to be beaten.

As far as mission accomplished, it was. Saddam was ousted which was the mission.

Ha ha, funny. Real difficult mission.

Yes, because everything wrong with the economy started in '01 and Bush writes it all

They had complete control of the government for 6 years. That's enough time to get a lot done, but they did little besides security theater and gave handouts to the wealthy. They sat and watched the housing markets get out of control, and the rich got richer while everyone else stagnated. But, hey, it's Clinton's fault...

Even Scott McClellan said that Bush did not know about what was going on so how did Bush cover up and why would he need to?

He reneged on his promise to punish anyone in his administration who leaked. He let people get away with treason.

Democrats care about anything that can pull responsibility into the Gov and out of the peoples hands

Health care is a different story. I find it interesting that most of the "compassionate conservatives" have a "live and let live" attitude toward most aspects of society, when it is more humanistic to supply certain fundamental human needs.

Have it your way and we can be the United Socialist States of America...

Some aspects of society should be socialized, IMO. See my previous comment.

[audtatious]

what it really comes down to for me is the whole "i'm not evil, just horribly horribly incompetent and embarrassingly forgetful" defense that this administration has embraced with such vigor. Not acceptable and there is no denying that this has been the administrations formal stance in several cases. You can explain away all of telcomans points but by doing so it shows that this is the only explanation left. Also: I freely admitted both candidates had run ins with illicit substances and that it wasnt a factor bc like me, you believe current use/abuse is much more relevant. Why then did you make a personal attack on Obama for being a pretty/handsome man whose youthfulness inspires physical attraction in some of his supporters? Granted bush talks like a meth addled freak some times but why go after Obama for being charismatic? I thought thats a trait we would look for in a leader. He is light years away from that well meaning yet mechanical man Kerry. Lets not become afraid and defensive because we have a vibrant, smooth well spoken democrat running for office. I think its better to try and put someone like that into office than each party just throwing forward another elder statesmen whose "Number" has come up bc of age and tenure into the meat grinder. I am also sure that G-dub soaks many a pair of Neo-con ladies panties, you don't see anything but a shudder emerge from any liberal over such a prospect. I think its bc only the radical Christian right is afraid of sexuality maybe?

I go after Obama being charismatic because a lot of people like that about him yet can't answer a single question about what he stands for. I have worked with a lot of sales people who are smooth in getting customers to buy things they may not need and Obama has that feel. Bush does talk painfully and it makes me cringe, yet it also makes him human.

What does sexuality have to do with anything? or does Obama raise your pole? Just curious

[audtatious]

The man is the president of the US (shudder). He is very clear that he is 'the decider'. Shouldn't that mean hes responsible for what happens in the White Hosue on his watch?

Congress is part of the White House?