U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-20-2009, 04:51 AM
 
Location: OH->FL->NJ
9,712 posts, read 7,994,553 times
Reputation: 4070

Advertisements

Starting a quagmire war in sand hell. This one is almost entirely his.

The others he had ALOT of "help". Certain Democratic congressional leaders had a big part in the economy. They got away with it. for now.

Katrina. More help from an inept Dem Governor and, even worse, a willfully inept city mayor. At least the gov got booted.

He will also be known as the guy who provided no help to his party and made it into a messageless shell. The fiscal responsibility went out the window. Last years farm bill veto over ride was the culmination of it.

Go out on a date with a Democrat. She will pick your pocket but at least you get laid.
Go out with a 1998 Republican. You will get a lecture on premarital sex being naughty, but she wont pick your pocket. 2008 Republican will give you the lecture and pick your pocket.

Put it another way (not my words but credit to whoever) : Social conservative - fiscal liberal. Who the **** wants one of those?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2009, 04:51 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,194 posts, read 16,560,929 times
Reputation: 8847
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDubLR View Post
I think he will go down in history much like Herbert Hoover. The stock market crash and the panic that followed in 2008 will be his lasting legacy.
No, because that isn't his doing. If you read about the cause of the housing/mortgage scandal (and it's a scandal as much as a crisis), It was caused by policies begun and expanded by the Democrats. Begun under Jimmy Carter (the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA) and expanded under Clinton. That act is what forced banks to make home loans to people who could not afford them. Then the mortgages were bundled and unloaded (sold) to Fannie Mae.

Under this scheme, Democrats like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank (and others) were fattening their own wallets. I have forgotten the details of how this all worked; it gets complicated, but this was all documented and reported last September when things came tumbling down.

The Republicans had warned years before that Fannie and Freddie were headed for a crash, but the Democrats denied that there was any problem, and claimed the Republicans were just trying to create a scandal where none existed, for political gain. There were videos on YouTube of the Democrats comments in Senate hearings that were held, and the Democrats just derided the Republicans and claimed they were wasting their time with the hearings.

Anyone who followed this scandal and has bothered to read what caused it, will not hold this against Bush. It was many years in the making, and his administration actually tried to do something about it. The Democrats wanted no part of any regulation or more oversight. They wanted to make sure people were buying homes, because that's what made them look good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2009, 05:02 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,194 posts, read 16,560,929 times
Reputation: 8847
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
He will most be remembered for taking over a country that was at peace with a growing economy and a growing budget surplus and, within 8 years, wrecking it.
Surplus? When did we ever have a surplus? I think that is a myth. Under Clinton, the Democrats were expanding every budget, until 1994 with Newt and the Republican take over of Congress. Then, the Democrats whined about Republicans "cutting the budget", when they had "cut" nothing (they reduced the rate of growth only).

The Republicans did balance the budget, but to my knowledge there was never a surplus.

Anyway, did you forget that we were in a recession when Clinton left office?

Last edited by nononsenseguy; 01-20-2009 at 05:20 AM.. Reason: Additional comment
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2009, 05:32 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,194 posts, read 16,560,929 times
Reputation: 8847
Quote:
Originally Posted by crbcrbrgv View Post
He will be forgotten, and never forgiven.
Never forgiven for what? Keeping the country safe from further attack?

Why do liberals so easily disregard or forget what happened on 9-11? That is something that I will never forget.

Bush did exactly what he should have done. Clinton did nothing after the USS Cole was attacked, and pior to that, he did nothing after the firt attempt to bring down the WTC.

If Clinton had done something about terrorism, we likely would not have had a 9-11. In that regard, Clinton was a complete failure as a President, adn the one thing a President is supposed to do is protect and defend the United States.

Bush did that, and he did it well. To be faced with somthing like 9-11 so soon after taking office must have been a tremendous burden.

It scares me to think of how Obama will respond if he faces something like 9-11 or worse after taking office, and I sincerely fear that he will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2009, 05:39 AM
 
Location: USA - midwest
5,945 posts, read 4,857,623 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
No, because that isn't his doing. If you read about the cause of the housing/mortgage scandal (and it's a scandal as much as a crisis), It was caused by policies begun and expanded by the Democrats. Begun under Jimmy Carter (the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA) and expanded under Clinton. That act is what forced banks to make home loans to people who could not afford them. Then the mortgages were bundled and unloaded (sold) to Fannie Mae.

Under this scheme, Democrats like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank (and others) were fattening their own wallets. I have forgotten the details of how this all worked; it gets complicated, but this was all documented and reported last September when things came tumbling down.

The Republicans had warned years before that Fannie and Freddie were headed for a crash, but the Democrats denied that there was any problem, and claimed the Republicans were just trying to create a scandal where none existed, for political gain. There were videos on YouTube of the Democrats comments in Senate hearings that were held, and the Democrats just derided the Republicans and claimed they were wasting their time with the hearings.

Anyone who followed this scandal and has bothered to read what caused it, will not hold this against Bush. It was many years in the making, and his administration actually tried to do something about it. The Democrats wanted no part of any regulation or more oversight. They wanted to make sure people were buying homes, because that's what made them look good.

When denial sets in deeply enough, it becomes almost indistinguishable from schizophrenia.

Do you recall Bush trumpeting the phrase, "ownership society?" When the housing market still looked good, he was more than happy to claim credit.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2009, 05:45 AM
 
1,992 posts, read 3,728,103 times
Reputation: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Surplus? When did we ever have a surplus? I think that is a myth. Under Clinton, the Democrats were expanding every budget, until 1994 with Newt and the Republican take over of Congress. Then, the Democrats whined about Republicans "cutting the budget", when they had "cut" nothing (they reduced the rate of growth only).

The Republicans did balance the budget, but to my knowledge there was never a surplus.

Anyway, did you forget that we were in a recession when Clinton left office?
There was a surplus when Clinton left office--the first in many, many administrations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2009, 05:48 AM
 
1,992 posts, read 3,728,103 times
Reputation: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Never forgiven for what? Keeping the country safe from further attack?

Why do liberals so easily disregard or forget what happened on 9-11? That is something that I will never forget.

Bush did exactly what he should have done. Clinton did nothing after the USS Cole was attacked, and pior to that, he did nothing after the firt attempt to bring down the WTC.

If Clinton had done something about terrorism, we likely would not have had a 9-11. In that regard, Clinton was a complete failure as a President, adn the one thing a President is supposed to do is protect and defend the United States.

Bush did that, and he did it well. To be faced with somthing like 9-11 so soon after taking office must have been a tremendous burden.

It scares me to think of how Obama will respond if he faces something like 9-11 or worse after taking office, and I sincerely fear that he will.
How soon we forget. Remember Bush disregarding the warnings that Osama Bin Laden was going to attack the United States? After being warned, he went on vacation in Crawford. At least two documents warned him, and he was warned by the Clinton administration. Links to the documents are on other threads in this forum. And I remember them coming to light at the time of the attacks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2009, 05:56 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,194 posts, read 16,560,929 times
Reputation: 8847
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade52 View Post
When denial sets in deeply enough, it becomes almost indistinguishable from schizophrenia.

Do you recall Bush trumpeting the phrase, "ownership society?" When the housing market still looked good, he was more than happy to claim credit.
I never heard that phrase. Where did you hear that? More importantly, in what context? Context is everything.

At any rate the fact still remains that it was the Republicans that tried to sound a warning (several times) about the risky sub-prime mortgages, and the impending crash of the market. The Democrats wanted nothing to do with any controls, oversight, or regulation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2009, 06:05 AM
 
1,992 posts, read 3,728,103 times
Reputation: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
I never heard that phrase. Where did you hear that? More importantly, in what context? Context is everything.

At any rate the fact still remains that it was the Republicans that tried to sound a warning (several times) about the risky sub-prime mortgages, and the impending crash of the market. The Democrats wanted nothing to do with any controls, oversight, or regulation.
I agree with you, but I am mystified why the Republicans did nothing about it when they controlled both houses, the executive branch, and the judicial branch for six years. The Democrats did NOT have the votes to over ride them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2009, 06:25 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,194 posts, read 16,560,929 times
Reputation: 8847
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenhereandthere View Post
Wow, I'm tried of this talking point from the right.
Ok, why won't you say the same thing about Clinton? He had a terrorist attack on his soil (1993 WTC) and there was not another one during his presidency in American soil.
On top of that, his administration CAUGHT the doers of it and convicted them in a legal court of law, without illegal torture!
So if you're going to give this kudos to W, then why can't you do the same for Bill Clinton?
This isn't a "talking point". Further, there has been no "illegal torture" (I get so tired of these claims by the Bush hating crowd).

Clinton didn't do anything about the first WTC attack, which is likely why they tried again (and succeeded). Big deal. Some guys got convicted. That didn't get at the source. It only got those that carried it out.

There was the Oklahoma City Bombing, blamed on "domestic" terrorism, but there is sufficient evidence, largely suppressed by most of the media and never sufficiently investigated by the US Government (under the Clinton administration) in the view of many, that this bombing, and the bomber, had ties to Al Qaeda. Much investigative reporting had been done independently, taking the reporter to the Philippines, where the bomber (I'm forgetting his name) had met with a group of Muslim terrorists. Personally, I'm convinced this is more than what the government investigators concluded (that it was an independent domestic attack).

What about TWA flight 800? Many are still dissatisfied with the findings that it was a fuel tank alone that caused it to blow up. Witnesses (several) describe seeing what appeared to be a missile (likely shoulder fired). I believe this was a huge cover up.

Then of course we had the USS Cole. Whenever a US warship is attacked, it is the same as a direct attack on the US. Might as well have been on US soil.

I think Clinton largely gets the blame for 9-11, as it is well known that he knew of intelligence that the terrorists were planning to use commercial jet liners to fly into buildings, yet he didn't do anything to protect against that eventuallity. All the while, those terrorists were taking flight training here on our soil (but they didn't care to learn how to land or take off!) Clinton's Jamie Gorelick had erected a wall between agencies blocking them from sharing information; information which very likely could have prevented 9-11 from being carried out.

Sorry. No kudo's for Clinton. He was an ass. Nothing more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:24 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top