It's funny how Republican right wing blogs always ignore the fact that the National Debt doubled under George Bush (soldier, Whitehouse)
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.
Are you starting with that lie again?... Where does it say from a legit non- right wing news organization that 30,000 troops were sent fro Iraq to Afghanistan?... Lies...
"I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan."
I'm not sure which is worse.. You claiming everything you dont agree with comes from right wing news organizations, or the fact that you dont seem to be following along with what Obama is doing, but champion his plans and proposals.. I'd be embarassed if I got something this important wrong..
"I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan."
I'm not sure which is worse.. You claiming everything you dont agree with comes from right wing news organizations, or the fact that you dont seem to be following along with what Obama is doing, but champion his plans and proposals.. I'd be embarassed if I got something this important wrong..
That link is from 2009... New link from 2010?... Anybody?... Your partisan anti-Obama banter is pathetic...
There are many points on both side of the fence. Yes Bush and his regime lied and betrayed the country.
Yes Obama's national debt increased but a great deal of that came form the need to fix so much of what had gone on before. It wasn't like the war debt would vanish when he took office. It wasn't like the banking bailout (started under Bush) was not going to continue... the path was there and Obama was forced to walk it. So it isn't right to blame the increase in debt on Obama... with the exception of his stimulus plan and the health care ( which really hasn't started the expense)
While the Reps would love to think they aren't massive spenders nothing could be further from the truth. it started with Reagan and easily continued through Bush. They load sweetheart deals to their friends and their insider trades (tell me again why haliburton and cheney didn't result in jail time... it was good enough for Martha) Now I am not one to say Dems don't give out deals to supporters... they just don't seem to profit as much from them. ( both are bad)
Now you have Clinton that actually got spending and the budget under control ., Love him or hate him he did do that. and it was Bush that wiped away the proceeds with his tax credits to the rich.
As much as reps would like to lay the spending in the last 2 years at Obama's feet I think they really need to realize it started before him... ( no i really don't expect that level of illumination from reps)
Here are some simple truths...
1) both parties spend too much
2) both parties make Gov too large
3) neither party has an interest in ending a worthless war
4) jobs will not appear over night from either party
5) real change won't come from the 2 parties.
Overall I'd say given the cards dealt Obama has achieved a great deal. He has worked at a pace unseen in Washington and probably done more than any president in 2 years. I think he has saved us from a great deal of issues with his actions, which we cann never know for certain as we didn't walk down a different road.
While some caterwaul about the dems making a mess of things I think it is a short memory that forgets what 8 years did. The solution certainly won't come from the party that brought us record unemployment, record job losses, record deficits, and the most expensive wars in history.... I think the real republican values have merit but the reps of today do anything but reflect those values. If I were a Rep. I'd be mad as hell for what they had done and I would demand they live what they claim they stand for.
In your eagerness to bash my posts... you should show a little respect for the soldier that died... If he died on base... not to speculate... it's likely one of three things... suicide, accident or friendly fire...
In your eagerness to bash my posts... you should show a little respect for the soldier that died... If he died on base... not to speculate... it's likely one of three things... suicide, accident or friendly fire...
In May, 2010 "..the Pentagon announced there were 94,000 troops in Afghanistan. The number was a milestone because it was the first time troops there had exceeded the number of troops in Iraq..."
In your eagerness to bash my posts... you should show a little respect for the soldier that died... If he died on base... not to speculate... it's likely one of three things... suicide, accident or friendly fire...
You claimed HE'S NOT THERE..
Quote:
Originally Posted by HC475
Never mind your bogus Obama bash story...
Cute in children. Not so cute in adults.
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.