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.
Why do Conservatives spend so much time looking backwards? Even if he were alive, Reagan would not be eligible to run again for President. It is pointless to wish for such a thing out loud. It might be possible in a few years to clone a new Reagan from DNA. Anyone know what the eligibility statutes are regarding clones of former sitting presidents? Anyone know if there is a cocktail dress out there in America with the DNA of the greatest leader this country has ever known on it? Don't be shy. Your country needs you. It will still take decades to grow the clone out to maturity. Less if techniques like artificial memory implantation and accelerated development protocols are invented. Science fiction in other words. So... in the meantime we have a dilemma. Who should we choose to lead America back from the brink. Mitt Romney's campaign has been invigorated by the DNA of the young Paul Ryan... seems fair to compare...
Carter: one term Democrat... didn't leave the U.S. that badly off... Reagan: two term Republican... took the hand-off from the one term Democrat and grew unemployment out to ~10.2%. Quite a feat since the population then was much lower than it is now, but there you have it. Romney (if he wins) would inherit an America considerably improved than what it was when Obama received it. It's not hard to lead when everyone wants to follow you. Obama has led the most fractious constituency since... ever. That takes leadership.
H (if you get from this that I don't think plenty of people in this thread know what the @#%@# they are talking about you would be right)
Why does Obama keep looking back and try to blame everything on Bush when HE has been in charge for almost 4 tears?
See... we cannot have honest debate if people use crap arguments like this... Mitt Romney earns less than Barack Obama... ... yes... and no. Mitts income is orders of magnitude higher than Obama's but it is semantics as to whether income from investments are earnings or not. Democrats do not earn more than Republicans if you define earnings simply as income!
You don't get to define what is honest. It's coming knowledge Dems earn more. I'd like to see you show proof of your statement including investments. The ones who do make the big earnings from investments are from both parties and they do agree on one thing, big government control in their favor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
So, let's get a grip and get real at the same time and what's your point anyway?
H
It was in response to the quote "Somehow it seems to be an antithesis of "compassionate conservativism" to take great joy in other's misfortunes."
that was in my post which you replied to. How could you miss that? It's not me who needs to get a grip on this.
Liberals want the GOP to "work with" Obama but the progressives in congress just wanted Bush to fail. They were even willing to sacrifice the lives of our troops to complete their sick mission:
What issues did the progressives in Congress ever agree with Bush on?
That might be what you want to believe, but it is in now way the truth or close to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
"Who ran out crying in the middle of talks?"
Another with a lack of facts.
A deal was struck. Everyone agreed. Then Obama came back after some of his "people" didn't like the deal.
Some people you just can't trust.
Boehner cried at every opportunity and ran out of talks and then was willing to complain about compromise. You can't compromise when you run away.
From Portland you can fly nonstop to either Chicago or NYC, and that's been the case for ages; Southwest also offers nonstops to Denver, KC & Albuquerque.
From either of those two cities, you can fly nonstop to any other continent on the planet, and suffice it to say that none of those possibilities even existed prior to 1978 thanks to the micromanaging dimwits in DC.
Their absurd position that you couldn't fly overseas without flying through a handful of cities was also obliterated by deregulation; that number has soared over the past 35+ years, and that freedom has also made air travel substantially more affordable, convenient and efficient for everyone.
This, in my opinion, is the problem with America. People like you who want to make everything partisan and take all the credit for something. Of couse, Clinton wasn't solely responsible for the economic boom of the 90s, but he managed to milk it properly in a way where the budget was balanced, jobs were created, and the country was in great shape.
Compare that with Bush, who took a booming economy in a mild recession with a buget suprlus and squandered it all. I mean seriously come one, there isn't a person alive who wouldn't want to go back to the Clinton years. Bush and Republicans have become a cancer to this country, slowly eroding it by division.
Give it a rest already. The distinction is clear here. When the economy booms, republicans take credit. When the economy goes bust, its all the democrats fault.
Only when it's earned.
Do you realize that you are giving Clinton credit for something the Republicans began (the Balanced-Budget Amendment, of which Clinton vetoed 2 times before finally signing it. Then he, and people like you, give him the credit). In general, the economy did well in the '90s despite Clinton, not because of him.
There is a problem with America, I agree, but it certainly isn't me. Speaking of G.W. Bush, don't forget the 52 consecutive months of job growth, unemployment as low as 4.5% and a GDP growth as high as 7.3% (the biggest growth since 1984).
Oh, there are many people alive who wouldn't want to go back to the Clinton years. In fact, if he wasn't in office back then, he would not have agreed to supply North Korea with nuclear material (for "energy" purposes, which, of course, N. Korea uses instead to build nuclear weapons). And he would not have changed the way the CIA could obtain info which hurt U.S. security (under the new law, CIA agents could not obtain info from informants who had a felony record. This not only lessened accurate intelligence gathering, it led to quite a few CIA agents to retire and were replaced with inexperienced agents).
Like FDR's 12 years as President and 2 re-elections? Jimmy Carter didn't hand Reagan a terrible economy... the conservative in Congress during Jimmy Carter's terms handed Reagan a terrible economy that was fixed with Democrats in Congress and liberal policies.
That doesn't make sense. I don't think Obama is doing well. Among many things, he is overspending more than any president in history.
And you can ignore everything else I said, but it won't change the facts.
Ignoring it:
1. Because I didn't care to address it.
2. Now that I am, what you said is not true.
So I see, you use the economy when it is convenient for you to make Republicans look good and Democrats look bad because you really don't care about the politics of it.
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.
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.
