Jump to content

The Republican Thread


Rex Kickass

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 13.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • StrangeSox

    1498

  • Balta1701

    1480

  • southsider2k5

    1432

  • mr_genius

    991

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 02:07 AM)
The Dems have no problem ignoring the recession Bill Clinton left Bush and 9-11 when they talk about the Repubs wasting the "BIGGEST SURPLUS EVER"...

 

who was left in a better situation...

 

GWB after Clinton

or

Obama after GWB

 

enough said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 06:35 PM)
really? so, uh, haven't seen the deficit numbers since the Dems took over eh?

 

i mean, i can understand turning on the GOP over spending, but then voting Dem because you think they will lower spending? not a good plan.

um, what? I never said the Dems would lower spending. I think you'd have to be delusional to think that EITHER party takes fiscal responsibility very seriously right now. What I'm saying is, since both parties are just going to spend away anyway, that makes me look at other issues for my decision-making.

 

The problem, spending-wise, isn't one party or the other anymore - its what BODY we're discussing. Its Congress, its rules, the way it functions, etc. Obama AND Bush have tried various things to control it, to little or no avail. Its about Congress.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 08:51 AM)
You're not seriously saying that Bush, or Obama, or Clinton, are responsible for 9/11, are you?

2 of those 3 at least have to share some blame.

 

So that I'm not banned from this thread, I won't name explicitly which ones they are, so that this thread's usual posters can assume I'm blaming the latter 2 on that list.

 

Am I unusually snarky this morning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 07:53 AM)
2 of those 3 at least have to share some blame.

 

So that I'm not banned from this thread, I won't name explicitly which ones they are, so that this thread's usual posters can assume I'm blaming the latter 2 on that list.

 

Am I unusually snarky this morning?

Some small part? Sure. In the grand scheme of things though, not really.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 08:59 AM)
Some small part? Sure. In the grand scheme of things though, not really.

Bah, I don't buy that and I think I've said this before. The Clintons seriously screwed up by not doing anything in response to Africa, the Millennium plots, or the Cole other than lobbing a few missiles and hitting the wrong targets, and their lack of action was probably in no small part related to Clinton's inability to keep his zipper up. The Clintons also seriously screwed up in allowing the CIA and FBI to spend 8 years each doing their own thing, and by focusing on creating the illusion of security at airports rather than real security in order to avoid pissing off the airlines. The Bushes seriously screwed up by not really caring 1 bit about terrorism or the Bin Laden group until 9/11 and thinking that the most important issue for this country was missile defense. They wouldn't have had the time to do the serious reform that still hasn't happened at the agencies or to launch a serious rollback campaign, but there was more than enough intel out there mid-2001 to disrupt that plot if there had been a focus on it at the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 08:05 AM)
Bah, I don't buy that and I think I've said this before. The Clintons seriously screwed up by not doing anything in response to Africa, the Millennium plots, or the Cole other than lobbing a few missiles and hitting the wrong targets, and their lack of action was probably in no small part related to Clinton's inability to keep his zipper up. The Clintons also seriously screwed up in allowing the CIA and FBI to spend 8 years each doing their own thing, and by focusing on creating the illusion of security at airports rather than real security in order to avoid pissing off the airlines. The Bushes seriously screwed up by not really caring 1 bit about terrorism or the Bin Laden group until 9/11 and thinking that the most important issue for this country was missile defense. They wouldn't have had the time to do the serious reform that still hasn't happened at the agencies or to launch a serious rollback campaign, but there was more than enough intel out there mid-2001 to disrupt that plot if there had been a focus on it at the top.

I think, at worst, Clinton and Bush have a very small part of the blame. Lots and lots and lots of other things lead up to that, many of which were beyond their control.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 09:08 AM)
I think, at worst, Clinton and Bush have a very small part of the blame. Lots and lots and lots of other things lead up to that, many of which were beyond their control.

Depends on whether you believe Harry Truman's sign or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 07:47 AM)
um, what? I never said the Dems would lower spending. I think you'd have to be delusional to think that EITHER party takes fiscal responsibility very seriously right now. What I'm saying is, since both parties are just going to spend away anyway, that makes me look at other issues for my decision-making.

 

The problem, spending-wise, isn't one party or the other anymore - its what BODY we're discussing. Its Congress, its rules, the way it functions, etc. Obama AND Bush have tried various things to control it, to little or no avail. Its about Congress.

 

agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 05:46 PM)
political suicide for a republican governor in a democratic state, to appoint a republican interim if something happens.

 

he'll be Robert Byrd/Tim Johnson/Ed Kennedy'd.

 

 

Lmao. Like the way Lautenberg was put back in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This must be that diplomacy we heard so much about...

 

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilm...past-trash-bags

 

NBC: Obama Made Dalai Lama Sneak Out of White House Past Trash Bags

 

Uniquely among Friday’s broadcast network evening newscasts, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams gave his viewers a glimpse into the undignified exit endured by the Dalai Lama, who was made to walk past a number of trash bags as President Obama sought to keep the Chinese government from noticing the meeting. A photograph of the Tibetan spiritual leader walking past the bags was shown as Williams read the piece.

 

Below is a transcript of the news item from the Friday, February 19, NBC Nightly News, as read by Brian Williams:

 

How do you ask the Dalai Lama to leave the White House if you’re trying to keep his visit from becoming too public? Well, judging from the trash bags that he had to walk around, the Obama White House had him exit through a door seldom used by anybody but household staff. It’s where the West Wing meets the main residence. China, however, did notice the visit and called in the U.S. ambassador to China today to protest.

 

 

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilm...s#ixzz0g7C19GJR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...