Bush was no conservative.
Denial is only the first step. You guys need to move on if you’re going to work through anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance in time for the 2010 mid-term elections.
I have no doubt that Obama is going to be a one-termer in the mold of Mr. Mush, Jimmy Carter. He will likely be followed by a Reaganesque figure, who will win in a landslide, once the populace sees what the results are of a man who hasn’t the brains to understand the most basic workings of the economy (profit to earnings ratio? :p) and hasn’t the balls to conduct a proper foreign policy.
I knew we were done when he made the Arafat worshiper, Clinton, Secretary of State. Now she wants to hand millions to Hamas, even as they launch more missiles? Puh-leez. I hope all the Jewish-Americans are watching during the next four years, and vote their anger when the time comes. I also hope the state of Israel is still around then to argue about, although prospects are looking dim. One thing is sure, if anyone is going to launch a preemptive strike against Iran to cripple their nuclear capability, it ain’t gonna be us.
Interesting that you’re so confident in this, given that he was elected only a couple of months ago. Care to provide any evidence for your assertion, or are you going to be your usual self?
I am sad to say that Obama is not surprising me in the least. He could have vetoed the budget, for instance, but instead, let the earmarks roll! Business as usual. Bush’s spending was bad, but you ain’t seen nothing yet. With a monopoly of power in all branches, the drunken sailors will be doing crack to stay awake overtime writing checks. Obama stated that he was going to eliminate “programs that don’t work”, just not THIS year. I am sure we will see more of the same next year as well. Show me a program he is going to cut? That would be evidence I could believe in.
And if you don’t know of Hillary’s longtime sympathy for the bomb throwers, I guess I can’t educate you. Little surprise that the people of Israel voted in a conservative government that will act to protect their national interest, because we sure won’t.
Earmarks are bullshit. They are a tiny, tiny fraction of the budget, and the only reason Obama and McCain campaigned on them is that it sounds good. You want to get some real budget reform? Try cutting a little of our massive defense spending…
Bullshit. You made the claim. Support it.
Incidentally, none of this has anything to do with him being defeated as badly by anyone in the GOP as Carter was in 1980. Who’s your potential Reaganesque figure, by the way?
To me, competance can be measured in the little things, like say, not starting a trillion dollar war with a country that was no threat to you, just to think of one example.
No, I am not Jewish. Let me ask you, why are we sending $900 million to Gaza, even as the rockets still fly? Do you seriously think that much of that money will not end up in the hands of Hamas? Why aren’t we spending that money at home, or better yet, letting the taxpayers hold on to it?
On another point, regarding taxes and the Obama administration, why is he proposing a reduction in the deduction for charitable contributions? I guess his feeling is, all evidence to the contrary, that the federal government is a better administrator of charity than private organizations. Isn’t this just a way of muscling in?
If Obama really cared for the downtrodden, he would be encouraging these types of contributions, not penalizing them. This, to me, is one of the most odious provisions in the new tax plan, and private charities are up in arms over it. Yet hardly a peep is heard, because the media is in the tank for this guy.
Again, I am no fan of the Bush tax cut. I have been rich and I have been poor, so I know what it is like from both ends, and I feel that relief should go first to the folks just getting by. If Obama wants to raise taxes on high earners, good luck to him, nothing is more portable than rich people’s money, as my own state of California is finding out, but why punish the charities?
And the deficit spending that is being incurred due to the bailouts is going to come back to us in terms of inflation, and that hurts the least among us most. Those on fixed income will suffer direly, but this is never mentioned either. For a guy that promised to end welfare for corporations, it sure still seems like “Mother’s Day” for them. And what about the farm subsidies? Are we still paying people not to grow Mohair?
I have heard all kinds of excuses about why AIG must not fail. Among the most preposterous- they insure movie studios against losses should something happen to the star of an expensive picture. As if Hollywood, lucrative money machine that it is, would be unable or unwilling to absorb that risk! I am sure all the studios would shut down, because as we all know, there is very little risk in making an expensive movie. They all return a profit, last time I checked. :rolleyes: The argument is equally ridiculous when applied to other industries.
If Obama represented real change, all this corporate welfare would end immediately. Let GM fail. Let a bankruptcy judge re-negotiate the contracts. The nation’s rental car fleets will find another suppler somehow… 
It seems everything is an emergency in Washington these days, except trimming the waste and balancing the budget, the very things that would help the most in restoring confidence and prosperity. THAT can wait until next year. I won’t be holding my breath.
Well, if Obama doesn’t screw the pooch, a lasting democracy in Iraq would do a lot to stabilize the region and reduce terrorism in the long run. But we can’t have that, can we? Then future historians might look upon Bush as a visionary. No, we will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, just like Viet-Nam, and the ensuing bloodbath will never be blamed on those responsible, the left in the United States.
Of course you will laugh, as they did at Reagan, but Palin has a few years to burnish the image and read “all the papers”. She has personal magnetism, the base loves her, and she can make a good speech when she wants to, (wink).
Hey, it’s four years away. Lots can happen. Unlike El Rushbo, I want Obama to succeed. At helping the nation, that is. I just don’t think his aims are congruent with that end. Thus my prediction that he will be a one-termer like Jimmy.
Obama wants to cement the Democrat majority, by making us all serfs to the public employee unions. I could name a certain Govenator that plays the same damn politics. We are now trying to remedy that here in California. Like always, we lead the way here…
Oh, the old “stab in the back” justification which I and many have predicted. It’s finally here.
Yes, just as the left has dramatized Limbaugh’s comments as being anti-American, I have no trouble characterizing the abandonment of our responsibilities in Iraq as a stab in the back to the previous administration. Whatever. We have an administration that is steeped in the Marxist left, and will carry out it’s objectives to the horror of the world. No price is too much to pay, to further the cause of collectivism that Obama represents. I have plenty to complain regarding the previous administration, but what is to come is more horrible than anything imagined by Bush & Co. Talk to me in three years, and see who’s legacy is what.
Ya know, this is the curious thing about people who can’t decide if they are a conservative or a libertarian. They are vehemently against government intervening in domestic issues even when withholding that support will cause pain and suffering, but somehow that same government has “responsibilities” to Iraqis to avert pain and suffering. Curious. Get back to us when you decide which side of the fence you want to play on.
I will bet you ten thousand dollars, and give you ten to one odds (so my $10K to your $1K) that Sarah Palin will never be elected President of the United States. We’ll give her the next three election cycles. Wanna take the bet?
Considering that a democratic Iraq would be an enemy of the US, hardly. Not to mention that the Iraq War has been a major setback for the democratic movement in the region; we’ve made “democracy” into a synonym for collaboration with America and mass death.
The people responsible are the monsters on the Right who launched the war in the first place.
:rolleyes: If you think that Obama is Marxist, then an actual left wing administration would probably drive you mad, like some extra in a Lovecraft story. The sheer incomprehensible horror of it all would snap your mind like a twig.
He did say that he will get rid of earmarks so the criticism is valid.
I blame conservatives for preventing action. Conservatives have lost all right to express an opinion on any issue of the day because, as SS continues to demonstrate well beyond the point of parody, none of you have a fricking clue about anything.
Finally? McCain said during the campaign that Obama was willing to lose the war to win the election, and it wasn’t new then either.
Well, except that this is still America and people have the right to express their opinion on any issue they like. We’ve certainly listened to bullshit from people like you, Evil Captor, **Der Trihs **and the rest of the Left Wing Peanut Gallery on this message board long enough. You don’t really offer any intelligent debate. Just lot’s of angry right-bashing and rhetoric.
So far all I have seen from Obama and our Democrat congress is what should have been a very specific and defined restructuring of a failing financial system turned into a trillion dollar boondoggle of earmarks and bailouts that rewards incompetant corporate management and irresponsible personal finance.
So what remains to be seen is will Obama’s plan help fix the economy or will it merely exacerbate the recession.
Prove it.