dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
478

doc69
Premium Member
join:2004-08-01

doc69

Premium Member

If Obama did this first?

1 trillion dollars
Yes, because spending more than any president in history is completely sane.

-Dragasoni-
-------------------------------------------
Obama is in a very difficult spot. He has to clean up after the dumbest president in the history of the united states.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

said by doc69:

Obama is in a very difficult spot. He has to clean up after the dumbest president in the history of the united states.
Obama wanted and got this job.

I suppose that through the next 4 years of failure you people will just blame Bush for everything Obama can't deal with.

Dragasoni
We're All Mad Here
Premium Member
join:2001-12-14
Palm Bay, FL

Dragasoni to doc69

Premium Member

to doc69
said by doc69:

1 trillion dollars
Yes, because spending more than any president in history is completely sane.

-Dragasoni-
-------------------------------------------
Obama is in a very difficult spot. He has to clean up after the dumbest president in the history of the united states.
Cleaning up by spending more than any president in history? Isn't that what the left was up in arms about? Bush and his spending; spending that was keeping us safe for all these years.

But now we're "cleaning up" so it's ok? Thanks for the laugh, too funny.
Dragasoni

Dragasoni to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:
said by doc69:

Obama is in a very difficult spot. He has to clean up after the dumbest president in the history of the united states.
Obama wanted and got this job.

I suppose that through the next 4 years of failure you people will just blame Bush for everything Obama can't deal with.
That's exactly what they'll do. Like when Bush tried to do something about all the corruption with Fannie and Freddie back in 2001 and again in 2003. The left wanted nothing to do with that because it helped the poor get loans. Fast forward to 2007 and 2008, and they blamed Bush for not doing anything about it. These people are something else.

-Dragasoni-

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

sturmvogel6 to Dragasoni

Member

to Dragasoni
said by Dragasoni:
said by doc69:

1 trillion dollars
Yes, because spending more than any president in history is completely sane.

-Dragasoni-
-------------------------------------------
Obama is in a very difficult spot. He has to clean up after the dumbest president in the history of the united states.
Cleaning up by spending more than any president in history? Isn't that what the left was up in arms about? Bush and his spending; spending that was keeping us safe for all these years.

But now we're "cleaning up" so it's ok? Thanks for the laugh, too funny.
How did Bush's spending in Iraq keep you "safe" ? Iraq had NOTHING, no weapons, no real army, just a stupid little despot bluffing in a bad neighborhood, Iran on one side and Israel on the other. Saddam and Al Qaeda were enemies, the ONLY support Al Qaeda had in Iraq was from Kurds in Norther Iraq (an area that Saddam had no control over because we bombed the hell out of him when he tried to take out the Kurds AND Al Qaeda).
What DID IRAQ DO TO US to justify our invasion, killing so many people, losing so many of our soldiers and wasting so much money in the process ?
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy to Dragasoni

Member

to Dragasoni
said by Dragasoni:

That's exactly what they'll do. Like when Bush tried to do something about all the corruption with Fannie and Freddie back in 2001 and again in 2003. The left wanted nothing to do with that because it helped the poor get loans. Fast forward to 2007 and 2008, and they blamed Bush for not doing anything about it. These people are something else.
Republicans held control of the House and Senate from Jan. 2003 to Jan. 2005. With a Republican President to boot.

How was it the Democrats fault that Republicans *controlled* the agenda and chose to do nothing about Fannie and Freddie?

Mark
vinnie97
Premium Member
join:2003-12-05
US

1 edit

vinnie97

Premium Member

said by amigo_boy:

said by Dragasoni:

That's exactly what they'll do. Like when Bush tried to do something about all the corruption with Fannie and Freddie back in 2001 and again in 2003. The left wanted nothing to do with that because it helped the poor get loans. Fast forward to 2007 and 2008, and they blamed Bush for not doing anything about it. These people are something else.
Republicans held control of the House and Senate from Jan. 2003 to Jan. 2005. With a Republican President to boot.

How was it the Democrats fault that Republicans *controlled* the agenda and chose to do nothing about Fannie and Freddie?

Mark
Watch it and weep:

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· T_cSi7Rs


And then read this: »hotair.com/archives/2008 ··· in-2005/

Maybe they could've made more of a fuss but it's true what they say about the disease of liberal permeation...I doubt they would've been able to get far with the medial blaming the Repubs for pissing on the poor.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

1 edit

amigo_boy

Member

That says McCain tried to do something May 2005. What happened when Republicans controlled the House and Senate (and White House) Jan. 2003 to Jan. 2005?

It's easy to wait till your party doesn't control the agenda, and then blame inaction on the other party.

Mark
Happydude32
Premium Member
join:2005-07-16

Happydude32 to sturmvogel6

Premium Member

to sturmvogel6
Speaking of Iraq, why aren't we out yet? I thought Hussein was supposed to get us out ASAP. While I fear what the next 1,309 days will bring I will personally enjoy that rat fink Hussein try to weasel out and make excuses for all the 'change' he promised and be shown for the POS socialist he actually is . The only change that will come is the destruction of the greatest nation on earth if by some horrible twist of fate people are stupid enough to elect this terrorist again. Every single person who cast a vote for Hussein should be brought to the high court and be charged with treason against the United States of America, because each and every one of you will have the collapse of this nation on your hands.

Hussein IS NOT my president, I don't respect him as a President nor as a human being.

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

sturmvogel6

Member

said by Happydude32:

Speaking of Iraq, why aren't we out yet? I thought Hussein was supposed to get us out ASAP. While I fear what the next 1,309 days will bring I will personally enjoy that rat fink Hussein try to weasel out and make excuses for all the 'change' he promised and be shown for the POS socialist he actually is . The only change that will come is the destruction of the greatest nation on earth if by some horrible twist of fate people are stupid enough to elect this terrorist again. Every single person who cast a vote for Hussein should be brought to the high court and be charged with treason against the United States of America, because each and every one of you will have the collapse of this nation on your hands.

Hussein IS NOT my president, I don't respect him as a President nor as a human being.
Yes, please bring me to trial for treason for VOTING for Obama in order to help not choose McCain.

You know, in the old Soviet Union, voting for disliked candidates was reason to be tried as an enemy of the state and sent to Siberia.

Familiar ?
sturmvogel6

sturmvogel6 to Happydude32

Member

to Happydude32
Please explain why you consider Obama a terrorist.
Happydude32
Premium Member
join:2005-07-16

Happydude32

Premium Member

The closing down/proposed closing down of Guantanamo along with cuts to the national defense budget do nothing but aid terrorists. Hussein would rather use the money spent on national defense and counter terror tactics on a few fleet of helicopters that he was quoted a year ago saying something to the effect 'We should not be spending money on new presidential helicopters' but now that he's in charge it's a different tune. Not to mention Hussein's socialist point of view, while that doesn't make him a terrorist per say, it makes him AntiAmerican, which is close enough in my book.

So why aren't we out of Iraq yet? Care to answer, make up and excuse or just ignore the question and why the almighty chosen one, the messiah, Hussein, has not even come up was an exit strategy, a time table or nothing? For years all we heard about was the blunder in Iraq, the next President was suppose to get us out right away, now with this failure of a human being in charge, the sheeple of this country are too blinded by whatever magical power he possess to even care anymore.

And BTW I do believe the world is a better place after we invaded Iraq. With Saddam in charge it was only a matter of time before we were attacked, and I'd much rather have it take place over there then here. For once the US had balls and attacked first.

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

2 edits

sturmvogel6

Member

We are not out of Irak yet for three reasons:

1. Defense of Israel. Too many top level politicians are influenced by this lobby

2. Oil

3. We destabilized the region by taking out Saddam (that we supported as an enemy of Iran, which is stronger now)

We will NEVER leave that damn hellhole. Why don't you also complain about the exit strategy during the Bush time ? How about you research a bit Wolfowitz, Perle and a few others and wonder why we are still stuck there ?

Saddam would have never attacked us, he did not want to provoke a war that he knew that would be the end of him. That is why he COMPLIED with the UN resolutions and allowed inspectors. He said he did not have weapons and he did not have them. We kept on harassing him about it and asking him to show proof that he did not have them. How do you show proof you do NOT have something ? They were never found. We attacked anyway. Who lied ?

Attacking a country that did not do anything to us, killing thousands of their people is a crime.