A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » 8 Track Tapes
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 5th 08, 11:42 PM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes,alt.politics,alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.democrats,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
DeserTBoB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,541
Default 4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain

Here we go, bracing for yet another in a series of "Dubya Recessions,"
but this time at the end of his, the worst of just about any of the US
presidencies. What effect could this news have on the race?

First, a lot of the cognoscenti pundits have been saying for months
that Iraq would be the #1 issue. Not anymore, it would seem. With
the economy in a steady decline since Bush took office and with the US
Dollar at an historic low, Hillary Clinton has a shot at retooling her
whole campaign (which flopped mightily in Iowa) into the old standby
that worked for Bill...."It's the economy, stupid!" Whether this will
work against Obama or not of course remains to be seen, but history
proves that "bread and butter" issues are usually at the top of the
issues pile any time the country is not in a war, and a stunning
majority have already decided that we need to get the hell out of
Iraq. If the economy does rise to the #1 issue, Obama's in serious
trouble against Clinton going into Tsunami Tuesday...or is it Super
Tuesday? They keep changing the name! Incidently, the only pundit
who's had it right about the economy winding up as the #1 issue has
been Eleanor Clift of Newsweek/McLaughlin Group...that is, IF it
happens.

Second, CNN polling shows, without a doubt, that Romney also has
strong economic credentials among all likely voters, while McCain and
Giuliani don't. Giuliani's probably out of the picture after his
hopeless showing in Iowa (3%), so that leaves McCain to try to do
battle on a field for which he doesn't have good maps. When Iraq was
#1 on the voter hit parade, he had the advantage among right winger
Republicans. But now, fully 47% of "likelies" said that Romney was
the best on economic issues, while the next in line (Clinton) showed
in the 'teens, but still way ahead of McCain. Huckabee, of course,
has probably the worst showing of all at 3% in this poll.

McCain then has a double whammy to face...weak on economic issues AND
a very unpopular Iraq platform plank to try to bring to the RNC. If
McCain wins the big bow and tries that, a lot of the anti-war
Republicans will abandon ship, and since Paul isn't expected to last
much longer (at least as a Republican), they MIGHT go
"independent"...meaning they could vote for a Dem, if the anti-war
message is right (meaning Obama), or whatever third party offering
shows up. Paul, with his anti-war and anti-tax rhetoric, fills that
bill nicely and, despite his exclamations to the contrary, could very
well wind up a Libertarian Party nominee.

Lots of "ifs" could make this situation turn the campaign inside
out...such as "if" Bernanke doesn't do a Bush-ordered overnight rate
cut, and "if" the dollar keeps sinking against all foreign currencies
(it will, probably another 15-20% against the Euro) and "if" the
hemorrhaging of the prime mortgage market continues (it will, and will
get worse.) If all the "ifs" are answered affirmatively, then we have
a new ball game and it would then appear that the conventional wisdom
of Iraq being the deciding factor will not hold. If that happens,
Obama and McCain could suddenly find themselves going up a steep
upgrade even if both win New Hampshire, which I say is likely, while
Romney and Hillary coast to the nomination, which is likely if the
economy takes over as the #1 issue going into Super Tuesday. If the
latter happens, Clinton has pretty impressive numbers against Romney
in the theoretical match-up...as least for now.

What's she need to do? Back to health care, health care, health
care...greedy for-profit HMOs, drug companies and "doctor cabals" are
raping the economy, and people are already wise to it. If she does
that and the economy and health care wind up on top of the issues
heap, Hillary beats Obama and, most likely, Romney. Meanwhile,
McCain, should this scenario happen before Super Tuesday, may find
himself like he always has...on the outside looking in. What would
Romney need to do to fend her off and win? Well...his "I've got
experience running big corporations" message tickles Wall Streeters,
the investment class and the corporate types, but falls flat and
builds antipathy among working Americans. His only hope is to counter
Hillary on health care by pointing to his Massachusetts accomplishment
in that area...even if it doesn't solve a thing.

Advantage overall: Hillary...but she has to get there first,
especially by climbing deftly and very quickly out of the crater she
made for herself in Iowa. If, for some reason, the economy does NOT
take center stage among voters, Obama may well steamroller her on
Super Tuesday, and if that happens and McCain wins, it'll be a McCain
presidency. Who'd win in a Obama/Romney match up? Three-to-two and
pick 'em!
Ads
  #2  
Old January 6th 08, 12:55 AM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes,alt.politics,alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.democrats,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Neolibertarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain

In article ,
DeserTBoB wrote:

Here we go, bracing for yet another in a series of "Dubya Recessions,"
but this time at the end of his, the worst of just about any of the US
presidencies.


How do you define "worst?"

Just curious.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg
  #3  
Old January 6th 08, 01:40 AM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes, alt.politics, alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.democrats, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
trippin-2-8-track
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 365
Default 4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain

On Jan 5, 5:42*pm, DeserTBoB wrote:
Here we go, bracing for yet another in a series of "Dubya Recessions,"
but this time at the end of his, the worst of just about any of the US
presidencies. *What effect could this news have on the race?

First, a lot of the cognoscenti pundits have been saying for months
that Iraq would be the #1 issue. *Not anymore, it would seem. *With
the economy in a steady decline since Bush took office and with the US
Dollar at an historic low, Hillary Clinton has a shot at retooling her
whole campaign (which flopped mightily in Iowa) into the old standby
that worked for Bill...."It's the economy, stupid!" *Whether this will
work against Obama or not of course remains to be seen, but history
proves that "bread and butter" issues are usually at the top of the
issues pile any time the country is not in a war, and a stunning
majority *have already decided that we need to get the hell out of
Iraq. *If the economy *does rise to the #1 issue, Obama's in serious
trouble against Clinton going into Tsunami Tuesday...or is it Super
Tuesday? *They keep changing the name! *Incidently, the only pundit
who's had it right about the economy winding up as the #1 issue has
been Eleanor Clift of Newsweek/McLaughlin Group...that is, IF it
happens.

Second, CNN polling shows, without a doubt, that Romney also has
strong economic credentials among all likely voters, while McCain and
Giuliani don't. *Giuliani's probably out of the picture after his
hopeless showing in Iowa (3%), so that leaves McCain to try to do
battle on a field for which he doesn't have good maps. *When Iraq was
#1 on the voter hit parade, he had the advantage among right winger
Republicans. *But now, fully 47% of "likelies" said that Romney was
the best on economic issues, while the next in line (Clinton) showed
in the 'teens, but still way ahead of McCain. *Huckabee, of course,
has probably the worst showing of all at 3% in this poll.

McCain then has a double whammy to face...weak on economic issues AND
a very unpopular Iraq platform plank to try to bring to the RNC. *If
McCain wins the big bow and tries that, a lot of the anti-war
Republicans will abandon ship, and since Paul isn't expected to last
much longer (at least as a Republican), they MIGHT go
"independent"...meaning they could vote for a Dem, if the anti-war
message is right (meaning Obama), or whatever third party offering
shows up. *Paul, with his anti-war and anti-tax rhetoric, fills that
bill nicely and, despite his exclamations to the contrary, could very
well wind up a Libertarian Party nominee.

Lots of "ifs" could make this situation turn the campaign inside
out...such as "if" Bernanke doesn't do a Bush-ordered overnight rate
cut, and "if" the dollar keeps sinking against all foreign currencies
(it will, probably another 15-20% against the Euro) and "if" the
hemorrhaging of the prime mortgage market continues (it will, and will
get worse.) *If all the "ifs" are answered affirmatively, then we have
a new ball game and it would then appear *that the conventional wisdom
of Iraq being the deciding factor will not hold. *If that happens,
Obama and McCain could suddenly find themselves going up a steep
upgrade even if both win New Hampshire, which I say is *likely, while
Romney and Hillary coast to the nomination, which is *likely if the
economy takes over as the #1 issue going into Super Tuesday. *If the
latter happens, Clinton has pretty impressive numbers against Romney
in the theoretical match-up...as least for now.

What's she need to do? *Back to health care, health care, health
care...greedy for-profit HMOs, drug companies and "doctor cabals" are
raping the economy, and people are already wise to it. *If she does
that and the economy and health care wind up on top of the issues
heap, Hillary beats Obama and, most likely, Romney. *Meanwhile,
McCain, should this scenario happen before Super Tuesday, may find
himself like he always has...on the outside looking in. *What would
Romney need to do to fend her off and win? *Well...his "I've got
experience running big corporations" message tickles Wall Streeters,
the investment class and the corporate types, but falls flat and
builds antipathy among working Americans. *His only hope is to counter
Hillary on health care by pointing to his Massachusetts accomplishment
in that area...even if it doesn't solve a thing.

Advantage overall: *Hillary...but she has to get there first,
especially by climbing deftly and very quickly out of the crater she
made for herself in Iowa. *If, for some reason, the economy does NOT
take center stage among voters, Obama may well steamroller her on
Super Tuesday, and if that happens and McCain wins, it'll be a McCain
presidency. *Who'd win in a Obama/Romney match up? *Three-to-two and
pick 'em!



you need to take responsibility for your own financial income and
economic security- it's not "W" or anyone else's fault- no single man
is responsible for, or can alter, the economic cycles- they go up and
down throughout history, regardless

when FDR was president, there was a major depression, that lasted 12
years- try as he did, nothing pulled this country out of it, until the
mfg. base got fired up for WWII

the only thing I can see maybe "should" be done, is start requiring
companies that sell 50% or more of their goods in the USA, to have
factories here- and employ US workers, rather than overseas workers

the trend of shipping all our mfg. jobs overseas, is killing our job
base- the reason the US economy was so strong during the post-war
"boom years" of 1945-70, was that we made nearly 60% of the world's
mfg. goods here in USA

we need to get back to that, because now the only areas of growth, are
jobs created using taxpayer money, i.e. gov't and agency jobs

not good
  #4  
Old January 6th 08, 01:46 AM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes,alt.politics,alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.democrats,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
DeserTBoB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,541
Default 4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:55:52 GMT, Neolibertarian
wrote:

In article ,
DeserTBoB wrote:

Here we go, bracing for yet another in a series of "Dubya Recessions,"
but this time at the end of his, the worst of just about any of the US
presidencies.


How do you define "worst?"

Just curious.snip


Oh, there are a myriad of ways to describe a "worst presidency"...the
idiocy and disinterest of the public purse of Warren Harding, the
callous disregard of Calvin Coolidge, the ineptitude of U.S. Grant,
the complete lack of ability or tilted morality of Millard Fillmore,
the self interest of William McKinley or Lyndon Johnson, the lack of
cognizance of reality of Herbert Hoover...or the calculated
destruction of the very document they were sworn to "uphold and
protect," in the cases of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. The
latter's actions which will probably prove, when viewed through the
equalizer of time, to be the far more onerous.

Take your pick á la carte, but be mindful that, of all of the above,
many got to the bottom simply by being ignorant, unintelligent or by
having limited powers of perception or a miscalibrated moral compass.
While many righttards will point to Clinton's lying about a blow job
from a fat chick, I think lying about yellow cake in Africa just to
get Halliburton staged in Iraq to start pumping their oil fields is a
far, far more grievous matter...not to mention stating, while serving
under oath, that the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of
paper." Nice talk from such a self-proclaimed Jesus freak, don't you
think?

Lying about a blow job gets you an impeachment from the House, but
lying about going to a war to benefit oil congloms doesn't? What's
wrong with this country?
  #5  
Old January 6th 08, 02:05 AM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes,alt.politics,alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.democrats,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
DeserTBoB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,541
Default 4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 16:40:54 -0800 (PST), trippin-2-8-track
wrote:

you need to take responsibility for your own financial income and
economic security- it's not "W" or anyone else's fault- no single man
is responsible for, or can alter, the economic cycles- they go up and
down throughout history, regardless snip


Why are you addressing me? My finances are in better shape than 90%
of Americans, per the government's own figures. I have no debt to
speak of, solvent investments that outpaced both the Dow and NASDAQ
averages last year, an ERISA-protected pension and real holdings. You,
on the other hand, have nothing.

when FDR was president, there was a major depression, that lasted 12
years- try as he did, nothing pulled this country out of it, until the
mfg. base got fired up for WWII snip


....a depression caused by the looting of the economy by ne'er-do-wells
under Harding and Coolidge, exacerbated by the Marie Antionette-style
musings of a dullardish Herbert Hoover...THAT depression? FDR's
alphabet soup kept a LOT of people from starving during that
Republican-made fiscal disaster...and brought the modernity of
electricity to the rural South for the first time, after
Republican-owned private utilities refused to serve rural customers.

the only thing I can see maybe "should" be done, is start requiring
companies that sell 50% or more of their goods in the USA, to have
factories here- and employ US workers, rather than overseas workers snip


Duh...really! How about OWNERSHIP, nut bag? THAT'S the problem!

the trend of shipping all our mfg. jobs overseas, is killing our job
base- the reason the US economy was so strong during the post-war
"boom years" of 1945-70, was that we made nearly 60% of the world's
mfg. goods here in USA snip


True.

we need to get back to that, because now the only areas of growth, are
jobs created using taxpayer money, i.e. gov't and agency jobs

not good snip


Charlie Nudo actually comes up with a FACT...rare in the four years
I've been beating him over the head. Very good, Noodles. Did you
take your meds today, or what?

Fact is, in the latest, dismal job creation figures, over two-thirds
of those jobs showing up in that quarter were, as Noodles says,
government jobs. These was never counted before Ronnie RayGun, whose
allowance of the beginning of the decimation of Industrial America
started piling up double digit unemployment figures quarter after
quarter in the '80s...until his handlers figured out they could change
the rules and fudge the figures...then everything looked great! Don't
mind those people who went from good union manufacturing jobs to
terminal unemployment...they don't count anymore...that's the real
RayGun legacy.

I've always placed RayGun in my "ten worst presidents" cadre. Reaons:
serving under the influence of Alzheimer's and Nancy Davis.
  #6  
Old January 6th 08, 07:03 AM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes,alt.politics,alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.democrats,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Neolibertarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain

In article ,
DeserTBoB wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:55:52 GMT, Neolibertarian
wrote:

In article ,
DeserTBoB wrote:

Here we go, bracing for yet another in a series of "Dubya Recessions,"
but this time at the end of his, the worst of just about any of the US
presidencies.


How do you define "worst?"

Just curious.snip


Oh, there are a myriad of ways to describe a "worst presidency"...the
idiocy and disinterest of the public purse of Warren Harding, the
callous disregard of Calvin Coolidge, the ineptitude of U.S. Grant,
the complete lack of ability or tilted morality of Millard Fillmore,
the self interest of William McKinley or Lyndon Johnson, the lack of
cognizance of reality of Herbert Hoover...or the calculated
destruction of the very document they were sworn to "uphold and
protect," in the cases of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush.


Your "myriad of ways" begs more questions than it answers; and shows you
may have little understanding of the office or its history.

Besides, you'd need to define "best president" in order for any of your
"gages" to have meaning. A worst logically implies a best, if you see
what I mean.

Who was "best" by your criteria?

Help me out here.

The
latter's actions which will probably prove, when viewed through the
equalizer of time, to be the far more onerous.


Such likelihood is not as evident as you seem to believe. What has
transpired over the last seven years won't be seen as disasters by
anyone. How could it?

A strong economy, despite too much government spending and borrowing. A
largely successful War on Terror which has brought democracy to the
Middle East--despite much wailing and gnashing of teeth from all sides.

Iran has been forced to stop her nuclear weapons project. Egypt has
agreed to hold free elections. Libya has given up her own weapons
project. A democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan where stood ages and ages
of tyranny before them. And Islamic terrorists have been killed at a
seven to one ratio to American troops. No attacks on American soil since
9/11/01, despite repeated threats by those who'd carried out the first
attacks.

Your myopia is glaringly apparent here. You can't even define what
SHOULD have transpired over the last seven years--and if you don't have
a clear idea of should have happened, you've nothing from which to judge
what actually what did.

One thing is nearly certain he George W. Bush's Presidency won't be
judged through the prism of the opposition party.

Take your pick á la carte, but be mindful that, of all of the above,
many got to the bottom simply by being ignorant, unintelligent or by
having limited powers of perception or a miscalibrated moral compass.


"When ignorance does not know something, it says that what it does not
know is stupid."
---Leo Tolstoy

None of the Presidents you listed above were/are ignorant men. None
were/are unintelligent men. Until you understand that, I assure you, you
understand nothing.

Of the above, Harding and Johnson seem to have the worst records--so bad
that their own political parties rebelled against them at the time.
Neither have the accomplishments under their belts that Nixon, for
instance, was able to achieve (for good or ill). And the corruption and
lies of Nixon pale in comparison to those of Harding and Johnson. Which
you should well know by now.

Even so, history does not judge Harding or Johnson or Nixon as
"ignorant" or "unintelligent." Perhaps they did, in fact, have
"mis-calibrated moral compasses," but that is something so common to
history as to be unremarkable. The constraints of the office keep this
failing from devolving into disaster.

While many righttards will point to Clinton's lying about a blow job
from a fat chick,


Poor example.

He was lying, yes, but he was also lying under oath to a federal grand
jury. According to my Constitution, that patently qualifies as a "High
Crime and Misdemeanor." A little lie for you and me, sure. But we aren't
in a high position. The President is, in fact, in a high position.

Which is why the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" clause is there in the
first place.

Even so, were you or I before a federal grand jury, and it's proved we
were lying in our testimony, the most likely outcome is that we'd serve
time in a federal penitentiary. Right next door to Scooter Libby, for
example.

Now, as to whether he /should/ have been testifying under oath to a
federal grand jury about an extramarital sexual tryst, he /obviously
shouldn't have been/.

But since he /was/ testifying, he should have been summarily removed
from office for perjuring himself--and those GOP idiots who'd come up
with the ludicrous idea of impeaching him should have been removed in
the 2000 elections. Period.

Neither happened--and because neither happened, my country and my
Constitution were, in fact, damaged and diminished as a result.

I think lying about yellow cake in Africa just to
get Halliburton staged in Iraq to start pumping their oil fields is a
far, far more grievous matter...


No one was lying about al-Zawahie's attempt to procure uranium in Niger.
That's just you repeating something you /thought/ you heard. Maybe you
should look into it yourself. If you actually should look into it some
day, I assure you, you won't find any "lies" as you intend the word here.

No one started a war to enrich KB&R.

America doesn't get much oil from Iraq. America gets most of her
imported oil from Canada and Saudi Arabia--as she did before Op:IF, of
course.

Your points are not well taken. Perhaps you should just stick to the
facts.

not to mention stating, while serving
under oath, that the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of
paper." Nice talk from such a self-proclaimed Jesus freak, don't you
think?


Lots of Presidents have been Jesus freaks, silly. Lots of Presidents
have skirted my Constitution too. I would lay even money on the
probability that some on your "Best List" skirted my Constitution far
more flagrantly than the present administration.

Besides, what real certainty do we have that he said any such thing?
Writers who're frankly opposed to his Presidency and his political party
have been caught in many false claims about what he's supposedly said in
the Oval Office. These writers force me to discount what they say out of
hand.

Hell, Woodward may have even got the "Slam Dunk" conversation all wrong.
But then, we've known for some time Woodward writes fiction. As do many
of his peers.

Had Bush, in fact, said the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of
paper," this hardly qualifies as an indictment of his Presidency. As any
one statement or expletive would not indict /any/ Presidency in and of
itself.

That's logical fallacy.

Lying about a blow job gets you an impeachment from the House, but
lying about going to a war to benefit oil congloms doesn't?


No one lied "about going to war to benefit oil congloms." I don't
believe you have any real evidence to back up such a ludicrous
case--really and truly you should just stick to the facts.

If Operation: Iraqi Freedom and Operation: Enduring Freedom were enacted
to enforce the Carter Doctrine, then the burden is on you to show us the
negative consequences. Frankly, I fail to see ANY bad consequences
except to the dictatorships and terrorists in the region.

The facts are what history will be most concerned with. What are the
facts?

What's
wrong with this country?


This country is doing fine--so I'd have to answer: not much.

We're in the midst of the world's greatest economy and we live in the
strongest, freest nation in the history of mankind.

Opulence and wealth abound. Even the poorest among us have cable TV, DVD
players, air conditioned dwellings that are larger than middle class
apartments in Europe. Obesity is a primary plague of the poor in the
United States.

Morally, we have what seem serious problems--that are only getting worse
as time goes on--but these have challenged Americans since long before
1787. There is no real reason to think that we are any less likely to
prevail over these problems than any previous generation.

The government of the United States is flirting with bankruptcy, which
IS a serious problem. A VERY serious problem, especially since none of
the leading candidates for this year's general election have shown a
willingness to even name this problem--let alone address it.

Of the three leading Dem candidates, they've told us they all plan to
add to this liquidity problem exponentially. The only differences
between them is by how many factors they intend to add to it.

The GOP's are hardly offering anything better. The man who came in third
place in the Iowa Caucuses two nights ago is the only one to have even
identified this liquidity problem, or to have offered reasonable
solutions for solving it.

This may be why he's in third place.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg
  #7  
Old January 6th 08, 02:58 PM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes, alt.politics, alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.democrats, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
trippin-2-8-track
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 365
Default 4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain

On Jan 6, 1:03*am, Neolibertarian wrote:
In article ,





*DeserTBoB wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:55:52 GMT, Neolibertarian
wrote:


In article ,
DeserTBoB wrote:


Here we go, bracing for yet another in a series of "Dubya Recessions,"
but this time at the end of his, the worst of just about any of the US
presidencies.


How do you define "worst?"


Just curious.snip


Oh, there are a myriad of ways to describe a "worst presidency"...the
idiocy and disinterest of the public purse of Warren Harding, the
callous disregard of Calvin Coolidge, the ineptitude of U.S. Grant,
the complete lack of ability or tilted morality of Millard Fillmore,
the self interest of William McKinley or Lyndon Johnson, the lack of
cognizance of reality of Herbert Hoover...or the calculated
destruction of the very document they were sworn to "uphold and
protect," in the cases of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush.


Your "myriad of ways" begs more questions than it answers; and shows you
may have little understanding of the office or its history.

Besides, you'd need to define "best president" in order for any of your
"gages" to have meaning. A worst logically implies a best, if you see
what I mean.

Who was "best" by your criteria?

Help me out here.

The
latter's actions which will probably prove, when viewed through the
equalizer of time, to be the far more onerous.


Such likelihood is not as evident as you seem to believe. What has
transpired over the last seven years won't be seen as disasters by
anyone. How could it?

A strong economy, despite too much government spending and borrowing. A
largely successful War on Terror which has brought democracy to the
Middle East--despite much wailing and gnashing of teeth from all sides.

Iran has been forced to stop her nuclear weapons project. Egypt has
agreed to hold free elections. Libya has given up her own weapons
project. A democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan where stood ages and ages
of tyranny before them. And Islamic terrorists have been killed at a
seven to one ratio to American troops. No attacks on American soil since
9/11/01, despite repeated threats by those who'd carried out the first
attacks.

Your myopia is glaringly apparent here. You can't even define what
SHOULD have transpired over the last seven years--and if you don't have
a clear idea of should have happened, you've nothing from which to judge
what actually what did.

One thing is nearly certain he George W. Bush's Presidency won't be
judged through the prism of the opposition party.



Take your pick á la carte, but be mindful that, of all of the above,
many got to the bottom simply by being ignorant, unintelligent or by
having limited powers of perception or a miscalibrated moral compass.


"When ignorance does not know something, it says that what it does not
know is stupid."
* * * * * *---Leo Tolstoy

None of the Presidents you listed above were/are ignorant men. None
were/are unintelligent men. Until you understand that, I assure you, you
understand nothing.

Of the above, Harding and Johnson seem to have the worst records--so bad
that their own political parties rebelled against them at the time.
Neither have the accomplishments under their belts that Nixon, for
instance, was able to achieve (for good or ill). And the corruption and
lies of Nixon pale in comparison to those of Harding and Johnson. Which
you should well know by now.

Even so, history does not judge Harding or Johnson or Nixon as
"ignorant" or "unintelligent." Perhaps they did, in fact, have
"mis-calibrated moral compasses," but that is something so common to
history as to be unremarkable. The constraints of the office keep this
failing from devolving into disaster.

While many righttards will point to Clinton's lying about a blow job
from a fat chick,


Poor example.

He was lying, yes, but he was also lying under oath to a federal grand
jury. According to my Constitution, that patently qualifies as a "High
Crime and Misdemeanor." A little lie for you and me, sure. But we aren't
in a high position. The President is, in fact, in a high position.

Which is why the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" clause is there in the
first place.

Even so, were you or I before a federal grand jury, and it's proved we
were lying in our testimony, the most likely outcome is that we'd serve
time in a federal penitentiary. Right next door to Scooter Libby, for
example.

Now, as to whether he /should/ have been testifying under oath to a
federal grand jury about an extramarital sexual tryst, he /obviously
shouldn't have been/.

But since he /was/ testifying, he should have been summarily removed
from office for perjuring himself--and those GOP idiots who'd come up
with the ludicrous idea of impeaching him should have been removed in
the 2000 elections. Period.

Neither happened--and because neither happened, my country and my
Constitution were, in fact, damaged and diminished as a result.

I think lying about yellow cake in Africa just to
get Halliburton staged in Iraq to start pumping their oil fields is a
far, far more grievous matter...


No one was lying about al-Zawahie's attempt to procure uranium in Niger.
That's just you repeating something you /thought/ you heard. Maybe you
should look into it yourself. If you actually should look into it some
day, I assure you, you won't find any "lies" as you intend the word here.

No one started a war to enrich KB&R.

America doesn't get much oil from Iraq. America gets most of her
imported oil from Canada and Saudi Arabia--as she did before Op:IF, of
course.

Your points are not well taken. Perhaps you should just stick to the
facts.

not to mention stating, while serving
under oath, that the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of
paper." *Nice talk from such a self-proclaimed Jesus freak, don't you
think?


Lots of Presidents have been Jesus freaks, silly. Lots of Presidents
have skirted my Constitution too. I would lay even money on the
probability that some on your "Best List" skirted my Constitution far
more flagrantly than the present administration.

Besides, what real certainty do we have that he said any such thing?
Writers who're frankly opposed to his Presidency and his political party
have been caught in many false claims about what he's supposedly said in
the Oval Office. These writers force me to discount what they say out of
hand.

Hell, Woodward may have even got the "Slam Dunk" conversation all wrong.
But then, we've *known for some time Woodward writes fiction. As do many
of his peers.

Had Bush, in fact, said the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of
paper," this hardly qualifies as an indictment of his Presidency. As any
one statement or expletive would not indict /any/ Presidency in and of
itself.

That's logical fallacy.

Lying about a blow job gets you an impeachment from the House, but
lying about going to a war to benefit oil congloms doesn't?


No one lied "about going to war to benefit oil congloms." I don't
believe you have any real evidence to back up such a ludicrous
case--really and truly you should just stick to the facts.

If Operation: Iraqi Freedom and Operation: Enduring Freedom were enacted
to enforce the Carter Doctrine, then the burden is on you to show us the
negative consequences. Frankly, I fail to see ANY bad consequences
except to the dictatorships and terrorists in the region.

The facts are what history will be most concerned with. What are the
facts?

What's
wrong with this country?


This country is doing fine--so I'd have to answer: not much.

We're in the midst of the world's greatest economy and we live in the
strongest, freest nation in the history of mankind.

Opulence and wealth abound. Even the poorest among us have cable TV, DVD
players, air conditioned dwellings that are larger than middle class
apartments in Europe. Obesity is a primary plague of the poor in the
United States.

Morally, we have what seem serious problems--that are only getting worse
as time goes on--but these have challenged Americans since long before
1787. There is no real reason to think that we are any less likely to
prevail over these problems than any previous generation.

The government of the United States is flirting with bankruptcy, which
IS a serious problem. A VERY serious problem, especially since none of
the leading candidates for this year's general election have shown a
willingness to even name this problem--let alone address it.

Of the three leading Dem candidates, they've told us they all plan to
add to this liquidity problem exponentially. The only differences
between them is by how many factors they intend to add to it.

The GOP's are hardly offering anything better. The man who came in third
place in the Iowa Caucuses two nights ago is the only one to have even
identified this liquidity problem, or to have offered reasonable
solutions for solving it.

This may be why he's in third place.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



well said N-L

in reference to "DeserTBob" and his political persuasions- keep in
mind, when the liberal left-wing Democrats rob Peter to pay Paul, they
can always count on the support of Paul

Paul in this case, being "DeserTBob"- he's unemployed and on SSI, for
the past 10 years- even though he's only 50 years old ? It's a faked
injury and fraudulent SSI disability claim- he can work, if he wanted
to.

  #8  
Old January 6th 08, 03:49 PM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes, alt.politics, alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.democrats, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
H. E. Pennypacker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default 4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain

On Jan 6, 8:58*am, trippin-2-8-track, Google Charlie Nudo or Drums PA.
wrote:


in reference to "DeserTBob" and his political persuasions- keep in
mind, when the liberal left-wing Democrats rob Peter to pay Paul, they
can always count on the support of Paul

Paul in this case, being "DeserTBob"- he's unemployed and on SSI, for
the past 10 years- even though he's only 50 years old ? * It's a faked
injury and fraudulent SSI disability claim- he can work, if he wanted
to.


So why hasn't he been charged with fraud? You've must have some kind
of evidence to be making such a claim , so put up or...
  #9  
Old January 6th 08, 04:49 PM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes,alt.politics,alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.democrats,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
DeserTBoB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,541
Default 4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 05:58:41 -0800 (PST),Charlie Nudo of Drums, PA,
posing as trippin-2-8-track (last of his 29
banned Google Groups accounts) wrote:

snipping a lot of self-flagelation by some "neolibertarian"

in reference to "DeserTBob" and his political persuasions- keep in
mind, when the liberal left-wing Democrats rob Peter to pay Paul, they
can always count on the support of Paul snip


Ron Paul would never get my support. That's for people like you,
Noodles. Here's your free tin foil hat!

Paul in this case, being "DeserTBob"- he's unemployed and on SSI, for
the past 10 years- even though he's only 50 years old ? It's a faked
injury and fraudulent SSI disability claim- he can work, if he wanted
to. snip


You've made enough false and disparaging statements on Usenet (ones
that you cannot erase, nor back up) over the years to be in serious
legal jeopardy. If you value your $40K vacation shack near Lake
Bumler, I'd recommend finding another pastime, Noodles...like throwing
your thrift store computer into Lake Bumler before you drive Cheryl
and the milkman's kid into never-ending poverty.
  #10  
Old January 6th 08, 06:32 PM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes, alt.politics, alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.democrats, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
trippin-2-8-track
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 365
Default 4th Bush Recession could lift Romney, sink McCain

On Jan 6, 9:49*am, "H. E. Pennypacker"
wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:58*am, trippin-2-8-track, Google Charlie Nudo or Drums PA.

wrote:

in reference to "DeserTBob" and his political persuasions- keep in
mind, when the liberal left-wing Democrats rob Peter to pay Paul, they
can always count on the support of Paul


Paul in this case, being "DeserTBob"- he's unemployed and on SSI, for
the past 10 years- even though he's only 50 years old ? * It's a faked
injury and fraudulent SSI disability claim- he can work, if he wanted
to.


So why hasn't he been charged with fraud? You've must have some kind
of evidence to be making such a claim , so put up or...



for the same reason welfare ho's aren't charged with fraud...

who cares !
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Romney wins Wyoming! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... DeserTBoB 8 Track Tapes 6 January 7th 08 05:37 AM
Seeburg A lift arm adjustment Question william hill Juke Boxes 1 February 2nd 07 04:28 AM
McCain kicks Bush in balls on Letterman! DeserTBoB 8 Track Tapes 6 November 22nd 05 06:59 AM
Bush whines to captive audience while poll #s sink further. DeserTBoB 8 Track Tapes 3 November 12th 05 03:04 PM
WTB: Wurlitzer record lift arm Tony Miklos Juke Boxes 1 August 18th 03 05:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.