PDA

View Full Version : Roger Perry's Bush Support Comparison



ducknwork
09-30-2010, 11:03 AM
Here ya go, big boy. You asked the question. We all know what it is. Now give us specific things that Bush did for us to give you an opinion of.

There, I did the hard work for you. Since Bush 'made decisions every day' like you said, it should be easy for you to list the good and bad things that he did for us. I promise, we'll answer you.

david gibson
09-30-2010, 11:12 AM
Here ya go, big boy. You asked the question. We all know what it is. Now give us specific things that Bush did for us to give you an opinion of.

There, I did the hard work for you. Since Bush 'made decisions every day' like you said, it should be easy for you to list the good and bad things that he did for us. I promise, we'll answer you.

you know the only thing he will come up with is that he lied to go to war and make his friends rich.

give him time to google, maybe we can get something fresh.

Roger Perry
09-30-2010, 11:18 AM
you know the only thing he will come up with is that he lied to go to war and make his friends rich.

give him time to google, maybe we can get something fresh.

Obama was bashed here from where is his birth certificate to which church he attended in Chicago. So here ya go.

George Bush likes to present himself as a straight-talking, regular guy. But it's an act -- regular guys don't go to Andover Prep, Yale and Harvard Business School, and straight-talking guys don't pretend to be regular guys after growing up in one of the most privileged homes in world history. Not only was Bush's dad president, his grandpa was a U.S. Senator and wealthy Wall Street banker, and his mom's blueblood family owned (among other things) the estate in Maine that Bush still hangs out at.

Now, as Bush's regular guy act is wearing thin, some of his other deceptions are becoming more obvious. Click on the allegation of your choice:


-- His top aides exposed an undercover CIA agent to silence critics (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#spy)
-- Lies, deception and coverups to push the war in Iraq (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#Iraq)
-- Convicted of drunk driving. Lied repeatedly to cover up his arrest. (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#drunk)
-- Lying under oath. Bush & staff stop investigation of contributor's huge funeral home company. (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#funeral)
-- Avoided Vietnam and Skipped Out on his National Guard Service (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#vietnam)
-- Texas government corruption: State $$ for campaign funders & business cronies (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#corrupt)
-- Cocaine: felony drug use, vile hypocrisy, and a hushed up arrest? (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#cocaine)
-- His "young and irresponsible" behavior: sex, drugs and (gasp!) rock and roll? (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#partied)
-- Thin skinned: censors his critics with police, lawyers, $$$ (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#thinskin)
-- Character: Spoiled rich kid living off his family's name and reputation (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#character)-- Made millions on insider business deals, for little work
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#insider)-- -- Deal #1. Personal Profits from Failing Oil Companies
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#harken)-- -- -- -- Easy Money From Odd Sources
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#financing)-- -- -- -- A Surprise Deal From Bahrain
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#bahrain)-- -- -- -- Access to the President and National Security Adviser for his foreign business partner
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#meetings)-- -- Deal #2. Selling Oil Stocks Just Before Iraq Invaded: lucky guess or illegal insider trading?
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#insidertrading)-- -- Deal #3. A Big Slice of a Baseball Team
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#rangers)-- -- -- -- Hypocrisy: using government coercion to make his private fortune (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#hypocrisy)

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

Obama was and is bashed for his use of teleprompters. Bush used teleprompters also but they went too fast for him to read so this is what he came up with.


"I've been to war [sic]. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war." -- Bush, flat out lying in 2002 (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#vietnam).
"One of the interesting initiatives we've taken in Washington, D.C., is we've got these vampire-busting devices. A vampire is a�a cell deal you can plug in the wall to charge your cell phone."�Denver, CO. Aug. 14, 2001
"Well, it's an unimaginable honor to be the president during the Fourth of July of this country. It means what these words say, for starters. The great inalienable rights of our country. We're blessed with such values in America. And I--it's--I'm a proud man to be the nation based upon such wonderful values."--Visiting the Jefferson Memorial, Washington, D.C., July 2, 2001
"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease."--After meeting with the leaders of the European Union, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001
"It's very important for folks to understand that when there's more trade, there's more commerce."--Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001

"I've coined new words, like, misunderstanding and Hispanically."�Radio-Television Correspondents Association dinner, Washington, D.C., March 29, 2001
"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well."�Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2001
"Then I went for a run with the other dog and just walked. And I started thinking about a lot of things. I was able to�I can't remember what it was. Oh, the inaugural speech, started thinking through that."�Pre-inaugural interview with U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 22, 2001 issue
"Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment."�Interview with the New York Times, Jan. 14, 2001 (Thanks to Rachael Contorer.)
"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."�Interview with the New York Times, Jan. 14, 2001 "They misunderestimated me."�Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000


We can start with these and go on from there

Roger Perry
09-30-2010, 11:23 AM
7. Bush politicized parts of the government that should be nonpartisan. From NASA to the Justice Department, professionals were forced out or silenced if they departed from the true Republican way. What was good for the Republican Party trumped what was good policy for the nation. Every administration is political to some extent, but the Bush administration took it too far. When Paul O'Neill was forced out at Treasury, it was clear that every major decision would be determined by Karl Rove's calculus.
6. Bush squandered the budget surplus. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Bush had a near-religious faith in the ability of tax cuts to deliver prosperity. Tax cuts were the panacea that would cure all ills. Economy too strong? Cut taxes. Economy too weak? Cut taxes. Stock market falling? Cut dividend taxes. Investment weak? Cut capital gains taxes. But tax cuts didn't make the economy stronger; they merely blew a big hole in the budget. Now, when we could really use that surplus to pay for the bailouts and the stimulus, it's gone.
5. Bush comforted the comfortable and afflicted the afflicted. The Bush years were the ultimate test of trickle-down economics, the theory that says the government should favor the rich because the benefits will flow down to the rest of us. The results of that experiment are clear: We've had the weakest job growth since the 1930s. We've had the biggest increase in debt ever. We've had the highest share of national income going to profits since the 1920s. Income inequality has soared while our public and private investment has slowed to a trickle. Instead of building a fundamentally sound economy, Bush nurtured a Ponzi economy based on get-rich-quick schemes.
4. Bush rewarded incompetence. Because politics and personal loyalty were all that counted, Bush appointed incompetent people to vital jobs. He hired interns to run Iraq. He hired a horse expert to run the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He wanted to hire Harriett Miers to be a Supreme Court justice. Top jobs were reserved for sycophants, toadies and failures.
3. Bush lied us into war. Every argument for war against Iraq was a delusion, and hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost as a result. Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11 in any way. He was not a danger to the United States. The Bush administration ignored or dismissed mountains of evidence that showed that Saddam was not building an arsenal of chemical or nuclear weapons. Bush rushed to war without giving diplomacy or weapons inspectors a chance. Later, administration officials blew the cover of a CIA employee whose husband told the truth, and then lied about their involvement.
2. Bush has exposed himself to war crime charges. By his own admission, Bush authorized interrogation practices that are illegal under U.S. and international law. His administration at best looked the other way and at worst ordered prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib to be tortured. Not only is torture an immoral and heinous crime against humanity, it is ineffective in the fight against terrorism. Nothing has given Osama bin Laden more support than Bush's immorality. And our nation's reputation has been tarnished, possibly forever.
1. Bush weakened our democracy. Bush has embraced a theory of dictatorship. Bush, under Vice President Dick Cheney's guidance, encouraged an imperial presidency answerable to no one. Working with a complacent Congress, Bush gutted the constitutional checks and balances that are supposed to keep any part of the government from growing too powerful or too corrupt. In the name of an endless war against an amorphous enemy, he canceled our most fundamental rights of habeas corpus and the right to be free from unreasonable government spying.
One final note: Bush had the opportunity to be a great president. After 9/11, the nation was as united as it had been since Pearl Harbor, and Bush rode a wave of popularity that he could have used to turn around the nation's politics, security and economy.
Instead of uniting us as he promised, he divided us instead.

Roger Perry
09-30-2010, 11:28 AM
Bush inherited a Dow of 10,600 and left with 8,280.
Bush inherited 4% unemployment and left with 8.2%
Bush inherited record surpluses and left with record deficits.

Bush - National Debt Increase: $4.9 trillion. DURING AN EXPANSION.
National Debt as of Jan. 15, 2009: $10.6 trillion
Debt when Mr. Bush took office: $5.7 trillion
(Source: U.S. Treasury Dept.)
Bush/GOP new Debt: $5.5 Trillion.

Bush/GOP grew Government 1/3 larger in 8 years.

2 Unfunded Wars.

Medicare D - Unfunded.

2 Unfunded Tax Cuts.

Is that enough to get you started?

david gibson
09-30-2010, 11:31 AM
my lord man, he is no longer president. you must sit and seethe all day snarling and thinking about how much you hate bush, and cant stand it when we criticize obama.

yeah. thats an "independent" there.....

Roger Perry
09-30-2010, 11:36 AM
my lord man, he is no longer president. you must sit and seethe all day snarling and thinking about how much you hate bush, and cant stand it when we criticize obama.

yeah. thats an "independent" there.....

I was asked to list topics for discussion. Did I list too many for you? So if Bush was a democrat instead of a republican would you bash him like you have Obama? This list should keep you busy to reply to. And, not just about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan either David.

Oh, did I mention Bush wanting to invest the Social Security into the stock market? That would have worked out really well wouldn't it.

david gibson
09-30-2010, 11:41 AM
great google work - you came through for me! i noticed you got all the 7 points from here:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/seven-most-horrible-things-about-bushs

your opening paragraph (George Bush likes to present himself as a straight-talking, regular guy. But it's an act -) came verbatim from here:

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

in fact, everything else - even "click the allegation of your choice" came from here:

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm



is there a single, original thought in your head? is there one word in your string of posts above that is yours and yours alone? is all you do is scour the internet for fellow tin hat aficionados that share your opinion?

i would call this plagiarism, but you wouldnt understand because you think this is normal behavior. if you copy something verbatim you should cite the source, or at least put it in quotes so we can see you are quoting someone else.

post 5 came from who knows where. everything you posted above is repeated throughout the net VERBATIM. nice bit of work there. if you ever get an original thought in your own head to discuss let us know.........

Roger Perry
09-30-2010, 11:53 AM
great google work - you came through for me! i noticed you got all the 7 points from here:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/seven-most-horrible-things-about-bushs

your opening paragraph (George Bush likes to present himself as a straight-talking, regular guy. But it's an act -) came verbatim from here:

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

in fact, everything else - even "click the allegation of your choice" came from here:

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm



is there a single, original thought in your head? is there one word in your string of posts above that is yours and yours alone? is all you do is scour the internet for fellow tin hat aficionados that share your opinion?

i would call this plagiarism, but you wouldnt understand because you think this is normal behavior. if you copy something verbatim you should cite the source, or at least put it in quotes so we can see you are quoting someone else.

post 5 came from who knows where. everything you posted above is repeated throughout the net VERBATIM. nice bit of work there. if you ever get an original thought in your own head to discuss let us know.........

Quote:
Originally Posted by david gibson http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=683794#post683794)
you know the only thing he will come up with is that he lied to go to war and make his friends rich.

give him time to google, maybe we can get something fresh.

Obama was bashed here from where is his birth certificate to which church he attended in Chicago. So here ya go.

George Bush likes to present himself as a straight-talking, regular guy. But it's an act -- regular guys don't go to Andover Prep, Yale and Harvard Business School, and straight-talking guys don't pretend to be regular guys after growing up in one of the most privileged homes in world history. Not only was Bush's dad president, his grandpa was a U.S. Senator and wealthy Wall Street banker, and his mom's blueblood family owned (among other things) the estate in Maine that Bush still hangs out at.

Now, as Bush's regular guy act is wearing thin, some of his other deceptions are becoming more obvious. Click on the allegation of your choice:


-- His top aides exposed an undercover CIA agent to silence critics (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#spy)
-- Lies, deception and coverups to push the war in Iraq (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#Iraq)
-- Convicted of drunk driving. Lied repeatedly to cover up his arrest. (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#drunk)
-- Lying under oath. Bush & staff stop investigation of contributor's huge funeral home company. (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#funeral)
-- Avoided Vietnam and Skipped Out on his National Guard Service (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#vietnam)
-- Texas government corruption: State $$ for campaign funders & business cronies (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#corrupt)
-- Cocaine: felony drug use, vile hypocrisy, and a hushed up arrest? (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#cocaine)
-- His "young and irresponsible" behavior: sex, drugs and (gasp!) rock and roll? (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#partied)
-- Thin skinned: censors his critics with police, lawyers, $$$ (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#thinskin)
-- Character: Spoiled rich kid living off his family's name and reputation (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#character)-- Made millions on insider business deals, for little work
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#insider)-- -- Deal #1. Personal Profits from Failing Oil Companies
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#harken)-- -- -- -- Easy Money From Odd Sources
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#financing)-- -- -- -- A Surprise Deal From Bahrain
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#bahrain)-- -- -- -- Access to the President and National Security Adviser for his foreign business partner
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#meetings)-- -- Deal #2. Selling Oil Stocks Just Before Iraq Invaded: lucky guess or illegal insider trading?
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#insidertrading)-- -- Deal #3. A Big Slice of a Baseball Team
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#rangers)-- -- -- -- Hypocrisy: using government coercion to make his private fortune (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#hypocrisy)

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm)

Obama was and is bashed for his use of teleprompters. Bush used teleprompters also but they went too fast for him to read so this is what he came up with.


"I've been to war [sic]. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war." -- Bush, flat out lying in 2002 (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#vietnam).
"One of the interesting initiatives we've taken in Washington, D.C., is we've got these vampire-busting devices. A vampire is a�a cell deal you can plug in the wall to charge your cell phone."�Denver, CO. Aug. 14, 2001
"Well, it's an unimaginable honor to be the president during the Fourth of July of this country. It means what these words say, for starters. The great inalienable rights of our country. We're blessed with such values in America. And I--it's--I'm a proud man to be the nation based upon such wonderful values."--Visiting the Jefferson Memorial, Washington, D.C., July 2, 2001
"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease."--After meeting with the leaders of the European Union, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001
"It's very important for folks to understand that when there's more trade, there's more commerce."--Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001

"I've coined new words, like, misunderstanding and Hispanically."�Radio-Television Correspondents Association dinner, Washington, D.C., March 29, 2001
"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well."�Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2001
"Then I went for a run with the other dog and just walked. And I started thinking about a lot of things. I was able to�I can't remember what it was. Oh, the inaugural speech, started thinking through that."�Pre-inaugural interview with U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 22, 2001 issue
"Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment."�Interview with the New York Times, Jan. 14, 2001 (Thanks to Rachael Contorer.)
"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."�Interview with the New York Times, Jan. 14, 2001 "They misunderestimated me."�Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000


We can start with these and go on from there
__________________
"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again." George W. Bush—Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/report.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/report.php?p=683797) http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/misc/progress.gif
Did you see where I quoted a source David? I even made it in bold letters so you can see for yourself. Now Ducknwork said there would be replies to the allegations, lets hear them are you standing behind all Bush did before and during his Presidency or would you bash him if he was a Democrat? You can take one topic at a time if you like same goes for you Ducknwork.

Unless you are------------------------------Chicken.

duckheads
09-30-2010, 12:03 PM
The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009 it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, the start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

January 3rd, 2007, was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress

At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember the day...

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

Thank Congress for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment to this CRISIS by dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco's!


(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001, because it was financially risky for the U.S. economy, but no one was listening).

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?

OBAMA.

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie???

OBAMA and the Democratic Congress.

So when someone tries to blame Bush...

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!" Bush may have been in the car, but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving. Set the record straight on Bush!

"It's not that liberals aren't smart, it's just that so much of what they know isn't so"

-Ronald Reagan

Hey Rog we all can copy and paste!

david gibson
09-30-2010, 12:05 PM
dude drop the chicken crap. i already mentioned i was against his decision to go into iraq. thats not the only thing i disagreed with. but when i see you pull more liberal crap from the web i am not going to waste my time. all i have to see is "bush lied to go to war" and i know its not worth my time.

dnf777
09-30-2010, 12:07 PM
ah shot, after typing my above reply, I jumped one thread over, and realized I better delete it , or get accused of plagarizing the "ding" thing! I'm sure RK is checking time stamps to see who posted first. Let me just admit, I think he beat me to it, so I'll concede and delete. :mad:

david gibson
09-30-2010, 12:12 PM
ah shot, after typing my above reply, I jumped one thread over, and realized I better delete it , or get accused of plagarizing the "ding" thing! I'm sure RK is checking time stamps to see who posted first. Let me just admit, I think he beat me to it, so I'll concede and delete. :mad:

not plagiarism, its just flattery and mimicry. you have a habit of copying RK and me in replies, then you just take what we said and change 2 words and throw it back.

its ok, i understand you had second thoughts on this one, but i dont care. i realize its hard for you to be original.

Roger Perry
09-30-2010, 12:35 PM
dude drop the chicken crap. i already mentioned i was against his decision to go into iraq. thats not the only thing i disagreed with. but when i see you pull more liberal crap from the web i am not going to waste my time. all i have to see is "bush lied to go to war" and i know its not worth my time.

David, you said there were somthings you disagreed with during the Bush Administration but there is nothing in the Obama administration you have agreed with or liked since the day he took office. Yet you stated there were only somethings in the Bush administration you did not agree with or like. So If Bush had been a democrat you would have agreed with some of the things he had done before and during his presidency?

YardleyLabs
09-30-2010, 12:45 PM
you know the only thing he will come up with is that he lied to go to war and make his friends rich.

give him time to google, maybe we can get something fresh.


my lord man, he is no longer president. you must sit and seethe all day snarling and thinking about how much you hate bush, and cant stand it when we criticize obama.

yeah. thats an "independent" there.....


great google work - you came through for me! i noticed you got all the 7 points from here:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/seven-most-horrible-things-about-bushs

your opening paragraph (George Bush likes to present himself as a straight-talking, regular guy. But it's an act -) came verbatim from here:

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

in fact, everything else - even "click the allegation of your choice" came from here:

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm



is there a single, original thought in your head? is there one word in your string of posts above that is yours and yours alone? is all you do is scour the internet for fellow tin hat aficionados that share your opinion?

i would call this plagiarism, but you wouldnt understand because you think this is normal behavior. if you copy something verbatim you should cite the source, or at least put it in quotes so we can see you are quoting someone else.

post 5 came from who knows where. everything you posted above is repeated throughout the net VERBATIM. nice bit of work there. if you ever get an original thought in your own head to discuss let us know.........


dude drop the chicken crap. i already mentioned i was against his decision to go into iraq. thats not the only thing i disagreed with. but when i see you pull more liberal crap from the web i am not going to waste my time. all i have to see is "bush lied to go to war" and i know its not worth my time.


not plagiarism, its just flattery and mimicry. you have a habit of copying RK and me in replies, then you just take what we said and change 2 words and throw it back.

its ok, i understand you had second thoughts on this one, but i dont care. i realize its hard for you to be original.
Interesting progression of comments. First you opine that Roger won't come up with anything except Iraq. Then you complain that he is a Bush hater because he came up with so much after having been specifically challenged to do so. Then you complain that all of his information came from the web and that he was plagiarizing even though his links make clear the source of his comments (plagiarism means that you used someone else's work and failed to give credit where credit was due.). Finally you say you won't waste your time responding evne though RP was simply doing what he was challenged to do. In fact, the only substantive response is a piece of drivel that is itself copied from the Internet with no attribution that says that none of the collapse can be blamed on Bush because the Democrats won control of Congress after he had already trashed our economy and the wars. If that is the standard to be used, the Democrats were responsible for the Reagan boom.

dnf777
09-30-2010, 12:51 PM
not plagiarism, its just flattery and mimicry. you have a habit of copying RK and me in replies, then you just take what we said and change 2 words and throw it back.

its ok, i understand you had second thoughts on this one, but i dont care. i realize its hard for you to be original.

HAHAHAHA. You funny too!

You essentially just take what I say, change the order of the words, and call it yours. (see, I used "plagarism" in my post, now you used it...COPYCAT!)

Hey, isn't that what we all do, since the english language has a finite lexicon?:rolleyes:

I gues since I try to use a noun, verb, and various articles and modifiers in my sentences, you'll accuse me of copying your elements of style next?

You're too much!

david gibson
09-30-2010, 01:05 PM
David, you said there were somthings you disagreed with during the Bush Administration but there is nothing in the Obama administration you have agreed with or liked since the day he took office. Yet you stated there were only somethings in the Bush administration you did not agree with or like. So If Bush had been a democrat you would have agreed with some of the things he had done before and during his presidency?

i am not a republican, i am a right of center libertarian, therefore i tend to agree more with republicans, but i never vote a straight ticket, voted only in one primary because carter was so bad - it was that long ago. so your question is moot, but to make you happy, if he was a democrat i wopuld have agreed and disagreed on the same issues as i did with bush.

did bush do some bad and/or stupid things? that i dont agree with? yes, but his general philosophy is far more in line with mine than is that of a socialistic spread-the-wealth charlatan who rides in on a white horse and hoodwinks the masses - the useful idiots - to vote for him on a promise of hope and change when there has been none.

done. i will give you credit though, this is the most diverse your topic has ever been and you have restrained from using huge bold letters. ;-)

david gibson
09-30-2010, 01:08 PM
HAHAHAHA. You funny too!

You essentially just take what I say, change the order of the words, and call it yours. (see, I used "plagarism" in my post, now you used it...COPYCAT!)

Hey, isn't that what we all do, since the english language has a finite lexicon?:rolleyes:

I gues since I try to use a noun, verb, and various articles and modifiers in my sentences, you'll accuse me of copying your elements of style next?

You're too much!


sigh.....there you go again.

the difference is i spelled plagiarism correctly. ;-)

did you already forget your "gib and little gib" copycat of yardley and little yardley? you history is rife with similar gaffes.

troy schwab
09-30-2010, 01:17 PM
In fact, the only substantive response is a piece of drivel that is itself copied from the Internet with no attribution that says that none of the collapse can be blamed on Bush because the Democrats won control of Congress after he had already trashed our economy and the wars. If that is the standard to be used, the Democrats were responsible for the Reagan boom.

Yardley, since you are so quick to dismiss this "drivel", please tell us what part of it is untrue? Good luck with that. Fannie and Freddie was the snowball that went rolling down the mountain, which Bush DID try and stop several times. Did he not? Please answer THIS question.

david gibson
09-30-2010, 01:17 PM
Interesting progression of comments. First you opine that Roger won't come up with anything except Iraq. Then you complain that he is a Bush hater because he came up with so much after having been specifically challenged to do so. Then you complain that all of his information came from the web and that he was plagiarizing even though his links make clear the source of his comments (plagiarism means that you used someone else's work and failed to give credit where credit was due.). [[/B]Finally you say you won't waste your time responding evne though RP was simply doing what he was challenged to do. I didnt challenge him, therefore i reserve the right not to waste MY time since it was not me.In fact, the only substantive response is a piece of drivel that is itself copied from the Internet with no attribution that says that none of the collapse can be blamed on Bush because the Democrats won control of Congress after he had already trashed our economy and the wars. If that is the standard to be used, the Democrats were responsible for the Reagan boom.

not a word of it is his original thought, not even the lead in comments. thats my issue. anyone can go and copy a bunch of bush complaints from leftist bloggers. if i did the same with obama it would need a separate forum.

carry on, i already said it was a waste.

dnf777
09-30-2010, 01:21 PM
sigh.....there you go again.

the difference is i spelled plagiarism correctly. ;-)

did you already forget your "gib and little gib" copycat of yardley and little yardley? you history is rife with similar gaffes.

Didn't realize you guys owned exclusive rights to the modifiers "big" and "little". Better mobilize your legal deptartment, there's lots of folks infringing on your rights!

Like I said, you guys are entertaining. Keep it coming...

Roger Perry
09-30-2010, 01:21 PM
Yardley, since you are so quick to dismiss this "drivel", please tell us what part of it is untrue? Good luck with that. Fannie and Freddie was the snowball that went rolling down the mountain, which Bush DID try and stop several times. Did he not? Please answer THIS question.


OH OH I know I know. Bush was a Republican President and for the first 6 years of his Presidency had a Republican Congress behind him and did nothing to change Fanny & Freddie.

david gibson
09-30-2010, 01:31 PM
Didn't realize you guys owned exclusive rights to the modifiers "big" and "little". Better mobilize your legal deptartment, there's lots of folks infringing on your rights!

Like I said, you guys are entertaining. Keep it coming...

are you for real?? of course you would focus on the words only, and not concept. must be that tunnel vision you get from all day at work.......

of course we are entertaining - we offer creativity and originality, whereas your posts just leave us scratching our heads. thanks for the compliment!


now behave and have fun, i have actual dog training to get done. ever do any of that?

troy schwab
09-30-2010, 01:33 PM
OH OH I know I know. Bush was a Republican President and for the first 6 years of his Presidency had a Republican Congress behind him and did nothing to change Fanny & Freddie.

Really??? He did nothing? You might want to check ur facts and look up Bush's position on fannie before you open ur piehole....... His congress did nothing, that I WILL agree with, but to blame Bush is WRONG! Sorry bud.

ducknwork
09-30-2010, 01:42 PM
Now, as Bush's regular guy act is wearing thin, some of his other deceptions are becoming more obvious. Click on the allegation of your choice:


-- His top aides exposed an undercover CIA agent to silence critics (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#spy)
-- Lies, deception and coverups to push the war in Iraq (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#Iraq)
-- Convicted of drunk driving. Lied repeatedly to cover up his arrest. (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#drunk)
-- Lying under oath. Bush & staff stop investigation of contributor's huge funeral home company. (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#funeral)
-- Avoided Vietnam and Skipped Out on his National Guard Service (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#vietnam)
-- Texas government corruption: State $$ for campaign funders & business cronies (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#corrupt)
-- Cocaine: felony drug use, vile hypocrisy, and a hushed up arrest? (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#cocaine)
-- His "young and irresponsible" behavior: sex, drugs and (gasp!) rock and roll? (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#partied)
-- Thin skinned: censors his critics with police, lawyers, $$$ (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#thinskin)
-- Character: Spoiled rich kid living off his family's name and reputation (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#character)-- Made millions on insider business deals, for little work
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#insider)-- -- Deal #1. Personal Profits from Failing Oil Companies
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#harken)-- -- -- -- Easy Money From Odd Sources
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#financing)-- -- -- -- A Surprise Deal From Bahrain
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#bahrain)-- -- -- -- Access to the President and National Security Adviser for his foreign business partner
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#meetings)-- -- Deal #2. Selling Oil Stocks Just Before Iraq Invaded: lucky guess or illegal insider trading?
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#insidertrading)-- -- Deal #3. A Big Slice of a Baseball Team
(http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#rangers)-- -- -- -- Hypocrisy: using government coercion to make his private fortune (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#hypocrisy)

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

I have tried to wade through some of this garbage that you posted. I don't have enough time to read that entire site you linked, but I would still like to humor you with a response. The site is clearly a left wing 'wacko' site and honestly, I don't have the time, nor the desire to sit in front of this computer for hours checking all of the allegations against other, more reputable sources. I'm sorry Roger, but when the link you post has stuff like this in it:


If you wanted to set up one of those sites, breathe easy because many good names are still available. The Bush camp somehow neglected to purchase "bushisaprick.com", "bushisweak.com", or "bushsucksdonkeydicks.com", so $70 makes them yours.

it makes it really difficult to take it serious. The website is obviously incredibly biased and therefore, the information stands a real chance of being less than credible. Please come up with thoughts of your own if you really want to ask our opinion of Bush and get serious, meaningful responses.

I will sum up my thoughts on his presidency like this...If he lied, I don't approve. If he was unethical, I don't approve. If he did something illegal, I don't approve. I don't give a crap whether he has a D or R behind his name, unlike you. I'm sorry Roger, but I don't remember every little thing that happened in the 8 years of his presidency. To be perfectly honest, I was not interested in politics at that time. In the last few years I have become increasingly more interested and have begun to pay more and more attention. I do not think that Bush was the greatest president ever. I don't think he was anywhere near the worst president ever. I don't agree with everything he did and I have never professed to do so. I don't disagree with everything that Obama has done, and if you pay attention rather than trying to stir the pot, you would realize that.

Roger, if you really want a thoughtful, REAL answer to your question that comes from our own minds, please come up with issues from yours, not some BS biased, unreliable copy and paste website. Otherwise, you will be ignored or we can have a cut and paste war forever.
It is very difficult to want to spend the amount of time necessary to have an appropriate, educated response when the person you are trying to conversate with does not even deem you worthy of the time it would take them to put their very own thoughts in a post.

EDIT: You know, the more I think about it, the more it irks me that you spent 5 minutes on google to cut and paste 3 pages of someone else's thoughts, yet you expect me to pour over it for hours to give you my thoughts from my own mind. In all honesty Roger, I think that is pretty disrespectful. I really wanted to have the discussion that was the premise of the thread with you. I did not want to have the discussion with the author of some obscure online blog. Please, come up with something on your own so that we can discuss. Who knows, each of us might learn something...

YardleyLabs
09-30-2010, 01:58 PM
Yardley, since you are so quick to dismiss this "drivel", please tell us what part of it is untrue? Good luck with that. Fannie and Freddie was the snowball that went rolling down the mountain, which Bush DID try and stop several times. Did he not? Please answer THIS question.
What makes it drivel is that it equates control of Congress with control of the United States government. We have three branches of government and all have a hand in what happens along with such quasi-public entities such as the Federal Reserve. The single most powerful voice in all of that is the President's, but his powers remain constrained by the others. Throughout most of our history, control has been split among the institutions of government -- Republicans in the White House and Democrats controlling one or more branches of Congress, or the reverse. That has never changed the fact that there are certain arenas in which Presidents have tended to be more powerful than Congress - including foreign affairs, the economy, and the actual administration of the departments of government. In other, including appropriations, Congress has tended to be more dominant.

Bush had stronger control over more branches of government for a longer time than almost any other President in our history. He also systematically used the war on terror (one of the less threatening wars in our history) to help in asserting his philosophy of the Unitary Executive which greatly expanded the ability of the President to operate while ignoring the wishes of Congress and the decisions of the Courts.

Clearly, with Democratic victories in the 2006 elections, Bush came under increasing pressure to compromise. However, that did little to mitigate the activities of his presidency. By the time the Democrats assumed majority control, the collapse of our economy was set in stone. Th balloon in housing had reached its peak and the seams were already beginning to tear. No action of Congress made the situation worse. Rather, Congress was actually a factor in taking the acions that ultimately avoided an even greater disaster.

To pretend that the housing bubble popped because Democrats took over is simply stupid. To pretend that Bush was somehow a champion against speculative financial excess in housing or in other parts of the market is to ignore the fact that they claimed credit repeatedly for the extension of what they dubbed the "ownership economy" and took the lead in the type of deregulation that made the excesses of AID and the rest of the credit derivative market possible. To even think that Democrats were the source of the deficits run up under Bush is to ignore the fact that deficits began to shrink as soon as the change in control happened.

Buzz
09-30-2010, 02:52 PM
To pretend that the housing bubble popped because Democrats took over is simply stupid. To pretend that Bush was somehow a champion against speculative financial excess in housing or in other parts of the market is to ignore the fact that they claimed credit repeatedly for the extension of what they dubbed the "ownership economy" and took the lead in the type of deregulation that made the excesses of AID and the rest of the credit derivative market possible. To even think that Democrats were the source of the deficits run up under Bush is to ignore the fact that deficits began to shrink as soon as the change in control happened.

Sorry Jeff, but you have that wrong. It wasn't Bush's "ownership economy," it was Bush's "ownership society." He ran big on it.

But forget the facts. We don't need facts in the era of FOX News, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, John Gibson, etc - now you can just completely rewrite history. We can tune in hear how it was those dirty poor people and minorities and their enablers those dirty freaking liberals who created an "entitlement society." I'm not kidding, I heard it myself, talk radio folks working listeners/callers into a frothing lather over how these folks felt that they were entitled to have homes that they couldn't afford.





http://www.newsweek.com/2008/10/10/end-of-the-ownership-society.html


Remember the ownership society? President George W. Bush championed the concept when he was running for re-election in 2004, envisioning a world in which every American family owned a house and a stock portfolio, and government stayed out of the way of the American Dream.

.
.
.

Such a country would be more stable, Bush argued, and more prosperous. "America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," he said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse. And as financial strains drive husbands and wives apart, Bush's ownership ideology may end up having the same effect on the stable nuclear families conservatives so badly wanted to foster.



The spree wasn't confined to the United States. Britain has its own version of the ownership society, which received a boost from Margaret Thatcher, who promoted "a property-owning democracy" that her Labour successors, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, endorsed. Blair liked to talk of building a "stakeholder economy" with a big role for the ordinary property-owning citizen. More recently, Brown has spoken of creating a "homeowning, asset-owning, wealth-owning democracy." Millions were happy to buy into the vision. Tenants of government-owned properties gladly took up Thatcher's offer to sell them their homes at knockdown prices. More than 70 percent of Britons now own their homes, compared with 40 percent of Germans and 50 percent of French.

In Britain as in the United States, the vision was about more than owning a home. It was about being a better person. With a home came traditional values, an appreciation of hard work, prudent living, civic-mindedness, patriotism and ultimately a more stable society. Or so the rhetoric went.

But eventually, it all went sour. By the turn of the century, the proliferation of easy credit and universal stock ownership combined to create anything but a conservative society of thrift. Average household debt levels are now higher in Britain than in any other major country in the developed world. In the United States, the shift away from corporate pensions to 401(k) retirement accounts plunged millions more into the equity markets and loosened the traditional connection between companies and workers, which was one element of that 1950s dream that conservatives like Bush conveniently forgot. The ownership society of the 1950s was anchored by a labor movement that made sure that workers received something resembling their share—remember Truman's Fair Deal? The deal for the past eight years has been fair to merchants of capital, and then some. But to the tens of millions on the receiving rather than originating end of those mortgages, fairness has been in short supply.

Eric Johnson
09-30-2010, 03:00 PM
The single most powerful voice in all of that is the President's, but his powers remain constrained by the others.

That's not quite true. American history is filled with the ebb and flow of national power between the President and the Congress. Time and again one has been ascendent and the other has worked to re-assert control. In fact, Richard Neustadt argued that the Presidency as an office was really quite weak and that the Presidents who were deemed strong became strong on a personal basis by their power of persuasion, their prestige, and their reputation.

Eric

Roger Perry
09-30-2010, 03:01 PM
I have tried to wade through some of this garbage that you posted. I don't have enough time to read that entire site you linked, but I would still like to humor you with a response. The site is clearly a left wing 'wacko' site and honestly, I don't have the time, nor the desire to sit in front of this computer for hours checking all of the allegations against other, more reputable sources. I'm sorry Roger, but when the link you post has stuff like this in it:



it makes it really difficult to take it serious. The website is obviously incredibly biased and therefore, the information stands a real chance of being less than credible. Please come up with thoughts of your own if you really want to ask our opinion of Bush and get serious, meaningful responses.

I will sum up my thoughts on his presidency like this...If he lied, I don't approve. If he was unethical, I don't approve. If he did something illegal, I don't approve. I don't give a crap whether he has a D or R behind his name, unlike you. I'm sorry Roger, but I don't remember every little thing that happened in the 8 years of his presidency. To be perfectly honest, I was not interested in politics at that time. In the last few years I have become increasingly more interested and have begun to pay more and more attention. I do not think that Bush was the greatest president ever. I don't think he was anywhere near the worst president ever. I don't agree with everything he did and I have never professed to do so. I don't disagree with everything that Obama has done, and if you pay attention rather than trying to stir the pot, you would realize that.

Roger, if you really want a thoughtful, REAL answer to your question that comes from our own minds, please come up with issues from yours, not some BS biased, unreliable copy and paste website. Otherwise, you will be ignored or we can have a cut and paste war forever.
It is very difficult to want to spend the amount of time necessary to have an appropriate, educated response when the person you are trying to conversate with does not even deem you worthy of the time it would take them to put their very own thoughts in a post.

EDIT: You know, the more I think about it, the more it irks me that you spent 5 minutes on google to cut and paste 3 pages of someone else's thoughts, yet you expect me to pour over it for hours to give you my thoughts from my own mind. In all honesty Roger, I think that is pretty disrespectful. I really wanted to have the discussion with you that was the premise of the thread. I did not want to have the discussion with the author of some obscure online blog. Please, come up with something on your own so that we can discuss. Who knows, each of us might learn something...

Bush's presidency started in 2001. Do you expect me to remember everything during his presidency from 9 years ago? Be real. Even though these were not my own words they happened never the less. You and the rest of the right wingers started on Obama before he even took over as President and continue on a day to day basis. There is no way anyone could go back day to day when Bush took over office of the presidency without the use of Google.

You asked me to bring up the things that Bush did. He was in office for 8 years and made alot of decisions along with his Congress. Sorry you do not have the time to reply to them all.

YardleyLabs
09-30-2010, 03:09 PM
That's not quite true. American history is filled with the ebb and flow of national power between the President and the Congress. Time and again one has been ascendent and the other has worked to re-assert control. In fact, Richard Neustadt argued that the Presidency as an office was really quite weak and that the Presidents who were deemed strong became strong on a personal basis by their power of persuasion, their prestige, and their reputation.

Eric
It has certainly shifted over time and the debate was there in the earliest conflicts between the Jeffersonians and the Federalists. The 20th century advent of radio and television pretty much sealed the deal in favor of the President. Roosevelt was the first to take major advantage of this and it helped him extend Presidential power dramatically. Since then, the primacy of the President has been pretty strong, with a sharp reversal following Nixon's resignation and his replacement by a very nice nebbish. Arguably, however, Bush managed to shift Presidential power closer to the White House than at any other point in our history. Efforts to pretend, now, that he was not responsible for the consequences of his policies is just sad because it increases the likelihood that we will be just as stupid again.

caryalsobrook
09-30-2010, 04:29 PM
Buzz and Yardley, I'm not going to quote either of you and don't even argue that the republicans certainly shared in the blame. If either side knew about the housing problem, they did not realize the seriousness of it because any idiot would have fought to correct the problem had they known. Yardley likes to give statistics but his sstatement was galringly lacking of them. let me give some according to the Census bureau. Housing ownership 1980-64.4% 1990-64.2% 2000-66.2% 2009-67.4% down for 5 straight years from a highof 69.0% in 2004. while these are 10 year increments, it appears to me that the rise was fairl steady from 1990 2009. During that period both the democrats and the republicans have had control of both houses and both have had control of the presidency. we all can point fingers but these are the facts and you can make your own conclusions.
Now some facts about the housing bubble. If you look at Fannie Mae and Freddy Mack as quasi governmental agencies(the congress set them up), and not finantial institutions which is the way I look at them, Fannie Mae as of 2008 held about 80% of ALL home mortages. They set the criteria for loan acceptance and mortgage orriginators were required to meet those standards if Fannie Mae were to purchase them. Granted there was abuse and fraud but I contend that it was Fannie's responsibility to see that the loans they purchased met those criteria. It was THEIR JOB. All those criteriayou mention-0% down interest only for the first years were in fact those standards that Fannie had as their criteria. don't you believe that if Fannie had 80% of the business then the other 20% had to go along with their criteria in order to compete?? Now for the other 20%. While it caused problems for some of them, the loans in and of themselves were not the major problem(they were the core of the problem), those things called "credit default swaps" were the massive problem. It has been estimated that there were 55 trillion $ of these things outstanding most of which were owned by finantion institutions and pension funds. Forclosure of homes would trigger these instruments causing finantion destruction. Credit default swapswere not regulated and to my knowlege have never been regulated. Iwould challenge Yardley's statement that Bush deregulated them. In fact, as I understand it, they still are not regulated even though the congress and the President signed a 2000 page + finantial bill. In fact there is no regulation in the bill of Fannie Mae even though they now have aproxomately 90% of the home mortgage business and continue to receive tens of billions of dollars to this day due to their continued insolvency.

the very core of the housing bubble, inadaquately secured mortgages, something I think that we agree on, continues to this day. While you can make a case to blame either party of blame both for that matter, how do you make a case that now the party in charge chooses a policy that ignores the problem. You can find realestate signs glaringly advertising 0% down this very day and without a doubt Fannie Mae is buying them. Do you really believe that the problem will go away continueing the same policies??

Instead of dealing withthe problem, we have a 2000 page plus finantial bill that deals with everything but the problem. A lot of people wuold not line my bill but at least I can advocate it in ONE SENTENCE. 20% DOWN NO MARE THAN A 15 YEAR MORTGAGE NO MORE THAN 25% OF YOUR TAKEHOME PAY AS MORTGAGE PAYMENT. I guarentee you there would be no future housing bubble. Now I guess that plan will bring out the crying towels, so be it.

Buzz
09-30-2010, 04:45 PM
While it caused problems for some of them, the loans in and of themselves were not the major problem(they were the core of the problem), those things called "credit default swaps" were the massive problem. It has been estimated that there were 55 trillion $ of these things outstanding most of which were owned by finantion institutions and pension funds. Forclosure of homes would trigger these instruments causing finantion destruction. Credit default swapswere not regulated and to my knowlege have never been regulated.

the very core of the housing bubble, inadaquately secured mortgages, something I think that we agree on, continues to this day. While you can make a case to blame either party of blame both for that matter, how do you make a case that now the party in charge chooses a policy that ignores the problem. You can find realestate signs glaringly advertising 0% down this very day and without a doubt Fannie Mae is buying them. Do you really believe that the problem will go away continueing the same policies??

Instead of dealing withthe problem, we have a 2000 page plus finantial bill that deals with everything but the problem. A lot of people wuold not line my bill but at least I can advocate it in ONE SENTENCE. 20% DOWN NO MARE THAN A 15 YEAR MORTGAGE NO MORE THAN 25% OF YOUR TAKEHOME PAY AS MORTGAGE PAYMENT. I guarentee you there would be no future housing bubble. Now I guess that plan will bring out the crying towels, so be it.


I will not argue one bit with you on the cause.

Also, I am not familiar enough with the reg bill to discuss that. I thought that they were at least going to force derivatives to be sold on an exchange instead of over the counter, so there would at least be some record of what's out there.

Can't argue with you on mortgage requirements either. Although I did take out a 30 year, I put down 30% on my current house and kept the payment to 14% of my take home. I wouldn't want it to be higher than that, but then I like to be able to afford my addiction to running dogs.

caryalsobrook
09-30-2010, 05:56 PM
So Buzz you would agree that if what went on during the bush presidencies aand during the clinton presidency were at least poor policy if not ignorant then the policy today has to be that of an ????.

Eric Johnson
09-30-2010, 06:31 PM
Well....you seem to be confusing the formal power of the presidential position with the power of individual Presidents. We've had very little change in the actual power and authority of the presidency in the last 100 years. Nevertheless, the presidency and the legislative branches and risen and fallen in pretty much a zero-sum game. The powers granted to the office remain the same. What is different is the "personality" of the office-holder.

Eric

ducknwork
09-30-2010, 10:16 PM
Bush's presidency started in 2001. Do you expect me to remember everything during his presidency from 9 years ago? No, but if he bothers you that bad, you should be able to remember a few things other than WMD's and whatever other junk you repeatedly bring up. Be real. Even though these were not my own words they happened never the less. You and the rest of the right wingers started on Obama before he even took over as President and continue on a day to day basis.Because we disagreed with his ideals and the things that he ran on. We didn't have to wait until he did the things he said he was going to do to be unhappy about it. There is no way anyone could go back day to day when Bush took over office of the presidency without the use of Google.

You asked me to bring up the things that Bush did. He was in office for 8 years and made alot of decisions along with his Congress. Sorry you do not have the time to reply to them all.

I responded to all of the things, just not specifically. Until you spend the time to come up with your own ideas, I will not spend hours responding to what took you 5 minutes. It's not respectful and it is not fair. It seems that you can't think for yourself, but I would like for you to prove me wrong on that statement.

cycler
10-01-2010, 06:11 AM
Jeff, if I am not mistaken, the first warning of the Credit Derivative Market, came during the time of the Clinton Administration. I don't remember the woman's name, but, she was a government employee tasked to monitor/watch/regulate, the commodities market in Chicago. There is a very good episode of Frontline (PBS), which covers the timeline and surprisingly enough, some of the people who coerced this woman to downplay the potential risks, are all too familiar names. Greenspaun, Geithner, and so on. Point of this post? The difference between Republicans and Democrats? Republicans s**k and Democrats b**w. And CF#2 is doing well.

troy schwab
10-01-2010, 08:06 AM
What makes it drivel is that it equates control of Congress with control of the United States government. We have three branches of government and all have a hand in what happens along with such quasi-public entities such as the Federal Reserve. The single most powerful voice in all of that is the President's, but his powers remain constrained by the others. Throughout most of our history, control has been split among the institutions of government -- Republicans in the White House and Democrats controlling one or more branches of Congress, or the reverse. That has never changed the fact that there are certain arenas in which Presidents have tended to be more powerful than Congress - including foreign affairs, the economy, and the actual administration of the departments of government. In other, including appropriations, Congress has tended to be more dominant.

Bush had stronger control over more branches of government for a longer time than almost any other President in our history. He also systematically used the war on terror (one of the less threatening wars in our history) to help in asserting his philosophy of the Unitary Executive which greatly expanded the ability of the President to operate while ignoring the wishes of Congress and the decisions of the Courts.

Clearly, with Democratic victories in the 2006 elections, Bush came under increasing pressure to compromise. However, that did little to mitigate the activities of his presidency. By the time the Democrats assumed majority control, the collapse of our economy was set in stone. Th balloon in housing had reached its peak and the seams were already beginning to tear. No action of Congress made the situation worse. Rather, Congress was actually a factor in taking the acions that ultimately avoided an even greater disaster.

To pretend that the housing bubble popped because Democrats took over is simply stupid. To pretend that Bush was somehow a champion against speculative financial excess in housing or in other parts of the market is to ignore the fact that they claimed credit repeatedly for the extension of what they dubbed the "ownership economy" and took the lead in the type of deregulation that made the excesses of AID and the rest of the credit derivative market possible. To even think that Democrats were the source of the deficits run up under Bush is to ignore the fact that deficits began to shrink as soon as the change in control happened.

Yardley,
If this is the best argument of "drivel" you can offer, then I say your full of crap. Thanks for the history lesson, but unfortunately, you were unable to dismiss any of the facts. I never said I blamed the democrats for this mess, but I will say it was certainly not Bush's fault. He had repeatedly reminded congress of the problem, and they chose to do nothing. Period.

Julie R.
10-01-2010, 09:41 AM
If we are lobbing blame around for the housing bubble burst, then bursting the bubble of Bush Blame is long overdue. Let's take a look at when the government, or more specifically the Exective rather than the legislative branch, became heavily involved in the lending business. Anyone else remember? It was long before Bush took office. And why did it end so badly? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even into the early 1990s, weren't the juggernauts they'd later become.

The groundwork for this was actually laid back in 1977 when Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority communities. But Clinton supercharged the process. After entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's rules.

In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse. And, despite warnings of trouble at Fannie and Freddie, in 1994 Clinton unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA in ways Congress never intended.

To save Yardley the trouble of googling/researching, I tried to include links for quotes. Most of the above is firmly imprinted in memory as in addition to being a licensed Realtor I was a business reporter for a DC area publication during the above time period. Below, from a 1993 New York Times article:

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring. Note: the program including sanctions for not meeting quotas, indeed went nationwide the following year

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''



emphasis mine, and remember good ole Franklin? He became a top advisor to the current administration. The above excerpt as well as the next one were all enabled by a heretofore little-known piece of legislation called the Community Reinvestment Act which became a club used to force banks to make loans to minorities in decaying inner city areas, regardless of their creditworthiness or the property appraisal, in the name of racial justice. Here's an example of the CRA at work (note for Yardley et all, excerpted from Ebony magazine 1993 article, so not exactly right-wing op ed):


Following a landmark lending discrimination settlement, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno recently issued a stern warning to all banks which practice red-lining--you're breaking the law and face possible litigation.

Reno's warning came on the heels of a recent settlement of an unprecedented lending-bias case against Chevy Chase Federal Savings Bank, a suburban Washington, D.C., bank that was accused of bias in marketing services to predominantly Black and minority areas.

It was revealed that until recently, Chevy Chase had no branches located in predominantly Black neighborhoods.

As part of the settlement, Chevy Chase and its B.F. Saul Mortgage unit agreed to invest $11 million in neighborhoods that the Justice Department claims they refused to serve.

USA Today reported that from 1976 to 1992 that Chevy Chase underwrote 97 percent of its loans in predominantly White areas.

The bank denied the charges of bias, but did agree to make $140 million in subsidized or below-marketrate mortgage loans to neighborhoods it is accused of discriminating against.

U.S. Attorney Eric Holder added the settlement is also unique because the cash will be funneled directly to the community rather than to the government.

Note another familiar name in connection with the CRA? Current top Legal Eagle on the Presidential team engineered policies that led to the housing collapse? Eeeeek! Say it aint so! Now let's take a closer look at some of the policies put in place by him and another champion of uber-liberal causes, Janet Reno, that helped fuel the exponential increase in high risk mortgage loans, during the middle 1990s (Clinton years).


QUIETLY, behind the scenes, the Clinton Administration is preparing for the biggest regulatory crackdown of recent years. Attorney General Janet Reno is linking up with banking regulators and with HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to end the supposed epidemic of discrimination against minorities in making home loans. The implications for society at large are ominous.

Here, as in affirmative-action efforts in hiring, college admissions, and the drawing of voting districts, the Washington establishment is obsessed with "disparate impact," which it equates with racism. In the mortgage-lending area, there is ample evidence of disparate impact to feed this obsession. Data collected by the Federal Government reveal that in 1992, while 16 per cent of white applicants for mortgage loans were rejected, 36 per cent of black applicants were rejected.

But does disparate impact indicate racism? According to Lawrence Lindsey, the Federal Reserve governor who oversees the collection of mortgage lending data, even the celebrated Boston Fed study that inspired this crusade found that factors other than race--such as one's credit record and whether one has sufficient income to meet the payments--are enough to account for nearly all the difference in rejection rates.

Any licensed Realtor (TM) will remember the landmark case that actually pre-dated the Clinton Administration---the case against the Decatur Federal Savings & Loan of Atlanta, commonly used as a case study in continuing education requirements. That case was referred to Justice during the Bush I Administration, and, under the threat of litigation, Decatur Federal agreed to a draconian settlement that resonated amongst mortgage lenders for the next decade. It mandated Maoist-style sensitivity training for Decatur's loan officers and established quotas with bonuses for those who brought in minority loans.

Long before the housing bubble burst, the low- and no-down-payment policy and the pressure on banks to make CRA-related loans led to foreclosures. Though bankers commonly acted as cheerleaders for the CRA for fear of being branded as racist if they did not, the CEO of one midsize bank grumbled in 2000 that 20 percent of his institution's CRA-related mortgages, which required only $500 down payments, were delinquent in their very first year, and probably 7 percent will end in foreclosure. "The problem with CRA," said an executive with a major national financial-services firm, "is that banks will simply throw money at things because they want that CRA rating." From the banks' point of view, CRA lending is simply a price of doing business—even if some of the mortgages must be written off.

Alex
10-01-2010, 11:43 AM
Here ya go, big boy. You asked the question. We all know what it is. Now give us specific things that Bush did for us to give you an opinion of.

There, I did the hard work for you. Since Bush 'made decisions every day' like you said, it should be easy for you to list the good and bad things that he did for us. I promise, we'll answer you.

So far Duck it looks like Rog is owning you on this one!

ducknwork
10-01-2010, 02:27 PM
So far Duck it looks like Rog is owning you on this one!

Actually, Alex, I gave him my opinion of anything Bush may have done wrong. Read the entire thread carefully. You won't miss it. And besides, as I have stated numerous times, I want to have a discussion with Roger, not the author of an obscure online blog. When he comes up with ideas of his own, not those that belong to someone else that he googled, I will spend my time responding to him. I refuse to spend hours of my time researching and responding to 5 minutes of google work.

Roger Perry
10-01-2010, 02:38 PM
Actually, Alex, I gave him my opinion of anything Bush may have done wrong. Read the entire thread carefully. You won't miss it. And besides, as I have stated numerous times, I want to have a discussion with Roger, not the author of an obscure online blog. When he comes up with ideas of his own, not those that belong to someone else that he googled, I will spend my time responding to him. I refuse to spend hours of my time researching and responding to 5 minutes of google work.

Duck, you stated you only got interested in politics a couple of years ago which means you are not familiar with the decisions Bush 43 made since 2001 when he took office. I suggest you google some of the things he did between 2001 and 2008 and comment on them. You probably were not even old enough to vote in the 2000 election.

Read up on some of the Bush 43 history first. I gave you plenty of examples to choose from.

Roger Perry
10-01-2010, 03:02 PM
Here ya go, big boy. You asked the question. We all know what it is. Now give us specific things that Bush did for us to give you an opinion of.

There, I did the hard work for you. Since Bush 'made decisions every day' like you said, it should be easy for you to list the good and bad things that he did for us. I promise, we'll answer you.

I provided you the list of specific things Bush did. Where in your post does it say I have to use my own words.

ducknwork
10-01-2010, 03:22 PM
I will sum up my thoughts on his presidency like this...If he lied, I don't approve. If he was unethical, I don't approve. If he did something illegal, I don't approve. I don't give a crap whether he has a D or R behind his name, unlike you.

Here ya go Roger. For the second time. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that biased website you posted and I don't have time to check every claim against reputable sources. I have already told you what I think about your cut and paste chicked turd bull crap.

ducknwork
10-01-2010, 03:50 PM
I provided you the list of specific things Bush did. Where in your post does it say I have to use my own words.

You are correct.

I apologize for expecting grown men to be able think for themselves without being specifically told to do so.

Gerry Clinchy
10-01-2010, 04:57 PM
Julie, I wasn't a Realtor® until 1993, so had no previous experience to compare to. Your post was very educational to me.

M&K's Retrievers
10-01-2010, 10:42 PM
Julie, I wasn't a Realtor® until 1993, so had no previous experience to compare to. Your post was very educational to me.

But nor to Roger Dodger.

Roger Perry
10-02-2010, 09:00 AM
You are correct.

I apologize for expecting grown men to be able think for themselves without being specifically told to do so.

What was I supposed to do change a few words around. No way could I provide you with accurate quotes without using references to what happened or what was said. You made the challenge now back it up. If it is of any help, you can use google and quote any source you like. Remember the subject was if Bush was a Democrat instead of a Republican would you have supported his decisions or would you have bashed him. I gave you enough subjects to comment on and if you need more, I will oblige. So far all I see is you bashing Obama is it because he is a Democrat or because he is black or is it a combination of both?

ducknwork
10-02-2010, 09:07 AM
So far all I see is you bashing Obama is it because he is a Democrat or because he is black or is it a combination of both?

Sorry, Roger. I am not ignorant and I am not a racist and I don't appreciate being accused of either. I am done with this conversation due to the fact that you are unable to have a civil conversation using your own thoughts and 'supposed' intelligence.

As far as you not being able to come up with any except for what google came up with for you, I guess I just thought that since you harbor so much disdain and hate for the man, you must have certain things in your mind that stick out that you could have brought up without help of google.

I really wanted to have this conversation with you, but you are obviously incapable.

ducknwork
10-02-2010, 09:09 AM
I will post this quote again for the troll. This is my answer regarding any decision made by anyone, including Bush and Obama.


I will sum up my thoughts on his presidency like this...If he lied, I don't approve. If he was unethical, I don't approve. If he did something illegal, I don't approve. I don't give a crap whether he has a D or R behind his name, unlike you.

Alex
10-03-2010, 04:29 PM
Sorry, Roger. I am not ignorant and I am not a racist and I don't appreciate being accused of either. I am done with this conversation due to the fact that you are unable to have a civil conversation using your own thoughts and 'supposed' intelligence.

As far as you not being able to come up with any except for what google came up with for you, I guess I just thought that since you harbor so much disdain and hate for the man, you must have certain things in your mind that stick out that you could have brought up without help of google.

I really wanted to have this conversation with you, but you are obviously incapable.

Your avatar looks like a duck, but your words sound like a chicken.

Yoiu initiated a challenge to Roger, who then accepted it. Now you appear to refuse to comment or engage him in debate because he used & cited internet sources? Talk about a lame excuse.

Like I said it appears Roger owns a "chicken" that looks like a duck.

It is put up or shut up time for you duck

M&K's Retrievers
10-03-2010, 06:00 PM
Your avatar looks like a duck, but your words sound like a chicken.

Yoiu initiated a challenge to Roger, who then accepted it. Now you appear to refuse to comment or engage him in debate because he used & cited internet sources? Talk about a lame excuse.

Like I said it appears Roger owns a "chicken" that looks like a duck.

It is put up or shut up time for you duck

I should think that is between Duck and RP. Oh, couldn't help but notice that you and RP have the same creative avatar.

caryalsobrook
10-03-2010, 07:25 PM
Your avatar looks like a duck, but your words sound like a chicken.

Yoiu initiated a challenge to Roger, who then accepted it. Now you appear to refuse to comment or engage him in debate because he used & cited internet sources? Talk about a lame excuse.

Like I said it appears Roger owns a "chicken" that looks like a duck.

It is put up or shut up time for you duck

Read roger's quote calling the lady lied about the SS letter. It appears to me that he likes to call CEO's and republicans liars and idiots quite freelly. He never responded to my question and I politely said that saying she lied about the letter was not supported by any evidence, In fact I said nobody would go to an employment agency in order to hire an illegal allien. Maybe you can use your persuasion with Roger to either give evidence to support his accusation that she lied or retract his statement. Sort of like--wwhat did you say? Put up or shut up??

ducknwork
10-03-2010, 10:01 PM
Your avatar looks like a duck, but your words sound like a chicken.

Yoiu initiated a challenge to Roger, who then accepted it. Now you appear to refuse to comment or engage him in debate because he used & cited internet sources? Talk about a lame excuse.

Like I said it appears Roger owns a "chicken" that looks like a duck.

It is put up or shut up time for you duck

Actually, I have no need to research any issue that he brings up about anyone, considering this statement I have quoted multiple times now that you apparently don't know how to read.


If he lied, I don't approve. If he was unethical, I don't approve. If he did something illegal, I don't approve. I don't give a crap whether he has a D or R behind his name, unlike you.

That pretty much covers any situation, by anyone, at anytime. Bush included.

Do you guys understand now or do I need to say it again?

depittydawg
10-03-2010, 10:08 PM
Read roger's quote calling the lady lied about the SS letter. It appears to me that he likes to call CEO's and republicans liars and idiots quite freelly.

Nah, only whenever it happens... Oh, I guess that is quite frequently. My bad. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - ITS A CHICKEN!!!

depittydawg
10-03-2010, 10:10 PM
Actually, I have no need to research any issue that he brings up about anyone, considering this statement I have quoted multiple times now that you apparently don't know how to read.



That pretty much covers any situation, by anyone, at anytime. Bush included.

Do you guys understand now or do I need to say it again?

Dude, time for you to either supply some arguments that support your side of this, or just quit typing. It's no longer about Roger. You asked for specifics. He gave you specifics. That was what, 2 days ago. Since then you've been baiting him, and trying every trick in the book to dodge the issue. You've been had. Roll over. You're done.

ducknwork
10-03-2010, 10:15 PM
DD,
If all the specifics that he posted were true (which I highly doubt due to the site referenced) then I would not approve of what Bush did (according to RP's link).

I cannot state more clearly that I don't approve of unethical, illegal, immoral behavior by anyone. What makes that so difficult to understand?

M&K's Retrievers
10-03-2010, 10:58 PM
difficult to understand?

Difficult to understand and DS go hand in hand.

caryalsobrook
10-04-2010, 07:57 AM
Nah, only whenever it happens... Oh, I guess that is quite frequently. My bad. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - ITS A CHICKEN!!!

Some people might think that you would go to a liquor store to buy moonshine or an employment agency to hire an illegal allien. Maybe also they think if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a chicken too. Nice logic and interpretation of specifics.

Alex
10-04-2010, 03:37 PM
Here ya go, big boy. You asked the question. We all know what it is. Now give us specific things that Bush did for us to give you an opinion of.

There, I did the hard work for you. Since Bush 'made decisions every day' like you said, it should be easy for you to list the good and bad things that he did for us. I promise, we'll answer you.

Ducknwork, this is your original post.
In it you taunt RP and ask for him to give "specific things" that Bush did. You promised that you would answer him

He responded with a number of specific things for you to respond to.
You have failed to live up to your promise by specifically responding to the specific things he listed.

If you issue a challenge, you shouldn't try to weasle out of it when it is accepted on your terms.

You remind me of the wormy kid in grade school who would challenge you to a fight and then go run hide behind his mommy

ducknwork
10-05-2010, 06:36 AM
Ducknwork, this is your original post.
In it you taunt RP and ask for him to give "specific things" that Bush did. You promised that you would answer him

He responded with a number of specific things for you to respond to.
You have failed to live up to your promise by specifically responding to the specific things he listed.

If you issue a challenge, you shouldn't try to weasle out of it when it is accepted on your terms.

You remind me of the wormy kid in grade school who would challenge you to a fight and then go run hide behind his mommy

And you remind me of the kid that nobody knows or likes and has nothing to do with what's going on with the cool crowd. Generally, when he attempts to insert himself in a conversation, he gets ignored, but there might be one or two people that respond a couple times to not be cruel...but eventually he gives up and walks off adjusting the tape that holds his coke bottle lenses together in the middle and realizes that everyone is laughing at him because he forgot his pocket protector and his ink pen leaked all over his shirt. DOH!

FYI, I have been reading and researching the links that he posted as I get time, but my answer does not change. If Roger has accepted my answer, then why does it bother you so bad? Unless someone has dual usernames...:confused::eek:

dnf777
10-05-2010, 08:23 AM
And you remind me of the kid that nobody knows or likes and has nothing to do with what's going on with the cool crowd. Generally, when he attempts to insert himself in a conversation, he gets ignored, but there might be one or two people that respond a couple times to not be cruel...but eventually he gives up and walks off adjusting the tape that holds his coke bottle lenses together in the middle and realizes that everyone is laughing at him because he forgot his pocket protector and his ink pen leaked all over his shirt. DOH!

FYI, I have been reading and researching the links that he posted as I get time, but my answer does not change. If Roger has accepted my answer, then why does it bother you so bad? Unless someone has dual usernames...:confused::eek:

Sounds like to me that RP put this one away, and all the sudden nobody has time to respond with facts, but has time to pontificate on the merits of grade school metaphors. :D

ducknwork
10-05-2010, 08:57 AM
Sounds like to me that RP put this one away, and all the sudden nobody has time to respond with facts, but has time to pontificate on the merits of grade school metaphors. :D

I guess you can't read either.

ducknwork
10-05-2010, 09:09 AM
This time, with FEELING!!


Roger's original question.

I would be interested in hearing from all the right wingers here. If Bush had been a Democrat instead of a Republican and had done the things he did in office, would you still have stood up for him or attacked him like you are now attacking Obama? I would like to hear some honest answers.

This pretty much sums it up.


I cannot state more clearly that I don't approve of unethical, illegal, immoral behavior by anyone. What makes that so difficult to understand?

Julie R.
10-05-2010, 10:03 AM
Sounds like to me that RP put this one away, and all the sudden nobody has time to respond with facts, but has time to pontificate on the merits of grade school metaphors. :D

I absolutely would not say RP put this away. Even I was surprised that as virulent as Roger Perry's hatred for Bush is, he could not come up with a single reason on his own of just why he hates the man so much. Just doesn't make sense, or would an original thought in his head get lonesome?
Or he's got something to hide? Hence why many of us think it's just a cover-up for his man-crush. After all, the difference between love and hate is a very, very fine line.

dnf777
10-05-2010, 10:13 AM
I always wondered what Roger looked like.....

That's bad! :D

dnf777
10-05-2010, 10:15 AM
I guess you can't read either.

No, so I made a video for ya! :D:D:D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3Z2MP8vMWU

ducknwork
10-05-2010, 10:44 AM
No, so I made a video for ya! :D:D:D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3Z2MP8vMWU

Ahhh...Looney Tunes...the finer things in life.:D

dnf777
10-05-2010, 10:46 AM
Ahhh...Looney Tunes...the finer things in life.:D

rivaled only by the Three Stooges! nyuk nyuk nyuk!!!

depittydawg
10-05-2010, 06:53 PM
I absolutely would not say RP put this away. Even I was surprised that as virulent as Roger Perry's hatred for Bush is, he could not come up with a single reason on his own of just why he hates the man so much. Just doesn't make sense, or would an original thought in his head get lonesome?
Or he's got something to hide http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/c01578f2.gif? Hence why many of us think it's just a cover-up for his man-crush. After all, the difference between love and hate is a very, very fine line.

Well now, aren't you a piece of work... A real class act.

Alex
10-06-2010, 10:04 AM
And you remind me of the kid that nobody knows or likes and has nothing to do with what's going on with the cool crowd. Generally, when he attempts to insert himself in a conversation, he gets ignored, but there might be one or two people that respond a couple times to not be cruel...but eventually he gives up and walks off adjusting the tape that holds his coke bottle lenses together in the middle and realizes that everyone is laughing at him because he forgot his pocket protector and his ink pen leaked all over his shirt. DOH!

FYI, I have been reading and researching the links that he posted as I get time, but my answer does not change. If Roger has accepted my answer, then why does it bother you so bad? Unless someone has dual usernames...:confused::eek:

You say you have researched the links; well we are still waiting for you to respond.......SPECIFICALLY to them

Owned & Punked to the MAX

Alex
10-08-2010, 07:42 AM
Hey Ducknwork it seems you have all kinds of time to talk about potheads, make racial analogies to Obama and the Jeffersons, etc.

So when are you going to respond SPECIFICALLy to RP's Bush claims

You laid down the gauntlet, and promised to respond.

We are still waiting for enlightenment from you

Put the bong down and give us your promised response, PLEASE!!

ducknwork
10-08-2010, 11:36 AM
Alex,
You are an idiot and you apparently do not know how to read. Apparently, ignoring your trolling doesn't get the point across to you, just as giving you my honest position doesn't either. You are sure concerned about what I have been doing with my time. Instead of just playing peeping tom with what I am doing on here, why don't you share some of your brilliance with us? I find it very interesting that the only posts you have made on POTUS ever have been in this thread, lobbing rocks into a fight that you have no dog in. Here's a new flash, genius. I responded. Apparently, Roger has no issue with the response I gave as he isn't still bellyaching about it. Unless you are really a second username for him, which wouldn't surprise me. What has prompted you to make so many useless posts on this thread? Between your join date and before this thread (almost 3 years) you made 17 posts. On this thread alone, you have made 5 posts (in the last week). Why do you have so much interest in trolling here? Although looking at pasts posts of yours, it seems that you have a history of stirring the pot and not adding anything substantive to any thread at all. You can post all you want from here out, but I will not respond to continued baiting from you. My answer has already been given, you have simply chosen to ignore it.

WaterDogRem
10-08-2010, 11:46 AM
So far ALEX it looks like DUCK is owning you on this one!

Fix it for you Alex.

Roger Perry
10-08-2010, 11:57 AM
Alex,
You are an idiot and you apparently do not know how to read. Apparently, ignoring your trolling doesn't get the point across to you, just as giving you my honest position doesn't either. You are sure concerned about what I have been doing with my time. Instead of just playing peeping tom with what I am doing on here, why don't you share some of your brilliance with us? I find it very interesting that the only posts you have made on POTUS ever have been in this thread, lobbing rocks into a fight that you have no dog in. Here's a new flash, genius. I responded. Apparently, Roger has no issue with the response I gave as he isn't still bellyaching about it. Unless you are really a second username for him, which wouldn't surprise me. What has prompted you to make so many useless posts on this thread? Between your join date and before this thread (almost 3 years) you made 17 posts. On this thread alone, you have made 5 posts (in the last week). Why do you have so much interest in trolling here? Although looking at pasts posts of yours, it seems that you have a history of stirring the pot and not adding anything substantive to any thread at all. You can post all you want from here out, but I will not respond to continued baiting from you. My answer has already been given, you have simply chosen to ignore it.

I gave up on Ducknwork answering any of the specific subjects I gave him to respond to. Apparantly he is not a man of his word.

Alex
10-08-2010, 04:53 PM
Alex,
You are an idiot and you apparently do not know how to read. Apparently, ignoring your trolling doesn't get the point across to you, just as giving you my honest position doesn't either. You are sure concerned about what I have been doing with my time. Instead of just playing peeping tom with what I am doing on here, why don't you share some of your brilliance with us? I find it very interesting that the only posts you have made on POTUS ever have been in this thread, lobbing rocks into a fight that you have no dog in. Here's a new flash, genius. I responded. Apparently, Roger has no issue with the response I gave as he isn't still bellyaching about it. Unless you are really a second username for him, which wouldn't surprise me. What has prompted you to make so many useless posts on this thread? Between your join date and before this thread (almost 3 years) you made 17 posts. On this thread alone, you have made 5 posts (in the last week). Why do you have so much interest in trolling here? Although looking at pasts posts of yours, it seems that you have a history of stirring the pot and not adding anything substantive to any thread at all. You can post all you want from here out, but I will not respond to continued baiting from you. My answer has already been given, you have simply chosen to ignore it.

Hey Sparky, I'll type this real real slow so you can keep up.

You tauntingly started a thread asking RP for specifics of why he didn't like "W"
You promised that if he could supply anything that you would respond. You even promised a response.

To date the only "response" you have made is a general statement that you don't approve of lies, or illegal or unethical conduct by anyone whether they have a R or D behind their name.

WOW!!!! There is a real scathing and analytical analysis of the specific.
No doubting where you stand on the issues. You are a true leader amongst men.

I bet you would even take a stance against cancer, childhood hunger, being mean to puppy dogs and bad weather, wouldn't you?

Quit searching my post history, step away from the bong and specifically answer RP's specific allegations as you promised you would do.

You state RP is satisfied with your answer, but apparently not based on his previous post.

You say I don't have a dog in this fight, so let me give you a couple of things to respond to about your hero "W"

He started a presumptive war based on the presumptions that Iraq had WMD's and was behind the attacks of 9-11.
Both of those presumptions were wrong. I wont give you a cite for that, because you apparently only trust FOX or the Drudge report etc I'll just tell you to google it yourself. Look under Bush, as he himself has admitted that he was wrong. you can also check the 9-11 Commission report, or the UN weapons inspectors report.

Are those sources credible?

ducknwork
10-12-2010, 10:59 AM
To date the only "response" you have made is a general statement that you don't approve of lies, or illegal or unethical conduct by anyone whether they have a R or D behind their name.

That pretty much covers any situation that could ever arise. I am not wishy washy like some on here when it comes to holding people accountable for their actions.

WOW!!!! There is a real scathing and analytical analysis of the specific.
No doubting where you stand on the issues. You are correct. There is no doubt about where I stand. I stand on the side of truth, integrity, and responsible behavior, among other things.You are a true leader amongst men. If more people stood for those three things, it would be a good thing, right? A true leader would stand up for them, right?:)

You say I don't have a dog in this fight, so let me give you a couple of things to respond to about your hero "W" Thank you for using your own hatred for Bush, rather than pasting someone else's.

He started a presumptive war based on the presumptions that Iraq had WMD's and was behind the attacks of 9-11.
Both of those presumptions were wrong. I wont give you a cite for that, because you apparently only trust FOX or the Drudge report Where do you gather that? Making assumptions again? In fact, I am one of the most fair people on this forum, but I shouldn't expect you to know that in 23 posts.:rolleyes:etc I'll just tell you to google it yourself. Look under Bush, as he himself has admitted that he was wrong. you can also check the 9-11 Commission report, or the UN weapons inspectors report.

Are those sources credible?

Now, in response to your question...

You say twice that Bush was wrong. There is a HUGE difference between being wrong and knowingly lying. If he was simply wrong, then it is a very sad thing, but he did not do anything bad. I honestly find it hard to believe that any President would place the lives of thousands and thousands of Americans at risk for 'revenge' or money or oil or whatever else you guys claim he sent us to war for. I also know that the public does not have access to all of the intelligence that the POTUS has access to. I have a difficult time believing that there were ZERO WMDs in the entire country or that Saddam didn't have the capability to be a threat to us. Remember, Alex, WMDs are not the only reason that we went to war in the middle east, specifically Iraq. I won't cite that for you either;) but there were other reasons. Google it if you want.

Now, if he knowingly LIED, then there is no defense for his actions. You guys keep prodding me to defend him so you can argue with me, but I will not defend things that I believe to be wrong. Has it been proven in court, beyond the shadow of a doubt that he knowingly lied? Or is it along the sames lines as the belief that 9/11 was designed by him or that he blew up the levees in New Orleans to kill all the blacks?

Alex
10-12-2010, 03:48 PM
You asked RP for specifics and promised that you would respond. That would seem to call for a specific answer; not the non specific gibberish you keep regurgitating. "IF HE IS WRONG THEN HE IS WRONG" IF ANYONE LIES THEN I DONT APPROVE" etc

You comment on my low post count. Chec out your post count in a little over a year. If you'd spend less time posting you might have time to research RP's issues, and come up with a cogent opinon of your own

Grow a set there Skippy and tell us what YOU believe. It's the faceless internet, nobody is gonna hurt you Skippy

Although after reading your responses on the stem cell thread I won't hold my breath for a rational response.

There is a short bus honking for you outside your door Skipper, don't forget your lunch and fingerpaints.

ducknwork
10-12-2010, 08:35 PM
Roger, oops...I mean Alex, I tried to give you a well thought out answer to your question because you actually posted something without cutting and pasting. I guess it's still not good enough for you. If you would learn how to read instead of stirring the pot, you would realize that I did tell you what I believe and addressed what you mentioned specifically. I just don't understand what you expect me to say if that wasn't good enough. Care to tell me exactly what you are looking for? You wanted to know where I stood on that and I couldn't have been more honest.






Now here is something interesting...

My previous last post on this thread was 10-8-10 at 12:36 pm. RP responded on the same day at 12:57, then Alex responded at 5:53 pm, then logged out at 5:55 pm on 10-8. I have not made a post on this thread until today at 11:59. I checked your profile and the last time you visited the RTF was 10-8-10 at 5:55...so as bad as you want to give me a hard time, you didn't check for four days...when I posted my response, RP was logged on and looking at POTUS until 12:13 when he logged off. I know that he saw my response, but didn't say anything...but somehow, you MAGICALLY knew that if you checked back this afternoon, I would have responded to you...I just have a hard time believing that's a coincidence, "Alex". It's also interesting that the 'two' of you have similar punctuation and spelling issues...It's almost as if you are one and the same...Also interesting is the fact that you have been a member since Jan 08 and have not made ONE post about your dog, asked any dog related questions, or even offered advice to anyone about their dog...Why are you here?

Can you say TROLL?

Roger Perry
10-13-2010, 02:09 PM
Roger, oops...I mean Alex, I tried to give you a well thought out answer to your question because you actually posted something without cutting and pasting. I guess it's still not good enough for you. If you would learn how to read instead of stirring the pot, you would realize that I did tell you what I believe and addressed what you mentioned specifically. I just don't understand what you expect me to say if that wasn't good enough. Care to tell me exactly what you are looking for? You wanted to know where I stood on that and I couldn't have been more honest.






Now here is something interesting...

My previous last post on this thread was 10-8-10 at 12:36 pm. RP responded on the same day at 12:57, then Alex responded at 5:53 pm, then logged out at 5:55 pm on 10-8. I have not made a post on this thread until today at 11:59. I checked your profile and the last time you visited the RTF was 10-8-10 at 5:55...so as bad as you want to give me a hard time, you didn't check for four days...when I posted my response, RP was logged on and looking at POTUS until 12:13 when he logged off. I know that he saw my response, but didn't say anything...but somehow, you MAGICALLY knew that if you checked back this afternoon, I would have responded to you...I just have a hard time believing that's a coincidence, "Alex". It's also interesting that the 'two' of you have similar punctuation and spelling issues...It's almost as if you are one and the same...Also interesting is the fact that you have been a member since Jan 08 and have not made ONE post about your dog, asked any dog related questions, or even offered advice to anyone about their dog...Why are you here?

Can you say TROLL?

Duck, are you saying Alex and me are the same posters? I believe Chris has a rule against having 2 accounts by the same person under different names. I play by Chris's rules. I gave you specific examples of the things Bush did wihle in office. If you expect me to believe that your answers would have been anything different from what you have responded I wouldn't believe you.

Roger Perry
10-13-2010, 02:45 PM
Ok Duck, here are some questions I have for you in my own words and I will even give you references.
If Bush had been a Democrat instead of a Republican how would you have responded to these alligations, or better yet if Obama had been in office in 2001 and did the thing Bush did how would you have responded.

1. Joseph Wilson gave a report to the President saying that the administration exagerated the Iraqi threat. The President rejected that information and went ahead with the war with Iraq.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,465270,00.html

2. Valerie Plame (Joseph Wilson's wife) was a CIA agent outed by someone in the Bush administration and Bush said he would fire anyone involved yet he fired no one allegations were that Carl Rove leaked the information.


Beginning in August 2003, it was suspected (http://slate.msn.com/id/2088471/)—and widely rumored—that Karl Rove (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Karl_Rove), Assistant to the President, Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to George W. Bush (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_W._Bush), was responsible for outing Valerie Plame (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Valerie_Plame) as an undercover CIA (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CIA) agent.


A brief recap � Plame�s husband, Joseph Wilson, was a foreign service officer and ambassador who refuted President Bush�s claim that Iraq had sought nuclear weapons from �Africa.� Bush made the claim, which has since been disproven, in his 2003 State of the Union address ��part of his justification for going to war with Iraq. Wilson simply said that Bush was either wrong or was lying. He proved it convincingly in a New York Times column and in his book, "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife�s CIA Identity � A Diplomat�s Memoir." In retaliation against this breech of the party line, someone affiliated with Bush and/or the Republicans tried to discredit Wilson by publicly identifying his wife, Plame, as a CIA operative. Naming someone publicly in this capacity is tantamount to treason, and it is a federal crime. In effect, it�s helping the terrorists identify American citizens who work for the government so they can target them and perhaps murder them. So, someone in the Bush adminstration, or the Republican Party, committed a treasonous act, and identified Plame in an effort to silence her husband for telling the truth about Bush�s misstatement of fact as he tried to justify the Iraq invasion. This was a crime. And it is still being investigated by a federal prosecutor and the FBI.

3. Here is a biggie ---- What if Obama had been President before the start of the Iraqi war and he put Bin Laden's muslim family on a private plane which took them out of the United States? You have accused Obama of being a muslim what kind of critizism you have given him had he aided a Muslim family to escape the Country especially when they were related to Bin Laden.

Please do not give me the short answer that if he did it he was wrong.

Members of Osama bin Laden's family were allowed to fly out of the US shortly after the September 11 terror attacks, a senior official has said.


http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2002/Nov/Week2/1106190.jpg 'Bush government sanctioned bin Laden family repatriation'


Even though American airspace had been shut down, the Bush administration alloweda jet to fly around the US picking up family members from 10 cities, including Los Angeles, Washington DC, Boston and Houston.
Some 140 high ranking Saudi officials were also on the plane.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/200806412758358

ducknwork
10-13-2010, 08:30 PM
If you expect me to believe that your answers would have been anything different from what you have responded I wouldn't believe you.

I am thoroughly confused by this sentence. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I will respond to your next post in a little while, maybe tomorrow. Just didn't want you to think I was blowing you off...Thanks for coming back.

ducknwork
10-14-2010, 07:16 AM
If Bush had been a Democrat instead of a Republican how would you have responded to these alligations, or better yet if Obama had been in office in 2001 and did the thing Bush did how would you have responded.

I have already stated that it doesn't matter to me whether someone is a democrat or a republican, they should be held accountable for their actions. I am not really clear on what you want me to say. Do you want me to 'bash' George Bush just like I have bashed Obama? If that is the case, please note that I have NOT 'bashed' Obama. I have only called things the way I see them and I would have done the same for W.


1. Joseph Wilson gave a report to the President saying that the administration exagerated the Iraqi threat. The President rejected that information and went ahead with the war with Iraq.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,465270,00.html

It's hard to say anything like I think you expect me to say because of hindsight. Things look different when they are happening and there is less information available than we have years later. The claim you make doesn't match the article you posted. To me it seems like a 'he said, she said' deal. Wilson says his report says one thing, the administration says the report says another. Who do we believe? I guess you are implying that if it was Obama, I would side with Wilson and with Bush I would side with the gov't. The honest truth is that based on the article you posted, a judgment can't be made. Is Wilson's report declassified now? That would be the only way to know where the truth lies. This article leaves me with more questions than I had before. And, as I have stated before, we do not have access to all of the intel that the POTUS does.


2. Valerie Plame (Joseph Wilson's wife) was a CIA agent outed by someone in the Bush administration and Bush said he would fire anyone involved yet he fired no one allegations were that Carl Rove leaked the information.


Beginning in August 2003, it was suspected (http://slate.msn.com/id/2088471/)—and widely rumored—that Karl Rove (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Karl_Rove), Assistant to the President, Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to George W. Bush (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_W._Bush), was responsible for outing Valerie Plame (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Valerie_Plame) as an undercover CIA (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CIA) agent.


A brief recap � Plame�s husband, Joseph Wilson, was a foreign service officer and ambassador who refuted President Bush�s claim that Iraq had sought nuclear weapons from �Africa.� Bush made the claim, which has since been disproven, in his 2003 State of the Union address ��part of his justification for going to war with Iraq. Wilson simply said that Bush was either wrong or was lying. He proved it convincingly in a New York Times column and in his book, "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife�s CIA Identity � A Diplomat�s Memoir." In retaliation against this breech of the party line, someone affiliated with Bush and/or the Republicans tried to discredit Wilson by publicly identifying his wife, Plame, as a CIA operative. Naming someone publicly in this capacity is tantamount to treason, and it is a federal crime. In effect, it�s helping the terrorists identify American citizens who work for the government so they can target them and perhaps murder them. So, someone in the Bush adminstration, or the Republican Party, committed a treasonous act, and identified Plame in an effort to silence her husband for telling the truth about Bush�s misstatement of fact as he tried to justify the Iraq invasion. This was a crime. And it is still being investigated by a federal prosecutor and the FBI.

It is clear that someone leaked her name in an attempt to punish Wilson for his op-ed article.(unless Wilson himself leaked her name...) It hasn't been proven who leaked it, but it is awfully suspicious that nobody would deny that Rove leaked it. We can't convict people on suspicions and rumors in this country, so more should have been done to find facts. Leaking her name was a terrible crime that could have jeopardized our country and whoever did it needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The Bush administration should have done more to find out who did it and I also find that to be a bit fishy that they were so happy to let it die without nabbing the culprit...The whole thing is disgusting to me...just the idea that someone would leak the name of a CIA agent to punish her husband for going against the govt is terrible. Bush did not make good on his statement to 'get to the bottom of this'.


3. Here is a biggie ---- What if Obama had been President before the start of the Iraqi war and he put Bin Laden's muslim family on a private plane which took them out of the United States? You have accused Obama of being a muslim what kind of critizism you have given him had he aided a Muslim family to escape the Country especially when they were related to Bin Laden.

Please do not give me the short answer that if he did it he was wrong.

Members of Osama bin Laden's family were allowed to fly out of the US shortly after the September 11 terror attacks, a senior official has said.


http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2002/Nov/Week2/1106190.jpg 'Bush government sanctioned bin Laden family repatriation'


Even though American airspace had been shut down, the Bush administration alloweda jet to fly around the US picking up family members from 10 cities, including Los Angeles, Washington DC, Boston and Houston.
Some 140 high ranking Saudi officials were also on the plane.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/200806412758358

First of all, I don't recall ever accusing Obama of being a muslim. I have said that I don't believe he is a very good Christian and I stand by that. Back up your statement with quotes or take it back. Same thing you need to do with you accusations of me being racist earlier in this thread. If you are being honest, Roger, you will have to admit that I am one of the most fair people on this forum and I am not someone who attacks O or anyone unnecessarily or unwarranted. In fact, look back at a few recent threads by gman and UB. Who is the first one to post a snopes link that debunks their BS Obama cut and paste emails in an effort for truth and didn't just jump on the hate Obama bandwagon? That would be me, Roger.

There is no way that OBL's family should have been allowed to fly out of the country. It was a dumb thing to do, even though they probably didn't know anything about the whereabouts of OBL, given this statement in your article:

The wealthy bin Laden family broke ties with bin Laden years before the September 11 strikes.
They should have been held in protective custody for a period of time for their safety, but to fly them out of the country without thorough interviews and interrogations about anything they may know about OBL is completely stupid.

There, I answered you. Please don't just say it's not good enough, like your buddy continues to do. If it's not good enough, you need to tell me why and tell me what you are expecting of me.

Roger Perry
10-14-2010, 10:33 AM
I have already stated that it doesn't matter to me whether someone is a democrat or a republican, they should be held accountable for their actions. I am not really clear on what you want me to say. Do you want me to 'bash' George Bush just like I have bashed Obama? If that is the case, please note that I have NOT 'bashed' Obama. I have only called things the way I see them and I would have done the same for W.



It's hard to say anything like I think you expect me to say because of hindsight. Things look different when they are happening and there is less information available than we have years later. The claim you make doesn't match the article you posted. To me it seems like a 'he said, she said' deal. Wilson says his report says one thing, the administration says the report says another. Who do we believe? I guess you are implying that if it was Obama, I would side with Wilson and with Bush I would side with the gov't. The honest truth is that based on the article you posted, a judgment can't be made. Is Wilson's report declassified now? That would be the only way to know where the truth lies. This article leaves me with more questions than I had before. And, as I have stated before, we do not have access to all of the intel that the POTUS does.



It is clear that someone leaked her name in an attempt to punish Wilson for his op-ed article.(unless Wilson himself leaked her name...) It hasn't been proven who leaked it, but it is awfully suspicious that nobody would deny that Rove leaked it. We can't convict people on suspicions and rumors in this country, so more should have been done to find facts. Leaking her name was a terrible crime that could have jeopardized our country and whoever did it needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The Bush administration should have done more to find out who did it and I also find that to be a bit fishy that they were so happy to let it die without nabbing the culprit...The whole thing is disgusting to me...just the idea that someone would leak the name of a CIA agent to punish her husband for going against the govt is terrible. Bush did not make good on his statement to 'get to the bottom of this'.



First of all, I don't recall ever accusing Obama of being a muslim. I have said that I don't believe he is a very good Christian and I stand by that. Back up your statement with quotes or take it back. Same thing you need to do with you accusations of me being racist earlier in this thread. If you are being honest, Roger, you will have to admit that I am one of the most fair people on this forum and I am not someone who attacks O or anyone unnecessarily or unwarranted. In fact, look back at a few recent threads by gman and UB. Who is the first one to post a snopes link that debunks their BS Obama cut and paste emails in an effort for truth and didn't just jump on the hate Obama bandwagon? That would be me, Roger.

There is no way that OBL's family should have been allowed to fly out of the country. It was a dumb thing to do, even though they probably didn't know anything about the whereabouts of OBL, given this statement in your article:

They should have been held in protective custody for a period of time for their safety, but to fly them out of the country without thorough interviews and interrogations about anything they may know about OBL is completely stupid.

There, I answered you. Please don't just say it's not good enough, like your buddy continues to do. If it's not good enough, you need to tell me why and tell me what you are expecting of me.

Good enough for me, at least it was more than a 1 sentence answer that I was expecting. I won't hit you up for any more Bush questions. :lol:

ducknwork
10-14-2010, 11:09 AM
Good enough for me, at least it was more than a 1 sentence answer that I was expecting. I won't hit you up for any more Bush questions. :lol:

I told you I would resond if you actually put some effort into your post. I keep my word.

Geez, the RTF is slow right now...someone needs to fix that....

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz