The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 84

Thread: Roger Perry's Bush Support Comparison

  1. #21
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david gibson View Post
    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...
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by troy schwab View Post
    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.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    3,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    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?

  4. #24
    Senior Member troy schwab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Erie, PA
    Posts
    897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    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.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    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...
    Last edited by ducknwork; 09-30-2010 at 03:52 PM. Reason: more thoughts added

  6. #26
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by troy schwab View Post
    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.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    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/e...p-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.
    Last edited by Buzz; 09-30-2010 at 03:58 PM.
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    3,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    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

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ducknwork View Post
    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.

  10. #30
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •