TGHusker Posted October 17, 2013 Author Share Posted October 17, 2013 I knew this would break out all of the fun comments. Let me remove the harsh tone on the OP and just say again - both parties have failed us. The list of 33 is systematic of what has happened over the last 10 years, accelerating in recent years - all under both parties. At this point I would welcome back the years of GHB and Clinton vs the years of GWB and Obama. Link to comment
tschu Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 True story: I was dating this super hot girl before Obama got elected Then after he got elected she broke up with me. Coincidence? Of course not. THANKS OBAMA 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 At this point I would welcome back the years of GHB and Clinton vs the years of GWB and Obama. If that means that we get the 90s economy, no 9/11, Patriot Act, TSA, Iraq II, Afghanistan, etc. . . count me in. 1 Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 33 rays of sunshine. With numbers like these, it's no wonder some are already considering Obama one of the greatest Presidents ever. Once a person successfully blames all of this on the previous GWB, all that remains is Obama basking in the glow of his accomplishments. Possibly his greatest feat cannot even be represented by these numbers. He campaigned on not being Bush and I think it is now abundantly clear, he is not GWB. Six years, these numbers, and Obamacare as the cake topper......can it get any better? Link to comment
TGHusker Posted October 18, 2013 Author Share Posted October 18, 2013 At this point I would welcome back the years of GHB and Clinton vs the years of GWB and Obama. If that means that we get the 90s economy, no 9/11, Patriot Act, TSA, Iraq II, Afghanistan, etc. . . count me in. Carl, we are probably closer in view than you think. YES all of that you note. I never thought I'd say this, but the Clinton years (wt Newt as Speaker mind you) 'were the best of times' in many ways. Of course, IMO it was set up by the hard work Reagan did in the 80s. But GWB forward - not so much. Clinton was not an ideologue - he was pragmatic - that is why the split govt worked - Dem Pres and Senate and Repub house just like now. Now, we have 'purists' on both sides and we end up wt current mess. GWB proved not to be conservative in spending and policy and Obama just accelerated the big spending ways. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 I never thought I'd say this, but the Clinton years (wt Newt as Speaker mind you) 'were the best of times' in many ways. Of course, IMO it was set up by the hard work Reagan did in the 80s. But GWB forward - no so much. Clinton was not an ideologue - he was pragmatic - that is why the split govt worked - Dem Pres and Senate and Repub house just like now. I bet that you weren't a fan of Clinton at the time. (I wasn't either.) Give it time and you'll be thinking the same things about Pres. Obama. Now, we have 'purists' on both sides and we end up wt current mess. No we don't. The "both sides" BS is exactly that. If you had Republicans shutting down the government unless Obamacare was defunded and Democrats shutting down the government unless taxes were increased you'd have a point. Only one side was demanding changes. Seriously . . . who are the 'purists' on the left and what do you think that they are asking for? 3 Link to comment
ZRod Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 I'm probably one of the more ignorant people to post in this forum, which is why I peruse here, but aren't a good number of those facts likely tied to baby boomers reaching retirement and collecting social security benefits etc? forgive me for not posting a gif. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Yes, and I think all 33 are also things that can (and mostly should) be directly influenced by Congress. But that wouldn't fit the "Obama = Bad" agenda, so it's ignored. That's also why nobody has bothered to refute any of those points. The fact that it was posted as "Obama's fault" negates debate. Hence the gif-bombing of an otherwise inane thread. 1 Link to comment
ZRod Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Yes, and I think all 33 are also things that can (and mostly should) be directly influenced by Congress. But that wouldn't fit the "Obama = Bad" agenda, so it's ignored. That's also why nobody has bothered to refute any of those points. The fact that it was posted as "Obama's fault" negates debate. Hence the gif-bombing of an otherwise inane thread. I realized that I just figured I would try to post an intelligent comment for once. But this is neither the time nor place. So... Link to comment
TGHusker Posted October 18, 2013 Author Share Posted October 18, 2013 I never thought I'd say this, but the Clinton years (wt Newt as Speaker mind you) 'were the best of times' in many ways. Of course, IMO it was set up by the hard work Reagan did in the 80s. But GWB forward - no so much. Clinton was not an ideologue - he was pragmatic - that is why the split govt worked - Dem Pres and Senate and Repub house just like now. I bet that you weren't a fan of Clinton at the time. (I wasn't either.) Give it time and you'll be thinking the same things about Pres. Obama. Carl, I truly hope so. Yea, I 'rag' on him too much (I think he acts un-presidential - not a leader- blame game, Chicago politics, not a uniter). I hope ACA surprises me and I become a big fan - however, just have a hard time wt the levels of spending by this govt. If GWB or McCain or Romney were our current pres and doing the same, I'd have a hard time with it. Now, we have 'purists' on both sides and we end up wt current mess. No we don't. The "both sides" BS is exactly that. If you had Republicans shutting down the government unless Obamacare was defunded and Democrats shutting down the government unless taxes were increased you'd have a point. Only one side was demanding changes. Seriously . . . who are the 'purists' on the left and what do you think that they are asking for? Stutus Quo- voted for the ACA against the wish of the majority of citizens (and no bi-partisan support) and still refuse to acknowledge that most citizens are not for it based on polls ( as welll as the 2010 election which was a type of poll - specifically a vote against govt overreach - 2014 may be another). Obama saying 'no negotiation' is pretty much a 'purist' statement in light of all of the issues coming to light about ACA. See red above 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted October 18, 2013 Author Share Posted October 18, 2013 Yes, and I think all 33 are also things that can (and mostly should) be directly influenced by Congress. But that wouldn't fit the "Obama = Bad" agenda, so it's ignored. That's also why nobody has bothered to refute any of those points. The fact that it was posted as "Obama's fault" negates debate. Hence the gif-bombing of an otherwise inane thread. Since 2006 the dems have run Congress - 2006-2010 both houses - partly wt super majorities (they had Senate majorities prior to 2006 some of the GWB years). 2010 to Current - the senate but supported by a dem pres - the rep house, as demonstrated in this latest go around - only has the power of the purse constitutionally but is out maneuvered by the dems . Both parties have created the list of 33 and both the current president & GWB are also responsible. Link to comment
Recommended Posts