Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

I split the political posts into the POLITICS! forum... and really screwed up somehow.

Crap, I think I deleted it. Sorry.

It's OK, you and I were just going through our monthly arguing with rocks ritual anyways! It has all been posted before and will be posted again!


If you want, here's a copy of the last post I made.

Freakzilla wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

The latest high-point is not unexpected, considering the federal deficit for the just-ended 2009 fiscal year hit an all-time high at $1.42-trillion – more than triple the previous year's record high.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/17 ... 6644.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Lots of other big numbers there, too.

Ah, per year. That makes more sense. But how much of that was $$ that Bush had already committed the country to spending, knowing he was headed out anyways?

You know he and Obama both worked on that bailout, right?

That's my point, I haven't once heard you complain about Bush's contribution to it, and you're generally very quick to state that Obama is worse than Bush. I think your judgment of Obama is as clouded by the rightwing opinions you have as other people's opinions are clouded in his favour by their leftwing opinions.
If a republican was in power and spent the same money I have a hunch (and admittedly just a hunch)
that you would either accept it as a necessary sacrifice to get out of the recession, or you would at least have a great deal less anger towards it.

Just wait, he hasn't yet begun to spend. Wait 'til "Healthcare".

You may be totally right about that one, the US may not be able to handle a real healthcare system. OR you could be totally wrong and it could go the way it has for every country I know of with socialized medicine - saving everyone and the country money overall.



Time will tell, I'm on the fence with this one. Socialized healthcare is 100% more moral and saves everyone money in the end, hurrah, something for the commies and the capitalists to love. BUT, getting it started doesn't sound easy, and could go horribly wrong.

We've got double digit unemployment, too. Didn't Obama promise it wouldn't go above 8%

What, and that unemployment is a result of too much money being spent on getting out of the recession? I'm not saying he isn't a liar, obviously making a promise like that (if he did make it) was stupid of him, he can't control that stuff so he shouldn't promise to, but all politicians are liars.

Think Bush is better? Hmmmm didn't he admit that his government knew 911 was coming and did nothing? Didn't he admit there were no weapons of mass destruction, they were just invading for political and economic reasons? And after everyone found out there were no WMAs and the US switched it's invasion excuse to "we're liberating them, hurray" didn't he instantly admit that was a lie? Hmmmmm.

I'm not saying Obama isn't a sleezy politician. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but worse than BUSH? It's going to be a looooooong time before we see a leader worse than Bush in the Whiteuouse IMO.

I meant to split posts from the "New Dune Movie" topic to here but I accidentally deleted it.

Hopefully we can pick up where we left off...

They're both politicians and therefore evil. My intention was to point out how while liberals love to continue to blame Bush a year into Obama's terms, the public is just as guilty as blindly following another leader.

BTW, at least Bush had some experiece to run on and not just his charisma.

Freakzilla wrote:They're both politicians and therefore evil. My intention was to point out how while liberals love to continue to blame Bush a year into Obama's terms, the public is just as guilty as blindly following another leader.

BTW, at least Bush had some experiece to run on and not just his charisma.

Experience can only make up for so much lack of raw intelligence though. The people who do the "real" running of the show are guaranteed to be experienced either way. I'd take an intelligent moral person with less experience, but good advisers over an unintelligent immoral one with good advisers, regardless of whether that guy had 100 years more experience.

More time doing something wrong just teaches you to do it wrong more thoroughly is my motto. Practice doesn't make perfect, good practice makes perfect. It applies to anything.

I made a topic in politics for this...

Can you copy over those last few posts?

A Thing of Eternity wrote:Can you copy over those last few posts?

I'm afraid to...

Wow, nothing got deleted this time!

I'd better quit while I'm even.

I can't stand Bush and think he and his cronies should be tried as war criminals. Nevertheless, I have more respect for him than Obama. Bush had an agenda and pushed it. Obama hasn't done anything but give money to the corporate interests that got him elected. He sits in the white house and pretends that he doesn't have a majority of both the house and senate, a party majority all across the country, and public support the likes of which I can't recall a sitting president ever having. He could do anything he wanted right now, and yet he keeps doing what he or his advisers think is possible, rather than what is right. Aren't leaders supposed to lead? Charismatic perhaps, but a leader he certainly is not. In the end he will end up doing more harm to his party than Bush ever could. Apathy is a far more potent voting deterrent than fear or hate.

I read an article today that indepenents are move from left to right in droves. Mainly due to worries about spending and unemployment.

I tried to do something like this over a Arrakeen and deleted some posts. That bitch kept bringing it up when she was trying to take jabs at me.

That stupid cunt.

Freakzilla wrote:They're both politicians and therefore evil. My intention was to point out how while liberals love to continue to blame Bush a year into Obama's terms, the public is just as guilty as blindly following another leader.

BTW, at least Bush had some experiece to run on and not just his charisma.

I think gw has the charisma of a turnip

lotek wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:They're both politicians and therefore evil. My intention was to point out how while liberals love to continue to blame Bush a year into Obama's terms, the public is just as guilty as blindly following another leader.

BTW, at least Bush had some experiece to run on and not just his charisma.

I think gw has the charisma of a turnip

Chimp is the common comparison, I think. Sitll, I'd rather have a chimp with some experience in our government than a charismatic socialist.

I really wish people would stop calling him a socialist. It really gives socialists a bad name. You see, a socialist would take some of that money and give it to the working class. So far, Obama has only doled out money to the corporate entities that got him elected. Corporate lackey is not even close to being synonymous with socialist.

The crazy difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush overstepped his authority far more than anyone since Jackson, and Obama has pretty much reverted back to the lame duck presidencies of the pre-Jackson era by turfing everything to congress.

OK...

I'd rather have a chimp with experience than a charismatic corporate lackey.

Touche! But let's not get over excited here.

Just so we put this into perspective, Bush wasn't exactly experienced. Governor of Texas and owner of the Rangers would not exactly be first on the resume list if I were interviewing the presidential candidates. Bush did have perhaps the most experienced cabinet in the history of the presidency, however. That being said, the Bush administration will most likely go down as the single worst administration in the history of this country, not just by us, but the entire world. That is why I was actually hoping that someone with less experience, i.e. someone less corrupted by US politics might be a good thing. It turns out that experience is not a requirement for corruption. Just about and Tom, Dick and Harry are susceptible.

Idahopotato wrote:Touche! But let's not get over excited here.

Just so we put this into perspective, Bush wasn't exactly experienced. Governor of Texas and owner of the Rangers would not exactly be first on the resume list if I were interviewing the presidential candidates. Bush did have perhaps the most experienced cabinet in the history of the presidency, however. That being said, the Bush administration will most likely go down as the single worst administration in the history of this country, not just by us, but the entire world. That is why I was actually hoping that someone with less experience, i.e. someone less corrupted by US politics might be a good thing. It turns out that experience is not a requirement for corruption. Just about and Tom, Dick and Harry are susceptible.

OK, but Obama was Senator for Illinois, a state KNOWN for their corruption. Their governor allegedly tried to sell his Senate seat!

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 81,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Illinois is perhaps the most corrupt state there is. My hope was that he wasn't a senator there long enough to become totally corrupt. That and I also fell into the "he isn't Bush crowd". Well it turns out that he is just as corrupt as every politician. And to think this was the first time I voted for someone not named Nadar for president. I guess that will teach me not to get my hopes up.

Tbankfully we don't have the problem of charismatic leaders in the UK anymore. We tried it with Blair and that didn't work out so well. Now the leaders of the main political parties in the UK have all the charisma of a soggy lettuce.

chanilover wrote:Tbankfully we don't have the problem of charismatic leaders in the UK anymore. We tried it with Blair and that didn't work out so well. Now the leaders of the main political parties in the UK have all the charisma of a soggy lettuce.

More charismatic than cabbage.

Freakzilla wrote:

chanilover wrote:Tbankfully we don't have the problem of charismatic leaders in the UK anymore. We tried it with Blair and that didn't work out so well. Now the leaders of the main political parties in the UK have all the charisma of a soggy lettuce.

More charismatic than cabbage.

Yes, but they don't have the pizzazz of turnip.

This thread is getting me hungry for a salad.

Anyone got any eggs, carrots, and baccon bits? Hold the dressing please.