By Roadglide on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 12:47 am: Edit |
http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1149896055/Hillary_For_President_In_2008
By Irishrover on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 06:07 am: Edit |
Wasn't the antichrist supposed to be a man?
By Copperfieldkid on Sunday, January 06, 2008 - 10:30 am: Edit |
A Japanese doctor says, "Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can
take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him out looking
for work in six weeks".
A German doctor says, "That is nothing. We can take a lung out of one
person, put it in another, and have him out looking for work in four
weeks".
A British doctor says, "In my country medicine is so advanced that we can
take half a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have both of
them out looking for work in two weeks".
The American doctor interjected, "You guys are way behind. We are about to
take a woman with no brains, put her in the White House, and half the
country will be out looking for work.
By Wombat88 on Sunday, January 06, 2008 - 06:44 pm: Edit |
Sheesh, seven years ago "we" elected a man with no brain, paired up with a man with no heart, and not long after half the country was shitting bricks over terrorists hiding beneath their bed.
Every time I go through airport security I give thanks that Richard Reid hid that bomb in his shoe and not up his ass.
By Scatmandoo on Sunday, January 06, 2008 - 08:33 pm: Edit |
"Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 25, 2003
By Riojake on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 07:34 am: Edit |
Permit me to rant -
During Hillary’s speech last night I had pause to think a little.
Being a reasonably well educated person, I had always thought that I was correct in assuming that the fortunes of a sitting President (particularly during his first term) are largely determined by the policies put in place by his predecessor ( more or less) and the congress in place at the time. For example, the relative peace and prosperity enjoyed by Bill Clinton from 1993 – 1997 were a result of things that had been progressing for several years under 3 terms Republican Presidents and more or less right leaning congress (although I suppose that's debatable). Some by design and some by accident. Of course, some of the policies enacted during the Clinton years (Telecom Act 1996) did continue the momentum of the Internet and Tech boom and are still with us today. Although you have to wonder if it did us any good. (ie Worldcom). But for the most part, the economy just can’t respond that fast to a change in President so as to affect change that rapidly and on such a broad scale....... can it?
Listening to Hillary rail about the horrors of the past 8 years under GWB and remember with fondness the relative bliss of the world under Hubby Bill made me want to stop for a moment and re-think if it’s really true. It does seem a bit coincidental that right after Slick Willy took office that the tech boom and the stock market rally really did start to get legs. Conversely, it wasn’t long after Dubya took office that we really did have a series of REALLY unfortunate incidents.
Is it possible that the Republican Presidents really just have bad luck????? And more to the point, is it possible that after 8 years of some pretty challenging events, we are going to go back to the “happy days” if we elect Barak? If you believe Hillary, then if we elect John McCain we are headed straight back to the Cold War, double digit inflation and high unemployment regardless of the fact that there is a sitting congress dominated by Democrats. Makes you wonder doesn't it?
BTW – came across a funny quote from Winston Churchill. It goes something like this –
“The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter”.
By Laguy on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 09:06 am: Edit |
For starters, you are not going to blame Bill Clinton for W's starting the Iraq war largely because he thought Saddam had tried to kill his daddy, are you? And don't think for a moment the trillion dollars plus spent on that debacle will not affect our economy. Not to mention the affect of that pointless war (and if you don't agree it was pointless, you have to agree it was exceedingly poorly executed) on our standing in the world.
But you are right the next President is going to be strapped with trying to solve many of the problems brought about by W, some of which may be intractable.
It is true that the initial foundation for the good economy during Clinton's time in office was laid when the first Bush violated his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge and decided to accommodate the Democrats by going along with a tax increase that showed some fiscal responsibility.
But Clinton shrewdly decided upon taking office that the budget still was a bit dicey, and therefore took many measures, including limiting spending, to both balance the budget and reassure the financial markets. It was not just random chance that the economy prospered under Clinton.
By I_am_sancho on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 09:33 am: Edit |
Of course Clinton inherited the end of the cold war and the resulting "peace dividend" from the Reagan/Bush Sr. years.
"(and if you don't agree it was pointless, you have to agree it was exceedingly poorly executed)"
Drat, Laguy got me on the exceedingly poorly executed part. You win that one.
By Khun_mor on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 01:26 pm: Edit |
So Jimmy Carter's ineffectiveness was because of the Nixon/GHW debacle?
Seems like a specious argument. A classic - don't blame me - it's all his fault.
By I_am_sancho on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 01:51 pm: Edit |
Nixon would have been just fine if Johnson hadn't got us in that war and left it all for Nixon to clean up.
By Bwana_dik on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 02:13 pm: Edit |
So, it appears that George Washington deserves all the credit and all the blame.
By Laguy on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 02:48 pm: Edit |
Actually, if you believe Isawal (which would, however, be a huge mistake) it would be John Hanson, not George Washington.
By I_am_sancho on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 03:30 pm: Edit |
George Washington was of course forced to go to war over King George the III's tax plan so I suppose this is all King George's fault.
By Catocony on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 03:48 pm: Edit |
Whenever I drive out to Annapolis on the John Hanson Highway, I do secretly curse him for the Iraq debacle. If he had done a better job running things under the Articles of Confederation, then they wouldn't have had to create the Constitution and our Dear Leader Bush II wouldn't have all this shit to worry about following it's laws.
By Mangaman on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 08:58 pm: Edit |
Exactly when has Bush II worried about following the Constitution? I must have slept thru that day.
By Khun_mor on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 09:18 pm: Edit |
IAS
Nixon was a paranoid egomaniac who was doomed from day one to failure.
Actually Columbus was a victim of Leif Erickson's mistakes triggering a monumental domino cascade that still tumbles to this day !!!