The hard times started with bush yea its his fault Obama just got the crap that bush left him with like u expect to see more jobs in 2 years from any president
Free energy technology exists!But the Establishment doesn't want ppl to know this,Get a motor that needs no gas or electric input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
Obama promised Universal Health Care and delivered Mandated Health Care. He voted to give the Bankers on Wall Street a $700 Billion Bail Out when 95% of America said not to. He said he would end the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and close Guantanamo Bay Torture Center immediately and he lied about it all. He has now started a new war in Pakistan.
Obama has such a high approval rating ! Oops my bad Obama's is close to the worst in history! Bush approval ratings where very high until 2007 when the democrat's took over . How about the Democrat congress approval ratings Record lows .This video is so misleading it's pathetic
@dartaddict Try 45 % Was the lowest in 2005! The answer is simple :America needs a enema ridding itself of Liberal parasites. Show me a Smart Liberal I'll show you Big Foot
And of course, an extremist such as yourself is not going to consider anyone with opposing political views to be "smart". Furthermore, do you realise that there isn't really that much difference between most of those politicians who you consider to be "Liberal" and most of those politicians who you consider to be "Conservative"?
@dartaddict Good point . Not all Liberals are morons and not all conservatives are smart. But I get mad when I see the Liberal Media cover for the corrupt Liberal leaders because simple minded Liberals will believe anything they are told as long as it was a Liberal that spewed it . The bottom line is if you think Obama is doing a good job then thinking is not something you are very good at!
Umm this is ironic.. Has anyone seen Obamas poll numbers and the polls for the Nov election? IT WILL BE A DEBACLE!!!!!!!!!!!! A DEBACLE!! LOL!! 2010!!
are you really that ridiculously ignorant about your own country? obama stepped into office in the middle of an economic downturn and you blame him for it? you fucking retard, you expect him to have fixed a crumbling economy in a year? nobody, and i mean NOBODY ever could have been able to fix that mess within a year. the main reason why he is having trouble changing things is because stupid republicans in congress refuse to vote with the democrats on what is right, such as health care. grow up!
go to school retard, it will make yourself look less like an ignorant fuck. im guessing you believe in less restrictions, less government, less taxes, and war. those are the things which put america into a ridiculous debt, republican actions. any president who was smart would have made a bail out plan, if not america's economy would have surely collapsed with the fall of all those banks and insurance companies. and about your stupid statistics...
both bushs started their terms in a good economy, which is why their numbers are so high. when the people are happy, the presidents get good ratings. the ridiculous debt america carries was raised a lot during reagans presidency because of all his tax cuts and military spending. the economy was fine, but the government suffered from the debt. bush sr. then started dragging the economy down near the end of his presidency, making people unhappy which is why clintons first year rating was lower...
clinton then had a budget surplus by the end of his presidency and a booming economy, which gave w. bush a good first year rating. then the economy went down the toilet on his watch and he was hated by many americans. if you didn't know this, you are too ignorant to even be talking. so shove your bull shit statistics up your ass and get an education fucktard. stupid republican scumbag, go suck mccain off.
LOL .. who couldn't accumulate a 'surplus' when you cut national defense budget to the bone and in doing so invite the development and spread of terrorism ! By the way, Clintoon's presidency ended in a Recession. Google it before you expose your ignorance again dingus.
just when i thought you couldnt get any dumber, you go and say that clintons presidency ended in a recession. it was the beginning and the end of bushs presidency that the US experienced recessions. unless you believe that clinton was still in office in 2001, which i would certainly hope you dont for your sake. the US experienced economic growth from the early 90s-early 2000s, all of which time clinton was in office. maybe you should know what your talking about before you speak out of your ass.
LOL .. just when I think a libtard couldn't be any more lazy (Google was only a mouse click away) FYI Einstein - Clintoons presidency ended with 2 straight quarters of negative growth... that my friend constitutes a recession.
actually you're just retarded, i dont know what your source is, but the early 2000s recession didn't start until march of 2001 for the US. the recession hit the european union in 2000, NOT THE US. you obviously know nothing about the US. i would be ashamed of myself if i were you. living in a country with all your facts about it reversed. and why do you keep saying clintoon? is that supposed to be some sort of insult to him, or are you really that simple?
actually, you have no proof of owning anything. you havent even given sufficient evidence to back your erroneous claims. go ask mom if she will pay for your education, you got a long way to go punk ass. then once you drop out of school, maybe you should just work at mcdonalds for the rest of your life because thats all someone like you can ever be. go cry to someone else pussy.
This is just a flat out lie. Bush left office with a 22-23% approval rating. Obama's at mid-30's. Bush is the only president I've ever seen to screw up a perfectly good economy at the beginning of their term, then have all of his voters blame the new guy. Btw, the consumer spending numbers for last quarter are higher than Bush's were for the past 3 years.
"Obama has the worst approval ratings EVER. EVER. Not kidding...My Great-Gram loved Richard Nixon and I'll model myself after her."
Worst comment ever. My grandma said the earth was flat so of course, the earth is indeed flat. And worst approval ratings ever? Maybe in your crazed head.
i support bush more than ever. every president does something wrong. their not perfect. he did many great think. and in the years to come people will start to realize that more and more
freaked out right now so sorry In 2003 there was a boy named Link, and his friends at school were bullying him and laughing at him because his name was the same as a game character. Half a year later he was found in the kitchen with a knife. He had slit his throat. If you don't put this on 3 videos in 10 minutes, he will stab you with the knife in your neck while you're asleep. again sorry some weirdo posted this
Bush and McCain eating cake together while Hurrican Katrina was raging? I'll eat my words if its true, but for now, I'm betting that this is baseless, much like the rest of this ad.
If you want to convince someone, you need to show evidence, not simply say what you think, or worse, feel.
worst president in history? Did inflation ever stand in the double digits with interest rates at 20% average nationally under his presidency. hmmmm... sounds alot like JIMMY CARTER
Obama's approval rating was its highest at 68%, and of course it was going to drop. The country is upset about Bush's mess he left us. How the hell is Obama responsible for the Dow being under 8,000 when he wasnt even President when it tanked? This is Bush's legacy.
Bush's legacy?? More like obamas legacy he has created it by taxing the people and business that are successful and rewarding the ones that aren't. he applied for the job you elected him and he needs to MAN UP! his party to and TAKE IT LIKE A MAN!!!!!! and quit crying!
Socialism rewards mediocrity. In Europe, people only work as hard as they need to to get by. If you make too much money, it is taxed from you, so why work too hard? Socialism encourages underachievement. The principle of the American dream is work hard and you will be successful. Socialism is contradictory to the American dream. I honestly believe that you deserve your lot in life, unless you're a Rockefeller.
Well, I'll take Socialism over Fascism. Like I said before, society benefits most when there are Socialist aspects intertwined. Indeed it isn't Capitalism/mercantilism that failed. It was the free market that failed. Big government is o.k. by me. Government is here to do what we can't control. I can't control pollution output from a firm. The most I can do is graph the units in an Edgeworth Box and show optimality between the public and the firm. However, the firm acts in its interest...
(cont.)Which is why we have the mess we have in our economy. If it came down to choosing rich vs. poor and haves vs. have-nots, then I'm for the underdog every time. the bourgeoisie has exploited the market by acting in their own interest - which leaves the biggest flaw in Capitalism: The cosmopolitan nature of "too big (or too important) to fail" has left society - the people, the proletariat to foot the bill. All in the name of profit.
Well, you can have both fascism and socialism, since one is a type of government and the other is an economic system. I don't think that the government has done anything that could be called "fascist" in a long time. Most people who we call "poor" are their on their own device. I see more than a struggle between the rich and the poor, its more complicated than that. If you don't graduate high school, you won't get a good job. The rich don't hold people down, the poor hold down themselves.
They're both types of governments. Fascism and Socialism don't hold power in the same place. Communist partisans killed Mussolini. Hitler's other big plan was to rid the world of Communism (as revealed in Mein Kampf). Our government has been completely secretive over the past 8 years - demanding blind patriotism in the name of war. It doesn't get any more fascist than that.
No, there have been fascist socialists before. The Nazi party was a socialist worker party orginally. I wouldn't say that we're at war for "blind patriotism". Iraq did threaten the US, and 9/11 was a significant attack. We've been at war for dumber things. If anything, the government has been less fascist than ever. During both WWI and WWII the government launched policies that attempted to keep citizens in line and dedicated to the war, sometimes in ways that would be considered corrupt today.
Sure, but there was nothing socialist about it. It's like the "Democratic Republic of Congo" or "People's Republic of China." Fascism and Socialism are two differing ideologies on the opposite ends of the political spectrum. Socialism is extreme left, Fascism is extreme right. There has definitely been a Fascist/Blind Nationalist sentiment in America since 9/11. It was absurd to question the WMD motive for the Iraq War after they were never found....
Patriotism, as defined by the Republicans, was demanded from US society. To think or act any differently considered one to be a "terrorist sympathizer." Just look at what Republican Saxby Chambliss did to Max Cleland in the 2002 Senate election. Max Cleland left 3 limbs in Vietnam while Chambliss took 5 student deferments and 1 medical deferment, yet he still had the gall to approve and release an ad morphing Cleland into Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
In what way is the republican party at all fascist? Democrats have called for war before too, don't forget that democratic party generally supported the Iraq war in the beggining. Patriotism doesn't equate to fascism. Just because WMDs weren't found doesn't mean it wasn't a motive. If the republican party was actually fascist it would have taken more steps to retain power than it did. One of Bush's weaknesses was that he was too much of a gentlemen to defend himself from slanderous dems.
I feel I've already explained this, but nonetheless, I'll do it again: After 9/11, it was considered unpatriotic to question the motive behind war with Iraq in the name of national security. Sure, plenty of Dems voted for the war. It was a compelling story at first, although, half way believable. Bush sent our troops to war over a lie. If that isn't Fascist, then I can't tell you what is.
And what was the lie? The CIA admits that a mistake was possible, our information is almost always nothing more than intelligent guesswork. The fact that WMDs weren't found doesn't mean that weren't ever there, or that Bush lied about it.
Who considered it unpatriotic to question the war? The people. If the republicans were fascist, they would have used their power to stay in power, that's what a fascist does. If you really knew what fascists do, then you would know that Bush was not fascist
We went to war on "intelligent guesswork." That's a liars way of saying we went to war on a lie. The weapons were never there, and worldwide intel continually said they were never there. The Republicans were the ones that ran on fear in the '02 midterms and '04 presidential elections. They tried to do the same in the '06 midterms and failed miserably. I've read nearly every piece of Fascist literature known to man. It directly parallels with the Bush Admin. and Republican party's actions.
For starters, Mussolini wrote it himself: Fascism is corporate government. Read anything Oswald Mosley wrote, anything Achille Starace wrote, anything Alexander Thomson, E.D. Randall, and Gottfried Benn wrote. Then, read what leaders in the Republican party have been saying about terrorism and immigration since 9/11. It's quite scary.
The CIA briefed Bush claiming that it was extremely likely that Iraq had WMDs and was planning to create more. Saddam Hussein's suspicious behavior did not help. The CIA had enormous intel that went both ways, but decided that it was more likely that Iraq had weapons than it didn't. That is intelligent guesswork. A mistake is not a lie.
The Republicans never ran on fear, they ran with the promise of national defense. Big difference. You have deluded yourself beyond help.
George Tenet briefed Bush on Iraq saying that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and that the only formula for war boiled down to weapons facilities not properly destroying weapons. This means that if the weapons did exist, they were no longer a threat. After this, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld decided to bypass the CIA and create their own intel to go to war. This is a lie, or at best, a half truth. I've educated myself beyond help. You should do the same.
We went to war with Iraq because Hussein was to stupid to let weapons inspectors back into the country after DOZENS of warnings telling him what would happen if he didn't. Saddam broke a treaty by kicking out weapons inspectors a Treaty HE SIGNED. War typically happen's when a country breaks treaties.
The only way he would've broken the treaty is if anyone had found WMDs. They weren't found, and the war started anyway. Just go back to 90-92 and listen to what Cheney said about war with Iraq if Saddam were removed from power. His exact words were "it would be a quagmire." And thus, we have a quagmire.
WRONG! Saddam signed a treaty after the first gulf war that forced him to allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq. Saddam Kicked said weapons inspectors out thus violating the treaty.
WRONG! The treaty never held a clause saying "UN weapons inspectors are always allowed in Iraq." It only called for the full disarmament of Iraq. After the inspectors had reported that they had seen no WMDs, Saddam kicked them out. Do I think it was right? No. Do I think that means he's guilty of WMDs? Absolutely not - let alone an honest justification for war.
Oh Lord! First what do you really consider a WMD? Second, The weapons inspectors weren't "LOOKING" For Anything They were their to oversee the full and complete disarmament and disposal of Saddam's Chemical and biological weapon's of which we already knew he had in the first placed, he only wiped out how many of his own people with them? Sadam did not have a say when he was completely disarmed or when the weapons inspectors should leave and the weapons inspectors never said their job was done.
Well, I'd think "weapon of mass destruction" is a pretty self-explanatory term. Condi Rice said herself, "Well, Saddam is a weapon of mass destruction." The only thing we'd ever heard about was aluminum tubes and yellow-cake uranium, which Saddam "May or may not have tried to purchase." Saddam's biggest campaign came against the Kurds in the North before the 1st Gulf War. Otherwise, there is no evidence to suggest he held WMDs in 2003.
But don't get me wrong - I don't think Saddam was a wholesome leader. I think it's great that he's no longer in power, but why did it have to be done on a lie? Even then, why should we have to stay there? It's their country. Let them fight for it. Let them die for it.
Yes the whole Looking for WMD's was rather "bogus" But the fact remains he still broke a treaty that required UN weapon's inspectors to search for and eliminate Bio chemical weapons of any kind. That was basically the point of the weapons inspectors that he kicked out. Breaking a treaty doesn't deserve but REQUIRES action and failure to comply requires punishment. He refused to comply after multiple warnings. When negotiations fail there are no further need for future negotiations.
So then why couldn't this be the justification for war when it wasn't?
I've read and studied the history on the entire Middle Eastern theatre. I've never read in any UN resolutions, meeting minutes, or declarations that Saddam had broken any disarmament treaties. If this were the case, wouldn't the entire world community know whether or not he had moved said weapons out of the country? If you ask me, it was a war started on made-up intel.
All the while, Iraq has become the biggest nation-building effort that the conservative Right has blamed the left for since Vietnam. Bush even said himself that we shouldn't be in the business of nation-building (a pop-shot at Clinton's policy in Bosnia and Somalia, for which there is no evidence of nation-building).
Look up the Both the Chemical and Bio weapons conventions. The UN forced Saddam to join both after the first gulf war and constant supervision was required as part of the terms set after the 1st gulf war. You didn't study hard enough. And in a way it was the reason for the war against saddam. HE was warned Multiple times and each time he refused.
No, Iraq joined the CWC in February of this year. Intel showed that most of the WMD and chemical infrastructure in Iraq was destroyed in Operation Desert Fox in December of '98. Saddam, along with Egypt, refused to sign the CWC until something was down about Israel's weapons program since this aspect left Muslim countries defenseless against Israel and allies if they chose to strike. The UN tried to force Iraq to join in '97, but to no avail - making this an illegal sanction by int'l law.
So, that leads to March 19, 2003 - a war declared without official treaties and based on the existence of a weapons arsenal that was declared as destroyed 4 years and 3 months earlier. Once again, I know almost everything there is to know about the Middle Eastern theatre. The reason for war against Saddam was weapons of mass destruction. Not "multiple warnings and refusals."
Do you yourself a favor and stop argueing with him. He will try to break your points with frivilous things and will refuse to quit argueing. Trust me its pointless, just let it go.
Gorge bush was a good president.Gorge Bush is a good man. How dare this ignorent man say bush is an embaressment.. We had a liberal cogress for the past 4 years. Barack Obama is the worst president the U.S has ever had and will ever have. Obama is an embaressment to the world.He listend to a paster for 20 years who hates america.He dint even put his hand on his heart during the bational athem.He will raise your taxes behind your back and hope y dont mind.He voted to kill babies who had a failab
everyone damned mccain when he supported a 300 billion dollar bailout but now its ok for obama to throw 900 billion of our dollars down the drain...typical racist communist bullcrap...if your white your a p.o.s. but if your black its ok...FUCK THAT!!!
Well, he was the one that claimed to be a "fiscal conservative." $750 billion was passed on a Republican's watch. It's completely necessary dude. We have to create demand in the economy somehow. I understand it sucks we have to pay for it, but if businesses can stay afloat with "irresponsible free money," then so be it. At least it'll keep you from losing your job.
The lack of outrage from the left and the Muslim world at President Obama's first war crime is staggering. Under a virtual flag of truce, the strike that killed civilians in Pakistan goes without notice.
Having been elected on promises to negotiate with our enemies and having appointed as US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, the entire world must have understood that a ceasefire would ensue. I am sure of continued treachery from this administration and silence from the left.
America is fucked now that Obama is in office. This country is getting worse by the day. All we have to blame is the fuckin douchbags democraps for fuckin this country up and lying to the American people. They were running this country into the ground for the last 2 years since they now control both House and Senate. They are the ones responsible for the economic crisis here in America. Now you have given them total power by electing the biggest fuckin idiot ever OBAMA. 10 times worse that BUSH!
Does it look like I am joking to you?? I didnt vote for that dumbass. Well I am glad America will finally go down in flames at the hands of the democrats. American people are so fuckin stupid it isnt even funny. Biting the hand that feeds you is really stupid. This is what the country has done by electing this idiot Obama into office. Spreading the richest wealth around is a BIG BIG BIG MISTAKE.
Well I am glad to see that you want the country to prosper. I am sure you would enjoy a great depression over the next 8 years. I hate Bush as much as anyone, but I would have never wished for his presidency to go as bad as it did. I am a liberal immigrant living in Canada, yet I am glad the our current concervative government has been doing a fairly decent job so far. Common man you cant truly believe that Mccain was more inteligent than Obama. Him and Palin ran an shameful campaign.
Its not about McCain or Obama themselves but rather their belief systems. This country was founded upon capitalism not socialism. You want socialism take your happy ass to the UK. USA has a dream and that dream is to prosper as best you can without being punished for it. Democrats always want to take your money from you and let the government spend it the way they see fit. BULLSHIT. We have already seen what a democratic government has done with the housing market in this country.
You can't be serious? You actually believe this bullshit? First off, the Democrats don't take anyone's money, but it seems that way because they've cleaned up the Republican's bullshit since 1930. News flash, dipshit, there are socialists programs all around you. Next time you see a cop doing his job, thank "tax and spend liberals" for their goddamned "socialism." Next time you see a teacher walk into a school to educate kids, thank a goddamned liberal you fascist bastard.
Next time water comes out of your tap, thank a "socialist progressive" that focused on the interest of the public, rather than the interest of capitalism so that you drink clean water since water companies don't compete and cut corners for your business. And when the economy is prosperous, thank a goddamned Democrat, because Clinton was the last time we had a prosperous economy since JFK.
Wow you are fuckin stupid or what? Democrats do not take anyone money?? Wow, Welfare was started by the democrats, IRS started by the democrats, Need i go on you fuckin moron. You need to go back to school and get some education before coming on the Inet and think you know what you are talking about. Welfare is what fucked this country up and it is lazy fuckin retards like yourself that doesnt want to get a job and get hand outs because you are a lazy POS. Get the fuck out of America you will be
Yes, it was welfare that fucked this country. Not Reagan's "fiscal conservatism," George Bush's "fiscal conservatism," or George W. Bush's "fiscal conservatism." But you're right, it was welfare that's caused our recent economic collapse, not deregulation under the Republican congress for 10 years coupled with disastrous tax cuts and low interest rates creating the housing bubble. So, no, it's pretty apparent that you're the one that's fucking stupid. Nice grammar skills, btw. Retard.
FYI: The Republicans are the ones who support strengthening law enforcement, not the democrats, so u should actually thank Republicans when u see a cop.
Also the economy wasn't good during Clinton's presidency because of his policies, it was all good timing because we weren't at war with the USSR anymore. The current economic downturn is because of failed laws passed by LIBERALS who wanted anyone to buy a house, even if they couldn't afford it. Its okay to be stupid, just keep it to yourself.
Conservatives are the ones that believe in "letting the market work." This means we would should let private firms compete for such things as law enforcement, mail service, and water treatment. I, for one, am much more comfortable knowing that it's government owned and regulated. Thus, you should thank the liberals for making it simpler.
Bush said everyone should take part in the American dream by owning a home. I rest my case.
The economic turndown is due to CONSERVATIVES who, in all their greed and free market ability allowed for deregulation. You know how McCain kept saying government should live on a budget just like the people? Why wasn't he spewing this bullshit in 1996 when he voted to deregulate corporate portfolios, thus allowing them to buy more debt than they had assets to cover? That's whole point in the bailout - to boost capital for companies that don't have it.
You are overgeneralizing. When have you ever heard a repulplican talk about putting mail service, law enforcement, and water treatment on the private sector? The answer: never. Liberals never made those things "simpler" as you put it. Americans had those services long before the modern parties came in.
Also, reublicans don't believe in no regulation, just that democrats try to regulate too much. That's a pretty big difference from what you were saying. Stop making things up lol.
I didn't say Republican, I said Conservative. Thus, you are the one "making things up." If this was really the result of the CRA which was pretty well instituted, then why didn't the housing sector fail in '88 and '89 when interest rates were twice what they were in '04 and '05? The answer: Because it wasn't the CRA. It was the Republicans pushing for deregulation. Quite ironic since they're the ones pushing for "economic responsibility."
Because the problem isn't interest rates. If you had been paying attention, then you would know that the problem is people defaulting on their homes because they were allowed to make loans on houses that they couldn't prove that they could pay for. You are still obviously making things up as you go along. A conservative is simply a republican who believes in the party's core values. I promise you that no one, including conservatives want to privatize the postal service, police, etc.
Bullshit! People defaulted on their ARMs because the interest rate doubled on their mortgages. I've heard plenty of classical/microeconomists say we should "let the market work." We should "let the market work" when it comes to security, postal service.. Hell, even public utilities. The problem is most definitely interest rates. How the hell could loan principle double over night? Fisher's Debt-Deflation theory? That's the only thing I can think of... Other than... INTEREST RATES.
I can't help you, you won't make a legitimate arguement but that doesn't seem to stop you writing about it. Like most democrats, you know nothing about politics, but you make up things about both parties as if you do. You don't understand the meaning of "letting the market work" if you think that it applies to social security or the postal service. In the limited room of a youtube response, I can't begin to tell you all the reasons why your interest theory is false. Don't respond back.
"Don't respond back." Nice cop-out. When you hear conservative (micro)economists on the news, or read in an article where they say "let free enterprise competition bring fair prices and efficiency to public utilities," how can than mean anything else that "let the market work"? Btw, this isn't about politics, this is about economics. You're the one that made it about politics. It's not my fault you can't separate the two.
WTF, you are so retarded. We're talking about politics in economics. And actually you started talking about politics by talking about "republican bullshit" and then moved the conversation into economics, specifically. Either you're spilling out crap because you don't know what to say, or you're extremely ignorant. Either way, I'm not wasting any more time argueing with you.
Sure, when you decided to make it a Democrat vs. Republican issue, then I exposed the Republican bullshit. All I've done is parallel the late 80's with 2004 and 2005. It was something you disagreed with, and decided that I was ignorant. By the way, if you're not wasting any more time arguing about this, then why are you still arguing? Are you.... out of things to say?
Actually I can't stop arguing because you're pissing me off. I responded to YOUR comment which was already bashing republicans, so don't say I made it a reps v dems issue. You never compared the 80's with the 00's. All you did was say that Clinton did a better job with the economy (90's btw) than Bush. All you've done is made up things about the republicans that they don't even believe in. I repeat, REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO PRIVATIZE ANY GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS!
Ok, then I shall do it now: '88 and '89 FFR was twice what it was in '04, and '05, despite having nearly the same economic conditions.
Once again, I didn't say Republicans. I said Conservatives, as in Conservative economists. I.E. Micro economists.. You know, the ones that study firms and their behavior rather than aggregates?
Now, are we done? I'm tired of owning your ass with an actual debate rather than "you're just making this up."
You're cute, but not in a good way. I've already killed all of your stupid arguements, repeating them doesn't make them true.
I've already shown you why republicans had nothing to do with the economic downturn but you just keep coming up with this same "interest rate" bullshit.
I am fully aware of what microeconomics is. You need to understand that conservative canon doesn't call for no regulation, just limited regulation.
I don't think "you're making this up" is killing an argument. You mean to tell me that investment isn't the strongest sector of the economy? Then why did a fall in investments wreck the economy in the 30's, and now? I've yet to see any argument from you, or anyone else for that matter linking the CRA to the housing crisis of today. You really have to go back 30 years to blame the other party? Smells of bullshit to me, my friend.
Because you ARE making it up, you're making up facts to make connections that don't exist.
For example, the investment scare of 1929, definetly marked the start of hte depression. However a variety of factors, most, starting roughly 10 years previously, made Black Tuesday inevitable. We have definetly not had an investment scare of that magnitude.
If you've never heard anyone talk about the CRA causing the recession, then you've been hiding under a rock. Its not really being disputed.
I have heard about it, and it's absolutely wrong. It's action and reaction. The Great Depression was made a lot worse because of the money supply dropping by 25%. Why the fuck do you think the Federal Reserve pumped massive liquidity into the banking system this time around? Ask any goddamned economist on the planet, and they'll tell you to keep the money supply from dropping. Jesus kid, you might as well give it up. The only one that's making shit up here is you.
Oh, so now you have heard of it. Now you're saying that the money supply is the cause and not interest rates. How can I not say that you're making things up if you change your story?
Its really not complicated, people got loans on houses they couldn't afford, they ended up defaulted on their loans, and the housing and banking industries lost money.
Yeah sure, keep the money supply from dropping, what does that have anything to do with Republican bullshit?
The drop in the money supply is the reason the Great Depression got as bad as it did. Honestly, can you read?
I shall explain again: The interest rate in '04 and '05 was about half what it should've been. This created the housing bubble. When the interest rate is low, banks have to create more loans. When it's high, they can create less. When people took out NINJA (no income, no job, no asset) loans, mortgage companies/banks lumped these mortgages together in a bond and sold them...
These bonds were bought by investors all across the country - including investment banks on Wall Street. The Republican bullshit comes into play because John McCain and Newt Gingrich fought for deregulation on corporate portfolios. This allowed corporations to by more in liabilities than they had assets. That's how the banking system ended up with liquidity problems. Many of them were borrowing on margin (look it up), and defaulted bonds = a loss in liquidity. All because of deregulation.
Okay so you have a theory. The difference is other people actually believe my theory, mostly because its not actually my theory.
Let me try a different tact since you only respond to facts with made up facts.
What are you trying to get me to say? That capitalism doesn't work, everything is the republicans' fault, and the democratic party is a godsend? I will admit that I don't believe in all of the rep's goals. The real difference between the parties is their theories on accountability
Yes, it's completely made up that the Republicans fought for deregulation of corporate portfolios. It was part of the "Contract with America" thought up by Newt Gingrich for god's sake. Your theory is the CRA theory, which means that this was a 31 year housing bubble, despite the fact that interest rates have been in double digits multiple times since the creation of the CRA. Meanwhile, you neglect the importance of the interest rate set by the Fed, which determines how many and what price...
(cont.) loans are from banks. I think we can both agree that interest rates = price on a loan. When that price is lower, companies are willing to invest more and expand more. Experts and officials both agree, and even Greenspan himself has said the FFR 4-5 years ago was too low. He was the man responsible for it. When firms can borrow on margin, and spend more than their worth because of deregulation, then there's the potential for 2 things: 1.) Massive profit, or 2.) Massive failure.
(cont.) So, in the end, I'm not trying to get you to say anything. I'll say it for you: Capitalism doesn't work, at least like people in this country think it does. It's completely imperfect, and we are seeing that now. I believe in heavy regulation. Why? Because my tax dollars are bailing out companies that have made multi-billion dollar mistakes. I say what they can and can not do if they take my money. They got into this mess, we're pulling them out, we make the rules.
(cont.) And to top it off (and to conclude), you had Hank Paulson on TV stuttering like an idiot with no plan ("we're just going to play it by ear"), Ben Bernanke on TV with no answers ("we don't know what or how much it'll take"), and John McCain campaigning on a platform for even less regulation which is what allowed them to create this mess to begin with. Call it Socialism, I don't give a goddamn. When you hand money to corporations, it's called Fascism. I'd rather be Socialist.
Thank you. Finally a democrat that will admit that what they want is called socialism. Regardless of who's fault it is, we can agree that failed government policy caused the crisis. It is not capitalism that failed, just the government. Capitalism isn't perfect, but socialism is worse. Europe isn't on top of the world anymore, so why do we want to be like them? What is wrong with wanting to be the best? Socialism does not bring out the potential in society.
"Well I am glad America will finally go down in flames at the hands of the democrats. American people are so fuckin stupid it isnt even funny."
Right, because Republicans like Bush and Palin are SO fucking smart.
How much money do you have daniel? Seems like you're pretty well off. Did you get a chance go to college? Because, you know, there are millions of kids in this country today who will never go to college. Not because they're lazy or selfish...
...but because they were born into a poor family. It doesn't matter if they're the brightest or hardest working kids in the world, they'll still never get a chance to go to a halfway decent college because their parents can't afford to send them to good grade schools or highschools. Those kids will never have a chance at the "American dream" that you seem to care so much about, and all because a handful of rich ass motherfuckers were too greedy to pay a little more in taxes.
Those rich ass motherfuckers became rich because their families were rich. They could have an IQ of 70 and their parents could've still bought them into Harvard or Yale. To those bastards, the thought of being poor or unemployed never even crossed their minds. But for so many smart, hardworking people, it's a daily reality that they will never be able to escape, all because people like you think "spreading the richest wealth around is a BIG BIG BIG MISTAKE."
We need to be developing our technology for space like President Kennedy said, we new to be developing new engineering for running our cars and heating our homes. We need to make sure our children know how to do math and read. We need a President that is going to breathe a vision into a people.
This is not 1932, we dont need a President that uses rabbit ears for his television and
do not know how to operate a computer. McCain needs to go back to the old folks home.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Enjoy Socialism and BIG Government controlling your life. Working hard only to have the Government TAKE your money and give it to who they see fit. "Redistribution of wealth". Enjoy the Four Obama years of Recession. Jimmy Carter Jr
What a nonsense talk! go get a life and read more to learn about Obama than your flying empty words. where do u get this from? Obama is the best so far. McCain is nonsese and a old freak who knows nothing but to talk nonsense about Obama. I don't see McCain talking about America and economy. I am a republican and i am voting for Obama cuz McCain choose a dumb lady and talking too much nonsense than America people.
Thank God, a republican who actually sees through the bs their party is displaying. It has been happening for two decades now, look up the old campaigns and notice the same trash tactics -smear, lie, distort truth, fear/war mongering, use of the word "America" to convince us that they're concerned with us middle classers (lower, middle and upper) but they're really talking to the top 5% WHO MAKE OVER 200K. The real truth is in research NOT in campaigns. Its not right or left,its corporate or not
If you only had the intelligence that Bush receives on a daily basis, you wouldn't bash him so much. But people hated Lincoln too, go figure. Flame away.
You mean the intelligence in 08/01 that said that Al Qaeda was determined to strike within the USA using commercial aircraft? No, I think that makes me bash him even more.
Lincoln had the lowest approval ratings in history. Jimmy Carter, Truman and Nixon have all had lower ratings too. Even historians that are liberal don't rank Bush as the worst president in history, or even close (Harding gets that spot, Bush usually ranks about in the middle, or a little behind the middle). God bless.
im sure 100 years down the road we wont think of goerge bush anything like we do of lincoln nixon had that scandle carter was just stupid almost as stupid as bush. im an athiest not that it maters i just thought i would say that because i enjoy typing :)
yes, well, I mean, Lincoln had the war to deal with, Bush has almost his own civil war to deal with (a political war). It's usually the Presidents during times of war that are the least favored, just because generally people obviously don't like it. Lincoln had quite a task at his hand. Kennedy was liked by the people but not by people behind the scenes (CIA, etc.)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes I do...George W Bush has kept us safe for 7 1/2 years look at the past 2 years and look who is at fault Democrats! Congress controls spending and everything the president does! The real destroyers are Democrats and if you elect Obama...All these people screaming Obama/Biden 08 your skin will be peeled off with a knife and you will burned and you will say I MEANT TO VOTE MCCAIN! because Russians, Chinese, Iranians and even more terrorists and enemies will nuke us one by one
Ah yes. Since 9/11 there hasn't been another major attack on US soil. Not until the Bush administration orchestrates the next one for continuity. This administration has taken rights away and stolen from us and then took control of the economic system like good ol fascists do. If a disaster hits and for some reason Bush/Cheney must remain in power and military fill our streets, you'll know either I'm right or their plan was foiled. Who better can capitalize on disaster than Bush/Cheney?
excuse me sir. umm do you even know what fascism is? i highly doubt that you or anybody close to you has ever witnessed/experienced/lived through Fascism. get informed and only make logical exclamations relating to politics. there is no room for ignorance.
Yes I do. It's many things. I believe the US is on it's way there. Fascism includes limiting the rights of citizens and creating a nationalist zeal based on fear of foreign nations. It's also about the corporatist state controlling the economy and social Darwinism. I believe that the US owns some of these aspects now and if things don't change it could very well become a fascist state. My statement below alludes to fascism with factual elements of a fascist state without defining it.
Fascism: "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social [rights of privacy, limiting Habius Corpus, etc.] and economic control [current takeover of banks by the govt.], a strong, centralized government usually [in the event of NSPD 51 it could bring us closer to dictatorship] headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." [HR 1362 - Patriot Act violating privacy, HR 1955 - violating free speech] (From The American Heritage Dictionary)
Wow, here it is, the ultimate Republican tool. He claims that the President and his toady are responsible for keeping us safe while SIMULTANEOUSLY blaming all our problems on congress.
Let me guess, if it's bad it's the Dems but if it's good it's the Reps?
Either the Prez is in enough control to keep us safe for all these years, or the congress controls, "everything the president does!" You can't /really/ have both.
A problem with this video that i noticed also is that McCain's "approval rating" of Bush is a percentage???? That doesnt make sense. its either he approved or didnt, how does this video even make sense?
NO, it saying that mcCain increasingly agreed with bush's decisions in the white house. For example, if I said I agreed with 3 things that Bush did since he became president, and it was out of 100, than my percentage would be 3%, understand bub!!! Not approval rating, although he speaks about bush's approval rating
I DO NOT WANT TO SEE BUSH IMPEACHED! Vincent Bugliosi has a better idea and he published a book [Prosecute George Bush for Murder] Impeachment is a slap on the hand for what bush should be held accountable for. Now scroll up and put prosecute george bush for murder in the search box. PULLEEEEZE
I laugh when people try to defend Bush's horrible approval ratings by saying, "well look at Congress, their ratings are even lower." First of all, Congress always has a lower rating than the President. But look at individual members of Congress. Most people think their representative does a good job. Second of all, the comparison is not fair, because the President is solely responsible for his positions and actions, whereas Congress is mired in partisanship, veto threats, and filibusters.
If the Congress had mounted a more vigorous impeachment effort, voted against telecom immunity or voted to prohibit warrantless wiretapping, would their approval ratings be better?
Congress is worth shit right now. With an 29% approval, that's three times higher than the democratically controlled congress which only has 9%. We the people have the power to replace the president and, especially congress.
There is a mirror image between the disapproval of Bush and the disapproval of Congress. This is interesting. Could it be that the same people who disapprove of Bush disapprove of Congress for not opposing Bush more vigorously? Could it be the same 70% that disapproves of both? This would refute the idea that the 70% disapproval for Congress is due to "part of the country blaming Bush and part of the country blaming Congress for our troubles."
i really think for McCain, being president has nothing to do with serving America, it is a desire to obtain a sense of power and to get more influence to make more money
This is the most powerful attack ad of all time
DjPyro2010 7 months ago
lÖl_Í_féÊl_sÕ_lòñËlý_tóDàý
SesaayNovaaa279 9 months ago
The hard times started with bush yea its his fault Obama just got the crap that bush left him with like u expect to see more jobs in 2 years from any president
tonydeadlock 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy technology exists!But the Establishment doesn't want ppl to know this,Get a motor that needs no gas or electric input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
fittingciobb 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama promised Universal Health Care and delivered Mandated Health Care. He voted to give the Bankers on Wall Street a $700 Billion Bail Out when 95% of America said not to. He said he would end the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and close Guantanamo Bay Torture Center immediately and he lied about it all. He has now started a new war in Pakistan.
.
Obama is a War Criminal and a Thief.
mymojorisin 1 year ago
Ok so now you people know....Don't eat cake if there is a fuckin disaster or you'll get shit on for it.....mmm...but i love cake
Xceles618 1 year ago
Obama has such a high approval rating ! Oops my bad Obama's is close to the worst in history! Bush approval ratings where very high until 2007 when the democrat's took over . How about the Democrat congress approval ratings Record lows .This video is so misleading it's pathetic
1ThinkingMachine 1 year ago
Comment removed
dartaddict 1 year ago
@dartaddict Try 45 % Was the lowest in 2005! The answer is simple :America needs a enema ridding itself of Liberal parasites. Show me a Smart Liberal I'll show you Big Foot
1ThinkingMachine 1 year ago
Wrong:
pollingreport . com / BushJob . htm
And of course, an extremist such as yourself is not going to consider anyone with opposing political views to be "smart". Furthermore, do you realise that there isn't really that much difference between most of those politicians who you consider to be "Liberal" and most of those politicians who you consider to be "Conservative"?
dartaddict 1 year ago
@dartaddict Good point . Not all Liberals are morons and not all conservatives are smart. But I get mad when I see the Liberal Media cover for the corrupt Liberal leaders because simple minded Liberals will believe anything they are told as long as it was a Liberal that spewed it . The bottom line is if you think Obama is doing a good job then thinking is not something you are very good at!
1ThinkingMachine 1 year ago
Umm this is ironic.. Has anyone seen Obamas poll numbers and the polls for the Nov election? IT WILL BE A DEBACLE!!!!!!!!!!!! A DEBACLE!! LOL!! 2010!!
mgallant01 1 year ago
OBAMA SUCKS .. HERE'S PROOF !
OMG ! ... latest Gallop poll numbers out on approval ratings for presidents at 1-year point in their first term
Bush Sr. = 86%
Clinton = 52%
Bush Jr. = 71%
OBAMA = 47 %
Bwaaa ha ha haaaa... yeah, we found the "change" people were waiting for eh?
Jesus, what a mess he's made of this country !
roscoe85cj 2 years ago
are you really that ridiculously ignorant about your own country? obama stepped into office in the middle of an economic downturn and you blame him for it? you fucking retard, you expect him to have fixed a crumbling economy in a year? nobody, and i mean NOBODY ever could have been able to fix that mess within a year. the main reason why he is having trouble changing things is because stupid republicans in congress refuse to vote with the democrats on what is right, such as health care. grow up!
scarface115 2 years ago
Hey moron, what is so "ignorant" about hard statistics ? ... go fuck yourself sheeple
you think raising debt ceiling by 4 TRILLION is 'fixing' anything ? .. eat shit libtard
and quit begging for free healthcare.. get a job, buy your own damn policy
fucking welflare-sucking libs
roscoe85cj 2 years ago
go to school retard, it will make yourself look less like an ignorant fuck. im guessing you believe in less restrictions, less government, less taxes, and war. those are the things which put america into a ridiculous debt, republican actions. any president who was smart would have made a bail out plan, if not america's economy would have surely collapsed with the fall of all those banks and insurance companies. and about your stupid statistics...
scarface115 2 years ago
both bushs started their terms in a good economy, which is why their numbers are so high. when the people are happy, the presidents get good ratings. the ridiculous debt america carries was raised a lot during reagans presidency because of all his tax cuts and military spending. the economy was fine, but the government suffered from the debt. bush sr. then started dragging the economy down near the end of his presidency, making people unhappy which is why clintons first year rating was lower...
scarface115 2 years ago
clinton then had a budget surplus by the end of his presidency and a booming economy, which gave w. bush a good first year rating. then the economy went down the toilet on his watch and he was hated by many americans. if you didn't know this, you are too ignorant to even be talking. so shove your bull shit statistics up your ass and get an education fucktard. stupid republican scumbag, go suck mccain off.
scarface115 2 years ago
LOL .. who couldn't accumulate a 'surplus' when you cut national defense budget to the bone and in doing so invite the development and spread of terrorism ! By the way, Clintoon's presidency ended in a Recession. Google it before you expose your ignorance again dingus.
roscoe85cj 2 years ago
just when i thought you couldnt get any dumber, you go and say that clintons presidency ended in a recession. it was the beginning and the end of bushs presidency that the US experienced recessions. unless you believe that clinton was still in office in 2001, which i would certainly hope you dont for your sake. the US experienced economic growth from the early 90s-early 2000s, all of which time clinton was in office. maybe you should know what your talking about before you speak out of your ass.
scarface115 2 years ago
LOL .. just when I think a libtard couldn't be any more lazy (Google was only a mouse click away) FYI Einstein - Clintoons presidency ended with 2 straight quarters of negative growth... that my friend constitutes a recession.
roscoe85cj 2 years ago
actually you're just retarded, i dont know what your source is, but the early 2000s recession didn't start until march of 2001 for the US. the recession hit the european union in 2000, NOT THE US. you obviously know nothing about the US. i would be ashamed of myself if i were you. living in a country with all your facts about it reversed. and why do you keep saying clintoon? is that supposed to be some sort of insult to him, or are you really that simple?
scarface115 2 years ago
Run along now mutt.. You've been OWNED.. and I haven't the time to 'argue with idiots'.. Go ask mom if she'll show ya how to use Google.
roscoe85cj 2 years ago
actually, you have no proof of owning anything. you havent even given sufficient evidence to back your erroneous claims. go ask mom if she will pay for your education, you got a long way to go punk ass. then once you drop out of school, maybe you should just work at mcdonalds for the rest of your life because thats all someone like you can ever be. go cry to someone else pussy.
scarface115 2 years ago
This is just a flat out lie. Bush left office with a 22-23% approval rating. Obama's at mid-30's. Bush is the only president I've ever seen to screw up a perfectly good economy at the beginning of their term, then have all of his voters blame the new guy. Btw, the consumer spending numbers for last quarter are higher than Bush's were for the past 3 years.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
"Obama has the worst approval ratings EVER. EVER. Not kidding...My Great-Gram loved Richard Nixon and I'll model myself after her."
Worst comment ever. My grandma said the earth was flat so of course, the earth is indeed flat. And worst approval ratings ever? Maybe in your crazed head.
fornss 2 years ago 6
@fornss no he dosen't...
johnfox3 11 months ago
i support bush more than ever. every president does something wrong. their not perfect. he did many great think. and in the years to come people will start to realize that more and more
gypsykingg 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Black babes love facials Compilation - VIDEOPORNTEEN[.]COM
BRIANAFord1803 2 years ago 8
freaked out right now so sorry In 2003 there was a boy named Link, and his friends at school were bullying him and laughing at him because his name was the same as a game character. Half a year later he was found in the kitchen with a knife. He had slit his throat. If you don't put this on 3 videos in 10 minutes, he will stab you with the knife in your neck while you're asleep. again sorry some weirdo posted this
Rybobert 2 years ago
better not eat cake during disasters or obama will find u
kodan44 2 years ago
OH MY GOSH! This video is disgusting. I'm sure everyone in the USA has eaten cake while this war was going on!
Maybe is the LIBERAL house let Bush do what he wanted, our country would be good.
RingMasterCSD 2 years ago
i didnt, im not a fatass lol.
DontTakeCrack 2 years ago
Fuck u.
KaiUchiha15 2 years ago
A bit biased, you think.
Bush and McCain eating cake together while Hurrican Katrina was raging? I'll eat my words if its true, but for now, I'm betting that this is baseless, much like the rest of this ad.
If you want to convince someone, you need to show evidence, not simply say what you think, or worse, feel.
garrettkirkthompson 2 years ago
worst president in history? Did inflation ever stand in the double digits with interest rates at 20% average nationally under his presidency. hmmmm... sounds alot like JIMMY CARTER
MaryBeth321123 2 years ago
Where in the hell did you read/hear this? From 77-81 (Carter's presidency), the numbers follow.
Inflation rate (%): 6.4, 7.0, 8.3, 9.1 and 9.4
FFR (Federal Funds Rate, or the interest rate) (%): 5.26, 7.18, 10.05, 11.39, and 14.04.
Inflation rates never hit double digits, and the interest rate never hit 20%. You're talking about mortgage rates on home loans.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
Obama's approval rating is 61%. Bush was at 58%, and Clinton was at 53% during the same time period. What the fuck are you wing nuts talking about?
Shabaka87 2 years ago
Bush and clintons ratings diddnt go down within the first 3 months obamas droped fast, faster then clinton and bush.
hogsonquads 2 years ago
Obama's approval rating was its highest at 68%, and of course it was going to drop. The country is upset about Bush's mess he left us. How the hell is Obama responsible for the Dow being under 8,000 when he wasnt even President when it tanked? This is Bush's legacy.
Shabaka87 2 years ago
Bush's legacy?? More like obamas legacy he has created it by taxing the people and business that are successful and rewarding the ones that aren't. he applied for the job you elected him and he needs to MAN UP! his party to and TAKE IT LIKE A MAN!!!!!! and quit crying!
hogsonquads 2 years ago
cont.
Socialism rewards mediocrity. In Europe, people only work as hard as they need to to get by. If you make too much money, it is taxed from you, so why work too hard? Socialism encourages underachievement. The principle of the American dream is work hard and you will be successful. Socialism is contradictory to the American dream. I honestly believe that you deserve your lot in life, unless you're a Rockefeller.
rw11111 2 years ago
Well, I'll take Socialism over Fascism. Like I said before, society benefits most when there are Socialist aspects intertwined. Indeed it isn't Capitalism/mercantilism that failed. It was the free market that failed. Big government is o.k. by me. Government is here to do what we can't control. I can't control pollution output from a firm. The most I can do is graph the units in an Edgeworth Box and show optimality between the public and the firm. However, the firm acts in its interest...
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
(cont.)Which is why we have the mess we have in our economy. If it came down to choosing rich vs. poor and haves vs. have-nots, then I'm for the underdog every time. the bourgeoisie has exploited the market by acting in their own interest - which leaves the biggest flaw in Capitalism: The cosmopolitan nature of "too big (or too important) to fail" has left society - the people, the proletariat to foot the bill. All in the name of profit.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
Well, you can have both fascism and socialism, since one is a type of government and the other is an economic system. I don't think that the government has done anything that could be called "fascist" in a long time. Most people who we call "poor" are their on their own device. I see more than a struggle between the rich and the poor, its more complicated than that. If you don't graduate high school, you won't get a good job. The rich don't hold people down, the poor hold down themselves.
rw11111 2 years ago 2
They're both types of governments. Fascism and Socialism don't hold power in the same place. Communist partisans killed Mussolini. Hitler's other big plan was to rid the world of Communism (as revealed in Mein Kampf). Our government has been completely secretive over the past 8 years - demanding blind patriotism in the name of war. It doesn't get any more fascist than that.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
No, there have been fascist socialists before. The Nazi party was a socialist worker party orginally. I wouldn't say that we're at war for "blind patriotism". Iraq did threaten the US, and 9/11 was a significant attack. We've been at war for dumber things. If anything, the government has been less fascist than ever. During both WWI and WWII the government launched policies that attempted to keep citizens in line and dedicated to the war, sometimes in ways that would be considered corrupt today.
rw11111 2 years ago
Sure, but there was nothing socialist about it. It's like the "Democratic Republic of Congo" or "People's Republic of China." Fascism and Socialism are two differing ideologies on the opposite ends of the political spectrum. Socialism is extreme left, Fascism is extreme right. There has definitely been a Fascist/Blind Nationalist sentiment in America since 9/11. It was absurd to question the WMD motive for the Iraq War after they were never found....
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
Patriotism, as defined by the Republicans, was demanded from US society. To think or act any differently considered one to be a "terrorist sympathizer." Just look at what Republican Saxby Chambliss did to Max Cleland in the 2002 Senate election. Max Cleland left 3 limbs in Vietnam while Chambliss took 5 student deferments and 1 medical deferment, yet he still had the gall to approve and release an ad morphing Cleland into Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
In what way is the republican party at all fascist? Democrats have called for war before too, don't forget that democratic party generally supported the Iraq war in the beggining. Patriotism doesn't equate to fascism. Just because WMDs weren't found doesn't mean it wasn't a motive. If the republican party was actually fascist it would have taken more steps to retain power than it did. One of Bush's weaknesses was that he was too much of a gentlemen to defend himself from slanderous dems.
rw11111 2 years ago
I feel I've already explained this, but nonetheless, I'll do it again: After 9/11, it was considered unpatriotic to question the motive behind war with Iraq in the name of national security. Sure, plenty of Dems voted for the war. It was a compelling story at first, although, half way believable. Bush sent our troops to war over a lie. If that isn't Fascist, then I can't tell you what is.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
And what was the lie? The CIA admits that a mistake was possible, our information is almost always nothing more than intelligent guesswork. The fact that WMDs weren't found doesn't mean that weren't ever there, or that Bush lied about it.
Who considered it unpatriotic to question the war? The people. If the republicans were fascist, they would have used their power to stay in power, that's what a fascist does. If you really knew what fascists do, then you would know that Bush was not fascist
rw11111 2 years ago
We went to war on "intelligent guesswork." That's a liars way of saying we went to war on a lie. The weapons were never there, and worldwide intel continually said they were never there. The Republicans were the ones that ran on fear in the '02 midterms and '04 presidential elections. They tried to do the same in the '06 midterms and failed miserably. I've read nearly every piece of Fascist literature known to man. It directly parallels with the Bush Admin. and Republican party's actions.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
For starters, Mussolini wrote it himself: Fascism is corporate government. Read anything Oswald Mosley wrote, anything Achille Starace wrote, anything Alexander Thomson, E.D. Randall, and Gottfried Benn wrote. Then, read what leaders in the Republican party have been saying about terrorism and immigration since 9/11. It's quite scary.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
The CIA briefed Bush claiming that it was extremely likely that Iraq had WMDs and was planning to create more. Saddam Hussein's suspicious behavior did not help. The CIA had enormous intel that went both ways, but decided that it was more likely that Iraq had weapons than it didn't. That is intelligent guesswork. A mistake is not a lie.
The Republicans never ran on fear, they ran with the promise of national defense. Big difference. You have deluded yourself beyond help.
rw11111 2 years ago
George Tenet briefed Bush on Iraq saying that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and that the only formula for war boiled down to weapons facilities not properly destroying weapons. This means that if the weapons did exist, they were no longer a threat. After this, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld decided to bypass the CIA and create their own intel to go to war. This is a lie, or at best, a half truth. I've educated myself beyond help. You should do the same.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
We went to war with Iraq because Hussein was to stupid to let weapons inspectors back into the country after DOZENS of warnings telling him what would happen if he didn't. Saddam broke a treaty by kicking out weapons inspectors a Treaty HE SIGNED. War typically happen's when a country breaks treaties.
AcomsRazor1776 2 years ago
The only way he would've broken the treaty is if anyone had found WMDs. They weren't found, and the war started anyway. Just go back to 90-92 and listen to what Cheney said about war with Iraq if Saddam were removed from power. His exact words were "it would be a quagmire." And thus, we have a quagmire.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
WRONG! Saddam signed a treaty after the first gulf war that forced him to allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq. Saddam Kicked said weapons inspectors out thus violating the treaty.
AcomsRazor1776 2 years ago
WRONG! The treaty never held a clause saying "UN weapons inspectors are always allowed in Iraq." It only called for the full disarmament of Iraq. After the inspectors had reported that they had seen no WMDs, Saddam kicked them out. Do I think it was right? No. Do I think that means he's guilty of WMDs? Absolutely not - let alone an honest justification for war.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
Oh Lord! First what do you really consider a WMD? Second, The weapons inspectors weren't "LOOKING" For Anything They were their to oversee the full and complete disarmament and disposal of Saddam's Chemical and biological weapon's of which we already knew he had in the first placed, he only wiped out how many of his own people with them? Sadam did not have a say when he was completely disarmed or when the weapons inspectors should leave and the weapons inspectors never said their job was done.
AcomsRazor1776 2 years ago
Well, I'd think "weapon of mass destruction" is a pretty self-explanatory term. Condi Rice said herself, "Well, Saddam is a weapon of mass destruction." The only thing we'd ever heard about was aluminum tubes and yellow-cake uranium, which Saddam "May or may not have tried to purchase." Saddam's biggest campaign came against the Kurds in the North before the 1st Gulf War. Otherwise, there is no evidence to suggest he held WMDs in 2003.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
But don't get me wrong - I don't think Saddam was a wholesome leader. I think it's great that he's no longer in power, but why did it have to be done on a lie? Even then, why should we have to stay there? It's their country. Let them fight for it. Let them die for it.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
Yes the whole Looking for WMD's was rather "bogus" But the fact remains he still broke a treaty that required UN weapon's inspectors to search for and eliminate Bio chemical weapons of any kind. That was basically the point of the weapons inspectors that he kicked out. Breaking a treaty doesn't deserve but REQUIRES action and failure to comply requires punishment. He refused to comply after multiple warnings. When negotiations fail there are no further need for future negotiations.
AcomsRazor1776 2 years ago
So then why couldn't this be the justification for war when it wasn't?
I've read and studied the history on the entire Middle Eastern theatre. I've never read in any UN resolutions, meeting minutes, or declarations that Saddam had broken any disarmament treaties. If this were the case, wouldn't the entire world community know whether or not he had moved said weapons out of the country? If you ask me, it was a war started on made-up intel.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
All the while, Iraq has become the biggest nation-building effort that the conservative Right has blamed the left for since Vietnam. Bush even said himself that we shouldn't be in the business of nation-building (a pop-shot at Clinton's policy in Bosnia and Somalia, for which there is no evidence of nation-building).
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
Look up the Both the Chemical and Bio weapons conventions. The UN forced Saddam to join both after the first gulf war and constant supervision was required as part of the terms set after the 1st gulf war. You didn't study hard enough. And in a way it was the reason for the war against saddam. HE was warned Multiple times and each time he refused.
AcomsRazor1776 2 years ago
No, Iraq joined the CWC in February of this year. Intel showed that most of the WMD and chemical infrastructure in Iraq was destroyed in Operation Desert Fox in December of '98. Saddam, along with Egypt, refused to sign the CWC until something was down about Israel's weapons program since this aspect left Muslim countries defenseless against Israel and allies if they chose to strike. The UN tried to force Iraq to join in '97, but to no avail - making this an illegal sanction by int'l law.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
So, that leads to March 19, 2003 - a war declared without official treaties and based on the existence of a weapons arsenal that was declared as destroyed 4 years and 3 months earlier. Once again, I know almost everything there is to know about the Middle Eastern theatre. The reason for war against Saddam was weapons of mass destruction. Not "multiple warnings and refusals."
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
Do you yourself a favor and stop argueing with him. He will try to break your points with frivilous things and will refuse to quit argueing. Trust me its pointless, just let it go.
rw11111 2 years ago
Gorge bush was a good president.Gorge Bush is a good man. How dare this ignorent man say bush is an embaressment.. We had a liberal cogress for the past 4 years. Barack Obama is the worst president the U.S has ever had and will ever have. Obama is an embaressment to the world.He listend to a paster for 20 years who hates america.He dint even put his hand on his heart during the bational athem.He will raise your taxes behind your back and hope y dont mind.He voted to kill babies who had a failab
ivankaman21 2 years ago
everyone damned mccain when he supported a 300 billion dollar bailout but now its ok for obama to throw 900 billion of our dollars down the drain...typical racist communist bullcrap...if your white your a p.o.s. but if your black its ok...FUCK THAT!!!
draggngmac386 2 years ago
Well, he was the one that claimed to be a "fiscal conservative." $750 billion was passed on a Republican's watch. It's completely necessary dude. We have to create demand in the economy somehow. I understand it sucks we have to pay for it, but if businesses can stay afloat with "irresponsible free money," then so be it. At least it'll keep you from losing your job.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
woah
banned commerical!
it maybe true though it is terribly onesided
like those McDonald commericals
heheh....mcdonald....mccain....
ShardedFire 2 years ago
Obama has the same owners as those two idiots, so it does not really matter, does it?
poopstreek 3 years ago
Did this come on TV? LMAO
Reqrezentin 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The lack of outrage from the left and the Muslim world at President Obama's first war crime is staggering. Under a virtual flag of truce, the strike that killed civilians in Pakistan goes without notice.
Having been elected on promises to negotiate with our enemies and having appointed as US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, the entire world must have understood that a ceasefire would ensue. I am sure of continued treachery from this administration and silence from the left.
ldbkbarnea 3 years ago
America is fucked now that Obama is in office. This country is getting worse by the day. All we have to blame is the fuckin douchbags democraps for fuckin this country up and lying to the American people. They were running this country into the ground for the last 2 years since they now control both House and Senate. They are the ones responsible for the economic crisis here in America. Now you have given them total power by electing the biggest fuckin idiot ever OBAMA. 10 times worse that BUSH!
daniel32nicolosi 3 years ago
boy I would call you an imbecile, but I realize you are just a troll. I wish you a happy life in your own little universe.
P.S: I hope you were joking, pretty sure you were.
andron333 3 years ago
Does it look like I am joking to you?? I didnt vote for that dumbass. Well I am glad America will finally go down in flames at the hands of the democrats. American people are so fuckin stupid it isnt even funny. Biting the hand that feeds you is really stupid. This is what the country has done by electing this idiot Obama into office. Spreading the richest wealth around is a BIG BIG BIG MISTAKE.
daniel32nicolosi 3 years ago
Well I am glad to see that you want the country to prosper. I am sure you would enjoy a great depression over the next 8 years. I hate Bush as much as anyone, but I would have never wished for his presidency to go as bad as it did. I am a liberal immigrant living in Canada, yet I am glad the our current concervative government has been doing a fairly decent job so far. Common man you cant truly believe that Mccain was more inteligent than Obama. Him and Palin ran an shameful campaign.
andron333 3 years ago
Its not about McCain or Obama themselves but rather their belief systems. This country was founded upon capitalism not socialism. You want socialism take your happy ass to the UK. USA has a dream and that dream is to prosper as best you can without being punished for it. Democrats always want to take your money from you and let the government spend it the way they see fit. BULLSHIT. We have already seen what a democratic government has done with the housing market in this country.
FUCKED IT UP
daniel32nicolosi 3 years ago
You can't be serious? You actually believe this bullshit? First off, the Democrats don't take anyone's money, but it seems that way because they've cleaned up the Republican's bullshit since 1930. News flash, dipshit, there are socialists programs all around you. Next time you see a cop doing his job, thank "tax and spend liberals" for their goddamned "socialism." Next time you see a teacher walk into a school to educate kids, thank a goddamned liberal you fascist bastard.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
Next time water comes out of your tap, thank a "socialist progressive" that focused on the interest of the public, rather than the interest of capitalism so that you drink clean water since water companies don't compete and cut corners for your business. And when the economy is prosperous, thank a goddamned Democrat, because Clinton was the last time we had a prosperous economy since JFK.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
Wow you are fuckin stupid or what? Democrats do not take anyone money?? Wow, Welfare was started by the democrats, IRS started by the democrats, Need i go on you fuckin moron. You need to go back to school and get some education before coming on the Inet and think you know what you are talking about. Welfare is what fucked this country up and it is lazy fuckin retards like yourself that doesnt want to get a job and get hand outs because you are a lazy POS. Get the fuck out of America you will be
daniel32nicolosi 2 years ago
Yes, it was welfare that fucked this country. Not Reagan's "fiscal conservatism," George Bush's "fiscal conservatism," or George W. Bush's "fiscal conservatism." But you're right, it was welfare that's caused our recent economic collapse, not deregulation under the Republican congress for 10 years coupled with disastrous tax cuts and low interest rates creating the housing bubble. So, no, it's pretty apparent that you're the one that's fucking stupid. Nice grammar skills, btw. Retard.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
FYI: The Republicans are the ones who support strengthening law enforcement, not the democrats, so u should actually thank Republicans when u see a cop.
Also the economy wasn't good during Clinton's presidency because of his policies, it was all good timing because we weren't at war with the USSR anymore. The current economic downturn is because of failed laws passed by LIBERALS who wanted anyone to buy a house, even if they couldn't afford it. Its okay to be stupid, just keep it to yourself.
rw11111 2 years ago
Conservatives are the ones that believe in "letting the market work." This means we would should let private firms compete for such things as law enforcement, mail service, and water treatment. I, for one, am much more comfortable knowing that it's government owned and regulated. Thus, you should thank the liberals for making it simpler.
Bush said everyone should take part in the American dream by owning a home. I rest my case.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
The economic turndown is due to CONSERVATIVES who, in all their greed and free market ability allowed for deregulation. You know how McCain kept saying government should live on a budget just like the people? Why wasn't he spewing this bullshit in 1996 when he voted to deregulate corporate portfolios, thus allowing them to buy more debt than they had assets to cover? That's whole point in the bailout - to boost capital for companies that don't have it.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
You are overgeneralizing. When have you ever heard a repulplican talk about putting mail service, law enforcement, and water treatment on the private sector? The answer: never. Liberals never made those things "simpler" as you put it. Americans had those services long before the modern parties came in.
Also, reublicans don't believe in no regulation, just that democrats try to regulate too much. That's a pretty big difference from what you were saying. Stop making things up lol.
rw11111 2 years ago
I didn't say Republican, I said Conservative. Thus, you are the one "making things up." If this was really the result of the CRA which was pretty well instituted, then why didn't the housing sector fail in '88 and '89 when interest rates were twice what they were in '04 and '05? The answer: Because it wasn't the CRA. It was the Republicans pushing for deregulation. Quite ironic since they're the ones pushing for "economic responsibility."
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
Because the problem isn't interest rates. If you had been paying attention, then you would know that the problem is people defaulting on their homes because they were allowed to make loans on houses that they couldn't prove that they could pay for. You are still obviously making things up as you go along. A conservative is simply a republican who believes in the party's core values. I promise you that no one, including conservatives want to privatize the postal service, police, etc.
rw11111 2 years ago
Bullshit! People defaulted on their ARMs because the interest rate doubled on their mortgages. I've heard plenty of classical/microeconomists say we should "let the market work." We should "let the market work" when it comes to security, postal service.. Hell, even public utilities. The problem is most definitely interest rates. How the hell could loan principle double over night? Fisher's Debt-Deflation theory? That's the only thing I can think of... Other than... INTEREST RATES.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
I can't help you, you won't make a legitimate arguement but that doesn't seem to stop you writing about it. Like most democrats, you know nothing about politics, but you make up things about both parties as if you do. You don't understand the meaning of "letting the market work" if you think that it applies to social security or the postal service. In the limited room of a youtube response, I can't begin to tell you all the reasons why your interest theory is false. Don't respond back.
rw11111 2 years ago
"Don't respond back." Nice cop-out. When you hear conservative (micro)economists on the news, or read in an article where they say "let free enterprise competition bring fair prices and efficiency to public utilities," how can than mean anything else that "let the market work"? Btw, this isn't about politics, this is about economics. You're the one that made it about politics. It's not my fault you can't separate the two.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
WTF, you are so retarded. We're talking about politics in economics. And actually you started talking about politics by talking about "republican bullshit" and then moved the conversation into economics, specifically. Either you're spilling out crap because you don't know what to say, or you're extremely ignorant. Either way, I'm not wasting any more time argueing with you.
rw11111 2 years ago
Sure, when you decided to make it a Democrat vs. Republican issue, then I exposed the Republican bullshit. All I've done is parallel the late 80's with 2004 and 2005. It was something you disagreed with, and decided that I was ignorant. By the way, if you're not wasting any more time arguing about this, then why are you still arguing? Are you.... out of things to say?
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
Actually I can't stop arguing because you're pissing me off. I responded to YOUR comment which was already bashing republicans, so don't say I made it a reps v dems issue. You never compared the 80's with the 00's. All you did was say that Clinton did a better job with the economy (90's btw) than Bush. All you've done is made up things about the republicans that they don't even believe in. I repeat, REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO PRIVATIZE ANY GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS!
rw11111 2 years ago
Ok, then I shall do it now: '88 and '89 FFR was twice what it was in '04, and '05, despite having nearly the same economic conditions.
Once again, I didn't say Republicans. I said Conservatives, as in Conservative economists. I.E. Micro economists.. You know, the ones that study firms and their behavior rather than aggregates?
Now, are we done? I'm tired of owning your ass with an actual debate rather than "you're just making this up."
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
Owning my ass? hahahahahahahahaha.
You're cute, but not in a good way. I've already killed all of your stupid arguements, repeating them doesn't make them true.
I've already shown you why republicans had nothing to do with the economic downturn but you just keep coming up with this same "interest rate" bullshit.
I am fully aware of what microeconomics is. You need to understand that conservative canon doesn't call for no regulation, just limited regulation.
rw11111 2 years ago
I don't think "you're making this up" is killing an argument. You mean to tell me that investment isn't the strongest sector of the economy? Then why did a fall in investments wreck the economy in the 30's, and now? I've yet to see any argument from you, or anyone else for that matter linking the CRA to the housing crisis of today. You really have to go back 30 years to blame the other party? Smells of bullshit to me, my friend.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
Because you ARE making it up, you're making up facts to make connections that don't exist.
For example, the investment scare of 1929, definetly marked the start of hte depression. However a variety of factors, most, starting roughly 10 years previously, made Black Tuesday inevitable. We have definetly not had an investment scare of that magnitude.
If you've never heard anyone talk about the CRA causing the recession, then you've been hiding under a rock. Its not really being disputed.
rw11111 2 years ago
I have heard about it, and it's absolutely wrong. It's action and reaction. The Great Depression was made a lot worse because of the money supply dropping by 25%. Why the fuck do you think the Federal Reserve pumped massive liquidity into the banking system this time around? Ask any goddamned economist on the planet, and they'll tell you to keep the money supply from dropping. Jesus kid, you might as well give it up. The only one that's making shit up here is you.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
Oh, so now you have heard of it. Now you're saying that the money supply is the cause and not interest rates. How can I not say that you're making things up if you change your story?
Its really not complicated, people got loans on houses they couldn't afford, they ended up defaulted on their loans, and the housing and banking industries lost money.
Yeah sure, keep the money supply from dropping, what does that have anything to do with Republican bullshit?
Don't talk down to me.
rw11111 2 years ago
The drop in the money supply is the reason the Great Depression got as bad as it did. Honestly, can you read?
I shall explain again: The interest rate in '04 and '05 was about half what it should've been. This created the housing bubble. When the interest rate is low, banks have to create more loans. When it's high, they can create less. When people took out NINJA (no income, no job, no asset) loans, mortgage companies/banks lumped these mortgages together in a bond and sold them...
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
These bonds were bought by investors all across the country - including investment banks on Wall Street. The Republican bullshit comes into play because John McCain and Newt Gingrich fought for deregulation on corporate portfolios. This allowed corporations to by more in liabilities than they had assets. That's how the banking system ended up with liquidity problems. Many of them were borrowing on margin (look it up), and defaulted bonds = a loss in liquidity. All because of deregulation.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
Okay so you have a theory. The difference is other people actually believe my theory, mostly because its not actually my theory.
Let me try a different tact since you only respond to facts with made up facts.
What are you trying to get me to say? That capitalism doesn't work, everything is the republicans' fault, and the democratic party is a godsend? I will admit that I don't believe in all of the rep's goals. The real difference between the parties is their theories on accountability
rw11111 2 years ago
Yes, it's completely made up that the Republicans fought for deregulation of corporate portfolios. It was part of the "Contract with America" thought up by Newt Gingrich for god's sake. Your theory is the CRA theory, which means that this was a 31 year housing bubble, despite the fact that interest rates have been in double digits multiple times since the creation of the CRA. Meanwhile, you neglect the importance of the interest rate set by the Fed, which determines how many and what price...
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
(cont.) loans are from banks. I think we can both agree that interest rates = price on a loan. When that price is lower, companies are willing to invest more and expand more. Experts and officials both agree, and even Greenspan himself has said the FFR 4-5 years ago was too low. He was the man responsible for it. When firms can borrow on margin, and spend more than their worth because of deregulation, then there's the potential for 2 things: 1.) Massive profit, or 2.) Massive failure.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
(cont.) So, in the end, I'm not trying to get you to say anything. I'll say it for you: Capitalism doesn't work, at least like people in this country think it does. It's completely imperfect, and we are seeing that now. I believe in heavy regulation. Why? Because my tax dollars are bailing out companies that have made multi-billion dollar mistakes. I say what they can and can not do if they take my money. They got into this mess, we're pulling them out, we make the rules.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
(cont.) And to top it off (and to conclude), you had Hank Paulson on TV stuttering like an idiot with no plan ("we're just going to play it by ear"), Ben Bernanke on TV with no answers ("we don't know what or how much it'll take"), and John McCain campaigning on a platform for even less regulation which is what allowed them to create this mess to begin with. Call it Socialism, I don't give a goddamn. When you hand money to corporations, it's called Fascism. I'd rather be Socialist.
DarkNowInDachau 2 years ago
Thank you. Finally a democrat that will admit that what they want is called socialism. Regardless of who's fault it is, we can agree that failed government policy caused the crisis. It is not capitalism that failed, just the government. Capitalism isn't perfect, but socialism is worse. Europe isn't on top of the world anymore, so why do we want to be like them? What is wrong with wanting to be the best? Socialism does not bring out the potential in society.
rw11111 2 years ago
"Well I am glad America will finally go down in flames at the hands of the democrats. American people are so fuckin stupid it isnt even funny."
Right, because Republicans like Bush and Palin are SO fucking smart.
How much money do you have daniel? Seems like you're pretty well off. Did you get a chance go to college? Because, you know, there are millions of kids in this country today who will never go to college. Not because they're lazy or selfish...
TheBackOfTheBoat 3 years ago
...but because they were born into a poor family. It doesn't matter if they're the brightest or hardest working kids in the world, they'll still never get a chance to go to a halfway decent college because their parents can't afford to send them to good grade schools or highschools. Those kids will never have a chance at the "American dream" that you seem to care so much about, and all because a handful of rich ass motherfuckers were too greedy to pay a little more in taxes.
TheBackOfTheBoat 3 years ago
Those rich ass motherfuckers became rich because their families were rich. They could have an IQ of 70 and their parents could've still bought them into Harvard or Yale. To those bastards, the thought of being poor or unemployed never even crossed their minds. But for so many smart, hardworking people, it's a daily reality that they will never be able to escape, all because people like you think "spreading the richest wealth around is a BIG BIG BIG MISTAKE."
TheBackOfTheBoat 3 years ago
haha he better be a troll, because no one in their right mind would call obama an idiot, let alone the "biggest fuckin idiot ever."
TheBackOfTheBoat 3 years ago
He wasn't even in office when you posted that you idiot.
dartaddict 3 years ago
funny video lets chat
hi anyone want to chat xU
123FearMe 3 years ago
OH NOEZ CAKE :O
k0j03 3 years ago
We need to be developing our technology for space like President Kennedy said, we new to be developing new engineering for running our cars and heating our homes. We need to make sure our children know how to do math and read. We need a President that is going to breathe a vision into a people.
This is not 1932, we dont need a President that uses rabbit ears for his television and
do not know how to operate a computer. McCain needs to go back to the old folks home.
Anointed7 3 years ago
OBAMA/BIDEN 'O8 !!!!!
Michthemitch 3 years ago
McCain makes me sick
lonizzcertified 3 years ago
OBAMA-BIDEN 'O8 !!!!!!!!!!!
Michthemitch 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Enjoy Socialism and BIG Government controlling your life. Working hard only to have the Government TAKE your money and give it to who they see fit. "Redistribution of wealth". Enjoy the Four Obama years of Recession. Jimmy Carter Jr
macoonie 3 years ago
I don't have any fucking money because of Bush.
scilonthreat 3 years ago 2
What a nonsense talk! go get a life and read more to learn about Obama than your flying empty words. where do u get this from? Obama is the best so far. McCain is nonsese and a old freak who knows nothing but to talk nonsense about Obama. I don't see McCain talking about America and economy. I am a republican and i am voting for Obama cuz McCain choose a dumb lady and talking too much nonsense than America people.
rona2007 3 years ago 2
Thank God, a republican who actually sees through the bs their party is displaying. It has been happening for two decades now, look up the old campaigns and notice the same trash tactics -smear, lie, distort truth, fear/war mongering, use of the word "America" to convince us that they're concerned with us middle classers (lower, middle and upper) but they're really talking to the top 5% WHO MAKE OVER 200K. The real truth is in research NOT in campaigns. Its not right or left,its corporate or not
beatsbytheory 3 years ago
:) just like canada and europe the best places to live
lineriderdude9999 3 years ago
OBAMA/BIDEN 'O8 !!!!!
Michthemitch 3 years ago 3
If you only had the intelligence that Bush receives on a daily basis, you wouldn't bash him so much. But people hated Lincoln too, go figure. Flame away.
Lpe04 3 years ago
You mean the intelligence in 08/01 that said that Al Qaeda was determined to strike within the USA using commercial aircraft? No, I think that makes me bash him even more.
trevormail 3 years ago 4
im sure lincloln didnt have a 24% aproval rate
lineriderdude9999 3 years ago
Lincoln had the lowest approval ratings in history. Jimmy Carter, Truman and Nixon have all had lower ratings too. Even historians that are liberal don't rank Bush as the worst president in history, or even close (Harding gets that spot, Bush usually ranks about in the middle, or a little behind the middle). God bless.
Lpe04 3 years ago
im sure 100 years down the road we wont think of goerge bush anything like we do of lincoln nixon had that scandle carter was just stupid almost as stupid as bush. im an athiest not that it maters i just thought i would say that because i enjoy typing :)
lineriderdude9999 3 years ago
yes, well, I mean, Lincoln had the war to deal with, Bush has almost his own civil war to deal with (a political war). It's usually the Presidents during times of war that are the least favored, just because generally people obviously don't like it. Lincoln had quite a task at his hand. Kennedy was liked by the people but not by people behind the scenes (CIA, etc.)
Lpe04 3 years ago
mmmm...cake.
DaPieguyStudios 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes I do...George W Bush has kept us safe for 7 1/2 years look at the past 2 years and look who is at fault Democrats! Congress controls spending and everything the president does! The real destroyers are Democrats and if you elect Obama...All these people screaming Obama/Biden 08 your skin will be peeled off with a knife and you will burned and you will say I MEANT TO VOTE MCCAIN! because Russians, Chinese, Iranians and even more terrorists and enemies will nuke us one by one
WorldWideNewsToday 3 years ago
Ah yes. Since 9/11 there hasn't been another major attack on US soil. Not until the Bush administration orchestrates the next one for continuity. This administration has taken rights away and stolen from us and then took control of the economic system like good ol fascists do. If a disaster hits and for some reason Bush/Cheney must remain in power and military fill our streets, you'll know either I'm right or their plan was foiled. Who better can capitalize on disaster than Bush/Cheney?
jdbauer36 3 years ago
excuse me sir. umm do you even know what fascism is? i highly doubt that you or anybody close to you has ever witnessed/experienced/lived through Fascism. get informed and only make logical exclamations relating to politics. there is no room for ignorance.
XMoceriX 3 years ago
Yes I do. It's many things. I believe the US is on it's way there. Fascism includes limiting the rights of citizens and creating a nationalist zeal based on fear of foreign nations. It's also about the corporatist state controlling the economy and social Darwinism. I believe that the US owns some of these aspects now and if things don't change it could very well become a fascist state. My statement below alludes to fascism with factual elements of a fascist state without defining it.
jdbauer36 3 years ago
Fascism: "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social [rights of privacy, limiting Habius Corpus, etc.] and economic control [current takeover of banks by the govt.], a strong, centralized government usually [in the event of NSPD 51 it could bring us closer to dictatorship] headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." [HR 1362 - Patriot Act violating privacy, HR 1955 - violating free speech] (From The American Heritage Dictionary)
jdbauer36 3 years ago
Wow, here it is, the ultimate Republican tool. He claims that the President and his toady are responsible for keeping us safe while SIMULTANEOUSLY blaming all our problems on congress.
Let me guess, if it's bad it's the Dems but if it's good it's the Reps?
Either the Prez is in enough control to keep us safe for all these years, or the congress controls, "everything the president does!" You can't /really/ have both.
princessxera 3 years ago 3
Let them eat cake! While the new generation rules the country. Go home to your $1,000,000 ranches and smell like pee. We're taking over!
OBABMAMMAMAMAAAMAMA 08!
goobernutz 3 years ago 2
OBAMA/BIDEN 08 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Michthemitch 3 years ago 3
A problem with this video that i noticed also is that McCain's "approval rating" of Bush is a percentage???? That doesnt make sense. its either he approved or didnt, how does this video even make sense?
BRunk84 3 years ago
NO, it saying that mcCain increasingly agreed with bush's decisions in the white house. For example, if I said I agreed with 3 things that Bush did since he became president, and it was out of 100, than my percentage would be 3%, understand bub!!! Not approval rating, although he speaks about bush's approval rating
rmassie11 3 years ago 2
it means in one year he approved 95% of what bush had to say. and another year 100% u idiot
bobbykurka 3 years ago
dude, it was just a question, what makes me an idiot for asking a question? you don't have to be an asshole!
BRunk84 3 years ago
Bush is fine, its Cheney thats an ass and screw up. The only problem is that Bush should have never picked him as a VP
BRunk84 3 years ago
not gonna lie but whoever made this ad needs to start making ads for actual candidates. this was pretty good.
Alexscottmurad 3 years ago
dumb shits that belong together... Bush and McBush
DaysThruStorms 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama and the drive by media are racist and commies. VOTE NO-OBAMA
The messiah for the black theology is racist and so is the left.
The left us supported by terrorist and the commies of the world and Islam.
cvciii333 3 years ago
I DO NOT WANT TO SEE BUSH IMPEACHED! Vincent Bugliosi has a better idea and he published a book [Prosecute George Bush for Murder] Impeachment is a slap on the hand for what bush should be held accountable for. Now scroll up and put prosecute george bush for murder in the search box. PULLEEEEZE
wazooavenue 3 years ago
hahahaha approval ratings? whos in charge of those? the mainstream media which is biased? nice i bet you believe in the polls as well
laxplayer1551 3 years ago
Bush is hated. You don't have to be a conservative, liberal or have any other belief system to know that. Most want him impeached according to polls.
overmind25 3 years ago
McFlipFlop go watch "Mccain Unfit" or "Palin SAT"
McFlipFlop and Palinstein
cube12083 3 years ago
OBAMA/BIDEN FOR THE CHANGE! THANK U
starbuckzKate 3 years ago
When things get tough, the tough go shopping!
dannnynieves 3 years ago
John Mcsame is F**king Crazy
Michthemitch 3 years ago 2
funny!
diamondprxncess 3 years ago
No Way, No How, No Mcsame!
HillaryfansforBarack 3 years ago 2
yes i do
jhonnynohe 3 years ago
I laugh when people try to defend Bush's horrible approval ratings by saying, "well look at Congress, their ratings are even lower." First of all, Congress always has a lower rating than the President. But look at individual members of Congress. Most people think their representative does a good job. Second of all, the comparison is not fair, because the President is solely responsible for his positions and actions, whereas Congress is mired in partisanship, veto threats, and filibusters.
HungryNomadicLion 3 years ago
If the Congress had mounted a more vigorous impeachment effort, voted against telecom immunity or voted to prohibit warrantless wiretapping, would their approval ratings be better?
rsaswest 3 years ago
Congress is worth shit right now. With an 29% approval, that's three times higher than the democratically controlled congress which only has 9%. We the people have the power to replace the president and, especially congress.
RRbattlefield 3 years ago
There is a mirror image between the disapproval of Bush and the disapproval of Congress. This is interesting. Could it be that the same people who disapprove of Bush disapprove of Congress for not opposing Bush more vigorously? Could it be the same 70% that disapproves of both? This would refute the idea that the 70% disapproval for Congress is due to "part of the country blaming Bush and part of the country blaming Congress for our troubles."
rsaswest 3 years ago
No Way, No How, No McSame!
HillaryfansforBarack 3 years ago 2
This ad is solid.
pyro51090 3 years ago 2
i really think for McCain, being president has nothing to do with serving America, it is a desire to obtain a sense of power and to get more influence to make more money
Msbea345 3 years ago 2