the RS article is BS, and I can't believe someone as smart as you would actually take it seriously. had it praised bush, would you have posted it?
Finally a substantive argument. It's BS. Can't argue with logic like that. Game over, dude. Well played. And if I was as smart as you say I obviously wouldn't have posted this article and asked for a response when years of posting and reading here told me exactly what to expect.
Bush might have been an OK President if nothing major happened while he was in office. That was not in the cards.
Wow, Sam, I didn't realize that Bush's plan included infinite deficit spending, as you claim. Deficit spending over a fixed period of time is not always a bad thing. One could argue that the deficit spending of the Reagan years helped pull us out of the tough times of the early 80s and furthermore lead to the booming economies of the 90s (along with the Republican controlled House and Senate...). What you cannot argue with, Sam, is the fact that Bush's tax cuts and other policies have pulled our economy out of the tough times that he inherited from Bill Clinton and also allowed us to weather and emerge quite strong from the 9/11 tragedy. You can ramble on about infinite deficits and the other demogoguery-focused liberal talking points that you read on Daily Kos this morning, but you simply cannot argue with the robust economy that exists today in this country. With economic growth, the deficit will shrink, as we saw happen in the 90s.
the fact that Bush's tax cuts and other policies have pulled our economy out of the tough times that he inherited from Bill Clinton Make that fiction.
I never claimed that, since it's metaphysically impossible. Stricken from the record But that's not what we're talking about here. Stricken from the record. One could if one were stupid. One could also argue that Lyndon Johnson's social spending in the 60's caused boom economies in the 80's. Are you "one"? No, I think any individual who has heard of the business cycle could argue with that. No. Stricken. No. Even the bush administration admits that its tax cuts won't generate enough economic growth to pay for themselves. Who gave you this idea?
it worked the first time - after 9/11 he had a 90% approval rating and even the french were running around saying "we are all americans". pretty amazing how he squandered all that away. in light of iraq, dubai ports deals, amnesty for illegals, the failure of bush's social security overhall, katrina, valerie plame, retired generals, illegal spying on american citizens and jack abramoff to name a few, an attack would be the best thing to happen to the cheney administration. what better way to rally the masses and make us forget what an absolutely horrible job they have done "leading" our country.
You wouldn't know a serious article if it bit you. Like this one did. No worries though. I've long since given up hoping for a serious response from you.
You have taken Pat Roberts summary remarks about the Senate intel committee report seriously. Those go against the evidence from the report itself, and seem to be a prime example of partisan hackery.
sure, and please, i challenge you to link to a thread where i have quoted either. if the search function doesn't help you, try google, using this formula: keyword site:www.sitename.com, where "keyword" is your search term, and "sitename" is cf.net. i think you'll come up empty, but then, you weren't really serious, were you?
Sam, just when I feel like you're turning a corner and maturing as a poster, you deliver one of these gems. Calling things "stupid" with no reason as to why, referring to metaphysics, and incessantly "striking things from the record" leave me rightfully confident that my assertions were correct. If you'd like to put in some extra effort to clarify your positions, I'd welcome that, but I fear that the content to do such a thing simply does not exist. Sam, tax cuts are a piece of a multi-faceted puzzle. An important piece, but yes, there are other factors at play. One cannot deny that GDP and unemployment are at extremely healthy levels.
awwww, isn't that cute? KingCheetah is sticking up for ole Sammity Sam. It's good that you recognized that he needed help, Cheetah. Sometimes he gets in over his head.
the reason it worked before is because: a) nobody was expecting it b) he was only 9 months in to his first term c) this was before the big brother... i mean patriot act (which is supposed to stop another attack) but i agree maybe another one would blindfold or hoodwink as ed schultz says the sheeple aka american citizens. i like your list, mine says this: 1) social security 2) guest worker program 3) failed harriet myers bid 4) katrina 5) the leak/no leak situation 6) iraq, the planning/lead up 7) iraq, the current situation 8) high gas prices 9) terri schiavo involvement 10) possible abramoff connection 11) failed ports deal and i voted for him, twice.
Let's see- Reagan is responsible for the good aspects of the Clinton economy, Clinton is responsible for the bad aspects of the Bush II economy, and Bush II is responsible for the good aspects of his own economy. Oh yeah, and Reagan get's the credit for the positive benefits of deficit spending during his term, not the Democratically controlled Congress. Yet, it's the Republican-controlled congress that gets the credit for the fiscal discipline of the Clinton years. I can't remember when I've read such clear-eyed, rigorous economic analysis.
Exactly. Why would anyone take either you ir texxx's writings seriously. I certainly don't, at least not when the writings contain nothing more than attacking the messenger. To be fair, when you, texxx, or even t_j respond to the meat of an argument (rare, but it happens), I read the information and come up with a response that goes straight to the substance of the argument. For example, when texxx tried to prove that incomes are rising by posting a graphic (average weekly income IIRC) from the Department of Labor, I went to the same exact web site and found that the median family (the one exactly in the middle, not average, but exactly at the 50% population mark) income has dropped in each of the last three years. Texxx put out an argument that appeared logical and I refuted that argument using facts and available evidence. This article laid out a dozen or more specific failures of this administration and neither of you have chosen to address any substance, instead you simply dismiss the entire piece as a "partisan hack job." I guess when you can't refute the argument using facts, logic, and available evidence, this is what you are left with.
