she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface

Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side.

If you are proven correct, one thing is for sure -- She's got one helluva mess to clean up.

Yeah you are right she will have to continue the work Obama started cleaning up the trainwreck Bush left.

Obama will leave her with a much more stable situation then the Sh*t sandwich Bush left Obama.

I'll ask the question once again that went unanswered the first time. Who was out running around
harassing lenders and suing banks in the 90's on behalf of ACORN?

Hint: It wasn't George Bush

It would seem that Barack Obama had a lot more to do with the sh*t sandwich than Bush did.
The mess Obama inherited was a lot of his own making.

ACORN? Man, you aren't even trying anymore. That is weak even for you.

she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface

Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side.

If you are proven correct, one thing is for sure -- She's got one helluva mess to clean up.

Yeah you are right she will have to continue the work Obama started cleaning up the trainwreck Bush left.

Obama will leave her with a much more stable situation then the Sh*t sandwich Bush left Obama.

I'll ask the question once again that went unanswered the first time. Who was out running around
harassing lenders and suing banks in the 90's on behalf of ACORN?

Hint: It wasn't George Bush

It would seem that Barack Obama had a lot more to do with the sh*t sandwich than Bush did.
The mess Obama inherited was a lot of his own making.

ACORN? Man, you aren't even trying anymore. That is weak even for you.

How hard is it to hit balls off a tee? Pease continue to tee it up.

she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface

Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side.

If you are proven correct, one thing is for sure -- She's got one helluva mess to clean up.

Yeah you are right she will have to continue the work Obama started cleaning up the trainwreck Bush left.

Obama will leave her with a much more stable situation then the Sh*t sandwich Bush left Obama.

I'll ask the question once again that went unanswered the first time. Who was out running around
harassing lenders and suing banks in the 90's on behalf of ACORN?

Hint: It wasn't George Bush

It would seem that Barack Obama had a lot more to do with the sh*t sandwich than Bush did.
The mess Obama inherited was a lot of his own making.

ACORN? Man, you aren't even trying anymore. That is weak even for you.

How hard is it to hit balls off a tee? Pease continue to tee it up.

More snark. That is why talking to you is a waste of time. Carry on.

Eating cake is harder than this.

Eating cake is harder than this.

I can't stop laughing at this...^

she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface

Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side. IMHO she will run and win going away with the campaign machine that Bubba will build her and the unlimited campaign money that will flow into her war chest. Man it is going to be a tough next 10 years for conservatives.

Whenever I hear those say she won't run, I take it as a contrary indicator.

I haven't really heard anybody say that she isn't running. I still have a feeling her name won't be on the ballot Election Day. I have no choice but to stick to that prediction now that it's on the record in the Allman Brothers Band Whipping Post.

Well alloak,

It was you who started this thread, and I quote your line, " I realize it seems to be an almost foregone conclusion, but I don't think she runs."

So now you're either 1) qualifying your words very carefully, or 2) tiptoeing wording, or 3) parsing.

We all get what you and some other poster mean. It doesn't have to be black or white with the wording. We get your drift. My $100.00 bet with with you is still on the table that she runs.

Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it.

Really? Any means necessary? Now I'm what? An eco terrorist?

Doug - that is a reprehensible characterization of me as a person.

I'm not characterizing you as a person at all. I don't even know you. I am simply stating that one of the hallmarks of the hard left is that it is totally result driven. The process is irrelevant. Lying or other forms of trickery are acceptable. I suppose its also true of the hard right but the hard right has no voice and no power. Liberals care about the process.

Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it.

Really? Any means necessary? Now I'm what? An eco terrorist?

Doug - that is a reprehensible characterization of me as a person.

I'm not characterizing you as a person at all. I don't even know you. I am simply stating that one of the hallmarks of the hard left is that it is totally result driven. The process is irrelevant. Lying or other forms of trickery are acceptable. I suppose its also true of the hard right but the hard right has no voice and no power. Liberals care about the process.

Wow. Just wow.

she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface

Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side.

If you are proven correct, one thing is for sure -- She's got one helluva mess to clean up.

Yeah you are right she will have to continue the work Obama started cleaning up the trainwreck Bush left.

Obama will leave her with a much more stable situation then the Sh*t sandwich Bush left Obama.

I'll ask the question once again that went unanswered the first time. Who was out running around
harassing lenders and suing banks in the 90's on behalf of ACORN?

Hint: It wasn't George Bush

It would seem that Barack Obama had a lot more to do with the sh*t sandwich than Bush did.
The mess Obama inherited was a lot of his own making.

No actually I answered the question when you originally tried to absolve Bush of any complicity.

Bush and the Republicans had 8 years to fix the bad mortgage regulations and did basically nothing so how do you figure he had no hand in the whole mortgage trainwreck?

Also he handed Obama two unwinnable wars which has morphed into the Middle East trainwreck he is dealing with today. Hillary if she runs and wins will be stuck with that legacy.

she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface

Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side.

If you are proven correct, one thing is for sure -- She's got one helluva mess to clean up.

Yeah you are right she will have to continue the work Obama started cleaning up the trainwreck Bush left.

Obama will leave her with a much more stable situation then the Sh*t sandwich Bush left Obama.

I'll ask the question once again that went unanswered the first time. Who was out running around
harassing lenders and suing banks in the 90's on behalf of ACORN?

Hint: It wasn't George Bush

It would seem that Barack Obama had a lot more to do with the sh*t sandwich than Bush did.
The mess Obama inherited was a lot of his own making.

No actually I answered the question when you originally tried to absolve Bush of any complicity.

Bush and the Republicans had 8 years to fix the bad mortgage regulations and did basically nothing so how do you figure he had no hand in the whole mortgage trainwreck?

Also he handed Obama two unwinnable wars which has morphed into the Middle East trainwreck he is dealing with today. Hillary if she runs and wins will be stuck with that legacy.

1. Sure you did.

2. Liberal policies led to that trainwreck, and now you complain that Bush didn't fix it?

3. Aren't you contradicting the White House? According to them the Middle East is stable, not a trainwreck. The Middle East that Bush handed to Obama was more stable than it is today. What the hell happened? If Hillary runs and wins she will be stuck with Obama's legacy.

So now you're either 1) qualifying your words very carefully, or 2) tiptoeing wording, or 3) parsing.

How's that, Chief? My position hasn't changed.

she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface

Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side.

If you are proven correct, one thing is for sure -- She's got one helluva mess to clean up.

Yeah you are right she will have to continue the work Obama started cleaning up the trainwreck Bush left.

Obama will leave her with a much more stable situation then the Sh*t sandwich Bush left Obama.

I'll ask the question once again that went unanswered the first time. Who was out running around
harassing lenders and suing banks in the 90's on behalf of ACORN?

Hint: It wasn't George Bush

It would seem that Barack Obama had a lot more to do with the sh*t sandwich than Bush did.
The mess Obama inherited was a lot of his own making.

No actually I answered the question when you originally tried to absolve Bush of any complicity.

Bush and the Republicans had 8 years to fix the bad mortgage regulations and did basically nothing so how do you figure he had no hand in the whole mortgage trainwreck?

Also he handed Obama two unwinnable wars which has morphed into the Middle East trainwreck he is dealing with today. Hillary if she runs and wins will be stuck with that legacy.

1. Sure you did.

2. Liberal policies led to that trainwreck, and now you complain that Bush didn't fix it?

3. Aren't you contradicting the White House? According to them the Middle East is stable, not a trainwreck. The Middle East that Bush handed to Obama was more stable than it is today. What the hell happened? If Hillary runs and wins she will be stuck with Obama's legacy.

So basically the Bush Administration was so inept that in 8 years they could not figure out that the train wreck was coming and try to do anything about it before it crashed? So they woke up one day and said to themselves "Gee didn't see that one coming", so that is your story?

If Bush had not taken down Saddam the region would not have been destabilized and degenerated into what we have now. I have never said the region was peaceful but it sure as hell was not as bad as when he left office. Obama merely carried out the troop reductions that Bush started as he should have. What was he supposed to do keep our troops there forever? Do you really think the Iraqi Army we trained was ever going to be able to defend that country? they are paid to fight while ISIS is not doing it for money. We learned nothing from the Vietnam War.

Michael Corleone said it best

she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface

Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side.

If you are proven correct, one thing is for sure -- She's got one helluva mess to clean up.

Yeah you are right she will have to continue the work Obama started cleaning up the trainwreck Bush left.

Obama will leave her with a much more stable situation then the Sh*t sandwich Bush left Obama.

I'll ask the question once again that went unanswered the first time. Who was out running around
harassing lenders and suing banks in the 90's on behalf of ACORN?

Hint: It wasn't George Bush

It would seem that Barack Obama had a lot more to do with the sh*t sandwich than Bush did.
The mess Obama inherited was a lot of his own making.

No actually I answered the question when you originally tried to absolve Bush of any complicity.

Bush and the Republicans had 8 years to fix the bad mortgage regulations and did basically nothing so how do you figure he had no hand in the whole mortgage trainwreck?

Also he handed Obama two unwinnable wars which has morphed into the Middle East trainwreck he is dealing with today. Hillary if she runs and wins will be stuck with that legacy.

1. Sure you did.

2. Liberal policies led to that trainwreck, and now you complain that Bush didn't fix it?

3. Aren't you contradicting the White House? According to them the Middle East is stable, not a trainwreck. The Middle East that Bush handed to Obama was more stable than it is today. What the hell happened? If Hillary runs and wins she will be stuck with Obama's legacy.

So basically the Bush Administration was so inept that in 8 years they could not figure out that the train wreck was coming and try to do anything about it before it crashed? So they woke up one day and said to themselves "Gee didn't see that one coming", so that is your story?

If Bush had not taken down Saddam the region would not have been destabilized and degenerated into what we have now. I have never said the region was peaceful but it sure as hell was not as bad as when he left office. Obama merely carried out the troop reductions that Bush started as he should have. What was he supposed to do keep our troops there forever? Do you really think the Iraqi Army we trained was ever going to be able to defend that country? they are paid to fight while ISIS is not doing it for money. We learned nothing from the Vietnam War.

1. No. Obviously that's your story and you're perfectly entitled to it.

2. Yes. I think we should have left troops there. Not a great option by any means,
but the alternative is worse. Sometimes you have to take the best trade-off you can get.
Of course, take these comments for what they're worth....Coming from someone who
never agreed with the decision to invade from day one.

Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it.

Really? Any means necessary? Now I'm what? An eco terrorist?

Doug - that is a reprehensible characterization of me as a person.

I'm not characterizing you as a person at all. I don't even know you. I am simply stating that one of the hallmarks of the hard left is that it is totally result driven. The process is irrelevant. Lying or other forms of trickery are acceptable. I suppose its also true of the hard right but the hard right has no voice and no power. Liberals care about the process.

So, the hard right "has no voice and no power", and apparently must care as much if not more about the integrity of the process than the end result. Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...so tell me, where does this fit into your utopian view of conservative politicking...

Slain New Hampshire Journalist Featured in Attack Ad Targeting Shaheen
The web ads are paid for by Secure America Now, a conservative nonprofit national security organization

A new web ad targeting U.S. Sen Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) features footage of slain New Hampshire journalist James Foley, who was beheaded by ISIS in August.

Footage of Foley right before he was beheaded by ISIS ppears at the beginning of the ads, which target Shaheen and other Democrats. According to BuzzFeed, the ads were paid for by Secure America Now, a conservative nonprofit national security organization.

she couldn't beat a junior senator from chicago in 2008 when she was a shoe-in. maybe a moron like martin o'malley or deval patrick will run. someone a little younger. she won't run anyway. too old to handle the campaign trail. health issues will surface

Yeah keep telling yourself that when they are swearing her into Office with first man Bubba Clinton at her side.

If you are proven correct, one thing is for sure -- She's got one helluva mess to clean up.

Yeah you are right she will have to continue the work Obama started cleaning up the trainwreck Bush left.

Obama will leave her with a much more stable situation then the Sh*t sandwich Bush left Obama.

I'll ask the question once again that went unanswered the first time. Who was out running around
harassing lenders and suing banks in the 90's on behalf of ACORN?

Hint: It wasn't George Bush

It would seem that Barack Obama had a lot more to do with the sh*t sandwich than Bush did.
The mess Obama inherited was a lot of his own making.

No actually I answered the question when you originally tried to absolve Bush of any complicity.

Bush and the Republicans had 8 years to fix the bad mortgage regulations and did basically nothing so how do you figure he had no hand in the whole mortgage trainwreck?

Also he handed Obama two unwinnable wars which has morphed into the Middle East trainwreck he is dealing with today. Hillary if she runs and wins will be stuck with that legacy.

1. Sure you did.

2. Liberal policies led to that trainwreck, and now you complain that Bush didn't fix it?

3. Aren't you contradicting the White House? According to them the Middle East is stable, not a trainwreck. The Middle East that Bush handed to Obama was more stable than it is today. What the hell happened? If Hillary runs and wins she will be stuck with Obama's legacy.

So basically the Bush Administration was so inept that in 8 years they could not figure out that the train wreck was coming and try to do anything about it before it crashed? So they woke up one day and said to themselves "Gee didn't see that one coming", so that is your story?

If Bush had not taken down Saddam the region would not have been destabilized and degenerated into what we have now. I have never said the region was peaceful but it sure as hell was not as bad as when he left office. Obama merely carried out the troop reductions that Bush started as he should have. What was he supposed to do keep our troops there forever? Do you really think the Iraqi Army we trained was ever going to be able to defend that country? they are paid to fight while ISIS is not doing it for money. We learned nothing from the Vietnam War.

1. No. Obviously that's your story and you're perfectly entitled to it.

2. Yes. I think we should have left troops there. Not a great option by any means,
but the alternative is worse. Sometimes you have to take the best trade-off you can get.
Of course, take these comments for what they're worth....Coming from someone who
never agreed with the decision to invade from day one.

1. I never claimed that the Democrats did not have a hand in the deregulation which allowed the banks to make bad lending decisions but you seem to imply the Bush Administration had no role in the economic sh*t sandwich Obama was handed so how do you explain their inaction to change the regulations that resulted in the bad mortgage meltdown? Surely they must have seen this coming right? and if not then why not?

2. IMHO leaving troops in Iraq would have only delayed the inevitable. So how long would we have to stay there and expose our troops to harm? we learned nothing from our experience in Vietnam.

There was/ is never going to be a stable bipartisan democratic government in that country with the religious sect differences they have. Besides don't you think the Bush Administration should have had a better planned exit strategy? Did they really think deposing Saddam was going to be the end of the conflict? this may be rhetorical question but were they really that dumb?

Bush and other Republicans started warning about what might happen starting in the early 2000's. These warnings were met with howls by Democrats, to put it mildly. That being said, Bush should have been strong enough to make changes and he failed. He sounded warnings and seemed concerned but didn't follow through. He failed.

Bush warned us that jihadists would emerge as soon as we leave. Wow, what a bold and brilliant prediction. It's silly to blame either Bush or Obama for today's mess over there. If our military decided on a strategy to cut and run to expose the cockroaches, who are we to decide whether it's right or wrong? Our military officials are the ones to influence a Presidents decision, so criticizing the President is really a criticism of our military. Neither Obama, Bush, nor Clinton have strategic military expertise in their background, so I would imagine they sign off on recommendations from our generals. Let's keep our heads straight and blame the mess in the Middle East on the lunatics that live there.

Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it.

Really? Any means necessary? Now I'm what? An eco terrorist?

Doug - that is a reprehensible characterization of me as a person.

I'm not characterizing you as a person at all. I don't even know you. I am simply stating that one of the hallmarks of the hard left is that it is totally result driven. The process is irrelevant. Lying or other forms of trickery are acceptable. I suppose its also true of the hard right but the hard right has no voice and no power. Liberals care about the process.

So, the hard right "has no voice and no power", and apparently must care as much if not more about the integrity of the process than the end result. Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...so tell me, where does this fit into your utopian view of conservative politicking...

Slain New Hampshire Journalist Featured in Attack Ad Targeting Shaheen
The web ads are paid for by Secure America Now, a conservative nonprofit national security organization

A new web ad targeting U.S. Sen Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) features footage of slain New Hampshire journalist James Foley, who was beheaded by ISIS in August.

Footage of Foley right before he was beheaded by ISIS ppears at the beginning of the ads, which target Shaheen and other Democrats. According to BuzzFeed, the ads were paid for by Secure America Now, a conservative nonprofit national security organization.

What a fuc.ing pathetic attack ad. There are ways to paint your opponent, but this is just way over the top.

So, the hard right "has no voice and no power". I'm with you X2. I guess if they really had power they might even shut down the government. That's a real trophy.

Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it.

Really? Any means necessary? Now I'm what? An eco terrorist?

Doug - that is a reprehensible characterization of me as a person.

I'm not characterizing you as a person at all. I don't even know you. I am simply stating that one of the hallmarks of the hard left is that it is totally result driven. The process is irrelevant. Lying or other forms of trickery are acceptable. I suppose its also true of the hard right but the hard right has no voice and no power. Liberals care about the process.

So, the hard right "has no voice and no power", and apparently must care as much if not more about the integrity of the process than the end result. Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...so tell me, where does this fit into your utopian view of conservative politicking...

Slain New Hampshire Journalist Featured in Attack Ad Targeting Shaheen
The web ads are paid for by Secure America Now, a conservative nonprofit national security organization

A new web ad targeting U.S. Sen Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) features footage of slain New Hampshire journalist James Foley, who was beheaded by ISIS in August.

Footage of Foley right before he was beheaded by ISIS ppears at the beginning of the ads, which target Shaheen and other Democrats. According to BuzzFeed, the ads were paid for by Secure America Now, a conservative nonprofit national security organization.

What a fuc.ing pathetic attack ad. There are ways to paint your opponent, but this is just way over the top.

So, the hard right "has no voice and no power". I'm with you X2. I guess if they really had power they might even shut down the government. That's a real trophy.

I am with both of you on this.

Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it.

Really? Any means necessary? Now I'm what? An eco terrorist?

Doug - that is a reprehensible characterization of me as a person.

I'm not characterizing you as a person at all. I don't even know you. I am simply stating that one of the hallmarks of the hard left is that it is totally result driven. The process is irrelevant. Lying or other forms of trickery are acceptable. I suppose its also true of the hard right but the hard right has no voice and no power. Liberals care about the process.

So true Doug - Remember when the left lied about weapons of mass destruction and got us in a war for no reason. Not to mention when they implied that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. And then they said that the US would be greeted in Iraq with flowers and dance and would be seen as liberators. Damn those damn lefties with their lying and their trickery!!!

Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it.

Really? Any means necessary? Now I'm what? An eco terrorist?

Doug - that is a reprehensible characterization of me as a person.

I'm not characterizing you as a person at all. I don't even know you. I am simply stating that one of the hallmarks of the hard left is that it is totally result driven. The process is irrelevant. Lying or other forms of trickery are acceptable. I suppose its also true of the hard right but the hard right has no voice and no power. Liberals care about the process.

So true Doug - Remember when the left lied about weapons of mass destruction and got us in a war for no reason. Not to mention when they implied that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. And then they said that the US would be greeted in Iraq with flowers and dance and would be seen as liberators. Damn those damn lefties with their lying and their trickery!!!

Hey, that looks like something I would post. Why isn't anybody on the Left complaining? Maybe they haven't seen it yet. Great job, though.

Bush and other Republicans started warning about what might happen starting in the early 2000's. These warnings were met with howls by Democrats, to put it mildly. That being said, Bush should have been strong enough to make changes and he failed. He sounded warnings and seemed concerned but didn't follow through. He failed.

Thanks you Alloak, you are one of the few conservatives here who can actually admit the Democtrats are not always at fault. There is hope for you yet! 😛

That being said based how aggressive the Bush administration was when they wanted one of their agendas implemented I find it hard to believe the they tried very hard to get the laws changed in this case. If they had really wanted to change the laws I think it would have happened even in the face of Democratic opposition as that never stopped them on other things they wanted to implement.

Bush and other Republicans started warning about what might happen starting in the early 2000's. These warnings were met with howls by Democrats, to put it mildly. That being said, Bush should have been strong enough to make changes and he failed. He sounded warnings and seemed concerned but didn't follow through. He failed.

Thanks you Alloak, you are one of the few conservatives here who can actually admit the Democtrats are not always at fault. There is hope for you yet! 😛

That being said based how aggressive the Bush administration was when they wanted one of their agendas implemented I find it hard to believe the they tried very hard to get the laws changed in this case. If they had really wanted to change the laws I think it would have happened even in the face of Democratic opposition as that never stopped them on other things they wanted to implement.

I don't think he tried at all to get the situation under control. He might have intended to early on, but as opposition to the war started to build, he needed something to brag about. You don't think he loved bragging about the strong housing numbers in his speeches? Hell yes, he did. Any President would. I remember him doing it, and this was very selfish on his part.

One thing about the housing bubble that still mystifies me, though, is the number of supposedly brilliant people that didn't even see it coming.

[Edited on 10/16/2014 by alloak41]

Bush warned us that jihadists would emerge as soon as we leave. Wow, what a bold and brilliant prediction. It's silly to blame either Bush or Obama for today's mess over there. If our military decided on a strategy to cut and run to expose the cockroaches, who are we to decide whether it's right or wrong? Our military officials are the ones to influence a Presidents decision, so criticizing the President is really a criticism of our military. Neither Obama, Bush, nor Clinton have strategic military expertise in their background, so I would imagine they sign off on recommendations from our generals. Let's keep our heads straight and blame the mess in the Middle East on the lunatics that live there.

Huh? Let me get this straight. Our military "decided on a strategy to cut and run to expose the cockroaches?" Wait what? Our "military" didn't decide on such a strategy. Nor is this a strategy. It's called losing. And the decision to do this was most certainly NOT made by the military it was made by Obama. Obama is the Commander in Chief. As numerous persons including now Leon Panetta and Robert Gates have attested, Obama IGNORED the advice of the military as is his privilige. But to blame it on them? Truly bizarre. Who are we to criticize it? We are American citizens with brains and eyes and opinions and the ability to process what we see in front of us. You keep going off on this "Criticism is not legitimate" thing. I have no idea where it comes from.

Finally. It is always the president's responsibility to formulate policy. He listens to advice (thought his one doesn't seem to very much) and then he makes a choice. Bush listened to advice on what to do about Iraq after the fall of Hussein and it turned out to be a bad choice. He bears the responsibility. Just as Obama does. What is so dificult about this concept. But really "cut and run to expose the cockroaches"? Now I've heard it all.

Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it.

Really? Any means necessary? Now I'm what? An eco terrorist?

Doug - that is a reprehensible characterization of me as a person.

I'm not characterizing you as a person at all. I don't even know you. I am simply stating that one of the hallmarks of the hard left is that it is totally result driven. The process is irrelevant. Lying or other forms of trickery are acceptable. I suppose its also true of the hard right but the hard right has no voice and no power. Liberals care about the process.

So true Doug - Remember when the left lied about weapons of mass destruction and got us in a war for no reason. Not to mention when they implied that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. And then they said that the US would be greeted in Iraq with flowers and dance and would be seen as liberators. Damn those damn lefties with their lying and their trickery!!!

We were greeted as liberators. It's what happened after that went wrong. And much of the left lied when they pretended they opposed the war all along when they all supported it with a couple of exceptions (including Obama of course)

Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it.

Really? Any means necessary? Now I'm what? An eco terrorist?

Doug - that is a reprehensible characterization of me as a person.

I'm not characterizing you as a person at all. I don't even know you. I am simply stating that one of the hallmarks of the hard left is that it is totally result driven. The process is irrelevant. Lying or other forms of trickery are acceptable. I suppose its also true of the hard right but the hard right has no voice and no power. Liberals care about the process.

So true Doug - Remember when the left lied about weapons of mass destruction and got us in a war for no reason. Not to mention when they implied that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. And then they said that the US would be greeted in Iraq with flowers and dance and would be seen as liberators. Damn those damn lefties with their lying and their trickery!!!

We were greeted as liberators. It's what happened after that went wrong. And much of the left lied when they pretended they opposed the war all along when they all supported it with a couple of exceptions (including Obama of course)

We were greeted as liberators initially but we overstayed our welcome and were soon seen as invaders. IMHO we also had no exit plan when things went sideways. As with Vietnam, we never seem to learn that we can't just invade a country, and set up a puppet Democracy, and expect the locals to embrace it and know how to make it work.

How do you know the left lied? it is quite possible they opposed the war initially but supported the President as there was tremendous pressure by the Bush Administration to conform and give their support. President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" so lets not pretend everyone in Congress was prowar. And lets not forget they were lied to about the existence of weapons of mass destruction by the Bush Administration when they made their decision to support the war in Iraq.

[Edited on 10/16/2014 by Bill_Graham]

We were greeted as liberators

Those tight shots of a couple of dozen people milling around the Saddam statue kind of made it look like we were greeted as liberators.

We bombed and decimated the entire city of Baghdad. You really the residents of that city were happy with us?

It's cool Doug. You have made it clear that you love bombing innocents women and children. We just have a difference of opinion. As a liberal I'll tolerate your murderous, blood thirsty, glee.

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"

This statement (or one very similar) made by President Bush at the time really bothered me. I felt as though someone needed to remind him that he was not The King of America. There was so much flag waving fervor because of 911; just showed me how easily manipulated the voting populace can be in difficult times. Kind of like the CDC telling us "Not to worry about Ebola, we've the situation under control"

Right.

Back to topic, the mere thought of Hillary Clinton calling the shots scares the living Hell out of me.

Leftists believe int he implementation of their ideas by any means necessary. It is one of the things that distinguishes the two groups. One seeks to persuade, the other will do whatever it has to including lie to get the ideas IT KNOWS to be right implemented. Thank you for being one leftist honest enough to admit it.

Really? Any means necessary? Now I'm what? An eco terrorist?

Doug - that is a reprehensible characterization of me as a person.

I'm not characterizing you as a person at all. I don't even know you. I am simply stating that one of the hallmarks of the hard left is that it is totally result driven. The process is irrelevant. Lying or other forms of trickery are acceptable. I suppose its also true of the hard right but the hard right has no voice and no power. Liberals care about the process.

So true Doug - Remember when the left lied about weapons of mass destruction and got us in a war for no reason. Not to mention when they implied that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. And then they said that the US would be greeted in Iraq with flowers and dance and would be seen as liberators. Damn those damn lefties with their lying and their trickery!!!

Hey, that looks like something I would post. Why isn't anybody on the Left complaining? Maybe they haven't seen it yet. Great job, though.

I actually enjoy your snark alloak (well, at least sometimes). I find it a nice break from the rehashing of right-wing talking points that seem to get repeated over and over without any thought put into it at all.

We were greeted as liberators

Those tight shots of a couple of dozen people milling around the Saddam statue kind of made it look like we were greeted as liberators.

We bombed and decimated the entire city of Baghdad. You really the residents of that city were happy with us?

It's cool Doug. You have made it clear that you love bombing innocents women and children. We just have a difference of opinion. As a liberal I'll tolerate your murderous, blood thirsty, glee.

I remember vividly the watching the convoy of US tanks moving into Iraq on TV, and I never once saw any smiles, cheering, dancing, or other signs of happiness from the locals as the convoy passed through their towns and villages. But whatever, if you say so the right has never lied about anything and are always completely upfront and honest than who am I to disagree. I guess it's time for me to worry about Obama's evil plan to infect he entire US population with ebola so as to some how bring about a one world government controlled by the Muslims. I think that's what my daily right-wing propaganda email said this morning. I'll go back and check since now we've concluded that only the left lies.