jjb2012,


Since your knowledge of these things is severely limited as is my time and space, I will be selectively brief on how I answer that.

First off Bush corrected his mistake of trusting Putin after Putin stabbed him in the back over the Georgia invasion.
That correction took the form of the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe.



So what was the first screw up Obumbler made? He was so sure of his own Magnificence and so sure that anything Bush did had to be wrong, that he cancelled the missile shield. That left Poland and everybody else in Putin's backyard at his mercy.

The Bush-era proposal called for the U.S. to set up a radar site in the Czech Republic and 10 missile interceptors in Poland to counter the threat of Iran launching long-range missiles at America's allies in Europe. Not Russia

Second Obama could be sending arms and training to the Ukrainians. If Putin keeps eating Ukraine we could make him puke it back up by helping the freedom fighters fight a guerilla war. No what does your idiot do? He offers them MREs. Wow that will sure deter Vlad, eh?

What happened the last time we sent arms and gave training to Afghanistan?? Not a very good outcome that time EH?

How about we speak of Syria? Geez I don't know where to start. President Obama could be supplying the Christian minorities, who are being exterminated, the Kurds, and the secular Muslims, who are at war with both Al Queda and Bashar al-Assad.

when did we become the police officers of the world?? I believe that all started under bush and congress is trying to reverse the powers of the president to unilaterally authorize military actions in other countries on his own. It used to take Congress to authorize strikes on other countries . Remember the war powers act??

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548) is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The limits of Presidential power have been expanded by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration, with orders such as the torture of prisoners



He could have done something, anything to secure the weapons that flowed out of Libya after Quadaffi fell. That group who kidnapped the 200 girls in Nigeria is well supplied with those weapons.

Lastly, as usual you misstate facts, but that's why I come here, to correct you. " We were in debt over 14 trillion before Obama " You are off by $3 to $4 Trillion. Obviously you are a proud public school graduate.

I miss typed it still does not take anything away from the point that after 30 years of Reaganomics we were ion debt 10 Trillion dollars but I guess that is acceptable to you

" Easy I supported fiscal conservatism not tax cuts for the wealthy at all costs. "

That tells me nothing. What did Democrats do that made you think you were a fiscal conservative? What years were you a " Republican ". I simply do not believe you.

jjb2012,

" The Bush-era proposal called for the U.S. to set up a radar site in the Czech Republic and 10 missile interceptors in Poland to counter the threat of Iran launching long-range missiles at America's allies in Europe. Not Russia "

Stand by for a ginormous announcement. You know how you Democrat-Liberal-Marxists were always accusing George W. Bush of lying? Well sir, in this instance you were right. The missiles were there to counter the Russian threat. Now don't you feel good about yourself?

" What happened the last time we sent arms and gave training to Afghanistan?? Not a very good outcome that time EH? "

You mean when the Russians were there? It was too a good outcome. The Russians left. Afterward does not count. If we had followed up and helped the Northern Alliance defeat the bad guys we would not have had trouble. That had NOTHING to do with the Arms and Training. NOTHING.

So in your world the outcome of us training and arming Al-Qaeda does not count. That act may have stopped Russia but resulted in the first foreign attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. That seems like a little something to me

" when did we become the police officers of the world?? I believe that all started under bush and congress is trying to reverse the powers of the president to unilaterally authorize military actions in other countries on his own. It used to take Congress to authorize strikes on other countries . Remember the war powers act?? "

In case you don't know, most Democrats in Congress voted to authorize force being used at the discretion of the President in Iraq. And the US became the force for good in the World because it learned the lessons of WW2. You and Barak Obama did not just forget them, You were playing hooky when those were taught.

I was wide awake and was also wide awake when we found out that Cheney manipulated the intelligence and LIED to everyone in america about that reasons for going into Iraq. Those Senators and Congressmen made their decisions on FALSE information
Where you asleep or did you just ignore this because it does not fit your rhetoric?

A document declassified june 20 2012 by the National Security Archive reveals that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) delivered a briefing to the Bush administration which directly contradicts former Vice President Dick Cheney’s claim that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta visited an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague.

The document (PDF), dated Dec. 1, 2001 and delivered to the White House on the 8th, claims that Atta “did not travel to the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000,” and adds that “the individual who attempted to enter the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000… was not the Atta who attacked the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.”

Despite this briefing, just days later on Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney told the late Tim Russert, host of Meet the Press, that the meeting in Prague had been “pretty well confirmed.”

Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that’s been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don’t know at this point. But that’s clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

Cheney’s claim was one of the strongest rhetorical links between the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and Iraq in the administration’s arguments for war, even though it was refuted by the CIA more than once. The initial allegation reportedly came from misinformed Czech intelligence agents, and almost became part of a 2003 speech by the president — a plan that was scrapped after the CIA station in Prague issued a still-classified cable insisting that it was not true.

Even after the CIA had again refuted the link between Iraq and the 9/11 hijacker, Cheney still repeated it during a Sept. 2003 appearance on Meet the Press. Shortly after Russert confronted him with polling that showed as much as 69 percent of Americans believed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney responded:

With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

The problem with that now appears to be that the vice president did know the intelligence was bogus, but continued repeating it to support his argument for war. No link was ever established between the Iraqi regime and the attacks of Sept. 11.

Despite insisting publicly that no deal had been made to invade Iraq in the run-up to war, notes from aides to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which were subsequently handed to reporters, showed that he directed the Pentagon to draw up invasion plans on the evening of Sept. 11, 2001.

" The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548) is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The limits of Presidential power have been expanded by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration, with orders such as the torture of prisoners "

Yea but, yea but, yea but Obama is the President and he wouldn't hurt a fly. So what is your point?

Yeah the point is Bush and Cheney expanded the war powers and started attacking all over the world with impunity and no real oversight or vote from congress. Just a little thing in your book?? Yes Obama has continued it but only in trying to get out of what Bush and Cheney got us into all over allowing our oil companies back into Iraq.

" I miss typed it still does not take anything away from the point that after 30 years of Reaganomics we were ion debt 10 Trillion dollars but I guess that is acceptable to you "

No it is not acceptable. And we did not have 30 years of Reaganomics. Bush Sr. deviated and do not tell me Bill Clinton practiced Reaganomics.

Yes it is acceptable because you mention the only 2 Presidents that actually were fiscally responsible and actually slowed the rise in our Deficit. You actually add to my point. Thank YOU. Voodoo economics has NEVER been proven to work. Reagan last drop in the Tax rate was for one thing only , to insure a republican presidency for 1989.

But tell me, is $17.4 Trillion more than $ 10.6 Trillion. So YOUR HERO Barak Obama has added almost $ 7 Trillion to the debt in less than 7 years. " but I guess that is acceptable to you "

My "hero" as you call him inherited the worst economic collapse since 1929. When he entered office the economy was Contracting by more the 6%, the stock market was cut in half and you have the "Brass" to blame him for saved our economy. Sorry but here is the truth.

Federal spending under the your god, President Reagan grew by 9.6 percent from 1980 to 1984. (Again, all of these numbers are inflation-adjusted.) Under the second President Bush, with a largely Republican Congress, federal spending grew by 16.5 percent from 2000 to 2004.

Between 2008 and fiscal 2012, total federal spending has increased by 9.9 percent, about the same amount as under Reagan and considerably less than under Bush Jr.

Spending growth of 9.6 percent makes you a great conservative hero.

Spending growth of 9.9 percent makes you a great conservative villain.

And spending growth of 16.5 percent, combined with large tax cuts, makes you a recent two-term president whom nobody in your party wants to mention, and sets your country on a financially dangerous glide path.


" I was republican when they were fiscally responsible "

When exactly was that?

" knew they were not dictators. " How can Republicans who only control the House of Representatives be dictators?

I guess you have missed the RECORD number of filibusterers in the Senate only to slow ting s down that can be accomplished by one radical senator and put a halt to anything coming out of there or maybe the bi partisan bills that have passed the senate to never even be voted on in the House

" but actually knew how to compromise. "
NO I mean the compromised bills that passed bi partisan in the Senate that never have seen the floor of the house and the majority of House bills passed totally partisan that you will complain have not been voted on when they are entirely ideological and designed ONLY to stop anything from happening. Did you miss the republican meeting the day Obama was elected the first time to "Deny passage of any legislation" Or Boehner saying we should be judged on laws repealed not by laws passed??

You mean of course surrender. When do Democrats compromise when they have power? As Pelosi said to Republicans when they asked her to compromise: " We won ".

" If the republican party stays on the path it is following it will cease to exist. "

Then you have nothing to worry about. Since you hate them anyway, you should urge them to just carry on.

I do not and did not hate the Republican party.
I do hate what they have become Hypocrites that spend like drunken sailors when in office and then obstruct to no end when they are not in power.

I do thing they are wrong on

The Minimum wage increase which as scored by the CBO would cut the food-stamps they hate by 40 billion over 10 years the exact number they wanted in the first place. A conservative idea.

equal pay for women which they have blocked.

Jobs and infrastructure bills scored by the CBO to get people off unemployment and increase GDP which they blocked.

The total refusal to reduce any welfare to extremely profitable companies such as big oil.

The refusal to address the carried interest tax rate that only benefits wall-street.

The continual attack on a women's right to have an abortion if she wants one. Which just happens to be legal since 1973 as passed by the Supreme Court.

And yes when the American people "Wake Up" and see republicans for exactly who they are we will have nothing to worry about but people like you try to put them all up on a pedestal and make them look like saviors when in fact they are the main reason we have the debt and the problems we do.


Which is why i will never stop pointing out your Hypocrisy blaming Obama for continuing the very things republicans started and profit from daily.

:thumbup: Basic political reality of the past 30 years: the Dems are the conservatives defending the status quo in federal government programs and the ones who think in terms of fiscal responsibility to make those programs workable. The GOP has become the ideological party, like the Jacksonians of the 1830s, that would trash all federal programs (SS, medicare, etc.) and when in power cut taxes so programs are in effect in deficit and defunded and then spend the budget into deficit to force cuts in programs. It is Dems, like Clinton, who aim to balance the budget so federal govt. works and GOP that in effect works to make federal govt. not work. I will say there are Dems who would carry federal government programs too far and GOPpers who are responsible, but in general the situations is as described above, and that is why I as a Hamiltonian conservative am a yellow dog Dem. I used to be a devoted elephant Republican and have an elephant figure collection I still treasure. Ironic, huh? I know where Jjb is coming from. ha. :lol: :lol: :lol:

jjb2012,

Look I love correcting you, but you make your postings far too long for me to care. I will pick out what I have time to care about.

" So in your world the outcome of us training and arming Al-Qaeda does not count. That act may have stopped Russia but resulted in the first foreign attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. That seems like a little something to me "

I dispute your claim that the terrorist attack on 911 was the outcome of our arming and training the Afghans against the Russians. Seeing as how there was a dozen years from when the Soviets pulled out until 911, I make a good case.

I say it was the US neglect of Afghanistan during those dozen years that caused the attack.

" A document declassified june 20 2012 by the National Security Archive reveals that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) delivered a briefing to the Bush administration which directly contradicts former Vice President Dick Cheney’s claim that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta visited an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. "

This is the first I have heard of the document. I would need more time to check it out before I could comment on it.

" Yeah the point is Bush and Cheney expanded the war powers and started attacking all over the world with impunity and no real oversight or vote from congress. Just a little thing in your book?? Yes Obama has continued it but only in trying to get out of what Bush and Cheney got us into all over allowing our oil companies back into Iraq. "

We are still speaking of Obama because right now he is in charge. Funny how you excuse him by saying he is trying clean up Bush's mess. And what the HELL is wrong with American oil companies doing business in Iraq! ! !

" Yes it is acceptable because you mention the only 2 Presidents that actually were fiscally responsible and actually slowed the rise in our Deficit. You actually add to my point. Thank YOU. Voodoo economics has NEVER been proven to work. Reagan last drop in the Tax rate was for one thing only , to insure a republican presidency for 1989. "

Reagan dropped the tax rates on the job creators because it worked. The economic growth rates are what's important for lower and middle class citizens to progress. I already posted the growth rates by year for Obama verses Reagan and your B, uh oh got to be careful about a racial slur, your guy loses by a lot.

AND YOU know I haven't looked at it, but I bet the only reason YOUR GUY is even competitive with Reagan on unemployment rates is because under YOUR GUY so many have quit looking. If I factored in the labor participation rates under both men, something tells me YOUR GUY would look even worse. But that's for another conversation.

" I do not and did not hate the Republican party.
I do hate what they have become Hypocrites that spend like drunken sailors when in office and then obstruct to no end when they are not in power. "

Nonsense. If you hate what they have become, you hate them. Why is it that you left wingers spew the most hateful speech and then you deny you hate anyone? I am totally honest. I hate Democrats not for what they've become, for what they've always been.