No. of Recommendations: 0
Back when the Bush regime was in situ, the opposition claimed it would:

A) reduce the deficit
B) shrink govt spending
C) reduce the number of foreign wars
C) close Guantanamo
D) usher in a new era of 'transparency' which would define the relationship between citizen and gov

An impressive to do list. After four years in power, has the admin managed to accomplish any of these explicitly stated goals? If not, why not? It's curious, isn't it? The deficit keeps rising. The wars keep expanding. On this board, all that's changed is that many of those previously dedicated to critiquing the last admin have embraced a new role. As the new regime's most fanatical defenders. Meanwhile, those who previously had diddly squat to say about the grotesque warfare/welfare expansion circa 2000-2009 because they were the loudest cheerleaders for the last admin have suddenly discovered a profound ideological opposition to:

A)deficits
B)printing press profligacy
C)Blowback from kneejerk counter productive militarism.

Scrap C) - The Dulce Bellum</b< crew aren't switched enough to spell 'blowback.' So much for change. Same old, same old....

I'm standing alone
You're weighing the gold
I'm watching you sinking



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSD11dnphg0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Meanwhile, those who previously had diddly squat to say about the grotesque warfare/welfare expansion circa 2000-2009 because they were the loudest cheerleaders for the last admin have suddenly discovered a profound ideological opposition to:

A)deficits
B)printing press profligacy
C)Blowback from kneejerk counter productive militarism.


Hold fast there little fella.

I suppose many saw the happenings as world events gone wild and the fact was we could not just sit idly by any longer with escalation violence culminating in 9/11. So the issues there were reactionary and seen as a means to an end (of violence or at least its trend towards violence on US soil) by outside perps. We can endlessly argue over the merits of just what was done, a better way, what "should" have been done, BUT we seem to get that something had to be done and it was not going to be pretty.

Fast forward to the new boss who made all those specific promises and the claims to make America great again and flying in the face of that are world events being larger and more ominous than "his promises". Most rail against the lies and the failed efforts and promises, while still others realize it was just hype to get elected. This also is not pretty, but the outstanding difference is the arogance that he knew better and knew what to do to make it better. All apparently lies.

Obama= The worst of the worst presidents in the last 200 years.

99
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
We can endlessly argue

No doubt. But perhaps an endless argument would be smarter than no kind of argument at all. Who apart from Ron Paul, who instead of trotting out idiotic Hollywood soundbites has tried to examine what motivates terrorism and how that might inform foreign policy, has bothered to engage in any debate? Nope. The same old drone fest. That's what substitutes for debate.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement