Anti War BHO Says Afghanistan 'A War That We Have To Win'

[Stalker2]

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/9476/ghass215nf6.jpg
BHO. (Photo Jack McJohnson AP)

Obama says Afghanistan 'a war that we have to win'

By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 23 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Contending that the U.S. is not pursuing a sound strategy for keeping Americans safe, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Tuesday that fighting al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan would be his top priority after ending the war in Iraq.

"This is a war that we have to win," Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery at the International Trade Center in Washington.
In a major speech on Iran and national security, Obama said he would also secure nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue nations, achieve "true energy security," and rebuild the nation's international alliances.
The speech sets the stage for Obama's upcoming visit to Iraq and offers a high-profile explanation of his opposition to the war and his pledge to complete a U.S. troop pullout within 16 months of becoming president. It also gives him a forum for criticizing President Bush and his rival for the presidency, Republican John McCain.
"By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe," Obama said. "In fact — as should have been apparent to President Bush and Sen. McCain — the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was."
Obama said the Bush strategy that McCain supports has placed the burden for U.S. foreign policy on American military. National security policy should go well beyond Baghdad, he said, and involve allies around the world. He focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, saying that if the U.S. were attacked again, it likely would be from the same region where the Sept. 11 attacks were planned.
"Sen. McCain said — just months ago — that Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq. I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq," Obama said.
Later in the day, Obama was expected to conduct a series of television interviews to bolster his remarks.
McCain planned to respond during a town-hall meeting in Albuquerque, N.M., but his staff released his remarks before the event.
"Sen. Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan," according to McCain. "And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."
Meanwhile, the New York Daily News reported that the Obama campaign altered its Web site to remove a statement that Bush's surge of troops in Iraq "is not working." Over the weekend, the site was changed to describe an "improved security situation" at the cost of U.S. lives.
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi told the newspaper that Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."
The flurry of activity comes a day after an Obama op-ed piece in the New York Times that called for the additional Afghanistan brigades and argued the U.S. faces a growing threat from a resurgent al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
McCain planned an address Thursday focused on Afghanistan. Nine U.S. soldiers were killed and 14 injured in a militant attack Sunday, the military's highest death toll there in three years.
While he has accused Obama of favoring surrender in Iraq by outlining a troop withdrawal timetable, McCain told reporters on Monday, "I think we need to do whatever is necessary (in Afghanistan) and that could entail more troops."
Obama, a freshman senator from Illinois, has visited Iraq only once and has never been to Afghanistan. He plans to visit both during a trip that will also take him to Jordan and Israel in the Middle East, as well as European capitals in Germany, France and Great Britain.
He will be accompanied on the trip by Sens. Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed. Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, is a Vietnam War veteran, while Reed is a West Point graduate and former Army Ranger. Both have been mentioned as possible Obama vice presidential running mates.

McCain, an Arizona senator and former Vietnam prisoner of war, has lambasted Obama for his lack of travel in the region and for not meeting in Iraq with the top U.S. commander, Army Gen. David Petraeus.
Obama has been trumpeting the fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American forces included in a deal needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end. Bush opposes a withdrawal timetable, arguing it will embolden insurgents and prompt them to lay in wait for a U.S. departure.

LINK: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_el_pr/obama_iraq
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP0wkySJbDI&eurl

[Fr. Dougal]

"Immediate withdrawal" becomes "16-month withdrawal."

"No war" becomes "Move the troops to the Afghanistan war."

"Surge is not working" becomes "improved security situation."

and the criticism over the Mission Accomplished banner becomes a line saying "Our troops have accomplished every mission we've given them" in his speech today.


But he's not a flip flopper... :icon_roll

[WOWmagnet]

Wait for it...

wait for it...

libspin on the way.....

[THE FEZ MAN]

the war in Iraq and the one in Afghanistan are two different things, i was and am all for what was going on in Afghanistan, Iraq was and is complete bullshit. i dont under stand what is wrong with changing your mind about something after doing more research? or is changing your mind about something wrong? i dont get it other than one more attack on the boogie man

[DanaReevesLungs]

Honestly, who gives a fuck anymore? I won't be voting for either of these assholes. Are you guys on the McCain payroll? Neither of them appeal to me in any way. McCain may be the lesser of two evils, but he still has an agenda that I'm not comfortable with. The economy will take a further hit with McCain and with Obama, I haven't the slightest clue. He's changed his position on 11 out of 12 of his campaign stances, the only position he hasn't changed on is drilling for oil. You can blame the liberals all you want for our current state, but there wasn't a Democrat controlled Congress when the economy started to tank or the dollar started to weaken. Point the finger to make yourself feel better, but the fucking Republicans have put us into a shithole and the Democrats can't think of a way to get us out of it. Lame duck President and Congress. It's time for a revolution.

[DanaReevesLungs]

the war in Iraq and the one in Afghanistan are two different things, i was and am all for what was going on in Afghanistan, Iraq was and is complete bullshit. i dont under stand what is wrong with changing your mind about something after doing more research? or is changing your mind about something wrong? i dont get it other than one more attack on the boogie man

The problem is that Obama has changed his mind on generally ever stance he had when he was in the Primary against Hillary. I've heard on radio shows and such that the only reason he's getting away with this for the most part is because the only man who would have brought it to everyone's attention is dead....Tim Russert.

I agree we should be out of Iraq right now. Afghanistan is a different story all together.

[THE FEZ MAN]

well that's kind of the thing isn't it, when he was "selling himself" to the dems, its one story, when your selling your self to the rest of america you need to take a different road. if mc crazy had to fight the way the spook did to become the chosen one than you can bet he would be two stepping and tap dancing the same way.

[Vyce]

He's changed his position on 11 out of 12 of his campaign stances, the only position he hasn't changed on is drilling for oil. You can blame the liberals all you want for our current state, but there wasn't a Democrat controlled Congress when the economy started to tank or the dollar started to weaken.

Pity, then, that the Democrats ran an entire campaign - WINNING on it, mind you - that they were going to reduce oil prices and strengthen the economy. As they've failed utterly. That I absolute can and will point fingers about, considering they specifically won the 2006 elections based on those promises.

Little wonder they've got an approval rating in the single digits.

[MrBogey]

Pity, then, that the Democrats ran an entire campaign - WINNING on it, mind you - that they were going to reduce oil prices and strengthen the economy. As they've failed utterly. That I absolute can and will point fingers about, considering they specifically won the 2006 elections based on those promises.

Little wonder they've got an approval rating in the single digits.

Hey, they promised change. Before they got in the economy was growing at a small but decent rate and gas was holding steady at around 2$ a gallon. And look at how that all changed.

[DanaReevesLungs]

Pity, then, that the Democrats ran an entire campaign - WINNING on it, mind you - that they were going to reduce oil prices and strengthen the economy. As they've failed utterly. That I absolute can and will point fingers about, considering they specifically won the 2006 elections based on those promises.

Little wonder they've got an approval rating in the single digits.

Doesn't change the fact that the Republicans got us into this state. I guess the Republicans succeeded so well in keeping our dollar strong and economy upright that we should praise them. Never mind that just in my business alone, 14,000 people have lost their jobs this year.

People were stupid for believing that anyone running for a political seat would make much, if any, change in the current administration's stronghold on the war and the economy.

Hey, they promised change. Before they got in the economy was growing at a small but decent rate and gas was holding steady at around 2$ a gallon.

Gas prices were steady when?

According to what I see from this info for the U.S. Energy Information Administration, gas prices haven't remained "steady" since the Summer of 2002. Even the year prior to this lame duck Congress taking office, gas prices were anything but "steady", fluctuating $.70 per gallon.

And look at how that all changed.

Changed PRIOR to them taking office and has continued to change AFTER they took office. I guess we should place all previous blame on them too. Just like we shouldn't blame Bush for what Clinton set up, right?

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mg_rt_usm.htm
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/8459/gaspricesad4.jpg

[MrBogey]

Ok...here's your shot.

which policies enacted by Republicans got us here.

Edit: I think going from 1.60-2.80 over 5 or so years isn't as bad as going from 2.88 to 4.00 in 2 years.

[DanaReevesLungs]

Ok...here's your shot.

which policies enacted by Republicans got us here.

I don't know, but I'd welcome you to show me what policies by either party have put us where we are.

[DanaReevesLungs]

Edit: I think going from 1.60-2.80 over 5 or so years isn't as bad as going from 2.88 to 4.00 in 2 years.

I can refute that argument when during Clinton's entire presidency (Jan 1993 to Jan 2001) gas only went up $.385.

[SaltyDelights]

This Obama character is every bit as sinister with his open policies as he is with his private, anti-American extremism - which we have only begun to learn bits and pieces of.

This nation stands to suffer a devastating fate both during and after Obama's presidency. Let's just hope we don't ignore the warnings signs.

[MrBogey]

I can refute that argument when during Clinton's entire presidency (Jan 1993 to Jan 2001) gas only went up $.385.

You mean the presidency where Republicans clearly dominated congress?

Edit: C'mon, give me some examples of how Republicans caused this mess.

[DanaReevesLungs]

You mean the presidency where Republicans clearly dominated congress?

Edit: C'mon, give me some examples of how Republicans caused this mess.

I don't know, but I'd welcome you to show me what policies by either party have put us where we are.

Are you fucking illiterate? Why don't you show me how Democrats did all of this then.

[Zona992006]

the war in Iraq and the one in Afghanistan are two different things, i was and am all for what was going on in Afghanistan, Iraq was and is complete bullshit. i dont under stand what is wrong with changing your mind about something after doing more research? or is changing your mind about something wrong? i dont get it other than one more attack on the boogie man

Afghanistan is a totally different war, but you cant get that thru to some people. We didnt get into Afghanistan based on a lie.

Flip Flops...?

We should list all the things McCain and Obama have Flip flopped on.

I know its easy to say flip flop..but if you actually look, you will find one of these two didnt. One said the same thing over and over again, but you just werent listening.

[MrBogey]

Are you fucking illiterate? Why don't you show me how Democrats did all of this then.

For oil? Environmental policy that prohibits and discourages domestic drilling.

For energy: Environmental policy the prohibits nuclear energy.

And here we are. Now you prove how Democrats did everything they could to avoid 4$ gas and have plentiful energy.

[DanaReevesLungs]

For oil? Environmental policy that prohibits and discourages domestic drilling.

For energy: Environmental policy the prohibits nuclear energy.

And here we are. Now you prove how Democrats did everything they could to avoid 4$ gas and have plentiful energy.

So why didn't the Republican brains introduce policies to allow for drilling and allow for nuclear power when they were the majority? Was it Bush or the Republican-controlled Congress who didn't have the balls to tell the special interest groups to go fuck themselves? Sounds to me like both parties are to blame. Democrats for making the policy, Republicans for not reversing the policy. The Republicans had 5 years to fucking reverse it and they did nothing. Now when it's biting us in the ass people like you point the fingers at the policy makers, but not at those who could have reversed it.

[MrBogey]

So why didn't the Republican brains introduce policies to allow for drilling and allow for nuclear power when they were the majority? Was it Bush or the Republican-controlled Congress who didn't have the balls to tell the special interest groups to go fuck themselves? Sounds to me like both parties are to blame. Democrats for making the policy, Republicans for not reversing the policy.

You mean like why didn't the Republicans pass ANWR drilling? They did. Several times. Democrats rejected it and made sure it never got past the Congress. Republicans don't have 60 votes in the Senate to do as they wish.

So what's your strategy? Kick out the bums who tried to expand domestic energy and replace them with the assholes who think 4$ gas is wonderful? Pure. fucking. genius.

[DanaReevesLungs]

You mean like why didn't the Republicans pass ANWR drilling? They did. Several times. Democrats rejected it and made sure it never got past the Congress. Republicans don't have 60 votes in the Senate to do as they wish.


So the Democrats basically have free will when they have majority of Congress but the Republicans never do?

So what's your strategy? Kick out the bums who tried to expand domestic energy and replace them with the assholes who think 4$ gas is wonderful? Pure. fucking. genius.

Actually, I don't vote unless I find a candidate whose stance is for the most part in line with mine. I didn't vote Nelson back into the Senate in my state. He's downright awful, but since he didn't piss enough people off and is a Democrat, he won re-election.

So, no, that's not my strategy at all. The Democrats came in the majority because the people of this country were fed up with the lies Bush had told time and time again. Was the result of that shift from Republican to Democrat the right one? Not at all, but that's not to say leaving the people who were there in power would have done any better. We're all Monday morning quarterbacks with tons of answers, but no one's listening to us where it matters. Pelosi and Reid are the worst two people who are running our country outside of Bush, Cheney and Rove.

Maybe we should just start over. Viva La Revolucion?

[Begbie]

So the Democrats basically have free will when they have majority of Congress but the Republicans never do?

Well, when there's a democrat in office ready to veto anything regarding ANWR, the republican led Congress can't do shit.

In this case, the republican led House and Senate voted to allow drilling in ANWR, but it was immediately vetoed by President Clinton.

[MrBogey]

So the Democrats basically have free will when they have majority of Congress but the Republicans never do?

It's a matter of getting things done. The Dems favored the status quo of doing nothing. The Republicans didn't. Guess which is fucking us now?

So, no, that's not my strategy at all. The Democrats came in the majority because the people of this country were fed up with the lies Bush had told time and time again.

Yea... all those lies about how oil wouldn't dip because he signs an EO allowing offshore drilling. And all those lies about how Iraq is a rogue state that needs to go. Awful man that Bush fella.

[DanaReevesLungs]

Well, when there's a democrat in office ready to veto anything regarding ANWR, the republican led Congress can't do shit.

In this case, the republican led House and Senate voted to allow drilling in ANWR, but it was immediately vetoed by President Clinton.

It's a matter of getting things done. The Dems favored the status quo of doing nothing. The Republicans didn't. Guess which is fucking us now?

I hope I'm reading this right, otherwise my next statement applies to Begbie. But if you're referring to them doing nothing while in Congress, I'd disagree. While THIS Democrat-controlled Congress has done nothing, obviously others have.

The Republican-controlled Congress had 5 years to make offshore and ANWR drilling possible and they didn't do it. On the other hand, the Democrats you so despise, made it to where we couldn't offshore drill or drill in ANWR. So that point of yours is moot.

Yea... all those lies about how oil wouldn't dip because he signs an EO allowing offshore drilling. And all those lies about how Iraq is a rogue state that needs to go. Awful man that Bush fella.

The first "lie" you state wasn't the main reason why so many Republicans lost their seats. As for the second lie, I don't have any knowledge of Iraq being considered a rogue state. Iraq is not where we ever needed to be. They were never a threat nor was Saddam assisting Al Queada in any way. It's the lie from Bush about Iraq being an eminent threat that led to a Democrat-controlled Congress today.

[MrBogey]

I hope I'm reading this right, otherwise my next statement applies to Begbie. But if you're referring to them doing nothing while in Congress, I'd disagree. While THIS Democrat-controlled Congress has done nothing, obviously others have.

The Republican-controlled Congress had 5 years to make offshore and ANWR drilling possible and they didn't do it. On the other hand, the Democrats you so despise, made it to where we couldn't offshore drill or drill in ANWR. So that point of yours is moot.

A brick wall, your head is! What 5 years? The deadlocked 5 years? Or the Clinton 6 years? Or the Democrat controlled 2?


They were never a threat nor was Saddam assisting Al Queada in any way. It's the lie from Bush about Iraq being an eminent threat that led to a Democrat-controlled Congress today.

Yea, I like to keep repeating things as if they're true sometimes until the other guy tires out every now and then too.

In this case I don't have to. You're the victim of spin. Congrats for being a rube. Iraq had ties to terrorism. Iraq was a threat. What kind of simpleton waits till they can't win a clean-cut victory over a rival? How about this. Iran isn't an "imminent threat" ergo we should let them get a few A-bombs...then that'll make them an imminent threat and after we have a few nukes go off...we'll go in. That way you can feel good about yourself and know that the president didn't "lie".

[DanaReevesLungs]

A brick wall, your head is! What 5 years? The deadlocked 5 years? Or the Clinton 6 years? Or the Democrat controlled 2?

Republicans had the MAJORITY in Congress when Bush became President and they still couldn't get shit done, but pass every bill Bush presented to them. They were the Yes-men for Bush till it backfired.

Yea, I like to keep repeating things as if they're true sometimes until the other guy tires out every now and then too.

In this case I don't have to. You're the victim of spin. Congrats for being a rube. Iraq had ties to terrorism. Iraq was a threat. What kind of simpleton waits till they can't win a clean-cut victory over a rival? How about this. Iran isn't an "imminent threat" ergo we should let them get a few A-bombs...then that'll make them an imminent threat and after we have a few nukes go off...we'll go in. That way you can feel good about yourself and know that the president didn't "lie".

Don't fucking try to make Iraq into what Iran is. Name one way Iraq could have presented itself as a threat to us? They couldn't nor would they have whereas Iran has constantly defied our demands to not build a nuclear assortment. Yet, I'm supposedly the victim of spin and you're the messiah of information. Get your head out of your ass and your lips off of the cup that's filled with Bush's kool-aid. Every reason to invade that they gave us was a lie. No WMDs to be found, no alliance with Al Queada to be proven, no connection what-so-ever with the attacks on 9/11 and no eminent threat to our country. Iraq did not house any hierarchies of a terrorism regime until AFTER we invaded.

Keep believing we need to be in Iraq. Maybe you should talk to some more optimistic members of the Armed Forces. My cousin who is a Sergeant in the Army and a registered Republican, by the way, who has served 19 months in Iraq and 6 months in Afghanistan told me we didn't need to be in Iraq and while they've done a ton of good and made a lot of progress, the initial reasoning given to us is bullshit. He says more needs to be done in Afghanistan, but isn't happening because we were diverted from there. Why are more troops in Iraq? Because Bush had an agenda he needed to personally fulfill and now we're fucked. So what's the reason why we're there now? Is it still to give these people democracy? That's fucking horseshit too if they were such a threat and housing so many terrorists.

[MrBogey]

Again with the shifting of words. You say "no al-qaeda" then you talk of general terrorism post invasion. It's because the truth just isn't on your side. You're trying to undo over a decade of intel reports detailing ties between Saddam and terrorists by saying "well they're not Al-Qaeda". Again, does it matter less if your girlfriend sucks dick for heroin or for crack?

There were no assertions that Iraq was behind 9-11. And again...you keep bleating "no imminent threat".

'Republicans had the MAJORITY in Congress when Bush became President and they still couldn't get shit done'

Dude, it was 7 years ago and you can't remember? Republicans had the House of Representatives and a tie in the Senate for 5 months. They agreed to share power equally in the Senate. Till Jeffords bailed on the Republicans and gave control to the Democrats. From there on out all the House approved energy bills that promoted drilling and energy production got killed in the Senate.

Christ, how can you expect people to take you serious about your opinion of politics when you can't get facts right? Let me guess, you're an independent thinker and it's total coincidence all your inaccuracies favor democrat talking points?

[DanaReevesLungs]

Again with the shifting of words. You say "no al-qaeda" then you talk of general terrorism post invasion. It's because the truth just isn't on your side. You're trying to undo over a decade of intel reports detailing ties between Saddam and terrorists by saying "well they're not Al-Qaeda".

Shifting of words? Excuse me for not generalizing and just stating terrorists like you want me to. This administration stated constantly that Saddam had ties with al-Queada, not just any terrorists, until they shifted words and al-Queada wasn't mentioned again. I suppose you have the intel stating all along Saddam was running al-Queada, right? Then later after he was captured and put to trial it was finally revealed he had no ties with al-Queada, but rather other Islamic fundamental groups. I'm going on what our government stated originally, not what came out to be the truth later. And no, I don't find the second-rate Islamic terrorist groups to be the threat that al-Queada was/is.

There were no assertions that Iraq was behind 9-11. And again...you keep bleating "no imminent threat".

That's what we were told to go full steam with this stupid fucking war that's costing us an absurd amount of taxpayer money.

Dude, it was 7 years ago and you can't remember? Republicans had the House of Representatives and a tie in the Senate for 5 months. They agreed to share power equally in the Senate. Till Jeffords bailed on the Republicans and gave control to the Democrats. From there on out all the House approved energy bills that promoted drilling and energy production got killed in the Senate.

Well, maybe if Bush hadn't fucked up your party so badly, he'd get what he wants right now. I fucking despise these pussy-whipped Democratic assholes that are blocking his appeal to drill, but Bush has no one to blame but himself if he doesn't get them to budge. And the people that voted for these fucks should make sure they can't reproduce.

Let me guess, you're an independent thinker and it's total coincidence all your inaccuracies favor democrat talking points?

Maybe you should check on your inaccuracies...I've bashed everyone equally. I can't stand either party and have never leaned one way or the other, I just hate you smug right leaning cocksuckers as much as the tree hugging douchebags, but I don't see the tree huggers around as much as you.

[MrBogey]

Yea...this ain't going anywhere.

[Begbie]

Yea...this ain't going anywhere.

Does it ever?

[MrBogey]

When I get corrected I'll update my opinion.

[Fr. Dougal]

Again with the shifting of words. You say "no al-qaeda" then you talk of general terrorism post invasion. It's because the truth just isn't on your side. You're trying to undo over a decade of intel reports detailing ties between Saddam and terrorists by saying "well they're not Al-Qaeda". Again, does it matter less if your girlfriend sucks dick for heroin or for crack?

There were no assertions that Iraq was behind 9-11. And again...you keep bleating "no imminent threat".

'Republicans had the MAJORITY in Congress when Bush became President and they still couldn't get shit done'

Dude, it was 7 years ago and you can't remember? Republicans had the House of Representatives and a tie in the Senate for 5 months. They agreed to share power equally in the Senate. Till Jeffords bailed on the Republicans and gave control to the Democrats. From there on out all the House approved energy bills that promoted drilling and energy production got killed in the Senate.

Christ, how can you expect people to take you serious about your opinion of politics when you can't get facts right? Let me guess, you're an independent thinker and it's total coincidence all your inaccuracies favor democrat talking points?


:clap::clap::clap:

Oh, and this:

I don't know, but I'd welcome you to show me what policies by either party have put us where we are.

You can tie the mortgage mess directly to the Democrats' policies of handholding the lazy. Their constituents who never feel like lifting a finger, and instead would rather live off welfare. So they're either on the government dime, or they finally go out and get a shit job because they don't apply themselves. Now the Dem policies encourage lenders to give loans to these "fine, upstanding" citizens. Guess what... they can't afford it, homes foreclose, neighbors get fucked.

Hey, they promised change. Before they got in the economy was growing at a small but decent rate and gas was holding steady at around 2$ a gallon. And look at how that all changed.

The economy is STILL growing.

[DanaReevesLungs]

You can tie the mortgage mess directly to the Democrats' policies of handholding the lazy. Their constituents who never feel like lifting a finger, and instead would rather live off welfare. So they're either on the government dime, or they finally go out and get a shit job because they don't apply themselves. Now the Dem policies encourage lenders to give loans to these "fine, upstanding" citizens. Guess what... they can't afford it, homes foreclose, neighbors get fucked.

The assumptions in this one paragraph are astonishing. So, by your definition, only Democrats are on Welfare, Social Security and Food Stamps? That's one hell of an assumption. And as far as the mortgage mess dumb ass, it's tied directly to the Feds lowering interest rates, financial institutions seeing an opportunity to use those low rates to entice people into biting and ignorant people buying more home than they could afford. You can't possibly be this goddamn stupid.

The economy is STILL growing.

So glad you're seeing a growing economy where you live. It's not happening everywhere. Maybe you should get out a little more than staying in that bubble.

And let the conservative bandwagon commence......

[ThatsNotFunny]

The poor always vote Democrat because they rely on our government to take care of them via their social programs. That includes having them get bailed out of their stupid decisions to take out a loan they could never pay back. Yes, they are lazy, and yes, they're either minorities or white-guilt douches who use our tax dollars to be "charitable"...which isn't charity at all. Bah

[THE FEZ MAN]

Does it ever?

nope, thats why its called "right wing"

they are always right.

[Begbie]

nope, thats why its called "right wing"

they are always right.

Good point sir...good point! :)

[Fr. Dougal]

So glad you're seeing a growing economy where you live. It's not happening everywhere. Maybe you should get out a little more than staying in that bubble.

LOL. Bubble. Sure, pal. Whatever you say.

Fact is, one part of my job deals with writing and researching national business and economic news. So I know just a shade more than the average person who doesn't give a fuck. And the fact is the country's economy is growing. A very minimal growth, but a growth nonetheless. I'm too lazy (I must be a Democrat!) to look it up right now, but one of my fellow Wackbaggers here explained it very succinctly in another CE thread.

You probably missed it when you were out cashing in the food stamps.

Eh, whatevs... I'm done with this thread.

YMB.

[WoodenPlank]

LOL. Bubble. Sure, pal. Whatever you say.

Fact is, one part of my job deals with writing and researching national business and economic news. So I know just a shade more than the average person who doesn't give a fuck. And the fact is the country's economy is growing. A very minimal growth, but a growth nonetheless. I'm too lazy (I must be a Democrat!) to look it up right now, but one of my fellow Wackbaggers here explained it very succinctly in another CE thread.

You probably missed it when you were out cashing in the food stamps.

Eh, whatevs... I'm done with this thread.

YMB.

NOOOOOOOOOOO!
Dougal, youre not allowed to punch out.

[DanaReevesLungs]

I like how you dodge my points on the housing market being the way it is. Can't come up with any facts to show how the Democrats are directly involved. Pity.

[MrBogey]

I like how you dodge my points on the housing market being the way it is. Can't come up with any facts to show how the Democrats are directly involved. Pity.

First:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5588891/A-short-history-of-subprime.html

Then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

Created this. Politicians wanted poor people to own homes so they created shitty economic policy designed to game the system to get people into houses. One party runs exclusively on the idea that the system ought to help people buy homes they can't afford.

[DonTheTrucker]

First:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5588891/A-short-history-of-subprime.html

Then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

Created this. Politicians wanted poor people to own homes so they created shitty economic policy designed to game the system to get people into houses. One party runs exclusively on the idea that the system ought to help people buy homes they can't afford.

Not to mention the original creation of Fannie Mae by good ol' "Put the Japs in Concentration Camps" FDR.

[DanaReevesLungs]

First:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5588891/A-short-history-of-subprime.html

Then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

Created this. Politicians wanted poor people to own homes so they created shitty economic policy designed to game the system to get people into houses. One party runs exclusively on the idea that the system ought to help people buy homes they can't afford.

While the TRA of 1986 was sponsored by Democrats it was signed into law by everyone's favorite Republican. Was he coerced into signing that into law?

And as for the subprime loans, they wouldn't have gotten the low interest rate they did had the Feds not lowered it. Even in a healthy market subprime loans were still used to entice the low-income borrowers, but not with the lowest rates in history that were offered after 9/11 due to the Feds lowering it substantially. The houses that are on the market now due to subprime loan foreclosures aren't from the 90s. These loans that are being foreclosed on are only 3-5 years old loans.

I guess since the Democratss got the ball rolling it's all their fault and the Republicans cannot take even partial blame for a fucking thing yet again.