Quit picking on Obama……


YukonJack
Conservative
#31
"They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I am flattered. But surely you can be more original than that?"

Another proverb would have been more appropriate then, just as it would be now:

"There is none so blind as he who will not see".
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#32
The truth is that it was an EVEN Supreme Court with Sandra O'Connor being the swing voter.

Wrong, Yukon Jack. Sandra O’Connor was a Republican, she was a Reagan appointee. And she voted to give the presidency to Bush, big surprise there.

The fact that Bush cleaned floor with Gore in two out three debates never made any difference.

Wrong again. According to opinion polls, Gore won the debates.

No matter how you color it, it was a partisan apolitical decision by the Supreme Court that gave Bush the presidency. And that really set the stage for the following eight years. Bush managed to split the country right down the middle. It was the classic Carl Rowe strategy, divide and conquer (and it worked, for Bush anyway).
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#33
"No matter how you color it, it was a partisan apolitical decision by the Supreme Court that gave Bush the presidency."

Definition of the word: "apolitical": 'Having repugnance for, or disinterest in, politics, with no involvement. Having no interest, politically'.

So, you are right: it was an "apolitical" decicion. That is what I tried to say to you all along.

Seems like you are still not prepared to give a counter argument (heaven knows you have avoided it forever) regarding Gore's pathetic inability to win his own state, which would have made the entire Florida fiasco immaterial.

So, no matter how you spin it colour it, try to falsify it and deny it, the U.S. Supreme Court did not steal the votes of Tennesse and Arkansas from Gore and give it to Bush. It was his own fault and in retrospect, a good thing too. If can you not earn the respect of the citizens in your own state you must be delusional to think you can win the respect of the Nation.

.
 
DaSleeper
#34
Walter: I started this thread as a lark .....in the hope that others would add faux pas' by other Presidents and possibly even Prime Ministers....and to show that every body makes mistakes......Instead "Canadian Democrats" and "Canadian Republicans" have made this a pissin' match.....even going back to counting chads all over again......
Only one maybe two "Americans" posted in this thread....Looks like some Canadians get more inflamed over American politics than Americans do
Last edited by DaSleeper; Apr 13th, 2009 at 11:48 AM..
 
EagleSmack
#35
The Liberal Left have been accussing GOP President's ever since Reagan whipped Carter. Back then it was called (and still is by the Liberals) the "October Surprise". The sore losing Democrats accused Reagan of secretly cutting a deal with Iran to keep the embassy staff hostage until after the elections.

Bush beat Gore and then beat Kerry... fair and square yet he is accused of "stealing" both elections.
 
EagleSmack
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post


Seems like you are still not prepared to give a counter argument (heaven knows you have avoided it forever) regarding Gore's pathetic inability to win his own state, which would have made the entire Florida fiasco immaterial.


.

That was pathetic and hilarious at the same time. Gore couldn't even carry his home state!
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#37
"No matter how you color it, it was a partisan apolitical decision by the Supreme Court that gave Bush the presidency."

Definition of the word: "apolitical": 'Having repugnance for, or disinterest in, politics, with no involvement. Having no interest, politically'.

So, you are right: it was an "apolitical" decicion. That is what I tried to say to you all along.


Yukon Jack, that was a typo and you very well know it. What I meant was,

"No matter how you color it, it was a partisan, a political decision by the Supreme Court that gave Bush the presidency."
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#38
So, no matter how you spin it colour it, try to falsify it and deny it, the U.S. Supreme Court did not steal the votes of Tennesse and Arkansas from Gore and give it to Bush.

Yukon Jack, Supreme Court stopped the recount going on in Florida, and effectively handed the election to Bush by a 5 to 4 partisan, political vote.

It was his own fault and in retrospect, a good thing too.

Indeed. I assume you think that Bush was the greatest president ever (or second greatest, after Reagan? After all, Reagan was your Messiah, and the Messiah of all Republicans). Let us see what Bush gave USA (and rest of the world)

Dot com meltdown

2001 – 2002 economic slowdown, deep recession (NASDAQ crashed from 5500 to 1100).

Fiasco of Katrina aftermath (for which a majority of Americans blame Bush)

Iraq war, resulting in death of 4000 Americans and 500,000 Iraqis (I assume Iraqi lives don’t matter all that much to you, most of them were Muslims).

The worst economic meltdown since the great depression (it may well rival the Great depression, the jury is still out).

Banking crises (and the resultant credit crunch, caused by Bush and Republicans getting rid of most of the regulations on businesses and neglecting to carry out what little oversight was still permitted by the law.

So I agree with you, he was a great conservative President. I suppose one cannot really expect more than that from a conservative. After all conservatives have been famous for economic mismanagement in the recent memory, why should Bush be any different?
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

That was pathetic and hilarious at the same time. Gore couldn't even carry his home state!

EagleSamck, pointing out past triumphs by Republicans (implying how Republicans are the good guys and how Democrats are the spawn of the Devil) is childish and pointless. I am sure Democrats can point to as many election triumphs as Republicans, including the ones in 2006 and 2008.

The fact that Bush won did not mean that he was the representative of God (as religious right thinks) and that Gore was a spawn of the Devil (as Republicans think). It was just an election, which Bush won (many Democrats say it was handed to him by Supreme Court). Democrats have won many other elections, so have Republicans.

As I said, it is childish to point to past Republican triumphs.
 
EagleSmack
#40
And Liberals like yourself JP are Obama Worshippers. He can do no wrong and you adore him and worship at the Obama Temple.
 
EagleSmack
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

EagleSamck, pointing out past triumphs by Republicans (implying how Republicans are the good guys and how Democrats are the spawn of the Devil) is childish and pointless. I am sure Democrats can point to as many election triumphs as Republicans, including the ones in 2006 and 2008.

Listen to you! Do you even read what you post?

Quote:

The fact that Bush won did not mean that he was the representative of God (as religious right thinks) and that Gore was a spawn of the Devil (as Republicans think).

Although you think Obama is and Liberals like you DID call Bush the devil MANY times.

Quote:

It was just an election, which Bush won

That's right he did.

Quote:

(many Democrats say it was handed to him by Supreme Court).

Of course they did. They cried like babies for 8 years... some still do... <cough> ahem.


Quote:

Democrats have won many other elections, so have Republicans.

As I said, it is childish to point to past Republican triumphs.

Coming from the one who spouts off on past Democrat triumphs... real or imagined (1998... remember?)... I find that QUITE entertaining to read.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

And Liberals like yourself JP are Obama Worshippers. He can do no wrong and you adore him and worship at the Obama Temple.

Sorry, EagleSmack, but I have said it so many times; I am not into hero worship. I have also said that Obama is too conservative for me; I disagree with him on many issues.

You are free to believe what you wish, of course, but that is the reality.
 
EagleSmack
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Sorry, EagleSmack, but I have said it so many times; I am not into hero worship. I have also said that Obama is too conservative for me; I disagree with him on many issues.

You are free to believe what you wish, of course, but that is the reality.

Yes and I said I am not a Republican yet you say I am so there you go Obama Lover.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#44
Although you think Obama is and Liberals like you DID call Bush the devil MANY times.

Sorry EagleSmack, but I have never called Bush a Devil; show me even one post of mine where I did that. And why would I? What kind of insult is calling somebody a Devil, when Devil doesn’t even exist? That would be like calling somebody an Easter Bunny as a term of insult.

Coming from the one who spouts off on past Democrat triumphs... real or imagined (1998... remember?)... I find that QUITE entertaining to read.

You may find it entertaining, but evidently you don’t remember it all that well, because I never said it was a good year for Democrats. What I did say was that it was a good year for Clinton and a terrible year for Republicans. After the elections, Gingrich had to resign as Speaker of the House for the terrible election results.

1998 was a great election for Clinton, even though he wasn’t running. His presidency was looking shaky before the election; it got a new lease on life as a result of the election. Gingrich, who was trying to topple Clinton, himself fell, when he had to resign out of shame for the poor election results of 1998.

But nowhere did I say that it was a great election for Democrats.
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#45
Tell you what, SirJoseph Porter, in the name of civil discourse and in the hope we can agree to disagree, I WILL aquiesce that The Supreme Court ruled in Favour of Bush. (But not that the GAVE the Presidency to Bush).

One caveat: You similarly admit the Supreme Court would not even have been in the picture, had Gore been able to win either Tennesse or Arkansas or, especially both. THAT is the only simple little thing I would like to hear from you, alas probably never will.

The 2000 election was Gore's to lose. After all (and here I am going concede another one to you) Gore won the debates. After all, Gore was eloquent, well-spoken and educated while Bush was according to left-wing press, a bumbling idiot. After all, Gore had a vision of clean Earth, while Bush was a despicable oilman.

I am sure you consider the list of the things Bush can be accused of only partial.

It is unknown and unknowable what Gore would have done as President. But one thing we DO KNOW: He did not become President, simply because he did not have what it takes to be one not because of any Supreme Court decicion.

"Yukon Jack, that was a typo and you very well know it."

No, I don't! You say things time after time that are beyond real. Name any conservative poster here, who claimed that Ragan/Bush is Messiah. Who ever - other than you, of course - use the expression descibing someone liberal/Democrat as "spawn of the Devil?" Or describing someone conservative/Republican as "representative of God"?

Based on past experiences, I do not expect a satisfactory and reasonable reply.
Last edited by YukonJack; Apr 13th, 2009 at 12:33 PM..
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Yes and I said I am not a Republican yet you say I am so there you go Obama Lover.


I know you have said that you are not a Republican. However, everything you write tells a different story. In these forums you haven’t had a good word to say about any Democrats (least of all Obama), you have had nothing but praises for Republicans.

Anybody can say that they don’t belong to a particular party; I suppose that sounds more respectable than to admit that you belong to a party. And for all I know, you may not be a card carrying member of the Republican Party. However, you come across as very much a conservative from all you write. Combine this with the fact that you have never had a good word to say about Obama (except perhaps a vague wish that he succeeds), makes me conclude that you indeed are a Republican, even though you deny it.

On the other hand, I have said many times that I don’t think much of Obama; he is too conservative for me. I have even outlined issues where I disagree with him (abortion, gay marriage, universal health care etc.).

So if you want to consider me an Obama lover, that is your right. However, my conclusion that you are a Republican (or at least a Republican supporter) is based upon facts, while your conclusion that I am an Obama lover is based upon bias, nothing else, no facts.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#47
You haven't proven you're not a blowhard either....
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#48
The 2000 election was Gore's to lose.

I don’t know that it was Yukon Jack; I don’t think Gore was convincingly ahead at any time, I think it was pretty much neck and neck throughout. I also remember Bush being convincingly ahead a time or two.

After all, Gore had a vision of clean Earth, while Bush was a despicable oilman.

Indeed. And that may have been one of the reasons why Gore lost. I have said it before; it is very difficult to get people to rally behind environmental cause. Oilman like Bush offers people jobs, money, prosperity. What can environmentalists offer? Only the vague promise that the children won’t live in a polluted, dying earth. Even if that is true, that is safely in the future, money, prosperity that the oilman offers is here and now. So it wouldn’t’ surprise me if Gore's strong pro-environmental stand hurt him in the election, and Bush’s strong anti-environmental stand helped him.

I am sure you consider the list of the things Bush can be accused of only partial.

Correct.

It is unknown and unknowable what Gore would have done as President.

True. But Gore would have continued in Clinton’s footsteps, running budget surpluses (Bush blew all the surplus away as soon as he came to power, by tax cuts mostly benefiting the rich). Also, no way Gore would have invaded Iraq.
 
A4NoOb
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

RanchHand, the reason there was so much rancor with Bush is that Democrats feel, rightly or wrongly, that Bush stole the 2000 election. Gore got more votes than Bush; the recount in Florida was under way.

Then the Republican majority on Supreme Court ordered the recount stopped, effectively giving the election to another Republican, Bush. The vote was 5 to 4, All Republican justices voting one way, all Democratic justices voting the other.

That's flat out false. There were numerous recounts that were actually finalized and produced the same result that Bush won. The problem was that the Democrats kept asking for more recounts until a point where the Supreme Court realized they were wasting time. There were at least two recounts which were finalized, so don't pretend as though the "Republican majority" were the ones being underhanded, when it was the Democrats that were just trying to prolong the inevitable. In fact, if we're going to talk about being underhanded, it was the Democrats who didn't even count military votes sent over mail (which would have been obviously for Republicans). Or should we take into consideration the Democrats who voted on behalf of dead people in Illinois?

Quote:

The Democrats on the other hand, never forgave Bush for stealing the election. And this included Democratic voters as well, not just Democratic politicians. Also, Bush was not interested in bipartisanship. He, along with Carl Rowe decided to become the President of 50%+1 people from day one. Indeed, that was the strategy of Carl Rowe, divide and conquer. His strategy was to keep 50%+1 Americans happy and hang the rest.

Are we acting as though Obama also claims for bipartisanship? I could careless if that's what Obama tells the media, so far almost all of his policies have been partisan. You seem to forget that Bush throughout his first term had an approval rating similar to Obama's. You're just outlining your own bias at this point by claiming Bush had poor relations with the American people.

Quote:

And it worked; Bush won in 2004 by a narrow margin. So neither Bush nor the Democrats were interested in reaching across the isle. Whatever rancor was there, I think Bush was largely responsible for that, with his antics.

I wouldn't even call that election a "narrow" win. The public vote for Kerry was pretty much set with his liteny of false heroics. Not to mention the public approval of Bush's foreign actions were relatively high. If we're going to make this a vote issue then I should see you against Clinton winning with a 43% vote (since the majority of right wing voters were divided between republicans and the independent).

Quote:

With Obama, it is different. He won the election convincingly, struck a bipartisan note right from the beginning, he kept some Bush appointees on, included some Republicans in his cabinet. So it is only the rabid right wingers who have a visceral hatred for him, the rest of the American electorate is willing to wait and see how he performs.

Rabid right wingers don't include the long line of economists and foreign advisors who flat out disagree with his policies. Obama is really nothing new to the world, he's just reusing old failed policies that make him a staunch Democrat. With the economy, I agree with his principle of action, but he's implementation was almost as bad as Bush's. We hear the list of military industries benefitting from the Iraq War (and making some convoluted reason to blame it on Bush) but when we have Obama's administration giving flat out bonuses to AIG and CitiGroup, the booing is much smaller.

You can claim that evangelical right wingers are against Obama for no reason, but if we take that in comparison to the completely stupid reasons to blame Bush, there's no leg to stand on. From Michael Moore to the NYTimes, the amount of media giving support to left wing ideologies is disproportionate to the amount of right wing media outlets. Thank god for the internet, where none of that is an issue, and what matters is fact.
Last edited by A4NoOb; Apr 13th, 2009 at 01:21 PM..
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#50
Pass it over here....
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#51
SirJosephPorter, consider changing your monicker to Artful Dodger?

If you do, don't bother. Your dodging my challenge to you to admit that Gore's loss of the 2000 election is ENTIRELY his fault for not being able carry Tennesse and/or Arkansas, is anything but arftful.

Among the glorious things Gore would have done had he been smart, savvy and man enough to win the Presidency, you forgot to mention that he would have stopped 9/11, would have stopped Katrina, not to mention the dotcom meltdown. He also probably would have cautioned Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (after the 2006 election) to refuse subprime loans to certain future delinquents, the greatest contributing factor to the current crisis.

It would be immodest of me to quote myself, but I was right. Again. And I am still waiting.
Last edited by YukonJack; Apr 13th, 2009 at 01:23 PM..
 
Kreskin
#52
The US should start a monarchy. Obama would be a great king, maybe the best king ever. He could oversee future Presidents, and rule for the next 40 years or so.
 
EagleSmack
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

The US should start a monarchy. Obama would be a great king, maybe the best king ever. He could oversee future Presidents, and rule for the next 40 years or so.

Many would agree!
 
EagleSmack
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Although you think Obama is and Liberals like you DID call Bush the devil MANY times.

Sorry EagleSmack, but I have never called Bush a Devil; show me even one post of mine where I did that. And why would I? What kind of insult is calling somebody a Devil, when Devil doesn’t even exist? That would be like calling somebody an Easter Bunny as a term of insult.

Key words "Liberals LIKE you"... and the Liberals LIKE you have called him the devil MANY times.

Quote:

Coming from the one who spouts off on past Democrat triumphs... real or imagined (1998... remember?)... I find that QUITE entertaining to read.

Quote:


You may find it entertaining, but evidently you don’t remember it all that well, because I never said it was a good year for Democrats..

Of course I do... so do you. You are trying a spin that just will not work.
 
EagleSmack
#55
[quote=SirJosephPorter;1079420]I know you have said that you are not a Republican. However, everything you write tells a different story. [quote]

The same for you.

Quote:

In these forums you haven’t had a good word to say about any Democrats (least of all Obama), you have had nothing but praises for Republicans.

Then you clearly have not read all my posts. Go back to the second midterm election for Bush and when Obama won and when he took the office.

Then you may add salt and eat those words...

Or maple syrup... whatev

Quote:

Anybody can say that they don’t belong to a particular party;

And anyone can say they don't LOVE OBAMA and still defend him post after post... after post.

Quote:

I suppose that sounds more respectable than to admit that you belong to a party.

It does?

Quote:

And for all I know, you may not be a card carrying member of the Republican Party. However, you come across as very much a conservative from all you write.

Well what do you know... I think he's getting it!


Quote:

Combine this with the fact that you have never had a good word to say about Obama (except perhaps a vague wish that he succeeds),

FAILED.

Praised him on going after some of the CEO's of the BIG THREE and Wall St.


Quote:

makes me conclude that you indeed are a Republican, even though you deny it.

Failed... do your research

Quote:

On the other hand, I have said many times that I don’t think much of Obama; he is too conservative for me. I have even outlined issues where I disagree with him (abortion, gay marriage, universal health care etc.).

Yeah you've said that...

Inbetween drooling on him.

Quote:

So if you want to consider me an Obama lover, that is your right. However, my conclusion that you are a Republican (or at least a Republican supporter) is based upon facts,

Nyet...

In fact... I ruined you in this post.

Quote:

while your conclusion that I am an Obama lover is based upon bias, nothing else, no facts.

And behavoir... and responding to everyone's post if we are having fun tooling on OUR President... not yours. Although feel the need to defend him at every step in every thread... he's American (or Kenyan) and Our's.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Let us see what Bush gave USA (and rest of the world)

Dot com meltdown

Bush had nothing to do with the dotcom bubble. Two minutes worth of reading would tell you that.

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

2001 – 2002 economic slowdown, deep recession (NASDAQ crashed from 5500 to 1100).

Throughout 1999 and into 2000, interest rates were increased and the economy was beginning to slow down. The economy runs in cycles and by blaming Bush for these cycles, it appears you see him as far more influential on these matters than I do. Then there was that whole 9/11 thing which I suppose you blame on Bush as well.

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Fiasco of Katrina aftermath (for which a majority of Americans blame Bush)

..because the majority of Americans don't know much about disaster preparedness. Nagin and Blanco are responsible for the Katrina klusterf*ck.

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

The worst economic meltdown since the great depression (it may well rival the Great depression, the jury is still out).

Bush didn't create the housing bubble...sorry to disappoint you. In fact, Obama and his ACORN buddies hold considerably more liability on that issue.

Bush has made lots of mistakes however, criticizing him for things he isn't responsible for makes it look like you are grasping at straws and only hurts the very little credibility you have left.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

I know you have said that you are not a Republican. However, everything you write tells a different story.


What's your point? You claim not to be a pompous twit but everything you write tells a different story.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#58
That's flat out false. There were numerous recounts that were actually finalized and produced the same result that Bush won. The problem was that the Democrats kept asking for more recounts until a point where the Supreme Court realized they were wasting time. There were at least two recounts which were finalized, so don't pretend as though the "Republican majority" were the ones being underhanded, when it was the Democrats that were just trying to prolong the inevitable. In fact, if we're going to talk about being underhanded, it was the Democrats who didn't even count military votes sent over mail (which would have been obviously for Republicans). Or should we take into consideration the Democrats who voted on behalf of dead people in Illinois?

RanchHand, the Florida election was a total mess. Perhaps a recount of the whole state may have been the answer, I don’t know. But I do know what Supreme Court did was the worst of all possible worlds.

You seem to forget that Bush throughout his first term had an approval rating similar to Obama's.

No he didn’t. A few months after he came to office, just before 9/11, his approval rating was down to 40 %. Bush was going down; he may not have survived the first term at the rate he was going. 9/11 saved him. His popularity soared after 9/11; people always rally behind the President whenever there is a crises.

But go back and check the numbers, Bush was down to 40% by July or August 2001, just a few months after he took office.

I wouldn't even call that election a "narrow" win.

I would. Bush won what, by 2 or 3% (against Kerry)? That is a narrow win, in my book. In terms of electoral votes, he won by Ohio. Flip Ohio and Kerry wins. It was a narrow victory, by all measures.


Not to mention the public approval of Bush's foreign actions were relatively high.

Not in November 2002, it was around 52% (or whatever votes he got).

I should see you against Clinton winning with a 43% vote (since the majority of right wing voters were divided between republicans and the independent).

And how do you know that to be the case? How do you know that most or all of Perot supporters would have voted for Bush? Nothing of the sort, Perot had no love lost for Bush, he hated Bush’s guts, that is why he was running against him.

In fact, when Perot withdrew from the race (he rejoined the race afterwards), he chose the right moment to do so, during Democratic convention. His withdrawal gave Clinton a big boost in the polls, for the first time he pulled ahead of Bush (for a long time he was running third, behind Bush and Perot).

So if anything Perot’s voters were more likely to vote for Clinton than for Bush.

Rabid right wingers don't include the long line of economists and foreign advisors who flat out disagree with his policies.

Hardly a long line. The consensus among economists is that the stimulus package was it was necessary. Many economists feel that stimulus package was not large enough. There are a few right wing economists who think that there would not have been any stimulus package at all, same as rabid right wingers. Most of these right wingers had no problem with Bush stimulus package, but they were vehemently opposed to Obama’s package.

Thank god for the internet, where none of that is an issue, and what matters is fact.

That is a good one, RanchHand. Facts matter on Internet? Anybody can publish any sort of rubbish, any sort of nonsense on Internet and those must be regarded as facts? Or is it only right wing propaganda that must be regarded as facts?

Well, you may believe propaganda of the right on the internet (such an American Thinker), I don’t’ believe anything I read on the Internet unless it comes from a reputable source. A right wing source is not a reputable source (neither is a left wing one for that matter).

This line provided me with today’s laugh, what matters on the Internet is facts.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#59
If you do, don't bother. Your dodging my challenge to you to admit that Gore's loss of the 2000 election is ENTIRELY his fault for not being able carry Tennesse and/or Arkansas, is anything but arftful.

That is total nonsense, Yukon Jack, I didn’t respond to it because I hardly thought it worth responding. Gore lost because he did not carry Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Utah, Virginia and any of the other 25 or 30 states that he did not carry.

It is nonsense to point to a particular state and claim that if he had won that state, he would have won the election. So what? If he had carried Utah (3 electoral votes?), he would have won, if he had carried Oklahoma he would have won. The whole thing is nonsense.

Among the glorious things Gore would have done had he been smart, savvy and man enough to win the Presidency, you forgot to mention that he would have stopped 9/11, would have stopped Katrina, not to mention the dotcom meltdown. He also probably would have cautioned Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (after the 2006 election) to refuse subprime loans to certain future delinquents, the greatest contributing factor to the current crisis.

Gore would not have squandered away all the surplus by giving tax cuts to the rich. Then when economic downturn came, he would be in a better position to deal with it, and not blow the deficit sky high, as Bush did. While Bush was spending like a drunken sailor, Liberals in Canada were running a huge surplus, so it could be done. Gore would have governed like Clinton, or like Liberals in Canada. It is highly unlikely that USA would have piled up astronomical deficits due to dot com meltdown; If Gore had been the President.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

No he didn’t. A few months after he came to office, just before 9/11, his approval rating was down to 40 %.

Wrong - as usual. Why do you continue to post utter nonsense that a 12-year old can refute in 30 seconds?

www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm (external - login to view)
 

Similar Threads

11
Gorilla Wasn't Picking A Fight
by mt_pockets1000 | Jun 20th, 2009
14
Picking Fights
by Jersay | Jun 22nd, 2006
no new posts