Obama '08?

roger, The "going concern" concept of asset valuation doesn't have much meaning today when housing prices continues to drop. As for the stimulus plan to help some mortgage holders is a good start; they will help only those living in primary homes, and their equity loss no greater than a certain percentage of their loans. No speculators need apply.

Not me, absolutely not, I owe him thanks.

Ayres is a hero? Huh? I give up.

Hugo Chavez, in the spirit of all great despots, is another example of people that devote their life to the downtrodden and poor. People like Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, etc., all great people, apparently according to Advocate's reasoning.

For keeping you safe?

Don't ever call anyone else a pussy again, Okie

Cycloptichorn

I would really like to hear why okie feels he needs to thank Bush. For our economy? For the war in Iraq? For his illegal wiretaps? For torturing our prisoners? For killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis? For increasing terrorism around the world? For our loss of over 4,000 of our military men and women fighting an unpopular war? For ignoring habeas corpus? For breaking with the Geneva Convention? For making more enemies than friends?

I want okie to list his "positives" about Bush, and why he needs to thank him.
I don't want okie's unsupported opinions; I want credible sources in support of his statements.

Gladly, ci.

I thank the Bush family for restoring class and decency to the White House, something we sorely lacked the previous 8 years. I thank Bush for taking his job very seriously and guiding the country through a very trying time, and for being vigilant against the external forces that seek to bring down the country. I thank Bush for loving this country dearly, as I do. In regard to the economy, I opposed Bush on domestic spending, but I did support his tax cuts. Spending is the problem not tax revenues, and unfortunately we need to work on both, so Bush failed in that regard. For the war in Iraq, I agonized over it, as everybody did, but unlike the backstabbing Congress, I supported Bush and I commend him for being resolute and committed, hence he deserves credit for winning in Iraq. For wiretaps, I am not only glad he authorized them, but I think it was his duty as commander in chief. He did not abuse that authority, that is what is important. "Torturing prisoners was never our policy, it is only a matter of definition, and Obama's own panel has reported Gitmo is in compliance. For killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, I don't think it happened, but if innocents died, blame it on Hussein, and innocents will die in every war. The fact is that our military has been more precise than any military in the history of man in regard to avoiding civilian casualties. Bush by his opposition and active enforcement has prevented terrorist acts here and has sent a strong message to every terrorist around the world. Our loss of 4,000 is unfortunate, but pales in comparison to other wars, and even single days of other wars. This world is not a perfect place, to protect ourselves requires sacrifice from time to time, and thankfully there are those that are willing to lay their life on the line for you and me. The war became unpopular, largely due to slanted and biased reporting. Habeas corpus is not deserved by enemy combatants, and even Obama is leaving prisoners in Afghansitan, so ask Obama that question. It is a stupid question anyway, by the way. Principles are more important than enemies or friends, and with that said, thank you George Bush for having principles instead of moistening your finger and sticking it in the air every day, as Clinton and Obama do.

Now, your turn, ci, how come Obama is killing innocents in Afghanistan as we speak, and why is he committing even more troops to an impossible terrain and situation there, for more of our soldiers to die, for no reason I guess you would conclude. And how about the prisoners there, what about their rights, the Geneva convention, and torture? And now if Obama fails to intercept a phone message that could have prevented a terrorist act, are you going to praise Obama for that, or are you going to hold him responsible for loss of innocent life?

Furthermore, ci, are you going to be grateful to Obama for spending trillions, and running up the largest debts in the history of mankind, a debt that cannot ever be paid unless the money supply is radically inflated at some point in the future, such that everything you worked for will be diminished in value to virtually nothing? Will you be grateful to your Messiah, ci, for all of the above, and more?

Okie, surely you are aware of irony of your post to CI since under the last three republican presidents the deficits were raised more than under it did with Clinton who had a surplus rather than a deficit?

Granted Obama's plan is going to cost us more, but he also has plans of slashing the budget line by line (probably will get both sides up in arms) as well as raising taxes on 1% and lowering it for the rest. It may not work, but neither has anything else under a conservative government.

In any event, for the most part according to a fox poll with conservative loaded questions, most people seem to favor Obama's approach to the economy over even the sainted Ronald Reagan.



Reagan got 40% and Obama got 49%.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/030509_Poll.pdf

Hmm, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Plenty of wars were fought under rules of limited engagement in the past, where armies fought during certain seasons and outside of cities - precisely in order to spare the lives of civilians.

Cycloptichorn

One of the reasons I think we will slip more toward socialism, and our standard of living will continue to decline. The voting public is changing, older people are dying off, as Demorat constituencies grow, largely through the nanny state. If Obama succeeds in national health care, he will gain a few more million constituencies, by giving them more stuff, at the expense of the producers, thus driving production down, and so on. Alot of the effects of these programs take decades to experience all of the negative effects, but make no mistake, it will happen, as more and more people look to government as the answer to all of their ills. They progressively become less self sufficient and less productive.

So do you believe if MCCain had been elected and employed the same conservative answer under which this economy crises started that the economy would have magically improved? We have done it the conservative way and it failed. It may fail with Obama but it would not have gotten any better under McCain employing the same failed policies of Bush.

It is not as though we have under a democrat president and congress for the last eight years and now should go the other way. This economy failed with a conservative president of which i never heard any criticism from hardly any conservative here except maybe immigration and the prescription drug program (which is a joke.) After 2006 democrats still did not have enough votes to get anything accomplished without the support of the president and enough republicans do vote their way.

One of your cutest qualities, Okie, is your tendency to divide our nation up into 'producers' and 'constituencies.' As if one group does all the work, and the other merely live off of the largess. I do not find this to be the case whatsoever.

Cycloptichorn

Really? Did you know that He/Bush could have had you picked up, just because you disagreed with him? Held without charges for years as an enemy combatent? Just ask Jose Padillo, an American! It was a Police-State, is what is was! So thank George, okay? What Constitution?

The dictionary definition of delusional.

okie's sense of the world is not only upside-down, but through his rose-colored eyeballs that sees color where it's black and white.

His perception of Bush confirms this observation.

Perhaps you would be willing to provide us with some examples of such wars. I can think of none.

17th & 18th century European wars were fought mostly by professional armies and in the summertime, precisely because that was advantageous to the contending states. However there was plenty of destruction of civilians and towns & villages in their path. Indeed the earlier 30 years war destroyed a large fraction of the total population.

Well for the Jose Padillo analogy to be complete you would also have to be caught with explosives in your car at the Canadian border and have ficured prominently in intercepted communications among the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks that killed thousands of Americans. Get real !

The fact is that is the precise opposite of what the fact is.

Because of the imperative to minimise US troop casualties, remote bombardments/ air strikes are used as the tactic of choice in recent operations. The result of that is increased civilian casualties.

The treatment of Pidillo was horrible, and represents a black chapter in the nation's history.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(alleged_terrorist)

Here's the direct link to the "prisoner" Padilla. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)