BookTalk.org

This was almost our vice president.

2009 was a test of substance vs. a bull-shit like substance (actual bullshit.)

for your fond remembrance, and to stir the rage that swells your heart, enjoy Palin's greatest hits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_ ... r_embedded

Actually, the 2008 election was a test of bullshit v more bullshit, since Obama hasn't exactly fulfilled his campaign promises and has managed to spend more money in three months than Bush has in eight years, while Democrats were complaining about excessive spending due to the Iraq war.

This election sucked. We had to choose between an old guy who's only "merit" was his being a war hero and a black guy who's only "merit" was having brown skin and being a Democrat.

johnson1010 wrote:This was almost our vice president.

You know what's really scary? She'll be back. You know she will.

managed to spend more money in three months than Bush has in eight years

lets not try to pretend that the collapse of the economy does not correspond with our over-committed military and the rediculous 9 billion dollar a month war in iraq. Complete with no-bid cost-plus contracts, gross mis-management, and the dereliction of fiscal responsibility by Bush's executive branch.

The stimulous was in action before Obama took office and was needed to fill the tremendous hole dug for us by our terminally child-brained former president.

I do not defend the bail-outs. That is an example of private profit and public losses, and typical of the government's commitment to support big business at almost any cost.

Obama is in no way perfect. He needs to take action on many of the items promised in his campaign that have not come to pass, but he is certainly a much more sane choice to help bring us together and put the nation back on course.

The sad thing is: In 2000, McCain would have made a much much better president than Bush. That was his time, and the simple fact that Bush is a Bush enabled him to steal the election from far more qualified candidates. (hindsight would indicate nearly everyone else who was running that year would be more qualified.)

When he found out he could not gain the support of the republican machine without pulling their line, he decided to get himself a harness and hook up. He turned on almost every position he had in 2000, even using the same smear team that derailed his campaign in 2000, and accepted a completely hollow, revoltingly ignorant and proud of it hillbilly as his running mate. Solely based on the indications that people might think her resolute indifference to what the world is really like appealed to the close-minded flag-wavers who pick authoritarian over democratic every time.

johnson1010 wrote:

managed to spend more money in three months than Bush has in eight years

lets not try to pretend that the collapse of the economy does not correspond with our over-committed military and the rediculous 9 billion dollar a month war in iraq. Complete with no-bid cost-plus contracts, gross mis-management, and the dereliction of fiscal responsibility by Bush's executive branch.

And lets not try to pretend that the economy has already collapsed, and that it will not correspond to massive pork barrel spending. Fair enough?

johnson1010 wrote:The stimulous was in action before Obama took office and was needed to fill the tremendous hole dug for us by our terminally child-brained former president.

Needed how? Explain, in detail, what we need to spend $3.5 trillion / year on.

Also, I don't see how Bush doing it is relevant. I'm not exactly a Bush supporter, though I would take Bush over Obama.

johnson1010 wrote:I do not defend the bail-outs. That is an example of private profit and public losses, and typical of the government's commitment to support big business at almost any cost.

Fair enough.

johnson1010 wrote:Obama is in no way perfect. He needs to take action on many of the items promised in his campaign that have not come to pass, but he is certainly a much more sane choice to help bring us together and put the nation back on course.

Than who? McCain? I'm not so sure. Would McCain have broken the world record for annual spending like Obama did?

johnson1010 wrote:The sad thing is: In 2000, McCain would have made a much much better president than Bush. That was his time, and the simple fact that Bush is a Bush enabled him to steal the election from far more qualified candidates. (hindsight would indicate nearly everyone else who was running that year would be more qualified.)

I hope you realize that you've now claimed that Bush "stole the election." Now you have to prove it. Who'd he steal it from, exactly?

johnson1010 wrote:When he found out he could not gain the support of the republican machine without pulling their line, he decided to get himself a harness and hook up. He turned on almost every position he had in 2000, even using the same smear team that derailed his campaign in 2000, and accepted a completely hollow, revoltingly ignorant and proud of it hillbilly as his running mate. Solely based on the indications that people might think her resolute indifference to what the world is really like appealed to the close-minded flag-wavers who pick authoritarian over democratic every time.

Authoritarian over democratic? I hope you realize that democratic government is not antithetical to authoritarian government.

Alrighty then. When I get from your post overall is as follows: "WHAT BUSH DOES IS BUSH'S FAULT, AND WHAT OBAMA DOES IS ALSO BUSH'S FAULT"

Is that a good sum up of what you've got to say, Johnson?