Library Dedication for W

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    Here`s an interesting read:

     

    : The Vetting - Did Obama Have Lower SAT Scores Than George W. Bush? President Barack Obama is hailed by his supporters and the mainstream media as one of the most brilliant men ever to hold the office. However, his refusal to release his academic records, his admitted deficiencies as a student, and his frequent factual errors--even in his chosen field of constitutional law--have cast doubt upon his supposed genius. Now, Breitbart News has established that Obama's grades and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores may have been even lower than those of his supposedly less capable predecessor, George W. Bush.

    Breitbart News has learned that the transfer class that entered Columbia College in the fall of 1981 with Obama was one of the worst in recent memory, according to Columbia officials at the time.

    A Nov. 18, 1981 article in the Columbia Spectator, “Tight Housing Discourages Transfer Applications to CC,” written by student Jeremy Feldman and quoting admissions officials, reported: “On paper at least, the quality of the students accepted [as transfers] has declined along with the number of applicants, the officials say.”

    Feldman, quoting Robert Boatti, Assistant Dean of Admissions, as well as the late college Dean Arnold Collery, continued:

    Boatti also attributed the drop in transfer application to the College’s policy of requiring transfer students to take courses in its core curriculum and to the limited availability of financial aid for them.

    He added a “majority” of the transfers come here from college in the New York area. Many come from community colleges, rather than the nation’s top schools.

    “Even the unhappiest people don’t transfer from Harvard,” Boatti said.

    In grades and other indicators of academic performance, the crop of transfer applicants “doesn’t stand out the way they did before,” [Dean Arnold] Collery said.

    Boatti confirmed Collery’s observations.

    Among accepted transfer students, the average combined math and verbal score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test is a 1,100 and their grade-point average at their former schools is about 3.0, Boatti said.

    The freshman class at the College had a combined SAT score more than 100 points higher.

    Only 450 students applied to transfer to Columbia in 1981 and sixty-seven were admitted, according to the Columbia Spectator, compared to 650 applicants just four years before.

    If Obama’s SAT scores were near the average of the transfer students entering Columbia in the fall of 1981, he would have scored significantly lower than George W. Bush, whose combined math and verbal scores were 1206 out of a possible 1600 points (as revealed by the New Yorker in 1999).

    In his autobiography, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama describes himself as an unfocused high school student whose mother scolded him for being a "loafer" (142). He describes his attitude toward his studies at Occidental as “indifferent” (146), calling himself a “bum” who abused drugs (138) and who was notorious for partying all weekend (165). 

    That has raised questions about how Obama earned a place at Columbia in 1981, paving the way to Harvard Law and beyond. Indeed, like much else in his biography, Obama seems to have fictionalized the process through which he gained admission to Columbia. Obama writes in Dreams: "[W]hen I heard about a transfer program that Occidental had arranged with Columbia University, I’d been quick to apply"(172). 

    However, there is no record of such a "transfer program" existing at either Columbia or Occidental.

    Breitbart News spoke to an official source at the Registrar’s Office of Occidental College, who confirmed that there has only been one transfer program between Occidental and Columbia--one that fed students into Columbia’s School of Engineering and Applied Science (known today as the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science). 

    Obama, who was not an engineering student, would not have been eligible for that program. 

    The official also pulled Occidental’s records between 1970 and 1990, and found no transfer program with any other Columbia University program.

    In addition, Breitbart News spoke with Phil Boerner, who transferred to Columbia from Occidental in 1981, and graduated from Columbia in 1984. He was Obama’s roommate in New York, and is one of the few Columbia students to recall Obama. Boerner, speaking by telephone, denied there was a “transfer program.”

    “You can transfer colleges at any time,” Boerner said, emphasizing that he was not speaking for Obama. “There was no formal arrangement between the two schools.”

    It is possible that Obama benefited from Columbia’s affirmative action program, which the university had recently defended in an amicus curie brief to the Supreme Court in the celebrated Bakke case (1977). Columbia joined several other elite universities in defending the use of race as a factor in college admissions. The brief had argued that “minority status must be considered independently of economic or cultural deprivation.”

    Given that 1981 turned out to be a relatively easy year to enter Columbia as a transfer student, and the fact that Obama was applying as a transfer student from a private college in California, as well as a minority student, Obama likely would have stood out among applicants, regardless of his scores and grades.

    Yet because Obama has never released his academic records, it is impossible to know whether he would have qualified for admission as a first-year student or in a typical transfer year. 

    The only way to know is for Obama to release his records, transcripts and test scores--from Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard. Why Obama has not done so remains a mystery--unless he has something else to hide.

     

     



    U realize, of course this is a wingnut site who ADMITS they're not mainstream. Since most of us have had our youthful indiscretions (For example, the Great Ronald Reagan smoked weed & supposedly committed date rape, not to mention his bad memory regarding Iran-Contra; JFK was no angel either, bedding practically every hottie in sight, amongst other things, some, like his father,  supposedly quite corrupt, including stealing the '60 election thanks to his monster Dad), and since it is likely he benefited from Affirmative Action programs,  I'm sure some of this is true. However, since W Bush was supposedly a young coke head & middle aged alcoholic, I can just imagine the field day this twisted site would have had if he was a Dem.This is probably why you hid the link. BTW, good job ignoring the other details of my posts. This is called NOT knowing how to debate; or worse, losing it.

     

     


    (QUOTE)

     

    I want to debate you but I`m too busy laughing out loud at your link.  Here is a direct quote from the BLOG you posted, written by an unknown BLOGGER:

    "A reader forwarded me an email from the Harvard Law School News Coordinator, Emily Dupraz, confirming that Obama graduated magna cu m laude. "

    Now that is LOL funny!  There is no where to find Obama`s grades or transcripts.  They have never been released.  True, he doesn`t have to release them, no president does.  Yes, Breitbart was a right-wing guy.  His article however quotes the Columbia Dean of Admissions, The Registrars office at Occidental, and Obama`s very own autobigraphy (which I read and maybe you should too).  Did you even read the article I posted you in full and out of kindness so you didn`t have to go to a link, as opposed to your insane accusation that I would hide it.

    Now, please refresh my memory.............what were the "other details" of your post that I "ignored'?

    Was it more lies, insanity, and, um........BLOGs?   LOL!

     



    Yes, I read your brilliant article. Also, magma c laude means you have at least a 3.5 GPA, poindexter. And a slanted article would always collate disparate facts, with some unsubstantiated or just plain made up stuff, in a twisted way to support their argument. As far as glossing over, there's the Bush stuff, duh.

     BTW, when do you expect a Republican to get into the WH? You better hope those fake conservative congressional gerrymandered wingnuts keep their nutjob mouths shut to even have a chance. Lately, that hasn't been happening. (Keeping their mouths shut)

    Enjoy your fiction. 

     

    (QUOTE)


     

    Thanks for reading the article.  Sorry you don`t have comprehension skills.  What don`t you get about a BLOGGER saying "Obama graduated magna" meaning nothing and having ZERO credibility?  Obama`s grades and transcripts have NEVER been released.  Why can`t you understand that your dog with a blog has never seen them, doesn`t have them, and is writing left-wing opinion doo-doo?

    Nice try at changing the subject.  I don`t know when a Republican sees the WH again.  I thought Romney should have won handily in November.  I was wrong.  We have a very dumb, ill informed, and easliy distracted electorate.  Do I think a guy like Rubio could win.......yes.  My guess is the Rep candidate for 2016 is someone we least expect and nobody that`s being discussed today.

     



    No, this was one of the talking points you ignored earlier. I would have no need to change the subject, since anyone claiming that Bush is hands down smarter and more competent than Obama would not be taken seriously by a super majority almost as compelling as the Senate rejected Gun Control provisions.

    As far as Rubio is concerned. he's probably the leading nominee at the moment. For his sake, it would be imperative that his campaign can control the knuckleheads in the party.

     

     




     

    If after 4 1/2 years of the worst president America has ever had, a complete disaster, everything worse than it was on January 20th 2009, and you and your ilk thinking Obama is smarter than Bush...........well, you need your head examined and you shouldn`t be allowed to vote.

    Bush is Einstein compared to this dope.

     



    More school yard fiction, mixed in with the Wingnut fantasy of mass disenfranchisement. You've met expectations.

     

     




     

    What are your "expectations"?  Are they those of a hopeless, clueless, uninformed, low-information-ideologue, living ina fantasyworld?

    Good.  Obama=dumb, Bush=smart

     

     

    No, fantasyworld is your comments about Obama & Bush. For a clue, check how a record surplus became a record deficit during the W yrs. Or perhaps just look at the wikipedia link above.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    If after 4 1/2 years of the worst president America has ever had, a complete disaster, everything worse than it was on January 20th 2009, and you and your ilk thinking Obama is smarter than Bush...........well, you need your head examined and you shouldn`t be allowed to vote.

    Bush is Einstein compared to this dope.

     



    You are playing this like you are Stephen Colbert, right?  You cannot possibly have such a poor sense of history and such unmitigated ideological bias as to believe the nonsense you are spewing.  It's parody right?  Right?

     

    And James Buchanan was the worst president ever.  Dithered while the country lurched towards secession and civil war.  How about Nixon?  Abused the power of the presidency to get elected. Harding?  A corrupt do-nothing...  And yes, Bush is far worst than Obama.  Set up the economy to crash and engaged in a war of choice for no real benefit are two biggies.  Get some perspective, you sound like a fool.  

     




     

    And, as always, you sound like the ambulance-chasing dope that you are.  You are so blinded by your ideology you don`t see the simple fact that we are 5 years into the worst administration to ever grace this planet.  The debt alone is enough to warrant the "worst president in history" label.  Never mind al Queda attacks ON FREAKING 9/11 and the recent Boston terrorist attacks.

    Wake up for god`s sake! 

     



    To be fair I don't think Obama deserves any blame for AQ attack on 9/11 or Boston bombing. 

     

     




     

    You don`t think that al Queda attacks on 9/11 2012, a day that FOREVER we should be on the highest alert, where 4 Americans died, and then the MASSIVE coverup that still goes on today, is Obama`s burden?

     



    No, I don't think the attack is Obama's fault. If the Boston bombing proves anything it's that anyone at anytime can pull off an attack. It's impossible to prevent everything from happening.

     

     

     




     

    True, but.................now we`re finding that they are looking for a 12-person cell that may be a part of a 100-person-cell.  We also know that they were trained by terrorists in one of the most "muslim-fanatic" places in the world and definitely were associated with jihadist-terrorists.  We were warned.  Someone has to take responsibility.

     



    Link please? Otherwise, more fiction.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    If after 4 1/2 years of the worst president America has ever had, a complete disaster, everything worse than it was on January 20th 2009, and you and your ilk thinking Obama is smarter than Bush...........well, you need your head examined and you shouldn`t be allowed to vote.

    Bush is Einstein compared to this dope.

     



    You are playing this like you are Stephen Colbert, right?  You cannot possibly have such a poor sense of history and such unmitigated ideological bias as to believe the nonsense you are spewing.  It's parody right?  Right?

     

    And James Buchanan was the worst president ever.  Dithered while the country lurched towards secession and civil war.  How about Nixon?  Abused the power of the presidency to get elected. Harding?  A corrupt do-nothing...  And yes, Bush is far worst than Obama.  Set up the economy to crash and engaged in a war of choice for no real benefit are two biggies.  Get some perspective, you sound like a fool.  

     




     

    And, as always, you sound like the ambulance-chasing dope that you are.  You are so blinded by your ideology you don`t see the simple fact that we are 5 years into the worst administration to ever grace this planet.  The debt alone is enough to warrant the "worst president in history" label.  Never mind al Queda attacks ON FREAKING 9/11 and the recent Boston terrorist attacks.

    Wake up for god`s sake! 

     



    Perhaps you're right; there should be disenfranchisement. U nuts

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    I have voted conservative in the past too, but you would never guess that from my posts either. Oh well, so much for your "guessing".

     



    That includes me. And if Giuliani ever ran, I would have likely voted for him, pending the opponent. Alas, he's likely too old now.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     



    Too much

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    If after 4 1/2 years of the worst president America has ever had, a complete disaster, everything worse than it was on January 20th 2009, and you and your ilk thinking Obama is smarter than Bush...........well, you need your head examined and you shouldn`t be allowed to vote.

    Bush is Einstein compared to this dope.

     



    You are playing this like you are Stephen Colbert, right?  You cannot possibly have such a poor sense of history and such unmitigated ideological bias as to believe the nonsense you are spewing.  It's parody right?  Right?

     

    And James Buchanan was the worst president ever.  Dithered while the country lurched towards secession and civil war.  How about Nixon?  Abused the power of the presidency to get elected. Harding?  A corrupt do-nothing...  And yes, Bush is far worst than Obama.  Set up the economy to crash and engaged in a war of choice for no real benefit are two biggies.  Get some perspective, you sound like a fool.  

     



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

     

     

     

    The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership consists of rankings from a group of presidential historians and "professional observers of the presidency"[13] who ranked presidents in a number of categories initially in 2000 and more recently in 2009.[14][15] With some minor variation, both surveys found that historians consider Abraham LincolnGeorge Washington, and Franklin D. Roosevelt the three best presidents by a wide margin and William Henry Harrison (to a lesser extent), Warren G. HardingAndrew JohnsonFranklin PierceGeorge W. Bush and James Buchanan the worst.


    Ouch, that's gotta hurt the bigdog. Kinda feel bad for the little guy.

     




     

    Hey dummy.........how do they have the "rankings" for a guy that hasn`t finished serving yet and history cannot judge yet?

    Are you allowed out of the yard by yourself? 

     

     

     

     



    It's based on what has occurred so far. I'm sure it shall be updated. I also think it is highly unlikely he'll go from 14 to 43 in the next 3 yrs;and, its a GOOD thing Obama came along when he did to save Bush from even having a lower ranking, by dragging up the economy by its bootstraps just in the nick of time.

    I also see you're still into your school yard insults & name calling; that's shocking.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    Look, Bush was no prize, but this liberal rewrite of, well, a liberal Republican, is distasteful.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    If after 4 1/2 years of the worst president America has ever had, a complete disaster, everything worse than it was on January 20th 2009, and you and your ilk thinking Obama is smarter than Bush...........well, you need your head examined and you shouldn`t be allowed to vote.

    Bush is Einstein compared to this dope.

     



    You are playing this like you are Stephen Colbert, right?  You cannot possibly have such a poor sense of history and such unmitigated ideological bias as to believe the nonsense you are spewing.  It's parody right?  Right?

     

    And James Buchanan was the worst president ever.  Dithered while the country lurched towards secession and civil war.  How about Nixon?  Abused the power of the presidency to get elected. Harding?  A corrupt do-nothing...  And yes, Bush is far worst than Obama.  Set up the economy to crash and engaged in a war of choice for no real benefit are two biggies.  Get some perspective, you sound like a fool.  

     



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

     

     

     

    The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership consists of rankings from a group of presidential historians and "professional observers of the presidency"[13] who ranked presidents in a number of categories initially in 2000 and more recently in 2009.[14][15] With some minor variation, both surveys found that historians consider Abraham LincolnGeorge Washington, and Franklin D. Roosevelt the three best presidents by a wide margin and William Henry Harrison (to a lesser extent), Warren G. HardingAndrew JohnsonFranklin PierceGeorge W. Bush and James Buchanan the worst.


    Ouch, that's gotta hurt the bigdog. Kinda feel bad for the little guy.

     




     

    Hey dummy.........how do they have the "rankings" for a guy that hasn`t finished serving yet and history cannot judge yet?

    Are you allowed out of the yard by yourself? 

     

     

     

     



    It's based on what has occurred so far. I'm sure it shall be updated. I also think it is highly unlikely he'll go from 14 to 43 in the next 3 yrs;and, its a GOOD thing Obama came along when he did to save Bush from even having a lower ranking, by dragging up the economy by its bootstraps just in the nick of time.

    I also see you're still into your school yard insults & name calling; that's shocking.



    Ouch, I'm truly hurt by your attack.

    Okay, not really. Sorry your idol is being vilified, but he deserves it. He really does/did su ck.

    End of story.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    "No, fantasyworld is your comments about Obama & Bush. For a clue, check how a record surplus became a record deficit during the W yrs. Or perhaps just look at the wikipedia link above."

    LOL funny!  Bush handed this incompetent president a $9.7 trillion debt accummulated over 8 years.  In 3 SHORT YEARS Obama had that debt at $16 trillion!!!   Worse performance by any president ever.

    Keep swinging and missing.

     



    I guess you forgot about the robust economy & record budget surplus Bush inherited. Not surprising you can't count. Nor the possibility that if Obama didn't stimulate the disastrous economy he inherited, it's likely the DOW would have hit 7K, as opposed to the current 14K+. As far as this 100 person cell, how did you come to that conclusion? Also, claiming via your pent up Dem bum at the moment exasperation that Obama is the worst president ever, and then your wierd Einstein+whoever shtick via Bush, is hilarious seat of the pants delusion. Enjoy your fallacies.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    "No, fantasyworld is your comments about Obama & Bush. For a clue, check how a record surplus became a record deficit during the W yrs. Or perhaps just look at the wikipedia link above."

    LOL funny!  Bush handed this incompetent president a $9.7 trillion debt accummulated over 8 years.  In 3 SHORT YEARS Obama had that debt at $16 trillion!!!   Worse performance by any president ever.

    Keep swinging and missing.

     



    I guess you forgot about the surplus Bush inherited. Not surprising you can't count. Nor the possibility that if Obama didn't stimulate the disastrous economy he inherited, it's likely the DOW would have hit 7K, as opposed to the current 14K+. As far as this 100 person cell, how did you come to that conclusion? Also, claiming via your pent up Dem bum at the moment exasperation that Obama is the worst president ever, and then your wierd Einstein+whoever shtick via Bush, is hilarious seat of the pants delusion. Enjoy your fallacies.

     

     




     

    Wrong again my crazy friend.  Do you just make stuff up?

        Reid Wrong on Bush’s Economic Record Posted on August 3, 2011   Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services 

    Sen. Harry Reid falsely claimed that 8 million jobs were lost during the Bush administration. To the contrary, there was a net gain of 1 million jobs under President George W. Bush. It's true that more than 8 million jobs were lost as a result of the recent recession — from the job peak to trough — but only about half of those were lost under Bush.

    The Nevada Democrat also falsely claimed that Bush turned a projected surplus of $7 trillion over 10 years into a $14 trillion debt. The fact is Bush inherited a $5.7 trillion debt, which became a $10.6 trillon debt.

    Blaming Bush for Job Losses

    Reid, the Senate majority leader, made these claims in a news conference held Aug. 1 to discuss the bipartisan agreement to raise the debt-ceiling limit.

     

    Reid, Aug. 1: We lost 8 million jobs with the Bush administration. To show the difference, President Clinton created 23 million jobs.

    Reid is correct about the number of jobs gained over the course of the Clinton administration. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 22.7 million jobs were added between January 1993 and January 2001. (See total nonfarm, seasonally adjusted — the standard measure of jobs.)

    But Reid's numbers are wildly inaccurate for the Bush administration. BLS data show there was a net increase of nearly 1.1 million jobs — not a job loss — from January 2001 to January 2009.

    It's true that roughly 8.75 million jobs were lost from January 2008 to February 2010. But about half of those losses occurred during Obama's presidency. BLS data show that 4.4 million jobs were lost in Bush's last year in office, and 4.3 million more jobs were lost during Obama's first 13 months.

    In the past, some Republicans have blamed Obama for job losses that occurred under Bush, as we have written before. This time, it's a Democrat falsely blaming Bush.

    Blaming Bush for Debt

    Reid also falsely blames the Bush administration for the entire $14 trillion national debt.

    Reid, Aug. 1: We had a surplus when he took office of $7 trillion over 10 years. We're now — because of the unpaid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unpaid taxes and drug programs — we're now [at] $14 trillion.

    That's wrong on two counts. The projected surplus wasn't $7 trillion when Bush took office, and $3.7 trillion of the $14 trillion in total debt has been added since he left.

    On the projected surplus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report in January 2001 — the month Bush took office — that estimated budget surpluses of "$5.6 trillion over the 2002-2011 period," not $7 trillion as Reid claimed. That CBO report said that "much of the current debt will be paid down over the next several years" if the surpluses materialize. Of course, the projected surpluses did not materialize — in part because of the recession that began shortly after Bush took office — something CBO did not anticipate in its projections.

    Also, the total public debt stood at $5.7 trillion on Jan. 20, 2001, the date of Bush's inauguration. And when he left, the total debt was $10.6 trillion. That's a huge increase, to be sure. But to suggest Bush's policies were to blame for the entire $14.3 trillion debt ignores what happened before and after Bush's presidency.

    As we've written before, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have helped produce unforeseen budget gaps, as have two recessions and expanded health care and economic stimulus spending under both Bush and Obama.

     



    You seem to have a point here, but most of your other exasperated comments hurts your credibility. Good find though, and in its context I stand corrected, although still not a concrete assessment.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    "No, fantasyworld is your comments about Obama & Bush. For a clue, check how a record surplus became a record deficit during the W yrs. Or perhaps just look at the wikipedia link above."

    LOL funny!  Bush handed this incompetent president a $9.7 trillion debt accummulated over 8 years.  In 3 SHORT YEARS Obama had that debt at $16 trillion!!!   Worse performance by any president ever.

    Keep swinging and missing.

     



    I guess you forgot about the surplus Bush inherited. Not surprising you can't count. Nor the possibility that if Obama didn't stimulate the disastrous economy he inherited, it's likely the DOW would have hit 7K, as opposed to the current 14K+. As far as this 100 person cell, how did you come to that conclusion? Also, claiming via your pent up Dem bum at the moment exasperation that Obama is the worst president ever, and then your wierd Einstein+whoever shtick via Bush, is hilarious seat of the pants delusion. Enjoy your fallacies.

     

     




     

    Wrong again my crazy friend.  Do you just make stuff up?

        Reid Wrong on Bush’s Economic Record Posted on August 3, 2011   Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services 

    Sen. Harry Reid falsely claimed that 8 million jobs were lost during the Bush administration. To the contrary, there was a net gain of 1 million jobs under President George W. Bush. It's true that more than 8 million jobs were lost as a result of the recent recession — from the job peak to trough — but only about half of those were lost under Bush.

    The Nevada Democrat also falsely claimed that Bush turned a projected surplus of $7 trillion over 10 years into a $14 trillion debt. The fact is Bush inherited a $5.7 trillion debt, which became a $10.6 trillon debt.

    Blaming Bush for Job Losses

    Reid, the Senate majority leader, made these claims in a news conference held Aug. 1 to discuss the bipartisan agreement to raise the debt-ceiling limit.

     

    Reid, Aug. 1: We lost 8 million jobs with the Bush administration. To show the difference, President Clinton created 23 million jobs.

    Reid is correct about the number of jobs gained over the course of the Clinton administration. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 22.7 million jobs were added between January 1993 and January 2001. (See total nonfarm, seasonally adjusted — the standard measure of jobs.)

    But Reid's numbers are wildly inaccurate for the Bush administration. BLS data show there was a net increase of nearly 1.1 million jobs — not a job loss — from January 2001 to January 2009.

    It's true that roughly 8.75 million jobs were lost from January 2008 to February 2010. But about half of those losses occurred during Obama's presidency. BLS data show that 4.4 million jobs were lost in Bush's last year in office, and 4.3 million more jobs were lost during Obama's first 13 months.

    In the past, some Republicans have blamed Obama for job losses that occurred under Bush, as we have written before. This time, it's a Democrat falsely blaming Bush.

    Blaming Bush for Debt

    Reid also falsely blames the Bush administration for the entire $14 trillion national debt.

    Reid, Aug. 1: We had a surplus when he took office of $7 trillion over 10 years. We're now — because of the unpaid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unpaid taxes and drug programs — we're now [at] $14 trillion.

    That's wrong on two counts. The projected surplus wasn't $7 trillion when Bush took office, and $3.7 trillion of the $14 trillion in total debt has been added since he left.

    On the projected surplus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report in January 2001 — the month Bush took office — that estimated budget surpluses of "$5.6 trillion over the 2002-2011 period," not $7 trillion as Reid claimed. That CBO report said that "much of the current debt will be paid down over the next several years" if the surpluses materialize. Of course, the projected surpluses did not materialize — in part because of the recession that began shortly after Bush took office — something CBO did not anticipate in its projections.

    Also, the total public debt stood at $5.7 trillion on Jan. 20, 2001, the date of Bush's inauguration. And when he left, the total debt was $10.6 trillion. That's a huge increase, to be sure. But to suggest Bush's policies were to blame for the entire $14.3 trillion debt ignores what happened before and after Bush's presidency.

    As we've written before, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have helped produce unforeseen budget gaps, as have two recessions and expanded health care and economic stimulus spending under both Bush and Obama.

     



    You seem to have a point here, but most of your other exasperated comments hurts your credibility. Good find though, and in its context I stand corrected, although still not a concrete assessment.

     

     




     

    "but most of your other exasperated comments hurts your credibility."

    I could say the same.  You gotta admit it`s fun though? Where else could we come and take a few whacks at each other in the name of something we have absolutely no control over (politics)?

    I tell you what`s bugging me.  The amount of posts removed.  We should be able to take it a bit to the edge without getting deleted all the time.  Don`t know if it`s BDC or someone hitting the abuse button every 2 minutes. 

     

     

     



    +1

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    If after 4 1/2 years of the worst president America has ever had, a complete disaster, everything worse than it was on January 20th 2009, and you and your ilk thinking Obama is smarter than Bush...........well, you need your head examined and you shouldn`t be allowed to vote.

    Bush is Einstein compared to this dope.

     



    You are playing this like you are Stephen Colbert, right?  You cannot possibly have such a poor sense of history and such unmitigated ideological bias as to believe the nonsense you are spewing.  It's parody right?  Right?

     

    And James Buchanan was the worst president ever.  Dithered while the country lurched towards secession and civil war.  How about Nixon?  Abused the power of the presidency to get elected. Harding?  A corrupt do-nothing...  And yes, Bush is far worst than Obama.  Set up the economy to crash and engaged in a war of choice for no real benefit are two biggies.  Get some perspective, you sound like a fool.  

     




     

    And, as always, you sound like the ambulance-chasing dope that you are.  You are so blinded by your ideology you don`t see the simple fact that we are 5 years into the worst administration to ever grace this planet.  The debt alone is enough to warrant the "worst president in history" label.  Never mind al Queda attacks ON FREAKING 9/11 and the recent Boston terrorist attacks.

    Wake up for god`s sake! 

     



    To be fair I don't think Obama deserves any blame for AQ attack on 9/11 or Boston bombing. 

     

     




     

    You don`t think that al Queda attacks on 9/11 2012, a day that FOREVER we should be on the highest alert, where 4 Americans died, and then the MASSIVE coverup that still goes on today, is Obama`s burden?

     



    No, I don't think the attack is Obama's fault. If the Boston bombing proves anything it's that anyone at anytime can pull off an attack. It's impossible to prevent everything from happening.

     

     

     




     

    True, but.................now we`re finding that they are looking for a 12-person cell that may be a part of a 100-person-cell.  We also know that they were trained by terrorists in one of the most "muslim-fanatic" places in the world and definitely were associated with jihadist-terrorists.  We were warned.  Someone has to take responsibility.

     



    We were warned about bombing at marathon? That's news to me.

     

     



    Yes, we were warned.  Russia informed the FBI of Tamerlan`s travel, movement, actions around terrorists, and it was ignored.  Eric Holder failed.  Obama should step up.

     

    Does anyone watch the news or read the paper?



    OMG...

    Ok....so the FBI was warned. Do you think the FBI was supposed to have 24/7 surveillance on Tamerlan? 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    If after 4 1/2 years of the worst president America has ever had, a complete disaster, everything worse than it was on January 20th 2009, and you and your ilk thinking Obama is smarter than Bush...........well, you need your head examined and you shouldn`t be allowed to vote.

    Bush is Einstein compared to this dope.

     



    You are playing this like you are Stephen Colbert, right?  You cannot possibly have such a poor sense of history and such unmitigated ideological bias as to believe the nonsense you are spewing.  It's parody right?  Right?

     

    And James Buchanan was the worst president ever.  Dithered while the country lurched towards secession and civil war.  How about Nixon?  Abused the power of the presidency to get elected. Harding?  A corrupt do-nothing...  And yes, Bush is far worst than Obama.  Set up the economy to crash and engaged in a war of choice for no real benefit are two biggies.  Get some perspective, you sound like a fool.  

     




     

    And, as always, you sound like the ambulance-chasing dope that you are.  You are so blinded by your ideology you don`t see the simple fact that we are 5 years into the worst administration to ever grace this planet.  The debt alone is enough to warrant the "worst president in history" label.  Never mind al Queda attacks ON FREAKING 9/11 and the recent Boston terrorist attacks.

    Wake up for god`s sake! 

     



    To be fair I don't think Obama deserves any blame for AQ attack on 9/11 or Boston bombing. 

     

     




     

    You don`t think that al Queda attacks on 9/11 2012, a day that FOREVER we should be on the highest alert, where 4 Americans died, and then the MASSIVE coverup that still goes on today, is Obama`s burden?

     



    No, I don't think the attack is Obama's fault. If the Boston bombing proves anything it's that anyone at anytime can pull off an attack. It's impossible to prevent everything from happening.

     

     

     




     

    True, but.................now we`re finding that they are looking for a 12-person cell that may be a part of a 100-person-cell.  We also know that they were trained by terrorists in one of the most "muslim-fanatic" places in the world and definitely were associated with jihadist-terrorists.  We were warned.  Someone has to take responsibility.

     



    We were warned about bombing at marathon? That's news to me.

     

     



    Yes, we were warned.  Russia informed the FBI of Tamerlan`s travel, movement, actions around terrorists, and it was ignored.  Eric Holder failed.  Obama should step up.

     

    Does anyone watch the news or read the paper?

     



    OMG...

     

    Ok....so the FBI was warned. Do you think the FBI was supposed to have 24/7 surveillance on Tamerlan? 

     




     

    No, of course not.  But should the FBI be held accountable?  Is everyone in the Obama administration exempt from any blame for any and everything?  How would this be if the AG was a Republican in a Rep adimistration?  Russia was asking the CIA and the FBI to watch this guy carefully.  This administration chose to "clear" this creep.  Big mistake.

     

     



    Trust me...if it was a Repub administration there would be plenty of Lefty loons blaming them. And they would be wrong. 

     

    If you want to hold anyone accountable then sure maybe the FBI. Maybe they could have watched this guy more closely. Would that have guaranteed to stop what happened? Probably not. I don't believe the FBI can just tail someone 24/7 for indefinite period. They couldn't arrest him for buying a pressure cooker or nails. All perfectly legal things to purchase. 

     

    Add this to the list!

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    Is everyone in the Obama administration exempt from any blame for any and everything?




     

    If an FBI recruit knocks over a water cooler, is that Obama's fault, too?

     




     

    And I`m sure you would be saying the exact same thing if we had a Rep AG and a Rep president, right?   Russia warns us repeatedly, we ignore, it`s nobody`s fault though. Nothing to see, move along.  Same with Benghazi, all caused by a video.  Boston......just a couple of mischievous kids.

    sigh



    By your logic, you blamed Bush for 9/11?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    Is everyone in the Obama administration exempt from any blame for any and everything?




     

    If an FBI recruit knocks over a water cooler, is that Obama's fault, too?



    Why would you ask such a strange question?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    Is everyone in the Obama administration exempt from any blame for any and everything?




     

    If an FBI recruit knocks over a water cooler, is that Obama's fault, too?

     




     

    And I`m sure you would be saying the exact same thing if we had a Rep AG and a Rep president, right?   Russia warns us repeatedly, we ignore, it`s nobody`s fault though. Nothing to see, move along.  Same with Benghazi, all caused by a video.  Boston......just a couple of mischievous kids.

    sigh

     



    By your logic, you blamed Bush for 9/11?

     

     




     

    He and his administration ignored warnings.  That is well known.  Also, you`re acting as if I blame the current fool for carrying out the actual act in Boston.  Please show me where I said that.  I didn`t.  I blame him, Holder, etc for not "manning up".  As with Benghazi, Obama et al came out with the tippy-toe around the truth.  This was a terrorist act by crazy muslim jihadists.  Benghazi was a terrorist attack by al Queda. Terrorists are as active as they ever were and this administration trying to hide it as if they`ve miraculously defeated it and won the war on terror is BS.

    The Bush administration did ignore many warnings.



    I actually never said that you "blame the current fool for carrying out the actual act in Boston", but you know that.

    Not sure what you expected Obama and Holder to do. "manning up" how? By taking the blame for attacks? Again, why would they be blamed for the attacks? Maybe you think they have a crystal ball and can tell the future? Maybe you think Minority Report is not just a movie? I dunno. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    Is everyone in the Obama administration exempt from any blame for any and everything?




     

    If an FBI recruit knocks over a water cooler, is that Obama's fault, too?

     



    Why would you ask such a strange question?

     



    Prolly because of this strange comment...

    Is everyone in the Obama administration exempt from any blame for any and everything?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    If after 4 1/2 years of the worst president America has ever had, a complete disaster, everything worse than it was on January 20th 2009, and you and your ilk thinking Obama is smarter than Bush...........well, you need your head examined and you shouldn`t be allowed to vote.

    Bush is Einstein compared to this dope.

     



    You are playing this like you are Stephen Colbert, right?  You cannot possibly have such a poor sense of history and such unmitigated ideological bias as to believe the nonsense you are spewing.  It's parody right?  Right?

     

    And James Buchanan was the worst president ever.  Dithered while the country lurched towards secession and civil war.  How about Nixon?  Abused the power of the presidency to get elected. Harding?  A corrupt do-nothing...  And yes, Bush is far worst than Obama.  Set up the economy to crash and engaged in a war of choice for no real benefit are two biggies.  Get some perspective, you sound like a fool.  

     




     

    And, as always, you sound like the ambulance-chasing dope that you are.  You are so blinded by your ideology you don`t see the simple fact that we are 5 years into the worst administration to ever grace this planet.  The debt alone is enough to warrant the "worst president in history" label.  Never mind al Queda attacks ON FREAKING 9/11 and the recent Boston terrorist attacks.

    Wake up for god`s sake! 

     



    To be fair I don't think Obama deserves any blame for AQ attack on 9/11 or Boston bombing. 

     

     




     

    You don`t think that al Queda attacks on 9/11 2012, a day that FOREVER we should be on the highest alert, where 4 Americans died, and then the MASSIVE coverup that still goes on today, is Obama`s burden?

     



    No, I don't think the attack is Obama's fault. If the Boston bombing proves anything it's that anyone at anytime can pull off an attack. It's impossible to prevent everything from happening.

     

     

     




     

    True, but.................now we`re finding that they are looking for a 12-person cell that may be a part of a 100-person-cell.  We also know that they were trained by terrorists in one of the most "muslim-fanatic" places in the world and definitely were associated with jihadist-terrorists.  We were warned.  Someone has to take responsibility.

     



    We were warned about bombing at marathon? That's news to me.

     

     



    Yes, we were warned.  Russia informed the FBI of Tamerlan`s travel, movement, actions around terrorists, and it was ignored.  Eric Holder failed.  Obama should step up.

     

    Does anyone watch the news or read the paper?

     



    OMG...

     

    Ok....so the FBI was warned. Do you think the FBI was supposed to have 24/7 surveillance on Tamerlan? 

     




     

    No, of course not.  But should the FBI be held accountable?  Is everyone in the Obama administration exempt from any blame for any and everything?  How would this be if the AG was a Republican in a Rep adimistration?  Russia was asking the CIA and the FBI to watch this guy carefully.  This administration chose to "clear" this creep.  Big mistake.

     

     



    Trust me...if it was a Repub administration there would be plenty of Lefty loons blaming them. And they would be wrong. 

     

    If you want to hold anyone accountable then sure maybe the FBI. Maybe they could have watched this guy more closely. Would that have guaranteed to stop what happened? Probably not. I don't believe the FBI can just tail someone 24/7 for indefinite period. They couldn't arrest him for buying a pressure cooker or nails. All perfectly legal things to purchase. 

     

    Add this to the list!

     

     



    It appears the FBI needs to readdress their anti-terrorism operations, possibly via another layer of threat review, which could include periodic snoops of web hits for all categories on watch lists. Perhaps they need more funding. If they can do it for the FAA, they can do it here too.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    Is everyone in the Obama administration exempt from any blame for any and everything?




     

    If an FBI recruit knocks over a water cooler, is that Obama's fault, too?

     




     

    And I`m sure you would be saying the exact same thing if we had a Rep AG and a Rep president, right?   Russia warns us repeatedly, we ignore, it`s nobody`s fault though. Nothing to see, move along.  Same with Benghazi, all caused by a video.  Boston......just a couple of mischievous kids.

    sigh

     




     

    It's all Obama's fault because of what Fox told you I would think if "we had a Rep AG and a Rep president"?


    Interesting notion.

     

    Sorry, guy, the President is only responsible for the effects of his decisions and the things that reasonably flow therefrom. If Russian agencies warn some lower intelligence officer who flubs it, and there is no reason for Obama to have learned of it, then no - there is zero fault whatsover.

    But brainwashed idealogues will blame him anyway, apparently.



    So, same goes for Bush and 911?  How about Bush and The Iraq war?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Library Dedication for W

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    So, same goes for Bush and 911?  How about Bush and The Iraq war?



    I've explained what I think about each ad nauseum. What is the point of asking me again?

     



    Because not everyone commits your responses to memory. You'll spend time cutting and pasting posts from different threads into a post but you can't spend the time to answer his question?

     

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share