The legacy of 'W'?

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well, I do understand where you're coming from, however, this has been something our great greandparents gave to us and we have yet to be truely hit with it. We always hear about the deficit, but no one knows how it affects us.

Here's what happens: We go bankrupt when the interest we pay out becomes more than our income. Since we are bankrupt, we can no longer borrow to pay for government services, so lose millions of jobs, including firemen, cops, and soldiers. Since there is such chaos and so many are out of work, there is too little money to pay for the products produced by our companies. The companies then topple, sending millions more out of work. Depression (I sure am glad we've never been hit by one of those before). Gangs of violent hoboes roaming the land. Our country gets its butt kicked by Canada, which walls out our poor (everyone) and starving, even though we are willing to work.
jsarno. Have you ever read anything?

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

Yet another liberal warpath bash the President thread.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Sammy Baugh Fan

Yet another liberal warpath bash the President thread.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

I think we're having a good discussion here actually. Maybe you should take the time to read the posts before passing judgment.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think we're having a good discussion here actually. Maybe you should take the time to read the posts before passing judgment.

I think one of his points is that it's all been said before. Which it has. Although SBF, I seem to be the only one defending the president, I need some help. COME BACK!!!

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think we're having a good discussion here actually. Maybe you should take the time to read the posts before passing judgment.

You ASSUME far too much there big boy.

I read the threads.

~same as it ever was, same as it ever was

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Sammy Baugh Fan

You ASSUME far too much there big boy.

I read the threads.

~same as it ever was, same as it ever was

Well if you've read the posts and still want to generalize this as a typical liberal warpath (whatever that means) thread, then I really can't help you.

There is no one on this thread who has posted any nonsensical W beats his wife and shoots up with his daughters posts

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

...W beats his wife and shoots up with his daughters..

Film at Eleven.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by Sammy Baugh Fan

Yet another liberal warpath bash the President thread.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Actually, this discussion has been going pretty well. A lot of good perspectives.

As for me in judging his legacy, I can honestly say that I have experienced no change in my quality of life since Bush took over. The same can be said of my life during the Clinton era as well. Neither president caused me any degree of suffering due to whatever various policies were implemented. This is why I don't vote and I probably never will. I really could care less who's in charge as long as it's not a merciless overlord that enslaves us all to do his/her bidding.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

I really could care less who's in charge as long as it's not a merciless overlord that enslaves us all to do his/her bidding.

Well let's just hope no mods from Tampa Bay Bucs boards run for President

[70Chip]

Historians will view him negatively, but they're all Liberals. He doesn't care and neither do I because he has only done what was necessary and proper.

As for the "mountain of controversy" in 2000, it exists only in the minds of the losers. Close, yes. Controversial? Only to the extent that Al Gore tried to steal the election by doing a selective recount and excluding military votes and making sure their fellow Dems on the Florida Supreme Court (Barbara Pariente must be the dumbest woman I've ever seen on television) didn't allow the vote to be certified until they had pulled off the theft.

If I take a dump in the middle of the Christmas Parade, it wouild be somewhat misleading for me to then describe that parade as having been "controversial" in the passive voice.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Historians will view him negatively, but they're all Liberals. He doesn't care and neither do I because he has only done what was necessary and proper.

As for the "mountain of controversy" in 2000, it exists only in the minds of the losers. Close, yes. Controversial? Only to the extent that Al Gore tried to steal the election by doing a selective recount and excluding military votes and making sure their fellow Dems on the Florida Supreme Court (Barbara Pariente must be the dumbest woman I've ever seen on television) didn't allow the vote to be certified until they had pulled off the theft.

If I take a dump in the middle of the Christmas Parade, it wouild be somewhat misleading for me to then describe that parade as having been "controversial" in the passive voice.

As I understand it, the election was a statistical stalemate. The difference in votes for each candidate was not big enough to cover the margin of error. What do you do if Gore gets 49% and Bush gets 51%, but the margin of error is 2%?

Please correct me, if I am wrong.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

As I understand it, the election was a statistical stalemate. The difference in votes for each candidate was not big enough to cover the margin of error. What do you do if Gore gets 49% and Bush gets 51%, but the margin of error is 2%?

Please correct me, if I am wrong.

Margin of error applies to polls not elections. You only have to win an election by one vote.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Margin of error applies to polls not elections. You only have to win an election by one vote.

It is true that one vote can win an election, in theory. However, in practice I do not believe that every vote is counted. Usually the margins are wide enough for a solid statistical conclusion to be made about the outcome -- at which time, the loser usually concedes.

Many votes are not accepted for a variety of reasons, and this is usually not a problem. In the case of 2000, with such a close election, these votes could have changed the outcome. So, you have unambiguous votes for one candidate, that were not accepted because they were cast in the incorrect precinct. Or, you have votes from overseas which arrived late. Should the outcome of the Presidential election come down to a technicality? I think this is why they went to court.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by Sammy Baugh Fan

Yet another liberal warpath bash the President thread.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Are you trying to turn a civil/insightful/well thought out thread into yet another pissing match?
You've added nothing to the thread with this post just because you ASSUME that it's going to turn into a Bush bashing session. Good work.

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

Are you trying to turn a civil/insightful/well thought out thread into yet another pissing match?
You've added nothing to the thread with this post just because you ASSUME that it's going to turn into a Bush bashing session. Good work.

Yeah dewd it's all about me. Make it so if you wish. My comment was just like others but I see you quoted me. That's ok.

~same as it ever was, same as it ever was

Don't like the message shoot the messanger.