Oh-Oh..Hillary's MLK speech says she shook MLK's hand at 14

[NavarreMan 10]

interesting how the most conservative on the forum feel the need to have a signature denouncing Hillary or Obama. Sounds like the person may be insecure about something.

Same goes for liberals with anti-McCain signatures.

Last time I checked this is a forum for immigration with help and advice to those who ask, kinda boring stuff after a while I suppose. I guess that is why some of the most read articles come in the off topic forum.

To the contrary, I'm an Obama fan....I think we need presidents like him on occasion; the last one was Jimmy Carter.

It helps you yugun's to gain perspective as to just how bad is, because if you think it's bad now, wait until Obama occupies the WH....

Lemme see, Jimmy's presidency produced 21% inflation, 14% mortgages, 10%+ unemployment, and you think this is a mortgage crisis, you should have lived then.

He was a disaster in terms of Foreign policy, just as I suspect Barack will be.

Oh, I particulary enjoyed the long waits at the gas station to get my 2 gallons of gas.....

Yep, things sure are bad and we need CHANGE!

Gas jumped to over $3.30 a gallon today where I live, that is a 200+% increase from when George II took office. My home owners insurance has gone up 400+% during that same time yet I have filed no claims. While mortgage rates are lower than during Carter's admin, the property costs have skyrocketed to record highs so that $20k - $50k house of the 70's now costs in excess of $300k, and George II foreign policy is the laughing stock of the world. But it's OK; George II is going to make it all better with a $600.00 check to cover the rising costs. Good thing we are "safer" now!

I feel great pity for whoever inherits this mess, Democrat or Republican. The real shame is going to be the cost to future generations who will be paying for this jackass’s actions while in the White House. I had a guy tell me the other night at our local American Legion that at least George II did not lie under oath. Oh yes he did, and he does it every time he opens his mouth. I am not so blind that I cannot, or refuse to see, where this idiot has led this country. If you think the 70's were bad just wait to see what the future will bring, but I suppose you will lay that one on the next administration because this one can do no wrong.

The big difference here is that I do not "suspect" that Obama, Clinton or McCain will be any worse. It would be nearly impossible for them to be any worse than George II. Change at this point can only be for the better.

Personally I cannot prove or disprove whether or not Hillary shook King's hand. Nor do I particularly care if her hubby knocked off a quick one with an intern while in the White House. Small potatoes. It makes no difference to me. Nobody died and it didn't cost me a dime. (besides, Clinton had a fairly good foreign policy) What does mean something to me is to have a sitting President look you in the face and tell you bold face lies about why our men and women are getting killed in a senseless war and that outsourcing is going to save the economy and that anyone in his administration proved to leak any information about CIA operatives would be fired or that we are safer now and that the state of our Union is good, etc, etc, etc. I firmly believe that most American's are insulted by his lies and that we are more intelligent than he apparently gives us credit for, at least most of us. We're tired of it. We not only want change, we are showing the world that we demand it.

Before you go and get your panties in a wad about my calling our actions against terrorism "senseless", I am of the opinion that bin Laden and Co. should have been vapor long ago along with much of the Afgan countryside. You cannot successfully fight a guerilla war with conventional means. Just so you don't think I'm soft on terrorism...

[kaydee457 13]

interesting how the most conservative on the forum feel the need to have a signature denouncing Hillary or Obama. Sounds like the person may be insecure about something.

Same goes for liberals with anti-McCain signatures.

Last time I checked this is a forum for immigration with help and advice to those who ask, kinda boring stuff after a while I suppose. I guess that is why some of the most read articles come in the off topic forum.

To the contrary, I'm an Obama fan....I think we need presidents like him on occasion; the last one was Jimmy Carter.

It helps you yugun's to gain perspective as to just how bad is, because if you think it's bad now, wait until Obama occupies the WH....

Lemme see, Jimmy's presidency produced 21% inflation, 14% mortgages, 10%+ unemployment, and you think this is a mortgage crisis, you should have lived then.

He was a disaster in terms of Foreign policy, just as I suspect Barack will be.

Oh, I particulary enjoyed the long waits at the gas station to get my 2 gallons of gas.....

Yep, things sure are bad and we need CHANGE!

Gas jumped to over $3.30 a gallon today where I live, that is a 200+% increase from when George II took office. My home owners insurance has gone up 400+% during that same time yet I have filed no claims. While mortgage rates are lower than during Carter's admin, the property costs have skyrocketed to record highs so that $20k - $50k house of the 70's now costs in excess of $300k, and George II foreign policy is the laughing stock of the world. But it's OK; George II is going to make it all better with a $600.00 check to cover the rising costs. Good thing we are "safer" now!

I feel great pity for whoever inherits this mess, Democrat or Republican. The real shame is going to be the cost to future generations who will be paying for this jackass’s actions while in the White House. I had a guy tell me the other night at our local American Legion that at least George II did not lie under oath. Oh yes he did, and he does it every time he opens his mouth. I am not so blind that I cannot, or refuse to see, where this idiot has led this country. If you think the 70's were bad just wait to see what the future will bring, but I suppose you will lay that one on the next administration because this one can do no wrong.

The big difference here is that I do not "suspect" that Obama, Clinton or McCain will be any worse. It would be nearly impossible for them to be any worse than George II. Change at this point can only be for the better.

Personally I cannot prove or disprove whether or not Hillary shook King's hand. Nor do I particularly care if her hubby knocked off a quick one with an intern while in the White House. Small potatoes. It makes no difference to me. Nobody died and it didn't cost me a dime. (besides, Clinton had a fairly good foreign policy) What does mean something to me is to have a sitting President look you in the face and tell you bold face lies about why our men and women are getting killed in a senseless war and that outsourcing is going to save the economy and that anyone in his administration proved to leak any information about CIA operatives would be fired or that we are safer now and that the state of our Union is good, etc, etc, etc. I firmly believe that most American's are insulted by his lies and that we are more intelligent than he apparently gives us credit for, at least most of us. We're tired of it. We not only want change, we are showing the world that we demand it.

Before you go and get your panties in a wad about my calling our actions against terrorism "senseless", I am of the opinion that bin Laden and Co. should have been vapor long ago along with much of the Afgan countryside. You cannot successfully fight a guerilla war with conventional means. Just so you don't think I'm soft on terrorism...

There's not enough time in the day to rebut every false notion that you've put forth in this post. The fact is that we've seen the best 6 years of expansion since WWII and only recently have a minor slowdown in the economy.

Unemployment is at about 4.5%. During Clinton's reign 7% was considered "normal".....

You pay how much for gas? You poor bloke! Be happy that you can BUY GAS at all. There was a time when people waited hours (no exaggeration) for 1 gallon, sometimes 2........and all the snooty liberal soccer moms were complaining that they couldn’t take Johnny to practice and what the hell is my government doing for me, LOL. Hypocrites!

Bush's foreign policy isn't for the world to laugh at. This isn't a popularity contest. We elect people to lead, not bow to the whims of Code Pink and their ilk. Too bad that the polls show the war is unpopular. There are realities a U.S. President deals with, such as the consequences of appeasing the populace in order to gain popularity by ignoring the genocidal consequences of prematurely pulling out of IRAQ.

History will judge his presidency as one of the most pivotal in this nations history as it took on our enemies head on, unlike Clinton's apathy, and one that was mostly successful, both in the war on terror and the economic expansion we all enjoyed.

.

Edited April 6, 2008 by kaydee457

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

History will judge his presidency as one of the most pivotal in this nations history as it took on our enemies head on, unlike Clinton's apathy, and one that was mostly successful, both in the war on terror and the economic expansion we all enjoyed.

Hmmm that seems rather doubtful to be honest - not least the implied overstatement of the importance of Iraq on the global stage, but also the fact that if Iraq subsequently implodes in the course of the next 2, 5, 10 or 20 years people won't forget the man that pushed for the war and made the world less safe as a result.

Lets not forget the 53 coup in Iran - that was a piece of work wasn't it. And look how that turned out.

The US can guarantee (some level of) security in Iraq, it can't control Iraqi politics or the following and influence of guys like Moqtadr Al-Sadr. When the US leaves, Iran will end up picking up the pieces - in some form or other. My prediction.

We were stupid to start something we couldn't finish.

[NavarreMan 10]

interesting how the most conservative on the forum feel the need to have a signature denouncing Hillary or Obama. Sounds like the person may be insecure about something.

Same goes for liberals with anti-McCain signatures.

Last time I checked this is a forum for immigration with help and advice to those who ask, kinda boring stuff after a while I suppose. I guess that is why some of the most read articles come in the off topic forum.

To the contrary, I'm an Obama fan....I think we need presidents like him on occasion; the last one was Jimmy Carter.

It helps you yugun's to gain perspective as to just how bad is, because if you think it's bad now, wait until Obama occupies the WH....

Lemme see, Jimmy's presidency produced 21% inflation, 14% mortgages, 10%+ unemployment, and you think this is a mortgage crisis, you should have lived then.

He was a disaster in terms of Foreign policy, just as I suspect Barack will be.

Oh, I particulary enjoyed the long waits at the gas station to get my 2 gallons of gas.....

Yep, things sure are bad and we need CHANGE!

Gas jumped to over $3.30 a gallon today where I live, that is a 200+% increase from when George II took office. My home owners insurance has gone up 400+% during that same time yet I have filed no claims. While mortgage rates are lower than during Carter's admin, the property costs have skyrocketed to record highs so that $20k - $50k house of the 70's now costs in excess of $300k, and George II foreign policy is the laughing stock of the world. But it's OK; George II is going to make it all better with a $600.00 check to cover the rising costs. Good thing we are "safer" now!

I feel great pity for whoever inherits this mess, Democrat or Republican. The real shame is going to be the cost to future generations who will be paying for this jackass’s actions while in the White House. I had a guy tell me the other night at our local American Legion that at least George II did not lie under oath. Oh yes he did, and he does it every time he opens his mouth. I am not so blind that I cannot, or refuse to see, where this idiot has led this country. If you think the 70's were bad just wait to see what the future will bring, but I suppose you will lay that one on the next administration because this one can do no wrong.

The big difference here is that I do not "suspect" that Obama, Clinton or McCain will be any worse. It would be nearly impossible for them to be any worse than George II. Change at this point can only be for the better.

Personally I cannot prove or disprove whether or not Hillary shook King's hand. Nor do I particularly care if her hubby knocked off a quick one with an intern while in the White House. Small potatoes. It makes no difference to me. Nobody died and it didn't cost me a dime. (besides, Clinton had a fairly good foreign policy) What does mean something to me is to have a sitting President look you in the face and tell you bold face lies about why our men and women are getting killed in a senseless war and that outsourcing is going to save the economy and that anyone in his administration proved to leak any information about CIA operatives would be fired or that we are safer now and that the state of our Union is good, etc, etc, etc. I firmly believe that most American's are insulted by his lies and that we are more intelligent than he apparently gives us credit for, at least most of us. We're tired of it. We not only want change, we are showing the world that we demand it.

Before you go and get your panties in a wad about my calling our actions against terrorism "senseless", I am of the opinion that bin Laden and Co. should have been vapor long ago along with much of the Afgan countryside. You cannot successfully fight a guerilla war with conventional means. Just so you don't think I'm soft on terrorism...

There's not enough time in the day to rebut every false notion that you've put forth in this post. The fact is that we've seen the best 6 years of expansion since WWII and only recently have a minor slowdown in the economy.

Unemployment is at about 4.5%. During Clinton's reign 7% was considered "normal".....

You pay how much for gas? You poor bloke! Be happy that you can BUY GAS at all. There was a time when people waited hours (no exaggeration) for 1 gallon, sometimes 2........and all the snooty liberal soccer moms were complaining that they couldn’t take Johnny to practice and what the hell is my government doing for me, LOL. Hypocrites!

Bush's foreign policy isn't for the world to laugh at. This isn't a popularity contest. We elect people to lead, not bow to the whims of Code Pink and their ilk. Too bad that the polls show the war is unpopular. There are realities a U.S. President deals with, such as the consequences of appeasing the populace in order to gain popularity by ignoring the genocidal consequences of prematurely pulling out of IRAQ.

History will judge his presidency as one of the most pivotal in this nations history as it took on our enemies head on, unlike Clinton's apathy, and one that was mostly successful, both in the war on terror and the economic expansion we all enjoyed.

.

False notions??? Your statement is way off base. It is no false notion that gas has increased and that property values have been greatly inflated.

What are your qualifications to state that (1) "just as I suspect Barack will be" (2) "Bush's foreign policy isn't for the world to laugh at" and (3) "History will judge his presidency as one of the most pivotal in this nations history". I can see (1) as being legit as it is an opinion but you must have some special insider knowledge to claim the other 2. Bush's foreign policy is certainly for the world to judge. It is after all his "FOREIGN" policy.

For some unknown reason you seem to think that I do not remember the days when there was an oil embargo and there was gas rationing. I remember buying gas based on the last digit on my license plate and the long lines. Way back when gas was $0.32 cents a gallon! I do not see anything that proves expansion of any sort of our economy except to say that the surplus George II was handed is now spent and we are rapidly diving deep into the debit side of an economic hell.

Code Pink... now you show your true colors. If someone does not agree with you then you throw Code Pink out there. You must have really missed the last part of my post. If you are going to fight a war do it to win. Nuke their silly butts. You say that George II is not in this for popularity? What was he doing when he stood on the smoking rubble of 9/11 and proclaimed that he would get the person responsible for this? Has he accomplished that? No. Does he really want to? I doubt it. For whatever reason, you, and those like you, have given this idiot God like status and refuse to believe that he could possibly deceive anyone. Wake the F*%# up.

You would do well to recheck your unemployment figures. USA 7.7% at the beginning of Carter's administration 5.8% when he left office in 1980. Carter The liberal soccor mom's you are so quick to mention did not really exist until long after the oil embargo. Defending our so-called leader for trying to legitimize a war he stupidly got us into in the first place doesn't work too well either. He kicked the bee hive, we pay the price.

You are 100% correct. It is not a popularity contest. It is all about credability and George II has none, and there is plenty of time to rubut anything I've written here but the fact is that you cannot rebut it. The economy is tanking and prices are rising at an alarming rate and those are facts that you cannot justifialby argue against. You can be a follower for as long as you like but the day will come when George II and his gang will reap what they sow.

The one thing about your reply to my posts that I find most interesting is that you do not bother to comment about my stance on change. Instead you try and defend the current administration. That speaks volumes on your inability to reason and understand the world around you.

Editted for spelling.

Edited April 6, 2008 by NavarreMan

[NavarreMan 10]

My bad... I referenced Carter's unemployment when it should have been Clinton's which was 7.5% when he took office and 4.5% when he left office. Clinton And who did Clinton inherit that from???