Obama won????!!!

[Tahoma 2,292]

Obama said today that he is "not committed" to missile defense. The Bush administration negotiated to put a missile defense system in Poland that protects the US and when Obama spoke to the Polish President he would not commit to the agreement. He stated that he couldn't support such a system until we knew it worked. This is similar to his position on nuclear power. He says he supports it but then gives himself an out by saying that it is not safe to store the nuclear waste. Another phony excuse. There will be no progress on energy independence during Obama's term. The honeymoon will be quickly over as the economy tanks with his misguided policies and he wont be able to point the blame at Bush.

Greetings Tsup2...

The Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) worked well for us for more than a generation to provide security from nuclear attack. The ABM Treaty is based on the principle of mutual assured destruction. It has always been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. However, the Bush administration unilaterally scrapped the ABM Treaty. Now, this administration is proposing to place defensive missiles on Russia's doorstep (a complete violation of the ABM Treaty). It would be the equivalent of Russia placing missiles on the Canadian (or Mexican) border with the United States. Contrary to what you assert, this administration has never made any claims about these missiles defending the United States. Instead, they claim the defensive missiles are for protecting Europe. However, Europeans do not want this missile system. Many observers of this issue believe that one of the reasons the Bush administration is using the missile defense issue is to further intimidate Russia at a time when the administration is attempting to enlist Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. Also, no matter what you think of President-elect Obama's policies, he is correct about missile defense not working. Many people see no value, nor increase in our security, from spending countless billions of dollars for a missile system that does not work. Even if we could build a missile system which could actually shoot down incoming missiles, it would make no one any safer from nuclear attack. A defensive missile system is of absolutely no defense against a submarine-launched attack. Hence, we are right back to the idea of mutual assured destruction. The only thing that is certain to prevent a nuclear attack is the assurance that the attacker will be destroyed also. Additionally, there is no defense against missiles armed with conventional warheads. An alternative to the increasing tension (and expense) of a new arms race would be diplomacy. I am willing to give our President-elect the opportunity to patch up our frayed friendships around the world, and to building civil relationships with other countries.

As for the safe storage of nuclear waste, I am unclear about what you are trying to say regarding this issue. Are you saying that radioactivity is not hazardous to our health? Are you saying that currently we are storing our nuclear waste in a safe, secure, and permanent manner? I used to live near (now a three-hour drive) from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The first nuclear reactor there was built during World War II and supplied some of the uranium and plutonium for the first atomic bombs. There has since been a large accumulation of nuclear waste from several reactors on the site. The Hanford Reservation has possibly the largest amount of nuclear waste in the country stored "temporarily" on their site. This "temporary" storage includes dozens of huge single-wall and double-wall tanks which are full of radioactive sludge. Many of them are leaking. The radioactive sludge has already started it's migration toward the nearby mighty Columbia River. As far as I know, none of this massive amount of radioactive material, dating back to World War II and the start of the nuclear age, has ever been properly nor permanently stored. The problem of nuclear waste storage is not confined only to Hanford. We need to talk about solutions to this problem instead of adding to the problem, and I support a national dialog on this matter.

Ironically, during the 1970's, five new nuclear power plants were planned for the State of Washington...with three of them to be located at Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Three or four were actually built. If I remember correctly, only one of the nuclear power plants ever generated any electricity. The others are still mothballed because they simply were not needed. People in this region found ways to conserve power so that the plants were not needed. My point is that we need to take a hard look at conservation. We also need to invest in alternatives to traditional power sources...such as wind, solar, and wave power. We also need to work on the technology for no-carbon coal. And, until we clean up the nuclear waste we have generated for over 60 years, we need to hold off on building any more nuclear power plants. I am glad that President-elect Obama does not want to sweep this issue under the rug. Energy independence is an important issue which will require us to do some hard thinking about untidy things like nuclear waste. Call me an optimist, but I believed President Kennedy when he pledged to put a man on the moon before the end of the 1960's. I believe that America can achieve energy independence in a safe, responsible, and environmentally-friendly manner.

Obama said today that he is "not committed" to missile defense. The Bush administration negotiated to put a missile defense system in Poland that protects the US and when Obama spoke to the Polish President he would not commit to the agreement. He stated that he couldn't support such a system until we knew it worked. This is similar to his position on nuclear power. He says he supports it but then gives himself an out by saying that it is not safe to store the nuclear waste. Another phony excuse. There will be no progress on energy independence during Obama's term. The honeymoon will be quickly over as the economy tanks with his misguided policies and he wont be able to point the blame at Bush.

Greetings Tsup2...

The Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) worked well for us for more than a generation to provide security from nuclear attack. The ABM Treaty is based on the principle of mutual assured destruction. It has always been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. However, the Bush administration unilaterally scrapped the ABM Treaty. Now, this administration is proposing to place defensive missiles on Russia's doorstep (a complete violation of the ABM Treaty). It would be the equivalent of Russia placing missiles on the Canadian (or Mexican) border with the United States. Contrary to what you assert, this administration has never made any claims about these missiles defending the United States. Instead, they claim the defensive missiles are for protecting Europe. However, Europeans do not want this missile system. Many observers of this issue believe that one of the reasons the Bush administration is using the missile defense issue is to further intimidate Russia at a time when the administration is attempting to enlist Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. Also, no matter what you think of President-elect Obama's policies, he is correct about missile defense not working. Many people see no value, nor increase in our security, from spending countless billions of dollars for a missile system that does not work. Even if we could build a missile system which could actually shoot down incoming missiles, it would make no one any safer from nuclear attack. A defensive missile system is of absolutely no defense against a submarine-launched attack. Hence, we are right back to the idea of mutual assured destruction. The only thing that is certain to prevent a nuclear attack is the assurance that the attacker will be destroyed also. Additionally, there is no defense against missiles armed with conventional warheads. An alternative to the increasing tension (and expense) of a new arms race would be diplomacy. I am willing to give our President-elect the opportunity to patch up our frayed friendships around the world, and to building civil relationships with other countries.

As for the safe storage of nuclear waste, I am unclear about what you are trying to say regarding this issue. Are you saying that radioactivity is not hazardous to our health? Are you saying that currently we are storing our nuclear waste in a safe, secure, and permanent manner? I used to live near (now a three-hour drive) from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The first nuclear reactor there was built during World War II and supplied some of the uranium and plutonium for the first atomic bombs. There has since been a large accumulation of nuclear waste from several reactors on the site. The Hanford Reservation has possibly the largest amount of nuclear waste in the country stored "temporarily" on their site. This "temporary" storage includes dozens of huge single-wall and double-wall tanks which are full of radioactive sludge. Many of them are leaking. The radioactive sludge has already started it's migration toward the nearby mighty Columbia River. As far as I know, none of this massive amount of radioactive material, dating back to World War II and the start of the nuclear age, has ever been properly nor permanently stored. The problem of nuclear waste storage is not confined only to Hanford. We need to talk about solutions to this problem instead of adding to the problem, and I support a national dialog on this matter.

Ironically, during the 1970's, five new nuclear power plants were planned for the State of Washington...with three of them to be located at Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Three or four were actually built. If I remember correctly, only one of the nuclear power plants ever generated any electricity. The others are still mothballed because they simply were not needed. People in this region found ways to conserve power so that the plants were not needed. My point is that we need to take a hard look at conservation. We also need to invest in alternatives to traditional power sources...such as wind, solar, and wave power. We also need to work on the technology for no-carbon coal. And, until we clean up the nuclear waste we have generated for over 60 years, we need to hold off on building any more nuclear power plants. I am glad that President-elect Obama does not want to sweep this issue under the rug. Energy independence is an important issue which will require us to do some hard thinking about untidy things like nuclear waste. Call me an optimist, but I believed President Kennedy when he pledged to put a man on the moon before the end of the 1960's. I believe that America can achieve energy independence in a safe, responsible, and environmentally-friendly manner.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

Greetings Tsup2...

The Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) worked well for us for more than a generation to provide security from nuclear attack. The ABM Treaty is based on the principle of mutual assured destruction.

uh no, try again.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty or ABMT) was a treaty between the United States of America and the Soviet Union on the limitation of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against missile-delivered nuclear weapons.

It has always been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. However, the Bush administration unilaterally scrapped the ABM Treaty.

said treaty was with the soviet union, not russia.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 the status of the treaty became unclear, debated by members of Congress and professors of law, Succession of the ABM Treaty,State Succession and the Legal Status of the ABM Treaty, and Miron-Feith Memorandum. In 1997, a memorandum of understanding[4] between the US and four of the former USSR states was signed and subject to ratification by each signatory, however it was not presented to the US Senate for advice and consent by Bill Clinton.

On December 13, 2001, George W. Bush gave Russia notice of the United States' withdrawal from the treaty, in accordance with the clause that requires six months notice before terminating the pact. This was the first time in recent history the United States has withdrawn from a major international arms treaty. This led to the eventual creation of the Missile Defense Agency.[5]

Reaction to the withdrawal by both the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China was much milder than many had predicted, following months of discussion with both Russia and China aimed at convincing both that development of a National Missile Defense was not directed at them. In the case of Russia, the United States stated that it intended to discuss a bilateral reduction in the numbers of nuclear warheads, which would allow Russia to reduce its spending on missiles without decrease of comparative strength. Discussions led to the signing of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in Moscow on May 24, 2002. This treaty mandated the deepest ever cuts in deployed strategic nuclear warheads, without actually mandating cuts to total stockpiled warheads.

Now, this administration is proposing to place defensive missiles on Russia's doorstep (a complete violation of the ABM Treaty).

covered in the first part of this reply. now what missiles are you referring to? maybe it's just me, but you calling them defensive missiles does not make them sound ominous.

and it's nice if you provide links to back up what you're saying.

the above is from link

[Tahoma 2,292]

Greetings Tsup2...

The Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) worked well for us for more than a generation to provide security from nuclear attack. The ABM Treaty is based on the principle of mutual assured destruction.

uh no, try again.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty or ABMT) was a treaty between the United States of America and the Soviet Union on the limitation of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against missile-delivered nuclear weapons.

It has always been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. However, the Bush administration unilaterally scrapped the ABM Treaty.

said treaty was with the soviet union, not russia.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 the status of the treaty became unclear, debated by members of Congress and professors of law, Succession of the ABM Treaty,State Succession and the Legal Status of the ABM Treaty, and Miron-Feith Memorandum. In 1997, a memorandum of understanding[4] between the US and four of the former USSR states was signed and subject to ratification by each signatory, however it was not presented to the US Senate for advice and consent by Bill Clinton.

On December 13, 2001, George W. Bush gave Russia notice of the United States' withdrawal from the treaty, in accordance with the clause that requires six months notice before terminating the pact. This was the first time in recent history the United States has withdrawn from a major international arms treaty. This led to the eventual creation of the Missile Defense Agency.[5]

Reaction to the withdrawal by both the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China was much milder than many had predicted, following months of discussion with both Russia and China aimed at convincing both that development of a National Missile Defense was not directed at them. In the case of Russia, the United States stated that it intended to discuss a bilateral reduction in the numbers of nuclear warheads, which would allow Russia to reduce its spending on missiles without decrease of comparative strength. Discussions led to the signing of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in Moscow on May 24, 2002. This treaty mandated the deepest ever cuts in deployed strategic nuclear warheads, without actually mandating cuts to total stockpiled warheads.

Now, this administration is proposing to place defensive missiles on Russia's doorstep (a complete violation of the ABM Treaty).

covered in the first part of this reply. now what missiles are you referring to? maybe it's just me, but you calling them defensive missiles does not make them sound ominous.

and it's nice if you provide links to back up what you're saying.

the above is from link

Hi Charles...

I was surprised and pleased to see your reply to my posting. From what I have seen of your usual postings, you enjoy sitting back and adding to the fun with your wisecracks that I enjoy so much. Who knew that you had a serious side.

From my reading of your response, we are on the same page much of the time. For example, I'm sure you would agree that no matter whether it is the old Soviet Union, or the new Russia...it is the same bunch of guys who are pointing enough ballistic missiles at us (and Europe) to incinerate us many times over. The number of missiles may be fewer, but any resulting nuclear war would yield the same result. Therefore, both sides still operate under the principle of mutual assured destruction.

I'm sure that you have noticed Russia's latest proposal to place missiles near the Polish border. It is not the first time that they have threatened to do just that. They also did so in response to the Bush administration's trial balloon regarding the placement of our missiles in Poland at Russia's doorstep. Why should we instigate another arms race? My point is...what do we (or the Europeans) have to gain from threatening Russia with a missile system which does not work, and could not possibly stop a strike? The downside is too great...another costly and futile arms race. I see no upside.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make when you say, "what missiles are you referring to? Maybe it's just me, but you calling them defensive missiles does not make them sound ominous." Maybe you could explain what you mean...and I would be glad to talk to your point.

I am not trying to make anything sound more ominous than it already is.

I am glad that you care about this issue as I do, and I look forward to your response. By the way, in the spirit of full disclosure, I will tell you that my customary reading includes "The Nation" magazine, "The Progressive" magazine, "The Spectator" newsletter, "Mother Jones" magazine, "The Guardian" newspaper, and "The Seattle Times" newspaper. I watch Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, and LINK TV. I find wiki distilled down to unhelpful blandness.

[nowhereman 1]

I love how the right wingers said nothing while the Bush administration wrecked this country over the past 8 years, but there are numerous Obama hating threads & the guy isn't even in office yet. You tards are your own worst enemy... spew hate and ignorance, spread half-truths, rhetoric and lies, take responsibility for absolutely nothing & blame the democrats for everything.

and vice versa...

Thats total BS... count the Bush hating threads & count the Obama hating threads... not even remotely close. Whats worse is that Bush DID screw things up & Obama isn't even in office yet. Ridiculous to say its the same.

pardon, but I was just making the point it happens on both sides. to me, a prerequisite to being a Politician is to be full of BS, speak half truths and blame the other side. name calling also goes on from both sides. you clearly proved that...

You are clueless... your reply "proves" that. If both sides were equally guilty I would agree with you, but it's not even close.

[ScratchIt 12]

I love how the right wingers said nothing while the Bush administration wrecked this country over the past 8 years, but there are numerous Obama hating threads & the guy isn't even in office yet. You tards are your own worst enemy... spew hate and ignorance, spread half-truths, rhetoric and lies, take responsibility for absolutely nothing & blame the democrats for everything.

and vice versa...

Thats total BS... count the Bush hating threads & count the Obama hating threads... not even remotely close. Whats worse is that Bush DID screw things up & Obama isn't even in office yet. Ridiculous to say its the same.

pardon, but I was just making the point it happens on both sides. to me, a prerequisite to being a Politician is to be full of BS, speak half truths and blame the other side. name calling also goes on from both sides. you clearly proved that...

You are clueless... your reply "proves" that. If both sides were equally guilty I would agree with you, but it's not even close.

Wow, by those standards there are a crapload of politicians who post on this sight!

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

I love how the right wingers said nothing while the Bush administration wrecked this country over the past 8 years, but there are numerous Obama hating threads & the guy isn't even in office yet. You tards are your own worst enemy... spew hate and ignorance, spread half-truths, rhetoric and lies, take responsibility for absolutely nothing & blame the democrats for everything.

and vice versa...

Thats total BS... count the Bush hating threads & count the Obama hating threads... not even remotely close. Whats worse is that Bush DID screw things up & Obama isn't even in office yet. Ridiculous to say its the same.

pardon, but I was just making the point it happens on both sides. to me, a prerequisite to being a Politician is to be full of BS, speak half truths and blame the other side. name calling also goes on from both sides. you clearly proved that...

You are clueless... your reply "proves" that. If both sides were equally guilty I would agree with you, but it's not even close.

there's plenty of blame to spread around, and both sides deserve it. it wasn't just the republicans in congress giving bush a blank check........

[nowhereman 1]

I love how the right wingers said nothing while the Bush administration wrecked this country over the past 8 years, but there are numerous Obama hating threads & the guy isn't even in office yet. You tards are your own worst enemy... spew hate and ignorance, spread half-truths, rhetoric and lies, take responsibility for absolutely nothing & blame the democrats for everything.

and vice versa...

Thats total BS... count the Bush hating threads & count the Obama hating threads... not even remotely close. Whats worse is that Bush DID screw things up & Obama isn't even in office yet. Ridiculous to say its the same.

pardon, but I was just making the point it happens on both sides. to me, a prerequisite to being a Politician is to be full of BS, speak half truths and blame the other side. name calling also goes on from both sides. you clearly proved that...

You are clueless... your reply "proves" that. If both sides were equally guilty I would agree with you, but it's not even close.

there's plenty of blame to spread around, and both sides deserve it. it wasn't just the republicans in congress giving bush a blank check........

The Dems certainly played a part, but the Republicans should take the lions share of the blame. The Dems didn't have enough votes to override a Bush veto & Bush truly believed that the Legislative Branch was there to pass his bills without question, so whenever they challenged him the Bush cronies called them all sorts of names (unpatriotic being the primary label).

The system is designed to promote compromise between the parties, which would hopefully result in decisions that benefit the greatest number of people, but with the Bush administration you were "either with him or against him" (Bush actually said this). To add insult to injury the Republicans have (as I said earlier) engaged in rhetoric & misinformation over the past 8 years while taking no responsibility whatsoever for anything. It's insulting to say that the blame is equal, because it absolutely isn't.

Going forward there are some encouraging signs, not the least of which is the fact that Bush is leaving. To his credit he has conducted himself in a dignified manner during the transition; it's too bad President Bush didn't act this way during the previous 8 years.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

The Dems certainly played a part, but the Republicans should take the lions share of the blame. The Dems didn't have enough votes to override a Bush veto & Bush truly believed that the Legislative Branch was there to pass his bills without question, so whenever they challenged him the Bush cronies called them all sorts of names (unpatriotic being the primary label).

The system is designed to promote compromise between the parties, which would hopefully result in decisions that benefit the greatest number of people, but with the Bush administration you were "either with him or against him" (Bush actually said this). To add insult to injury the Republicans have (as I said earlier) engaged in rhetoric & misinformation over the past 8 years while taking no responsibility whatsoever for anything. It's insulting to say that the blame is equal, because it absolutely isn't.

Going forward there are some encouraging signs, not the least of which is the fact that Bush is leaving. To his credit he has conducted himself in a dignified manner during the transition; it's too bad President Bush didn't act this way during the previous 8 years.

given the dems started off with a majority 2 years ago, i'm not buying that they couldn't block bills, and let's not forget the "statesmanship" shown by pelosi in her reach across the aisle to slap people in the face that didn't earn any points for bipartisanship. add to that the 110th congress starting early 07 had a majority of dems - almost 2 years worth of a dem controlled house and an even split in the senate and you're gonna still claim it's all bush's fault? oh please!

[nowhereman 1]

The Dems certainly played a part, but the Republicans should take the lions share of the blame. The Dems didn't have enough votes to override a Bush veto & Bush truly believed that the Legislative Branch was there to pass his bills without question, so whenever they challenged him the Bush cronies called them all sorts of names (unpatriotic being the primary label).

The system is designed to promote compromise between the parties, which would hopefully result in decisions that benefit the greatest number of people, but with the Bush administration you were "either with him or against him" (Bush actually said this). To add insult to injury the Republicans have (as I said earlier) engaged in rhetoric & misinformation over the past 8 years while taking no responsibility whatsoever for anything. It's insulting to say that the blame is equal, because it absolutely isn't.

Going forward there are some encouraging signs, not the least of which is the fact that Bush is leaving. To his credit he has conducted himself in a dignified manner during the transition; it's too bad President Bush didn't act this way during the previous 8 years.

given the dems started off with a majority 2 years ago, i'm not buying that they couldn't block bills, and let's not forget the "statesmanship" shown by pelosi in her reach across the aisle to slap people in the face that didn't earn any points for bipartisanship. add to that the 110th congress starting early 07 had a majority of dems - almost 2 years worth of a dem controlled house and an even split in the senate and you're gonna still claim it's all bush's fault? oh please!

The Bush administration set the partisan tone very early on... Cheney & Rove being his primary attack dogs. You have to be really, really biased to not see that. Sure Pelosi & some others lashed back and that isn't the correct thing to do either, but most people tend to hit back after being punched in the face a few dozen times. As for the slight democratic advantage in the house & senate as I said they didn't have enough of an advantage to survive a Bush veto, so they could either go along with whatever he wanted or hold out (and be accused of being unpatriotic, as in the case with anything involving the war in Iraq). It was a damned if you do/ damned if you don't situation.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

The Dems certainly played a part, but the Republicans should take the lions share of the blame. The Dems didn't have enough votes to override a Bush veto & Bush truly believed that the Legislative Branch was there to pass his bills without question, so whenever they challenged him the Bush cronies called them all sorts of names (unpatriotic being the primary label).

The system is designed to promote compromise between the parties, which would hopefully result in decisions that benefit the greatest number of people, but with the Bush administration you were "either with him or against him" (Bush actually said this). To add insult to injury the Republicans have (as I said earlier) engaged in rhetoric & misinformation over the past 8 years while taking no responsibility whatsoever for anything. It's insulting to say that the blame is equal, because it absolutely isn't.

Going forward there are some encouraging signs, not the least of which is the fact that Bush is leaving. To his credit he has conducted himself in a dignified manner during the transition; it's too bad President Bush didn't act this way during the previous 8 years.

given the dems started off with a majority 2 years ago, i'm not buying that they couldn't block bills, and let's not forget the "statesmanship" shown by pelosi in her reach across the aisle to slap people in the face that didn't earn any points for bipartisanship. add to that the 110th congress starting early 07 had a majority of dems - almost 2 years worth of a dem controlled house and an even split in the senate and you're gonna still claim it's all bush's fault? oh please!

The Bush administration set the partisan tone very early on... Cheney & Rove being his primary attack dogs. You have to be really, really biased to not see that. Sure Pelosi & some others lashed back and that isn't the correct thing to do either, but most people tend to hit back after being punched in the face a few dozen times. As for the slight democratic advantage in the house & senate as I said they didn't have enough of an advantage to survive a Bush veto, so they could either go along with whatever he wanted or hold out (and be accused of being unpatriotic, as in the case with anything involving the war in Iraq). It was a damned if you do/ damned if you don't situation.

you're downplaying the last two years again.

[nowhereman 1]

The Dems certainly played a part, but the Republicans should take the lions share of the blame. The Dems didn't have enough votes to override a Bush veto & Bush truly believed that the Legislative Branch was there to pass his bills without question, so whenever they challenged him the Bush cronies called them all sorts of names (unpatriotic being the primary label).

The system is designed to promote compromise between the parties, which would hopefully result in decisions that benefit the greatest number of people, but with the Bush administration you were "either with him or against him" (Bush actually said this). To add insult to injury the Republicans have (as I said earlier) engaged in rhetoric & misinformation over the past 8 years while taking no responsibility whatsoever for anything. It's insulting to say that the blame is equal, because it absolutely isn't.

Going forward there are some encouraging signs, not the least of which is the fact that Bush is leaving. To his credit he has conducted himself in a dignified manner during the transition; it's too bad President Bush didn't act this way during the previous 8 years.

given the dems started off with a majority 2 years ago, i'm not buying that they couldn't block bills, and let's not forget the "statesmanship" shown by pelosi in her reach across the aisle to slap people in the face that didn't earn any points for bipartisanship. add to that the 110th congress starting early 07 had a majority of dems - almost 2 years worth of a dem controlled house and an even split in the senate and you're gonna still claim it's all bush's fault? oh please!

The Bush administration set the partisan tone very early on... Cheney & Rove being his primary attack dogs. You have to be really, really biased to not see that. Sure Pelosi & some others lashed back and that isn't the correct thing to do either, but most people tend to hit back after being punched in the face a few dozen times. As for the slight democratic advantage in the house & senate as I said they didn't have enough of an advantage to survive a Bush veto, so they could either go along with whatever he wanted or hold out (and be accused of being unpatriotic, as in the case with anything involving the war in Iraq). It was a damned if you do/ damned if you don't situation.

you're downplaying the last two years again.

It was no doubt a dysfunctional situation, but started by the Bush administration. It's similar to a bad marriage where one partner is initially more at fault than the other, but resentment builds up on both sides and it becomes a constant back & forth brawl.

[sunandmoon 450]

I love how the right wingers said nothing while the Bush administration wrecked this country over the past 8 years, but there are numerous Obama hating threads & the guy isn't even in office yet. You tards are your own worst enemy... spew hate and ignorance, spread half-truths, rhetoric and lies, take responsibility for absolutely nothing & blame the democrats for everything.

and vice versa...

Thats total BS... count the Bush hating threads & count the Obama hating threads... not even remotely close. Whats worse is that Bush DID screw things up & Obama isn't even in office yet. Ridiculous to say its the same.

pardon, but I was just making the point it happens on both sides. to me, a prerequisite to being a Politician is to be full of BS, speak half truths and blame the other side. name calling also goes on from both sides. you clearly proved that...

You are clueless... your reply "proves" that. If both sides were equally guilty I would agree with you, but it's not even close.

OK. about Politicans, I was just making a sarcastic comment. I wasn't assigning XX % of blame to one side and XX % blame to the other.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

The Dems certainly played a part, but the Republicans should take the lions share of the blame. The Dems didn't have enough votes to override a Bush veto & Bush truly believed that the Legislative Branch was there to pass his bills without question, so whenever they challenged him the Bush cronies called them all sorts of names (unpatriotic being the primary label).

The system is designed to promote compromise between the parties, which would hopefully result in decisions that benefit the greatest number of people, but with the Bush administration you were "either with him or against him" (Bush actually said this). To add insult to injury the Republicans have (as I said earlier) engaged in rhetoric & misinformation over the past 8 years while taking no responsibility whatsoever for anything. It's insulting to say that the blame is equal, because it absolutely isn't.

Going forward there are some encouraging signs, not the least of which is the fact that Bush is leaving. To his credit he has conducted himself in a dignified manner during the transition; it's too bad President Bush didn't act this way during the previous 8 years.

given the dems started off with a majority 2 years ago, i'm not buying that they couldn't block bills, and let's not forget the "statesmanship" shown by pelosi in her reach across the aisle to slap people in the face that didn't earn any points for bipartisanship. add to that the 110th congress starting early 07 had a majority of dems - almost 2 years worth of a dem controlled house and an even split in the senate and you're gonna still claim it's all bush's fault? oh please!

The Bush administration set the partisan tone very early on... Cheney & Rove being his primary attack dogs. You have to be really, really biased to not see that. Sure Pelosi & some others lashed back and that isn't the correct thing to do either, but most people tend to hit back after being punched in the face a few dozen times. As for the slight democratic advantage in the house & senate as I said they didn't have enough of an advantage to survive a Bush veto, so they could either go along with whatever he wanted or hold out (and be accused of being unpatriotic, as in the case with anything involving the war in Iraq). It was a damned if you do/ damned if you don't situation.

you're downplaying the last two years again.

It was no doubt a dysfunctional situation, but started by the Bush administration. It's similar to a bad marriage where one partner is initially more at fault than the other, but resentment builds up on both sides and it becomes a constant back & forth brawl.

and both go to jail as it's mutual. a suitable penalty for the ones we are talking about.

[TomMyra 0]

Hey I lived in a socialist country for 7 years. We were very poor there. Socialism is a complete failure where it is tried.

It is much much better to be poor in the US, I know from personal experience.

The problem with the left is that they know so much that is not. Government elites will dictate and run your life. America is special because of opportunity not trying to be socailist like the rest of the world. For the Obama lovers there are other socialist countries to move to and see the failure.

There is nothing new with Obama. In four years we will all be crying, just remember Jimmy Carter.

[Mike_Zandy 0]

I don't think will have to wait 4 years. Mid terms in 2 years the Republicans will have it together.. and will make a dent in both the houses. Obama name will go down with the likes of Carter.. I voted for Bush twice.. and yes.. I know he made many mistakes.. But Obama... I am dreading what this country will look like in just a few years. I hope and pray things will be better and he will be given a fair chance. But from what I've seen. Carter Part II..