« Obamunists Set Out to Ruin Halloween | Main | Halloween Tricks and Treats at The Nothing Store »

I live in Florida myself and I can tell you this much, unless the democrats can somehow throw out all the votes that will be placed against him and for anyone else he isn't going to be re-elected. People are so sick of this idiot that it seems the only people fawning over him are the news reporters in the area and even at that it seems it is tepid and lacks heart. His political career is over, he's toast!

Another way to impact the congressional election in Orlando is to refuse to spend your vacation dollars in a community that supports such a left-wing idealogue, Since Orlando supports someone that attacks conservative values so rabidly and refuses to engage in any sane conversations with his opponents, anyone that disagrees with the socialistic policies that this nutbag supports should not finance his district's economy. Once Disney and Universal start feeling the impact of further dwindling of tourist dollars to their coffers, they will apply pressure to come up with a sane person to represent the district. There are many alternatives to Orlando that are much more family friendly anyway, such as Branson, Missouri, or the Wisconsin Dells.

Living in Vermont I personally can feel their pain. Unfortunately I see no change happenning up here.

Move to Vermont! We would love to share your money.

If you colored him green in photoshop, Grayson would be a dead ringer for Shrek.

Bruce,

That won't work. The theme parks would have to know why they were losing money, and most people in this country simply don't care enough to bother. MILLIONS visit the parks every year (from all over the world), and any loss of business is going to be trivial even in the best of circumstances. In addition, even if your plan worked, who would it punish? The theme parks here in Central Florida are the largest employers by far... all any sort of boycott would do would be to hurt the people living here to no effect, even on the minuscule chance it had an effect.

I live in Grayson's district. He only was elected because he rode Obama's coattails and because his Republican opponent broke several campaign promises and had turned into just another standard-issue politician. Central Florida is fairly middle-of-the-road. Grayson is growing more and more unpopular with every stunt he pulls. His bullshit plays well to the leftist fringes like the trolls who comment here, but to ordinary rational people he's looking like he's nuttier than a Stuckey's Pecan Log.

All the Republicans have to do to defeat him is run anyone fairly competent. Most likely, this bizarre, carpetbagging freak Grayson has already lost. Right now, attorney Todd Long has jumped into the race, and he almost took the incumbent's seat from him in the '08 primaries. I'll be donating money to his campaign, and I never donate to politicians. There are no guarantees, of course... Grayson is a nasty, vicious campaigner and willing to spend millions of his own money to defeat an opponent. We'll see what happens.

Oh, and trust me, I've been to both the Dells and Branson... comparing them to Disney World is like comparing a McDonalds cheeseburger to a fine steak.

"Kids, I know you wanted to go to Disney World this year, but we're going to someplace better!"
"Better?"
"Yeah... we're going to Branson, Missouri!!!"
(stunned silence)
"WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"

If hes not reelected Obama will just appoint him as Attack Czar.

Evil Otto,
Obama praised Grayson recently as a fine Congressman.

Obama praised Grayson recently as a fine Congressman.

He's a lousy, far-left president, it only makes sense that he'd compliment a lousy, far-left congressman.

Detroit wants to know when the recession will be over for you

http://apps.detnews.com/apps/forums/newstalk/lettersindex.php?topic=recession_103009

Alan Grayson?

I'd hit it.

Oh, wait.

I already did.

Yum!

Yeah. Grayson seems like he'd be an angry top.

My kinda man!

Add firm suing Grayson.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28958.html

I'm in his district, didn't vote for him, won't be voting for him in the future.

HEY I RESENT COMPAIRING ONE OF MY FELLOW BIRDS TO THAT SCOUNDREL EVEN A VULTURE COULDNT STAND HIM

Grayson is building his financial war chest by making outrageous statements to the national press. I'm sure the rich liberals are being generous, but it won't really help him.

For all his bravado in the liberal press, where no one argues with him, his district is fairly conservative. Sure, in 2008 he was able to win with the wave of voters mesmerized by Obama, but 2010 will be MUCH more difficult for him. Bottom line, Grayson is not a very likable guy and he's made no attempt to correct that. In fact, he's made himself look even worse by portraying himself as a foul-mouthed crazy guy on television.

While this sort of talk endears liberals nationwide, the VOTERS in his district are disturbed and angry with his antics. Combine that with his unwillingness to get out and about within his district (he much prefers the intellectual and collegial atmosphere in Washington), and he has planted the seeds for an upset, no matter how much money he spends. His coast-to-coast ego just isn't playing well with constituents.

Luckily, District 8 has a very credible challenger - Patricia Sullivan (http://PatriciaSullivanForCongress) in Eustis.

Patricia is hard-working, thoughtful, informed, and relates well with other people on a one-to-one basis. She's genuinely a nice person, who also has the tenacity and drive to mount a successful campaign and make a difference in Washington.

What does Grayson care? He is now the darling of unhinged moonbats everywhere, and will be near the front of the line for book deals, speaking engagements, and presidential appointments after the patriots remove him from office in 2010.

A few more outrageous statements, plus a tax scandal, and he'll be on the short list for a cabinet position.

Bruce, Orlando already feels the impact from the loss of tourist. But that impact isn't due to people rebelling against government but rather is the result of 8 years of abject failure from the previous government. You guys need to let go of that "destroy the village in order to save it" theory.

But that impact isn't due to people rebelling against government but rather is the result of 8 years of abject failure from the previous government.

Blah blah blah. Your side never holds any responsibility, does it you leftist twit? Democrats have held congress for how many years now?

BOTH PARTIES are responsible for this mess, but it is progressive ideas that are ultimately to blame... the ideas that you can shield people from the results of their folly, interfere with markets without consequence, and spend unlimited amounts of borrowed and taxed money and not have it impact the economy. Bush's main problem economically was that he was one of you. And since your side took power, all you've done is turn up the volume on his policies to 11. More spending, more borrowing, more interference in the free market, more bailouts, more ill-conceived social programs. More, more, more.

One common joke says that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. By that definition, you Democrats aren't just insane, you're batshit crazy.

Oh, and Andy, lest you think I'm being unfair, let me quote your Moonbat Messiah, Barack Obama:

"John, it's been your president who you said you agreed with 90 percent of the time who presided over this increase in spending. This orgy of spending and enormous deficits; you voted for almost all of his budgets." -Barack Obama, 9/26/2008

If Bush's years were an "orgy of spending," what does that make the current situation? What is beyond "orgy?"

I remember the years before the Democrats took power... they were constantly complaining about Bush's out-of-control spending. And as soon as they were safely in control they started spending in a way that made George Bush look like Scrooge. Are you trying to "destroy the economy in order to save it?"

"Bruce, Orlando already feels the impact from the loss of tourist. But that impact isn't due to people rebelling against government but rather is the result of 8 years of abject failure from the previous government. You guys need to let go of that "destroy the village in order to save it" theory.
"Posted by: andy42302 at November 1, 2009 4:37 AM"

Wrong. For the six of those years, attendance was up; especially for special events like Halloween. However, attendance has dropped noticably after 2007, when the DONKEYS gained power in congress. It fell even more after Hopey McChange was elected.

"Destroy the village"? You morons want to pull down what has taken over 200 years to build!

Evil & KHarn, I challenge either of you to point out any Dem legislation from 2006-2008 that contributed to the financial mess. As a matter of fact, it was in 06 that the Reps fully implemented their "party of no" program by breaking the all time filibuster record. They even filibustered bills when them Dems gave them what they asked for. So how can you hold Dems responsible when Reps obstructed bill after bill after bill. KHarn, did you have your head in the sand for the 6 years that the Reps started 2 wars and reduced tax breaks for the wealthy at the same time? They were warned it wouldn't work. Reagan proved it wouldn't work. It doesn't work and history proves it doesn't work. Just as Carter turned around Nixon's mess and Clinton turned around the Reagan/Bush 1 mess, Obama is now turning GWB's mess around. Is it expensive? Does it require spending? Yes but it is working. And before you cry the Fox News mantra of "where are the jobs", rising from the Bush/GOP ashes isn't going to happen over night. But from the looks of the stock market and the GDP, it looks like we're heading in the right direction.

Andy,

I find it hard to understand how the left can blame the current economy on Bush then, in the same breath, point to the DOW as the "absolute measure of the economy" and proclaim the economy is recovering. You are attempting to have your cake and eat it too. The economy is either good or bad but you're eliciting the "good" parts as proof that Obama policies work while contributing "bad" parts to Bush. Talk about confusion and twisted thinking to produce such a result.

Explain this rise in the stock market up until, you know, about 2007 when Democrats took power... So, was it not a measure of the economy then? Thank you for playing. You lose, again.

Also... in case you didn't know, the GDP (up 3.5%) includes SPENDING, meaning gov't spending is included. Also, to shatter your failed understanding even further, consumer spending went DOWN by .5%. So explain to me how you can praise this measure of the economy when it is based on a poor premise... Seriously, the increase in gov't spending is directly correlated to a lessening of disposable income for individual Americans. One again, you are wrong and misguided. Chocolate rations increased from 30 to 20?

If it's Bush's economy (and Obama is still not responsible), then it is also Bush's recovery. See, we can use this short timeframe (which you abuse to exhonerate any guilt on Obama) in our favor as well. Again, consistently inconsistent.

I want to believe that you are an intelligent person but you are giving more and more reason to believe that you are willfully ignorant as well as conveniently deceptive.

Evil & KHarn, I challenge either of you to point out any Dem legislation from 2006-2008 that contributed to the financial mess.

Translation: "Hey, look over there! Something distracting!" Your party has been in charge of the purse strings since 2007. ALL legislation that increases the debt and deficit is, at least partly, YOUR FAULT. All of it, Andy. Just as all legislation that increased the deficit and debt before you took over was the fault of the Republicans.

This financial mess has been building for many year, Andy. It was building during both the Clinton and Bush years. As I said, BOTH PARTIES are responsible. But you just can't admit that, because your blind loyalty to the Democratic party trumps all sanity.

As a matter of fact, it was in 06 that the Reps fully implemented their "party of no" program by breaking the all time filibuster record. They even filibustered bills when them Dems gave them what they asked for.

So the problem was that you didn't have COMPLETE power? That you couldn't get everything you wanted? And now that you can, you're making things many times worse. You're spending several times what the Republicans spent in their darkest days, and you want to spend MORE.

Translation: "It's not our fault! It's NEVER our fault!"

So how can you hold Dems responsible when Reps obstructed bill after bill after bill. KHarn, did you have your head in the sand for the 6 years that the Reps started 2 wars

TWO WARS?!?

Holy shit, Andy, you've said some stupid things, but that is by far the stupidest. For the sake of argument, let's say you're right about Iraq, that Republicans "started" it.

That's ONE war. The other... well, I seem to recall something happening that started that one. Something in 2001. In September, I think. I know you've probably forgotten it, what with your typically short leftist attention span, but it was in all the papers.

Republicans started that war? Did Republicans slaughter almost 3000 people on that day? Did Republicans destroy two of the largest buildings in the US, damage the Pentagon, and crash a plane into a field in Pennsylvania? Did Republicans do hundreds of billions of dollars of damage to the US economy that day as the stock market was frozen, plane travel stopped, and the country gripped by horror?

Screw you, Andy, you pathetic, unthinking leftist drone. Al Qaeda started that war. If only your hatred for them was as strong as your hatred of Republicans.

and reduced tax breaks for the wealthy at the same time?

It isn't a leftist comment without a little class warfare. Those evil rich, not paying their fair share of taxes.

They were warned it wouldn't work. Reagan proved it wouldn't work.

With one of the greatest economic upswings in American history.

It doesn't work and history proves it doesn't work. Just as Carter turned around Nixon's mess

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Man oh man, you just can't make crap like Andy spews up. Carter turned around Nixon's mess?

This must be a new definition of "turned around" that I wasn't aware of. The new definition is apparently "made things a lot worse." Perhaps that's what's happening now... Obama is turning around the economy in the same way Carter did. With massive inflation, stagnation. When do the gas lines start appearing, Andy?

and Clinton turned around the Reagan/Bush 1 mess, Obama is now turning GWB's mess around. Is it expensive? Does it require spending?

Oh, of course it does, Andy. How convenient. Spend money at a rate far greater than Bush's worst moments, then blame Republicans. "They're MAKING us triple Bush's deficit! We don't want to drive the country into trillions of dollars of debt, but we have no choice!"

Andy, honestly, do even you believe the horseshit you're shoveling anymore? Man up, take some responsibility for your party. No one is forcing you Democrats to borrow and spend at these unprecedented, INSANE levels. Your side is throwing money randomly into the economy, using this crisis to push your socialist agenda.

And we're going to all pay the price for your incompetence. Sorry, Andy, it's YOUR mess now. And you're making things worse.

Yes but it is working.

No. Not even close. You have no idea of what is coming down the pipe, drone. We'll be lucky if we get out of this without the dollar collapsing.

And before you cry the Fox News mantra

It also wouldn't be a leftist drone comment without mentioning Fox News.

of "where are the jobs", rising from the Bush/GOP ashes isn't going to happen over night.

So when can we expect them?

And when can we expect the dollar to strengthen? When can we expect the housing crisis to abate? When can we expect retail sales to rise? How about the deficit to shrink? When do we start paying back all this borrowed money? When do the federal printing presses shut down?

C'mon, Andy, you tell us things are getting better? So HOW? When?

You don't know. Because you're just regurgitating what others have told you. They tell you Obama is fixing the economy, and you believe it. And you never ask how. And when things get worse, you'll be here like a good little propagandist telling us that prosperity is just around the corner, that happy days are here again. And blaming Republicans for problems a year, two, three years in the future.

But from the looks of the stock market and the GDP, it looks like we're heading in the right direction.

Heh heh... you have no idea. We are screwed.

Let me ask you something: what happens when things DO start to get better? What will happen when the trillions of dollars that have been borrowed and printed start to flood a recovering economy? How will the government avoid massive inflation? At what point does the debt and deficit become too large? WHEN DOES THE SPENDING STOP? Tell me, because I'd really like to know.

But then, I'm asking too much of you, because you have no idea. I already know the answer: it doesn't.

Aside from partisan shrill ATTC, you can't escape the fact that Clinton handed GWB a tidy surplus and in return, GWB handed Obama an atrocious mess of mass debt from his and the 109th GOP Congress drunken spending spree. Clinton left us a U.S. dollar worth twice as many Euros than GWB left us. When the Dems took there razor thin lead, the GOP blocked most every bill. You still failed to mention exactly what legislation the Dems enacted that led to this crises. And even if you could, that bill still would have been backed by some Reps and signed by GWB. So your argument that the Dems contributed to this has no merit (not that that's an issue on this site).
While the 2 wars were expensive enough, Bush and the GOP insisted on a 10 year $1.8 trillion give away to the most wealthy, something that most economist warned against. They passed a federally subsidized give-away of $1.2 trillion for the Prescription Drug Bill, and an unfunded NCLB legislation (the most intrusive federal education law in history).
Eight years with your head in the sand and now you're blaming Obama.

Otto, I never said I was against the war in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, I backed it 100%.
But it did incur an expense just as Obama has incurred an expense in the Bush/GOP economic train wreck. Both are justifiable expenses.
I am disappointed however that Bush took his eye off the ball and let Al Qaeda and Bin Laden slip away, not only at Tora Bora but in general. Now that was a total waste.

Otto, I never said I was against the war in Afghanistan.

That's all you've got? I wasn't talking about your supposed support for the war. I was talking about what you wrote.

You said, quote:

"the Reps started 2 wars."

The. Reps. STARTED. 2. WARS.

Andy, you blamed the Republicans for STARTING the Afghanistan War. Don't try to weasel out of it. I wasn't addressing whether or not you were against the war. And when you were called on your crap, you backtrack and try to change the subject.

You really are just a partisan hack. All evil is attributed to Republicans, all good attributed to Democrats. Now, answer: who started the Afghanistan War?"

As a matter of fact, I backed it 100%.

Sure you did. That was totally obvious from your post. The one where you blamed Republicans for starting it.

But it did incur an expense just as Obama has incurred an expense in the Bush/GOP economic train wreck.

You're still not listening. The more I read from you, the more convinced I become that your support of the Democrats and Obama is religious in nature. They can literally do no wrong. Every problem is the result of someone else. Every claim they make is backed by you to the hilt.

BOTH. PARTIES. ARE. TO. BLAME. Until you understand that, I'm going to continue to assume you are just an unthinking parrot.

Both are justifiable expenses.

I want to know when the spending stops. I want to know how much borrowing is too much. I want to know what happens when this money has to be payed back. I want to know what the consequences of dumping trillions of dollars into the economy are.

Tell me, Andy. Enlighten me with your astounding economic knowledge.

You don't know, do you? Like I said, they tell you something, and you believe it. It's government as magic... spend money and the economy will be fixed. Bush spent hundreds of billions, so the cure is to spend trillions. It's "more cowbell" as economic policy. No matter what the problem, Obama's got a fever... and the only prescription... is more spending.

I am disappointed however that Bush took his eye off the ball and let Al Qaeda and Bin Laden slip away, not only at Tora Bora but in general. Now that was a total waste.

So why hasn't Obama fixed Bush's mistake? He, like you, claimed to back the war, but now that your side is in charge you are doing NOTHING. We're getting on towards a year, and Obama hasn't kept one of his major campaign promises.

(Truth is, he hasn't kept ANY, but we're talking about Afghanistan here.)

Is there EVER going to be a time you weasels will take responsibility? Harry Truman had a sign on his desk: "the buck stops here." Where does the buck stop, Andy?

Evil, the more gibberish you spew, the more you indict yourself as not only ignorant to the issues but to your bias blindness as well. But I understand that the game here is for me to address one troll's comment in order for troll #2 (in this case, you're troll # 3 as I was resonding to KHarn and ATTC) and then the original troll(s) exit stage left. I don't expect an intelligent rebuttal from you so there's no need to go into great detail. It is you that isn't listening and frankly, I don't give a flying rats ass what you think I believe or what you don't. You're insignificant.

Bush and the GOP handed the steering wheel of a bus going over a cliff to the Dems and you scream BS like "where are the jobs" and "So why hasn't Obama fixed Bush's mistake". You can't give examples or legislation that points blame to Dems and you pretend that history started on 1-20-09 while ignoring the history of the Bush/GOP years. You dispute Wall Street and the GDP gains while crying the sky is falling because of Democrats. Considering Bush walked away from his Humpty Dumpty disaster to do his paid speeches, I'm impressed with the results I'm seeing. You seem to continue to hope for failure. How American is that?

Bush was correct in engaging in Afghanistan. He should rot in hell for selling us out by abandoning our quest there in order to pursue more profitable endeavors in Iraq.

When a lefty can't rebut a point, they always do as Andy just did, they dismiss the one who hung them out to dry as "insignificant". He's gone on and on without every once addressing the Dodd-Frank role, or their non-actions, if you like, in the crash of the housing market, which led to the crash of so many other facets of the economy, but then, doing so destroys his narrative that the dems are everyone's friends and the Rep's are eeeevil.
Oh, and Andy? You seem to fit the definition of a troll, as noted by the Urban Dictionary, "To use the internet to start problems, insult, or hurt others. An action that only usually affects the person trolling.
Usually a very bored, lonely person with no friends. Or a punk ass kid".

Andy, you still have yet to fully respond to my post. To sum up...

You believe the DOW measures the economy, but ignore its rise all throughout the Bush years, except for the extreme trend down in the middle of 2007 (democrat majority). Was it at that point that the DOW wasn't important anymore, and then became relevant when Obama took office? Because you seem to use it for your argument now that it's up... Lest we forget what inflation does, but I digress.

You also boast the GDP but fail to understand that it includes gov't spending which has reached unprecedented/uncontrolled levels that dwarf all prior administrations. Also, consumer spending went down which is the driver of our economy.

Consistently inconsistent.

What I can gather from your incoherent ramblings is that you pick and choose what you would like to use to your benefit but seemingly ignore those EXACT SAME THINGS when they are to your detriment. I'm not shocked; it validates your ill-conceived ideology of spend spend spend to keep from going bankrupt.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/2-gdp-under-bush-was-a-recession

"Though Labor Department officials said special factors were at play, the jump on claims just ahead of Friday’s unemployment report for July reinforced worry about a deeper downturn if consumers retrench on spending for fear of losing their jobs."

Hmm... sounds eerily similar to today, with unemployment rising and consumer spending going down... but at that point, a Republican was in the WH. It's only bad when they can credit it to a Republican. More and more spin from the liberal left.

For starters, my bad on confusing trolls as you all seem to parrot each other.

ATTC, you also seem determined (which is the norm here) to turn away from my main point that it was never the Dems that trashed the economy. Bush and the GOP completely ignored their core principles and promises and ran amok with tax payer's money. Then, as early as Feb of this year (1 month into Obama's term) the teabaggers cry bloody murder of all the atrocious spending and point the finger at Obama. And Moonbattery is cheery while hoping for America's failure.

Upnorth, I've pointed out the true definition of "troll" or "trolling" several times.
The Frank-Dodd bill provided liability protection for loan originators who sold their mortgages to Wall Street. The lenders were authorized to work out deals on behalf of investors in mortgage-backed securities. And, the Frank-Dodd set reasonable limits on what kinds of borrowers will be eligible for taxpayer assistance. McCain and the GOP seemed more interested in only bailing out the Banks. Perhaps you can enlighten me on your point or better yet, explain exactly what it was that the GOP did to avoid this crises. They did however, either had the drivers seat or filibustered any Dem bill.

Delicious. Andy's become a petulant child. Well, more so. Your anger makes me happy, Andy.

Evil, the more gibberish you spew, the more you indict yourself as not only ignorant to the issues but to your bias blindness as well.

Heh, "bias blindness." That's good. I like that.

How, exactly, am I "ignorant?" You claimed the Republicans started the Afghanistan War. Shall I quote you again? I'll do so gladly if you wish. Anyway, when you were called on your bullshit, you tried to distract, making it sound like the issue was your supposed "support" of the war. You fully knew that it wasn't.

I think I'll bring up your quote in the future, Andy. It shows just how much... er, "bias blindness" you have.

But I understand that the game here is for me to address one troll's comment in order for troll #2 (in this case, you're troll # 3 as I was resonding to KHarn and ATTC) and then the original troll(s) exit stage left.

No, I expect you to back up what you say. That's the "game." You haven't done so. Nor can you.

I don't expect an intelligent rebuttal from you

I've kicked your ass, and you know it. You've literally got nothing left but this whining tantrum. Aww, poor Andy, is it too difficult to back up your claims? Does it annoy you? Would you like a cookie?

so there's no need to go into great detail. It is you that isn't listening and frankly, I don't give a flying rats ass what you think I believe or what you don't. You're insignificant.

Not so much. If I was "insignificant," you wouldn't feel the need to write this. You do give a "flying rat's ass," drone. You want to WIN, but you've time and again shown you can't.

Bush and the GOP handed the steering wheel of a bus going over a cliff to the Dems and you scream BS like "where are the jobs" and "So why hasn't Obama fixed Bush's mistake".

Why hasn't he? After all, Obama made Afghanistan a major campaign issue... why hasn't he fixed it? Why hasn't he at least tried? Why did it take him so long to meet with his general, and why has he devoted so little time to the issue? Lives are being lost. Afghanistan is falling apart. Even if you blame Bush, it's Obama's mess now. HE WANTED THE JOB. It's time for him to act like a president, and not a present-voting, do-nothing freshman senator.

Which is what he is.

Leadership is the art of making decisions... what decisions has Obama made? What has he done to fix the problem?

You can't tell me. You know he's done nothing at all, nor do you really care. The election is over, your guy won, and criticism of the Afghanistan War was merely a way to swing some votes Obama's way. It was nothing but an empty campaign promise, worth less of the President's time than his conflict with Fox News. He spends more time golfing each week than he does on Afghanistan.

You can't give examples or legislation that points blame to Dems and you pretend that history started on 1-20-09 while ignoring the history of the Bush/GOP years.

(sigh) You really do have a reading disability, don't you? I swear, it's like I'm arguing with a parrot. Please go back to the parts where I repeatedly said that both parties were to blame. Isn't that clear enough for you, you pathetic, unthinking, reflexive little leftist drone?

You dispute Wall Street and the GDP gains while crying the sky is falling because of Democrats.

We've had this conversation, before, little drone. Wall Street isn't the economy, in fact it's not even a good indicator of how the economy is doing. The GDP is meaningless because it's been artificially boosted by hundreds of billions of government dollars, money that was printed and borrowed and must be payed back, one way or another. What Obama has done has been to rack up the nation's credit cards and claim things are getting better. Don't talk to me about the GDP... over one third of the 3.5% rise was from "Cash for Clunkers." That program is, well, over. In other words, Andy, a huge amount of the GDP rise was a temporary boost paid for by borrowed and printed money. And car sales have already started to fall again.

You're going to find out the truth, Andy. Unfortunately, a religious fanatic like you won't see it. The sky is falling, thanks to both Democrats and Republicans. But YOUR SIDE IS IN POWER NOW. And you're simply magnifying the mistakes made by Bush.

Don't you get it, Andy? He was one of you.

Considering Bush walked away from his Humpty Dumpty disaster to do his paid speeches,

So paid speeches are bad? Hmm, someone tell Bill Clinton, who as I recall walked away from a Humphrey Dumpty disaster to do paid speeches.

I'm impressed with the results I'm seeing.

No, you're in denial. If you acknowledge that things are not looking rosy, it might damage your cult-like devotion to Obama.

Can't have that now, can we?

How's the dollar looking, Andy? Why are gas prices rising suddenly? Why did the stock market tank roughly 250 points on Friday? How's the housing market? Commercial real estate? Banking? The auto industry?

Impressive. Most impressive.

You seem to continue to hope for failure. How American is that?

(rolling eyes) Oh, that's amusing. Nice try, but no. I'm not "hoping" for failure. I am a realist. I'm warning you what's coming. I know (unlike you) that one can not simply continue to rack up obscene debts without consequences. You don't know how this will be paid back, nor do you care, because you've been told not to worry.

And you do what you're told, Andy. Because you believe.

They lie to you, and you believe it. They tell you that one side is to blame for all the woes of this country, and you believe it. They tell you that a man who has never held a real job in the free market is going to save the free market, and you believe it. They tell you that a man who surrounds himself with Marxists and socialists isn't a Marxist or socialist, and you believe it. They tell you that government health care isn't going to result in massive new deficits, and you believe it. They tell you Medicare and Social Security aren't going bankrupt, and you believe it. They tell you Obama's going to "fix" Afghanistan any day now, and you believe it. They tell you that all of this spending is necessary and that things are turning around, and you believe it.

They're using you, Andy. And you're cool with that.

Bush was correct in engaging in Afghanistan.

But you said Republicans started the war. Make up your mind.

He should rot in hell for selling us out by abandoning our quest there in order to pursue more profitable endeavors in Iraq.

Ooh, "rot in hell." Nice touch. It gives just the right amount of hate-filled crazy to finish off your whining little rant. All done, Andy? I'll be waiting for your next twitchy little screed. You never fail to entertain.

Hay Andy, here ya go. Here's your like totally awesomely amazing GDP increase.

Hey, I was just wondering. When car sales nosedive, can I FINALLY blame Obama? Or will that be George Bush's fault too?

Evil, Wiki "107 Congress" to see who held the 3 legislative branches when we went into Afghanistan. And again (and I don't know what's so hard to understand) is that my point is not going into Afghanistan but rather the abandonment of our mission there. Where were you with the gross incompetence of the past 7 years? Why weren't you protesting us wondering aimlessly? Obama's problem there is not new.

Google what Clinton walked into financially vs what GWB left for Obama. Google the jobs created by Clinton vs GWB. If you research further, you'll find a similar pattern where Dems have historically done better with the economy than Reps. It's just that Bush and the 109th just went nuts and totally trashed it. Clinton's "Humpty Dumpty"? Do you know how nonsensical that sounds?
The argument from you or one of the trolls was that the trashing was a result of the 2006 takeover of Dems in the House and Senate. I challenged that, explained the Reps obstruction tactics, and asked for specific examples of how the Dems could be responsible. You defend you stand because you have "repeatedly" said both parties were to blame. ????? WTF? That's "kicking my ass"? You act as if you're trying to impress someone that doesn't have the ability to scroll up and read the contents of this discussion.

It's asinine to say suggest that Obama is to blame for the past administration's incompetence and reckless leadership because "HE WANTED THE JOB". Granted, I'm not thrilled with the spending, Afghanistan, or the lack of jobs. But for you to take your head out of the sand after 8 years and expext Obama and the Dems to wave some magic wan and make the Bush atrocities to just go away defies logic. But what amazes me is that this this started with the right immediately after he took office. Tea Parties were being promoted in Feb. And now, you won't even acknowledge that the stimulus may have salvaged an economy that Reps had spiraling out of control.

Nice try, Andy. You said Republicans STARTED two wars. Your words. You said nothing about funding, you said nothing about incompetence, you said that Republicans started two wars. That's clear as crystal, and your pathetic attempts to change the subject are only embarrassing yourself. As if that were possible.

You defend you stand because you have "repeatedly" said both parties were to blame. ????? WTF? That's "kicking my ass"? You act as if you're trying to impress someone that doesn't have the ability to scroll up and read the contents of this discussion.

That's what I said from the start, moron. You chose not to listen, despite it being the truth. That, by the way, wasn't the "kicking your ass" part. Forcing you to dodge and weave and distract, forcing you to whine and pout and tell me how irrelevant I am, THAT is the asskicking.

It's asinine to say suggest that Obama is to blame for the past administration's incompetence and reckless leadership because "HE WANTED THE JOB".

Are you capable of reading English? I wonder, because I've repeatedly said BOTH SIDES are to blame. I note you've made no real attempt to refute it. As I also said that it's now Obama's mess, and he is doing NOTHING to fix it.

Being president is a tough job. If he wasn't capable of doing it, he shouldn't have ran. It is now his incompetence, his reckless leadership that is the issue.

Granted, I'm not thrilled with the spending,

Bullshit. You're totally fine with it. In this thread, you claimed it was necessary.

Afghanistan,

Also not true. I don't think you actually give a damn what happens in Afghanistan. It was just a way to score points during the election, and now that you've won you don't actually expect Obama to keep his promises. You simply don't care what happens now.

or the lack of jobs.

But here I thought everything was getting better!

But for you to take your head out of the sand after 8 years and expext Obama and the Dems to wave some magic wan and make the Bush atrocities to just go away defies logic.

I'm only expecting what Obama promised.

And again, a civics question: which branch of government controls the budget?

But what amazes me is that this this started with the right immediately after he took office. Tea Parties were being promoted in Feb.

The tea parties were organized to oppose Obama's out-of-control, insane spending, spending that started IN FEBRUARY. Jeez, think there's a connection? Of course you don't. You Democrats, after complaining for years that Republicans were spending insane amounts of money, immediately started spending money at several times the Republicans worst budgets. You didn't even wait a month before dialing up the insanity to 11.

So Andy, just STOP. In this entire thread you've done nothing but repeat the same argument over and over and over and OVER again: everything is the Republicans' fault. I can't even get you to admit that your party was in control of congress for the past two years. You won't take responsibility for anything.

And now, you won't even acknowledge that the stimulus may have salvaged an economy that Reps had spiraling out of control.

You're damned right I won't acknowledge that. The stimulus was a steaming load of crap, money taken from taxpayers, borrowed and printed, and spent on an incredible array of pork-filled, dubious projects. It in no way prevented the spiraling of the economy down the toilet... in fact, it's making it worse. THAT MONEY HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE.

What an economic illiterate like you will never understand is that government money isn't magically produced by elves at Santa's workshop. Every dollar spent in the stimulus has to either be taken from someone else (meaning they can't spend it themselves, hurting other sectors of the economy), or borrowed (meaning it has to be paid off to another country with interest), or printed (reducing the value of all other money in circulation). That's it. That's the stimulus... phantom money. What these idiotic plans do is rack up the nation's credit card bills. For a short amount of time, you can continue to pretend that everything is just fine.

Then the bill comes in.

Well, anyway, this thread's dropped off the top and I have no intention of continuing to come back and play with you. It's fun, but in the end you're just a miserable party hack. You accept responsibility for nothing and blame your opponents for everything, despite having controlled congress for years and the presidency for most of a year. You'll still be coming back here YEARS from now and refusing to accept any blame for your side. It's almost like you're a paid shill for the Democrat party.

See you 'round, drone.