especially when he kept saying he was bringing the troops home and closing Gitmo.

You mean where I didn't do that, where I said, "You (the general you, not you specifically)" ??

This is quite a slam on the Republican Party.

Perhaps you don't count people like Ed Feulner and George Will as being "in the Republican Party," but they far surpass Gingrich in terms of conservative "brilliance" in my estimation. Gingrich is basically an intellectual lightweight behind all of his considerable bluster.

Exactly the reason to write him off.

actually your last sentence had nothing to do with the paragraph were you said "you (the general you, not you specifically).

If you want to backtrack now that you look foolish, than that is what we expect.

But, "And if you think you are truly screwed then not already having retirement plans in place and actively being funded makes no sense at all to me" was about ME specifically.. since I'm the one who specifically used the word "screwed". Please tell me how that wasnt directed to me?

Is that specific enough?

Good backtrack.. doesnt work though.

Your post wasnt too bad until you threw in that last, holier than thou remark that we are all used to.

I saw them. And McCain played it too safe. He should have taken an intellectual hatchet to Obama's positions.

Like:

"You said you think it's better when you 'spread the wealth around'. Where, exactly, in the Constitution do you find the right for any government entity to do that? Your as free to spread your own wealth around any way you like -- charity, investment, business, etc. but you don't have the right to anyone else's property."

Gingrich made the Clinton years and would have been FAR FAR better than anyone we've had in the 10 years since.

I've never heard Gingrich and "intellectual lightweight" in the same sentence before.

The idea that Gingrich "made the Clinton years" is a joke.
Also, the idea that Clinton "made the Clinton years" is a joke.

The combination of Silicon Valley and post-Cold War globalization made the 1990s an economically prosperous time for the United States. Did certain governmental actions (NAFTA, etc) help to fuel this growth? Sure, but the economic growth in the 1990s would - in all probability - have happened no matter who the president or the speaker of the house happened to be.

The government - and particularly the president - receive far too much credit and/or blame for how the economy is doing. The government has something to do it, but market forces independent of government involvement are way more important. That's true of the boom of the 1990s, the bust of 2008, and pretty much everything in between.

Sure. :tro:

:D

I read "Game Change", about the election. McCain is repeatedly represented as being rather disengaged from the whole Presidential thing, from the start. He didn't prepare for his debates, didn't take them seriously. It sure showed. He only did well in one of the three, I think.

gfy

Coach can you hook me up with a middle finger emoticon?

Thank Jeebus there is only one Riot in the world.. well there may be a few more like her in Europe.

now THAT'S funny!:D

I wanted to address this but took a late lunch..

I very much agree with most of your post. Maybe I should have said Newt made Clintons legacy instead of presidency.. you are totally right, one man or one group just doesnt have enough power to dictate the economy (though everyone thought / think Bush singlehandidly ruined our economy).

Clintons' popularity jumped up in leaps and bounds after Newt and the Repub congress took over. But yeah, me personally, I think Newt is better than Bill, George and Barack combined (though that may not be saying much).

Obama is a pretty dreadful President but at least he didn't do this...

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-c...cc=5901&ver=us

Saddam would have his thugs (sons & crew) break the feet of the Iraqi soccer players if they would not have success.

I guess volleyball is big over in Iraq also.. he would have the team locked in a very small room where they couldnt stand if they did not perform well.

The man was pretty much on scale with hitler as far as insane hate.

I'm no fan of Obama but the results of that poll are a joke. That is not a random sample. Obama's approval rating is around 45% right now. If everyone was giving him "F" grades in all categories, his approval rating would be more like 10%, not 45%.

I personally give Obama around a C- or D+. I think he's been ok on Iraq and Afghanistan. I would give him a "B" on his handling of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thanks Rupert..I saw that poll and just laughed.

Obviously my grade is higher..probably a B- or C+, a lot of which is his own doing and a lot the cards he was dealt.

I think he would have faired better if it was a FOX poll :rolleyes:

Oh oh

Title IX Revenue Provisions—Subtitle A:

Revenue Offset
"(Sec. 9002) Requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer-sponsored group health coverage
that is excludable from the employee's gross income (excluding the value of
contributions to flexible spending arrangements)."

This is what they meant when they said we need to pass it to find out what's inside. Surprise, surprise.

ROFLMAO I win! :tro: :$: