San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

pity you werent saying that in 2000

i knew he was scum, then why didn't you?

dang, i was hatin reagan back in the 80's. did I win anything? Can i have a "Reagan Republic" t-shirt? course, i hate em all.

Bush has his faults and so does Obama, the latter simply hasn't had time to display them. Well, not all of them at least.

I read Time magazine's article on Person of the Year and I've somewhat come to appreciate Barack Hussein's ambitions, but then again, how's that saying about good intentions go? I then remembered that publication has been propagating Obama longer than any pigg.

The expectations on Obamination are unrealistic, and he's done absolutely nothing yet. Except of course not be George Bush.

Once Obama's fence-riding on Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, Iran, and Russia results in another attack on the US you can bet the media and the sheople will turn on him too.

NewtoSanDiego:
What is this obsession with people kicking Bush in the balls (over and over) on a housing/economy forum? I voted for Bush the first time but once I saw that he wasn't what I thought he was, I simply didn't vote the next time around because I didn't see anyone worth voting for. I'm also an ex-Republican and now an Independent with zero, party affiliation but I can see the good and bad in both parties when it shows itself. I don't like the Iraq War and a whole lot of things about this current administration but if Gore or Kerry had been voted into the Presidency, I'm not too sure that all would have been "hunky dorey", do you?

Now, we have Obama who may turn out to be a very competent President: Or he may not!
Kicking Bush as the main culprit over the housing debacle is ludicrous when we have such self esteemed characters in this debacle like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc. etc, etc. There's plenty of blame to go around and if you want to stick your head up your ass and blame all of the problems in this country on one individual or one political party, your brain is simply wired to focus on the emotional rather than facts. Why don't we stick to the intended focus on this forum?

If Bush hadn't stolen the election from Gore, there probably wouldn't have been an Iraq War. Bush's main reason for going into Iraq was that Saddam "tried to kill Bush's dad."

I doubt Gore or any other Democrat would have let Wall Street rape the economy like Bush did. Bush was all about deregulation, deregulation, deregulation (i.e., privatize the gains) and then bailout, bailout, bailout (socialize the losses).

It'll be interesting to see what type of speaking gigs Chimpy gets. I'd pay to get a chance to kick Bush in the balls, but I wouldn't pay to listen to anything this retard has to say.

Breeze: From your many, many idiotic, political posts, I (and I'm sure, many others on this forum) have concluded that you're an angry, disillusioned person who can only see things one way................The WRONG WAY. But, you keep on heading down your own path and see how far you get in life..........because if you're this foolish about the things you post on here, it has to be your pattern of behavior with everything else in your life.
You'd be wise to seek some competent, psychiatric assistance.

Ex-SD, Breeze, et al,

A good tidings to all! Merry Christmas, Happy Haunakka, Happy Kwanza or what ever your religious persuasion, a happy holidays. To you Atheists, Happy New Year!

I am thankful for my family, friends, and being able to live in the US.

President Bush is still my president, althought I do still think he is an idiot. But thank god we live in a country where we can say it freely without fear of imprisonment!!

I agree. Peace

He manageed to win twice. What's that say about the USA??

I am a proud supporter.

That 5 supreme court justices and your vrother running a swing state
are critical

would be kinda cool if he got prosecuted for war crimes.

scaredy: You are of course advocating that Clinton be tried for war crimes as well, correct?

I would think the "murder" of 500,000 Iraqi women and children would merit a visit to the Hague.

The partisanship and lack of any sort of reasoning or forethought here makes me want to retch.

It's like TheBreeze with his moral infantilism and Republicans = Bad and Democrats = Good nonsense.

How about assembling the facts and then arguing your point based on the merits of same?

While I disagree with the predictions, I otherwise totally agree with cooprider.

I voted out of frustration and hope but then so did many people when voting for w 8 years ago.

As with any president (or anyone in any position), performance is the real measure. There are different ways to measure or evaluate that, and those who score on the broadest range of measurements tend to have the legacy thing going and be remembered most fondly (eg: Reagan, Clinton).

Are you happy with the way things were run the last 8 years? Are you better off now than you were before Bush became president? Do you think the country is better off now?

Angry? Yes. Disillusioned with this administration? You betcha.

----------------------------

I agree that McCain should have been president back in 2000. I think he would have done this country proud.

I am pleased with Bush's defense of this country from further terrorist attacks. This will be his lasting legacy.

I supported the Iraq war, believing as Bush did that a functioning democracy in the heart of the Middle East would draw out Muslim moderates and help bring about an end to Islamist craziness.

In retrospect, this was a huge mistake. The Muslim is manifestly unfit for democracy, a contemptible and cowardly fanatic who understands only the language of the whip and truncheon and sword.

We should have nothing to do with the Islamic world except commerce and apocalyptic destruction, depending on how truculently they behave. They should be left to their imams and warlords and clitorectomies unless and until they threaten their non-Muslim neighbors, and then suffer all the non-nuclear punishment that a great power can dish out without risking the life of a single one of its soldiers. More rubble, less trouble.

On the economic front, I am greatly dissatisfied with Bush, but not because he is any kind of a conservative. Far from it. I am dissatisfied with him precisely to the degree that he tried to be a Democrat Lite. He tried to give us socialism on the cheap, with borrowed money juiced up by foolishly low rates from the Fed. McCain would have been even worse. At least Bill Clinton could balance a budget. If we must have a stagnant corporatist welfare state, let's just vote Democrat and pay for it as we go, instead of stealing from our grandchildren.

In 2012, I'll be voting for whomever promises the harshest spending cuts and soundest money. I want to see government spending, as well as regulation and taxes, cut back to 1904 levels. Absolutely no safety net for anyone who can and should look out for himself. Especially, no corporate welfare for politically connected fat cats. No bailouts. No welfare. No Social Security. Work or starve. Save or suffer. Pitiless bare-knuckled Austrian-school economic policy for all sectors.

I doubt anyone in the major parties has the guts to do this, except Sarah Palin, but I'm not sure she has the smarts.

Hey John,

It's a well documented fact that the Neo-Cons(Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc..) think tank Project New Century America wrote Rebuilding America’s Defenses. They stated a dire need to oust Hussein an occupy Iraq for global dominance as well as need for a in their words, "catalyzing event such as a new Pearl harbor", so that the populace would accept an invasion. This was back in 1999.

Also, during Cheney's tenure at Halliburton stated that due to the oil constraints of the world there was a DIRE need to get into the middle east because, in his words, "is where the ultimate prize lies".

The first thing Cheney did when he entered office was hold his secretive 'Energy Task Force" meetings. Most of what was discussed in these meetings are considered a matter of national security but before he could get the supreme court to validate that it was an issue of national security a group using the freedom of information act (FOIA) obtained a few documents from the meetings. They were maps of Iraqi oil fields and infrastructure.

Also, it is a well documented fact the world is at peak oil, which is when the maximum amount of oil can be extracted on a daily basis. This introduces a whole host of economic problems without ample alternatives. In about 5 years or less 90% of the exportable oil will be in the ME or caspian basin. Actually probably sooner because Mexico's Canterall field is depleting so fast.

Given these well documented facts do you really think the administration was distraught over the psychologic pretext that rallied the people into Iraq?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/1...
The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.

It's interesting that you mention Palin. She stated that it was "Gods will" that we are in Iraq. Also during that speech she stated it was Gods will that a pipline be finished in Alaska. God sure does like oil doesn't he.

Interesting article:

Bush was the worst president(except for all the others)

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11152008/pos...

Merry Christmas,

John

sure prosecute clinton too. we need the entertainment. I'd bet on the Bush conviction over the clinton conviction though. Bush is more of a giant dick. I say that with the greatest respect. Big article in GQ this month (the one with the naked jennifer aniston on the cover) explicating in detail the difference between Dicks, weenies, and pricks. i think George was listed as the prototypical dick (trump was a prick). bad in front of a jury to be a dick, I think you do better as a prick or a weenie. . Maybe the torture memo will be kept out of evidence, but all the lying and crap to get us into a war? Clinton beat the impeachment, he'll beat the war crimes trial too! Bush will have to leave for paraguay or wherever he bought that ranch and lay low till the dust settles. Whata dick! Check out the gq article for full explanation. I'm not criticizing here, I'd like to be as big a dick as bush. I'm just a weenie, per gq. I may not even qualify as a weenie, I may just be flattering myself. Clinton shoulda gone down for lying, woulda been beautiful to see him in the pen for lying about fellatio. I have no problem with lockin em all up, but esp that Ron paul creep. freeking weirdo anti-semite.

Scaredy: Oy vey (for the anti-Semites among us). Clinton did NOT lie about fellatio. Clinton lied about suborning perjury. HUGE difference. It makes me realize what an excellent job the Clintonistas did spinning it that way.

Clinton was deeply embroiled in the Iraq fiasco as well, he simply had the good sense not to invade. Unfortunately for him, however, he has the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 and all the various pronouncements of his Administration regarding WMD and the need for "regime change" as his legacy, along with those murderous sanctions and the two year long bombing campaign at the end of his presidency.

Speaking of war crimes: Which President started the policy of extraordinary rendition? Hint: It wasn't Bush.

And as far as our precious civil liberties go: Check out Clinton's support of the NSA Echelon and Carnivore programs.

There aren't political parties anymore, there's just the maintenance of power and the status quo ante. You think there's a difference between Clinton and Bush in terms of the "dick" quotient? Forget the front side, and look at the back: They're all the same asshole, just wearing different colors.

agreed; it's all one big giant party, no real diff. but personality wise, that's what i am talking about. just the vibe; and isn't that all that people really care about nowadays anyway. the vibe off bush is, man, whata dick! the vibe of clinton is, well, not so dickly.

forget the facts. who cares about guantanomo or whatever. or perjury. the dude is a dick.

Scaredy: Well, I'll admit one thing. If there was ever a President I wanted to get shitfaced with and hit the titty bars, it'd be Clinton. Hands down.

Piggs,
Would be interested to hear your defense of W's administration policy to go against the Geneva convention and his imprisonment of folks without due process. You might want to read the senate's findings...

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release...

I don't think it's about party. It's about what is right and what is wrong. I really don't know how you can support W's policies in these matters. I don't care if a few of these folks were terrorists --- we're Americans and we don't torture people or imprison and keep them without due process because W and his appointee's decided we could. Five, ten, 20 years from now this will stain this administration history.

Beachlover: You think all of this started with Dubya? Good Lord, we've been embroiled in all sorts of dirty tricks for the last 50+ years!

Look at our policies with regards to countries like Iran and Guatemala going back to the 1950s.

Look at the Vietnam War. Look at FISA in 1978. Look at Clinton's policy of extraordinary rendition, and his support of the NSA eavesdropping systems (Carnivore and Echelon).

Dubya was simply the latest in a long line. We might be Americans, but maintaining the empire takes some doing.

It takes some doing and $$ to maintain a Police State as well.

Look a the Japanese internment camps of WWII. I shudder to think what we did to British loyalists during the Revolutionary War.

Here is another little gem that proves things could always be worse even in the 50's:

"The Internal Security Act of 1950, sometimes
called the McCarran Act after its sponsor, Senator Patrick McCarran, enforced compulsory registration of Communists and their sympathizers with the Attorney General, and authorized the government to conduct preventive detention in times of internal security emergencies."

"Title I of the Internal Security Act was named the Subversive Activities Control Act. It provided that the government establish the Subversive
Activities Control Board (SACB), which was to determine if a particular organization was a Communist organization. If the SACB so determined, it could order the organization to register with the Attorney General as such, and also to annually submit the list of its members as well as its financial statement. If the organization failed to register, it was a duty of the individual members to register, and the failure to do so resulted in criminal prosecution."

Veritas: I'm pretty sure the nuns had a Subversive Activities Control Board when I was in school and I was on it.

Where was your internment camp anyway? Did the Nuns use waterboarding on you?