- This topic has 1,090 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 15, 2009 at 8:10 PM #457837September 16, 2009 at 8:47 AM #457249
patb
Participant[quote=Casca] Would Bush have nationalized the banks and the auto companies as Obama has done? Given ownership to the unions? I doubt it. He acquiesed to TARP as professional courtesy to Obama. He did it because Obama asked him to do so, and he wanted to position Obama to execute a cohesive policy, no matter how wrong-headed.[/quote]
Sorry.
Bush gave the Autocompanies $20 Billion in cash, no questions asked.
At least with a nationalization, the taxpayers got the stock cheap.
hopefully it will be sold off soonBush gave 700 Billion in TARP to the Banks, whom we had no financial
duty to help.Bush/Paulsen and the Fed gave 13 trillion in guarantees to the
major financial companies including the chinese holding all those
fannie mae bonds.September 16, 2009 at 8:47 AM #457444Participant[quote=Casca] Would Bush have nationalized the banks and the auto companies as Obama has done? Given ownership to the unions? I doubt it. He acquiesed to TARP as professional courtesy to Obama. He did it because Obama asked him to do so, and he wanted to position Obama to execute a cohesive policy, no matter how wrong-headed.[/quote]
Sorry.
Bush gave the Autocompanies $20 Billion in cash, no questions asked.
At least with a nationalization, the taxpayers got the stock cheap.
hopefully it will be sold off soonBush gave 700 Billion in TARP to the Banks, whom we had no financial
duty to help.Bush/Paulsen and the Fed gave 13 trillion in guarantees to the
major financial companies including the chinese holding all those
fannie mae bonds.September 16, 2009 at 8:47 AM #457785Participant[quote=Casca] Would Bush have nationalized the banks and the auto companies as Obama has done? Given ownership to the unions? I doubt it. He acquiesed to TARP as professional courtesy to Obama. He did it because Obama asked him to do so, and he wanted to position Obama to execute a cohesive policy, no matter how wrong-headed.[/quote]
Sorry.
Bush gave the Autocompanies $20 Billion in cash, no questions asked.
At least with a nationalization, the taxpayers got the stock cheap.
hopefully it will be sold off soonBush gave 700 Billion in TARP to the Banks, whom we had no financial
duty to help.Bush/Paulsen and the Fed gave 13 trillion in guarantees to the
major financial companies including the chinese holding all those
fannie mae bonds.September 16, 2009 at 8:47 AM #457858Participant[quote=Casca] Would Bush have nationalized the banks and the auto companies as Obama has done? Given ownership to the unions? I doubt it. He acquiesed to TARP as professional courtesy to Obama. He did it because Obama asked him to do so, and he wanted to position Obama to execute a cohesive policy, no matter how wrong-headed.[/quote]
Sorry.
Bush gave the Autocompanies $20 Billion in cash, no questions asked.
At least with a nationalization, the taxpayers got the stock cheap.
hopefully it will be sold off soonBush gave 700 Billion in TARP to the Banks, whom we had no financial
duty to help.Bush/Paulsen and the Fed gave 13 trillion in guarantees to the
major financial companies including the chinese holding all those
fannie mae bonds.September 16, 2009 at 8:47 AM #458046Participant[quote=Casca] Would Bush have nationalized the banks and the auto companies as Obama has done? Given ownership to the unions? I doubt it. He acquiesed to TARP as professional courtesy to Obama. He did it because Obama asked him to do so, and he wanted to position Obama to execute a cohesive policy, no matter how wrong-headed.[/quote]
Sorry.
Bush gave the Autocompanies $20 Billion in cash, no questions asked.
At least with a nationalization, the taxpayers got the stock cheap.
hopefully it will be sold off soonBush gave 700 Billion in TARP to the Banks, whom we had no financial
duty to help.Bush/Paulsen and the Fed gave 13 trillion in guarantees to the
major financial companies including the chinese holding all those
fannie mae bonds.September 16, 2009 at 8:52 AM #457259Participant[quote=Casca][quote=DataAgent]I was against the Iraq war from day 1 and was immediately christened as ‘unpatriotic’ by my Bush-loving peers. Prior to the Iraq war, I paid very little attention to politics at the national level.[/quote]
What would the world be like if Iran controlled half of the world’s oil supply? If they got their hands on the oil in Iraq, they would. We don’t dare let that happen, yet Obama may.[/quote]
Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.
Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we’d do it again.September 16, 2009 at 8:52 AM #457454Participant[quote=Casca][quote=DataAgent]I was against the Iraq war from day 1 and was immediately christened as ‘unpatriotic’ by my Bush-loving peers. Prior to the Iraq war, I paid very little attention to politics at the national level.[/quote]
What would the world be like if Iran controlled half of the world’s oil supply? If they got their hands on the oil in Iraq, they would. We don’t dare let that happen, yet Obama may.[/quote]
Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.
Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we’d do it again.September 16, 2009 at 8:52 AM #457795Participant[quote=Casca][quote=DataAgent]I was against the Iraq war from day 1 and was immediately christened as ‘unpatriotic’ by my Bush-loving peers. Prior to the Iraq war, I paid very little attention to politics at the national level.[/quote]
What would the world be like if Iran controlled half of the world’s oil supply? If they got their hands on the oil in Iraq, they would. We don’t dare let that happen, yet Obama may.[/quote]
Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.
Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we’d do it again.September 16, 2009 at 8:52 AM #457868Participant[quote=Casca][quote=DataAgent]I was against the Iraq war from day 1 and was immediately christened as ‘unpatriotic’ by my Bush-loving peers. Prior to the Iraq war, I paid very little attention to politics at the national level.[/quote]
What would the world be like if Iran controlled half of the world’s oil supply? If they got their hands on the oil in Iraq, they would. We don’t dare let that happen, yet Obama may.[/quote]
Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.
Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we’d do it again.September 16, 2009 at 8:52 AM #458056Participant[quote=Casca][quote=DataAgent]I was against the Iraq war from day 1 and was immediately christened as ‘unpatriotic’ by my Bush-loving peers. Prior to the Iraq war, I paid very little attention to politics at the national level.[/quote]
What would the world be like if Iran controlled half of the world’s oil supply? If they got their hands on the oil in Iraq, they would. We don’t dare let that happen, yet Obama may.[/quote]
Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.
Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we’d do it again.September 16, 2009 at 9:29 AM #457289briansd1
Guest[quote=patb]
Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we’d do it again.[/quote]Very good point patb. Without the invasion of Iraq (Iran’s competitor in the region), Iran wouldn’t be so strong today.
Bush miscalculated. Iraqis did not greet the American “liberators” with parades and flowers. We broke it so now we own it. Too bad for us.
I’m sure that the Bushies would argue that since we are now in Iraq, we are better positioned to prevent an Iranian expansion (prevention and preemption). I personally don’t buy that.
I wonder why Republicans don’t support the big gun approach of shock-and-awe when it comes to prevention and preemption in health care and unwanted pregnancies.
If we can fix Iraq with big weapons, can’t we fix unwanted pregnancies by funding birth control and abortion?
September 16, 2009 at 9:29 AM #457483Guest[quote=patb]
Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we’d do it again.[/quote]Very good point patb. Without the invasion of Iraq (Iran’s competitor in the region), Iran wouldn’t be so strong today.
Bush miscalculated. Iraqis did not greet the American “liberators” with parades and flowers. We broke it so now we own it. Too bad for us.
I’m sure that the Bushies would argue that since we are now in Iraq, we are better positioned to prevent an Iranian expansion (prevention and preemption). I personally don’t buy that.
I wonder why Republicans don’t support the big gun approach of shock-and-awe when it comes to prevention and preemption in health care and unwanted pregnancies.
If we can fix Iraq with big weapons, can’t we fix unwanted pregnancies by funding birth control and abortion?
September 16, 2009 at 9:29 AM #457825Guest[quote=patb]
Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we’d do it again.[/quote]Very good point patb. Without the invasion of Iraq (Iran’s competitor in the region), Iran wouldn’t be so strong today.
Bush miscalculated. Iraqis did not greet the American “liberators” with parades and flowers. We broke it so now we own it. Too bad for us.
I’m sure that the Bushies would argue that since we are now in Iraq, we are better positioned to prevent an Iranian expansion (prevention and preemption). I personally don’t buy that.
I wonder why Republicans don’t support the big gun approach of shock-and-awe when it comes to prevention and preemption in health care and unwanted pregnancies.
If we can fix Iraq with big weapons, can’t we fix unwanted pregnancies by funding birth control and abortion?
September 16, 2009 at 9:29 AM #457897Guest[quote=patb]
Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we’d do it again.[/quote]Very good point patb. Without the invasion of Iraq (Iran’s competitor in the region), Iran wouldn’t be so strong today.
Bush miscalculated. Iraqis did not greet the American “liberators” with parades and flowers. We broke it so now we own it. Too bad for us.
I’m sure that the Bushies would argue that since we are now in Iraq, we are better positioned to prevent an Iranian expansion (prevention and preemption). I personally don’t buy that.
I wonder why Republicans don’t support the big gun approach of shock-and-awe when it comes to prevention and preemption in health care and unwanted pregnancies.
If we can fix Iraq with big weapons, can’t we fix unwanted pregnancies by funding birth control and abortion?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.