Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts in 2010?

[corey]

Florida Retiree wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's go back in time a spell. Who was the president before Mr. Bush?? Remember him, he's the one that had a balanced budget, the country was prosperous. I bet even you were living better then than you are now, right?? And, it was eight years of the wrong kind of management that put the country in the toilet that we are still trying to get of. Now, you want to put two inexperienced people in office and one in particular that wants to bring down SS for future generations, c'mon man, the devil we know is far better than the one we don't know. I say give Scott Brown some time and he will be the next strong leader and be a viable candidate for the oval office.

Grampa, just because Obamataxcare has a section that says "cost savings" doesn't mean it actually does it.... Healthcare premiums have skyrocketed by 30% last year, the largest increase on record....All UNDER this administration. After robbing Medicare of 716 billion, of course Medicare will be cheaper, because less doctors are going to accept Medicare as a result.

One thing you progressives old farts have not been very good at doing is your own homework, you just take whatever "The Democrat" says as gospel without really looking into it objectionally.

[Old goat]

People like Kennedy and Kerry know what it's like to go with out and grow up poor. Not like that spoiled brat Brown.

[Florida Retiree]

corey wrote:

<quoted text>Grampa, just because Obamataxcare has a section that says "cost savings" doesn't mean it actually does it.... Healthcare premiums have skyrocketed by 30% last year, the largest increase on record....All UNDER this administration. After robbing Medicare of 716 billion, of course Medicare will be cheaper, because less doctors are going to accept Medicare as a result.
One thing you progressives old farts have not been very good at doing is your own homework, you just take whatever "The Democrat" says as gospel without really looking into it objectionally.

So, what is your point?

[Just Facts]

chbpod wrote:

<quoted text>
aside from polk and the mexican war-you might also consider madison and the war of 1812 - 200th anniversary as we speak--as well as fdr and world war two

I have been reminded that we have had a few instances where we were engaged in war on our soil, and I stand corrected. What I probably should have said is that the attack on US soil wasn't an attack that would have been expected because we were not "at war" with the terrorist that brought about that attack.

Pearl harbor and others were actions that occured when we were "at war" with the aggresors, and the terrorist attack during Bush's time in office was unique in that respect. President Bush also could not respond as we have responded in the past when we were attacked...can you imagine if he had authorized to have the Middle east bombed like Japan? We responded very quickly and decisively after Pearl Harbor, but I can just imagine the outcry if Bush had authorized anything even close to that kind of response.

Other posters here have tried to insist that Obama inherited a mess that was "over the top" in justifying the awful way his administration has handled things. My response regarding the terrorist attack was proof that Bush ended up having to deal with a mess too, and something that few Presidents have had to deal with, but you didn't here him constantly cry about "the other guy" and how he has to deal with the issues that Clinton left behind.

Obama wants to take credit for anything good and blame someone else for anything bad. He has had the audacity to suggest that business owners didn't build what they own, giving government credit for it, but that business owners are responsible for the bad things.

Obama is wrong and needs to be replaced.

[Emerald]

Just Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
I have been reminded that we have had a few instances where we were engaged in war on our soil, and I stand corrected. What I probably should have said is that the attack on US soil wasn't an attack that would have been expected because we were not "at war" with the terrorist that brought about that attack.
Pearl harbor and others were actions that occured when we were "at war" with the aggresors, and the terrorist attack during Bush's time in office was unique in that respect. President Bush also could not respond as we have responded in the past when we were attacked...can you imagine if he had authorized to have the Middle east bombed like Japan? We responded very quickly and decisively after Pearl Harbor, but I can just imagine the outcry if Bush had authorized anything even close to that kind of response.
Other posters here have tried to insist that Obama inherited a mess that was "over the top" in justifying the awful way his administration has handled things. My response regarding the terrorist attack was proof that Bush ended up having to deal with a mess too, and something that few Presidents have had to deal with, but you didn't here him constantly cry about "the other guy" and how he has to deal with the issues that Clinton left behind.
Obama wants to take credit for anything good and blame someone else for anything bad. He has had the audacity to suggest that business owners didn't build what they own, giving government credit for it, but that business owners are responsible for the bad things.
Obama is wrong and needs to be replaced.

I totally agree with you, except...we were not yet at war with Japan when they bombed Pearl.

[Jeez]

Just Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
I have been reminded that we have had a few instances where we were engaged in war on our soil, and I stand corrected. What I probably should have said is that the attack on US soil wasn't an attack that would have been expected because we were not "at war" with the terrorist that brought about that attack.
Pearl harbor and others were actions that occured when we were "at war" with the aggresors, and the terrorist attack during Bush's time in office was unique in that respect. President Bush also could not respond as we have responded in the past when we were attacked...can you imagine if he had authorized to have the Middle east bombed like Japan? We responded very quickly and decisively after Pearl Harbor, but I can just imagine the outcry if Bush had authorized anything even close to that kind of response.
Other posters here have tried to insist that Obama inherited a mess that was "over the top" in justifying the awful way his administration has handled things. My response regarding the terrorist attack was proof that Bush ended up having to deal with a mess too, and something that few Presidents have had to deal with, but you didn't here him constantly cry about "the other guy" and how he has to deal with the issues that Clinton left behind.
Obama wants to take credit for anything good and blame someone else for anything bad. He has had the audacity to suggest that business owners didn't build what they own, giving government credit for it, but that business owners are responsible for the bad things.
Obama is wrong and needs to be replaced.

Just facts - We were not at war with the Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor.

[Just Facts]

Although it is true that we were not technically "at war" with Japan, there were ongoing negotiations between several countries due to ongoing hostilities. It is correct that the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor actually cause the declaration of war to be issued with Japan, but we were already preparing for a potential situation with them because the Pacific Fleet had been proactively moved from the West Coast to pearl harbor.

Thanks to several of you on pointing out why I'm not a history professor...I will still stand by my main point, which is that Bush had issues to deal with and wasn't constantly blaming the guy before him.

[What]

In both WW2 and the present war we were provoked. You have to remember that before Pearl harbor we didn't have radar and on 9/11 we couldn't predict that radical Muslim terrorist would hi-jack planes and fly them into buildings.

Now we do have some safe guards thanks to Bush but do you have any idea how many planes are in the sky everyday?

[Florida Retiree]

Just Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
I have been reminded that we have had a few instances where we were engaged in war on our soil, and I stand corrected. What I probably should have said is that the attack on US soil wasn't an attack that would have been expected because we were not "at war" with the terrorist that brought about that attack.
Pearl harbor and others were actions that occured when we were "at war" with the aggresors, and the terrorist attack during Bush's time in office was unique in that respect. President Bush also could not respond as we have responded in the past when we were attacked...can you imagine if he had authorized to have the Middle east bombed like Japan? We responded very quickly and decisively after Pearl Harbor, but I can just imagine the outcry if Bush had authorized anything even close to that kind of response.
Other posters here have tried to insist that Obama inherited a mess that was "over the top" in justifying the awful way his administration has handled things. My response regarding the terrorist attack was proof that Bush ended up having to deal with a mess too, and something that few Presidents have had to deal with, but you didn't here him constantly cry about "the other guy" and how he has to deal with the issues that Clinton left behind.
Obama wants to take credit for anything good and blame someone else for anything bad. He has had the audacity to suggest that business owners didn't build what they own, giving government credit for it, but that business owners are responsible for the bad things.
Obama is wrong and needs to be replaced.

Mr. Missing Facts,
Your comparison is totally off base and missing many facts of the point in time of which you speak. Bush and his Administration’s policies were not working at ALL and the country was failing on every front and debt was escalating, why do you think Obama got elected, it was because the country did not want to continue in the same direction with McCain and the queen of the arctic leading the charge and giving us the same old lines.

I too am disappointed that president Obama did not succeed as promised but he deserves four more years to complete his term and if he gets more support from congress the country will be on an upturn.

If there was a viable alternative in this election year I too would agree with you, but we all saw how Mr. Romney handled MA when he was Governor and it’s proof enough to me that he is not capable of handling issues on a national level. So please stop comparing apples to oranges, your statements do not hold water or have any merit.

For the Record, America declared war on Japan after Peark Harbor was attacked (supposingly a surprise) which got us unto WWII, please go rent the movie Pearl Harbor before you make any more inaccurate historical comments about our country.

The GOP simply does not have a powerful candidate like a Ronald Regan to step in and take charge, do you want to see him get elected and then say to us “Well, NOW WHAT??

[Florida Retiree]

Mr. Missing Facts, please don't reply in calling me names or being disrespectful to my opinions as thay are factual. Thank You.

[Not]

Retiree, your opinions are not based on facts. In fact they are distorted lies.

[Not]

We all know about Pearl Harbor, I am refeering to your ridiculous assumption that obama gets 4 more years. Another four years we will be china.

[Florida Retiree]

Not wrote:

Retiree, your opinions are not based on facts. In fact they are distorted lies.

With all due respect, my opinions are those that I believe to be true from my perspective.

Rather that you focusing on insulting me, it would beneficial for all of us if you stated what you believe to be the facts, otherwise your posts and negative statements mean nothing to me or anyone else reading them.

[What]

I read another funny article today on Yahoo. I guess a Republican Congressman was seen skinny dipping last year in the sea where Jesus supposedly walked on water. I guess people are rip shit. Which begs the question for me was Jesus born with a bathing suit on?

[Florida Retiree]

What wrote:

I read another funny article today on Yahoo. I guess a Republican Congressman was seen skinny dipping last year in the sea where Jesus supposedly walked on water. I guess people are rip shit. Which begs the question for me was Jesus born with a bathing suit on?

I didn't think they had Speedo's back then!

[Not]

Florida Retiree wrote:

<quoted text>
With all due respect, my opinions are those that I believe to be true from my perspective.
Rather that you focusing on insulting me, it would beneficial for all of us if you stated what you believe to be the facts, otherwise your posts and negative statements mean nothing to me or anyone else reading them.

Facts are obama is running us to the ground. Gas prices are double, unemployment higher, debt has at least doubled, and you think this loser deserves a 2nd chance.

Hell no

[American]

Not wrote:

<quoted text>
Facts are obama is running us to the ground. Gas prices are double, unemployment higher, debt has at least doubled, and you think this loser deserves a 2nd chance.
Hell no

Wow, someone should do their research. Then again, what do you expect from a simple mind.

Gas prices are not controlled by the President of the United States.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57401650...

Unemployment has risen steadily since 2007 (duh, could that be because of the recession??)

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

The national debt - wow, look what it rose to in 2008! Way over estimates.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31967.pdf

[His mouth said]

Obama in February 2009
“Look, I’m at the start of my administration. One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years. And, you know, a year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress,” Obama said.“But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

I have to agree Mr. President. As the cover of Newsweek magazine says "hit the road Barack!)

[The debt facts]

American wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, someone should do their research. Then again, what do you expect from a simple mind.
Gas prices are not controlled by the President of the United States.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57401650...
Unemployment has risen steadily since 2007 (duh, could that be because of the recession??)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
The national debt - wow, look what it rose to in 2008! Way over estimates.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31967.pdf

Bush - 5.7 Trillion 2001 / 10.7 trillion when he left office (8 years) 5 trillion increase
Obama 10.7 Trillion 2009 (when he entered office) 16 Trillion as of today (3.7 years) 5 trillion increase in less than one term.

Now go ahead and mark this clueless too.

[The gas facts]

American wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, someone should do their research. Then again, what do you expect from a simple mind.
Gas prices are not controlled by the President of the United States.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57401650...
Unemployment has risen steadily since 2007 (duh, could that be because of the recession??)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
The national debt - wow, look what it rose to in 2008! Way over estimates.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31967.pdf

Interesting that you should post this link in defense of Obama's energy policies. It actually shows that president's do have some control over gas prices because of policies. It actually makes Obama look even worse. Didn't you read it? Well thanks for posting it.