PN-G bamatex

When Congress won't let you shut Gitmo down, I guess you have to empty it out somehow....

  What do you mean, what about them? All operations under the Global War on Terrorism would be counted within the fiscal year in which they took place.

  No, they don't. Different surveys use different methods. They do the same thing for other statistics inherent in the usual assessment of presidential efficacy as well. For instance, some surveys will show Clinton's job numbers slightly above Reagan's, while others will show Reagan's well above Clinton's. Those surveys hinge on where you put the first year of each president's administration; some scholars believe it's more accurate to give that first year to the previous president, based on a belief that each new president's policies haven't really had enough time to have an effect in that first year.   But, for the sake of argument, we'll assume you're right and that all studies of fiscal prudence allot president's only the budgets passed within their terms, and no budgets that were already in effect when they took office. Even then, FY 2009 should still be attributed to the Obama administration because of the special circumstance that is the 2009 bailout, which more than tripled the projected deficit for that fiscal year all on its own, a month after President Bush left office.

I've heard this argument about a thousand times, and every time it involves the same assinine assertion. This all hinges on FY 2009. Democrats love to blame Bush for the FY 2009 deficit since the FY 2009 budget was passed in September of 2008, at the end of Bush's last term. The problem with that is, the FY 2009 budget passed by Congress and signed by President Bush only had a deficit of roughly $460 Billion attached to it, not the $1.4 Trillion you see listed above. What accounts for the disparity? Try the trillion dollar bailout passed in February, 2009, a month into President Obama's first term and four months into FY 2009. So, essentially, Democrats want to pin a deficit on Bush that he didn't sign off on, in a fiscal year he only administrated the first three months of, when the reality is that five sevenths of the deficit and three quarters of the fiscal year fall squarely on the shoulders of Obama.

It's alright. Kinda pricy for what you get if you ask me, but that's from the perspective of a college student.

I thought that reaction was underwhelming as well. But Bush still didn't back down on missile defense, and Putin didn't annex Georgia or any part of it like the situation we're presented with now.

He actually kind of likes the name. It's on his license plate.

It's also worth noting that the statistic correlating party identification and higher education levels is probably skewed by the sheer amount of university professors, who are required to attain a doctorate in their respective fields before drawing a salary normally paid for by tax dollars, that vote Democrat as much out of self interest as ideology.

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." - Margaret Thatcher   Thanks, hippy.

  And I think you're either trolling or you have no legitimate response at this point and you know it.

  And you think you know more than the rest of us. No matter what we say, you're going to spin it around to say that we're only opposing President Obama's actions because he's president or because he's black or because of something arbitrary and irrelevant.

  Glad to know I can count on your vote.

  Then what, exactly, was your point?

Are you saying that the Ukraine was on the verge of a civil war prior to the Russian invasion of Crimea?

I have more than 5,000 posts on this site. I'm begging you: please go back and find one where I've ever said we need to take a reduced role in the world. You're talking to this website's biggest advocate for involvement in Syria from day one, and the guy who was behind US actions in Libya. Heck, I wanted us supporting the Twitter revolution in Iran in 2009. Now with that in mind, can you honestly say that I would be against US involvement in the Ukraine if Obama had taken a more proactive role, simply because of who's president?

  Uh, maybe because he wanted to invade Crimea and there was no fully armed, pro-Russian military faction in Ukraine to do it for him at the time?

  For starters, put a boatload of extra troops at every military base in Eastern Europe (to be fair, he sent the 101st Airborne to Poland, but that's not really enough). Deploy the missile defense systems that he took down in 2009 back to Eastern Europe to reclaim the trust we lost with our allies over there when we pulled them, and to show the Russians that we can't give them things they want in good faith if they're going to turn around and start invading their neighbors. Then, in a very, very public way, offer the Ukraine everything they could possibly need to fight a full scale war, from financial assistance to supplies, and convene the leadership of NATO for the explicit purpose of considering making an offer to the Ukraine for membership. Then keep them convened and deliberating that prospect every day until the situation's over. Oh, yeah, and all that economic stuff, too.

No. He's pulling them out because there's a fully armed, pro-Russian faction starting a civil war in the Ukraine that can do his dirty work for him.

[Hidden Content]   They couldn't have picked a better representative to chair the committee. If there's anything there, Trey Gowdy will find it.

I will never understand why someone takes that risk. I know way too many people who have, and they have no idea how lucky they are.

  In the State of Texas, we have independent school districts. This means that, unlike other states, schools are not tied to county or municipal governments; hence, independent school districts. So in short, no, the mayor does not share responsibility since the schools are governed by an entity completely separate from the city.

Well at least they finally disowned the Butch.

It's been stung by a poisonous dart, shot twice, hit by a truck and horned by a bull, but it's still going. See, that's the thing about corruption. Once it's entrenched, it's all but impossible to kill.

  I know there's an exception to the degree requirement for people with 10 years of experience doing the mafia's accounting, but I don't know about the military. Did you do any embezzlement?

If Putin doesn't feel he's going to be held accountable, he'll do whatever he wants.   You always deal with the Russians from a position of strength. Anything less, and they won't respect you. Kowtowing to them from day one isn't maintaining a position of strength.