Laughs
Past Laughs
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- March 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
-
Recent Comments
-
Login/Feeds
Copyright © 2008 Laugh@Liberals.com
Tyra Says: April 15th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I like what this guy had to say on the topic:
This is an absolute joke of a story and it is why I do not trust media, even on the internet. “Tax cuts for the rich” is more than a liberal talking point which has no basis in fact. I am a C.P.A. who is well-versed in the tax code and Bush’s tax cuts actually were provided to lower income earners on a disproportionate basis such that, when they were fully implemented, the top 10% of wage earners actually paid a larger percentage of the total tax burden than they did before the tax cuts were enacted. This is, however, a message which does not play well in the popular media, because it goes against the stereotype of what a Republican is all about. In truth, many of President Bush’s actions have been more liberal in nature; he is far from a hardcore conservative president. In terms of his presidency being a “failure,” the question itself implies bias as nobody has the ability to determine the impact of a president’s regime until years after he (or she) is out of office. Truly objective “historians” would, I think, understand this concept more than anyone. It makes me question the objectivity of these so-called “historians”. More often than not, these polls are just liberals asking for the opinion of other liberals and then recording the results.
The Other Side Says: April 16th, 2008 at 4:46 am
what in bush’s presidency has been successful? what in bush’s presidency can become positive and provide evidence of a successful presidency? if anything, what we see today may be the most positive his presidency will ever be. things will leak out about why the bush administration was so secretive. people within his administration will write books unveiling his secrets. there will, hopefully, be congressional hearing and potentially criminal litigation. bush just admitted to knowing about the torture against detainees. the people high up in the administration knew and pretty much choreographed the torture. those are crimes. his spying on americans is a crime.
his public failures are one thing, but there are many more to uncover. he’s tried to compare himself with lincoln and his unpopular decisions to try and make himself look better. and now that he’s a lame duck he’s complaining about congress. he’s been stubborn and doesn’t care about the american people. even with iraq he made the coward’s decision of leaving iraq to the next administration.
with all that in mind, how can his presidency be viewed as anything but a failure.
CSP Says: April 17th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Only 98% of historians thought his presidency has been a failure? That number will be 100% within 5 years of his leaving office. Bush has almost single handedly destroyed any hopes for the Republican party over the next decade.
As for the media being liberal I find it hard to believe that the international mega-corporations that own the media like Disney, GE and Murdoch would fall into the “liberal” category. The term “liberal media” is an oxymoron. Sorry, but it doesn’t exist except for a few small circulation periodicals. Even the NY Times supported the Iraq invasion and played a roll in the media’s propaganda buildup of swaying public opinion.