Hey, All of you who make up your minds based on polls

[FallingOsh 0]

Wow. You proved my point better than expected. You honestly believe nothing that's happened since January is Obama's responsibility.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[billvon 2,991]

> You honestly believe nothing that's happened since January is Obama's
>responsibility.

No, I didn't say that at all. It's really quite simple - Obama is responsible for what Obama does, Bush is responsible for what Bush does. This is a basic truth that the more partisan types on both sides of the aisle spend tremendous amounts of energy and time trying to ignore.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

> You honestly believe nothing that's happened since January is Obama's
>responsibility.
No, I didn't say that at all. It's really quite simple - Obama is responsible for what Obama does, Bush is responsible for what Bush does. This is a basic truth that the more partisan types on both sides of the aisle spend tremendous amounts of energy and time trying to ignore.

Agreed. So the fact that Bush started the bailouts (which he shouldnt have) is completely irrellevant to the conversation. Glad we cleared that up.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[billvon 2,991]

>So the fact that Bush started the bailouts (which he shouldnt have) is
>completely irrellevant to the conversation.

If you were talking about Supreme Court nominees, yes, it would be. But since you are talking about the bailouts - no, it's not irrelevant at all.

[jerryzflies 0]

So a majority still consider Bush to blame - as well they should, since he is.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

>So the fact that Bush started the bailouts (which he shouldnt have) is
>completely irrellevant to the conversation.
If you were talking about Supreme Court nominees, yes, it would be. But since you are talking about the bailouts - no, it's not irrelevant at all.

Why? Bush did it so it's ok for Obama? The poor handling of the economy and unfathomable spending since January is only one administration's doing. Obama inherited a shitty economy, yes. Thats not a free pass to do whatever he wants and continually blame it on Bush.
The number of people polled who still blame Bush is down 8 points in one month. As frustrating as it may be to you, people are starting to hold the current president responsible. He, and you, can't play the 'it wasnt me' card forever.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[billvon 2,991]

> Bush did it so it's ok for Obama?

Not at all. A bad idea is a bad idea.

>The poor handling of the economy and unfathomable spending
>since January is only one administration's doing.

I agree that the ridiculous spending since January is 90% Obama's doing. However, I also think that he could have made absolutely perfect decisions and the economy would still be in the shitter, so I can't see blaming that on him. Presidents have a minor ability at best to influence the economy - and sadly, they have more control over downturns than upturns.

However, in two years, he will have had more of a chance to do all the tweaking of economic policy he wants (and had time for that to do whatever it will do) so the blamestorming will get a little more traction.

>The number of people polled who still blame Bush is down 8 points in one month.

So does that make you one of those people "who make up your minds based on polls?"

[makeithappen40 0]

Quote

White House approves of congressional bailout bill
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 09/28/08 06:58 PM [ET]
President Bush said Sunday the bipartisan financial bailout package brokered over the weekend is "a very good bill” and he expects it will pass both houses of Congress soon.

Oops!

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-approves-of-congressional-bailout-bill-2008-09-28.html

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

White House approves of congressional bailout bill
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 09/28/08 06:58 PM [ET]
President Bush said Sunday the bipartisan financial bailout package brokered over the weekend is "a very good bill” and he expects it will pass both houses of Congress soon.

Oops!

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-approves-of-congressional-bailout-bill-2008-09-28.html

Ah, in case you havent noticed, most here who do not like the current spending had nothing good to say for that piece of crap law either..........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[makeithappen40 0]

Granted.

And that doesn't change the fact that you, FallingOsh, and Bush can't play the "it wasn't me" card either.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

However, in two years, he will have had more of a chance to do all the tweaking of economic policy he wants (and had time for that to do whatever it will do) so the blamestorming will get a little more traction.

So, does the bolded above mean that we'll quit seeing the "2001 Bush recession" all the time?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Granted.

And that doesn't change the fact that you, FallingOsh, and Bush can't play the "it wasn't me" card either.

So, then, the stimulus bill and associated problems are Obama's baby - thanks for confirming that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[makeithappen40 0]

What?

Who here is saying anything but the fact that it is a bipartison mistake?

[billvon 2,991]

>So, does the bolded above mean that we'll quit seeing the "2001 Bush
>recession" all the time?

If the recession gets worse in the next two years, yes, the "Obama Recession" will be more appropriate. If we recover from it in two years, then the Bush recession will be followed by the Obama recovery.

And again, presidents don't have all that much to do with the economy; they have a minor impact at best.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>So, does the bolded above mean that we'll quit seeing the "2001 Bush
>recession" all the time?

If the recession gets worse in the next two years, yes, the "Obama Recession" will be more appropriate. If we recover from it in two years, then the Bush recession will be followed by the Obama recovery.

Sweet - so, since the 2001 recession was less than ONE year, it wasn't a "Bush recession". Also, the current recession started in December 2007 - Bush was only in office for another year past that point, so the 'two year rule' means that's not a Bush recession, either.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,991]

Sweet - so, since the 2001 recession . . . .

In the immortal words of Dan Cook - "yeah. whatever."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Sweet - so, since the 2001 recession . . . .

In the immortal words of Dan Cook - "yeah. whatever."

So, why doesn't Bush get a "2 year exemption", Bill? Must be a "Democrats only" special, I suppose.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

Sweet - so, since the 2001 recession . . . .

In the immortal words of Dan Cook - "yeah. whatever."

So, why doesn't Bush get a "2 year exemption", Bill? Must be a "Democrats only" special, I suppose.

Your logic is crappy.

Climbing out of a deep hole generally takes longer than climbing out of a shallow hole. Right now we are in a deep hole.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

So a majority still consider Bush to blame - as well they should, since he is.

I love it when people place sole blame for this situation on anyone.

for fucks sake, we spent more than we had for many years, borrowed, flipped houses, cooked books, and made it all look better on paper. Now it's biting all of us in the ass.

There's plenty of blame to spread around.

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sweet - so, since the 2001 recession . . . .

In the immortal words of Dan Cook - "yeah. whatever."

So, why doesn't Bush get a "2 year exemption", Bill? Must be a "Democrats only" special, I suppose.

Your logic is crappy.

In the immortal words of Dan Cook - 'yeah, whatever'. Let me know when the liberal skillset includes recognition of congnitive dissonance, m'kay?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,991]

>So, why doesn't Bush . . .

Yeah, whatever. Keep defending him; I don't really care any more. He's no longer an issue.

[makeithappen40 0]

Actually... one of the key features of cognitive dissonance is that the sufferer can't figure out what two facts/beliefs/etc. contradict.

When this happens, the person becomes very uncomfortable and represses that information-which then can lead to projection of the problem onto another person.

You know, like the kind of projection that you are using against "liberals" right now.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>So, why doesn't Bush . . .

Yeah, whatever. Keep defending him; I don't really care any more. He's no longer an issue.

I'm not defending anything, Bill, just asking where the parity is - something you STILL can't seem to grasp.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Actually... one of the key features of cognitive dissonance is that the sufferer can't figure out what two facts/beliefs/etc. contradict.

When this happens, the person becomes very uncomfortable and represses that information-which then can lead to projection of the problem onto another person.

You know, like the kind of projection that you are using against "liberals" right now.

Pointing out the fact that liberals can't recognize the hypocrisy inherent in blaming Bush for economic issues 2 months into his Presidency, while simultaneously excusing Obama for economic issues 5 months into HIS term and suggesting that 2 years is an acceptable 'grace period' (Said grace period evidently ONLY applicable to Democratic Presidents) isn't "projection", sorry.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,991]

>I'm not defending anything, Bill, just asking where the parity is . . .

You're right, there's no parity. Everyone is against you. Everyone hates Bush and worships Obama, and are all hypocrites. The press? They're against you too. The media? They're in cahoots with the liberals. This website? Trying to keep conservatives down. FOX and Newsmax? The only unbiased bastions of sanity remaining. Reality? Has a clear and blatant liberal bias.

Perhaps someday soon someone will recognize the noble and utter victimhood of all conservatives at the hands of the evil liberals, and give conservatives the pity they both crave and deserve.