or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault - Page 2

post #41 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

My point exactly, Obama is a one term POTUS, the R's regain both houses and POTUS.

2012 - 1946 = 66 years (Boomers start to retire in droves)

Obama get's his health care reform bill this year, so that we now have to fund three rather large non-discretionary programs.

Unemployment reaches 30% in 2013 and stays there, or get's even worse, for the rest of the century.

Republicans pass massive tax cuts until the entire frderal tax burdens are no more.

Republicams would still be funding our two current wars but with the draft reinstated and much higher annual costs.

Democrats see this super duper shitstorm coming, and disband their party entirely.

Republicans start pulling the plugs on everyone (Granny, Grandpa, Mom, Pop, brother, and sister), death squads, and mass graves.

It's kind of like a hot potato, just gotta make it land in the Republicals lap at just the right time.

2012 will be that time. Remember, you heard it here first.

It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

I wonder if that's in the new movie?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #42 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I was referring to your statement, which was incomprehensible



Tacitly? So "they" claimed it without claiming it? The claim itself is unsupportable, even if you could (or would) define who "they" are.



This may be news to you jimmac, but the world does not hang on your every word, as if you're some kind of all-knowing political professor. The fact that you've "been over something" just means you at some point stated your opinion, which was likely not agreed upon then--and certainly not now.

Secondly, the only answer you've ever provided is "Deregulation." . You've never explained what "deregulation" was in your opinion (I still contend you don't know). Of course, assuming you did know (which you don't), it doesn't explain a damn thing. The "deregulation" you claim is 1. not really deregulation at all and 2. Started long before Bush. On the first point, it was specific NEW regulations on the mortgage/banking industry that helped cause the problem (forced sub-prime loans, liar's loans, low income area loans, etc). The second point is self-explanatory.




You mean like tripling the deficit through a "stimulus" bill and a trillion dollar government takeover of healthcare? Ignoring requests for more troops in Afghanistan...those things? Oh wait..that stuff isn't his fault, because most of them started before he was in office! He's not actually responsible for what he does in response...all his decisions are considered "good" because he didn't start it. Gotcha.



I've never claimed Clinton did anything specific to cause the recession in 2000. However, tax rates were higher, so in my opinion we were not as well insulated against economic slowdowns. Either way, it started on his watch, just as the most recent one started on Bush's. The difference is what the next Presidents did about the recessions. In 2001 and 2003, we had large tax cuts that clearly stimulated the economy. Obama has done nothing but spend shitloads of money that we don't have. And please recall, Bush was took action in mid 2008 to stem the recession he saw coming, through tax rebates. While not the best idea, it was better than spending 787 billion on pork, then calling it "stimulus."

The bottom line is that we have to look at specific policies and whether or not they make sense. We can't just look at outcomes. No one in his right mind believes that the pork--eh..stimulus will truly work. No one believes that annual deficit spending that approaches 6% of GDP is a good thing.

Quote:
This may be news to you jimmac, but the world does not hang on your every word,


You could take a page from your own book!

Quote:
I've never claimed Clinton did anything specific to cause the recession in 2000

Funny I sure remember you trying to blame him for it when I suggested Bush might not be handling it correctly!

Yes Bush cut taxes and unemployment dragged on forever. And guess what? Before he was out of office here we are again! Only worse! What did he vote to do about it? The same thing Obama did! Your reasoning is so screwed up it's laughable. We have to look at the outcomes. Anything else is speculation and before the fact. You know like what the GOP is trying to pull with Obama. I really wish I had a screen that could look into some parallel universe right now that still had " W " as president just to see what what coming out of the other side of the GOP's mouth in that case!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #43 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post



At least you're believing what you're supposed to believe, so that's good.

Funny I was going to say the same thing about you!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #44 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

My point exactly, Obama is a one term POTUS, the R's regain both houses and POTUS.

2012 - 1946 = 66 years (Boomers start to retire in droves)

Obama get's his health care reform bill this year, so that we now have to fund three rather large non-discretionary programs.

Unemployment reaches 30% in 2013 and stays there, or get's even worse, for the rest of the century.

Republicans pass massive tax cuts until the entire frderal tax burdens are no more.

Republicams would still be funding our two current wars but with the draft reinstated and much higher annual costs.

Democrats see this super duper shitstorm coming, and disband their party entirely.

Republicans start pulling the plugs on everyone (Granny, Grandpa, Mom, Pop, brother, and sister), death squads, and mass graves.

It's kind of like a hot potato, just gotta make it land in the Republicals lap at just the right time.

2012 will be that time. Remember, you heard it here first.

It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

Alright -- just remember: It's not the end of the world, it's just the end of you.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #45 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You could take a page from your own book!

Funny I sure remember you trying to blame him for it when I suggested Bush might not be handling it correctly!

Find the quote. Until then, don't question my word.

Quote:

Yes Bush cut taxes and unemployment dragged on forever.

False. Utterly false. Employment is a lagging indicator, so it comes back later. But it did come back, and quite strongly.



Quote:
And guess what? Before he was out of office here we are again! Only worse! What did he vote to do about it? The same thing Obama did! Your reasoning is so screwed up it's laughable.

He pushed for and got rebates passed. He initiated the TARP program. Whether or not those were/are good things is another matter.

Obama continued the bailouts, but went the "takeover" route. He has spent trillions more. He's instituted almost no program that could possibly help the economy.

Quote:


We have to look at the outcomes. Anything else is speculation and before the fact. You know like what the GOP is trying to pull with Obama. I really wish I had a screen that could look into some parallel universe right now that still had " W " as president just to see what what coming out of the other side of the GOP's mouth in that case!

W, while not fiscally conservative enough for me, would not have done what Obama is doing. We can only speculate as to what the outcome would be.

As for outcomes, one cannot solely look at them. The ends don't justify the means in all cases, nor are the ends always linked to the means. According to your logic, all Obama policies must be good or neutral as long as the economy recovers. You'll ignore that the economy, being resilient, will likely come back to an extent in spite of Obama policies. If unemployment starts to tick down next year, you'll pronounce his policies a success. If it hits under 8%, you'll pronounce it a phenomenal success. Nevermind that with proper stimulation (tax cuts and spending cuts), the economy would likely recover much faster.

In other words, we know what works, and what doesn't. Tax cuts work. Massive government taxing and spending and control does not. Anyone who believes otherwise is utterly ignorant of recent history.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #46 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Find the quote. Until then, don't question my word.



False. Utterly false. Employment is a lagging indicator, so it comes back later. But it did come back, and quite strongly.





He pushed for and got rebates passed. He initiated the TARP program. Whether or not those were/are good things is another matter.

Obama continued the bailouts, but went the "takeover" route. He has spent trillions more. He's instituted almost no program that could possibly help the economy.



W, while not fiscally conservative enough for me, would not have done what Obama is doing. We can only speculate as to what the outcome would be.

As for outcomes, one cannot solely look at them. The ends don't justify the means in all cases, nor are the ends always linked to the means. According to your logic, all Obama policies must be good or neutral as long as the economy recovers. You'll ignore that the economy, being resilient, will likely come back to an extent in spite of Obama policies. If unemployment starts to tick down next year, you'll pronounce his policies a success. If it hits under 8%, you'll pronounce it a phenomenal success. Nevermind that with proper stimulation (tax cuts and spending cuts), the economy would likely recover much faster.

In other words, we know what works, and what doesn't. Tax cuts work. Massive government taxing and spending and control does not. Anyone who believes otherwise is utterly ignorant of recent history.

Quote:
]Find the quote. Until then, don't question my word

Can you search back that far?

You know it would be impossible to find so you think it's ok to say anything! It's pretty childish for anyone to take this stance!

Wow! Just wow!

Fortunately SDW we both know what the outcome was for the last election and why. Some part of you also knows this trend isn't ending anytime soon. Enjoy!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #47 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Can you search back that far?

You know it would be impossible to find so you think it's ok to say anything! It's pretty childish for anyone to take this stance!

Wow! Just wow!

Fortunately SDW we both know what the outcome was for the last election and why. Some part of you also knows this trend isn't ending anytime soon. Enjoy!

jimmac, you made a claim about something I supposedly posted. I asked you to prove it. Knowing your claim was B.S. to begin with, you then said it couldn't be proven and called me childish for ever having denied it.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You can't get around that.

As for the election, I'll use a jimmacism: We've been through that. And no, not everything can be explained by the words "cyclical" and "deregulation."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #48 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

jimmac, you made a claim about something I supposedly posted. I asked you to prove it. Knowing your claim was B.S. to begin with, you then said it couldn't be proven and called me childish for ever having denied it.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You can't get around that.

As for the election, I'll use a jimmacism: We've been through that. And no, not everything can be explained by the words "cyclical" and "deregulation."

I can make big fonts as well!

Get a grip! I know you said these things but you feel safe as you know there's no way I can search that far back. Also there might even be others that stop by that remember as well ( that would be every time someone brought up something bad Bush had done you retorted with " But Clinton " ) so I'd watch it before you look even more foolish. Remember you got caught before on the election question ( even though you tried to deny it ).

As a matter of fact it was a typical talking point of the right when people discussed the recession early in this decade " It started while Clinton was in office " was a typical defense.

The BS is only coming from one direction and it isn't here. At least I stand behind what I say!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #49 of 419
I remember SD's bullshit and remember he left the threads when it got to hot for him.
post #50 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

I remember SD's bullshit and remember he left the threads when it got to hot for him.

And he wonders why you and me say we aren't going to bother repeating ourselves as his Alzheimer's makes it pointless.

Selective memory loss.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #51 of 419
And when you call them on it, you get an infraction.
Probably have another one coming.
post #52 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

And when you call them on it, you get an infraction.
Probably have another one coming.

Well if that's true then I do also friend.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #53 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I can make big fonts as well!

I think you meant to say Typefaces.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #54 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You can't get around that.

This could have avoided a useless war.

Please spread the good word to Bush, Palin, Bachmann, Boehner, Cantor, Limbough, Hannity, Beck and Co.

Great post SDW2001!
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #55 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I can make big fonts as well!

Get a grip! I know you said these things but you feel safe as you know there's no way I can search that far back. Also there might even be others that stop by that remember as well ( that would be every time someone brought up something bad Bush had done you retorted with " But Clinton " ) so I'd watch it before you look even more foolish. Remember you got caught before on the election question ( even though you tried to deny it ).

As a matter of fact it was a typical talking point of the right when people discussed the recession early in this decade " It started while Clinton was in office " was a typical defense.

The BS is only coming from one direction and it isn't here. At least I stand behind what I say!


You know, it would help if you would stick to making one false claim at a time. I said--in this thread--, that the recession of 2001 started under Clinton. What I have not done is claim that Clinton did anything specific to cause that recession (though I have talked about taxes being high and how in my judgement that didn't help).

I have also stated that Clinton was not responsible for the economic boom of the late 1990s, in that he didn't have policies that specifically contributed.
It's amazing that you continue to press this point. You can't find evidence because I've never posted what you claim*















*Prediction: jimmac will now find a few posts of mine where the words "Clinton" and "Recession" appear in the same sentence, then present them as "proof" of his initial dubious assertion. By that time though---and this is where it really gets ironic---HIS recollection of his original assertion will have changed. He'll say that when he initially criticized me, he was referring to me saying the 2001 recession merely started under Clinton. Reading his post above, he's already laying the groundwork for this.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #56 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You know, it would help if you would stick to making one false claim at a time. I said--in this thread--, that the recession of 2001 started under Clinton. What I have not done is claim that Clinton did anything specific to cause that recession (though I have talked about taxes being high and how in my judgement that didn't help).

I have also stated that Clinton was not responsible for the economic boom of the late 1990s, in that he didn't have policies that specifically contributed.
It's amazing that you continue to press this point. You can't find evidence because I've never posted what you claim*





*Prediction: jimmac will now find a few posts of mine where the words "Clinton" and "Recession" appear in the same sentence, then present them as "proof" of his initial dubious assertion. By that time though---and this is where it really gets ironic---HIS recollection of his original assertion will have changed. He'll say that when he initially criticized me, he was referring to me saying the 2001 recession merely started under Clinton. Reading his post above, he's already laying the groundwork for this.



Yes you've stated a lot of things. Too bad they don't have anything to do with the reality. And now you're trying to squrm out of it. Classic SDW!

One quote I remember is you calling it " Clinton's recession " instead of Bush's. I don''t think when someone is trtying to wiggle out of something it's amazing someone presses a point.

Quote:
You can't find evidence because I've never posted what you claim*

Yeah just like you never posted the Democrats were melting down before the election.

A simple question SDW. The conversation we're talking about would have happened some where around 2002 or 2003. Can you search back that far?

I asked it before but all I got was " You can't find it! Nya, nya, nya! "

Quote:
Prediction: jimmac will now find a few posts of mine where the words "Clinton" and "Recession" appear in the same sentence,


Why bother? There were so many times you mentioned Clinton when we were talking about Bush.

Quote:
He'll say that when he initially criticized me, he was referring to me saying the 2001 recession merely started under Clinton.

What do you think this part of that conversation meant ?
Quote:
Yes Bush cut taxes and unemployment dragged on forever. And guess what? Before he was out of office here we are again!


However to be fair I did jump to the other recession without making a clear break so I could see where you could get confused for a moment ( unless you too busy thinking about your retort that you didn't think about what you're reading ). I haven't corrected because then you'll say I've altered things.
Yes that's what our conversation was a bout if you read back.

Classic SDW dodge. Have you no shame?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #57 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

This could have avoided a useless war.

Please spread the good word to Bush, Palin, Bachmann, Boehner, Cantor, Limbough, Hannity, Beck and Co.

Great post SDW2001!

Nice try. The war wasn't about finding weapons in some kind of scavenger hunt. It was about Iraq repeatedly violating UN resolutions. The burden of proof was on Iraq, not the U.S. They had to prove they were complying, which they unquestionably didn't do.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes you've stated a lot of things. Too bad they don't have anything to do with the reality. And now you're trying to squrm out of it. Classic SDW!

On the contrary, I have consistently backed up my positions with data, whereas you rarely do. Now, I've certainly been wrong about a few things. For example, I thought until about 6-8 months before the election that McCain would be the next President. I also didn't think the Dems would take the Senate in 2006. It happens. You, on the other hand, seem to subscribe to the notion that a stopped clock is still right twice a day.

Quote:

One quote I remember is you calling it " Clinton's recession " instead of Bush's. I don''t think when someone is trtying to wiggle out of something it's amazing someone presses a point.

I don't recall posting that, but I might have. Either way, that doesn't mean he did anything specific to cause it (other than the aforementioned tax policy). That said, it was Bush's responsibility to help fix the problem, which he did.

Quote:



Yeah just like you never posted the Democrats were melting down before the election.

I did, and they were. But events changed in the 6 months before the election. Obama found a way to knock out Hillary. McCain ran a crappy campaign. The economic crisis hit at the wrong time (for the GOP). That doesn't mean it wasn't true when I posted it.

Quote:

A simple question SDW. The conversation we're talking about would have happened some where around 2002 or 2003. Can you search back that far?

I asked it before but all I got was " You can't find it! Nya, nya, nya! "

Actually, I don't know. Are you now asking me to go find evidence of your claim for you? Yes, I think you are. Typical. Also, I don't recall posting "Nya Nya Nya" or anything like it. I merely denied having made a comment and asked you to prove otherwise if you disagreed.

Quote:


Why bother? There were so many times you mentioned Clinton when we were talking about Bush.

I don't see how that matters, even if its true. Presidents are responsible for the policies they implement. Clinton did several things, specifically, that ended up affecting events during the Bush presidency. One of these was the nuclear deal with North Korea, the consequences of which we are still dealing with today. So yes, when someone offers an opinion on how terribly Bush handled the situation with North Korea, it's worth pointing out that Clinton had specific and identifiable policies that caused the problem.

This is why I have a problem with calling the current recession the "Bush Recession." Bush did not have policies or pursue policies that can be linked to recession. Yes, I know you'll scream "DEREGULATION, SDW!" and "WARS!", but those don't explain the recession.

Quote:


What do you think this part of that conversation meant ?


However to be fair I did jump to the other recession without making a clear break so I could see where you could get confused for a moment ( unless you too busy thinking about your retort that you didn't think about what you're reading ). I haven't corrected because then you'll say I've altered things.
Yes that's what our conversation was a bout if you read back.

Classic SDW dodge. Have you no shame?

You posted this:

Quote:
Yes Bush cut taxes and unemployment dragged on forever. And guess what? Before he was out of office here we are again!

Is that correct? Good.

The implication of your statement is that cutting taxes caused unemployment to drag on forever. Or, possibly you're not linking those two...I don't know. Either way, it's an absurd statement, because unemployment did NOT drag on forever, and wasn't very high at all at any time during his presidency. I think the max was somewhere just below 7% and the average was about 5% (I can't find the data at the moment, but that's close). That is better than the average of the 70s, 80s and 90s.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #58 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Nice try. The war wasn't about finding weapons in some kind of scavenger hunt. It was about Iraq repeatedly violating UN resolutions. The burden of proof was on Iraq, not the U.S. They had to prove they were complying, which they unquestionably didn't do.





On the contrary, I have consistently backed up my positions with data, whereas you rarely do. Now, I've certainly been wrong about a few things. For example, I thought until about 6-8 months before the election that McCain would be the next President. I also didn't think the Dems would take the Senate in 2006. It happens. You, on the other hand, seem to subscribe to the notion that a stopped clock is still right twice a day.



I don't recall posting that, but I might have. Either way, that doesn't mean he did anything specific to cause it (other than the aforementioned tax policy). That said, it was Bush's responsibility to help fix the problem, which he did.



I did, and they were. But events changed in the 6 months before the election. Obama found a way to knock out Hillary. McCain ran a crappy campaign. The economic crisis hit at the wrong time (for the GOP). That doesn't mean it wasn't true when I posted it.



Actually, I don't know. Are you now asking me to go find evidence of your claim for you? Yes, I think you are. Typical. Also, I don't recall posting "Nya Nya Nya" or anything like it. I merely denied having made a comment and asked you to prove otherwise if you disagreed.



I don't see how that matters, even if its true. Presidents are responsible for the policies they implement. Clinton did several things, specifically, that ended up affecting events during the Bush presidency. One of these was the nuclear deal with North Korea, the consequences of which we are still dealing with today. So yes, when someone offers an opinion on how terribly Bush handled the situation with North Korea, it's worth pointing out that Clinton had specific and identifiable policies that caused the problem.

This is why I have a problem with calling the current recession the "Bush Recession." Bush did not have policies or pursue policies that can be linked to recession. Yes, I know you'll scream "DEREGULATION, SDW!" and "WARS!", but those don't explain the recession.



You posted this:



Is that correct? Good.

The implication of your statement is that cutting taxes caused unemployment to drag on forever. Or, possibly you're not linking those two...I don't know. Either way, it's an absurd statement, because unemployment did NOT drag on forever, and wasn't very high at all at any time during his presidency. I think the max was somewhere just below 7% and the average was about 5% (I can't find the data at the moment, but that's close). That is better than the average of the 70s, 80s and 90s.

Quote:
On the contrary, I have consistently backed up my positions with data, whereas you rarely do.

Jesus!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #59 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Jesus!

Nice response. I've consistently backed up claims like "tax cuts create economic growth" and "tax cuts stimulate the economy and produce more revenue in the long term" with data from neutral sources. I've provided backing for claims on unemployment, election polling, issue polling and more. You, on the other hand, are the master of linking to opinion pieces on CNN Money.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #60 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Nice try. The war wasn't about finding weapons in some kind of scavenger hunt. It was about Iraq repeatedly violating UN resolutions. The burden of proof was on Iraq, not the U.S. They had to prove they were complying, which they unquestionably didn't do.

1) The war still is. No one knows what it is about anymore.
2) Reason congress funded war: Bush, Cheney, Powell drummed "WMD" to UN.
3) Bush's life's goal: spreading democracy ridding the world of dictators.
4) "He tried to hurt my daddy"
5) Halliburton.
6) UN inspectors had access and concluded there were no WMD but Bush prayed and got another msg from god Cheney.
7) All other claims are revisionist.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #61 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

1) The war still is. No one knows what it is about anymore.

We were discussing the original reasons.

2) Reason congress funded war: Bush, Cheney, Powell drummed "WMD" to UN.[/quote]

Congress believed Saddam had WMD long before we presented to the UN. John Kerry was saying so as late as January 2003. The argument that "Bush fooled us" utterly absurd.

Quote:
3) Bush's life's goal: spreading democracy ridding the world of dictators.

He really didn't get into that rhetoric until after the war started.

Quote:
4) "He tried to hurt my daddy"

Yes, he tried to assassinate a former President of the United States. Maybe we should have just put him on timeout.

Quote:
5) Halliburton.

On, stop. Jesus Christ.

Quote:
6) UN inspectors had access and concluded there were no WMD but Bush prayed and got another msg from god Cheney.

They didn't have full access and you know it. They never concluded there were no WMD...never. They simply didn't find any. Not finding them doesn't mean they concluded that Saddam was in full compliance.

Quote:
7) All other claims are revisionist.

Well then, glad we have that cleared up. How about the fact that Saddam fired on aircraft in the No Fly zone? How about that he failed to account for supposedly destroyed WMD, as he was required to do?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #62 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Nice response. I've consistently backed up claims like "tax cuts create economic growth" and "tax cuts stimulate the economy and produce more revenue in the long term" with data from neutral sources. I've provided backing for claims on unemployment, election polling, issue polling and more. You, on the other hand, are the master of linking to opinion pieces on CNN Money.

You'll understand why I respect the opinion of experts instead of an anymous guy from the internet ( who was just sure Iraq had WMD over the next sand dune when everyone else had let that go a long time before ). I've already explained in triplicate to others of your persuasion why that's important on a forum where anyone can claim to be anybody.

I'm sure you'd just rather us accept your stuff at face value and not question it.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #63 of 419
Bush been president for 8 years. It still hasn't been a year for Obama.

Bush is to blame, it all happened under his (un)watch.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #64 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

Bush been president for 8 years. It still hasn't been a year for Obama.

Bush is to blame, it all happened under his (un)watch.

And yet these guys don't seem to grasp ( or don't want to ) this simple equation.

They want to spin it into something that will make a republican president look less responsible for his own term in office that is 8 times what Obama's has been so far!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #65 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And yet these guys don't seem to grasp ( or don't want to ) this simple equation.

They want to spin it into something that will make a republican president look less responsible for his own term in office that is 8 times what Obama's has been so far!

It's irrelevant how long ding dong has been in office -- nothing has changed. We are speaking as if something has changed from the last 8 years. It just hasn't.


NOTHING


has changed (except for more abortions)


BHO had carte blanche when he came into office, but lo and behold, he put Goldman Sachs right back in charge of our monetary policy. This is a sick joke.













In fact, it's worse than a joke -- because about half the population still believes the pablum that is coming out of the WH. Meet the new boss...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #66 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

It's irrelevant how long ding dong has been in office -- nothing has changed. We are speaking as if something has changed from the last 8 years. It just hasn't.


NOTHING


has changed (except for more abortions)


BHO had carte blanche when he came into office, but lo and behold, he put Goldman Sachs right back in charge of our monetary policy. This is a sick joke.













In fact, it's worse than a joke -- because about half the population still believes the pablum that is coming out of the WH. Meet the new boss...

Quite simply you're wrong. And I'd be willing to bet the same criteria would not apply if this was a conservative in office. People are responsible for the work they do and if they have a longer ( much longer ) time to acconplish their goals ( whatever they may be ) that is a factor and nothing ( no amount of spin I mean did Bush have the exact same conditions to work with that Obama does? ) will change the logic of the situation.

To everything spin, spin, spin. That's why there isn't a republican in the Whitehouse.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #67 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quite simply you're wrong. And I'd be willing to bet the same criteria would not apply if this was a conservative in office. People are responsible for the work they do and if they have a longer ( much longer ) time to acconplish their goals ( whatever they may be ) that is a factor and nothing ( no amount of spin I mean did Bush have the exact same conditions to work with that Obama does? ) will change the logic of the situation.

To everything spin, spin, spin. That's why there isn't a republican in the Whitehouse.

Nonsense! If a conservative were in office the hypocrisy would only increase by an order of magnitude.

The cold, hard facts are that BHO is an establishment sellout (or if you want to be nice: "groupthink victim"). That's it. "Hope and Change" was a suckers' pickup line. Wall Street PWNS the treasury/policy/etc. BHO could have done the right thing and made the Banks eat their own dog food -- but he didn't. There is no excuse for the corporate welfare that has occurred -- it's beyond parody.


Quote:
THE LLOYD’s Prayer
Our Chairman,
Who Art At Goldman,
Blankfein Be Thy Name.
The Rally’s Come. God’s Work Be Done
On Earth As There’s No Fear Of Correction.
Give Us This Day Our Daily Gains,
And Bankrupt Our Competitors
As You Taught Lehman and Bear Their Lessons.
And Bring Us Not Under Indictment.
For Thine Is The Treasury,
The House And The Senate
Forever and Ever.
Goldman.


Now be a cooperative little bunny, and tell me that you'll do the right thing next time, stop being part of the problem, and vote for the third party of your choice.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #68 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You'll understand why I respect the opinion of experts instead of an anymous guy from the internet ( who was just sure Iraq had WMD over the next sand dune when everyone else had let that go a long time before ). I've already explained in triplicate to others of your persuasion why that's important on a forum where anyone can claim to be anybody.

I'm sure you'd just rather us accept your stuff at face value and not question it.

YOU DON'T LINK TO EXPERTS. The "experts" you do quote are actually stating opinions. The ones who aren't are usually not experts at all. If they are, you pervert their statements and take meanings that were never intended. And God forbid if someone disagrees with the "expert"--that's just not allowed in jimmac-land.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #69 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And yet these guys don't seem to grasp ( or don't want to ) this simple equation.

They want to spin it into something that will make a republican president look less responsible for his own term in office that is 8 times what Obama's has been so far!


OMFG. We weren't even discussing Bush. We were discussing O-B-A-M-A's accountability.
And you're talking about SPINNING?




__________________________________________________ _


<advertisement>

New! From the makers of the original Pflam Filter(TM) comes an amazing new device, designed to save you time when trying decipher jimmac's postings! It's the all-new, amazing Jimmac-in-ator!(TM). Simply submit up to 40 pages of a thread, and let it condense it down to this:



SDW: Obama is blaming Bush.

jimmac: You guyss' [sic] blamed Clinton for the recession.

SDW: I don't know who "you guys" are, but I didn't.

jimmac: yes, you did!

SDW: No, I said that it started under Clinton. He didn't do anything to directly cause it, other than having higher taxes at the time.

jimmac: I know you said it! I can't find it, but trust me...you did!

SDW: I disagree. I never said that. Find the quote.

jimmac: Jesus! We've been over this. It's all a cycle, something you know nothing about. Oh, and where are the WMD, SDW! See, no one's buying today. IStop being redicciulis. [sic].

SDW: Uh....

jimmac: You know that no one can find it, which is why you told me to find it. Me not being able to find it proves you said it! We all know Bush caused this recession anyway. Unemployment in my small and irrelevant college town shows what the whole country's like. After all, I'm older than you!

SDW: Uhh.....could you please explain what Bush did to cause the recession, specifically? What polices did so?

jimmac: We've been over this, jeez! Deregulation! Cycles!

SDW: I quit this B*tch.

</advertisement>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #70 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


OMFG. We weren't even discussing Bush. We were discussing O-B-A-M-A's accountability.
And you're talking about SPINNING?




__________________________________________________ _


<advertisement>

New! From the makers of the original Pflam Filter(TM) comes an amazing new device, designed to save you time when trying decipher jimmac's postings! It's the all-new, amazing Jimmac-in-ator!(TM). Simply submit up to 40 pages of a thread, and let it condense it down to this:



SDW: Obama is blaming Bush.

jimmac: You guyss' [sic] blamed Clinton for the recession.

SDW: I don't know who "you guys" are, but I didn't.

jimmac: yes, you did!

SDW: No, I said that it started under Clinton. He didn't do anything to directly cause it, other than having higher taxes at the time.

jimmac: I know you said it! I can't find it, but trust me...you did!

SDW: I disagree. I never said that. Find the quote.

jimmac: Jesus! We've been over this. It's all a cycle, something you know nothing about. Oh, and where are the WMD, SDW! See, no one's buying today. IStop being redicciulis. [sic].

SDW: Uh....

jimmac: You know that no one can find it, which is why you told me to find it. Me not being able to find it proves you said it! We all know Bush caused this recession anyway. Unemployment in my small and irrelevant college town shows what the whole country's like. After all, I'm older than you!

SDW: Uhh.....could you please explain what Bush did to cause the recession, specifically? What polices did so?

jimmac: We've been over this, jeez! Deregulation! Cycles!

SDW: I quit this B*tch.

</advertisement>

Sorry you've still got yourself in a twist over this. Maybe you should stop trying to spin reality so it fits your view? Anyway we were discussing Obama and I used a previous statement by you about Clinton to illustrate why I think the way I do. I guess you couldn't follow that? Anyway SDW it's still Bush's fault! No matter how you spin it!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #71 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Nonsense! If a conservative were in office the hypocrisy would only increase by an order of magnitude.

The cold, hard facts are that BHO is an establishment sellout (or if you want to be nice: "groupthink victim"). That's it. "Hope and Change" was a suckers' pickup line. Wall Street PWNS the treasury/policy/etc. BHO could have done the right thing and made the Banks eat their own dog food -- but he didn't. There is no excuse for the corporate welfare that has occurred -- it's beyond parody.





Now be a cooperative little bunny, and tell me that you'll do the right thing next time, stop being part of the problem, and vote for the third party of your choice.

Well when I see a 3rd party that offers two things : Viability and workable solutions. Otherwise for right now we get the worst side of the coin ( until they change ). And until they become like the GOP is supposed to be I don't want that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #72 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sorry you've still got yourself in a twist over this. Maybe you should stop trying to spin reality so it fits your view? Anyway we were discussing Obama and I used a previous statement by you about Clinton to illustrate why I think the way I do. I guess you couldn't follow that? Anyway SDW it's still Bush's fault! No matter how you spin it!


I have stated facts.

1. Obama is blaming Bush:
  • Deficit: We had to TRIPLE the deficit (that we complained about for 8 years) because we had to "rescue" the economy. We had no choice.
  • Economy: 8 years of Bush-Cheney mismanagement turned America into a Great Depression-like wasteland. It's the worst economy in 60 years. We can't fix it right away.
  • Afghan War: We inherited a mess from Bush. It's taken us 10 months to not make a decision on troop levels. Don't worry though...we have four options and we'll make a decision soon.

2. I never made the statement you "used." Until you can show otherwise, you're a liar.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #73 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I have stated facts.

1. Obama is blaming Bush:
  • Deficit: We had to TRIPLE the deficit (that we complained about for 8 years) because we had to "rescue" the economy. We had no choice.
  • Economy: 8 years of Bush-Cheney mismanagement turned America into a Great Depression-like wasteland. It's the worst economy in 60 years. We can't fix it right away.
  • Afghan War: We inherited a mess from Bush. It's taken us 10 months to not make a decision on troop levels. Don't worry though...we have four options and we'll make a decision soon.

2. I never made the statement you "used." Until you can show otherwise, you're a liar.


Quote:
I have stated facts

No. You've spun the facts. There's a difference.

And it's still Bush's fault.


Quote:
you're a liar

Nah! The conservatives from " The New Red Majority " never say things like this!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #74 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No. You've spun the facts. There's a difference.

And it's still Bush's fault.

Nah! The conservatives from " The New Red Majority " never say things like this!

Put up or shut up. The archives go back for many years on these forums. Take the time and work it out, or just shut up about it. Sheesh!
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #75 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Put up or shut up. The archives go back for many years on these forums. Take the time and work it out, or just shut up about it. Sheesh!

My, my, my! If I were to tell one of you to " Shut up" you'd report me to the Mod!

Ok. Show me how you would search for a post that SDW made back in say oh.....2002.

You make it sound easy so put your money where your mouth is.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #76 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

My, my, my! If I were to tell one of you to " Shut up" you'd report me to the Mod!

You must have me confused with someone else.

Quote:
Ok. Show me how you would search for a post that SDW made back in say oh.....2002.

You make it sound easy so put your money where your mouth is.

At the top pf the page you will find a Search Link. Click that, look for the Advanced Search link at the bottom. Look under search options and Select Find Posts From: A year Ago or Older. Choose the Forum you want to search and your search terms. You can even search by user if you wish.

However if you really want to get tricky you can try using the Internet Wayback machine.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://...pleinsider.com and see if you can find anything there. Actually browse the old threads. Anything else you need me to do for you?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #77 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

You must have me confused with someone else.


At the top pf the page you will find a Search Link. Click that, look for the Advanced Search link at the bottom. Look under search options and Select Find Posts From: A year Ago or Older. Choose the Forum you want to search and your search terms. You can even search by user if you wish.

However if you really want to get tricky you can try using the Internet Wayback machine.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://...pleinsider.com and see if you can find anything there. Actually browse the old threads. Anything else you need me to do for you?

Wow. I really didn't know you could do that. However you realize if I find something he'll just deny it or try to wiggle out of it like he did about the subject of the Democrats melting down before the last election.

Thanks for the tip when I get time I'm sure I'll find something but as I said it won't do any good.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #78 of 419

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #79 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Wow. I really didn't know you could do that. However you realize if I find something he'll just deny it or try to wiggle out of it like he did about the subject of the Democrats melting down before the last election.

Thanks for the tip when I get time I'm sure I'll find something but as I said it won't do any good.

I'll make sure to find all those old jimmac posts where the economy had improved and even jobs were being generated but at a rate you deemed to be to weak and thus this was bad economic progress.

Now of course we have the ol' "look we are only losing a quarter million jobs a month" standard of economic progress.

How low that bar has sunk for you compared to then. I suspec the D next to the name might have a little something to do with it. Either that or as our former president used to note, the "quiet bigotry of lowered expectations."

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #80 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'll make sure to find all those old jimmac posts where the economy had improved and even jobs were being generated but at a rate you deemed to be to weak and thus this was bad economic progress.

Now of course we have the ol' "look we are only losing a quarter million jobs a month" standard of economic progress.

How low that bar has sunk for you compared to then. I suspec the D next to the name might have a little something to do with it. Either that or as our former president used to note, the "quiet bigotry of lowered expectations."

Quote:
I'll make sure to find all those old jimmac posts where the economy had improved and even jobs were being generated but at a rate you deemed to be to weak and thus this was bad economic progress.

Yes we can't find yours can we? You took care of that from what I've heard!

And do you know what? Obama wasn't in charge when this all started. No matter how you spin you can't get past that. Also you can't try to blame this on the Democratic congress of the time. This was brewing a lot longer than that. And you can't blame the baby boomers either. I mean it's not like someone younger never had a house loan or a credit card and which is more likely to default?

The truth is we were all part of this. You, me, everyone. We all had our part to play ( big or small ) in letting this situation happen. But that still doesn't change who had the reins when it did.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault