You claimed to have voted for Obama. Well, he ran on increasing troops in Afghanistan and the bailouts were enacted before the election. He exec ordered GiTMO to be closed his second day in office (those things don't just happen overnight btw), it will still be closed and there is a clearer picture of what will happened with those detained there. There have been some bumps in closing it but his commitment is still firm. Not sure what you mean by "Union takeover of GM and Chrysler" but as I and everyone who paid attention to the situation remembers, they came to the g'ment for help. The g'ment didn't raid their ships. Of course if you go to the g'ment for taxpayer money....THEY ARE MOST CERTAINLY GOING TO INSIST (as they should) THEY HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER YOUR AFFAIRS.
1 year later, Obama still blames bush
- Thread starter jasonk282
- Start date
You claimed to have voted for Obama. Well, he ran on increasing troops in Afghanistan and the bailouts were enacted before the election. He exec ordered GiTMO to be closed his second day in office (those things don't just happen overnight btw), it will still be closed and there is a clearer picture of what will happened with those detained there. There have been some bumps in closing it but his commitment is still firm. Not sure what you mean by "Union takeover of GM and Chrysler" but as I and everyone who paid attention to the situation remembers, they came to the g'ment for help. The g'ment didn't raid their ships. Of course if you go to the g'ment for taxpayer money....THEY ARE MOST CERTAINLY GOING TO INSIST (as they should) THEY HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER YOUR AFFAIRS.
None of which is contrary to what I said, so I guess we're in agreement.
Need?
We need another partisan hack, who will do as much to unite the country as the last two have?
NO- we need someone new, who actually believes in freedom.
'cept for the notion that it seems funny to you presumably based on your premise that there's been no "change".
With respect to the direction in Afghanistan, nearly 70k US forces over approximately 10k is not a "change"? The bank bailouts were again enacted prior to the election with bipartisan support to include Obama's...why would no "change" there seem "funny"? The previous administration opened GiTMO with no plans of closing it, Obama exec ordered it to be closed and there are plans being worked to facilitate that act.
Certainly it's not something Obama can wave a wand and have done since the action must be appropriated by congress. The political posturing and demagoguing doesn't help but Obama has given the order and now given congress a plan....it's congress which is holding up the money to do it.
GM and Chrysler? Meh...:dunno: Like I said before, they went to the g'ment..not the other way around...I guess it's just a difference in what you consider the circumstances of a takeover versus what I consider. For example, I don't consider it a takeover of someone's personal affairs if the g'ment wants to know what you're doing with your time, schooling, etc. in exchange for taxpayer money. Equally so, I don't consider it a takeover if a company goes to the g'ment for taxpayer funds and then has to be held accountable to the g'ment for how those funds are used. Happens that way in virtually EVERY case in which the g'ment grants or loans money.:2 cents:
You're argument is pedantic and is simply for the sake of arguing.
Thanks!
:hatsoff: (But honestly, your "argument" is quite a bit more pedantic dontcha think? Ya know, "voted" for the guy tend to agree with him but nitpicking for arguments sake while he's in the midst of problems unseen in generations...:o)Thanks!
I described your arguments the same way before. I wanted to see if you would understand what I was saying. You didn't again.
I have not posted any argument to your posts. You have replied to mine. You ask for explanations and sources, but don't give the same of yourself. It is a bit lazy and does not give you credibility. I even tempted you with a fact easy to verify and you opted to just complain that I didn't provide it for you.
So, while I think you're fun and seem like a nice guy (I do like your messages too) I haven't seen any attempt to really understand what is being said. You argue some minor points instead of discussing (not arguing) the main point. It is arguing for the sake of arguing. It is pedantic. That is why I will not expend energy engaging. I would get nothing out of it. It is relatively boring.
You could claim victory. If you do, you should rent an aircraft carrier and land a plane on it to do it.
You got the first part correct, I've replied to your posts. Sorry you don't think it reasonable to supply a "source" (or reference if you prefer) to support a collection of abbreviated quotes you've attributed to someone. I personally would never waste my time fishing for a series of conspicuously abbreviated quotes one person attributed to another. Unless maybe I knew the exact quote and/or context of the hearsay and knew it to be a misquote or misrepresentation.
You consider that "lazy"? :dunno: See, there we're different again. I consider it "lazy" or more likely an attempted deception for not supporting quotes with a reference.
So, while I think you're fun and seem like a nice guy (I do like your messages too) I haven't seen any attempt to really understand what is being said. You argue some minor points instead of discussing (not arguing) the main point. It is arguing for the sake of arguing. It is pedantic. That is why I will not expend energy engaging. I would get nothing out of it. It is relatively boring.
You could claim victory. If you do, you should rent an aircraft carrier and land a plane on it to do it.
Well if you recall, you joined an open discussion (this thread) and as typical of open discussions your point was responded to. You tended to agree with an assumption that was unsupported by it's reference.
I refuted the original source attributed to the assumption by showing it to be completely and utterly without merit. The original source for this claim now debunked, I called upon you (in so many words) to support your claim of Obama "still" blaming Bush with a different source. You responded with some abbreviated quotes you attribute to Obama semantically as your "source"...well, okay Mrs. Webster...your reference... <crickets>... Well, not quite <crickets> you suggested I go fish for your reference. Yeah right...
Point is, you agreed with a refuted assertion and have continued to either support that assertion and have added new ones that have been either baseless on point of fact or in characterization. That's not arguing...that's refuting baseless claims.
I don't need references per se for my claims. I never claimed to quote anyone...I don't need a reference to refute the original assumption that Obama was still blaming Bush a year later as it refuted itself if anyone here bothered to read it.
BTW, I msg you as I have most with whom I've not agreed with (even Georges) to let them know that while I may come off a particularly unkind sometimes, it's not personal. To be sure...I'm not arguing down whether you enjoyed my messages or not...just characterizing them since you brought it up.
If you chose not to respond on point for your growing evolution of semantical reasoning...no problem. It's still a free country. :thumbsup:
But I get it though Monica, :sing:... you are li-ving in a semantical world and you're just a semantical girl.:sing:
You got the first part correct, I've replied to your posts. Sorry you don't think it reasonable to supply a "source" (or reference if you prefer) to support a collection of abbreviated quotes you've attributed to someone. I personally would never waste my time fishing for a series of conspicuously abbreviated quotes one person attributed to another. Unless maybe I knew the exact quote and/or context of the hearsay and knew it to be a misquote or misrepresentation.
You consider that "lazy"? :dunno: See, there we're different again. I consider it "lazy" or more likely an attempted deception for not supporting quotes with a reference.
Well if you recall, you joined an open discussion (this thread) and as typical of open discussions your point was responded to. You tended to agree with an assumption that was unsupported by it's reference.
I refuted the original source attributed to the assumption by showing it to be completely and utterly without merit. The original source for this claim now debunked, I called upon you (in so many words) to support your claim of Obama "still" blaming Bush with a different source. You responded with some abbreviated quotes you attribute to Obama semantically as your "source"...well, okay Mrs. Webster...your reference... <crickets>... Well, not quite <crickets> you suggested I go fish for your reference. Yeah right...
Point is, you agreed with a refuted assertion and have continued to either support that assertion and have added new ones that have been either baseless on point of fact or in characterization. That's not arguing...that's refuting baseless claims.
I don't need references per se for my claims. I never claimed to quote anyone...I don't need a reference to refute the original assumption that Obama was still blaming Bush a year later as it refuted itself if anyone here bothered to read it.
BTW, I msg you as I have most with whom I've not agreed with (even Georges) to let them know that while I may come off a particularly unkind sometimes, it's not personal. To be sure...I'm not arguing down whether you enjoyed my messages or not...just characterizing them since you brought it up.
If you chose not to respond on point for your growing evolution of semantical reasoning...no problem. It's still a free country. :thumbsup:
But I get it though Monica, :sing:... you are li-ving in a semantical world and you're just a semantical girl.:sing:
On this debate, it is clear...Monica wins!
(Although you don't have it in you to not leave some sort of argument in reply)
Of course it's "clear".
Obama is still blaming Bush after a year and Monica demonstrated her case for that remarkably well in this thread.:rofl:
Of course it's "clear".
Obama is still blaming Bush after a year and Monica demonstrated her case for that remarkably well in this thread.:rofl:
Wow, you really don't get it, do you?
:nanner:lol, well, so long as you're happy, that is what counts. :nanner:
:rofl: I'm sure you're approach gets you far and impresses. :rofl:
I can only imagine what clever reply you'll have. :wave2:
:2 cents: This is a PORN Site. After reading your posts, everyone is better off it you go admire the pretty women.
:thefinger Obama :thefinger Bush
What I get is on this particular board in this particular thread Obama is accused of still blaming Bush a year later....In a post from November (this thread) with a statement made in not even 2 months into his term.
Either support the debunked claim with a different case and reference or get out of the thread.:dunno:
But what I also get is you could have simply sent her a PM kissing her ass instead of wasting a couple of your first posts trying to pull it off.:2 cents:
If you cut and past the original quote Monica posted, you would find the reference. She even gave you a date that was almost 1 year into his term.
What Monica was saying very nicely was that she doesn't feel the need to answer ANY of your questions since you haven't demonstrated that you are up to understanding the concepts. (Monica, feel free to flame me if I missed it - and I will apologize.)
I would LOVE to kiss Monica's ass. You're a hypocrite since you are getting nasty with me for responding to an open post.
---
This whole posting is about Obama being a bit whiny instead of just dealing with the issues. Someone said on here that EVERY president inherited problems that existed before their administration. I was watching MSNBC yesterday and Obama was speaking n Maryland and in his speech spent time talking about the economic crisis he inherited from the previous administration. That is over 1 year into his administration.
That is just a fact. Now a smart man wouldn't argue the minor points, but would discuss what it means.
Candidly, I don't think it means much other than it being a symptom. I'm a Democrat and voted for Obama myself with high hopes. Unfortunately he has turned out to be a lightweight. He has proven he doesn't have the political chops to get much done, even with a BIG majority. Part of being President is working with the opposition so you can get your initiatives across. He does nothing but antagonize them, scolds them, and will only talk to them if they agree. He could take lessons from Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton (Who is turning out to be the shining star in this administration).
---
On a note of a tangential subject to this posting, I'm finding Obama to be another big government class warrior, like FDR. In 1934 the US was starting to recover economically. FDR went on a class warfare campaign and laid down some heavy corporate taxes, blaming the corporations for the economy. This stopped the recovery dead and resulted in another crash in 1937/1938 when the US should have been experiencing growth.
Does this sound familiar?
---
If I offended you, that wasn't my intention. However, the sit back and "prove everything you say to me" is ridiculous and hypocritical.
Last edited:
A reference in this case would be a location from where the quote(s) were gathered. Asking me to fish for something you could have easily linked along with your abbreviated quotes is a little suspect and from what I've seen in the past of people who practice that is a simple attempt to deceive.
Just like if we took the OPs original comments at face value without a reference where would we be in this thread?? In looking at the reference provided...the claim was baseless.
That's why people like to read for themselves what reference a person is making an assertion based on. It's virtually a common sense courtesy. If that's unreasonable to you or Monica..I don't know what else to tell you.
I would agree with you if Monica's statement is that "Supply Side" has worked. It has not worked and the returns of 5% or 7% that were used in the 80's to sell it are more like 2.7% in reality.
I'm a history professor, not an economics professor, so this isn't my strong point, but I'm not without reference. If the argument being made is that the theory of Supply Side works if it is not touch by outside influence, then that may hold water. The downside is, it will always be affected by other measures. Taxes will be raised at some point and spending will go up at some point - you just can't control the political climate. Change is a constant.
For what it is worth, I find the fact that "change is a constant" is a good thing. Business has ups and down naturally without political or government involvement. Politicians will take credit for natural rises and blame other for natural declines. The fact that politician are not in power forever is a good thing. (Although some seem to only leave office when they are dead.)
As someone stated last week. The next time Mariano Rivera comes into the game with 3 on and 0 out he needs to remind the manager. "I just want you to remember that I inherited this situation"
You have two acceptable references for this forum. I found Monica's within seconds. I gave you one as well.
I know you don't know what to tell me. The original poster's comment has merit. Now, you can argue the point, but stating that the facts are baseless just demonstrates ignorance and is nothing more than stomping your feet.
Nice.
The cool thing is that Mariano is a winner. He doesn't complain - He gets saves and wins!
Sorry genius. It's not about how little time it would take me to fish for the source of her abbreviated quotes.
I'm not going waste time trying to prove someone's point they are too lazy to finish for themselves. If their point even has merit.
The reference provide by the OP did not in anyway support their claim. Anyone with eyes can read that for themselves.
Using an Obama quote for March 4th 2009 as an example of Obama blaming Bush a year later for what he inherited is pretty stupid if not outright asinine.
If that's your standard....I'm sorry for you.
Rivera is a relief/closer not a starter. He has a role where his skill is crafted for...Apples and oranges.:2 cents:
Similar threads
