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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>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.

Wow...that must have been QUITE the nerve my comment hit...

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

[makeithappen40 0]

Really? Because I thought the issue wasn't President Bush's first recession (the one right after 9/11). The issue is the very deep recession that began during the end of his presidency. (The presidency that the people of the United States got to marinate in for 6-7 years before the economy really turned for the worst)

Saying that it is a fact that liberals can't recognize hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance is projection, dude.

How many Liberals do you mean? Do you mean Some liberals, which would indicate that there is at least one liberal as such? OR do you mean most liberals? which would indicate at least 51% of liberals? Do you mean ALL liberals, which would indicate each and every liberal, or 100% of liberals?

Here, i'll help you with another vague blanket statement: Republicans can't recognize the hypocrisy inherent in funding the military (a form of socialism) with over 600 billion dollars in federal funding... yet they will readily be there to say that socialism is a disastrous political ideology.

Republicans are equally at fault for inconsistencies, as are all humans. Each and every one of us at some point in time has thought two thoughts that negate each other. Your blanket statement is highly problematic.

End.

[mnealtx 0]

I see your point. I don't agree with it, but I see it.

I also look forward to you calling the OTHER side out on it - you know, so as not to 'project' anything.

Quote

The issue is the very deep recession that began during the end of his presidency.

The one that was LESS than the 2 year "grace period" that billvon advocates before Obama becomes responsible for anything, you mean?

Quote

Saying that it is a fact that liberals can't recognize hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance is projection, dude.

The fact that Obama gets a two year haitus from responsibility for any economic issues while Bush was simultaneously responsible for a recession starting 2 months after he took office isn't hypocrisy?

The fact that the liberals posting here don't see anything wrong with that isn't hypocrisy?

Quote

Your blanket statement is highly problematic.

So is your blanket excuse. Peddle your bullshit somewhere else - I'm not buying.

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

[makeithappen40 0]

>I also look forward to you calling the OTHER side out on it - you know, so as not to 'project' anything.

Oooook. What is this quote about, then?

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

The word "either" would mean that the same standard applies to the Obama-ites. That is, that Obama, his administration, and his supporters are now neck-deep in the problem as well. Remember, I said it is a bipartisan problem now. You haven't been reading.

>The one that was LESS than the 2 year "grace period" that billvon advocates before Obama becomes responsible for anything, you mean?

I'm not quite sure that he thinks that Obama isn't responsible for any of this, dude. I think he is just saying that we have a bit more time left before we can say that Obama failed with his economic policies. Also, billvon in the past has said that he thinks the bailout packages are becoming a disaster. You need to pay more attention here, too.


>The fact that Obama gets a two year haitus from responsibility for any economic issues while Bush was simultaneously responsible for a recession starting 2 months after he took office isn't hypocrisy?

Again, dude... I'm not holding Bush responsible for for the economic difficulties two months into his term. I am holding him responsible for the one that took place well into his second.

>The fact that the liberals posting here don't see anything wrong with that isn't hypocrisy?

This "hypocrisy" you say has been outlined by the liberals here hasn't been clearly quoted outside of your own interpretation.


>So is your blanket excuse. Peddle your bullshit somewhere else - I'm not buying.

Ok. Just make sure you actually know what I and others are saying before making your rediculous accusations.

>I see your point. I dont agree with it, but I see it.
"Peddle your bullshit somewhere else - I'm not buying" - mnealtx

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>I also look forward to you calling the OTHER side out on it - you know, so as not to 'project' anything.

Oooook. What is this quote about, then?

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

The word "either" would mean that the same standard applies to the Obama-ites. That is, that Obama, his administration, and his supporters are now neck-deep in the problem as well. Remember, I said it is a bipartisan problem now. You haven't been reading.

Odd, I thought that my post said 'liberals' - as in a general statement - rather than 'makeithappen40'. I guess my fingers typed something different than my brain told them to.

Of course, it *COULD* just be that your post was in response to a post from a generally conservative poster, rather than a generally liberal poster.

Quote

>The one that was LESS than the 2 year "grace period" that billvon advocates before Obama becomes responsible for anything, you mean?

I'm not quite sure that he thinks that Obama isn't responsible for any of this, dude. I think he is just saying that we have a bit more time left before we can say that Obama failed with his economic policies. Also, billvon in the past has said that he thinks the bailout packages are becoming a disaster. You need to pay more attention here, too.

The bailout package being a disaster is something bill and I agree on - that, however, was not the subject of his and my sub-discussion, since you mention paying attention.

Quote

>The fact that Obama gets a two year haitus from responsibility for any economic issues while Bush was simultaneously responsible for a recession starting 2 months after he took office isn't hypocrisy?

Again, dude... I'm not holding Bush responsible for for the economic difficulties two months into his term. I am holding him responsible for the one that took place well into his second.

That's fair, and I don't have a problem with that.

Quote

>The fact that the liberals posting here don't see anything wrong with that isn't hypocrisy?

This "hypocrisy" you say has been outlined by the liberals here hasn't been clearly quoted outside of your own interpretation.

Amazing how much of SC you've been able to cover in the two days you've been here - what was that you were saying about generalization, again?

I recommend you take a bit more time to read, first. There's PLENTY of posts saying exactly that.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Sweet - so, since the 2001 recession was less than ONE year,

I think most of us who dealt with it believed it longer than a year. The stock market decline hit the trough sometime in 2002, and I'm pretty sure you believe it started in 2000 with Clinton, so we're past one.

[makeithappen40 0]

>Odd, I thought that my post said 'liberals' - as in a general statement - rather than 'makeithappen40'. I guess my fingers typed something different than my brain told them to.

I responded to your claim without attaching myself to the response.

Quote

The fact that the liberals posting here don't see anything wrong with that isn't hypocrisy?

This "hypocrisy" you say has been outlined by the liberals here hasn't been clearly quoted outside of your own interpretation.

Also, you yesponded to me, so I responded in return. Also, the other "liberals" here had nothing to do with the "hypocrisy" your are speaking of. You are the one who entered the notion of "Liberals constantly accusing Bush of the 2001 financial crisis." I haven't seen billvon, or a liberal here say this. Billvon also said that presidents have "a minor impact on the economy at best," which would mean that president Bush's freshman year and the less-severe-than-2008 recession that occured in 2001 aren't Bush's doing. (I dont see where you are getting Billvon's negation of this to say that he is being inconsistent and therefore "hypocritical.")

>Of course, it *COULD* just be that your post was in response to a post from a generally conservative poster, rather than a generally liberal poster.
See above.

>The bailout package being a disaster is something bill and I agree on - that, however, was not the subject of his and my sub-discussion, since you mention paying attention.

Well, neither did it say that the 2001 recession was Bush's fault. That was something you mentioned and he didn't explicitly endorse.

>Amazing how much of SC you've been able to cover in the two days you've been here - what was that you were saying about generalization, again?

Quote

Amazing how much of SC you've been able to cover in the two days you've been here - what was that you were saying about generalization, again?

I recommend you take a bit more time to read, first. There's PLENTY of posts saying exactly that.

Well, that must mean that you have the key to such posts. Enlighten me.

Also, who are you to say that I have only been here two days? Ahh right, my profile and number of posts indicate a lower attendance. Wait... my jump numbers and the amount of time I have been in the sport indicate otherwise. That must mean he has a new username!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Sweet - so, since the 2001 recession was less than ONE year,

I think most of us who dealt with it believed it longer than a year. The stock market decline hit the trough sometime in 2002, and I'm pretty sure you believe it started in 2000 with Clinton, so we're past one.

Quote

The 2001 recession thus lasted eight months, which is somewhat less than the average duration of recessions since World War II.

But the NBER *SAID*....

Damn... I've REALLY gotta start using more tags...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Also, who are you to say that I have only been here two days? Ahh right, my profile and number of posts indicate a lower attendance. Wait... my jump numbers and the amount of time I have been in the sport indicate otherwise. That must mean he has a new username!

Actually, no.. it's the fact that in August 2007, the forums were changed so that you have to be a member to access certain forums...SC among them.

Forgot about that?

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

[makeithappen40 0]

Mm hmm. Still think you've exercised all the reasons why someone would have just signed up?

Maybe the guy has been reading it up until 2007.

Maybe the guy got a username in 2007.

Maybe the guy decided to change his username because he forgot the password to the other one, since he has had it on auto-log on for so long and decided to delete all his cookies and doesn't have the email address used for the other log-in anymore so he can't get the password for it.

All possibilities, among others, that you haven't accounted for.


(edit for horrible spelling)

[mnealtx 0]

In that case, your claim of "never having read a liberal here say this" gets ...

Quote

Your search for Bush recession returned 422 results in 0.09s.

....awfully damn thin. It also means you had some DAMNED selective reading habits to not have seen the posts by amazon, lucky, jenfly, riddler, kallend, etc etc etc...

But, since you were a member before, welcome back. Who were you back then?

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

[crwtom 0]

Quote

You can start to dislike Obama now if you want to. You may be in the majority soon

From Rasmussen Reports (found on Drudge)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Rasmussen numbers for Total Approval went from around 60% in February to about 55% now. Given the list of of big issues going around now this drop is hardly news or a significant movement. These numbers also tend to uniformly higher in other polls.

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[makeithappen40 0]

Searching for "bush recession" doesn't quite do it man.

You claimed that there are liberals here guilty of the inconsistency you stated. Find the examples.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Searching for "bush recession" doesn't quite do it man.

You claimed that there are liberals here guilty of the inconsistency you stated. Find the examples.

If you can do that search, you can find it yourself.

Who did you say you were, again?

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

[makeithappen40 0]

Quote

If you can do that search, you can find it yourself.

Oh ok. Just thought you were the one trying to make that point, not me.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Presidents have a minor ability at best to influence the economy - and sadly, they have more control over downturns than upturns.

So when the recession is being discussed, it's Bush's fault. When Obama's policies are discussed, it's 'but the poor President has a very minor influence.'

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.

2 years before Obama can be held accountable for any actions. Got it.

Quote

>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?''

I made up my mind a long time ago. The polls are just a reflection of the general public.

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

[FallingOsh 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.

Welcome to the conversation. You're disregard for the contents of this thread before posting are greatly appreaciated.


I've said multiple times, and in this thread, that Bush shouldn't have started the bailouts. That's not a free pass for Obama to do whatever he wants. The months since January lay squarely on Obama's shoulders. The very valiant 'it wasn't me' argument is only being played by one side; the only side in control of Washington.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>So when the recession is being discussed, it's Bush's fault.

No, it's our fault.

>When Obama's policies are discussed, it's 'but the poor President has
>a very minor influence.'

He does. If the recovery happens it will be our doing.

>2 years before Obama can be held accountable for any actions. Got it.

No, you missed it completely, but thanks for playing!

>I made up my mind a long time ago.

That's pretty evident in your posts.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

>When Obama's policies are discussed, it's 'but the poor President has
>a very minor influence.'

He does. If the recovery happens it will be our doing.

So why was the $700B+ bailout package from the government needed? It sure as shit wan't to keep the unemplyment down.

Quote

>2 years before Obama can be held accountable for any actions. Got it.

No, you missed it completely, but thanks for playing!

They were your words, Bill. "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)" Two year grace period for the President. Unless it was Bush.

Quote

>I made up my mind a long time ago.

That's pretty evident in your posts.

And the rest of the country is starting to realize it. Hold your applause.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Two year grace period for the President. Unless it was Bush.

I recall Bush having carte blanche starting sometime around Sept 2001. And it lasted until just about 2006.

[makeithappen40 0]

I'll just copy and paste a reply I had earlier.

"What?

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

That should indicate that this recession is anything from just one presidents fault.


>"The very valiant 'it wasn't me' argument is only being played by one side; the only side in control of Washington."

Sorry. A piece of cereal almost went down the wrong pipe. Is this just another way of rationalizing your perception of the Obama administration, or do you really have something that indicates that side of the story is saying "it wasn't me?"

[billvon 2,400]

>So why was the $700B+ bailout package from the government needed?

The tax cuts that were part of that package - good.
The spending on infrastructure - good; we needed it and it helps with employment.
The corporate bailouts - bad.

All in all, we didn't need it. We could have done without all three. The first two provisions I listed above will probably help the recovery a bit; the third one will either do nothing or prolong the problem.

> Two year grace period for the President. Unless it was Bush.

Nope, he got a two year (actually far more than that) grace period as well. Heck, after 9/11, his approval rating was astronomically high; he had _seven_ years to drag it down after that.

>And the rest of the country is starting to realize it.

That you made up your mind? Or that everyone else agrees with you? The first is unlikely; the second is even more unlikely.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Is this just another way of rationalizing your perception of the Obama administration, or do you really have something that indicates that side of the story is saying "it wasn't me?"

Other than the transcript of the press conference, you mean?

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

[makeithappen40 0]

Press conference? You must mean the town hall meeting he had in Arnlod, MO. (Which was linked by fallingosh in his response.

Ahhh, I see now. Note, even that site gives Obama a context that hurts your argument. I don't see him quoting that the entire mess is Bush's fault instead of his own.

Quote

The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.

"The months since January" may "lay on his soulders," but that most definitely does not say that it was his fault from January on.

Again, he isn't responsible as president for the damage he inherited... he IS responsible for the damage he is now creating. (which, like you and billvon both agree, will be more evident as time goes on)

Given the republican and democrat support for the bailout package at the end of Bush's term, and the irresponsibility that will be more evident after this congress and Obama have had time for their policies to fail, we will (and currently are) able to say that this mess is a bipartisan mistake.

Person 2: (But wait, makeithappen40, isn't that what you were saying all along?)

makeithappen40: Why, it most certainly is. Good day, sir!

Person 2: Good day.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Press conference? You must mean the town hall meeting he had in Arnlod, MO. (Which was linked by fallingosh in his response.

Ahhh, I see now. Note, even that site gives Obama a context that hurts your argument. I don't see him quoting that the entire mess is Bush's fault instead of his own.

"That wasn't me"

Quote

Quote

The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.

I don't recall anyone here claiming that he inherited a perfect economy from Bush - did you have a point with that, or are you just setting up a strawman?

Quote

"The months since January" may "lay on his soulders," but that most definitely does not say that it was his fault from January on.

Again, he isn't responsible as president for the damage he inherited... he IS responsible for the damage he is now creating. (which, like you and billvon both agree, will be more evident as time goes on)

Like the quadrupling of the deficit since he took office, yes.

Quote

Given the republican and democrat support for the bailout package at the end of Bush's term, and the irresponsibility that will be more evident after this congress and Obama have had time for their policies to fail, we will (and currently are) able to say that this mess is a bipartisan mistake.

Remind me again - WHO took over Congress in 2007? What was Obama's position prior to November 2008, again?

"That wasn't me"

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