Intro: "Voters are increasingly displeased with President Obama's handling of the economy, but a new poll finds most Americans still think George W. Bush is responsible for the nation's dismal financial state."
Former President Bush hugs President Obama at his inauguration. (photo: Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images/Newscom)
Voters Blame Bush More Than Obama for the Economy
16 July 11
oters are increasingly displeased with President Obama's handling of the economy, but a new poll finds most Americans still think George W. Bush is responsible for the nation's dismal financial state.
According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 54 percent of those surveyed say Bush is responsible for the "current condition" of the economy, compared to just 27 percent who blame Obama. Among self-described independent voters, a key 2012 voting bloc, the number shifts slightly: 49 percent point the finger at the former GOP president, while 24 percent blame Obama.
Supporters of Obama's re-election will no doubt view the number as a good sign for the president's bid for a second term. But they shouldn't get excited yet.
Polls over the last year have consistently found that voters continue to blame Bush more than Obama for the struggling economy. Yet Obama and Democrats have consistently struggled to translate that displeasure with Bush into a vote against GOP candidates.
But that could be changing. While Obama's approval rating on the economy is nothing short of dismal - just 38 percent approve - the Quinnipiac poll finds more Americans trust the president on the issue than the GOP congress, 45 percent to 38 percent. Meanwhile, 48 percent of those surveyed say they will blame the GOP congress if a debt deal isn't approved, compared to 34 percent who say they will blame the Obama administration.
Those aren't great numbers for Republicans who are likely to face just as much political peril as Obama in 2012 if the economy doesn't improve over the next year.
The Quinnipiac poll also finds major support for one of the concessions Obama has called for in the debt deal: 67 percent say any deal on the deficit should also include tax increases on the wealthy and corporations, in addition to spending cuts.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
But...always "a but"...why, oh why, did Obama pardon Bush and Cheney for their obvious criminal and unconstitutiona l acts?
I have always loved Obama, and yet, he did this "forgiveness" of criminals anyway. Polls or no polls...Obama is NOW responsible for this mess.
Bush should be in jail.
N.
At least Bush got congressional approval. Obama didn't even feel the need to bother before attacking Libya.
Libs, you can't have both ways.
If "the WAR fits, you must CONVICT".
You're joking, right? You can critize the Iraq and A-stan wars all you want, but then to decalare Libya somehow the good war is ridiculous.
How can you so blindly overlook these same factors in Libya:
* "oil-fogged" ... as if Libyan oil is not a factor
* "a decision and action by NATO" ... and that absolves America which is the single most important (indeed the only truly important vote) within NATO
* "rushed into without an financial preparation" ... that's a good one. We're in the middle of one of the biggest financial crisis in history with the naton going broke and Obama decides we must spend $ hundres of $ millions bombing Libya.
* "a pack of outright lies" ... ah, dud. Remember when Libya was just about protecting civilians and not regime change. Oh, that lie by Obama lasted, what, a day, maybe two.
So, Regina, if the "rabid right are hell" than what are we to call the rabid, war mongering, Four.More.WARS, Ba.rrack O.BAMA?
The invasion of Iraq was completely unjustified, in that, when we invaded, Iraq did not even impose a threat to their neighbors. Bush justified it on 10-year-old history that was no longer valid. Despite claims by many, the Iraqi people are NOT better off under the current regime than they were under Saddam Hussein. Yes, he was a despot, and he killed people, but he also built (secular) schools and hospitals, they had electric power and water and sewers, and under him the Iraqi people were highly educated. They were not a "Muslim threat", as the terrormongers want us to believe. In fact Hussein kept terrorism at bay, and there were NO al Qaida in the country when he was in power ... he would not have tolerated them, because they were a threat ... to him.
Yes, Obama might very well be prosecutable for war crimes under international law. He has continued both of Bush's "official" wars, continued (and increased) illegal (under international law) drone attacks on Pakistan, instigated drone attacks on Yemen and Somalia, and joined and continues to carry out a questionably legal "assistance to the rebels" in Libya, in violation of the War Crimes Act.
If Saddam were still in power, Iraq and Iran would both be in a nuclear arms race. This would cause Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey to join the race to get nukes. Of course, this may still happen with Iran; but one nation is easier to contain (or, my strong preference, to bomb before they get nukes, or alternatively, to destabilize before they nukes).
Worst of all, a nuclear face-off between
Iran's Amadinejad and Iraq's Saddam, al la "The Missles of October" would like have resulted in a missle launch, follwed by dozens more.
As bad as Iraq was, the world is still better off with Saddam.
Be patient, be strong, and be resolute. Iraq will continue to be an ultimate success for world peace.
bush bombing iraq = GOOD
obama bombing iraq = BAD
bush bombing afghanistan = GOOD
obama bombing afghanistan = BAD
bush bombing iraq and afghanistan for oil = GOOD
obama also bombing libya for oil = BAD
liberals complaining about bush's conservative lies = BAD
liberals complaining about obama's conservative lies = you didn't notice because you don't actually pay attention to anyone else's comments
Correct me if I've mischaracterize d your statements. Also, feel free to explain the logic.
You and I do disagree on fighting the War on Terror (I prefer "War on Radical Islamists"). I believe:
-Radical Islamists are not driven by past grievances, but by their fascist religious ideology seeking world caliphate
-Radical Islamists are prepared to fight for 500 years whereas most Americans are unwilling to fight another 5 years (history tells us who wins that fight)
-Radical Islamists will get nukes within 5, 10, 20 or 30 years and will use them on American cities (perhaps a dozen in a single day)
-This is a trans-border war fought by non-state forces; therefore, thinking in terms of traditional state-on-state, border constrained wars is unworkable. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, etc. are NOT wars; but, rather battle spaces in a global war (since America has been actively fighting Islamists in the Philippines for years, and Radical Islamists have allied themselves with Left Wing regimes in Nicaragua, Venezuela, and elsewhere in Latin America.
-That Iran soon gain regional hegemony by getting nukes and that this will destabilize the Middle East, and ultimately lead to the elimination of Israel.
-The faster we defeat Radical Islamists the safer and freer we’ll all be.
WRONG. You have absolutely mischaracterize d my logic.
My statements above are only to point out the inconsistencies of (most) Libs. I am mocking them.
You, like I, understand the necessity of consistency; indeed, the integrity of consistency.
No doubt, you too have been frustrated by Libs who ignore Obama's lies, etc.
How could you possibly be more blind? Really, dude. You should hire professional help to extract your cranium from you annus.
OBAMA "we're only there to protect the civilians" wink, wink.
OBAMA "Kadafi must go"
Dude, it's all about regime change and nothing about protecting civilians.
HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY MISS OBAMA's BOLD FACED LIE?
You can sit on the fence, but political disputes have winners and losers. Fence sitting doesn't change that fact.
Well said. See, we agree on something. Now, can't we all just learn to love each other! How about a group hug.
Do we still agree?
However, I still reserve the right to make fun or whatever of some others on RSN. Furthermore, just because someone feels insulted by my comments does not mean that my comments were inappropriate. I agree that gratutious insults are a cheap shot. But, I will not be restricted by the rules of Politically Correct speech just because some overly sensitive individual might take offense. After all, "it's still a free country". [Hey billy bob, I know you're old enough to remember when that was a commonplace expression. Alas, it's been a long time since either of us has heard a young American so proclaim their freedom of speech].
And, likewise, I don't hold you to high standards regarding others who don't.
PS - don't be so quick to assume that someone expressing an opposing viewpoint has not indeed 'paid attention to the issues before insulting the other side'.
The trouble is that you haven't paid attention. If you reserve the right to dish it out, you should be willing to take it. Your arguments are still just as dishonest.
I'd still like you to answer why it's ok for bush to bomb the 3rd world but not Obama.
Are you really trying to say that you agree with President Obama's right-wing conservative foreign policy completely, and you're just ridiculing the liberals who are offended that they elected a stealth conservative?
Regarding who's REALLY to blame, Bush or Obama, it's the misdirection of attention on which many magicians's tricks depend. They've BOTH been faithful stewards of a corporate agenda which intends unimaginable riches and powers for global corporate executives and their hangers-on--an agenda that any thoughtful person has to see can continue only by destroying the game it wants to win.
Exactly. The current system is a suicide machine, it's in nobody's interests.
However those at the top don't want to give up their mansions and jets, so they are taking the rest of us down with them. This is the way the world ends - not with a bang but a Wimpy (and a Big Mac).
The requested URL /http:/www.quin nipiac.edu/x129 5.xml?ReleaseID =1624 was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1624
you left out a /
Instead, may a suggest a more accurate slogan for the Obama campaign:
Four . More . WARS!
Ba . rrack . O . BAMA!
Four . More . WARS!
Ba . rrack . O . BAMA!
Kinda has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?
Four . More . WARS!
Or he IS Rush Limbaugh!
N.
You got me. I'm a mega billionaire who eats babies for breakfast - NOT.
So, what's so "unbelievable" about my comments?
Is it not true that Obama is bombing in Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan?
I guess you might call Obama's war mongering actions INCONVENIENT TRUTHS".
Yup, definitely time for Obama to give back his Nobel Peace Prize.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not rich. And, I've been poor, though now I'm doing reasonably well.
Klondikekitty, what's so "unbelievable" about my comments? Has not Obama launched an unprovocked war to accomplish regime change in Libya? How can you be so blind to this obvious fact? Why attack me for pointing it out?
Relax, take a deep breath and be sure to take your meds.
Exactly who is wearing "blinders"? You Libs go crazy over Bush's war mongering, but ignore the exact same actions, and worse, by Obama.
That is my simple point.
Now, that wasn't so hard was it?
Or, at least one might think it won't be so hard. Judging from all the insane responses and "thumbs down", it is obviously hard to Libs to live with the facts that Obama has kept Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan (actually, greatly expanded, as promised), Libya, Pakistan, reditions, Patriot Act, etc.
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE can be such a bitch!
Can't it?
-That Obama's too conservative?
-That liberals don't complain about Obama's conservatism enough for you?
NO. Obama is no Conservative. Lib Democrat presidents have launched many wars, indeed, most our wars: Wilson (WWI), FDR (WWII), Truman (Korea, though Harry really wasn't that Lib, oh, and he did use nukes on Japan), JFK (Vietnam, first troops deployed), LBJ (Vietnam, maissively expanded), Obama (Libya, Yemen, etc.). So, lauching wars is no proof of being a Conservative.
YES. "That liberals don't complain about Obama's [stike "conservative", replace with "actions"] enough".
Are you saying that, yes, bush is a war criminal and should be in jail right now, but the left shouldn't point that out, because Obama's one too?
Does bush get any of the blame for what happened before Jan. 2009 when Obama took office? If your point is that Obama hasn't been liberal enough and is secretly too much of a repugnican as well, I'm right on board. I'm just trying to understand your spin.
Who would YOU vote for to take Obama's place?
Because, to me, it sounds like this is just some sort of game to you, like war crimes are a football penalty statistic.
Do you actually read any of the articles or other comments before you add yours? Since you don't seem to notice, we on the left are pretty angry about Obama acting too much like bush. YOU on the other hand seem to think you're scoring points FOR BUSH by ALSO pointing out that Obama is too much like bush. According to your logic, bush was better, because he was a conservative, whereas your complaints about Obama have to do with OBAMA'S conservatism....
ON AND ON IT GOES.
I'm sorry, but my head is spinning in the maze of your circular logic. I suffer the same problem every time I read one of your comments.
Could you please explain what you're trying to prove?
Thank you for your more thoughtful response.
My "spin" is that I am trying to hold Libs to a consistent logic (if what Bush did was evil, then it must be likewise when done by Obama; justice must be judged by actions, not by the person). You obviously get this. However, many, if not most, Libs don't. Too many Libs think it’s OK for Obama to do it; but everything Bush, Cheney, Bachmann, Palin, Reagan do must be evil.
Simply put, you can't have it both ways.
War is definitely not a game to me. War is the most horrible of man's abominations.
I take war far more seriously than most Libs who think that if America just leaves the battlefield, then peace will break out. History teaches us otherwise. Left alone, Hitler would have exterminated every Jew in Europe. The Japanese would have colonized all of Asia. In Vietnam, we "gave peace a chance", but then after we left the Communists slaughter 3 to 5 million people (the Boat People fleeing Vietnam's brutal re-education camps, the Killing Fields of Cambodia and the genocide (ongoing) of the Montagnard tribes in Laos).
Left undefeated, Radical Islam will only grow stronger and more violent, gaining control of the entire Middle East and eventually obtaining nukes. This is why I take war very serious, as if our lives depend upon it.
The complaints you weild against Obama are regarding his conservative foreign policy. Liberals are a lot more angry than you are about it. The trouble is that, that reality doesn't fit into your narrative.
Why the sudden and uncharacteristi c "serious" tone? During this whole back and forth with you, you haven't taken the comments of anyone seriously. Now, suddenly, as I call you out on your obviously transparent hypocrisy, several days later, you get "serious"?
Reagan and Bush I added $4 TRILLION (which had traditionally been _below_ $1 Trillion throughout our previous 200 years) to our National Debt with their tax cuts for the greedy rich, and shifting the tax burden to the lower income levels. By the end of Clinton's 8 years, the steep climb had all but leveled out. Bush II added another $4 TRILLION, with even bigger tax cuts ... which admittedly Obama should NOT have allowed to continue.
If I'd taken the oath of office on January 20th 2009, I'd have _immediately_ cancelled Bush's tax cuts, by executive order, and asked Congress to _increase_ taxes on the richest, to balance their use of government with the amount they pay to support it. I'd also have demanded that no subsidies would be paid to any corporation that doesn't pay income tax.
It seldom just came off his lips, and it seldom came from his team.
And after he left office, the gracious and respectful man, Pres. Bush, still refuses to blame others, or to attack this current administration - unlike a few other recent holders of the office.
This bunch is different - Blame is their M.O.
In fact, is there a day in which we haven't heard it - either from Obama, Biden, his staff, leading Democrats or directly from out national media - which defends him on most everything.
And once again, this past week, it still gets to me (too bad the press is covering once again for Obama) why Obama, like Clinton before him, is so afraid to meet publicly - officially - with the Dalai Lama. What is that about. Goodness, not only did Bush meet with him several times officially, Bush awarded him the country's highest civilian award - the prestigious Congressional Gold Meda - in a public ceremony, and challenged China to meet with the Dalai Lama.
Hide the meetings, and send him out the back door Obama.
*****
Actually the whole financial fiasco mirrors the unpunished criminal acts by the Keating-5 with 3 of them INCLUDING THE INSTIGATOR NEIL BUSH, JOHN MCCAIN & JOHN GLENN are still wreaking havoc anyone that paid attention knows the Keating 5 stunt was nothing but a damn real estate swindle, (Heck back in the 80's Maidenator Ahnald invested heavily by literally cornering cable tv installation which upon Congress excusing McCain & Glenn only on their "hero" status the 2 wasted no time running to the West & crafting the catv telecomm scheme that through the Carlyle Group, who were the Iraqi Governing Council too partnered with KB & HCA Hospital Association & bought PAN-AM SAT (oh it just happens to be the entire Clarke Arc fleet of North American Satellite's This data WAS available from Hoover's back in 2004)
Of course I don't need to remind you that Germany is a completely socialistic country.
Are you suggesting that Obamacare doesn't go far enough and that we should have single-payer like Germany? Are you suggesting that our country become completely socialistic like Germany and the other countries that recently bailed out the Greeks?
I'm an American who can remember the time after 1950, so OF COURSE I have echoes of mccarthy ringing in my ears.
The echoes of mccarthy were SCREAMING in my ears on 9-11 when I watched cable news interview people like tom clancy already claiming that we needed to stop being squeemish about torturing, assasinating and kidnapping people.
What mccarthy was to the 50's was just a tiny fragment of what has become a permanent attitude by those willing to sacrifice our country for "homeland security".
Sorry you didn't get it.
But, understand that most Americans also want what you have, we just aren't allowed to have it.
We're not all as bad as "TommyD1of11". If we were, he would get so many thumbs down.
Assassination was accepted, as well by the leaders then.
And in FDR's days, internment was the way it was.
LBJ and the Viet war - Wow, so much to cover . .
Clinton and turning his back on genocide - time and time again, and on the world HIV/Aids pandemic, and on leaving the economic calamity of the dot.com (Enron) bubble (and creating the housing bubble), and on the ever present corruption around him and his friends . .
Times have changed.
They will continue to change.
However, as time goes on, it's always interesting to see what gets forgotten - forgiven, and what gets remembered by us.
Mostly pure politics and bias.
McCarthy was a republican - DEAL WITH IT.
FDR got us out of the Depression BEFORE World War II (which Republicans thought we shouldn't have fought because Hitler was no threat).
Kennedy wanted out of Vietnam before he was murdered.
LBJ was a conservative Democrat enlisted to help Kennedy's chances of winning in the South.
LBJ nearly brought down the Democratic Party by not listening to the majority of Democrats who wanted out of Viet Nam (instead he was agreeing with republicans).
Nixon promised to get us out of Vietnam if we elected him. He LIED.
Clinton was another CONSERVATIVE Democrat, but he was far better than any republican I can remember. You're right though, that he shouldn't have signed the deregulation bill written by REPUBLICAN Phil Graham that allowed the housing bubble to happen. Once again, he caved in to republican ideology.
Time will continue to change.
Your tired points that you keep making no matter how many times they're disproven
WILL NEVER CHANGE.
Just what is it you want me to deal with?
While it is hotly debated about JFK-he did send in thousands of "advisers." I do tend to agree with you.
LBJ's lies to the country and Congress about Nam, make GW Bush look like Humpty Dumpty.His social and humanitarian visions/program s were as successful as any. Life is a twist.
Nixon began bringing home troops by the 100K's right off the bat. It was an ugly ending to an ugly war. Nixon actually delivered on his promise - 1st a truce agreement with the Viet Cong - which they reneged on-and then he got us out. Ugly-but he did fulfill his campaign promise.
The whole Clinton team was behind the deregs that you speak of, and still defends it as not being material in the current crisis.
Obama is on record in saying that the HUD led housing bubble created in the late 90's, while a good thing, in his view (LOL), got out of control. .something that I've long argued.
Had it not been for HUD's massive regulations pushed by Cuomo, Wall Street would have had little to play with.
What was dis-proven?
BTW - Bobby Kennedy was a staunch conservative compared to Obama and the current left - that's what he fought against.
You have a history going back months and most of the people who read these threads know how to access your past comments.
The pattern is that you make the exact same comments to every thread regardless of the subject matter. I respond, or if I’m lucky, someone else does. After about 5 days of back and fourth with no one else still reading except the two of us, you finally give up and start making the exact same comments to another article.
I could make your arguments for you and do a better job of it. I get the whole narrative. I'm just not buying it and neither is anyone else on these threads who isn't already another conservative.
Like I said, how many people do you honestly believe you've converted here? A lot of us spend a lot of time commenting, but you seem to have more time on your hands than any of us, because you don't care that none of what you say has had the slightest bit of impact.
Are you a liberal troll trying to point out the vapid and shallow nature of conservative arguments?
If not, you're the most ineffective right-wing troll on this site. Study MidwestTom. He’s a much better troll than you are.
And, I have no idea of what you were referring to, being a week late to something. You mentioned McCarthy - I offered a curious point.
In your rant back to me - you are in error in several points - yet you continue screaming at me, without noting such.
Little in life and the political world is so small and finite as you present in your black and white tiny little minority corner of the world.
A goal in our lives should be to find the good in people, in our leaders, etc., and highlight them, so that they find the strength to do more of that good. In turn, exposing the bad, is just as necessary. But to only ever, only see bad in one side, and only discuss the good in the other will destroy our humanity.
You're right, I was wrong about you being a weak late. I got a lot of emails lately and it seemed like a long time ago when I first commented on this thread.
I didn't mention McCarthy. Andrew mentioned McCarthy. I didn't mention Kennedy. You did. I didn't mention LBJ. You did. I didn't mention Vietnam. You did. I didn't mention WWII. You did. I didn't mention AIDs research. You did.
None of those things has to do with the article.
Could you please point out some very strong positives about Presidents Clinton, Obama, Carter, Johnson, and Kennedy?
Please be specific, so I can see the "nuance" in your arguments, because you certainly haven't displayed any nuance on these threads.
Or to put it another way, "THERE YOU GO AGAIN"...
This article isn't about Vietnam, President Kennedy's popularity, AIDs research, Gore's back yard, or WWII.
From now on, when you copy and paste comments about those subjects to every thread no matter how outside the realm of the discussion, I will copy and paste the above comment.
You mentioned McCarthy 3 X's
I noted, "I offered a curious point," to the topic of McCarthy - in the vein of:
Folks would use Enron, as an example of why to hate Bush; however, the same folks would never draw the same comparison to Clinton. Enron, of course, came of age during the Clinton era -in fact, the Clinton admin was instrumental in creating Enron's empire here, and abroad.
My mention of JFK,RFK, LBJ, & Clinton, were in that same lens.
I did not state that you had mentioned any of them-only McCarthy.
Nixon did fulfill his campaign promise to get us out of Nam. I suggested, it was ugly.
Troop levels in Nam were 536K,end of 1968.
By the end of '69 - 475K
'70 - 335K
'71 - 155K
'72 - 24K
'73 - 50
In regards to the article and it's view and the context of the trust of my comments - is simply this:
Most folks hate Nixon (and usually misquote the major details) than they do LBJ. Numerous polls over the years, have asked questions of students:"Which pres do you associate with the Vietnam War," and few come up with LBJ. In school they were pounded with Nixon.
Or/ perhaps they read Doonsbury:
"It sounds as though you still have echoes of Joseph McCarthy ringing in your ears"
I agree that LBJ was one of the Presidents during the Vietnam War. Do agree that it took Nixon 5 years and the Watergate scandal to "fulfill his promise"? Or is that too much for you to accept of history?
By the way, the article isn't about Nixon, or Enron, or Clinton, or LBJ, or Kennedy, or the ancient Greeks, or the opium wars, or the Bermuda Triangle. The fact that you can twist EVERY article into being about your own pet subjects is the problem. It's the reason no one but me takes you seriously enough to respond to.
Question: I’ve grown up with every president since JFK. I remember how froth-at-the-mo uth furious Nixon made people; and there was Reagan, who had people pulling out their hair. But compared to George W. Bush, Nixon and Reagan seem like wise men, even sages. But how do you see it? From your perspective, who is the scariest?
Trudeau: Well, you can’t leave Carter and Clinton off the list of presidents who made people apoplectic. But to me, Bush is the scariest because he is easily the most radical. Nixon still caused the most harm — 30,000 Americans and many more Vietnamese died needlessly on his watch — but don’t count Bush out. There are still plenty of countries to take down.
Why would he mention LBJ?
A quick rough count (from a year by year chart) shows that approx. 36,000 American servicemen died in Vietnam during the LBJ escalation of the war. 20,863 died between the time Nixon took over and the end of the war.
Trudeau is doing what he does best-lying, and doing it for a political reason. Sad thing is that he and so many more do this at will, with little chance that they will be called on it.
Polls are tough - but tend to show what the press has convinced folks of. A good straight pool, presented fairly, can overcome this.
The article isn't about Doonsbury either, or your personal experience of being alive since the '60s, or polls in general and the stupidity of public opinion when it disagrees with yours, it's about CURRENT events, which I'm not sure you've even bothered to read.
You said,
"A goal in our lives should be to find the good in people, in our leaders, etc., and highlight them, so that they find the strength to do more of that good. In turn, exposing the bad, is just as necessary. But to only ever, only see bad in one side, and only discuss the good in the other will destroy our humanity."
I challenged you on that point. I asked you to prove that you weren't just talking out your ass by "pointing out some very strong positives about Presidents Clinton, Obama, Carter, Johnson, and Kennedy?" so I could "see the 'nuance' in your arguments, because you certainly haven't displayed any nuance on these threads."
Well...
WERE YOU just talking out your ass, or can you make a comment that isn't just a knee-jerk contrary opinion to anything said by liberals in order to distract from the subject of the article itself?
I offered a thought - I explained the context of it to the view of the article. If you don't agree fine - but why all of whatever it is that you're throwing into the pile.
If someone on these threads posts one of those - on the other side -typical, Clinton is an idiot, and never did anything of value, and was the biggest crook in history - you can witness as I rip em. OK?
You offered a "thought" about looking at the other side and not demonizing it. The trouble is that you're unwilling to back it up.
You've now made 3 comments evading the challenge since it was issued. How many more comments will you make before you:
a) finally accept the challenge;
b) finally admit that you're unwilling to; OR
c) finally just stop posting on this thread and start the whole game again on a new thread?
I'm guessing you'll evade 2 more times then move on to option "c".
Who knows. Here's a chance to prove me wrong. I'd REALLY like to hear what nice things you have to say about every Democratic President from the past 50 years. I should have gone back to Truman, and FDR.
I'd REALLY REALLY LOVE to hear what nice things you have to say about FDR.
Read my little note -- two back up.I'd explained it more detail - but that did not get posted.
In the 1st part, I'm noting that the theme of the article is about how folks still blame Bush for most all. In complete context to that theme - in rebutting it - I mused about, via examples, of how this happens. I don't remember articles - nat'l polling - on-going discussions during 2001-03, seeking to blame Clinton on the economic fallout that Bush inherited, the millions dying in Africa in civil war and genocide, and from the HIV/Aids pandemic that Clinton, UN, turned their back on, or on why there was no "SaveAfghanista n.org" theme when the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in the mid-90's.
Of course the maj blame Bush; the WH, the Pres, the Dem Party, damn near the entire nat'l media carefully omits most history, and since 2002, has blamed him for most of it. I've ripped him for much too. Don't say not.
Compare - how often do you blame Carter for the disaster Reagan inherited.
He inherited it-we don't need to blame anyone.
Bush inherited a disaster-we don't need to blame anyone.
Obama inherited a disaster-we don't need to blame anyone.
Everyone is to blame. Both sides. And, ATM's.
I predicted that you'd evade two more times then move on to another thread. So far, your game plan is falling right in line with that prediction. I should work for Vegas.
It's not like I'm asking you to do much. I'm asking you to stand by YOUR OWN WORDS.
Are you up for it?
And why are you challenging me, on issues unrelated to my comments which were in relation to the article?
Just because you can't comprehend. I'm up for you to consider how my points.
Now you've made 5 comments evading the challenge.
As a reminder, the challenge is to see if you can point out the good in your political enemies the way you suggest we should be able to do with ours.
It was a very heartwarming speach you gave about, "finding the good in people, in our leaders, etc., and highlight them, so that they find the strength to do more of that good. In turn, exposing the bad, is just as necessary. But to only ever, only see bad in one side, and only discuss the good in the other will destroy our humanity"
Now, I want to see if you actually meant it or were you talking out your ass.
For the record, I feel your pain. RSN refused to display about 4 of my comments to TommyD1of11. I gave up on that conversation for the same reason.
I predicted you'd evade 6 times total and then move on.
YOU DID!!!
All of the talk about finding the good in others was just that: TALK.
It's easy to expect your political enemies to show you respect. It's a bit harder for you to actually show some for the rest of us.
You seem to need an audience.
Try again.
Had that faux Democrat Nelson not been one of the key players in the neocons scheme to eliminate their last obstacle which control sea ports & that is the TEAMSTERS, first BUSHCO INC planned that Canada to Mexico toll road through Eastern Colorado only now they moved it over to go through Omaha where THE GROUND UP NEW MEDICAID HOSPITAL WAS GOING
They will not EVER change. When I voted "for change", Obama becoming one of them wasn't the "change" I was looking for.
That was the idea, and it worked.
Neither idea was that of a President, and it was mostly on Congress, anyway, to provide - and they did, over a LOT of objection from the thugs on the right.
Few if any of Obama's economic advisers who have departed are claiming that the Stimulus Bill (opposed by most Americans - by a slim margin) are claiming that it worked. It did do some good things. The tax cuts in it helped - even the corporate jet tax breaks probably helped a bit.
I'd be pressed to believe that "much" of the stimulus money has trickled back into tax revenue - certainly a little bit. Following the full implementation of the Bush stimulus, in 2003, federal tax revenue rose a whopping 44% from 2004 thru 2007 - but I'd have a hard time giving more than some of the credit to the tax cuts - some, of course - stimulus is stimulus. Most of it, was probably recapture (retracement ) of the $Trillions that disappeared from the projected tax revenue stream which collapsed when the dot.com bubble collapsed in 2000 - and took the economy down with it.
The bailout money for Freddie and Freddie, which some estimate may eventually reach $400 billion is never to be repaid - different scheme. The GM debacle is not exactly what it has been advertised - except that the Unions said that the deal was done, only for them. Figures.
I feel like Alice in Wonderland who fell down a hole & awoke in an alternate reality sometimes when I realize the level of hate, citizen against citizen in a two party country that has never been so far apart in its political views.
Time to wake up fellow Americans & feel the hand trying to slip the wallet out of your back pocket!
Had a majority believed it was the fault of the president who followed, it would clearly show the world Americans have reached a vulnerable level of stupidity. This is the real danger. As I have repeatedly warned, the whole world is watching.
Remember, the majority brought back the GOP House after it almost destroyed us. And the world was watching. And now that House has voted to annihilate the Clean Water Act--the key act focused on keeping our waters, our source of life itself, clean and safe. And the world is watching.
However the greedy fat cats get a free pass and get to keep their taxcuts, loopholes, subsidies etc. This is the kind of convoluted irrational thinking that got us where we are in the first place and these rabid teabagging religious fanatics are so busy protecting and defending their rich greedy friends, that they are willing to take away welfare from the needy and give corporate welfare to the jet-set who could care less what happens to America.
"High priests of the bubble economy" - Baker http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/nov/10/obama-white-house-useconomy
"The Legacy of the Clinton Bubble" http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1229
Andrew Cuomo and Fannie/Freddie- How the youngest HUD secretary in history gave birth to the mortgage crisis -
http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-08-05/news/how-andrew-cuomo-gave-birth-to-the-crisis-at-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/
Our nat'l media has not shared much with the broad public. Goodness, most folks blame the Enron saga on Bush, instead of Clinton 1st.
Folks in CA blame the 2000 CA energy crisis, on Bush. Weird.
And even Dean Baker, the piece above, like so many others, long ago rewrote when the Dot.com bubble collapsed - it collapsed in March of 2000 - with Bush inheriting the fallout.
Even Gore has corrected the media on that one.
An educated public would be more interested in finding out about how the economy works, rather than blaming only one.
A true leader, would stop the petty childish - generally false - always blaming someone else game.
To Obama, and his like-minded team - grow up and lead, or shut it up.
Seems to me we dont have honest Americans in charge of our voting processes. Seems to me only BIG BIG MONEY controls who gets to RUN for leadership. Seems to me "we the people" lost our way and our power a long time ago. Mebbe just before FDR was elected? I am frightened that i think Revolution is coming, but how much good can that do? When i am frightened or when I hurry, I make mistakes! Is that "where we're at?" ruthie
Google ALEC or go the URL -- and it's branches telling about Walker, Cantor, and a few others ....
http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/69-69/6619-exposed-congressional-legislature-approved-by-corporations
Gerald Ford actually gave the first tax cuts to big corporations. Reagan gave them more, _plus_ drastically cutting taxes on the highest income levels, shifting the the expense of supporting the government to the middle and lower income levels, _and_ starting us on the downward slope of corporate deregulation, which has become a _major_ problem.
The rich _should_ pay the bulk of the cost of government, because they get the most benefit from government services.
The principal blame for the economic problems actually lies with people like Senator Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman Maxine Waters and Senators like Obama who assisted in the filibuster of the Republican party's attempt in 2005 (and actions of the Democrats in congress, and the senate, back as far as 2002) to rein in the excessively loose lending practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There are several recordings online of Barney, Maxine and Nancy. During the build-up of the problems that eventually led to the financial collapse of our economy, Barney was, reportedly, literally in bed with one of the male vice presidents of one of those organizations. Go to the following sites to view the testimony before congress by several of these members to verify this information, and direct the blame for the economic problems that we are now facing. President Obama has demonstrated that he that he is in way over his head in his position as President of the united States. He was not qualified for the position when he lied his way through the campaign, and conned a major portion of the electorate into electing him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE&NR=1
RSS feed for comments to this post