Quit picking on Obama……

[Kreskin]

In my view the Clinton repeal or Bush's spending was not the root cause, although they may have sped the process up. This was going to happen no matter how many tax cuts or loosened/tightened laws there are. America has a mature economy with expensive talent. It has has evolved into an importer of nearly every good and an exporter of nearly every job. I feel Obama is right in trying to set a new course; one that should've started years ago. They won't be building widgets cheaper than the Chinese and they won't be less dependent on foreign oil no matter how many tax cuts or corporate governance is created. The new energy policy is at least an attempt to create non-exportable jobs and cut the outflow of cash. The energy issue has been one since the Nixon administration, but with the economy so focused on short term thinking no President had the inclination to do anything about it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

This video clearly shows that George Bush warned Congress starting in 2001, that this economic crisis was Coming, if something was not done. But Congress refused to listen, along with the arrogant Congressman, Barney Frank.

Ironsides, it really doesn’t matter what Bush said, it matters what he did. In 2001 he could have enacted almost any legislation he wanted; he had a rubberstamp, Republican Congress. In addition his popularity was in the 90s following 9/11 attack.

So it doesn’t matter what he says, if he did not do anything to prevent the economic crises, it clearly means that he didn’t think it was a serious possibility. Talk is cheap, but if Bush didn’t do anything about it (and he had the power to do almost anything at that time), it only means that he did not seriously believe that an economic crises was coming. He must accept the blame.

 

[CDNBear]

In my view the Clinton repeal or Bush's spending was not the root cause, although they may have sped the process up. This was going to happen no matter how many tax cuts or loosened/tightened laws there are. America has a mature economy with expensive talent. It has has evolved into an importer of nearly every good and an exporter of nearly every job. I feel Obama is right in trying to set a new course; one that should've started years ago. They won't be building widgets cheaper than the Chinese and they won't be less dependent on foreign oil no matter how many tax cuts or corporate governance is created. The new energy policy is at least an attempt to create non-exportable jobs and cut the outflow of cash. The energy issue has been one since the Nixon administration, but with the economy so focused on short term thinking no President had the inclination to do anything about it.

The paper always catches up with the money Kreskin. It's in the safeguards you find the lessor or greater severity of the outcome.

 

[ironsides]

SirJosephPorter: Yup, he said it and no one paid any attention, not even him. Oh well nothing can be done about it now, it has happened and hopefully is starting to end.

 

[Walter]

Now he is a card carrying member of the Liberal Party. My hope is that he stops there and does not move any further to the right.

He will, if he matures intellectually.

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
Winston Churchill

 

[L Gilbert]

He will, if he matures intellectually.

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
Winston Churchill

..... and if you are still stuck to a party at 50 you aren't that wise.

 

[JLM]

This video clearly shows that George Bush warned Congress starting in 2001, that this economic crisis was Coming, if something was not done. But Congress refused to listen, along with the arrogant Congressman, Barney Frank.

Ironsides, it really doesn’t matter what Bush said, it matters what he did. In 2001 he could have enacted almost any legislation he wanted; he had a rubberstamp, Republican Congress. In addition his popularity was in the 90s following 9/11 attack.

So it doesn’t matter what he says, if he did not do anything to prevent the economic crises, it clearly means that he didn’t think it was a serious possibility. Talk is cheap, but if Bush didn’t do anything about it (and he had the power to do almost anything at that time), it only means that he did not seriously believe that an economic crises was coming. He must accept the blame.

Absolutely Sir Rupe, hind sight is 20/20.

 

[DaSleeper]

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
Winston Churchill

..... and if you are still stuck to a party at 50 you aren't that wise.

My saying is ......a "Liberal" like the twenty year old thinks he knows everything.....then the "Conservative" forty year old finally realizes he still has a lot to learn....
Then at Fifty you have enough vision to see that most politicians are too crooked to take any of them seriously and you say F**k-it and you point your middle finger at al of them like I do in this thread:lol::lol::lol:

 

[A4NoOb]

Indeed, it was, A4noOB. But what I said was correct, US Supreme Court didn’t ordered a single recount, it stopped the ones ordered by Florida Supreme Court and handed the election to Bush, their buddy.

How many more times will you lie before you're indulged? The US Supreme Court didn't stop recounts, they stopped additional recounts. After having 2 cycles of recounts finished (once for the electronic recount and another manual recount in the counties Gore asked for) the Supreme Court told the Democrats to get lost. The Democrats were playing their usual games when they couldn't soak the truth and the Supreme Court called them on it. But I can see you repeating your lies like Goebbels, stomaching the truth can be tough at times.

We have already covered this ground. I was writing from memory, and I remembered one poll which showed Bush approval rating in the 40s. And there indeed was one poll which showed his approval rating at 47% (and there were a few others which showed his approval rating at 50% or less, just prior to 9/11).

Washington post clearly does not list all the polls; it only lists the polls commissioned by them. Check out posts # 140 to 143.

The graph was an average of all the polls. It was very close to what Cannuck produced.

Bush senior started out as a moderate Republican. Indeed, when Reagan picked him as his VP, he could rightly be described as a moderate. However, he veered sharply to the right when he decided to run for presidency. He became strongly prolife. He kept the abortion pill, RU 486 from gaining federal approval, it was finally granted during Clinton era. He enacted several anti-abortion policies (revival of ‘Mexico policy’ being one of them).

Perot was pro choice. He said so several times during the campaign, in reply to a direct question. Abortion issue is very important to right wingers. Do you really think any right winger is going to abandon Bush, a strongly prolife candidate in favour of Perot, a pro choice candidate?

The kind of voter who switched from Bush to Perot was somebody who strongly disapproved of the way Bush handled the economy, and did not care strongly enough about abortion issue. That is a moderate, not a right winger.

It was the Reagan Democrats who moved to Perot because they felt betrayed. Being a right winger has nothing to do with what priorities you have. I consider myself a right winger and I hate Bush Senior, I would have gladly voted for Perot, I wouldn't call myself a moderate either. A right winger is perfectly embodied by Reagan's policies- pro freedom, patriotism, standing up to enemies of America, and being aggressive with the economy.

I don’t know that his image was destroyed. Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary, but won little else. And yes, right wingers were unhappy with Bush. But then they usually are unhappy with the Republican candidate. Usually he is not conservative enough for them, he is a RINO (Republican In Name Only), he is a compromiser and so on. They always huff and puff initially.

However, when they see the Democratic candidate, they get so spooked, so scared that they hurriedly fall behind the Republican candidate.

Wrong, they went to Perot.

That is your opinion; let us agree to disagree on this. Sure New York Times has made mistakes, which newspaper hasn’t? The difference is when New York Times makes mistakes; it is big news everywhere, precisely because it has such a sterling reputation. If Grimy Gulch Herald makes a mistake, nobody cares. But if new York Times makes mistakes, it is big news. In spite of the occasional error, I think New York Times is a very reputable, very respectable publication.

You know what, you might be on to something:the NY Times does have a sterling reputation- for lying. But I don't want to give them too much credit, Pinnocio could out fashion them so much better if he was the editor in chief. Shall we talk about the NYTime's fraudulent story about Sen. John McCain and Vicki Iseman? What about them constantly labeling Nazi concentration camps "Polish concentration camps"? The NYTimes is nothing but propaganda and more propaganda, and their liberal bias is clear as day.

 

[CDNBear]

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
Winston Churchill


My saying is ......a "Liberal" like the twenty year old thinks he knows everything.....then the "Conservative" forty year old finally realizes he still has a lot to learn....
Then at Fifty you have enough vision to see that most politicians are too crooked to take any of them seriously and you say F**k-it and you point your middle finger at al of them like I do in this thread:lol::lol::lol:

I've often said you're a wise wise man Sleeper...;-)

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The US Supreme Court didn't stop recounts, they stopped additional recounts. After having 2 cycles of recounts finished (once for the electronic recount and another manual recount in the counties Gore asked for) the Supreme Court told the Democrats to get lost.

A4NoOB, again, you haven’t disproved my statement. US Supreme Court did not order any recounts. The recounts that did take place were ordered by Florida Supreme Court, not US Supreme Court. US Supreme Court stopped the recount ordered by Florida Supreme Court. This is not a lie, it happens to be the truth; you really haven’t said anything to dispute it.

It was the Reagan Democrats who moved to Perot because they felt betrayed. Being a right winger has nothing to do with what priorities you have.

Many of the Reagan Democrats were moderate, not conservative (conservatives normally don’t vote Democratic, moderates and liberals do). They voted for Reagan because economy was in a mess with Carter.

I consider myself a right winger and I hate Bush Senior, I would have gladly voted for Perot, I wouldn't call myself a moderate either.

That depends upon how you define a right winger. To me, a right winger is somebody who cares deeply about issues such as abortion, homosexuality, pornography etc. A moderate is either pro choice, supports gay rights or at least does not feel strongly about these issues. A right winger is somebody who thinks these issues are very important and bases his vote largely on these issues.

In my opinion, most Perot voters were moderate.

A right winger is perfectly embodied by Reagan's policies- pro freedom, patriotism, standing up to enemies of America, and being aggressive with the economy.

That is not right wing agenda, that is an agenda most of the country would embrace. Right wing agenda is ban on abortion, restricting availability of contraception, opposition to equal rights for gays, supporting teaching Creationism in public schools etc. That is the agenda popular with the Republican base. The voters who thought that these issues were important stayed loyal to Bush. Those who thought economy was important switched to Clinton or to Perot.

If you look at the analysis of voting patterns, you will find that that right wing (Republican Party base) was loyal to Bush, it voted for Bush by an overwhelming margin. It is the moderates who deserted Bush.

 

[gopher]

''That depends upon how you define a right winger. To me, a right winger is somebody who cares deeply about issues such as abortion, homosexuality, pornography etc. A moderate is either pro choice, supports gay rights or at least does not feel strongly about these issues. A right winger is somebody who thinks these issues are very important and bases his vote largely on these issues.''


The facts show, however, that right wing merely pretend to hate pornography whereas in reality they purchase it much more often than does anyone else:

Right wing really likes their porn // Current



The number one porno loving state is Utah which is the nost conservative state in the Union.

 

[jimmoyer]

Right wingers, liberals, sheeeezzum.

Why cartoonize them?

They're the Elephant Man crying out, "I'm a human beeeeing."

We really do cartoonize what we disagree with.

They cartoonize church people, like they're the Church Lady on Saturday NIght Live.

But in reality most people are generalists. They might go to church every Sunday but most of them don't subscribe vehemently to every detail.

Generalists are the reality.

Extremists are the headlines.

Slow down when you drive by that accident so you can get a good look at it.

 

[Cannuck]

Some people need to be right more than anything else in the world. "Cartoonizing" what they disagree with helps them to believe just that.

 

[JLM]

''That depends upon how you define a right winger. To me, a right winger is somebody who cares deeply about issues such as abortion, homosexuality, pornography etc. A moderate is either pro choice, supports gay rights or at least does not feel strongly about these issues. A right winger is somebody who thinks these issues are very important and bases his vote largely on these issues.''


The facts show, however, that right wing merely pretend to hate pornography whereas in reality they purchase it much more often than does anyone else:

Right wing really likes their porn // Current



The number one porno loving state is Utah which is the nost conservative state in the Union.

I think this "left wing" "right wing" stuff is ridiculous, but my vision of right wing would be more to the financial aspect (kinky sex is apolitical) right wingers would be more for spending cash they have and would probably shun borrowing money. I see them as making solid investments more like cash and money markets, mortages than equities. I guess in that respect Paul Martin was more right wing than left wing, which just makes this "wing theory" all the more wingier. :lol::lol::lol:

 

[CDNBear]

That depends upon how you define a right winger. To me, a right winger is somebody who cares deeply about issues such as abortion, homosexuality, pornography etc.

Yep, that sounds like a Right winger to me too...

A moderate is either pro choice, supports gay rights or at least does not feel strongly about these issues.

Hey, that sounds like me!

A right winger is somebody who thinks these issues are very important and bases his vote largely on these issues.

Again, doesn't sound like me...:lol:

SJP, some consistency in you 'caricatures' would be nice...;-)

Some people need to be right more than anything else in the world. "Cartoonizing" what they disagree with helps them to believe just that.

Don't forget demonizing, pigeon-holing and of course their fave, generalizing blindly...;-)

 

[ironsides]

Why is it that when Obama speaks or attends an international meeting that the NY Stock Market drops 200+ points. Not being mean to Obama, just curious.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Why is it that when Obama speaks or attends an international meeting that the NY Stock Market drops 200+ points. Not being mean to Obama, just curious.

Ironsides, a curious thing about stock market. When Obama took office, stock market was plunging. Obama introduced his stimulus package, it was applauded by most economists, and it was passed by the Congress with Republican support in Senate. Obama enjoyed high popularity ratings. But stock market dropped 2000 points.

As far as the right wing was concerned, stock market was the only measure of how the President is doing. To them approval ratings, what the economists think, none of that was important. On website such as Townhall, there were articles daily as to how stock market is the only true measure of how economy is doing, how Obama has been a miserable failure in handling the economy (he was declared a failure as soon as he took office) etc.

For the past several weeks the stock market has been rising and guess what? Not a peep out of the right and far right. Now stock market as a measure of presidential performance has totally disappeared. Now the right wing doesn’t mention stock market, at all, it is a bad word as far as conservatives are concerned.

The fact is, it is foolhardy to look at what happens to the market in one day, one week or even one month and judge presidential performance from that. Stock market does measure how the economy is doing. However, look at the stock market say, two years form now, compare what it is today, and that will tell you something as to how the economy is doing.

In fact, the far right used to put the same rap on Obama, every time Obama opened his mouth, the markets would drop 200 points. The fact is when Obama came to office, stock market was dropping because of economic uncertainty, future looked bleak. It had nothing to do with Obama. Same with the recent rise, I don’t think Obama has much to do with that either.

So you say that every time Obama attends international meeting markets drop 200 points. I haven’t; really tracked it, have you? When Obama attended meeting in Europe did markets drop 200 points?

Whether it did or not, it is nonsense to try to gauge how president is performing by looking at the market for one day (or even six months, give it at least a year).

 

[JLM]

Why is it that when Obama speaks or attends an international meeting that the NY Stock Market drops 200+ points. Not being mean to Obama, just curious.

It might be helpful to find out what Obama is doing when the market rises 200 points and then we'd just have to get him to do more of it.................:lol:

 

[ironsides]

It might be helpful to find out what Obama is doing when the market rises 200 points and then we'd just have to get him to do more of it.................:lol:

Obama does nothing that we know about and the market rises.
:lol: