A.I.G....unfreakinreal

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

i remember it differently. Republicans weren't whining about where is the change. Republicans ridiculed people for not looking at the details, for getting caught up in a cult, for not looking at his marxist history, not looking at his total lack of experience. Republicans did this not because they thought he wouldn't change anything as president, but because they feared the changes he might make as president.

So far we've been 100% correct. These first two months have been nothing short of a disaster. A person hell bent on destroying the country would not have been worse.

Oh because he stepped into a hell hole.

Who in God's name would have made the first two months
better on a ship that was already going down? No one in
their right mind would have expected to be on the Love Boat
two months after it had already hit an iceberg.


There is no quick fix. Obama's fix may well be the wrong one.
But based on what has happened so far, it is impossible to
say at this time his plan is a failure as of right now.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Oh because he stepped into a hell hole.

Who in God's name would have made the first two months
better on a ship that was already going down? No one in
their right mind would have expected to be on the Love Boat
two months after it had already hit an iceberg.


There is no quick fix. Obama's fix may well be the wrong one.
But based on what has happened so far, it is impossible to
say at this time his plan is a failure as of right now.

his domestic proposals have created utter chaos when what we needed was some stability. his proposals and spending plans are off the charts stupid, and will be trimmed back significantly by his own party.

his foreign policy seems to be based on sending appeasing videos or letters to every country that has threatened us or Israel, while at the same time snubbing countries that are vital allies.

meanwhile he continues with his perpetual campaign and messiah tour, townhall rallies, Leno, 60 Minutes, ESPN, weekly parties, etc.

even his adoring press are starting to see through the facade. he was royally ripped apart in the New York Times this weekend. that should tell you something.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

meanwhile he continues with his perpetual campaign and messiah tour, townhall rallies, Leno, 60 Minutes, ESPN, weekly parties, etc.

even his adoring press are starting to see through the facade. he was royally ripped apart in the New York Times this weekend. that should tell you something.

its so ridiculous how often President Obama is on tv... Leno, 60 min, ESPN... he's acting like he has no work to do. I feel its actually insulting.. I'm sure others feel different. He's on these shows laughing and joking around while the country he runs is a total mess. Its like he forgot he actually won and still wants to campaign.

Can you please post a link to the Times story over the weekend? I'd like to read it.

Thanks!

[Smooth Operator]

The only confirmed "disaster" at this point was the Bush presidency.

[Smooth Operator]

Lol ... cons conveniently forgetting about all the vacations their guy took over the last eight years.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

He's on his ranch laughing and joking around and clearing brush while the country he runs is a total mess.

FTFY....the '01-'08 version.

So really, conservatives keep saying that we should stop talking about Bush because he's in the past, but we'd probably have a much better chance of actually having to come up with another rebuttal if they'd stop making it so freakin' easy with the manufactured outrage over the same stuff their boy did for nearly the last decade. BFD.

[Riot]

Can you please post a link to the Times story over the weekend? I'd like to read it. Thanks!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/op...rsch.html?_r=1

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

FTFY....the '01-'08 version.

So really, conservatives keep saying that we should stop talking about Bush because he's in the past, but we'd probably have a much better chance of actually having to come up with another rebuttal if they'd stop making it so freakin' easy with the manufactured outrage over the same stuff their boy did for nearly the last decade. BFD.

um, my post had nothing to do with Bush. But of course this is the liberal response to Obama criticism.

Geez its not like I actaully thought Bush was a good president.. and so far I feel the same way about Obama.

I hope he changes my feelings.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

um, my post had nothing to do with Bush. But of course this is the liberal response to Obama criticism.

Geez its not like I actaully thought Bush was a good president.. and so far I feel the same way about Obama.

I hope he changes my feelings.

I know your post had nothing to do with Bush, my whole point was to make a comment on the "typical liberal response" meme that's going on right now.

It's a result of the fact that after eight years, conservatives as a group (maybe you and some others excluded on occasion) have all of the sudden found out that they're outraged and offended by certain things....that have not bothered them one bit for eight years. Example. Bush spending. Good. Obama spending. Bad. Obama not being at command central 24/7 while the country is crumbling. Bad. Bush not being at command central 24/7 while the country is crumbling. Totally okay. That's my point...is that way too many of you are making it way too easy to just point back at Bush, point out that after eight years of sitting idly by about certain things, that you don't have a leg to stand on for certain issues.

This was one of them...and my 'typical liberal response' was basically the perfect response, so my point was well taken, I see, by the fact that you labeled it as such.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I know your post had nothing to do with Bush, my whole point was to make a comment on the "typical liberal response" meme that's going on right now.

It's a result of the fact that after eight years, conservatives as a group (maybe you and some others excluded on occasion) have all of the sudden found out that they're outraged and offended by certain things....that have not bothered them one bit for eight years. Example. Bush spending. Good. Obama spending. Bad. Obama not being at command central 24/7 while the country is crumbling. Bad. Bush not being at command central 24/7 while the country is crumbling. Totally okay. That's my point...is that way too many of you are making it way too easy to just point back at Bush, point out that after eight years of sitting idly by about certain things, that you don't have a leg to stand on for certain issues.

This was one of them...and my 'typical liberal response' was basically the perfect response, so my point was well taken, I see, by the fact that you labeled it as such.

I'm sorry.. but Bush being a bad President for 8 years doesnt excuse Obama for being a bad President (IMO) for the past two months.

And the majority of conservatives on here and in the world feel exactly the same way about Bush... the spending was horrible and I think it was never okay with most conservatives. My Dad is as big of a Republican as it gets (like Chuck) and he always talks about how horrible and non-conservative Bush was when it came to spending. It was an outrage.

Now, we have an extremely liberal president, pretending to govern from the center, who is making the Bush spending look like pocket change. Its outrageous.

Now its obvious, that Bush made a ton of mistakes... but to keep on using that as excuses for Obama is not productive.

I really want Obama to do well... I'd love to see 4 or 8 years from now Obama going down as the greatest President ever... getting us successfully out of a recession while maintaining the American principles and values that has made us the greatest country in the world. I want to see him keep the American dream alive. I'd love to see him figure out how to create and maintain peace and stability in the Middle East.

I just dont think spending a trillion dollars a day is going to be the answer. (of course a slight exaggeration)

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I'm sorry.. but Bush being a bad President for 8 years doesnt excuse Obama for being a bad President (IMO) for the past two months.

And the majority of conservatives on here and in the world feel exactly the same way about Bush... the spending was horrible and I think it was never okay with most conservatives. My Dad is as big of a Republican as it gets (like Chuck) and he always talks about how horrible and non-conservative Bush was when it came to spending. It was an outrage.

Now, we have an extremely liberal president, pretending to govern from the center, who is making the Bush spending look like pocket change. Its outrageous.

Now its obvious, that Bush made a ton of mistakes... but to keep on using that as excuses for Obama is not productive.

I really want Obama to do well... I'd love to see 4 or 8 years from now Obama going down as the greatest President ever... getting us successfully out of a recession while maintaining the American principles and values that has made us the greatest country in the world. I want to see him keep the American dream alive. I'd love to see him figure out how to create and maintain peace and stability in the Middle East.

I just dont think spending a trillion dollars a day is going to be the answer. (of course a slight exaggeration)

I don't entirely disagree. I am not thrilled with things right now, but I'm also not going to $hit my pants over it just yet, considering the grave situation Obama walked into, and considering it's been two months. I'm taking a wait and see, which it seems like you're doing with your overall judgment as well, you're just worried about certain policies. That's all great.

Using Bush as an "excuse" is just patently hilarious to me when it's applicable. For the record, to speak to your point, I'm not doing it to be "productive." I'm doing it solely for the incredible personal LOLs I get from pointing it out. Malkin doesn't get it. Limbaugh doesn't get it. Coulter doesn't get it. You, at the moment of your comment above about being offended that he's on TV instead of hunkering down fixing the economy 168 hours a week, didn't get it.

The mass economic hysteria is generally not hilarious to me.

On the other hand, the over the top, manufactured outrage about things like the one you posted above, which are SO easily refuted by just pointing out that Repubs weren't mad when Bush did the same, but are crapping themselves now because Obama is doing it...that? That's definitely hilarious to me.

That was my whole point. Thanks Lori.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I don't entirely disagree. I am not thrilled with things right now, but I'm also not going to $hit my pants over it just yet, considering the grave situation Obama walked into, and considering it's been two months. I'm taking a wait and see, which it seems like you're doing with your overall judgment as well, you're just worried about certain policies. That's all great.

Using Bush as an "excuse" is just patently hilarious to me when it's applicable. For the record, to speak to your point, I'm not doing it to be "productive." I'm doing it solely for the incredible personal LOLs I get from pointing it out. Malkin doesn't get it. Limbaugh doesn't get it. Coulter doesn't get it. You, at the moment of your comment above about being offended that he's on TV instead of hunkering down fixing the economy 168 hours a week, didn't get it.

The mass economic hysteria is generally not hilarious to me.

On the other hand, the over the top, manufactured outrage about things like the one you posted above, which are SO easily refuted by just pointing out that Repubs weren't mad when Bush did the same, but are crapping themselves now because Obama is doing it...that? That's definitely hilarious to me.

That was my whole point. Thanks Lori.

You're welcome b-dub!

I just disagree with you when you say the Repubs werent mad when Bush did the same thing... because the ones I talk to were mad. I'm sure Chuck was mad, I'm sure Jim was mad, I dunno about timmi..

We just didnt post about it over and over and over... its more fun to post about it when the country thinks Obama is the messiah...

If we posted about it with Bush, it would have been some boring threads.

Thread topic: Bush sucks and his spending sucks


Reply Cannonshell: Yup

Reply Dahoss: Yup

Reply Dala: Yup

Reply ArlJim: Yup

Reply Timmi: Drugs are Bad! Gooooo Jesus!

and so on and so on. boring.. way more fun to do with Obama!


I guess we both can enjoy certain things!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Reply Timmi: Drugs are Bad! Gooooo Jesus!

I guess we both can enjoy certain things!

Amazing.

I would freely admit that there are a handful of incredibly sane, by Republican Party standards, conservatives here on this forum. I just jumped on your one comment about him being on the TV, because folks like Malkin and Limbaugh and tons of other public conservatives are going completely nuts nitpicking little things like that when they've been silent about it for so long, and they're just making asses out of themselves.

Then again Malkin's little remaining credibility has been waning for about 18 months now and is nearly gone, and well, Rush.....I'll just leave it at that.

So maybe if I just write them off as the complete tools they are and focus on the usually intellectually honest folks here (chuck, jim, you), I'd overcome my knee-jerk reaction to conservatives because the public figures are busy dirtying the name for all of you.

[dellinger63]

Bush's spending was excessive and generally speaking not a very conservative thing to do. But this guy has taken it to 'a whole notha level' and in only 2 months apparanty due to Bush's 'failed policies'. He obviously felt there wasn't nearly enough spending.

Bush v. Obama: Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion. Obama would add another $1 trillion. Bush increased federal education spending 58% faster than inflation. Obama would double it.

Bush v. Obama, Round 2: Bush became the first President to spend 3% of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. Obama has already increased it to 20%.

Bush v. Obama, Round 3: Bush reduced taxes by nearly $2 trillion. Even after Obama’s tax cuts, he still will raise them by a total of $1.4 trillion.

Bush v. Obama, Round 4: In 2007, before the recession, Washington spent $24,172 per household. Obama would increase that to $32,463 per household.

Bush v. Obama Scorecard: While President Obama has framed his budget as a break from “failed policies” of the Bush Administration, it is in fact a doubling down on borrowing, spending, and bailing out.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

So maybe if I just write them off as the complete tools they are and focus on the usually intellectually honest folks here (chuck, jim, you), I'd overcome my knee-jerk reaction to conservatives because the public figures are busy dirtying the name for all of you.

My co-worker and I talked about this for a second. She said "there is no way Obama is getting re-elected in 4 years, people arent that dumb"

I replied "Never underestimate how dumb the majority of people are (and I'm NOT talking about democrats - just people in general) & Who else are they gonna vote for?? Palin?? Hell no!! Rush?? Hell no!! There's no way the dems lose the next election unless the conservatives come up with a public figure who is likeable (sp?) AND intelligent."

How Rush can be the voice of the party is beyond me. Nasty old man addicted to hillbilly heroin.


Maybe we'll get lucky and soon it will be COOL to be a libertarian.
That would be far and away the best thing that could happen to America.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

My co-worker and I talked about this for a second. She said "there is no way Obama is getting re-elected in 4 years, people arent that dumb"

I replied "Never underestimate how dumb the majority of people are (and I'm NOT talking about democrats - just people in general) & Who else are they gonna vote for?? Palin?? Hell no!! Rush?? Hell no!! There's no way the dems lose the next election unless the conservatives come up with a public figure who is likeable (sp?) AND intelligent."

How Rush can be the voice of the party is beyond me. Nasty old man addicted to hillbilly herion.


Maybe we'll get lucky and soon it will be COOL to be a libertarian.
That would be far and away the best thing that could happen to America.

Also, it may behoove people to not start calling the next election 60 days after this President started....there is a lot of time left, and things will get better.

And on the other hand, it may not even wind up having anything to do with people being dumb...it may wind up being the fact that most of your public figures/potential candidates scare the crap out of the average American. You're right there.

Obama couldn't do enough damage in four years to give Palin even the slightest shot in hell, because she's a nut, and frankly she has yet to prove that she's even a little bit bright. Normal people anywhere left of the extreme fringe Right are absolutely terrified of her...as they should be.

Huckabee's aw shucks schtick can only provide cover for so long. Jindal's mostly an idiot, and also a far-right zealot on social issues.

Romney's the best you've got, though he may wind up being a really solid choice for you. So there are two things in play...one, that we still don't know how the next three years are going to go and Obama may wind up remaining incredibly popular. Two, even if he does let everyone down, you guys still don't have anything that doesn't irritate or scare the hell out of the normal American (normal American being defined here as "Anything Left of Timm." Or basically everyone).

[Antitrust32]

I think our best man lost the election this past year... too bad he's not 20 years younger.

I'd vote for Pelosi over Palin... just kidding.. I'd stay home and cry.

I think I'm going to run and have Tiger Woods be my VP. I dunno if he's a democrat or republican, but he looks good and everyone loves him.

I just hope my parents live under a rock... cause the things that would come out about me..... oh gosh.

[SOREHOOF]

$90 Billion for Hamas.... UNFREAKINREAL. There's some change you can believe in. That may stimulate the rocket factories in Iran, but I really don't think it's in your average, working, taxpaying Americans best interest.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

$90 Billion for Hamas.... UNFREAKINREAL. There's some change you can believe in. That may stimulate the rocket factories in Iran, but I really don't think it's in your average, working, taxpaying Americans best interest.

Do you have any idea what this money goes to? Or are you just another hater?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Bush's spending was excessive and generally speaking not a very conservative thing to do. But this guy has taken it to 'a whole notha level' and in only 2 months apparanty due to Bush's 'failed policies'. He obviously felt there wasn't nearly enough spending.

Bush v. Obama: Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion. Obama would add another $1 trillion. Bush increased federal education spending 58% faster than inflation. Obama would double it.

Bush v. Obama, Round 2: Bush became the first President to spend 3% of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. Obama has already increased it to 20%.

Bush v. Obama, Round 3: Bush reduced taxes by nearly $2 trillion. Even after Obama’s tax cuts, he still will raise them by a total of $1.4 trillion.

Bush v. Obama, Round 4: In 2007, before the recession, Washington spent $24,172 per household. Obama would increase that to $32,463 per household.

Bush v. Obama Scorecard: While President Obama has framed his budget as a break from “failed policies” of the Bush Administration, it is in fact a doubling down on borrowing, spending, and bailing out.

The way I see it, the number three "could happen" scenario pays off the number one "could happen" scenario, and leaves the taxpayers with a multi-billion dollar profit.