Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Didn't IndyMac, WaMu, Lehman fail in September or October? To me, it just seems that Obama is in the right place at the wrong time.

Or the wrong place at the wrong time depending on how you voted.

I tend to agree with you that Obama's being assigned blame for stuff that's mainly beyond his control and that some of the continuing economic drop is fall-out from policy, government activity, general failure to provide oversight, general willingness to regulate in the wrong way (take your pick) from before he was even in the Senate.

But, I don't think the stimulus bill was all that great and at some point when things don't start rebounding, Obama's going to own this one. (I'm oversimplifying by saying merely "stimulus bill". We could include all the proposed funding and regulation he's had a hand in as well and the strings attached to previous bailout funds that aren't proving popular.)

The fact that it's a Democratically controlled Congress with key long-term Democratic legislators who were players in some of the crisis areas, even when the Republicans were in control, might kind of at least double the pressure. There's no place to shift the blame in the public mind.

(I'm not really saying that I think Democrats are more responsible for the present situation, but at some point, especially considering everything that Bush was blamed for and the pattern that's established, the public is going to look to blame.)

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Or the wrong place at the wrong time depending on how you voted.

I tend to agree with you that Obama's being assigned blame for stuff that's mainly beyond his control and that some of the continuing economic drop is fall-out from policy, government activity, general failure to provide oversight, general willingness to regulate in the wrong way (take your pick) from before he was even in the Senate.

But, I don't think the stimulus bill was all that great and at some point when things don't start rebounding, Obama's going to own this one. (I'm oversimplifying by saying merely "stimulus bill". We could include all the proposed funding and regulation he's had a hand in as well and the strings attached to previous bailout funds that aren't proving popular.)

The fact that it's a Democratically controlled Congress with key long-term Democratic legislators who were players in some of the crisis areas, even when the Republicans were in control, might kind of at least double the pressure. There's no place to shift the blame in the public mind.

(I'm not really saying that I think Democrats are more responsible for the present situation, but at some point, especially considering everything that Bush was blamed for and the pattern that's established, the public is going to look to blame.)

Admittedly, I'm really upset by the amount of unfair blame and criticism that President Bush received while in office. Perhaps thats why I am going to blame everything that happens for the next eight years on Barack Obama.

[UGAalum94]

Eight years?

I would think it will be hard to get reelected if things haven't picked up pretty substantially.

Now, the GOP has to find someone to run by then who actually appeals to a lot of people. But, if things don't pick up, I can see people wanting to give a business friendly guy a try.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Now, the GOP has to find someone to run by then who actually appeals to a lot of people.

Then they need to get a muzzle on the CPAC crowd: CPAC After Party

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Then they need to get a muzzle on the CPAC crowd: CPAC After Party

I'm not sure a political party can really muzzle anybody, especially people not directly affiliated or employed by the party and not speaking at a party event. But I agree that they should do more to keep idiots out of the spotlight when they can.

I wasn't really interested in CPAC, especially what Rush or Ann Coulter had to say and expected to find them as irritating as always.

But what I found really odd about that clip was how the Daily Show commentary seems to misrepresent most of what was said. There was no call for the destruction of an American city, simply the acknowledgment that it might be the threat posed by Iran. Kerry was the the only veteran mocked and I suspect the laughter had very little to do with his veteran status. The comment about the founding fathers and guns was pretty clearly about the 2nd amendment to me.

(Rush is going to talk crazy and it's totally open season on him as far as I'm concerned. I'd prefer a direct renouncing by Steele rather than the backtracking today.)

As I've said before, I don't really find most of the Daily Show funny. I think the comedy bible idea was, but after that it's just John Stewart being smug and not particularly witty.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Admittedly, I'm really upset by the amount of unfair blame and criticism that President Bush received while in office.

I thought I remember you not liking Bush too much when he was in office? Or am I confusing you with another poster?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Admittedly, I'm really upset by the amount of unfair blame and criticism that President Bush received while in office. Perhaps thats why I am going to blame everything that happens for the next eight years on Barack Obama.

I hope you're kidding when you say this because this is kind of ridiculous.

Bush didn't get as much criticism and blame as he deserved to get for his policies and decisions while he was in office.

I think people really need to just give Obama and this new administration time to fix the mess that was created. While I definitely believe God put him in office, I realize that this kind of thing won't be fixed overnight. And I think people also need to realize that this administration isn't perfect. Mistakes will be made. However, it is extremely unfair for people to be so judgmental about this administration when those same people tolerated an administration that basically stomped all over the constitutional rights of people in this country.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Have any of you been following what's happening with the EU over the last week or so? It is possible the EU might sever. They are in even worse shape than we are right now, and Gordon Brown is heading here to address OUR government tomorrow night. Word is that he might be suggesting the stimulus passed by congress isn't big enough, and that the EU will be looking to the U.S. to essentially bail them out. Some Internet chatter even suggests it's possible the UK could be taken over by U.S. rule if the EU should falter; I think that's maybe a little nutty, but nevertheless, it's chatter.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Have any of you been following what's happening with the EU over the last week or so? It is possible the EU might sever. They are in even worse shape than we are right now, and Gordon Brown is heading here to address OUR government tomorrow night. Word is that he might be suggesting the stimulus passed by congress isn't big enough, and that the EU will be looking to the U.S. to essentially bail them out. Some Internet chatter even suggests it's possible the UK could be taken over by U.S. rule if the EU should falter; I think that's maybe a little nutty, but nevertheless, it's chatter.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

MLK, Jr.?

"That ain't your real hair. Just stop it! You just go too far with the jokes." ~ Eddie Murphy Nutty Professor

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I hope you're kidding when you say this because this is kind of ridiculous.

Bush didn't get as much criticism and blame as he deserved to get for his policies and decisions while he was in office.

I think people really need to just give Obama and this new administration time to fix the mess that was created. While I definitely believe God put him in office, I realize that this kind of thing won't be fixed overnight. And I think people also need to realize that this administration isn't perfect. Mistakes will be made. However, it is extremely unfair for people to be so judgmental about this administration when those same people tolerated an administration that basically stomped all over the constitutional rights of people in this country.

You realize how unrealistic the bolded part is, right? In other words, you're saying that people who supported Bush have no right to criticize Obama? Your statement seems to be of the same type as those who are saying "Well, Bush was the worst ever, so anything else is good."

It's not unfair for Bush supporters to criticize Obama, any more than it's unfair for Obama supporters to have criticized Bush. That's politics.

ETA: I disagree with a lot of what Bush did, and I can't say I'm his biggest supporter. But if you're going to start talking about fairness, it's unfair to silence a whole group of people because they supported the previous administration.

You're entitled to your opinion on the issues, but it bothers me when you say that people essentially don't have a right to criticize the administration.

I also never answered your previous point, on Congresspeople asking for the President's autograph. The red flag for me is that it just seems unprofessional, given their position. That's obviously a debatable point, but it raises a red flag in my mind, no matter whether they're asking for the autograph of Obama or Bush, Democrat or Republican.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

ETA:

I also never answered your previous point, on Congresspeople asking for the President's autograph. The red flag for me is that it just seems unprofessional, given their position. That's obviously a debatable point, but it raises a red flag in my mind, no matter whether they're asking for the autograph of Obama or Bush, Democrat or Republican.

Has it already been mentioned what it kind of suggests about issues with separation of powers and checks and balances?

Sure, Presidents have to be popular and powerful enough to get their agenda through, but if there's a suggestion that Congress is acting like 15 years old girls at a Jonas Brothers' show, it makes you wonder if things will function like they should.

ETA: sorry, it was tweens at the Jonas Brothers' show. And yeah, you mentioned overriding vetoes, etc.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Where do you live that you saw wide acceptance of Bush's policies?

It seems that Bush was almost universally panned by all but the most die-hard of the conservatives, and already the media has published pieces that don't look kindly on his Presidency (see the widespread distribution of the Presidents list that placed him near the bottom). There has been criticism of his domestic and foreign policy, almost across the board.

Of course, there are some people who supported his Presidency and supported some of his policy decisions, but it seems like deepimpact2 is looking for something like 100% disapproval of his Presidency.

To be clear, I am not doing this to be part of some "mob" mentality against deepimpact2. I am simply stating my disagreement with their statement.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Has it already been mentioned what it kind of suggests about issues with separation of powers and checks and balances?

Sure, Presidents have to be popular and powerful enough to get their agenda through, but if there's a suggestion that Congress is acting like 15 years old girls at a Jonas Brothers' show, it makes you wonder if things will function like they should.

ETA: sorry, it was tweens at the Jonas Brothers' show. And yeah, you mentioned overriding vetoes, etc.

In my mind it's more of an issue of how it appears; in my mind, it gives the wrong appearance when Congresspeople are acting like excited autograph-seekers around the President.

It's not the worst thing in the world, no, and I don't even know that I would personally question their ethics. I just think some people would, and as a Congressperson, you have to be extra careful in that regard.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

To be clear, I am not doing this to be part of some "mob" mentality against deepimpact2. I am simply stating my disagreement with their statement.

Are these types of disclaimers going to to be necessary when typing directly or indirectly to certain posters? Count me out.

I agree with you, there will not be 100% approval or disapproval. There doesn't need to be. This is all politics. The substantive as well as the superficial and petty. Every camp has rhetoric, some of it is just more annoying on the surface than others to me. The hypocrisy is when people on either side pretend that every tax payer does not have a right to critique and criticize anyone they choose and however they choose, based on the info that is available.

On another note, Sean Hannity was ripping Obama, liberals, and Dems a new one last night regarding the deficit and rhetoric. I agreed with some of what he said although I think some of the language was a bit harsh, even for me. Not to mention Hannity's response to David Letterman's comment about Rush Limbaugh's look.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

It seems that Bush was almost universally panned by all but the most die-hard of the conservatives, and already the media has published pieces that don't look kindly on his Presidency (see the widespread distribution of the Presidents list that placed him near the bottom). There has been criticism of his domestic and foreign policy, almost across the board.

Of course, there are some people who supported his Presidency and supported some of his policy decisions, but it seems like deepimpact2 is looking for something like 100% disapproval of his Presidency.




.

If you can point to a statement where I said I was looking for 100% disapproval of the Bush presidency I would appreciate it.