You hear good things about the economy and then something like this pops up? What's it going to be? It is either better or it still stinks... I think we are trying to use too many variables to measure any real progress with the economy.
Just another mouth moving with pretty words. That's all speeches are to me these days from politicians. I wish presidents and the like had to write their own speeches--- then maybe they'd be less pretty but more meaningful.
No, you can't rightfully blame Obama for this stuff. As mike said, things haven't been so bright since the mid 90's. It's just the coat of lacquer the politicians try to put on it. Doesn't matter who is in office. If its a democrat, they all say, "looky here"... same for the republicans.
(Then you see commentary that we all really know anyhow, just like this story and you've got to wonder how in the heck do they get off trying to paint a pretty picture?) Yeah, a good dose of the truth would be nice.
Yeah, a $100 bill at the grocery store is kind of a joke, isn't it? Man, I've got 2 teen age boys, and my 16 year old eats like a horse.... The wife and I started completely shopping by a list and we compare nearly every price in the joint and buy as cheap as we can and still that $100 doesn't stretch out too far.
Nope it doesn't go anywhere no matter how hard you try! Mayonnaise - well that was the first one I saw (aside from cereal) the bottom of the jar pushed up inside so it seemed you were getting just as much.
I wonder if the half gallon of ice cream the other day that I bought on sale was actually a half gallon...probably not.
I just cleaned my BS filter, this morning, so I think I'd do pretty good at catching it, but we all know the speeches are pretty much, just that, so there's really no point in dirtying my filter again......... lol
As far as the actual speech goes, It was good. Firm, assertive. His agenda on the other hand, was IMO Very bold. We'll see if any if it gets done.From Marco Rubio's rebuttal, it sounds like the repubs are still in opposition mode... I am for Universal Pre-K..My son went to a private pre-school and we were paying $200 per week..I don't know what you guys think but that is EXPENSIVE..with this Universal Pre-K, NO CHILD will be behind in school...9 states already have if or some form of it with results..Raising Minimum wage to $9 per hour and linking it to the cost of living. YEA I think that needs to be done for sure.
Well, here is how I feel about pre through K as a mother (non political). I think that it should NOT be mandatory that kids attend. I am all about kids being kids while they can be and to me--- preschool served one main purpose--- hanging out with other kids and socializing . . . and most importantly HAVING FUN! I never worried one ounce about academics at those young ages. My kids are both just fine now in the second and third grade.
Institutionalizing kids in this country worries me with so many in all day daycare from birth. Not a knock on working women and families have to do what they have to do but i really hate to have the govt. instituting anthing mandatory.
I also feel like my kids were ALL mine oh mine all mine until they go off into the school years where the school gets a piece of them and exert some control. I don't want that to start sooner than it already does.
so, I'm all for opportunity to be there if parents want it but that already exists in my area. Our school district does have a public preschool program that there is a minimal charge for. half the class are special needs and half the class aren't. So, anyone who wanted to do it, could enroll their child in that program.
Okay, just my thoughts on that subject. LOL (again, not political but mom based).
I grew up in a very, ultra prestigious town. My parents forced me to go to a private school. My parents are broke. Always have been. I used to beg to go to public school. My brother and sister got to go. Wasted money.
I think all children are entitled to pre-k if they want it. But, throwing them in with the 'rich kids' that early is not going to help. (sorry its the only way I can see it)
My son still wonders why he doesn't have a CTS? I drive a Mazda.
Kids should be kids. Kids should play. Too bad mommies can't just stay home and take care of their babies. Cowboys and Indians was a fine game in the 60s. And I grew up to be a Liberal...go figure.
I agree that pre-K should be there for those who want/need it, but I don't think the government should mandate it. My son never went to any kind of pre-k and he did just fine. My daughter went one year, when she was 4, but at that time it was only 2 days/week for 2 hours/day; more about learning social skills than academic skills, though there were some light academics. She didn't do any better in school after having the pre-K, than my son did not having it.
Our county has public pre-k; free for everyone or parents can choose a private school and pay.
I played cowboys and Indians, too --- have been both Democrat and Republican.
I agree with all of you that it should not be mandated. It should be available to all and optional to all. I know for me My husband and I had to work. We were already established in our careers before we had JJ. We had no choice (so we thought at the time). Anyway (I'm rambling..lol) JJ went to pre-k and it was expensive. I wasn't mentally ready to be a stay at home mom. We could afford it so we did. In that aspect I think it's a wonderful idea. The cost of child care is VERY expensive and if this passes, it will ease the pockets of A LOT of working families. I also think many mom's and dad's would want their children to be home but unfortunately the reality for a majority of families out there is they need to incomes and have to work. They have no help or child care and don't have the blessing of being a stay at home mom.
I also like the President's proposal of Fair pay..Why is that not so already? I mean that is commonsense no?!
For all of you that watch MSNBC and support MSNBC you should think about turning off the network and become sensible minded people. MSNBC in roughly 2 days showed the Rubio water clip 155 times. 155 TIMES. They are scared and trying to end his political career over a drink of water. 155 TIMES. Are you not ashamed to watch msnbc?
CNN did it about 35 times-even had a guy say his political career is over. Fox about 12 times.
How many times did they report on Chris Kelly being killed? A hero. Or how much did they report on Benghazi? Anything that is a blackeye for Obama they try to make it into a non issue but they make no issues into issues.
Let's face it - Rubio looked like an maniac going for that water. If he'd have been in my home I would have asked him - Hey man, what the hell is wrong with you? Slow down ace and take a sophisticated sip!
Yep crying my eyes out because Special Ed, Mandow, Chrissy and Lucky Larry are being too hard on Rubio.
If you don't like certain folks, there are plenty of ways to make that clear without calling them "special education" which doesn't make sense anyway, since is not an adjective.
I too think that the preoccupation with Rubio's water guzzling shows that they are not creative enough to come up with some real commentary on real news.
But please don't demean all those kids out there struggling to get an education due to their disabilities, by referring to people you don't like as "special ed"
I thought it was hysterical. If he had been in my house I would quite simply have asked him what drugs he was that was causing this nervous reaction (I dont necessarily mean illegal as anyone who's been on meds or really really really nervous has had this problem being SOOO thirsty!)
Aha, I see. So that is a nickname. Got it and sorry for misunderstanding Vance.
Is this a nickname used in the media? Certainly not one I would enjoy using. How about Egghead Ed? There are lovely ways to insult people without dragging others down too.
No, I am not upset, El. I am a sensitive person but that really just means I have an awareness of others or I try to.
It is all good.
I will say this------ I think the nickname "Special Ed" is horribly rude beyond just making a silly joke. Whomever came up with that would probably not like to have a lengthy conversation with me about it. I don't like that kind of joke.
Well, it may or may not be.
These things certainly have no impact on me. I like Christy and don't care if he is fat and I don't care if Rubio guzzles water...it has no meaning to me on whether or not I like them politically.
But it does seem the public is small minded enough to be swayed by these things, so maybe it is part of a campaign.
I am trying to give el and vance the benefit of the doubt here..I too really cannot see that this early in the game it is all a part of a conspiracy to make sure the dry mouth and obese Republicans don't get into office four years from now.
Maybe they are still in a stage of mourning from losing the election?
Anyway, imo it is just lousy journalism. They really can come up with better content than this stuff , it is a political version of the entertainment pages.
I agree, MSNBC is overboard with the Rubio/Water thing....You have to admit that Rubio was out of his league..I watched the rebuttal right after the STOTU..He was doing fine (optically) until the water..For me, the water wasn't a second thought. It was awkward but I was more interested in what he was saying..Rubio is just being used as the face of the GOP right now. His back ground is relate able, HOWEVER, the message he sent that night was the same rhetoric that Mitt Romney talked about throughout the Primaries and the general election. The GOP has to realize that their message and views are NOT shared by the majority of the American People. They need the majority to win the White House back. They seem out of touch to most Americans. Let's take minimum wage for example. Why oppose it? It's a common sense pocket book issue that effect a lot of people. Why don't they just look at reality and say yes we need to increase it..Let's take the filibuster of Chuck Hagel for another example. They have no LEGIT reason to oppose him. Also he is a Republican. They themselves say he will get confirmed but they want to delay it. For what? just because they can...It doesn't look good for them. there has NEVER been a filibuster of a cabinet pick for a President until now...The repubs need to change. Will they? I hope so but the probably won't. Maybe when they loose 2 more election cycles they will realize it...
"“They seem out of touch to most Americans”
I don’t think walking away with only 51% of the votes constitutes enough ground to boast Obama being in touch with most Americans. We’re talking 1%."
I wasn't boasting about the President. Well at least that was not my intention. I didn't even mention him....Anyway, that 1% is actually 4% because Mitt Romney got 47% of the popular vote and the President got 51%. That 4% should be important to the GOP because without that 4%, it is enough ground and they will NEVER win back the White House...
WRONG! (but we both are) It's 2% Obama got 51% of the vote. This means 49% does not agree with him. 47% Romney & 2% Other. Do the math anyway you want but it still comes out to 49% of the people didn't vote for him. My prediction was what ever party won in 2012 will not return in 2016. I see the Republicans taking it back. I know several Democrats that say, they would have crossed over if the Republicans had offered something better than Romney.
I have noticed how high things have gotten over the last couple of years, and we are paying for less. Have you noticed how tiny cookies are now? When I was raising my 6 kids, I could get buy on 50 bucks a week for groceries. Now for just two of us? It seems like a hundred now does what 25 used to. So yes, I make more money but when you factor in the price of everything, Im no better off than I was way back when, the numbers just sound better. The results are about the same tho.
I watched the state of the union address and was quite impressed with it. Especially the ending.
And what happened to the Great Prizes we used to get at the Bottom of The Cracker Jack Box?
I can’t force myself to watch a STOTUA regardless of who’s President. It’s all pretty much propaganda. The next morning even CNN was having a Field Day ripping it apart with Fact Checks. If they would stand there and tell us the truth instead of Hoopla that they think we want to hear (and stop the childish applause) I would watch them. I think we all would rather hear the truth. The truth is, we are not doing well at all. We have gained some ground but we have lost some ground. The days of blaming The Bush Administration are long gone, and we can’t sit back and blame The Republicans for everything.
These speeches are all the same. Everyone talks a big game and gives us the "idea" that things are better than we think and are only going to get better. It hasn't changed in decades and probably won't change much in the future.
And all of the gratuitous "stand up, sit down, applaud" garbage is too much. The nest time one of the SOTU speeches is on, look into all of the peoples eyes. Not much there, and even the speakers are starting to look a bit more hollow.
"we can’t sit back and blame The Republicans for everything."
I think we can....Obstruction and Austerity is what they continue to stand for ... A lot of the president's policy that they are against, REALLY effects their own constituents but for some reason they don't see it..Raising minimum wage is not bad. Passing equal pay for equal work is not bad, passing the Violence against women act is not bad, wanting completely do away SS and Medicare is bad. Filibustering the President's pick for Defense Sec.who is a repub is bad. These issues effect the average Repub, dem, and independent alike....I'm not saying the Repubs should go against everything they stand for but those laws I mentioned should be passed with really no objection IMO and they should not abuse the filibuster like they do...Harry Reid screwed the dems on that one.......
Just wanted to add that the far right of the Republican party is-- obnoxious in my opinion. Kind of feel that way about the far left as well. But I would agree that the far right is difficult to work with in terms of some things brought up to make policy and law. Still believe that leading this country will only happen from the middle. And that our politicians need to take off the armor and the you against me, let's do battle mentality.
Raising minimum wage is not bad. Passing equal pay for equal work is not bad, passing the Violence against women act is not bad, wanting completely do away SS and Medicare is bad. Filibustering the President's pick for Defense Sec.who is a repub is bad. These issues effect the average Repub, dem, and independent alike....I'm not saying the Repubs should go against everything they stand for but those laws I mentioned should be passed with really no objection IMO
I think that is reasonable. When those Republicans who are in office start showing a little more teamwork, I think there will be less blame in that area.
I think it is clear that there are Republicans who do work and are willing to work with the President and once they become more dominant in the party there will be less finger pointing.
Teamwork goes both ways. The left needs to work on this as well. Those at the far ends of right and left are the ones that cause the most issues, in my opinion.
This country has checks and balances built into the system for a reason. One party, one person should not be the sole vision for the country.
If someone proposes a law---- does it not make sense to have the other side work on editing it to be balanced to represent both parties viewpoints? By questioning anything and being unwilling to just agree to something point blank, some could argue that they are doing their job to carve out the best law/policy that they can.
I'm sure there are things that the parties agree on. I think if I were marketing Washington to the world, I'd start making a HUGE deal about that. Then maybe we'd trust what these guys on either side are doing. I trust my guys, Dems trust their guys but we have to have faith in each others guys. Or else, it is always a battle.
Whew, I better get some air as I'm just rambling. Sorry
I'm not sure if the US is in the same boat, but in Canada the increased income is not at all on par with the increased cost of living. Groceries are just insane, and we don't eat extravegantly at all. We are probably pretty average I would think. We looked at me staying home after Ryder was born, and it just simply was not possible. It just wasn't. It's sad.
Just regarding the blame game in terms of left and right...I know it's pretty tough to do when you are smack in the middle of things. Emotions run high. But if you were able to remove all emotion and take a step back and see the situation objectively....both sides share blame in this ongoing stalemate. I watch a lot of political speeches and all of them are saying pretty much the same thing
The (insert Dems or Republicans here) are wrong because........
There really doesn't seem to be much of any conceding going on from other side, or even any ability to move more towards the middle. They just shoot each other down. Im not even convinced they are reading the proposals or whatever you call them. They just know it came from the other side, therefor vote against it, it's bad.
The biggest problem with politics is the darned politicians, at least in my opinion.
"Oh goodness. Really, obstruction and austerity is what they stand for? Please. Those BIG statements are what make this forum unpleasant and thankfully people here are making less and less of them."
My intentions were not to make the forum "unpleasant"..Sorry you took it that way. I guess I should clarify for everyone who is a republican on the forum. When I say "Republicans, I'm ONLY talking about the ones in Washington that ARE Obstructing. There IS austerity by the Republican party in Washington. I mean it's just a fact..The Hagel filibuster says it all...
This country has checks and balances built into the system for a reason. One party, one person should not be the sole vision for the country.
I agree but I think it has been far more contentious in the past years and I personally blame the Tea partiers for it.
When I refer to Republicans negatively it is always them I am referring to and I know they really don't speak for all the conservatives.
People in this group get slammed a lot for criticizing the Republican party, but I really don't think for the most part we are very radical. In fact I think we are all a little closer to the center than you guys give us credit for.
It is just that the extreme right causes a knee jerk reaction when it comes up with ludicrous statements and ideas.
Its crazy isn't it. Even simple little things. Ryder is so excited because one of our local parks is having Thomas the Train et al come in May. The whole park is being turned into The Island of Rodar. A big big deal. Of course Im going to take him....it would break his little heart otherwise. So, bought the tix today and guess how much. For dh, Ryder and I.....$77.00. We can do it, but doesn't that seem like a lot of money for a family of 3 for one day at a park?
Taking him to the Museum, the Zoo, the Science Center....all of those things.
I guess that they are not necessities, but he's a little boy..he should get to experience them.
It is worth it. And we do get to actually ride Thomas the Train - Ryder is going to lose his mind..lol. Remember when we went to the Wiggles concert? $60 for tix for the 3 of us...worth it. An extra $120 on DVD's, t'shirts and other stuff...lol. He is worth every dime though, and I'm grateful we can do this stuff. He still talks about that concert.
I have heard just about enuff of how Obama won 51 percent and the other half voted for someone else. I have heard these talking points everywhere lately. So how about we just clear up the confusion and move on. I will do this by posting from the same source for both presidents bush and obama. Now, can we let it drop?
n the election, Bush carried 31 of 50 states, receiving a total of 286 electoral votes. He won an outright majority of the popular vote (50.7% to his opponent's 48.3%). The previous President to win an outright majority of the popular vote was Bush's father in the 1988 election. Additionally, it was the first time since Herbert Hoover's election in 1928 that a Republican president was elected alongside re-elected Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. Bush's 2.5% margin of victory was the narrowest ever for a victorious incumbent President, breaking Woodrow Wilson's 3.1% margin of victory against Charles Evans Hughes in the election of 1916.
On November 6, 2012, Obama won 332 electoral votes, exceeding the 270 required for him to be re-elected as president.With 51% of the popular vote, Obama became the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to twice win the majority of the popular vote.
True- but it doesn’t change the Fact 49% of America wanted someone else for President and if the Republicans would have produced something better than Romney, I seriously doubt he would be President. I see it as, he won by Default. The Republicans failed to deliver and we got stuck with him as a Consolation Prize.
True enuff, but the same could be said about when Bush was in office, so now we are all even! I think he would have won regardless, but we will never know for sure. And I dont think the republicans will be getting in any time soon, without first revamping themselves among women, latino, and gay populations, which it doesnt seem in their interest to do. Oh and that 47 percent of no goods that dont matter too.
Okay. Im done with this topic, I have derailed the thread again. Sorry guys.
“Okay. Im done with this topic,”
Not quite so fast.
Most of us agree Romney was Sub-Standard and the Republican Party does have room for improvement. But what I don’t see is, you guys admitting that the Campaign was Neck to Neck and even at some points Romney took the lead. So, Obama ran neck to neck with a Sub-Standard Opponent. By all indications this would also make him Sub-Standard and The Democratic Party also has room for improvement. I truly believe, if it wasn’t for the timing of Hurricane Sandy, a coin could have been tossed.
Well no, as it turned out, we were hearing he was going to win by a landslide too. Turned out that was not the case. Romney was convinced and most of his followers were as well that he had it in the bag. The numbers prove that was bogus from the get go. I like everyone thought it was much closer than it turned out. When 11 pm came and they announced a president after being told it was going to be a long night? Well, yes it was a shock. But like I said we will never know will we.
I did, it is about the election being neck to neck or not and You said the silver lining is that you don't have to defend Romney. I was agreeing and said he was cute (since ppl are so taken with the externals) but that he would have been a disaster.
Well, you did say he was not the best contender.
I wasn't against him for being a conservative. I was against him because he demonstrated no concern for us peasants. Really that was the bottom line. His only real appeal was his good lucks. He never acted as someone who really loves his country and people.
I don't know him, I am referring to his public persona. He may be a good guy in private, I don't know.)
Hahahaha sheesh I just realized i got you all riled...sorry lol really sorry.
I thought that we agreed more or less that the loss here was about a more conservative contender lost the election, therefore the things you hoped for in terms of economic changes wouldn't happen. So I respect that, no joking about serious worries, I am talking more about the loss of a persona. I mean did you really have an attachment to him or was it more the conservative values he represents?
I wasn’t attached to him in any way, shape, or form. I even admitted he was “Sub-Standard”. The point I was trying to make Romney was Sub-Standard and through most of the campaign they were running neck and neck. This tells me Obama was also Sub-Standard. It was the first time I really didn’t have any interest in voting because of the P!ss Poor choices we had. I have never had any confidence in Obama so I’m not disappointed in him. I voted for Romney only because I knew Obama cannot lead us out and maybe by some miracle Romney could.
Why does mentioning that you aren't in favor of Obama's policies and are doubtful of his success make one bring up George Bush? Don't get that. I've never cared for Obama as president and didn't vote for him either time he ran. What does that have to do with Bush?
"If Obama is substandard how would you characterize George Bush?"
"Equal or of similar value."
"Please, give me a break here! This is crazy talk - plain and simple."
One man's "crazy" is another man's perfectly rational.
I think we all agree that both Bush and Romney were sub-standard; many of us agree that Obama sits in the same category.
Looks to me like a lot us might have chosen what we considered to be "the lesser of 2 evils" when we voted.........not that we really liked the candidate, just that his beliefs/policies more closely matched ours, even if not a "perfect match".
I think that's where we run into trouble, here, a lot; the idea that everyone who doesn't view things in a certain manner is somehow as "sub-standard" as the candidates...... that couldn't be further from the truth. I said through the entire campaign that I wasn't the least impressed with Romney and disliked Ryan even more, but the fact remains that most of their conservative views more closely matched mine.
We're are individuals; there is no right or wrong; we all form our beliefs/views/opinions/feelings based on our experiences and that's what we go on. The hope is that everyone would be able to see more than one side of an issue.
"Why does mentioning that you aren't in favor of Obama's policies and are doubtful of his success make one bring up George Bush?"
I was addressing the comment that Obama is a substandard President.
I'd like to have some vague idea of what the standard is - or the context in which the statement was made. Substandard necessarily means there must be a "STANDARD". If one is going to call Obama "substandard" then I would like to know where Bush stands in that poster's opinion. That would give me some frame of reference. Where does Clinton stand?
Well, I didn't personally call Obama a substandard president and that is a bit of a harsh statement, I agree. I'd have to scroll up and find the remark. I personally am not in favor of some/many of his policies he puts forth but that is to be expected as I didn't vote for him and am more conservative in my politics. I tend to be doubtful of this president but he IS trying to do his job. Substandard to me means someone isn't doing their job and slacking.
I also think that Bush was doing what he thought was best and he also was doing his job in that regard. And Clinton as well.
Not too many slackers in the white house as they all seem bent on shaping America as they see fit. Maybe they don't always do a great job---- and time will tell what people in the future will think of how Obama did. Of course, and this isn't meant to be snarky------ obama will never be allowed to fail because if he happens to do so--- it will be quickly blamed on Republicans or Bush. Obama appears untouchable as to accountability in my eyes. Down the road though, when all of us are done arguing about it, it will be interesting how the history books capture things.
I would say Clinton would be the one that sets the Bar for Standard. Lord knows he had a lot of flaws but if I had to pick one withen our life time, it would be Clinton. I also liked Reagan. another one with a lot of flaws but people seem to forget the mess he had to clean up behind Carter and I don't remember a whole lot of whining about it (but that was several years ago). As far as where Bush stands? Bush and Obama are on total differant sides of the Spectrum. The problem is they're equally balanced out on the See Saw of Substandard.
It's not looking good for Bush - that's for sure.
The details of the selling (lying, that is) of the Iraq War are still coming out and it's looking worse and worse for Bush.
I am always confused whether you guys don't read, don't comprehend or are just too prejudiced to see it clearly. The Iraq War - nothing more ever needs to be said - unless Obama lies us into a needless war that will significantly destabilize a region of critical US strategic importance and waste immense treasure and thousands of American lives in the process. If that happens we can analyze it further.
I wonder how the revisionist-history books will be written, in reference to Obama's spending of $6 trillion+, during his first term in office... (with nothing to show for it except a stagnant economy, unwavering unemployment#, and an unmanageable deficit).
The books will be written about Bush being a failure, blah, blah, blah, and you won't get an argument out of me. You didn't get an argument out of me DURING his presidency (as I felt he was substandard).
But Obama, the media darling and Price of Thieves... how will history view him, that put us into an estimated $23 trillion dollar hole, before he's finished in 2016?
I wonder how the revisionist-history books will be written, in reference to Obama's spending of $6 trillion+, during his first term in office...
They will conclude that it was too little...........but, you'll never see that coming and even when that is proven clear to everyone with a brain you'll still deny it because it's Obama and you have a real deep seated problem with him...and it's not at all about policy or economics.
Are you insinuating that $6 trillion spent in 4 years, wasn't enough?
Seriously... SIX TRILLION DOLLARS wasn't enough?
The fact that the moron though we could BUY OUR WAY out of this mess, was simple minded.
When the market adjusts, you LET IT adjust. You don't spend every last dollar you have, putting yourself into unmanageable debt, to try (and subsequently fail) a arrest it.
The fundamental principle of the classical theory is that the economy is self-regulating. No need to throw $6T at it, which turns out to have been a horrible move, because all it did was put us into DEEPER debt.
The fundamental principle of the classical theory is that the economy is self-regulating. No need to throw $6T at it, which turns out to have been a horrible move, because all it did was put us into DEEPER debt.
It's wrong and has been shown to be wrong. It is not self regulating.
You would be well advised to study more than just the cliff notes on the Classical Theory.
I guess it is a start though and we have to start somewhere.
I still don't get why we are talking about Bush. The fact that Bush wasn't a great president means that Obama has to be? Oh, okay. He gets to be above Bush in terms of presidens and jobs they've done but I honestly don't think he'll go down as a great president. I haven't seen it yet but I guess he has a few more years. Honestly, don't get the connection between the constant bush/obama conversation. For those who are not liberal in their politics, Obama is hard to feel great about. This doesn't need to be more than that and wow, I hate when prejudice is thrown in there. I'd have as much problem if Hilary were in office, I'm sure, but then I'd be prejudice against women (like all Republicans.).
Some here are huge Obama fans and some aren't. What's the big deal?
I know you are an intelligent man. I was just questioning how a comment about Obama leads to a comment so often about Bush. I am thinking it's not that big of a deal and to be expected that not everyone, especially those who have a different take on things politically, would feel differently about any given president during their time in office. I'm sure there were people who disliked presidents while in office that later when on to think they were actuallly good presidents and others that people supported during their term and later would describe them as not great presidents. Who knows how it will turn out with Obama.
And I would only add that it seems, there are those, just as defensive when something is said about Bush as those who are defensive about this president.
Some here are huge Obama fans, and then some here are huge Bush fans and obviously equally as sensitive.
Funny how that works.
Just because President Bush is no longer in office does not mean his policies went with him when he left. Obama will make his share of mistakes as well, true. But so far the mistakes that are glaring have not been his imo.
But maybe I feel like that because I share his vision and of course is why I voted for him twice.
In the interim, yep, I support him, and altho I voted for Bush, and argued tooth and nail to his defense when he was president, he proved me wrong in that defense. Obama could very well do the same, but so far he has not.
Well, that is interesting because it is true, I never enter into defense mode regarding Bush and maybe I am supposed to. Hm. I guess I get confused about the defensive reaction at any Obama criticism or doubts.
Oh well. I was just confused on the subject. Happens to me occasionally. Not that big of a deal.
That's what I'm saying. Who's defensive about Bush? Why are we talking about Bush? That was so like 5 years ago.
I honestly don't see anyone defending Bush. I said that I do believe he thought he was doing what was right for the country---- as I believe Obama is as well. I think all presidents work from the 'right' place within themselves. Even if they make huge mistakes. But I have no love affair with Bush. I don't say he's a great president and waaa if you say anything bad about him and notice no others doing that.
Bush has his name brought up because he is the president that preceded this one and it was those policies that were enacted during that time that has resulted in an economic meltdown. Its nothing personal about President Bush as much as people on here like to think it is. It is simply because of the policies that are still in effect and the remaining hangover that still exists trying to straighten everything out again.
Actually, I will make a correction, I voted for both the Bush Boys. And the first one has more respect from me than the second one.
But everytime someone mentions the things that happened, coincidentally under Bush term, everyone flys into a frenzy. I really dont get it. Or everytime someone says something supporting this president, same thing, everyone flies into a frenzy. I really dont get it. It has to be something everyone takes personal, there is no other explannation that makes sense. Either that or you all simply hate everything obama.
That is truly how it appears. We cannot even have a discussion anymore because of all the sensitivity going around, so why bother trying?
haha. I don't know how reasonable adults can see things so differently. someone said a negative comment about obama and his presidency. I think they said substandard as one description word that I didn't see and that's not a word I'd use but none the less as well as comments about how things will be going at the end of Obama's term and how he'll be remembered---- well 'what about bush' comes up.
It's kind of that 'well, your mother is fat" argument.
But . . . this is seen completely differently by others here so again, I guess I just don't get it. maybe a walk away for some air will help me see it differently? I agree that a comparison did start of bush verses obama but that was after bush was thown in there like a 'but your mama is fat' comment. ???? Okay, off for air to think think think. WHAT am I missing?
I think I'm following you, but the same thing can be said about Clinton before Bush. (I am a democrat and voted for Clinton 2x, Bush1x, and Obama 2x.) Before Clinton, there were policies that preceded him that are still in effect today.
With all of that out there, it would be far more fair to blame every administration, every congress and every senate for the last 40-50 years for the current state of affairs. This is a decades long train wreck.
I haven't been around here too long, but I'll respectfully throw out an opinion on your second to last paragraph. "But every time someone mentions the things that happened, coincidentally under Bush.... everyone flies into a frenzy...." I think its because there is no defending Bush, nor Clintons deficiencies, the other Bush, Reagan, Carter.... all of those guys have a direct hand in where we're at today and the left seems to want to place everything on Bush. It makes no sense.
I've been a registered Democrat for 30 some years, and there is no way I could blame Bush for all of this. Everyone, counting the current President has a hand in this.
Why bother trying? I keep trying because I don't quit. Maybe I haven't been around here long enough to give up the goat. People need to quit picking sides and have the ability to look at things reasonably. We just have to be able to let someone have their own opinion and not be mad at it.
I'd just as soon be mad at the things I can control, like me dropping a damned irrigation pump on my foot this morning. I've got 4 purple toes and am going to lose 2 toe nails at least. I grabbed it one handed and the damned thing landed right on the top of my toe knuckles.... that makes me mad.
I didnt read that far up, sorry. I posted a wiki document regarding both presidents and their percentage of a win when they were elected, in response to someone saying half the country didnt vote for him comment and what I posted pretty much showed this has been the case more often than not. So I posted for bush and obama and their win percentages, so I guess you can blame it on me.
My point was to say lookie here! It was the same way when Bush won!
Nothing new here. There was half the country that hated him too. No biggie.
Copyright 1994-2016 MedHelp International. All rights reserved.
MedHelp is a division of Aptus Health.
This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information.
The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. Med Help International, Inc. is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following Terms and Conditions. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.