Reply With Quote
Meh, Bush got blamed for Clinton's recession. , in this case it could be argued Obama's involvement with ACORN, in the 90's, and their relationship with the sub-prime fiasco, places the blame squarely on his shoulders.
Deal.
This shameless lying that the wing-nuts of talk radio are engaging in, show how desperate they are. Obama is not even in office, and they are trying to hang on us the recession a.k.a. depression they manufactured in their support of the neo-con philosophy.
When this group came into office, we had a budget surplus... we were actually on the way to start paying down the debt.
In 8 short years, they have tripled the debt, and we are in the red from day one of the yearly budget.
Instead of going into a corner and shutting up, while we try and dig ourselves out of this mess, they are trying to hang it on Obama.
NOT THIS TIME YOU USELESS BAGS OF SKIN AND HOT AIR..not this time.
We keep reminding the general media of their duplicity.. one more yelp out of them and its time for the fairness doctrine....
LA Times"The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen," Limbaugh told his radio audience of 15 million to 20 million on Thursday. "Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression."
Meh, Bush got blamed for Clinton's recession. , in this case it could be argued Obama's involvement with ACORN, in the 90's, and their relationship with the sub-prime fiasco, places the blame squarely on his shoulders.
Deal.
I'm sorry, I thought this was a Michael Moore thread.
who cares dan. america wants obama.......no matter what.
when oil is at $200 a barrel or we're still in a recession 4 years from now, Obama and the Dems will be out for maybe ever.
America wanted "to throw the bums out" and Obama just happened to be the Democratic nominee. Make no mistake, America is rolling the dice on this guy. But when you factor in Bush fatigue, an election year financial crisis . . . then why not gamble on the "clean, articulate" black guy with almost no paper trail? After all, he has a "D" after his name, right?
The latest forecast have us in a deep recession if not depression till the end of 2009. This is just the beginning from this lying sack of , he plans to dump all the blame for the last 8 years of GOP failure on Obama and the Demo congress..
so what dan. isn't it nice to have a smart guy for a change? who cares what that dip says.
america ain't buying their anymore. we sealed off the trailer parks stupidity on the 4th.
Most of our trouble started with Sept 11th, one could argue that many things have been done wrong since but Sept 11th was a major factor to where we are today. It had a spiraling effect, the decision to Invade Iraq was the icing on the cake.
I also don't see mainstream media blaming jack on Obama, they are basicly pointing out that he is inheriting a sandwich when he takes over.
Heath Ledger is wise.
The stage has been set for Obama to take credit for an economic recovery. But if the economy is still in the ter 4 years from now, Bush will be blamed and the media will remind us to feel sorry for Obama.
I hate to be one of those "liberal media" right-wingers, but I have to admit the uneven treatment of Democrats and Republicans was particularly obvious this election.
Both sides are to blame for this mess, neither did in D.C.
How noble of you to care about the truth Dan, yet you were fellating Michael Moore on this board a couple of years ago when that fat sack of was throwing around lies about Bush.
Hypocrite.
Obama gets a honey moon and a grace period since he's inheriting a terrible economic mess.
But it damn sure won't be 4 years. Or even 2.
Bush will long be forgotten in 4 years. Mercifully, his reign is over.
Mark my words. Liberal congress, Marxist president...
This nation will suffer in a few years.
Whannity has backed and openly pimped Santorum,Allen,McCain,Steele, to mention a few... how did his endorsement work out?
Wouldn't it beel cool if we had someone that told us the truth though? Damn, all Limpballs does is spread lies 24-7 and Clear Channel gives him $500 large....where is the corporate responsibility? This is clearly why we need the Fairness Doctrine...
Really? Did the treatment seem uneven to you, or was it merely that the McCain campaign was so spectacularly bad and Obama's was more or less better organized and executed? I get so much of my information from so many different sources. None of it (other than the clearly partisan sources on both sides) seemed particularly slanted.
McCain and Palin often snubbed the mainstream media, so the few appearances they made got lots and lots of attention and analysis. Early on the Democratic convention was completely overshadowed by the Palin pick and she was all the news there was for days after.
The polls showed a big Obama victory and a struggling McCain campaign and that's what played out. Could MSM have reported otherwise?
All the scandals on both sides got a lot of airplay.
I hear this said over and over. Can anyone please explain what the MSM should have done differently? Also, I should note that when I say MSM, I mean ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. Not Drudge, FOX, Huffingtonpost, etc.
Last edited by MaryAnnKilledGinger; 11-12-2008 at 10:54 PM.
You are no longer Propaganda Dan...
You are now Fascist Dan!
I'm so ing tired of this re ed "logic."
I'm of the opinion that Clinton was an excellent president, but I'll be the first to admit that there were many mistakes made during his presidency. However, it's not as if the Bush administration has only been running the show for a couple of months. It's been eight ing years. Eight. Years.
If I move into an apartment and find a raw chicken left under the sink, the previous tenants are indeed assholes for leaving it there. But if I choose not to clean it up for eight years, the rotting carcass and resulting rat infestation are my fault.
The strength of this country's economy at the time the Bush administration took over is well do ented. If anyone at the helm had seen these problems coming at that time, or at least within the next few years, they should have fixed them. Failure to do so has as much to do with the current economic cluster as anything that may have occurred in the previous decade.
CODE PINK
CODE PINK
CODE PINK
Remember, Clinton was riding on a wave of the Y2K, internet boom, and other factors he had no control of in the positive. The only way to show he has a surplus was to put Social Security revenues on budget. The recession started befor president Bush took office. 9/11 hurt us. Our economy was recovering, and all the numbers were getting better untill after the 2006 elections. The economy started falling again after the democrats took congress. All attempts by republicans and president Bush to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was defeated by democrats, and now we have major problems.
Believe what you want. I will acknowledge that president Bush has done many things wrong, just not the things you liberals blame him for. I blame him for approving huge spending bills, wanting amnesty for illegals, and the recent bail out that will never fix anything.
You know, I'll even say that president Clinton wasn't to blame for the recession president Bush inherited. It was just coincidence with the internet bubble burtsing and Y2K spending complete. I actually blame president Clinton for other things. That's a different subject and thread however, and in the past. It isn't important any more either.
Bush had two Republican congresses to fix Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. How could the Democrats have stopped them?
Emotionally, there is no doubt. But there's no consensus among economists that 9/11 significantly affected our economy one way or the other.
Republicans were never in lock step with president Bush. Democrats in congress made convincing arguments. The facts are that the problems were noted in 2003 and earlier. The facts are that president Bush and many republicans wanted to change the regulations before this happened, and they couldn't get it done.
Wow. You act as if the president is a dictator. Even with the same party congress, he does not have that type of power.
You're seriously trying to claim that Bush, Inc. wanted to change regulations in Patriot-Act passing, post-9/11 political climate? And the Democrats who couldn't even put forth a filibuster without the nuclear option being rubbed in their noses held him back? Links, please.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
