Its not okay if Bush does it, but its ok if Obama does?

reply to post by dizzie56

No, no, dizzie, let's just leave the entire biracial and satire thing. I just have to leave it there.

Let's approach this from a different direction.
I have stated that Barack indeed has an excuse to continue a certain bush policy, but even that, just like I said before it cannot go indefinitely. It's true that he indeed inherited this mess from dubya, you cannot fix it in a day and you should not undo everything what dubya did in an instant either, otherwise you'll risk further damage.

I cannot speak for the people who's defending barack's every move. But barack will have his chance to turn this around. Depending on the policy, it's appropriate that he's given a certain time limit. I guess, we'll just have to see what will happen midterm.

Originally posted by dizzie56
I seriously wish I had a "universal remote" like Adam Sandler did in Click. That way I could have the time to rewind this and call out all the people that were either for or against Bush but are now either for or against Obama and for the same exact reasons. I would also like to fast forward time so I can see how many people switch again. To me, these people are the biggest hyprocrites. Even bigger then the politicians because they say they hate the thing that is being done to them, unless its "their" guy.

I cant wait until Obama is out just to see everybody switch again. The hypocrisay in this world is like watching a train wreck...its very sickening yet you must watch.

I'm a straight-ticket republican and voted for bush per my straight-ticket rules. I vote party platform and hope that they follow it. Bush didn't, I disliked most things he did.
If you go to war, go to win, have nukes, use them. Don't do police actions.

So-called compassionate-conservative BAH! I never could understand why dems hated him so much, most of his policies were right out of the dem handbook.

Originally posted by dizzie56
What, the "tax break" i got...its was litteraly $2 extra a week. Thanks, try again. It was too little to even mention. Great policy there.

Also, the money being payed back by banks is crap compared to the amount lent out. Also, apparently they have to win approval before they do so.
money.cnn.com...

They cant just say, hey, I want to pay you guys back, they have to be approved to do so. Look at Bank of America. They didnt need any TARP money in the first place. They were doing fine. Then the government "asked" them to take of Merrill Lynch because they were "too big to fail". BOA said they would if the gov backed the loan. BOA wanted to pay back at least part but were told no. Now, why is that? Why would an admin say no to paying any of the TARP money back? Simple, it wants control and they have it.

www.nytimes.com...

$2 a week? $112 extra on your tax return, times 300 million is $33.6 billion back to the American public plus $250 for veterans, social security recipients and railroad retirees(wtf?). I wish it could've been more, we all do. Wait it was...especially if you've bought a house in the past three years! Maybe you bought a car too, oh look, the federal government pays for your state taxes on your new car!

If the bank gets money because it's 'too big to fail' then the government isn't going to let the bank risk failing again by giving too much money back then coming back six months later and asking for more.

I never forgot why we went there in the first place...not one bit. Never like it that bush destroyed Iraq either. Yeah, Saddam needed to go, I trully believe that one, hell ask the Iraqi's families that he has killed over the years in his wannnabe stalinesque fashion, but how we did it was a giant mistake. But one question to you, do you think we should just entirely pull out of Iraq before we helped rebiuld it and leave a vacuum of power in the midst along with a whole nation even more pissed off at us cause they couldnt get basic needs like water and food after what we did?

I think we should entirely pull out, so do a majority of Iraqi's. It's widely viewed that continued violence is a result of American occupation. There is sectarian violence, i.e. Iraqi on Iraqi violence, but that's an internal issue that the Iraqi government and people are willing to deal with on their own.

Im sorry if you dont mind roving wiretaps based on a suspission of being a terrorist. Yeah yeah, the old "Well, if you arent doing anything then you shouldnt have a problem with it" arguement is played out. I want my privacy. How bout that? I dont do anything, but I dont want to have to be monitored cause I type up a "red flag", which the definition of which can, does, and will change from administration to administration.

I equate your argument to, "That cop shouldn't be looking at my house, it violates my privacy!"

It was a one year extension, if you have a problem with it, ask why your rep voted for it. Unless you're a constituent of one of the 97. Various sections of it are done away with, only the three I mentioned were given the extension by Obama.

Dizzy56, I liked what you had to say in this thread and agree with you in many ways.

I also feel you did a fine job in explaining your reasons for creating it.

This thread was created not long ago at all. So much has happened to us/our nation, we the people, very soon after this thread.

Can we survive two more years of this? I sure hope so.

You look at the bigger picture and did a great job explaining your views, backing them up with sources.

Originally posted by sweetliberty
Dizzy56, I liked what you had to say in this thread and agree with you in many ways.

I also feel you did a fine job in explaining your reasons for creating it.

This thread was created not long ago at all. So much has happened to us/our nation, we the people, very soon after this thread.

Can we survive two more years of this? I sure hope so.

You look at the bigger picture and did a great job explaining your views, backing them up with sources.

Thank you for the compliments. I forgot all about this thread to be honest. Another good example is what is happening right now. Right before Bush left office he wanted to start drilling off of my coast (i live in clearwater, fl btw). Everybody (including myself) was up in arms about him doing it as I knew it wouldnt take much for a leak or spill to happen. Not just a couple weeks before the oil leak that we are currently having to deal with here, Obama himself said he wanted to start drilling off of our shores. Just more evidence of him continueing policy. If this would have happened when Bush was president, everybody would have called for his head. When Katrina hit, it was Bushes fault apparently for not helping out fast enough but we have seen and can site that Obama has been far slower in even raising an eye brow to the threat we see now. Its just rather funny to me to see the hypocracy that falls on both sides of the parties.

reply to post by Jazzyguy

You got it all so wrong.
It's about if bush is allowed to do all of those things, obama should be allowed to do them also.

If you want to hold obama accountable, you should hold bush accountable first, that's the bottom line

No, it's not!

Democrats control the Executive branch.
Democrats control the House of Representatives.
Democrats control the Senate.
Democrats have MSM's unyielding support.

Democrats must accept responsibility (for a change).

jw

It really is shocking how many people don't get this.

I'm with you. I've been called a pro-Bush guy and a Republican and all that crap, but I'm just a bystander calling it like I see it. I've never voted because there is no reason to. I'm actually probably going to be fooled into voting 3rd party this year (RON PAUL BABY) but it won't matter.

Republicans will win the office in 2012 and the path will stay the same. I can't believe my fellow countrymen haven't figured out the sham of the two party system yet. Sigh, maybe one day.

reply to post by whatukno

I was asked a direct non trolling question endisnighe, so I answered to the best of my knowledge. As far as I know, banks have started paying the money back. Not all of it, but they have been paying.

No doubt many financial institutions were rescued from dissolution by TARP, but they have "paid back" the Treasury from trading profits and "accounting rules" that have NOTHING to do with helping American business and consumers.

Transferring debt to the Fed and other Federally-guaranteed resources (e.g. FNMA) does not equal "recovery," any more than it equates to rescue of the drivers of American financial security: independent, small business.

TARP was a misguided manipulation of market reality. There is no such thing as "too big to fail."

When General Motors (and others) are heralded for "paying back their debts" with other borrowed Treasury resources, we have truly lost touch with fact and live in a world of perceived reality and "convenient truth."

Deny ignorance.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

You got it all so wrong.
It's about if bush is allowed to do all of those things, obama should be allowed to do them also.

If you want to hold obama accountable, you should hold bush accountable first, that's the bottom line

No, it's not!

Democrats control the Executive branch.
Democrats control the House of Representatives.
Democrats control the Senate.
Democrats have MSM's unyielding support.

Democrats must accept responsibility (for a change).

jw

Exactly. Right now they are in control and its their show. The amount of bitching that they do about Bush still to this day makes me think he is still in power lol. They have the power to change everything right now and what did they really change for the good? The healthcare? No. The tarp fund? No. Now major disasters that effect the Gulf Coast again are being bungled.

And like I said before, I never agreed with Bush on a majority of issues but if you really want to change something then you have to cut the head off and then go after the body. Obama is litteraly the head of the government right now. Nobody liked when bush did half the stuff he did, but its okay if Obama does it because Bush did it first? What happened to wanting to stop all that crap?

reply to post by jdub297


Oh, I get it! You're one of those silly folk who differentiate between democrats and republicans!

Hahaha! You a funny guy!

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Yep Obama is as bad if not WORSE than Bush and you know why? BECAUSE HE HAD THE CHOICE TO STOP IT ALL.

And what did he do ? HE DECIDED TO CONTINUE IT ALL.

That's like deciding to protect a mass murderer when you have all the proof with you, you know where he lives and he's trusting you.

Doesn't matter that you have the choice to put that child rapist mass murderer in jail, YOU CHOOSE NOT TO DO IT. And even worse than that, when the mass murderer get caught or killed, YOU CONTINUE HIS LEGACY BY KILLING AND RAPING LIKE HE DID.

Well Obama did the same thing with Bush. He protected and CONTINUED his crimes. That's as bad if not worse.

Both are

Star for you for IMO was the best post on this thread so far, and no one responded to it.

If you campaign on "change" and how evil the previous administration was, then the last thing you can do is continue the policies you claimed were so bad.

For doing all that, I propose placing obama's presidential portrait in the dictionary next to the word hypocrite.

Originally posted by SpectreDC
reply to post by jdub297

 

Oh, I get it! You're one of those silly folk who differentiate between democrats and republicans!

Hahaha! You a funny guy!

And you must be one of those silly folk - a lot of them here on ATS - that doesn't get it that we have to play with the cards we're dealt in this political game, and that is that there are two main political parties. THOSE are the people we can see, listen to and sometimes even talk with.

Good luck dealing with the faceless entities some of you like to claim are really running the show. IMO, going that route is just a euphemism for giving up, sticking your head in the sand and leaving your a$$ exposed.

Earth to SpectreDC: only talking about your "entities" here on ATS accomplishes exactly zilch.

There is an awesome website that tracks all the campaign promises a president gets elected on and how his record is once he is in office.. if he has done those things he promised or if he has done a 180 and just boldly lied to the people.

Last I checked Obama lied or did a 180 more than he kept his promises.

I forget the website. perhaps someone else knows?

[edit on 21-6-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by SpectreDC
reply to post by jdub297

 

Oh, I get it! You're one of those silly folk who differentiate between democrats and republicans!

Hahaha! You a funny guy!

And you must be one of those silly folk - a lot of them here on ATS - that doesn't get it that we have to play with the cards we're dealt in this political game, and that is that there are two main political parties. THOSE are the people we can see, listen to and sometimes even talk with.

Good luck dealing with the faceless entities some of you like to claim are really running the show. IMO, going that route is just a euphemism for giving up, sticking your head in the sand and leaving your a$$ exposed.

Earth to SpectreDC: only talking about your "entities" here on ATS accomplishes exactly zilch.

Yes, I'm the one giving up, sticking my head in the sand and leaving my ass exposed, by not accepting the cards we're dealt with and instead trying to opt out of that whole deck of cards all together.

And you're the valiant one, so defiant in his fight that he accepts the cards he is dealt with, because he totally has given up and believes that we either have to vote in the people who lie to us and steal our money, or vote for the people who lies to us and steal our money.

See, the funny thing is; going just by what you said in that post, the way I see it I'm not the one who has given up. You have. Quitter.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by SpectreDC]

reply to post by SpectreDC

How sad.

Accepting the status quo is the ultimate resignation.

When the people who demand a difference make themselves heard and felt, I guess many will just go along for the ride as they've done all their lives.

Calling a philosophical critic names betrays impotence.

Good luck.

deny ignorance

jw