walksalone Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 It is both sides... people are still blaming Bush for the economic problems and blaming Clinton for giving out bad home loans... So yes, this is both sides... Its the job of either side to manipulate the media to make you blame the other side. To think any differently just shows the naivete of people here, and all over America for that matter... Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 The GOP has been chanting that it's all Obama's fault . . . when the majority of the fault is their own. Can we say that? I haven't gone back to look at who proposed each plan the Bloomberg article listed, but I don't think they were all proposed by the GOP. The fact that they voted in favor of them is a nail in their coffin, but this article seems to say they were all Republican plans, and I don't think they all were. Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 27, 2011 Author Share Posted July 27, 2011 You'll like this knapp: Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 103% unfavorable? How is that possible? Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Washington Post Blog It's the Prez's cousin, so I'm sure it's a bit of a show. Food for thought though. Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Washington Post Blog It's the Prez's cousin, so I'm sure it's a bit of a show. Food for thought though. I don't see how he can possibly write a column about this economy and not mention the Republicans. It would be like writing a story about the devastation in Japan and talking only about the earthquake, never mentioning the tsunami. These two parties go hand in hand, and blame can NOT be apportioned to one without giving it to the other. I always wonder why people post things like this that are so clearly ultra-partisan. How can you be so blind that you don't see the destruction wrought by both parties? Why point fingers at one and not the other? It's absolutely baffling. And citing this guy as Obama's cousin is disingenuous. Sure, by birth they're related, but they did not grow up together, they have no commonality of family life, and they are polar opposites politically. I have "cousins" from my mom's first marriage whom I've never met. Were they to run for office and I held differing political views, that accident of relation doesn't magically give my opinion greater insight on my cousin's policies. EDIT - since I don't read right-wing blogs I'd never heard of this Wolf guy until now. Some quick research shows they are not cousins, they are second cousins, once removed. Calling this guy "Obama's cousin" is ridiculously disingenuous. Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 27, 2011 Author Share Posted July 27, 2011 103% unfavorable? How is that possible? Is it percentage on the vertical axis or number of respondents or some other category? I could be a little mentally fried from the events of yesterday and today. Link to comment
Malth Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Carlfense, that polarization of the Republican Party may help explain this Gallup Poll I ran across today, showing large-scale defections of self-identifiers from the Republican ranks: LINK I used to be a Republican about 12 years ago. Just couldn't stand identifying myself with a party I had no affinity to, or affiliation with, anymore. I've been Independent ever since. Regarding the bold, I'm right there with you. I was registered Republican up until about 4 years ago. Now I'm independent and it seems that the teabaggers push me (or just move the goal post) further to the left on a daily basis. I think that's an important distinction to make these days. There's so much nonsense about how Obama is some radical left-wing socialist, when in reality, he's probably closer to a right-leaning centrist. The right-wing keeps on going further and further off the deep end, so it's only when compared to them that a moderate becomes a liberal douchebag hippie. Anyway, as far as the finger pointing discussion goes, I would care more and exercise more restraint if the other side was interested even a little bit in being reasonable and agreeing to a compromise. The right isn't to blame for all of our woes, but the inability to raise the debt ceiling and pass a budget rests solely on them. They need to be called out for as long as they insist on holding on to their ridiculous position. 103% unfavorable? How is that possible? Is it percentage on the vertical axis or number of respondents or some other category? I could be a little mentally fried from the events of yesterday and today. They're just adding the two together, which isn't a very good way to represent it. If 80% of the people said they were unhappy with both parties, it would show up as 160%, which is obviously inaccurate. Link to comment
krill Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 There's basically only tho options left at this point in time. 1) A small group of house Republicans vote for the Reid plan or 2) A 14th amendment option where Obama simply directs the treasury to pay expenses in the same manor as a continuing resolution. Then we spend the next year bogged down in court battles and impeachment hearings. Frankly I am amazed that we are in a position where the constitutional option is even conceivable. May as well just dissolve congress at that point for handing over their last vestige of power. Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I'll just leave this here . . . Obama signs bill to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two more years Link to comment
walksalone Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 103% unfavorable? How is that possible? Politics = bullsh#t, so 103% unfavorable, completely possible in the realm of douchebaggery Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 30, 2011 Author Share Posted July 30, 2011 I'll just leave this here . . . Obama signs bill to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two more years Do you remember that situation? Something about Obama wanting to continue middle class tax cuts . . . but a certain political group wouldn't let that happen unless the cuts were continued for billionaires as well? In fact . . . it was a similar situation to what we have now. "Give us everything we want OR ELSE." Unfit to govern. Plain and simple. Link to comment
AR Husker Fan Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Interesting article that tries to predict who gets paid should the debt ceiling not be raised. If the government has to choose which of its many obligations to honor and which to delay, who will it pay -- and, more importantly, who will it be forced to cut off? Chinese bondholders? Social Security recipients? Medicaid beneficiaries? Veterans or FBI agents? With the clock ticking, it's no longer a theoretical question. LINK Link to comment
walksalone Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Out of things like this, stupid things happen, making them much worse... Link to comment
IvabigN Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 god are you all socialists? someone on this board must make over 150k and not be a guilty white liberal weenie- BTW that chart is so wrong- its hard to continue without laughing .... simpletons and talking points Link to comment
Recommended Posts