Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If we didn't like it when Pres Bush did it, why should we remain silent when Pres Obama does much, much, more of it?<<" A better question would be to ask, "If you didn't like it when President Bush did it, why didn't you speak out more back then more forcefully?" I don't see any topics that were started by you to discuss the matter, or call President Bush out on it, from back then. Why was that?
Originally Posted By DAR <<You might want to check what people are actually saying. For instance, I said that the GOP leadership was nutsier than the Democratic leadership RIGHT NOW. And I think it is. I'm not crazy about Pelosi, but Obama is the clear leader of the party, and he's a lot more level-headed than Limbaugh, who is the de facto leader (or at least the loudest voice and the one whose ring must be kissed). It won't always be this way. But that's the way it is NOW. >> Well considering that neither Limbaugh or Pelosi speak for me than that's fine. Obama speaks for me because I'm a U.S. citizen and he was elected as our leader, he can't beholden to anyone party. No President should once elected which is why we are where we are.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why was that?> For the same reason you haven't seen me start any threads attacking Pres. Obama. I did criticize Pres Bush when I thought he did the wrong thing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Yet another useless non-response.>> <In response to one.> No. You don't just get to say that so blithely without being called on it. Anyone can look at #41 and #42 and see who's posting something of substance and who is just indulging in the usual Doug nonsense.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < Obama speaks for me because I'm a U.S. citizen and he was elected as our leader, he can't beholden to anyone party. No President should once elected which is why we are where we are.> That's nice in theory, but I'm sure you must realize that in practice, every president ever elected has also been a party man, simultaneous with being president of all the people. Some have integrated those two more successfully than others.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> So much so that they're still spending so much time attacking the right, even though they control the White House and both houses of Congress. << So then what are these tea-party participants protesting? The current tax code? It's the `08 tax rates established by the bush administration. Tax increases? There aren't any - yet. Obama indicates he will raise the highest bracket by less than five points - still almost ten points less than when Reagan was in office. Tax cuts? Promised by Obama for anyone earning less than $250k annually. Government spending and bailouts? Originated with Bush. And lacked the transparency that the Obama administration has provided. Deficits? Originated with Bush. And also lacked transparency. Also the Bush administration kept both wars out of the budget - an accounting trick that Obama put an end to in his first days in office. So what's this protest about? It doesn't help the GOP to go off half-cocked with spurious claims "socialism" and blaming Obama and democrats for the situation we find ourselves in. My god, he's only been in office less for than three months - he didn't create this mess, your guys did and you know it. Even if you refuse to accept any accountability for your own actions. This isn't about the democrats "attacking the right" - it's about lunatic GOPers blaming Obama and the democrats for their own miserable failings.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So then what are these tea-party participants protesting?> See post 22.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "Anyone can look at #41 and #42 and see who's posting something of substance and who is just indulging in the usual Dabob nonsense." Fixed that for you.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Really the bottom line Left argument here is, "The Right shouldn't be allowed to speak out against Obama, because doing so is insane, and everything bad that comes of Obama's term will actually be W's fault." Is that about it?
Originally Posted By mele Uh, no. No one here as ever said told people to stop complaining about Obama. Seriously, I keep hearing how that has happened over and over again in WE and yet, I've never once seen it actually happen.
Originally Posted By gadzuux From Post #22 - >> Fifth, the people going to tea parties didn't agree with the Tarp plan or a lot of the spending the Bush administration agreed to, and they recognize that taxes are going to have to be raised on a lot more than those making over $250K in order to pay for all the spending the Obama adminstration is proposing. << So you think these people are protesting the TARP plan and Bush era spending. Right. And they're protesting tax increases that "they know" are coming. And they don't like the spending that Obama is proposing. As it happens, Obama gave an economic speech this morning that very effectively crystalizes why the gov't is the spender of last resort and how this is the surest method available to jumpstart economic recovery. If they disagree with him, then fine. Let them voice a better option. But to stand out in public making a scene without a specific alternative doesn't help anything. In fact, it just makes them look even more ridiculous than they already are.
Originally Posted By mele <<But to stand out in public making a scene without a specific alternative doesn't help anything. In fact, it just makes them look even more ridiculous than they already are.>> I don't know. Dems got a lot of flack for complaining but not having a better plan for the war, etc. I didn't agree with that line of thinking. Sometimes a plan is just bad, no matter if there's a better plan. I realize that the economy is a slightly different, far more urgent problem, but still, if you're going to give one side a pass for something...
Originally Posted By DAR If a tea party here in Wisconsin is against our idiot Governor, then trust me it'll be a bipartisian affair. Nobody likes this guy and yet we still elect him.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If they disagree with him, then fine. Let them voice a better option.> They have and will continue to. Including at tea parties.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"Anyone can look at #41 and #42 and see who's posting something of substance and who is just indulging in the usual Dabob nonsense." Fixed that for you.> Wow you changed your name to mine. Another way of saying "I know you are, but what am I," almost literally. And there we see the extent of your wit, and too often lately, your intellect. It doesn't even make sense, seeing as how 41 had substance and 42 was merely a two-word nay-saying dismissal.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Really the bottom line Left argument here is, "The Right shouldn't be allowed to speak out against Obama, because doing so is insane, and everything bad that comes of Obama's term will actually be W's fault." Is that about it?<< No one here has said anything of the kind, so no, that isn't the "bottom line". But it is, I guess, the updated version of the "people who support Obama believe he is the messiah and you can't say anything bad about him" line from a few months ago.
