What I am doing is showing how he is being hypocrtical and one of the reasons that the bailout was a bad idea to begin with. By bailing out companies he has opened the door for other companies to demand and expect a bailout. And they would be with in thier rights to demand it and expect it for the simple fact that the Federal Government is not suppose to play favorites. They are suppose to be neutral. By Obama not fighting to bail out this company he is also going against what he said when he bailed out the other companies...that of trying to save jobs in order to help/save the economy. From what I understand Borders is a fairly big company that employs 10 thousand some odd people. While sure that is not anywhere near the amount of people employed by GM it is still in no way a small number.
Actually what you are doing here is simply trying to rationalize your ultrapartisan comment. You yourself said it - you are opposed to the bailouts, but by not bailing out Borders, you are opposed to that as well. This is a lose-lose for our CIC in your eyes, and since there is no avenue that he could take to win your approval here, it's reasonable to assume that you entered this thread to simply bash on the President. In addition, you dodged my comment about Gee Dub. If you were as non-partisan as you claim to be, and if you really despise the gub'mint for not being 'neutral', then you must have had an absolute field day with Cheney and the no bid contracts back in '04. When I listed the bankruptcies that took place under our former President's administration, you turned the conversation back to Obama without any mention of Bush's involvment in and support of such an endeavor back in '08.
So, we can answer the following question. What do you call blasting the current President for not bailing out Borders, and admitting that you despise the bailouts and would also disapprove of Obama if he engaged in such an action while simultaneously ignoring the fact that Dubya is just as guilty as Obama here? I'd label any such comments as definitely ultrapartisan.
Then perhaps you shouldn't be calling others something when you have no idea what those people are like? Especially when you are using the term incorrectly. You first accused me of being a birther and of believeing that he followed the religion of islam. When I refuted that bit of idiocy you still continued to call me partisan..sorry, ultrapartisan. (sorry but it was idiocy...you yourself just said that you didn't know my posting history so why would you claim that I was something that had nothing to do with this thread?) By calling me ultrapartisan you are assuming that I am against Obama just because he is a Democrat. (You even tried to show me as being partisan because I didn't ask the same question of Bush. But failed when I brought up the simple fact that Bush never tried to bail out any companies.) When I refuted that you still continue to call me partisan. But the definition of partisan is...
First off, let me correct you on a little history. Bush presented his $700 bailout proposal to Congress back in '08. For sake of any future debate on the subject, it would behoove you know that President Bush - not President Obama - is the one who got the bailout ball rolling (source:
Poll: Most Americans Against Bush's Bailout Plan - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com). All Obama is guilty of doing is supporting (and continuing) the Bush proposal. Right or wrong, both are to blame.
Secondly, I don't need to know your post history nor who you are as a poster to recognize an ultrapartisan comment when one is presented. And I didn't accuse you of being a birther or labelling our President as a Muslim. I made a joke about your ultrapartisan comment, saying that if you are going to engage in such silliness, you could at least add those two things to make it humorous for the rest of us. Perhaps we should dissect both your comment and my reply in order to get us both on the same page.
Anyhow, after this post, I am going to assume that you realize why your earlier comment was ultrapartisan, that President Bush was the one behind the bailouts, and that you will avoid any such errors or ultrapartisan comments in any future debates.
Thanks.