So what the poster boy for Liberal politics is trying to say is that the people who elected Obama couldn't possibly have believed his FALSE rhetoric. It is refreshing to see such honesty, but it doesn't remove the blatant hypocrisy.
No I didn't say that. In your typical fashion, you spin things in order to build your argument. Let's see how many more times you do this. The argument that has been framed here is that Obama promised to change Washington. The response has been "well it looks like business as usual to me, is this the kind of change we can expect." You are building a case based upon an ambiguous campaign slogan. My point is that nobody who actually has an understanding of how Washington or the political system here works ever believed that he could or would actually "change Washington." He said he was bringing change. And he has. This is where the spin comes in. You're just being obtuse now.
Obama promised to increase jobs by 3.5 million, forget about it, just campaign rhetoric; Obama promised to eliminate waste in Government, forget about it, just more campaign rhetoric. Obama promised to help the poor, forget about it, it's just campaign rhetoric. Obama promised in bi-partisanship and transparency in Government, forget about it, just more of the same campaign rhetoric. You didn't ACTUALLY believe it did you?
Now you are extrapolating. I never said that. He hasn't had nearly enough time in office to accomplish these things anyway. I have clearly stated it's too early in his Presidency to indict him on such things so why would I then turn around and do it? That won't stop you though! :rofl
Like a true Liberal in true Liberal fashion what Lerxst here is trying to say is that we should not judge a Liberal like Obama on his results or his promises, but should instead focus on the fact that he cares and is at least trying to do something.
I never said that, I never implied that. It appears the poster boy for intellectually constipated right wing hyper partisans is yet again relying on manufacturing his opponents arguments for them so that he can beat his chest, bloviate, and declare victory! Obama should and will be judged on his performance as President. However three months into a four year tour is a bit early to be calling him a failure and saying he broke his promises. Many of these things are going to take time to develop. But that won't stop you!
Forget that his legislation is leading to $1.7 trillion in deficit spending, forget that his legislation will increase the National Debt and cause inflation, forget that his foreign policy will make us less safe and by all means, forget that he will be raising the costs of doing business and taxes on EVERY man woman and child in America.
I'll decide whether or not to forget it if and when it actually happens. I'll leave the prophesying of librul doom to the likes of you. You've had plenty of training apparently and love your work.
But you just stated above: "if he is the President, cannot change how Washington works" and "His campaign slogan was not a promise he could actually keep...it was a slogan". So which is it, he is not changing anything or he IS changing things?
Uh oh...here's that famous TD Spin Move again! A campaign slogan of "Change We Can Believe In" is far to ambiguous too be able to keep or break. But then you know what I meant, however your M.O. dictates that you apply your slant to it in order to keep typing.
What Republicans are railing about is not the promised change, it's the hypocrisy of the change promised and the lack of honesty of his sloganism.
Translated: "But he promised change! This isn't change!" Your own sentence eats itself. Back to the drawing board.
I am fine if he wants to increase the deficit by $1.7 trillion dollars; you and the uninformed American people voted for it; now I just want him to be honest about who will be paying for it.
Who exactly is he saying is paying for it? Leprechauns? You're making an accusation that he is lying about who is paying for it. Please, give me specifics of this lie.
So who do you think is going to pay for the increased deficit to $1.7 trillion this year and increase in debt it will take to pay for it all? The rich? I don't think so because even if you taxed them at 100% it would not begin to pay for the deficit.
Taxpayers will pay for it. Taxpayers pay taxes...get it?
I haven’t seen anyone on the right argue he hasn’t changed anything. I have seen them harp on business as usual and that he hasn’t changed anything regarding Afghanistan, the war on terror, handling of “detainees”, getting out of Iraq and the Patriot Act. Suddenly all those formally evil Bush policies make sense to him.
Of course, because the rights mantra of "business as usual" actually means "we realize he's changed some things." Your also building a false dichotomy around "Obama said they were bad, but now he says they are good." It's not nearly that simple nor has that position been taken by Obama.
What the right is harping on is the criminal like negligence of spending us into $1.7 trillion deficits without any honest debate who will pay for it all and the outright blatant hypocrisy of Democrats who railed against Bush’s deficits yet now suggest that they make perfect sense when 8.5 time greater!
Criminal negligence you say? Do you know what criminal negligence actually means? Here you go with your unnecessary injection of exaggeration, dramatic but ignorant characterizations, and healthy doses of "the sky is falling" rhetoric. It wasn't just that Bush was spending money, it's what he was spending that money on. And there was debate, your Congress debated it, your Congress passed it up to the President. Your Congress was behind it. I'll take spending a $850 billion dollars on domestic programs and job creation vs. $700 billion dollars on an unnecessary invasion and occupation of a country any day of the week.
Yes, Obama won and now those of you who spent every waking moment whining about Bush are offended that the right would do the same to Obama; why is that?
Offended? Hardly, what is offensive about it? Glad to see you admit you and yours spend every waking moment whining though. At least we have some common ground now.
Are you hypocrites? Are you wallowing so deep in denial that you think there should be no opposition parties when YOUR guys are in power? Are you wallowing so deep in denial when you railed about the evils of ONE party control that now that YOUR party has it there should be no critics?
You’ve gone beyond wallowing in denial; you are all deep diving in it.
Yes, it's denial. :rofl Seriously, when you make stuff like this up I'm not sure what I should do. If I ignore it based on the fact that it's ignorant tripe, you will bellow that you are winning. If I actually address it and break it down I legitimize your rhetoric. See I've done it...I've gone and made you think that when you post this kind of crap you are actually making some kind of valid point.
It is delightful to see people like you make fools of yourselves defending the very issues you so rabidly attacked in your emotional hyper partisan diatribes on Bush.
You have no idea what I attacked or how I attacked it. But don't let me or the truth stand in the way of your typing.
You Liberals can’t even be honest about your nonsensical views; you want to make everyone believe that you had “just” reasons to hate Bush, but it all boils down to the election in 2000 and fighting a war which few, if any, on the left would ever support regardless of the reasons.
Sweet baby Jesus, you just have all the answers about the left there don't ya TD? It's all about the 2000 election? Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Of course your M.O. here depends on a very strict adherence to the belief that your reality is THE reality, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised when you type things like this and infer that you are all knowing. Moving on, the decision to invade Iraq deserved no support because it was
unnecessary. Tens of thousands are now dead with hundreds of billions spent destroying and then rebuilding the nation. Shame on anyone, Dem or Rep, who supported the decision to invade Iraq.
It’s the same idiotic logic that would blame Bush for the deaths of our soldiers and civilians instead of the desperate murdering terrorist thugs who commit the atrocities.
Would our soldiers in Iraq have been killed if Bush had not decided to invade Iraq? Yes or no? Do you know what the words culpability or responsibility mean? How about the term "cause and effect?"
Carry on; I look forward to more clown like assertions and red herring arguments the left hurls incessantly on this and other blogs desperately trying to defend the rabid emotional hyper partisan hypocrisy.
Oh hey a catch phrase ending! Who didn't see that coming?
