No, I'm very serious. Things Bush gets blamed for are things Bush had a hand in. The extent to which Bush can be blamed for certain things varies, but I have yet to see someone competent blame Bush for something which happened exclusively because of Obama Administration and during the Obama Administration (I exclude really stupid people, like those who think Obama was in charge of the 2005 Katrina response...those people are stupid and I'm not counting those people).
I'm not kidding...but I'm not "the left". I'm a rational person who cares about facts. And we're not talking about Trump's victory, we're talking about how Velvet Elvis posted an obvious lie, didn't know the difference between metaphor and hyperbole and Lowdown falsing claiming people blame on Bush things for which he had no responsibility.
I'm not a leftist and you identify as a conservative on your DP profile.
Not really.
I've seen a few, most of which deal with a house bubble which burst during the Bush administration.
Agreed...but Bush does deserve blame. So, as I said, the amount of blame can be varying, but he deserves blame. So Bush is being blamed for something which he bears responsibility. Like I said.
As I've said to others, an economy is not a light switch. It doesn't change just because there's suddenly a new President. Much of the "malaise" as you call it is the lingering effect of the economy crash which happened under Bush. This is indisputable.
Perception and reality rarely match in hyper partisan environments. For example, you would agree men aren't going to suddenly go around grabbing women by the crotches and white people aren't going to start holding Klan rallies, correct? Well, that is the hyper partisan fear being pushed by those on the extreme left.
I am.
Agreed. Which is why when people blame Bush for certain things for which he bears responsibility, it is a fair statement. And, as I said before, the degree to which he deserves blame can be debated, but not the fact he deserves his share of the blame (whatever share that may be).
Which is evidenced by the election of Donald Trump.
I'm well aware people blame Bush for things he did. I've yet to see many examples of blaming him for things he didn't do.
Yes, to make a point which was false. The point he was trying to make is that people false blame Bush for things he didn't do. And I've yet to see a single example of that. And you have not provided an example of that. Your post basically said certain posters pass more blame on Bush than you feel he deserves...but you didn't deny he deserved some of the blame.
I'm not a leftist and you identify as a conservative on your DP profile.
Small difference.
Not really.
I've seen a few, most of which deal with a house bubble which burst during the Bush administration.
Agreed...but Bush does deserve blame. So, as I said, the amount of blame can be varying, but he deserves blame. So Bush is being blamed for something which he bears responsibility. Like I said.
As I've said to others, an economy is not a light switch. It doesn't change just because there's suddenly a new President. Much of the "malaise" as you call it is the lingering effect of the economy crash which happened under Bush. This is indisputable.
What's also indisputable is the fact that, in the last four years especially, the economy has continued to improve and gain steam. So "malaise" is probably not an appropriate word when discussing the latter half of the Obama economy. The first four years? We were still recovering from the crash which occurred under Bush.
Keep in mind that Bush doesn't bear 100% of the blame for the crash (though, to be fair, Obama deserves NONE of it since he wasn't in office). But he does bear his fair share so when people say the economy under Obama has struggled because of what he inherited from Bush, that's a fair statement.
Perception and reality rarely match in hyper partisan environments. For example, you would agree men aren't going to suddenly go around grabbing women by the crotches and white people aren't going to start holding Klan rallies, correct? Well, that is the hyper partisan fear being pushed by those on the extreme left.
I'm worried about reality, not perception. Are there economic indicators which we'd like to be better? Sure. But considering from where we came, our economy is actually quite decent at the moment and all indications suggest it is fairly stable, unlike what we saw back in 2007.
I am.
Agreed. Which is why when people blame Bush for certain things for which he bears responsibility, it is a fair statement. And, as I said before, the degree to which he deserves blame can be debated, but not the fact he deserves his share of the blame (whatever share that may be).
Which is evidenced by the election of Donald Trump.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't want Clinton as my President either. I wish both primaries had turned out differently. But so many of the things Donald Trump claimed about the economy certainly aren't true on a macro scale.
I'm well aware people blame Bush for things he did. I've yet to see many examples of blaming him for things he didn't do.
Yes, to make a point which was false. The point he was trying to make is that people false blame Bush for things he didn't do. And I've yet to see a single example of that. And you have not provided an example of that. Your post basically said certain posters pass more blame on Bush than you feel he deserves...but you didn't deny he deserved some of the blame.
And that has always been my point. Many Republicans on the board always say "the left just blames Bush for everything". I've not seen that. I've seen people blame Bush for things Bush deserves blame. Your post supported my position. So, absent whatever hyperbole Velvet mentioned, do you have examples of competent people blaming Bush for something he doesn't deserve blame for?
Methinks you not only quoted Shakespeare incorrectly, you also don't know the meaning of the word "protest", as I did nothing of the sort.
Not at all...why?
What the hell are you talking about? I'm not a Democrat and I'll happily point you to a thread where I've said numerous times the boycott of the inauguration is childish. It's in the thread Cardinal started.
A) Bush got us into Iraq. No one tried to pass blame off Obama for that, as was suggested by Elvis. B) The Bush Administration did not tell the truth. This is indisputable. Here's a link to numerous statements made which were untrue:
You would not dispute that the Bush Administration stated things which were not true, correct? So then it's just a matter of how much you think stretching the truth becomes a lie.
You've given me one example, which did not show the passing of blame from Obama to Bush (as Velvet's post was clearly saying) and your one example basically contradicted your position.
I'm as light as a feather. But we're on a debate forum for fun, so debating is fun.
Fair enough, but you could at least acknowledge that I am correct.
You're the best.
Indeed, to both statements.
Most, if not all of them. I can only think of one position I believe in which would be considered more towards the extreme and I regularly and freely acknowledge it is a conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it. Otherwise, I believe in moderation.
But the second source I presented showed the Bush Administration knew they weren't true or, at best, was an incredible stretch.
Which is why I included the second link, to show that the Bush Administration knew the things they were saying were not nearly as true as they claimed them to be. Knowing you are stating something which isn't true makes something a lie. As I've said and you seem to be ignoring.
That's not what the link I presented said. Try reading it this time. The link CLEARLY states:
That's just some of it. Had you actually read the link before you posted you would know that what you posted was nonsense. It is really not that hard to debate with the requisite knowledge to do it honestly, but it does require a little effort.
You replied to me about that very question. So either your reading comprehension is not very good or you are deliberately misrepresenting your involvement in this thread.
I'm not surprised you would run away. As I've said, your posts have never seemed to be interested in facts, just mindless partisan nonsense.
I'm as light as a feather. But we're on a debate forum for fun, so debating is fun.
Fair enough, but you could at least acknowledge that I am correct.
You're the best.
Indeed, to both statements.
Have a good day.
Most, if not all of them. I can only think of one position I believe in which would be considered more towards the extreme and I regularly and freely acknowledge it is a conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it. Otherwise, I believe in moderation.
It says everything it needs to say on this topic.
I don't have enough information to state who my attorney general would be if I were President. For example, I don't begin to believe I know everything Holder did that wasn't mainstream press and Sessions hasn't even been confirmed yet, I don't believe.
