RE: Who's to blame? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Mercnbeth -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 2:31:49 PM)

quote:

No, if memory serves it was the reply your lot had
Who the hell is "your lot"?

My "lot" is having a President who will address the issues before him. The emotion represented by "hatred" only comes into play when observing the failure to date and the pragmatic cost of it.

Okay maybe I hate one more thing - the time waste of assigning blame.




Moonhead -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 2:37:56 PM)

"Your lot" is an English idiom. "You guys", if you're too fucking lazy to use Google.
You've got nothing, then. I thought so.




rulemylife -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 2:44:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

You missed the point completely.

No has ever said it is all Bush's fault as many conservatives and the Fox News clip imply. But he does bear a certain amount of responsibility for many failed policies as well as the inadequate oversight of MMS


No - you continue to miss the point completely. I don't speak for "many conservatives" and I've not watched FOX as a source of news since 9/11.

Any administrator would 'own' the results of everything under their control. Why not Obama? Better yet, why do the Obama supporters consistently make him look so impotent as an administrator by pointing back to prior stipulated failures? How does that make Obama look stronger? More to the point, how does that solve any of the problems?


Then you also apparently did not watch the link provided.

Because that is the topic of the thread and Fox plays a prominent role in the link.

You just want to do your usual venting on Obama without even knowing what is being discussed here.




AsmodaisSin -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 2:46:50 PM)

quote:

I've noticed a strange dichotomy from our conservative friends, they insist that any mention of GWB is inappropriate. That the slate must be wiped clean and Obama is responsible for everything. Now that strikes some people as strange to say the least. It is even stranger when you take a look at the conservative media over the last decade.


I don't think anyone is saying that mention of Bush is sacrilege.  I think what most people are frustrated with is that at every turn he gets, Obama points fingers at the last administration.  I don't think anyone is arguing that Bush was a real piece of work.  I don't even think people are saying Bush was blameless.

Obama's using it is a constant excuse, though.  That pisses people off.  A lot. 




DomKen -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 2:48:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AsmodaisSin

quote:

I've noticed a strange dichotomy from our conservative friends, they insist that any mention of GWB is inappropriate. That the slate must be wiped clean and Obama is responsible for everything. Now that strikes some people as strange to say the least. It is even stranger when you take a look at the conservative media over the last decade.


I don't think anyone is saying that mention of Bush is sacrilege.  I think what most people are frustrated with is that at every turn he gets, Obama points fingers at the last administration.  I don't think anyone is arguing that Bush was a real piece of work.  I don't even think people are saying Bush was blameless.

Obama's using it is a constant excuse, though.  That pisses people off.  A lot. 


Did you watch the link?




Moonhead -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 2:49:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AsmodaisSin

quote:

I've noticed a strange dichotomy from our conservative friends, they insist that any mention of GWB is inappropriate. That the slate must be wiped clean and Obama is responsible for everything. Now that strikes some people as strange to say the least. It is even stranger when you take a look at the conservative media over the last decade.


I don't think anyone is saying that mention of Bush is sacrilege.  I think what most people are frustrated with is that at every turn he gets, Obama points fingers at the last administration.  I don't think anyone is arguing that Bush was a real piece of work.  I don't even think people are saying Bush was blameless.

Obama's using it is a constant excuse, though.  That pisses people off.  A lot. 


Were the same peeople as pissed off when Bush spent eight years doing that, or Reagan spent twice as long as Carter was in office blaming Carter, though? I don't get the impression that they did, and suspect the argument that complaining about a politician looking for a scapegoat in this manner is purely a partisan thing.




AsmodaisSin -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 2:50:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: AsmodaisSin

quote:

I've noticed a strange dichotomy from our conservative friends, they insist that any mention of GWB is inappropriate. That the slate must be wiped clean and Obama is responsible for everything. Now that strikes some people as strange to say the least. It is even stranger when you take a look at the conservative media over the last decade.


I don't think anyone is saying that mention of Bush is sacrilege.  I think what most people are frustrated with is that at every turn he gets, Obama points fingers at the last administration.  I don't think anyone is arguing that Bush was a real piece of work.  I don't even think people are saying Bush was blameless.

Obama's using it is a constant excuse, though.  That pisses people off.  A lot. 


Did you watch the link?


No.  I didn't watch the link.  I got through two or three bleeps and I had to turn it off.  My niece is in my room and I didn't feel it was necessary to subject her to that kind of language.  (Yes, I use cuss words, but not in front of her.  I realize they were bleeped out, but she knows what those bleeps mean.)  Perhaps I'll watch it later, but I felt that I could respond to your original comments, sans expressing any response to the link, effectively. 




AsmodaisSin -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 2:52:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: AsmodaisSin

quote:

I've noticed a strange dichotomy from our conservative friends, they insist that any mention of GWB is inappropriate. That the slate must be wiped clean and Obama is responsible for everything. Now that strikes some people as strange to say the least. It is even stranger when you take a look at the conservative media over the last decade.


I don't think anyone is saying that mention of Bush is sacrilege.  I think what most people are frustrated with is that at every turn he gets, Obama points fingers at the last administration.  I don't think anyone is arguing that Bush was a real piece of work.  I don't even think people are saying Bush was blameless.

Obama's using it is a constant excuse, though.  That pisses people off.  A lot. 


Were the same peeople as pissed off when Bush spent eight years doing that, or Reagan spent twice as long as Carter was in office blaming Carter, though? I don't get the impression that they did, and suspect the argument that complaining about a politician looking for a scapegoat in this manner is purely a partisan thing.


I don't remember Bush doing it often if at all.  If he did, then he was just as much of a schmuck as Obama is for doing it.  I also don't remember anything about the Reagan administration.  I was kind of not born then.  I could look at speeches if it would please you, but I haven't taken the time to do so as of this moment.




joether -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 2:52:15 PM)

There is a better way to explain this. One in which, many conservatives can understand. Remember dear Liberals; the conservatives on here, need things kept simple and short. Not because, its the best way to keep all the lies and misinformation from becoming illogical or contradictory, but because they can't handle complex stuff. The whole health care reform bill, was simply five grade levels above their heads. So yes, what they dont understand, they assume is false, UNLESS, it benefits their position. So, while many of us liberals use the concept of 'history', by reading, understanding, and try not to repeat it. They, just dont get the concept.

A few months ago, I was talking to a priest regarding politics. While, I'm not catholic, I could understand the wisdom of the guy's story. He said, back in the days of Clinton, when it looked like Democrats were going to take over all three branchs of the USA goverment, Republicans started becoming paranoid (like, today's fear-mongering with a rocket strapped to it). They (the Republicans), made a deal with the Devil (this guy is Catholic, remeber). They figured, that since they are the masters of mis-information, lies, and avoiding responsiblity; they could get massive power, and screw the Devil. So, they made their deal with the Devil, to get massive power, money, fortune, and fame. The Devil was oh so happy to do this for the Republican party. Not because he gets their souls, but because it causes more chaos, destruction, and suffering to be inflicted on the world.

An so, Republicans starting winning across the country in seats of power (i.e. Congress and the Supreme Court), and soon, the President's office. They enjoyed massive power, without any of the responsiblity, since the Devil, 'had their back'. So, such things as worrying about the unsecure borders the USA has, illegal immigration reform, or even dealing with unsecured nuclear items in Russia, wasn't even on their radar (the Republicans, not the Devil). Likewise, they could make war with flimsy evidence, and give huge funding (Republicans call it 'bail outs' these days) to companies like Haliburton and KBR. They got rid of the regulations and regulators, since they believed, foolishly, the 'Devil would keep those ignorant Democrats in their place'. Never a worry, and full disregard for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but non-republicans (like the poor, most of the middle class, and those over in Irag and Afghanistan for their 5th tour in 4 years).

But, the Devil, ALWAYS, get's his end of the bargain. And the Republicans, missed the extra 'fine print', on to which the dotted line they signed. Because of that, the Devil wanted his end of things, and the Republicans tried to send an army of lawyers to resist. They failed. An so the Devil decided to take the Republican's tactics, out on America! He made sure some Republicans were seen and taped in comprising positions, for all those 'family values' conservative types. And others to feel bankruptcy, from schemes so immoral, and unethical, the 'Con Arts of America' would give them a 'Life Time Achievement Award'. Oh yes, the Devil, even allowed the Democrats to get the Office of the President. But not just am old, out of shaped, rich, white guy. No, a fit, young, highly intelligent and educated, black man! On top of that, removed scores of Republicans from the House and Senate. Oh yes, the Devil got his side of the bargain, and more.

And even today, as this priest was explaining, the Republicans are STILL making and breaking deals with the Devil. Each time, they ask for more power, money, and fame. And each time, they try to break the deal before paying the price. And America keeps paying the price for every deal. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? From those that wanted the Devil's help in 'streamlining' (read: reduction and removal), of regulations and regulators. The dervatives scam of Goldman Sachs? That too, this priest explain, was another group of Republicans trying to get big fortunes without an ounce of responsiblity.

So I asked the guy, if Democrats did this, and expecting him to say 'nope'. Actually, he said, they have a few times. But as he pointed out, that the liberal philosophy is one that demands intelligence, compassion, education, and wisdom. That, one would reconized that while nuclear power provides considerable energy to the needs of Americans, it is not safe nor easy to create. Even after the spent fuel rods are used, they have to be stored some where. That place, has to be designed to withstand the properties of nuclear contamination of the ground, air, and water. Likewise, they have to be guarded at all times, with a highly trained and motivated staff. That there, costs considerable amounts of money.

Now, I am trying to retell the story, of this priest, since, as he pointed out, is much easier to convey to conservatives. The majority of conservatives in the US of A, seem to have de-evolved, lossing considerable knowledge and wisdom over the past four decades. Their attitudes are easy to inflame and make angry. As he pointed out too, that an angry man, NEVER makes wise decisions, regardless of the situation.I've observed this, with the tea party activists. They are very angry, but provide no realistic solutions to the problems. It is hard to have a mature, and deep level conservation with them on any situation of the country. Likewise, when a decision is to be put together and agreed upon, this group take the 'my way or the highway' attitude. They want to hold America hostage in every way and shape, until they get what they want, with no strings attached. I think this counrty has had more then enough examples from conservatives, on situations, that with 'no strings attached' as proved a failing. And that failing costs us money, people, and time!







DomKen -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 2:52:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AsmodaisSin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: AsmodaisSin

quote:

I've noticed a strange dichotomy from our conservative friends, they insist that any mention of GWB is inappropriate. That the slate must be wiped clean and Obama is responsible for everything. Now that strikes some people as strange to say the least. It is even stranger when you take a look at the conservative media over the last decade.


I don't think anyone is saying that mention of Bush is sacrilege.  I think what most people are frustrated with is that at every turn he gets, Obama points fingers at the last administration.  I don't think anyone is arguing that Bush was a real piece of work.  I don't even think people are saying Bush was blameless.

Obama's using it is a constant excuse, though.  That pisses people off.  A lot. 


Did you watch the link?


No.  I didn't watch the link.  I got through two or three bleeps and I had to turn it off.  My niece is in my room and I didn't feel it was necessary to subject her to that kind of language.  (Yes, I use cuss words, but not in front of her.  I realize they were bleeped out, but she knows what those bleeps mean.)  Perhaps I'll watch it later, but I felt that I could respond to your original comments, sans expressing any response to the link, effectively. 


You miss the point. Many on the right, including many habitues of this forum, are hypocrites because they routinely blamed things on Clinton during Bush's tenure in office but have whined quite a bit when anyone has blamed GWB for anything since 2009.




juliaoceania -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 2:53:27 PM)

quote:

No.  I didn't watch the link.  I got through two or three bleeps and I had to turn it off.  My niece is in my room and I didn't feel it was necessary to subject her to that kind of language.  (Yes, I use cuss words, but not in front of her.  I realize they were bleeped out, but she knows what those bleeps mean.)  Perhaps I'll watch it later, but I felt that I could respond to your original comments, sans expressing any response to the link, effectively. 


Perhaps it would be better to watch the link before commenting on it?


He clearly shows over and over how the right is giving Bush a pass when they didn't give one to Clinton...etc




AsmodaisSin -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 2:58:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: AsmodaisSin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: AsmodaisSin

quote:

I've noticed a strange dichotomy from our conservative friends, they insist that any mention of GWB is inappropriate. That the slate must be wiped clean and Obama is responsible for everything. Now that strikes some people as strange to say the least. It is even stranger when you take a look at the conservative media over the last decade.


I don't think anyone is saying that mention of Bush is sacrilege.  I think what most people are frustrated with is that at every turn he gets, Obama points fingers at the last administration.  I don't think anyone is arguing that Bush was a real piece of work.  I don't even think people are saying Bush was blameless.

Obama's using it is a constant excuse, though.  That pisses people off.  A lot. 


Did you watch the link?


No.  I didn't watch the link.  I got through two or three bleeps and I had to turn it off.  My niece is in my room and I didn't feel it was necessary to subject her to that kind of language.  (Yes, I use cuss words, but not in front of her.  I realize they were bleeped out, but she knows what those bleeps mean.)  Perhaps I'll watch it later, but I felt that I could respond to your original comments, sans expressing any response to the link, effectively. 


You miss the point. Many on the right, including many habitues of this forum, are hypocrites because they routinely blamed things on Clinton during Bush's tenure in office but have whined quite a bit when anyone has blamed GWB for anything since 2009.


I haven't been here that long to have read through years and years of transcripts to comment on anyone else's opinion.  -I- would like to see Obama stop blaming the last administration, shut up, and fix it.  I don't give a shit whose fault it was first.  In fact, I'll even say IT WAS ALL BUSH'S fault...for the most part. 

If Obama were man enough and worthy enough of the presidency, he'd stop blaming Bush and just get his job done.  People don't want to see a whiner as our president.  They want to see someone man up and get stuff done. 




AsmodaisSin -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 2:59:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

No.  I didn't watch the link.  I got through two or three bleeps and I had to turn it off.  My niece is in my room and I didn't feel it was necessary to subject her to that kind of language.  (Yes, I use cuss words, but not in front of her.  I realize they were bleeped out, but she knows what those bleeps mean.)  Perhaps I'll watch it later, but I felt that I could respond to your original comments, sans expressing any response to the link, effectively. 


Perhaps it would be better to watch the link before commenting on it?


He clearly shows over and over how the right is giving Bush a pass when they didn't give one to Clinton...etc


When I get a chance, I will.  I'm not sure how great of a resource the guy is, though.  I haven't heard that kind of language out of Beck often.  Or O'Reilly.  Or Hannity.  Or any of the Fox people. 




Moonhead -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 3:02:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AsmodaisSin

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

No.  I didn't watch the link.  I got through two or three bleeps and I had to turn it off.  My niece is in my room and I didn't feel it was necessary to subject her to that kind of language.  (Yes, I use cuss words, but not in front of her.  I realize they were bleeped out, but she knows what those bleeps mean.)  Perhaps I'll watch it later, but I felt that I could respond to your original comments, sans expressing any response to the link, effectively. 


Perhaps it would be better to watch the link before commenting on it?


He clearly shows over and over how the right is giving Bush a pass when they didn't give one to Clinton...etc


When I get a chance, I will.  I'm not sure how great of a resource the guy is, though.  I haven't heard that kind of language out of Beck often.  Or O'Reilly.  Or Hannity.  Or any of the Fox people. 


Isn't that purely because you've only seen them making excuses for a President they liked before now?




juliaoceania -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 3:07:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AsmodaisSin

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

No.  I didn't watch the link.  I got through two or three bleeps and I had to turn it off.  My niece is in my room and I didn't feel it was necessary to subject her to that kind of language.  (Yes, I use cuss words, but not in front of her.  I realize they were bleeped out, but she knows what those bleeps mean.)  Perhaps I'll watch it later, but I felt that I could respond to your original comments, sans expressing any response to the link, effectively. 


Perhaps it would be better to watch the link before commenting on it?


He clearly shows over and over how the right is giving Bush a pass when they didn't give one to Clinton...etc


When I get a chance, I will.  I'm not sure how great of a resource the guy is, though.  I haven't heard that kind of language out of Beck often.  Or O'Reilly.  Or Hannity.  Or any of the Fox people. 



He is a comedian. Comedians often use language. The bleep his words on tv.

I rely on the content of what someone says over the delivery... but that is just me




Moonhead -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 3:11:14 PM)

As a comedian he has an artistic license, and can use any fucking cunt of a word he chooses, even if it gets pissing bleeped out for the cunting broadcast. That's a given, and it's a style matter not fucking substance in any case.




domiguy -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 3:14:05 PM)

You gotta love how those fuckers at Fox are such fuckers.




Moonhead -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 3:17:56 PM)

Bunch of fucking cunts, true enough.




juliaoceania -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 3:26:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

As a comedian he has an artistic license, and can use any ****** **** of a word he chooses, even if it gets ******* bleeped out for the ******* broadcast. That's a given, and it's a style matter not *******substance in any case.


I thought I would edit this post as an example of what it would look like if shown on tv




Moonhead -> RE: Who's to blame? (6/30/2010 3:32:08 PM)

I was hoping the point would stand if you didn't bother, but thank you.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875