- Thread starter
- #41
I'm not going to speak for Vidi, but your assertion really is silly Foxy. Just because someone looks at one issue as not being the responsibility of the president doesn't mean the president has no effect on anything.
Or, to put it another way, would you say that since the president gets the credit or blame for the issues on your list, that we shouldn't bother voting or paying attention to congress? After all, it's only the president that matters!
I suppose I need to run the sarcasm detection program again.
The Obama supporters, including Vidi, seem to be bending over backwards to excuse Obama for the 15 items on the list because:
1. The President isn't responsible for that . . . .or. . . .
2. It is only that bad because of what he inherited from Bush. . . or . . .
3. Bush was worse or Bush did it too.
In other words, they seem to think it is unfair to characterize any of the 15 items as pertinent to Obama's record.
1. Because hes NOT. Thats just how it is. You cannot blame a guy for something that took place BEFORE he came into office or when he doesnt even hold the purse strings. You want to blame the Harry Reid Senate for not passing a budget? I might (prolly will but with stipulations ) back you on that. But Obama? With a fillibuster happy Republican senate minority ( 1st two years ) and a Obstructionist Republican House ( 2nd two years )? You cannot be honest and not take those things into account.
2. Its about trends. What was the trend when he took office? Was that stat going up or down? What is the historical norm? Did he reverve the bad trends? Maintain the good trends?
3. If I got pissed at Bush for doing something, Im pissed at Obama if he does the same thing. I only ask for the same from my "opponents" its called CONSISTANCY.
Because it is unfair. You cant blame Truman for World War or Nixon for Viet Nam or FDR for the Great Depression ( though lately the Right certainly has tried that rewrite of history as well )
All Im asking for is honesty, Fox. You give me honesty and Ill debate you on any subject you want. We can do so with respect for one another and common decency. We can do so fairly and maybe even find common ground . But the ONLY way to do that is to start from a place thats honest. And that blog from Mr Hawkins is less than honest.
Okay, in the interest of honesty, let's back up and refocus. You are by means not the only one who is failing to grasp the point of the OP.
So once again. . . . .
It does not matter what conditions existed in any other President's administration.
It does not matter whether or not the President is directly responsible for any item in the list in the OP.
It does not matter who is most to blame for the conditions that exist.
The OP lists 15 separate facts, all of which I think can be shown to be true statements.
Each numbered statement specifies a fact of something that exists at this time, three years and six months into Barack Obama's first term of office.
If we are honest, these 15 items would all be considered as part of the record of any previous President's record.
The 15 statements are presented without assigning blame, cause, or process.
The question is, if you accept that the 15 statements are true, why would anybody want to re-elect Barack Obama?