I'm stunned by your inability to read, especially given that fact that you're a highly educated individual who has a degree in a field that prizes evidence.
Apparently, merely disagreeing with you makes me a "right winger". Then, in a petty attempt to force some sort of confirmation that your views of Bush are correct, you seek vindication through assumption. How wildly incorrect.
I've been horrified by the spending and waste that is the signature of the federal government. I see the effects of this irresponsibility. I see no change whatsoever in the next administration...in fact, given that Obama is a solid collectivist, it would be irrational to think that the federal government would spend less.
And just to be clear, are you seriously telling me that you know what is better for my family than I do? Are you that arrogant? Or an elitist? I feel comfortable examining the facts of our economy and determining what type of government is best for my family and the United States.
Are you saying you're smarter than me? Maybe so. Are you saying that because I disagree with you about liberalism that you know best? If that is your assertion, then are you saying that dissonance about liberalism is not allowed? I thought that liberalism was inclusive.
What exactly are you saying?
I don't understand.
What I am saying is that you are making blanket statements that are not based on facts. If that is your personal opinion, so be it. I am asking for the reasons why you think this way. What you do and what you think is your business. But you are sounding like those idiots Hannity and Limbaugh who spout bullshit without thinking and who ignore basic facts. And you are much smarter and a better person than those two assholes.
That's what I am saying.
And as far as evidence goes, it seems pretty clear that the philosophy and policies of the current Idiot in Chief have not worked. Our country is worse for his tenure in Washington and he will go down as the worst President in the history of this country. If you can explain to me how we are better off as a nation because of Bush's tenure, please do so.
It's obvious your agenda is preventing you from understanding such previous statements as:
I've been horrified by the spending and waste that is the signature of the federal government. I see the effects of this irresponsibility.
If that sounds like a ringing endorsement for the Bush administration, then I cannot dialogue with you further. And I find it bizarre that you don't find my disagreement with the Bush administration sufficient to brand me acceptable. I simply choose to find fault with specific policies (Ex: The Merida Initiative, etc) rather than the pap that liberals disgorge on cue....mantras and slogans aren't a sign of intelligence, they're a sign of weakness.
Then, in a howlingly funny turn, you offer personal opinion as fact after skerwering me for the same apparent issue (Bush: Worst president in history- like it or not, it's subjective and you know it regardless of how many people say it).
Regarding my opinion of liberalism, I'll say this: I make one comment about liberalism and suddenly I'm wearing a tinfoil hat. The sanctimony of "you're better than that" is offensive and churlish. Hilarious. It merely reinforces my creeping suspicions that you don't want dissent, you want affirmation. And that makes dialog impossible and frankly tedious.
Unlike the vast majority of the liberals I know who wanted utter failure for George Bush regardless of the consequences, I sincerely hope Obama excels in office because I genuinely care about the welfare of my nation.
Until liberals can demonstrate some modicum of genuine concern for every American, then I have no impetus to engage them in conversation about the direction the government must go.
Republicans, for all their ,faults provide some direct impact on the sovereignty of the country. Liberals have not shown me any willingness to admit that even a small part of opposing views have room at the table in their vision. That scares the shit out of me. If you can't see why, then we have nothing to discuss.
slide, you really can't sprinkle your posts with things like "idiot in chief" and "worst president in history" and expect any of the rest of it to be given any respect from someone on the other side of the argument.
i'm curious to know what you think would have been different if GWB had not been president and Kerry or Gore had been? Other than Iraq, which i find hard to link to the current financial crisis. i predict the housing and mortgage biz would probably have ended up right where it is anyway. the bills to allow sub-prime were all voted in during clinton and you can't tell me any dem pres wouldn't have been riding the same wave of economic boom all the way to the bubble burst.
i agree with bg in that the gov't is already too big, too bloated, too inefficient, too quick to try to spend their way out of a problem, and trying to get too far into all of our lives. this has happened from both sides of the aisle and it is truly inexcusable and this future administration is proposing more....MUCH more.
Can I borrow your towel? My car just hit a water buffalo.