Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-21-2009, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Austin
1,476 posts, read 1,779,781 times
Reputation: 435

Advertisements

Quote:
The human capacity for self-delusion never ceases to amaze me, so it shouldn't surprise me that so many Republicans seem to genuinely believe that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. Perhaps at one time they were, but those days are long gone.

[MOD CUT/copyright]
Do all you Bush lovers out there how do you justify this? Why was it ok for Bush to burn through money, but no one else. I want answers; no beating around the bush or changing the subject .

Read the full story at: Republican Deficit Hypocrisy - Forbes.com

Last edited by Ibginnie; 11-22-2009 at 06:54 PM.. Reason: copyright violation
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2009, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,606,338 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by joejitsu View Post
Do all you Bush lovers out there how do you justify this? Why is it ok for Bush to burn through money, but no one else. I want answers; no beating around the bush or changing the subject .

Read the full story at: Republican Deficit Hypocrisy - Forbes.com

Freudian slip ? I notice you used the verb "is". Bush is not in office and Bush is not spending.

He was in office and he did spend. But Congress had to approve whatever he did spend so what's your point ? That Congress really ok'd burning through money ?

If that's so, then they are still doing it today. The President signs bills but remember it has to get through Congress first.

At some point you have to let it drop. Bush is gone almost a year now.
Time to move on with your life and get to know the Obama administration instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2009, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Austin
1,476 posts, read 1,779,781 times
Reputation: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post

He was in office and he did spend. But Congress had to approve whatever he did spend so what's your point ? That Congress really ok'd burning through money ?

If that's so, then they are still doing it today. The President signs bills but remember it has to get through Congress first.
Bush proposed the bill and at the time the republicans controlled congress. Many of those republicans are gone for the the hypocrisy they showed. Nice job trying to shift the blame from Bush though, but you failed and my question remains unanswered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2009, 09:02 AM
 
817 posts, read 854,352 times
Reputation: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by joejitsu View Post
Do all you Bush lovers out there how do you justify this? Why is it ok for Bush to burn through money, but no one else. I want answers; no beating around the bush or changing the subject .

Read the full story at: Republican Deficit Hypocrisy - Forbes.com
Awesome, let's talk about answers.

The Republicans are terrible with money just like the Democrats.
But pointing out another Republican mistake doesn't justify the administration or Democrats following suit and vice versa. That's just stupid.

It's not ok for just Bush to burn through money but to say hey we should burn through money because the last guy did is idiotic. What is wrong with you people?

Next question?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2009, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,606,338 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by joejitsu View Post
Bush proposed the bill and at the time the republicans controlled congress. Many of those republicans are gone for the the hypocrisy they showed. Nice job trying to shift the blame from Bush though, but you failed and my question remains unanswered.
The blame lies soley with Congress. Proposing does not give him the authority to spend.

And we had a Republican Congress right up until 1/20/2009 ?

I was putting the blame where it belongs..on Congress, not the President.
The President has the power to veto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2009, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Austin
1,476 posts, read 1,779,781 times
Reputation: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by maskedman View Post
Awesome, let's talk about answers.

The Republicans are terrible with money just like the Democrats.
But pointing out another Republican mistake doesn't justify the administration or Democrats following suit and vice versa. That's just stupid.

It's not ok for just Bush to burn through money but to say hey we should burn through money because the last guy did is idiotic. What is wrong with you people?

Next question?
Good to have someone finally admit that Bush made a mistake, and I never said that justified spending now so don't put words in my mouth. I want to know why weren't there tea parties back then? Where was the outrage on the right? Why was it ok then, but not now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
The blame lies soley with Congress. Proposing does not give him the authority to spend.

And we had a Republican Congress right up until 1/20/2009 ?

I was putting the blame where it belongs..on Congress, not the President.
The President has the power to veto.
Did you bother to read the article? This bill was passed during the republican controlled congress. Bush was the one who came up with the bill, kinda like how Obama came up with the current health care bill. But by your logic its not Obama its congress. Nothing is the presidents fault its all congress's fault. I guess you are going to have to stop blaming Obama for everything and blame only congress if you did the same with Bush.

Some people were, and still are, so in love with Bush that they lost the ability to use logic and reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2009, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,606,338 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by joejitsu View Post
Some people were, and still are, so in love with Bush that they lost the ability to use logic and reason.
I didn't vote for Bush the first time and didn't vote for Bush the second time.
If someone disagrees with you then they are labeled "Bush lovers" ?


Guess I'm done here..you are just looking for posters to agree with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2009, 09:50 AM
 
59,300 posts, read 27,477,308 times
Reputation: 14338
What most on the left refuse to accept is that there is difference between republican and conservative.
Bush never ran as a consevative. The conservatives complained a lot about excessive spending. AKA the drug bill, the education bill, etc.

Most republicans who lost in the elections were moderates who lost to moderate democrats.

Conservatives vote republican only because that party best represents thier views. Look at NY 23 district as an example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2009, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Austin
1,476 posts, read 1,779,781 times
Reputation: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
What most on the left refuse to accept is that there is difference between republican and conservative.
Bush never ran as a consevative. The conservatives complained a lot about excessive spending. AKA the drug bill, the education bill, etc.

Most republicans who lost in the elections were moderates who lost to moderate democrats.

Conservatives vote republican only because that party best represents thier views. Look at NY 23 district as an example.
So there were no conservatives in the republican party that would stand up to this kind of intimidation by Bush and his minions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2009, 12:00 PM
 
9,803 posts, read 16,218,369 times
Reputation: 8266
I disn't vote for Bush in 2000, I didn't vote for Bush in 2004, I didn't vote for Obama in 2008.

Let's compare defecit spending with drinking--------I dodn't approve Bush "drinking"
-------I darn sure don't approve of Obama binge " drinking" either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:57 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top