Why would he wish for that when he can continue blaming it on the Bush administration?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

He has right to blame the Bush administration. But he also wants to fix the economy, and that's obviously what he's trying to do

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Your ignorance is amusing.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So is your insult given in place of an actual response to my statement.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah was that an insult, or a reference to your belief of the lies you've been fed? Let's see. It's been a year and a half since his presidency. What has he done? Gotten us out of Iraq a year late, and raised taxes. Great going.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's been a year and a half of trying to fix the economy since it fell greatly before his term. I believe it would be quite ignorant in fact to expect such a quick fix to such a large problem. Also, Iraq? Taxes? Pretty sure we're talking about the economy here, don't try to spark this debate into a greater scope than it should be (read what the post says again...).

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, literally, that is all he has done. Besides go on about a hundred vacations. And whine and stuff. The thing is, he hasn't even done ANYthing to improve the economy. The only thing that could bring it out is a war. Cough Iraq.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I guess you're a selective reader, let me help you out with that again: Also, Iraq? Taxes? Pretty sure we're talking about the economy here, don't try to spark this debate into a greater scope than it should be (read what the post says again...). "The thing is, he hasn't even done ANYthing to improve the economy" to address that anyway, yes he has..? I think you need to read/watch the news a little more; do the phrases "stimulus package" and "Wallstreet reform" mean anything to you?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And which of those actually helped in the least, rather than wasting any money? Maybe you should read "improve" again.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh you're right, I'm sure that proper Wallstreet (ie the backbone of our economy) regulation wouldn't help at all.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I didn't say that "proper" regulation wouldn't.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well his reform imposed said proper regulation.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Honestly, that law did nothing. Nobody even read it entirely. (Exaggeration; obviously somebody read it, not Obama, though.) There were no strict regulations enacted.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Unfounded statement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act#Provisions looks like some significant regulatory changes to me. (yes it's Wikipedia, you can dispute individual citations if you'd like)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Unbacked clever wordplay. http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/wall-street-reform-does-main-street/ Yes, it's Foxnews, so nothing is disputable.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's not unbacked if I provided a source.. stop saying things just because you think that they sound good. "Yes, it's Foxnews, so nothing is disputable." actually had a good laugh when you said that, I'm just going to stop here because it's clear who I'm debating this with. By that I mean that this seems is going to evolve into the debate over credibly sources and opinions and he said this and she said that bullshit. There's really no point to it, especially with someone who is clearly unwilling to think past his own personal biases.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Pfft. You know your last line? It's very common for someone who knows they lost. They say the other is blind, when in actuality, it's usually the other way around. In any case, just because I'm republican, and think for myself, doesn't mean squat. Politics aren't my thing. I can hold my belief, but when it comes down to it, you don't believe anything from Fox News, and for me, anything from CNN and the other liberal news stations.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Anonymous' last line was a line commonly used by people who know that they are right, but are tired of arguing with someone so stubborn. What people do when they lose is not provide evidence for why they think the way they do, insult people, or just not reply at all. You, my friend, are notorius (sp?) for all 3. And don't say that people who don't reply only do it because they don't feel like they need to argue (which is sometimes the case) because I have learned that you always at least try to say that the other person is wrong without backing it up. Also, it is common knowledge that Fox News is a biased source when it come to politics. Do some research from news based on facts, not exaggerations. Obama has done all he could do so far. If anyone else was president, everyone would complain about him too.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well actually it's if it was any other Democratic president, Republicans would complain about him, I mean really they are getting quiet desperate and they are using the examples that you have listed to attack Obama personally and not even what he is doing, I don't know if you guys heard his speech the other day, but he really murked them. Btw I'm for Obama, that post was really just a joke and I'm kind of sadened to think everyone that thumbed it up is a Republican and the ones that thumbed it down are Democrats.... Hope this doesn't make you vote against it :/

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't know... A lot of Republicans complained about Bush. It just seems like everyone only sees a president's shortcomings and not achievements.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

>> They say the other is blind, when in actuality, it's usually the other way around. So, what you're saying is, "People lose their argument and say someone else is blind, so I'm not blind, YOU'RE blind!"

by Anonymous 13 years ago

He is the pill son! I'm just fucking with you i don't like obama

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'd like to see one of you do a better job as president.

by Anonymous 13 years ago