Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
lets take some time to understand your view point
When Bush, on the heels of a massive attack against the nation in the heart of New York City talks about the threats and the risks and the changes that need to happen - he's just fear mongering and trying to scare people to push an agenda?
When Obama stands up and does absolutely nothing but talk about how bad the economy is, how bad its going to get and how there is just no time to discuss the biggest spending bill in the history of the world because there's just no time and the cost of losing one second debating it is just too great... he's just doing what needs to be done?
Repeat after me:
"My name is StuartD, i'm very liberal. That's not a bad thing, it just means that my personal political views are biased towards one side and means that i can't treat any political issue fairly.. so don't expect a well thought out, fair, insightful or well reasoned discussion on my part"
there.. now you're free and on the road to becoming a rational human being.
|
Sort of revisionist history there. The country supported Bush after the attacks. His approval rating was nearly 90% when the Afghanistan war started and over 60% when the Iraq war started. He was given the benefit of the doubt. The public turned on him when they realized that Iraq was never a threat and the was was completely pointless.
If in a couple years we look back and see that there was nothing to be worried about, people have every right to call Obama a fearmongerer and whatever else. But to act as though the public didn't give Bush the benefit of the doubt is revisionist history.