JEB BUSH: Obama Should Focus on His Job, Not My Brother

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Revmitchell, Apr 10, 2009.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,339
    Likes Received:
    786
    “If I had one humble criticism of President Obama it would be to stop this notion of somehow framing everything in the context of ‘everything was bad before I got here’ and focus on his duties, which we all want him to succeed. But constantly pushing down the previous president to make yourself look good, I think is a bad thing.”

    Statement Here
     
  2. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Putting some else down to try to make yourself appear better is an age old tactic.

    Normally it works only with those who are already on your side anyway.
     
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    And it doesn't even make him look good. It makes him look petty and even more ineffective at what he is doing.
     
  4. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't believe Obama blaming of Bush is to make himself "look good", it is to frame our current situation by reminding folks critical of his handling of the situation (namely the right) of whose watch the situation came to be. This in no way makes Obama look good, it simply says the ideology you advocate to get us out is the ideology being used when we got here.

    Bush cut taxes and deregulated but no one believes government debt or government spending is how we got here... It was personal debt and not government debt. There is a world of difference.
     
  5. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I don't recall President Bush personally dumping on Clinton after he was inaugurated, some of his administration probably did after they found out how he had screwed up on Osama.

    However, for a sitting president to critize a former president and his country in a foreign country demonstrates the shallowness of obama's character. But then he sat at the feet of Wright for 20 years.
     
  6. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it's called deflection and is simply a variation of putting someone else down to make your self look better.

    Obama campaigned on "yes we can" put is now working from a position of "it's all his fault".
     
  7. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    They did though most of it was true. Remember how Clinton folks sabotaged the computers etc... which got Bush' administration off to a slow start? As far as the economy, there was a surplus when Bush took over and we were not at war.

    Did he criticize Bush in foreign lands? Was it by saying he is different? Or that America is now willing to listen and recognize instead of just dictating? What was the criticism?
     
  8. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought it was human nature to say "I didn't do it" so I don't agree it is a variation of putting someone down. It's like a doctor coming to help a shot victim, sometimes we must remind the victim you are not the one who shot them. You're there to help. Does that make the doctor look better? No... It just introduces all the characters involved.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    If he believes this, then it is another indication of just how out of touch and informed he is. The ideology that got us here is spending money. We are trillions of dollars in debt, and Obama is continuing that ideology. It shows again that he is a poor leader who has surrounded himself with bad people who don't tell him the truth. Many of us said this would happen, but some here didn't listen. Now it all comes true.

    It was not about deregulation per se. It was about spending, both individually and government spending. People want to blame deregulation of the mortgage companies (something Bush tried to do something about, BTW), but mortgage companies weren't behind the greed of the consumer who had to have a bigger house.

    So let's put the blame where it belongs. Obama is continuing the things that got us here. He is playing politics with our future.
     
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,339
    Likes Received:
    786

    Of course, its ok (to libbies) to criticize Bush but it is not ok to criticize Obama. Do libbies even think about what they say?
     
  11. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Care to explain how Government debt caused banking to fail and the mortgages to become tainted? Care to explain how government debt caused 8.5% unemployment?

    Listen to what? Things have improved slightly where I am. You can get a loan now. I have a couple of friends who were in foreclosure whose banks has called and are renegotiating their loans. What is it you warned us about that has come true?

    http://911reports.wordpress.com/200...s-passes-wide-ranging-bill-easing-bank-laws’/

    You must have missed the thread where we discussed regulation that was initially put in place because it was seen as responsible for the great depression. Congress, combination of parties, removed that regulation and here we are. Basically that regulation made sure banks, insurance and financial services remained separate companies. The reason it was important is do you didn't have situations like AIG where the insurance division insured the bank loans and the financial services encouraged people to invest in that volatile mess. This was a major contributer to this mess.

    The republican's had total control for 6 years of the Bush administration. They had every chance to pass any legislation they felt necessary. Saying they sounded the alarm is not sufficient, why didn't they do something? They had the votes.

    Could it be the party was as divided then as it is now with no common objectives or goals?
     
  12. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stating facts isn't criticizing so a person shouldn't be criticized for telling the truth (stating facts). This situation did come about on Bush' watch. Don't worry, the right will make sure Obama rightly gets the credit for anything bad that happens on his watch. That is how it is done and I don't see why it is expected to change now.

    Kind of like how we blame Carter but that mess he got from Ford... No one really gave Ford the credit, we blamed Carter well into the Reagan administration. Carter raising interest rates was how we got out of the mess and why Reagan kept his treasury secretary in his cabinet. Now I know raising interest rates didn't go over well with the people but hind site says it was a bitter pill that in reality was a good prescription.
     
    #12 LeBuick, Apr 11, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 11, 2009
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Care to explain why you would ask me something completely unrelated to what I said?

    There are a lot of factors.

    At the heart of all of this is spending money you don't have. It doesn't matter whether it is George Bush, or your neighbor, or somebody in some other place, spending money you don't have is what caused the problems. And when it is Obama, spending money we don't have is causing more problems, not less.

    To those of us who wisely and rightly said that Obama didn't have the experience for this job, and wasn't surrounding himself with good people who could help him through it.

    You have always been able to if you had the basis for one.

    That Obama was immature and unable for handle this job.

    But why were there these bank loans to be insured? Becuase of greed. You don't get it. You don't want to blame the responsible people for some reason. No one had to insure my loan because I didn't go out and get one I couldn't afford.

    You tell me. I am not defending that.
     
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,339
    Likes Received:
    786
    How you do it shows motivation. Clearly Obama is.

    This has nothing to do with the current President bashing the former to make himself look good like Obama clearly is doing.
     
  15. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because you said "If he believes this, then it is another indication of just how out of touch and informed he is. The ideology that got us here is spending money. We are trillions of dollars in debt, and Obama is continuing that ideology."

    Then you repeated that thought again in your next response. There are many kinds of debt. Not all debt caused this problem. Ex... 93% of home loans are fine and paid current. Those had nothing to do with the crises. To quote Obama, you're trying to swing a hatchet where a scalpel should be used.

    So I ask again, how did the government spending or deficit get us in this situation? I am not asking about my neighbor, or somebody in some other place because that has nothing to do with Obama. I am asking to specifically explain how government spending or the deficit caused this situation?

    This is all opinion which you had before the election. Tell me exactly what he has done to prove you opinion is right. So far he seems to be handling the job well and has accomplished more in his first 100 days than some do in their entire presidency. I have never seen government simultaneously address so many hot issue at one time.

    After the great depression, regulation was put in place where bankers greed couldn't bring us down in this way again. I linked you to the legislation that was passed then reversed. You are the one who doesn't get it, God made the law because of man. We need some regulation because of man. I agree we shouldn't need a law that says "thou shalt not insure your own loans" then again we really shouldn't need a law that says, "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not covet they neighbors wife". As you know, even with those laws in place, they only keep righteous men righteous while others will do what is wrong despite a law being in place.

    We have to regulate the dishonest bankers just as God gave sinful man the Law.

    Secondly, you seem to singularly blame people who took out loans the couldn't afford as the cause of this problem. What about the million who could afford the loan but lost their jobs? What about the bankers who gave loans to people who couldn't afford them?

    Let's talk about those bankers, the only reason they gave out the loans they knew people couldn't afford is they knew they would see the loan to an investor who would group it with other loans, wrap it in a fund then put it on the market. Bank when banks kept mortgages in the vault we didn't have this problem. They made sure people who got loans stood some chance of paying it back.

    Again, GREED, caused a pathway for a banker to give out a loan he knows is bad but then get it off his books by putting it on the market so that investors (as opposed to his depositors) now hold the risk. Should we get a new law that says, "thou shalt not take Joe's loan that you know he can't repay and put in on the market so Steve can accept the risk"?

    I'm not or all this regulation but as long as smart people will do dumb things we need someone to establish lines they can't cross.
     
  16. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're saying it is wrong for one to show motivation when stating facts??? Is this a written law or something you came up with to criticize Obama? How do we measure this motivation and who is the keeper of the gage?

    So again, it's ok in one instance but not ok when Obama does it. Reagan didn't do it to make himself look good at Carters expense but if Obama does it, it must be for all the wrong reasons. Do you see your bias in this judgment Rev? I understand you don't like Obama but this is being a bit judgmental and critical of a person which is something we Christians should try not to do.
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,339
    Likes Received:
    786
    Silly....motivation as to "why" he is dong what he is doing.




    You really need to stop assigning things to me that I have not said. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else. As far as being judgmental and critical, if you believe that then you need to look back through your posts and re-evaluate them. Of course that would keep you out of the debate forums. Anyone who wants to see unlimited numbers of unborn children slaughtered at the hands of girls like his so they will not be punished with a baby gets no respect or quarter from me regardless of anything else he does right or wrong.
     
    #17 Revmitchell, Apr 11, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 11, 2009
  18. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't this quaint? Another running thread of who is better, the Democrats or Republicans. You wonder why our nation is in the shape it is? When the vast majority of Americans (as demonstrated in this thread) have such limited and narrow thinking that the only two choices are the two major parties, what do you expect as an end result? Lets see, which side does not follow the Constitution more? Which side is more liberal? Which side has departed from the Founding Fathers more? Which side can run up the greatest debt? Which side can let more illegal immigrants into the country?

    The fact is, Jeb Bush is right. Obama should concentrate on his job and leave former Presidents alone. The fact he failed to mention is had former President done his job, the one he was elected to do, we would not have this flaming liberal in the White House now.
     
  19. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,339
    Likes Received:
    786
    I see no where in this thread where such an argument is being made.
     
  20. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aren't you glad the Lord looked past your faults and saw the good in you?
     

Share This Page

Loading...