So we’re just supposed to believe you, because you say something is so? Really?
Every time you attempt to explain why ‘you don’t need no stinking facts’ to back up any of your lame assertions you look more and more foolish.
You do understand that no one is claiming you’re not entitled to your opinion? You’re welcome to post your thoughts on things without challenge. But if you want to present something as a fact, then, yeah, when asked, you’re going to be expected to actually show it to be true.
Completely refusing to back up, anything you state as fact, with the lame excuse that it might just get challenged too, or people are going to believe what they want to believe, is rapidly eroding your credibility to nil. I suggest you reconsider.
Bush never had a filibuster proof Senate during any term of office, Obama had a marginally filibuster proof senate for 2 years and a majority senate for the other 1.5 years. That Democratic senators chose to filibuster Bush less than Republican senators chose to filibuster Obama is a separate issue.
GWB was incompetent and I believe that his administration had a direct hand in the “New Depression”. However, we can’t let the Clinton administration off the hook for their repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act. That set the trap for the go-go Nineties economy and subsequent terrorist paranoia put the nail in the coffin. When the internet bubble burst, a lot of people suffered exteme economic setback and the banks resorted to some hare-brained schemes to recover that lost capital. Schemes that they had previously been prohibited from using.
How does the fact that two speeches out of the hundreds he’s made don’t (supposedly) mention Bush prove anything one way or the other?
Also, he often doesn’t mention GWB by name but instead says “the previous administration” or “the evil Republicans who all but destroyed America” or some such. My point is that he continues to blame the planet’s ills on the Bush administration. I simply wonder when he’ll stop doing that–if ever.
Actually twinkle toes, you’re the one claiming massive amounts of Obama whining. Surely you can cough up 2 or so recent Obama speeches from this tsunami of deflection you keep going on about.
You know, I would be quite happy to CITE CITE CITE if there was even the tiniest, most infinitesimal chance that even ONE person who had said, as you and others have been saying, that I am a lazy, ignorant wad of snot for not CITE CITE CITING and that the primary reason for my not doing so is that my arguments are pathetically weak and I’m an idiot anyway, would read my CITATIONS and then say, “Oh, I guess you had a valid point after all.”
You talk about my “credibility”? I haven’t been examined on that basis yet: I stated a political viewpoint, at which moment I became one of the Other to Obama supporters (this despite the fact that I am, in actuality, an Obama supporter). At that point, nothing I said had any chance of being considered rationally. CITE CITE CITE is just a smokescreen.
You should back away a few feet and look at your statement that “no one is saying you’re not entitled to your opinion.” In fact, that’s EXACTLY what you and others are saying: back it up with facts CITE CITE CITE or it’s not a valid opinion. On planet Earth, we don’t actually interrupt every statement, every conversation with “Prove it!!! We wants some FACTS! If you doesn’t has them then youse a LIAR!!!” I realize that the internet is different, but…
I’ll tell you what, though…I’ll find and post links to TEN, count 'em, TEN Obama speeches (text or video) wherein he blames the current economic malaise on the GWB administration, IF you, and any every other internet kiddie who has thrown mud at me in this thread will apologize for, in effect, calling me a fool and a liar for, God forfend, offering an opinion you feel is unsubstantiated once I do so.
You know, you and others having said, in effect, that Obama never criticizes the GWB administration (by shouting down my assertion that he does) is really kind of ridiculous.
I don’t think that can be done. First of all, from a practical standpoint, you’d have to CITE CITE CITE at least the majority of his speeches over, say, the last twelve months. Then you’d have to prove that those CITE CITE CITATIONS weren’t selective, i.e., that you hadn’t watched one of his speeches where he did blame Bush and then decided not to CITE CITE CITE it as a consequence. Then anyone verifying your claim would have to watch the entirety of all of the cited speeches.
It’s famously difficult to prove a negative, in other words. This might underscore for you the silliness of all your and others’ demands that I CITE CITE CITE proof of my assertion that Obama constantly criticizes Bush. Logically, I would have to post links to a majority of his speeches–it wouldn’t be enough just for me to selectively choose clips where he had uttered criticism. Would everyone then watch every minute of every speech to verify or disprove my claim? No way.
So you all are demanding something that can’t really be accomplished, and wouldn’t give any credence if it somehow was. I refuse to try to adhere to a standard that none of you observe yourselves. When everyone starts CITE CITE CITING “proof” for everything they say, I may change my mind.
I do respect the fact that you at least made the attempt, though.
Well how about 2 then? By the way, the ones I posted (14th and 28th of June) failed to mention “previous administration”.
Now maybe you’re talking about opinion pieces or maybe references to various CBO reports attributing the massive structural deficit that the previous administration bears the primary responsibility for. If so, I’m not sure that counts as whining.
I think Obama is justified in constantly blaming everything on Bush II, considering all the speeches Bush made where he explicitly said he hated America and was doing everything he could to destroy the country.
Shouting someone’s opinion down on the pretext that it isn’t supported by “evidence” is EXACTLY the same as saying they’re not entitled to it. In actual, real human discourse (as opposed, I know, to that which occurs on the internet), people who offer opinions are not immediately interrupted by someone saying “Give us some proof of that, or you shouldn’t continue,” or “Shut the %$%# up unless you have some proof” (as at least one poster has said to me on this thread already).
Do none of you understand the distinction between a stated opinion and a stated fact? The latter might indeed need a citation; the former doesn’t. Note that I could not state my contention that GWB is blamed for the current economic ills without a quantifier that would be subjective, i.e., “always,” as I used in the title of this thread (and no one seemed to realize it was mild hyperbole rather than a statement of fact), or “often,” or “constantly,” etc.
And by the way…who says you are required to give my opinion any credence? Required by whom? If I supplied the “required evidence” (and I’ve already noted elsewhere how difficult that would be), would you all be “required” to change your minds, and admit it as well?
Look, I’m very very familiar with the “dogpile the newbie” internet trope. I don’t expect it not to happen here–why should this board be any different?
Neither I, nor anyone else, said any such thing. Or anything close to it. Not that it matters to you, of course.
Your arguments are coming across as pathetically weak because you refuse to offer any evidence for the things you claim, don’t try and put that on us.
It’s pretty clear you’re kind of living in your own world, where we said things we didn’t, and your assertions are your proof, of any outlandish claim, and you shall not abide being challenged.
You aren’t giving us any citations for that, are you? I would expect that you, as a moderator, wouldn’t transgress the expressed standards of this board by offering an unsubstantiated opinion.
Not that I really want you to provide links to Bush’s speeches, but do you and others here see how unwieldly it would be if no one was allowed to state an opinion (which your statement about Bush’s speeches certainly is, AT LEAST UNTIL YOU PROVIDE EVIDENCE) without offering cited proof of that opinion’s validity?
And you should be careful when you say that Obama “is” rather than “would be” justified, because the way you said it, it sounds dangerously close to that you are agreeing with me. We can’t have that here.