Mike ‘Jello Biafro’ Rounds solution to fixing the state budget; Kill the Poor

Ah, just kidding;

I love how the Republican’s chokehold on our state has created some of the poorest working class in the nation but they just can’t resist to kick them when they are down;

Gov. Mike Rounds said Monday he will propose a state budget that focuses nearly all spending increases on providing medical services to residents who have lost their jobs during the recession.

The governor said he will ask the South Dakota Legislature to approve $52 million in additional spending in state general funds, with nearly all of it for the state-federal Medicaid program that pays the medical expenses of poor people.

What?! I thought Republican rule was bringing us all kinds of economic development to our state, how could people be struggling?

“We’re taking care of the very basic needs of people who really are down and out because of the national recession,” he said.

A recession that was caused by that jackass GW Dush and continued to get worse under Obama’s appointment of Geithner.

More than 22,000 people are now unemployed in South Dakota, while 110,000 people are in the Medicaid program, he said.

Rounds said since he became governor in 2003, 51 percent of increased spending has gone to Medicaid and other programs that care for the needy.

You heard right, almost 1 in 7 people in South Dakota are on Medicaid. Pathetic. This is the kind of leadership we have come to expect out of the Republicans, yet we continue to re-elect them to the Governor’s office. Unfcknblvable.



21 comments ↓

#1 Ghost of Dude on 12.08.09 at 7:27 am

A recession that was caused by that jackass GW Dush and continued to get worse under Obama’s appointment of Geithner.

Presidents don’t cause recessions, housing bubbles (and stock bubbles, and commodity bubbles, and gold bubbles, etc. ) do.

The policies that allowed the housing buble to happen were in place for a long time before it popped. That was the first domino.

#2 l3wis on 12.08.09 at 7:30 am

I still think derivatives and war spending were in that top 3 list also.

#3 Hammerhead on 12.08.09 at 8:27 am

Regardless, this govenor has been a dud.

#4 Ghost of Dude on 12.08.09 at 9:08 am

The derivatives were part of the housing bubble.

War spending won’t bite us in the ass until the bills come due.

HH – I agree. Rounds was the milquetoast candidate when he first ran – he had no new ideas and very low expectations. Just what most of SD likes.

#5 Sy on 12.08.09 at 9:53 am

Dude is correct.

POTUS’ also don’t magically fix them either. They can propose policies that will either help lift an Economy out of the Recession or ones that will sink us further.

Exhibit A:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0418093920091204

Exhibit B:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=av16pDNNrMig

#6 l3wis on 12.08.09 at 12:03 pm

Sy-

You are right, President’s can’t magically fix things, but they can appoint better people to handle problems. Geithner needs to go.

#7 Sy on 12.08.09 at 3:46 pm

L3wis:

“Republicans, yet we continue to re-elect them to the Governor’s office. Unfcknblvable.”

Damn right we do, with No Regrets.

And if you’ve been wondering what Jello’s been up to lately, check out the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb6KDCw3VgY

Tell me this band isn’t the freakin’ bomb!!

#8 Costner on 12.08.09 at 3:53 pm

The President is the CEO, and as such the credit, and the blame rests upon his desk.

Historically Presidents seem to get all the credit when the economy is booming (aka: Clinton) but they like to deflect it when it goes in the gutter (aka: Bush). The only side-rule to this is partisan hacks who will point out that Clinton was only successful because of his “Republican controlled Congress” etc, etc. Frankly it doesn’t matter – the President is the one in charge, and he can’t blame his advisors, or Congress, or his cabinet, or anyone else for that matter… he is the one dictating policy and like it or not he has the pen that makes things happen.

I’m not suggesting they are single handedly able to influence it in a few months or perhaps a few years, but they set the tone, and as such the economy does balance upon their fiscal and tax policy. I once read the economy can lag behind economic policy by about 3-4 years, which basically says a one term President will never really know if he made things better or worse regardless of what public perception may be.

I’m sure that isn’t a hard and fast rule, but I’d say any change to fiscal policy will take at least two years to really be understood, studied, and analyzed. There are a lot of armchair economists who think a President can adjust tax rates or pass a bill or toss some money at an issue and have results in 60 days. It just doesn’t work like that.

#9 Sy on 12.08.09 at 4:14 pm

Costner:

“the President is the one in charge, and he can’t blame his advisors, or Congress, or his cabinet, or anyone else for that matter… he is the one dictating policy and like it or not he has the pen that makes things happen.”

It used to be that way, but not any more. There used to be an unwritten rule amongst POTUS’ that the campaign is the campaign, but once you get in it is considered poor taste to bash your predecessor, regardless of party affiliation. GWB rarely mentioned Clinton, even though we were in recession in 2000. Same for Clinton and GHWB, as the Economy was slowing in ’92 as well.

Obama and the Dems made their hay by bashing Bush’s Economy constantly during most of his Presidency, and have followed suit right up until today as he ripped TARP in his effort to subvert it to fix what he said his Stimulus would do (ie create jobs).

What most people don’t get is if Obama is right about Bush screwing up the Economy with massive borrowing and deficits, why on earth do people think the way out is to borrow and spend 3x what Bush did? Show me where this has ever been tried succesfully?

#10 Costner on 12.09.09 at 7:24 am

Sy: “GWB rarely mentioned Clinton, even though we were in recession in 2000.”

I wonder what color the sun is in your world?

Bush blames Clinton for N. Korea nuclear program: http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/200601012_bush_blames_clinton_again/

Bush blames Clinton for high gas prices: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0006/23/se.02.html

Bush blames Clinton for job losses: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni/353839-bush-clinton-blame-manufacturing-job-losses.html

and http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-09-bush-economy_x.htm

Bush blames Clinton for 9/11: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/30/bush-blames/

and http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/12/bush-blame-clinton-911/

Bush (and Cheney) blame Clinton for recession/economy: http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news/economy/bush_cheney/

I could do this all day – but clearly there are hundreds or perhaps even thousands of examples of Bush blaming Clinton for pretty much anything that ever went wrong in our nation.

The only time a President doesn’t blame his predecessor is when they happen to be from the same party, but to suggest the first time this type of crap happened is with Obama is beyond lunacy – even for you Sy – and it requires you to essentially rewrite history.

The fact is, the GOP is STILL blaming Jimmy Carter for crap even though he left office in Jan of 1981.

I won’t even bother arguing the point about the recession in 2000, but the point is to suggest Bush never mentioned Clinton – or that he mentioned him “rarely” is a flat out lie.

#11 Sy on 12.09.09 at 11:03 am

LOL Costner, that’s the best you got?

Let’s break those down link by link:

Link 1: That’s a regurgitation from a WP piece, which had the following as the upshot:

“In order to solve this diplomatically, the United States and our partners must have a strong diplomatic hand,” Bush said at a news conference. “And you have a better diplomatic hand with others, sending the message, than you do when you’re alone.”

Notice no mention of Clinton or previous Admin. Condi took it a bit further:

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put it on Tuesday: “The United States tried direct dialogue with the North Koreans in the ’90s, and that resulted in the North Koreans signing onto agreements that they then didn’t keep.”

The WP dicests that further, and it’s partially true, just with some nuanced details. Plus this was a presser, wasn’t like it was a major address, which is where BHO never hesitates to blame Bush and/or the USA.

Link 2: From the campaign by Gov. Bush, not relevant. Pay attention, dumbass.

Link 3: What Bush said:

“In the last six months of the prior administration, more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. We’re turning that around,” said Bush, who cited the addition of 107,000 manufacturing jobs this year.”

I’ll give you half a point on this one, but note that he isn’t specifcally saying Clinton’s policies or Clinton himself was to blame, all he really did was use the last 6 months of the Clinton Admin. as a point of reference.

Link 4: regurgitation of link 3, not relevant.

Link 5: “From his address today in San Diego:

“They looked at our response after the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy… After September the 11th, 2001, we’ve taught the terrorists a very different lesson: America will not run in defeat and we will not forget our responsibilities.”

He’s not blaming Clinton as you state. The first couple of those attacks didn’t occur on his watch, those were Carter & Reagan. He’s not mentioning any POTUS by name, but making the point that we’ve been under attack for years with no response, which was factually correct.

Link 6: Basically the same thing, although this one features debate about comments made by Jeb Bush, not GWB. It also includes another Condi quote which is as close as you get to being correct:

“Nobody organized this country or the international community to fight the terrorist threat that was upon us until 9/11. … We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida. For instance, big pieces were missing, like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren’t going to get Afghanistan.”

That was Rice, not Bush, commenting to the NYT editorial board. Plus, it features Juan Williams and Brit Hume debating the same thing we are:

WILLIAMS: This is just politics. That’s what you do. You blame your predecessor and you do it for as long as possible because it buys you time. And even after 9/11, all the Bush administration officials were pointing out, “Hey, what about that Bill Clinton? Why didn’t he do a better job with getting the terrorists when he had the opportunity?”

HUME: There was very little of that.

WILLIAMS: Well, it was around. In fact, I think Bill Clinton got into it with you [Wallace] about just that point.

HUME: Yeah, but Chris doesn’t represent the Bush administration.

WALLACE: I don’t remember that exchange. (LAUGHTER)

Note Williams’ reponse to Hume, he begrudgingly admits “Well, it was around..”

Sure it was around, but what you didn’t have was Bush himself strolling to every microphone he could, here or abroad saying: “Wow, I sure am sorry that Clinton and his crappy policies we had for the last 8 years did X,Y & Z…”

Link 7: from the link:

“When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession,” Bush said in a speech at a Mississippi high school. “Then our economy was hit by terrorists. Then our economy was hit by corporate scandals. But I’m certain of this: We won’t let fear undermine our economy and we’re not going to let fraud undermine it either.”

Again, no mention of Clinton and not one mention of a Clinton policy or policies that caused the recession, from either Bush or Cheney. He’s using the revised GDP numbers to counter all the criticisms that the 2000-01 Recession was caused soley by him taking office.

Costner:

“I could do this all day – but clearly there are hundreds or perhaps even thousands of examples of Bush blaming Clinton for pretty much anything that ever went wrong in our nation.”

Go for it, Assmunch. Because all your research did was made my point for me. Bush rarely mentioned Clinton, nor did he constantly directly blame for “pretty much anything that ever went wrong in our nation.”

Meanwhile, how about a few classic BHO quotes to juxtapose against:

“The Bush Administration’s failure to be consistently involved in helping Israel achieve peace with the Palestinians has been both wrong for our friendship with Israel, as well as badly damaging to our standing in the Arab world.”

“By any measure,” he said during a March 4 event calling for government-contracting reform, “my administration has inherited a fiscal disaster.”

“This administration has inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit — the largest in our nation’s history, and our investments to rescue the nation’s economy will add to that deficit,” Obama said as he convened a fiscal responsibility summit at the White House on Monday. “We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration or the next generation.”

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/barack_obama.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19208.html

Costner:

“but to suggest the first time this type of crap happened is with Obama is beyond lunacy”

I never suggested this was the first time, phuc n a you are a dipshit, go read my post again. Here’s another reason why your logic is totally fuct, Bush was Governor of TX during Clinton, and had nothing to do with National affairs.

Obama, on the other hand, was knee deep in the Senate for the worst part of the Bush Admin, and from there launched mutliple attacks as well as establishing a clear voting record. He was at least part of the Democratic Majority and able to influence and vote on legislation, so he bears a degree of culpability that Bush did not.

One last point, I recall a previous debate where you cited google hits as an indication of whether or not a certain point was a myth or not.

If you google “bush blames clinton” you get all of 879K hits. Type in “obama blames bush” you get nearly 2.2 million hits. Again, we are in year one compared to 8, so who’s flat out lying here again?

That’d be you.

#12 Costner on 12.09.09 at 4:09 pm

Ah so I see Sy can’t debate anything without the continual ad hominem attacks.

Good story – and good effort Sy, but you fail yet again. Are you suggesting merely because Bush didn’t mention Clinton by name that we are supposed to give him a free pass? You can dance your way around it, but Bush did in fact refer to Clinton and we are all intelligent enough to know who the last guy was or who Bush is talking about when he claims he inherited all of these problems.

Or maybe I’m asking too much.

But perhaps more telling is the fact that Bush didn’t need to call Clinton out on a regular basis… because he had his personal news network and half of his staff doing it on a daily basis. Hell – Cheney is still blaming Clinton for shit to this day, along with bashing Obama at every opportunity. I guess that is taking the high road – surely no other President has ever done that. (sarcasm)

I mean here is an example of how Bush’s “team” did such a bang-up job of convincing everyone that the recession was Clinton’s fault (just as you tried to do), even though the NBER disagrees with them, so it seems he didn’t even have to bother doing the legwork himself.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200405010002

But I guess that isn’t good enough – because in your mind we need Bush to actually say “Clinton” in the same sentence as “fault”.

Hell Sy I’m not even sure what your point is… are you whining because Obama blames Bush too often for your liking or just because he blames him more than Bush blamed Clinton? Hell maybe the guy has a right too… Clinton was a lot better at the job so there is very little we can really blame him for (legitimately), yet Bush – well clearly that is one eight year period in which we all wish we could have a “do over”, because the guy was a complete failure.

Your original comment was “It used to be that way, but not any more.” referring to Presidents blaming others – but you’re flat out wrong if you think this is a recent change of tone. I’m quite sure you can dig up cases of Clinton blaming Bush Sr, we know you can dig up cases of Obama blaming Bush Jr just as you can of Bush Jr. blaming Clinton. I’m sure if you dig you can find cases of Reagan blaming Carter and Carter blaming Ford etc, etc.

I know you righties like to think Obama is breaking some type of unwritten code by pointing the finger at Bush, but thats just silly and childish. Should Obama get over it? Damn right – but I don’t see that happening when there are people such as yourself attempting to blame Obama for the economy and we have the Fox News and talk radio talking heads inventing phrases like the “Obama Recession”.

Me thinks the only reason you bitch is because you know what Obama is saying has some truth to it. Too damn bad – get used to it.

#13 Sy on 12.09.09 at 4:45 pm

Costner:

“Ah so I see Sy can’t debate anything without the continual ad hominem attacks.”

Right….asking what color the sun is in my world or stating I’m beyond lunacy was meant as a compliment. Grab a tissue and SFTU.

“Are you suggesting merely because Bush didn’t mention Clinton by name that we are supposed to give him a free pass? ”

Nope, not at all. Obviously you’re too damn dense to understand what I’m suggesting and that is your fault, not mine.

“Hell Sy I’m not even sure what your point is… are you whining because Obama blames Bush too often for your liking or just because he blames him more than Bush blamed Clinton?”

My point is simple. Obama is simply setting a new level of “blame the last guy” and for all I care he can keep right on doing so. The further we get away from 2008, the more out of touch and ridiculous that accusation will play out. Your “google it” method proves that point perfectly.

The man simply knows no other way than “campaign mode” which will ironically cost him the House next year and perhaps his second term.

“Me thinks the only reason you bitch is because you know what Obama is saying has some truth to it.”

By that same token there was some degree of truth in the case made to go to Iraq, so is that the only reason you Lefties bitched about Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy et al?

I’d love to agree with you, costner. But then we’d both be wrong.

#14 Costner on 12.10.09 at 8:28 am

“Obviously you’re too damn dense to understand what I’m suggesting and that is your fault, not mine. ”

Therein lies the problem Sy. You are obviously the only one who knows what point you are trying to make with this particular response as it seems to change with every new message.

Case in point, you now claim your “point is simple. Obama is simply setting a new level of “blame the last guy””, yet originally your response to me was “It used to be that way, but not any more” when I made the comment that the President is the one in charge, and he can’t blame his advisors, or Congress, or his cabinet, or anyone else for that matter… he is the one dictating policy and like it or not he has the pen that makes things happen.

So now you claim your comment is that Obama is setting a new “level” of blame whereas your initial comment inferred that no previously Presidents had done so.

When I shot holes in that theory you reverted to the lame defense that Bush didn’t mention Clinton by name nearly as often as Obama does in regards to Bush.

So it seems you’re falling back to the old Sy playbook… when backed into a corner and unable to defend your original position – just invent a new position and claim that has been your point all along.

I really get tired to trying to teach you how to actually form coherent thoughts and debate them without resorting to your continual usage of red herring and straw man logical fallacies.

You really suck at this. You should probably stick to learning the family biz from your dad.

#15 Sy on 12.10.09 at 11:02 am

Costner:

“When I shot holes in that theory..”

You did no such thing, you tried and I gave you 1/2 point out of 7 links you offered as proof.

I also stated that “Bush rarely mentioned Clinton” and you have shown nothing that disputes that.

Costner:

“So now you claim your comment inferred that no previously Presidents had done so.”

A new level infers that there was an old level that has been surpassed. It doesn’t infer that there was no previous level. You are making shit up yet again.

Costner:

“lame defense that Bush didn’t mention Clinton by name nearly as often as Obama does in regards to Bush.”

I used your defense of “google” it. Which proved it to a standard you yourself set. If it is so lame than why did you use it? Slippery little slope you’re on there, ain’t it?

Costner:

“just invent a new position and claim that has been your point all along.”

Really? You mean like this:

From Costner post #8

“the President is the one in charge, and he can’t blame his advisors, or Congress, or his cabinet, or anyone else for that matter… he is the one dictating policy and like it or not he has the pen that makes things happen.”

From Costner post #10

“The only time a President doesn’t blame his predecessor is when they happen to be from the same party,”

So which one is it? Oh wait, I forgot who I was debating, the king of having it both ways. You’re always right that way, no wonder you a such a slobbering Obama fan/apologist.

Costner;

“I really get tired to trying to teach you how to…”

It must be exhausting to constantly maintain all those positions. How do you decide which one to hammer with vs. which one to ignore?

Allow me to return the favor, least I can do.

There’s a term from pSYchology called “Projection”. Usually occurs when someone really gets in your head. Here’s the definition for you:

“the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects ; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety.”

There ya go, I just saved you several months of expensive diagnostic therapy. Now you can just go in and see if there’s any level of treatment that might help you along.

Costner:

“You really suck at this. You should probably stick to learning the family biz from your dad.”

I’d love to, but he died over a year ago. Nice work bringing that up, as it’s obviously topical and relevant to our discussion. While we’re at it, should I email you a few pix of my children so you can really put me in my place by posting them on a kiddie porn site?

#16 Costner on 12.10.09 at 11:47 am

Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit is it Sy?

Let’s look at the two quotes of mine you so thoughtfully cite:

1. “the President is the one in charge, and he can’t blame his advisors, or Congress, or his cabinet, or anyone else for that matter… he is the one dictating policy and like it or not he has the pen that makes things happen.”

2. “The only time a President doesn’t blame his predecessor is when they happen to be from the same party,”

Sy: So which one is it?

Both – and if you actually took time to absorb these concepts rather than just gloss over them, you might catch on.

My first comment clearly expresses the concept that Presidents should not blame their predecessors. I’m not saying they don’t…merely that they shouldn’t – and if they do, it doesn’t really absolve them of any responsibility. The responsibility (regardless of where or when it originated) rests upon them, and as such attempting to blame others does no good.

My second comment is a simple truth. It isn’t that Presidents SHOULD or SHOULD NOT blame their predecessor, but the fact is that they DO. You won’t find Bush Sr. blaming anything on Reagan however as that would hold his own party accountable… and we can’t have that. You also won’t find Obama blaming anything on Clinton – same reason.

If you fail to understand how these comments can both be accurate, then you simply suck at this more than I thought.

As to your idiotic comments about projection – you seem to be the master in that regard. I cite your continual usage of red herrings and straw man arugments, and you immediately attempt (and fail) to show where I have done the same while ignoring your own transgressions. At least you have already recognized the problem however, and I hear that is the first step… so good luck with that.

Hey, a sincere apology about your father though. Obviously I had no idea and wouldn’t have said it if I did. But for you to go from an honest mistake directly to the suggestion of putting pictures on a kiddie porn site? Thats a bit much – even for you. This reminds me when you pulled the Internet tough guy routine when I used Brooks Motors as an example of a failing dealership, and you immediately thought I was trying to insult your family as if I knew there was some connection between Syverson and Brooks (because apparently that should be obvious right?).

I’d say you take this stuff a little too seriously. Go walk barefoot over some ditra or something – maybe that will calm you down a tad.

#17 Sy on 12.11.09 at 1:22 pm

Costner:
“If you fail to understand how these comments can both be accurate, then you simply suck at this more than I thought.”

You didn’t say “shouldn’t”, you said “can’t”. Are the words “can” and “should” interchangeable in your world? Let’s try that out:

Costner should seek out psychological counseling.

Costner can seek out psychological counseling.

Huh, both sound good. I guess maybe you’re right. My bad. Maybe we could make up over a couple cold shoulds of beer.

Costner:

“As to your idiotic comments about projection – you seem to be the master in that regard. I cite your continual usage of red herrings and straw man arugments..”

To which you reponded by projecting, how idiotic is that? I guess you missed that burning straw man that was constructed by your links? Or the red herring of claiming I suggested something like:

“but to suggest the first time this type of crap happened is with Obama”

When in fact I didn’t. Who’s ignoring their own transgressions again?

That’d be you.

Costner:

“Go walk barefoot over some ditra or something”

So let me get this strait, you’re aware of a relatively obscure product like Ditra and you know we sell it, yet you claim ignorance to the fact my father, who worked here all his life, passed away last October?

I guess I can buy that, but should I? Oh wait, I just repeated myself. You’re right again, I suck at this. You’d better pray to the Gods of Circular Logic I never get good at this, or that can/should ruin your day.

#18 Costner on 12.11.09 at 2:08 pm

Sy: You didn’t say “shouldn’t”, you said “can’t”

I really didn’t want to fall back upon semantic arguments as they don’t really add anything to the issue, but a human being of average intelligence can infer that yes – in this context the terms could be used interchangably.

Surely the President “CAN” attempt to blame others, but in the context I used the term “CAN’T” it is clear I was suggesting he can’t use such blame legitimately. If you read my quote in context I feel this is clear, but feel free to disagree.

Sy: Or the red herring of claiming I suggested something like: “but to suggest the first time this type of crap happened is with Obama”

Actually, in my view that is precisely what you did. Note the word “suggested” in my sentence, and keep it in mind when reading your following quote: “It used to be that way, but not any more”.

To state it used to be that way (in response to where I said Presidents cant blame others), suggest you do in fact believe that Presidents didn’t used to blame others…. but now they do (which technically means he (Obama) does since you are speaking in present tense).

You can argue semantics again if you must, but in all honesty this has zero bearing on my original point, and at this point I lack the energy of sifting through all of the posts in an effort to even understand what your first, second, or third points are, so I guess I’ll just let this one go.

Sy: “So let me get this strait, you’re aware of a relatively obscure product like Ditra and you know we sell it, yet you claim ignorance to the fact my father, who worked here all his life, passed away last October?”

I have performed many tile jobs and am well versed in construction materials and techniques of all types… not just tile. I’m aware of Vycorners and Dryer-Ells too, but that doesn’t mean I have a clue who the guy behind the counter at Scott’s Lumber is.

I assume any tile supplier in town would sell Ditra, so it isn’t a huge stretch to assume you sell/stock it. I’ve been in your store a total of one time in my life when I had to purchase a Schluter Shower kit because I was told you might have it and nobody else I checked with did – and considering you sell Kerdi, I could infer you would sell Ditra.

Because of my vast experience with your store and the fact that I would be unable to recognize you from a picture muchless your father – it should seem clear I would have no idea he passed away.

Thus – the short answer to your question is… Yes.

But do let me know if walking on that Ditra seems to help. If so I’ve got a roll of it in my basement and I might finally have a use for it.

#19 Sy on 12.11.09 at 2:42 pm

Costner;

“To state it used to be that way (in response to where I said Presidents cant blame others), suggest you do in fact believe that Presidents didn’t used to blame others”

I’ll point you to ths days of Harry “the Buck stops here” Truman, IKE, Kennedy et al. None of those guys publically bashed each other’s Admins. Show me where they did.

It has gotten progressively worse since then, sure. But your “google it” standard once again proves my point that it has gone up expoentially with Obama.

Costner:

“I lack the energy of sifting through all of the posts in an effort to even understand what your first, second, or third points are, so I guess I’ll just let this one go.”

Funny part is we are in agreement on 2 of 3 of the original points:

1. Pres’ shouldn’t blame their predecessors.

2. They do anyway.

Now, if you can just come to grips with number 3, than we’re ready to sit down for those shoulds of beer. You set tile, eh? Cool, I’ll even buy the first round.

Costner;

“If so I’ve got a roll of it in my basement and I might finally have a use for it.”

Tell you what, when you’re ready to throw some tile over it let me know. I’m just dumb and crazy enough to cut a deal to people who wouldn’t spit on me if I were on fire.

#20 Costner on 12.13.09 at 4:20 pm

Actually Sy, I’m not denying that Obama blames Bush far too often. I’m not sure I would go so far as to say it is exponentially more often than any of his predecessors, although perhaps he actually refers to Bush by name more often whereas previous Presidents used more creative language to cite previous administrations or just vague terms like “inherit” to describe the source of the issue.

I also feel previous Presidents let their staff and handlers be the bad guys wheras Obama does it himself – so maybe that says more about him than the words coming from his mouth.

Then again, in recent history I think it is safe to argue Obama has a lot more justification to actually blame Bush than the previously several administrations. Perhaps the next President will be able to raise the bar even higher and blame Obama even more… that is yet to be seen, but if you look at our last five or six Presidents it seems Bush probably screwed up in more areas than all of them combined.

Now as to spitting on you if you were on fire… at least give me credit for that much. Sure I’d spit on you – especially if I had been sipping some Everclear at the time.

Kidding Sy….only kidding! Honestly as much as we may disagree here on this forum I’d have no reason to be nearly as large of an asshole to your face. Frankly I have the same disagreements with my brother as I do with you – and you guys tend to share opinions about 99% of the time, so don’t read into it too much… it is far from personal.

Besides – I get all my tile from higher end distributors like Home Depot and Menards.

Just kidding again!

#21 Sy on 12.14.09 at 10:18 am

Costner:

Everclear, eh? Yup, you’re definately qualified to be a setter.

“Besides – I get all my tile from higher end distributors like Home Depot and Menards.”

Call me stupid, insult my family, post pics of my kids on the internet…but please, for the love of all things Holy…don’t sully that Ditra with junk tile.

‘Tis the coldest cut of all! 🙂