On Feb 6, 12:07*pm, HK wrote:
Frog watch wrote:
On Feb 6, 9:44 am, wrote:
On Feb 6, 9:07 am, wrote:

I've noticed that every conservative here has been ****ting on Obama's
plans, but none have said much about Bush's Bailout.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...out.Oversight/
Well, the dems supported it because it bailed out big business and the
banking system and although they are not moving much, they are still
up and running. This new bill is nothing but a punchlist of pet
projects the left has been sitting on for a decade. The "bailout or
stimulous" is virutally non-existant. Obama has already failed
miserably as a leader, he is letting Nancy Peosi and her ilk run the
country into a deep hole...

You were not paying attention. *We did **** all over Bush's bailout.
It was a bad idea then and I advocated allowing the lenders to fail.
Right wing extremists Michelle Malkin did nothing but scream about it
at the time. *It was a very bad idea and we should learn from it.

Oh, well, if it was Malkin...no one who mattered was listening.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No one who mattered to you, but that's only Salty, Donnie, and
Slammer.. Two of your followers don't even live in the country so they
really have no dog in the hunt.

You don't have a mandate as you seem to think, read on, get informed:

snip
Obama pleads for nonpartisanship out of one side of his mouth, but
then ignores the arguments of Republicans not just out of the other
side of his mouth, but with a grin like the smirk of the cat that ate
the canary, as he reminds the American people that his team won. His
unholy alliance actually did win, by capturing a mere 3% above 50% of
the vote against the party of a president with an approval rating of
closer to 30% (even less, by some polls), rendering that 53% figure
(rather than 70% or more) a sign of relative dissatisfaction with the
winner, in this context. Obama won not necessarily because the
American people wanted change in general or Obama’s type of change in
particular, but because, inter alia, he outspent his opponent by a 4-
to-1 margin in many key states, and had the majority of the major
media outlets campaigning for him and blaming the economic collapse on
the Republicans instead of in a bipartisan way, at least also on the
Democrats who had set the disastrous chain in motion years ago by
coercing the banks to loan money to people who couldn’t even afford a
down payment, much less have the ability to pay their mortgages in the
event of inevitable downturns of the economy.
/snip

Insult this, commie boy...