It's the economy stupid!

Foxfyre,

It's easy to say that but for personal improvement I might need you to elucidate.

See, I suspect that by my "spin" you are referencing the fact that I voiced my opinions. That much is true but for it to have meaning beyond the vociferation of opinions that everyone partakes in it would need to be false or misleading opinions.

Could you point them out and substantiate why you think they are so?

Incidentally I agree with you very much in that the value-laden ajectives like "fool" "idiot" and "ass" in reference to the president are counter-productive.

But when I point out that similar pejoratives about Bush critics are am I wrong? Or perhaps do you consider that it's right but improperly applied to this thread?

Incidentally, ebrown is passionate and uses those words but almost always has well-thought out arguments.

Lastly, let me know if you plan to substantiate your 9/11 claim in regard to the economy. I'd be interested. If not here I'll see if you do so on another thread where Thomas (someone who criticized Bush's economic policy without "ignoring" 9/11) asked the same of you.

I am sincerely interested. Thomas' economic opinions are invariably well-researched and I'd love to see an opposite opinion on 9/11 and the economy with similar standards because, like I said, it's a subjective matter.

So people who fault Bush for elements of the job loss "always ignore 9/11"?

Because that's not true, just a few minutes ago you were discussing the very issue with the person who has posted the most informed and carefully considered positions on the issue and who addresses 9/11 directly.

There's only one angle I can imagine that would make your statement a truth, but let's see why you do not consider it to be a falsehood.

Show me where anybody other than me has complained about the jobs Bush lost, including sneering comments, and qualified that with 9/11.

Editing the above sentence because it makes no sense:
Show me where anybody has complained about the jobs Bush lostk including sneering comments, and qualified that phenomenon with 9/11. Is anybody opposing the president linking lost jobs with 9/11?

I must be a bit dense, I'm not sure I get your request.

You want me to show you someone who criticizes Bush for his economic policy, references job loss, and who includes 9/11 in the position AND who uses "sneering comments"?

If the "sneering comments" is a criteria you need to have met, I have two questions:

1) Why that criteria? It's a wee bit hard to quantify.

2) So that I don't waste my time, please quantify "sneering comments".

Now if I misunderstood maybe you meant that I should find someone who faults Bush for the job loss but ALSO faulta 9/11. If so, you are moving your targets again, your initial statement was that they "ignore" 9/11 not that they fail to atribute the job loss to 9/11.

This revisionism would be significant because it leaves out those who neither ignore 9/11 nor attribute the job loss to it. These are people who take 9/11 into account but do not attribute to it, the job loss trend.

Please clarify.

Incidentally, I'd like to point out that after making a call for intellectual discussion you received some requests to substantiate your positions, you did not do so.

I asked if you planned to do so and received no response. Please let me know if you have any plan to, as I don't intend to be the only one researching and replying to academic requests.

If you've no plan to do so, that's cool, just let me know either way. If you'd like, I can point out the substantiation requests that you've neglected.

What I am saying is those who blame job loss on Bush policies have not yet factored 9/11 into it.

But that's simply not true, unless by "factored 9/11 into it" you mean to reach the same conclusions about the scope of 9/11's economic effect that you have reached.

See, there are those who factored 9/11's effect into their positions but who simply do not agree with your conclusion as to the effect of 9/11.

Which brings me to my earlier request. If you want to portray 9/11 being the primary factor behind job loss as a truth you might want to substantiate it, as this is disputed territory and not fact.

How about we just drop it? I am convinced my observation is correct based on the posts I've seen on A2K. You will find fault on some technicality on however I attempt to explain it. And I frankly just don't care that much.

If it matters...

I don't blame Bush for the job losses (nor do I think that 9/11 caused more than a very small percentage of lost jobs). I think the recession with the resultant job losses would have happened even if 9/11 hadn't happened and Gore was president.

Likewise the recovery will happen as it will. Presidents are usually given too much credit and too much blame for what the economy happens to do during their administration.

As one of the Americans who is furious at Bush for things that he chose to do, any discussion on this issue seems rather unimportant.

I correctly blame Bush for the Iraq war, the Patriot act, detentions at Guantanamo, tax cuts in times of record deficits. These are the decisions over which Bush has complete control. I feel his decisions in these areas have been disastrous.

In addition, the torture allegations that are being leveled against American soldiers is humiliating to all Americans. This torture likely happened because of the lax view of human rights this administration has. The fact that these allegations were brought to the attention of, and ignored by, the administration months before the photos were released is inexcusable. His response is embarrassing.

His administration has brought shame on my country and goes against the very ideals for which America should stand.

My hatred of Bush is well-founded and reasonable.

Suit yourself.

ebrown, I don't think anybody's opinion is unimportant. And I certainly know there is ample reason to criticize the President's policies and processes on many fronts. You won't ever find me criticizing somebody who does that. If I think they are wrong, and I care, I'll submit my rebuttal with all the ammunition I have.

I just don't think you can really debate and get anywhere with the "He's an ass", "He is not", "He is too" "You're a hateful ass" technique. (However it may appear I engage in that.)

It's starting to sound like a matter of faith.

Well that's definitely one of the areas the President gets gigged on isn't it?

When he is making decisions that affect me and mine, you betcha.

I understand the concern just as I would be concerned if we elected an athiest president who seemed to be continuing the assault on religious freedom that many (most?) Christians and possibly some other people of faith believe is happening.
And I believe that is a legitimate debate though I think it would be very difficult to prove that a person's religious faith was behind most initiatives unless you believe a person must be religious to have ethical values.

To separate religious ethical values from other ethical values or to assume that they are even different is rather difficult though I think.

For instance. Most Americans would agree that stealing property that belongs to others should be illegal. That is also a Biblical/Christian principle. Can you say then that a president who favors upholding that law is shoving his religion down your throat? That's just one example pulled out of hundreds I could use.

To keep this thread on topic, the faith remark was referring to believing in something because you want it to be.
For example:

Just as in you cannot prove that the Bible is not the word of God. It is in the way you train yourself to think about things. I want our leaders to make decisions based on knowledge, and evidence, not wishes and fairy tales.

I think I am one of the ones to which craven was referring. I tend to go on feelings a little more than facts and evidence.

Perhaps I need to find somewhere else a little less factual to talk.

I am sorry for going over board with my previous post.

revel, I haven't read any of your posts today. It was a general reference.

Before I go, foxfrye, I do not think that was a very good example of a mixing faith and government.

A better one be trying to replace or ease out government programs with faith volunteer programs helped by tax money. Or trying to pass a constituional amendment banning homosexual marriages.

Revel, your posts are some of the most reasonable I have seen on these boards.

Oh, I was always was too quick to think everyone was talking about me. Just forget I said anything. In fact I'll just erase it plus this one. OK?