sda2.jpg

October 7, 2012

How To Argue with an Obama Devotee?

An acquaintance of mine on Facebook, a woman in San Francisco, posted a link to this article.

I politely asked her why it was wrong for Mitt Romney to tell the truth, namely that Spain's spending is completely out of control. I also added:

While I was visiting Germany earlier this year, the Greeks were really angry at Angela Merkel because she told them that they were spending too much. They were and they are. Does that make it wrong for her to tell them the truth?

As a Canadian, I will openly tell you all, my American friends, that you're spending way, way too much. Your debt has grown to astronomical levels. Every country in history that has had such high debt compared to what it produces, has suffered a terrible crash with devastating results afterwards. Does me saying this make me undiplomatic and insulting of you?

A quick question you need to ask yourself is this: If Barack Obama had said the same thing as Romney had, would you have felt the same way?

She responded thusly:

Obama hasn't gotten us into this mess, which is the worst recession since the 1930's, and based on the fact that much of the collapse revolved around lack of regulation in the housing loan business, there's no quick fix. Once people started losing their homes, it has a domino effect. George W. Bush is the one who got us into two wars, gave tax cuts, and added medicare benefits without EVER including them in his budget. Obama got the hand he was dealt. And I can tell you that the Republicans have done absolutely EVERYTHING they can to stop every effort he makes to get the economy back on track.

Just curious, how would you respond to this?

Posted by Robert at October 7, 2012 4:14 PM
Comments

Change the subject. Reason and logic have no role in her life, but you can still be friends in the same way you can enjoy a fantasy novel.

Posted by: Chris at October 7, 2012 4:22 PM

I'd love some suggestions, as I'm in a politically-mixed marriage, and that woman's response sounded so much like my husband's that my jaw dropped.
Mostly we just agree to disagree, but sometimes we do try to have a political conversation. (Yeah, we usually end up changing the subject.)

Posted by: Jeannette at October 7, 2012 4:29 PM

Unfortunately, in the partisan environment we find ourselves in most of us are looking defend to party we are affiliated with rather than seek truth.

So long as someone is not open to evidence but is in full defense mode, there is no room for changing their mind.

Posted by: Bill at October 7, 2012 4:32 PM

First I would send her this chart from instapundits Glenn Reynolds http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/153017/

Then remind her that the Dems had control of Congress, the house, Senate the White House from2008- 2010.

and remind her that it is possible that people disagree with your ideas and want you stopped.

Posted by: AnthonyX at October 7, 2012 4:33 PM

generally there is no point but if you must ask,"At what point would it be his responsiblity? What actions and decisions would he have to make and take in order to convince you that he is not competent?"

Posted by: eric at October 7, 2012 4:37 PM

Compare/contrast these MSM reports.
...-

"Debt crisis: Spain's jobless flee to Argentina"

"Desperate Spaniards are fleeing in their thousands to set up new lives in Argentina, preferring rampant inflation to the prospect of searching for a job in a country with the highest unemployment rate in the industrialised world."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9592270/Debt-crisis-Spains-jobless-flee-to-Argentina.html

...-

"Spain traveling down the road to success"

"Though Spain may request a loan from the European bailout fund, the country is taking the steps necessary to turn around its economy, according to Walther von Plettenberg of the German Chambers of Commerce for Spain."

http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16290006,00.html

Posted by: maz2 at October 7, 2012 4:37 PM

I know how you fell, Chris, but I think that you need to stand up to these people.

Remind her that it was the Clinton administration that gave a carte blanche to Fanny and Freddie.

Remind her that it is the Constitutional duty of Congress to deny Presidential initiatives that it believes are a bad idea.

And ask her why her boy can't talk sensibly unless he's reading what someone else has written.

Posted by: pok at October 7, 2012 4:39 PM

Carter started forcing banks to lend to what we came to know as NINJAs, Clinton expanded the program, Bush II tried (feebly) to rein it in, and the wheels fell off.

The Democrat-controlled House and Senate opted to spend their way out of a recession, and Bush - no slouch at spending himself, opted not to veto their budget (the Dems not being known for putting budgets forward for markep and debate these last 1260+ days since they last did, an abrogation of their duty).

Also Obama's fault are the theft of GM from its creditors, the absolute failure to run an open and transparent White house, the Fast and Furious murders cover up, the various crony deals that have fed funds back to the DNC such as the half billion dollar Solyndra fiasco, the failure of leadership during the gulf of Mexico BP oil spill and subsequent restriction of drilling permits during a time of energy source instability, the cancellation of te Keystome XL pipeline in spite of environmental approvals, the appointment of unqualified Supreme Court Justice based on her race, sex, and politics...

The list goes on. I pulled these from memory and a few minutes of internet research would expose dozens more. As a both a human being and a President, Obama pretty much defines fail: taking the looser crown from Jimmy Carter, and making people look back on the Bush years as the good ol' days, isn't easy in one term.

Posted by: Robert of Penticton at October 7, 2012 4:40 PM

Sorry Robert; other than the comments above, all I can provide is what my Liberal friends do when trying to provide a reasonable answer to their statements. This is to stick your fingers in your ears and go Lalalalalalalalalal.
Cheers;

Posted by: MikeSr at October 7, 2012 4:46 PM

Simple response:

Stop blaming Bush. 43 Presidents and 236 years to get to $10 trillion and 1 President and less than 4 years for the next $6 trillion.

Math is hard.

Posted by: Dan at October 7, 2012 4:55 PM

She won't be happy until everyone works for the government. And if that happened we wouldn't need government as we could just stay home and I will pay you and you pay me. That's what all socialists want. Unfortunately the world doesn't work that way as governments need the private sector to produce wealth so they can tax it and re-distribute it to the majority of the population working for government pushing useless paper and not producing anything.

I just came back from a month in Italy and France and it seemed that 50 or 60 % of the population worked for government and the remaining 30-40% serve coffee to each other.

They don't produce wealth they just spend what little they have left and what they can borrow. As Maggie Thatcher said Eventually Socialism runs out of other peoples money to spend.

Posted by: RL at October 7, 2012 4:58 PM

This is all you have to show anyone with a brain.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

Posted by: peterj at October 7, 2012 4:59 PM

By the way Bush's regime killed approximately 500 people in the 8 years he was president with drones. Obama has killed over 6000 people with drones in less than 4 years.

He's been involved with more wars than Bush was, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, He'll eventually go after Syria and Iran and possibly be forced to take on the Brotherhood in Egypt if he is re-elected.

Posted by: RL at October 7, 2012 5:01 PM

Just laugh and say, 'If Obama was to get re-elected, just imagine the mess he'd inherit this time!"

Posted by: Kyla at October 7, 2012 5:02 PM

Explain to her that it was under the Democratic administrations that the pressure was put on the mortgage and lending institutions, such as Freddy and Fanny, to loan money to those who do not qualify for them. It was the fantasy that the great "American Dream of everyone owning their own home", something that all liberals and socialists would call equality, was the driver behind these ideas. Just because you can own a home, does not mean you have the ability and the wherewithal to hold that responsibility firmly in your grasp.

It was when the Government got involved and started to regulate (read: force) the loaners to lend that the greed of human nature was sparked and it turned into a firestorm of corruption and lies. The rules of the market which kept the citizens safe from greed and exploitation we thrown under the bus. Banks which tried to hold firm to the rules because they were prudent and wise lost out on the multi-billions of dollars which were being tossed around and the shareholders were bailing on them when they didn't get the ROI's that those who were participating were getting.

Fast forward to 2008 and the same mindset was already ingrained in the psyche of the populate for the election of the first African(Black)American POTUS. The vetting and hard questions of who Obama was and what the long term outcome of his ideas and training were going to do to the Nation were either ignored or suppressed, which was the role of the willing idiots whom we will call the MSM. The people did not want to hear the truth, but instead had the "feeling" that this was a really good idea and wanted to say that they had marked their "X" beside his name and made history.

Posted by: glacierman at October 7, 2012 5:05 PM

Point out that Obama's spending policies and Bush's are indistinguishable and that the 'lack of regulation' she speaks of does not exist outside of her head. Taunt her and be condescending like I normally am.

Posted by: LAS at October 7, 2012 5:05 PM

The severe financial crisis was not caused by mortgages, per se, but by unregulated financial derivatives, and the implicit backing by the federal government of those financial institutions doing the trading of them.

The story begins in the Clinton Administration, not with Bush. In 1997 and 1998, Clinton's Treasury officials colluded with the Fed Chairman to prevent Ms. Brooksley Born from regulating those devivates, and fought her for two years, until she resigned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Then, Treasury Secretary Rubin helped with the repeal of Glass-Steagall, allowing Wall Street free reign. With mission accomplished, Rubin returned to Wall Street, where he made tens of millions, while the financial system almost collapsed.

Obama completed the farce by appointing wall streeters with ties to Rubin to "solve" the financial problem. He appointed financial foxes to clean up that mess in the hen house.

Posted by: Don B at October 7, 2012 5:16 PM

Remind her of what she said: ".... Obama got the hand he was dealt. "

Everybody gets dealt the cards - when's Obama going to stop blaming the cards and start playing shrewd, pay-dirt winning cards ...? I don't think he knows how!

MM

Posted by: michael st.paul's at October 7, 2012 5:19 PM

just a few thoughts to respond with.
there was a little known lawyer during the era of the clinton administration suing large banks on behalf of unqualified applicants under the auspice of racial prejudice.
http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112
andrew cuomo around this time (HUB secretary under clinton) that they will start enforcing this policy. of course, this is related to cra legislation expanded by clinton. clinton administration era policies also allowed glass-steagall to be rolled back. i personally don't think that this was a cause of the collapse and was unrelated to housing so much, but many liberals like to cite is as a regulation that could have saved the financial sector had it remained in place...hogwash.
also, gateway pundit has a timeline of warnings about the gse's that were making and giving the ratings industry all sorts of excuses to give high ratings to mortgage-backed securities that were being bundled by most of the large banks. these were after all had the defacto backing of the us government, the single most reliable investment in history. it's also instructive to mention who was in charge (and making untold millions) while running the various gse's or doing business with them (countrywide), many clinton-era appointees or friends eg. harold raines and anthony mozilo.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/05/pelosi-caught-in-major-lie-says-bush-didnt-warn-congress-about-financial-crisis-records-show-he-warned-congress-17-in-2008-alone/
it's also pretty interesting that the great saviors of the regulatory regime for the financial sector such as chris dodd are as embroiled in the incest and failure of the regulations on the books in the first place. consider that chris dodd and kent conrad were getting sweetheart loans from countrywide...nancy pelosi's kid was employed there. the democrats that took over congress in 2006 have a horrible record on housing and financial regulations. is that really where some are willing to go?
and since the congress changed hands in '06 then with a filibuster-proof majority in the senate in '08 along with the whitehouse, exactly what economic reforms have the republicans been able to thwart? it's difficult to really know since there was never a budget passed in the last four years against us law despite the democratic control of all of washington, but we do know that obama's great plan for post election implementation has been floated to be another stimulus bill. really? since the cash for clunkers, green energy debacles, and the shovel-ready projects worked out so well the first time.
meanwhile the president who is so concerned with jobs and economic fixes was so intent on creating a legacy that he spent all of his political capital on creating a new entitlement by buying off half of congress, when we can't pay for any of the existing entitlements, to say nothing of the amount of golfing and fundraising that took time away from office.
one thing we do know though is that the economic situation is not looking that good lately even considering that ridiculous 7.8% unemployment figure that completely ignores the near-historic levels of worker-participation.

Posted by: sam sammerson at October 7, 2012 5:19 PM

Copy and paste the comment above from glacierman.

It really was Barney Frank and Bill Clinton who made the decision to put a condo in every pot.

They ordered the banks and mortgage companies to provide mortgages to people regardless of these rather important points.

1. If they could possibly make the payments.
2. Were employed or unemployed, or unemployable.
3. Wanted a mortgage.

It was race based decision making, They wanted the American Dream for every citizen, and decided that minorities participation in the housing market was not in the same percentages as white folks.

They saddled millions of people with mortgages they had no hope of, or interest in, repaying.

The collapse of this segment led to the collapse of the family home, some in the family for 100 years as the lending bubble burst.

You can blame the greedy banks and lenders who laid off the bad paper, but you have to come back and look at Barney and Bill.

Posted by: sylvanguy at October 7, 2012 5:21 PM

Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House for the first 2 years. They could have done anything they wanted, but Obama was busy golfing.

Posted by: Norman at October 7, 2012 5:25 PM

Simply ask what exactly did Obama and the Democrats do as the housing crisis bubbled, and how was it different from Bush, keeping in mind that Democrats controlled both congressional committees that oversaw banking at the time?

The answer of course is they loved the bubble, urging Fannie and Freddie to take on ever more debt to support subprime lending.

It's scandalous that the Dems have been blue to skate away from their primary responsibility for the bubble.

Posted by: Chip at October 7, 2012 5:34 PM

Well, my suggestion to her: It involves sex, and it involves travel.....

Posted by: snagglepuss at October 7, 2012 5:34 PM

Simply ask what exactly did Obama and the Democrats do as the housing crisis bubbled, and how was it different from Bush, keeping in mind that Democrats controlled both congressional committees that oversaw banking at the time?

The answer of course is they loved the bubble, urging Fannie and Freddie to take on ever more debt to support subprime lending.

It's scandalous that the Dems have been able to skate away from their primary responsibility for the bubble.

Posted by: Chip at October 7, 2012 5:34 PM

Kyla wins, I say:
'If Obama was to get re-elected, just imagine the mess he'd inherit this time!"

BTW this is interesting: Barry promising to do the same things in 2008 and 2012
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/04/obama-plagiarizes-own-debate-promises-fr?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29

If I were advising Romney (not that he needs it) I would suggest he say "But you've been president for 3 and a half years already and only now we are hearing about your great plans" in his answer to every question.

And, folks, if you want another good laugh, see what the New Yorker said about Eastwood's performance when it happened (and long before it dreamed that it would be channeling him).
For example
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/08/clint-eastwood-spoils-mitt-romneys-big-night.html

Posted by: Patrick Armstrong at October 7, 2012 5:40 PM

Obama is Bush, but on steroids.

Bush's wars equal just one Obama stimulus.

They both are corporatist lackies. However, Romney might actually get rid of the fascist turd Obamacare.

Obama had a Democrat congress for two years. They continued Bush's fiscal policies. Both parties believe in magical deficits that will pay for themselves. Yes, the Republicans believe "deficits don't matter" like a cult, but Democrats say they care for everyone, not just a percentage of the population, so they are bigger hypocrites.

Bush = Obama. However, Obamabots are more delusional than Bushbots.

Posted by: Jack at October 7, 2012 5:42 PM

They didn't care about providing the means to the American dream to everyone, they wanted their votes.

Posted by: KVB at October 7, 2012 5:56 PM

The big Owe did not inherit the problems/mess, whatever you may call it. He APPLIED for the job of returning the country to fiscal health and got his wish. he has been an abject failure. He does not deserve a passing grade. A failing grade would be giving him far too much credit. He failed to get the job done and needs to be replaced.

Posted by: Olde Spice at October 7, 2012 6:04 PM

Actually, inheriting a mess isn't such a bad deal. A lot of presidents have done very little but take credit for the natural rebound of the economy. Most people are willing to give a president a chance to deliver a significant improvement; they don't expect it solved in four years.
Obozo's problem was getting side tracked with health care right away which created a vast amount of uncertainty.
And about those wars - the actual figures for those are surprisingly low.

Posted by: wyatt ironbridge at October 7, 2012 6:04 PM

Let her get what's coming to her - full blown socialism.

And when she's "entitled" to health care, but there are no doctors, let alone medical supplies,

she can sit and think about it for a while as she dies at the age of 54.

Posted by: Cpt. Capitalism at October 7, 2012 6:09 PM

The Obama wasn't stuck with anything because he asked to be President. He campaigned to be President (please. please) with full Knowledge of the State of the Economy. He promised that if elected he would FIX the Economy. He has failed! Why cry how bad it was, it could have been worse...Nothing will fix Stupid

IMHO Obama & the progressives created most of the LOST confidence in the Economy/Market. The normal "Float" (money in the air) was lost and won't come back until Mitt is elected. They brought everything to a full Stop.

Obama’s Marxism is the Obama problem...

Posted by: Phillip G Shaw at October 7, 2012 6:17 PM

She's from San Francisco. What do you expect?

Posted by: El zopilote at October 7, 2012 6:21 PM

Point out to her that firemen 'inherit' messes too, but they don't pour gasoline on them!

Seriously though, she lives in San Francisco, a city with a debt of $2.6Billion, within a state with a debt of between $167 and $335Billion, within a country with a debt of $16Trillion and unfunded liabilities totalling another $100Trillion. If she doesn't understand now that too much money has been and is being borrowed, she never will.

Posted by: Al_in_Ottawa at October 7, 2012 6:28 PM

I would respond: Immature people complain about the past, and make excuses. Mature leaders find a path to success, get opposing opinions aligned, and lead to greatness. Ask yourself, why haven't the Republicans supported Obama? Ask yourself, in which countries have Obama level spending led to greater success as a nation?

Posted by: hans at October 7, 2012 6:44 PM

I would respond: Immature people complain about the past, and make excuses. Mature leaders find a path to success, get opposing opinions aligned, and lead to greatness. Ask yourself, why haven't the Republicans supported Obama? Ask yourself, in which countries have Obama level spending led to greater success as a nation?

Posted by: hans at October 7, 2012 6:44 PM

Looks like we are both talking to the same person! I too have friends down in Northern California and one of them was here a few weeks back. I spent several days bringing her around to seeing things as they were. But after only a couple days back in lala land she has reverted right back where she was. Check that; she is actually worse now. She flies off the handle if I even dare raise politics now. It's sad, but I think our lefty friends are no longer capable of reason. They have checked out of the reality hotel and will not be coming back any time soon.

Posted by: TrueNorthist at October 7, 2012 6:44 PM

They could find the guts to pass a budget, rather than hiding under a bush :-)

Posted by: Tenebris at October 7, 2012 7:25 PM

1. No, it does not make her wrong for telling the truth.
2.No,You are not undiplomatic or insulting.
3. Yes

Notice that I answered your questions without blaming one political party. Unlike all the other responses.

Posted by: Mike Shaw at October 7, 2012 7:25 PM

I'd have a hard time remaining friends with someone incapable of a rational conversation.

It's fine to disagree, but if you can't ask a simple question and get a simple answer, then there's not much of a friendship going on.
I have plenty of friends and family who are on the other side of the spectrum. Either they avoid the subject of politics, or they allow a rational discussion when the subject comes up. If they insist on bringing up the subject but cannot allow a rational discussion when they do so, then I'm done with them. What else can you do?

Posted by: scf at October 7, 2012 7:28 PM

The fact that Bush inherited a death spiral from Clinton is usually not brought up. At the end of the sainted Clinton administration the shit was beginning to hit the proverbial fan and then just after inauguration, along came 9/11. Not to say Bush doesn't deserve some blame, but the idea that it is all his fault is absurd. With the one and only "O", it's I did this and I did that I killed binLaden, blah blah blah but the deficit is Bushes fault.Watching him get his come uppance at the debate was beautiful to behold but now the meme is Romney Lied. About what? This is getting uglier by the day and the great uniter is dividing the entire world. Thanks God my wife agrees with me. At first she liked him but over the years, she just has a complete sense of disgust every time his visage in on the tube. She couldn't watch the debate but loved the fact he got demolished. Of course if you believe the Dems, he actually won. Can you believe it?

Posted by: Rick at October 7, 2012 7:28 PM

Robert, before responding to your friend in San Francisco, ask her if she has ever criticized a Democratic policy or politician. If (when) the answer is "No", do not bother discussing politics at all; it's a waste of time and effort.
Remember this old gem:
A mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

Posted by: G's Friend at October 7, 2012 7:29 PM

Lack of Regulation? SERIOUSLY?

This mess is a direct result of regulation, regulation by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that establish underwriting guidelines and approvals. Loans don't get approved by the banks, they get approved for purchase by Fannie and Freddie. who then sell them again as guaranteed government bonds.

THis whole clusterf-age was driven by the government and crooks like Franklin Raines at Fannie Mae

Posted by: billypaintbrush at October 7, 2012 7:37 PM

Ask her why she ignored your initial questions.

Posted by: Catoclysmos at October 7, 2012 7:38 PM

Ask her why she ignored your initial questions.

Posted by: Catoclysmos at October 7, 2012 7:43 PM

Nothing you say will change her mind.
Remember when people didn't talk about politics or religion?
Well, there was a reason: it's the best way to lose friends.

If Romney wins the election and she sees the change with her own eyes, only then will she possibly see the light.
Remember, the same people who hated Harper when he was running for office still hate him.

Posted by: gellen at October 7, 2012 7:55 PM

Right, Rahm Emanuel and Franklin Raines as CEO's of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't have anything to do with the loans they bought from the banks? You remember those two Clinton appointees who enriched themselves by goosing the number of loans they bought and sold under the guise of social justice, just to give themselves millions in bonuses. They set the rules for the banks to loan money for mortgages (which Freddie and Fannie bought) to people who were economically at the margins. They, Rahm and Franklin lied to the bond rating agencies claiming the loans they were bundling were credit worthy. Millions of investors lost billions because they were lied to by self serving Democrats who made millions for themselves in bonuses. Franklin Raines was brought to justice by being forced to repay some $14 million in bonuses, Rahm Emanuel got of Scott Free.

How easily you forget that it was Democrats who promised in the 2006 elections to bring down the price of gas just to win that election, they broke their promise. In doing so millions of economical marginal people lost their jobs and thus their ability to tread water in making mortgage payments. The very month Democrats took power of Congress in January 2007, the unemployment rate started going up, this is an undeniable fact, check for yourself the monthly unemployment stats on the BLS website. I defy you to check and prove me a liar.

When Democrats failed, George W Bush lowered the price of gas by removing the executive order on the drilling ban for the east coast so that by the time Obama took office it was $1.89 per gallon. What is the price of gas today and who continues to block domestic off shore drilling? Obama Who didn't deliver on allowing drilling off the coast? Obama Who blocked and sent away most of the Gulf of Mexico deep sea drilling rigs to Brazil? Obama Who told the Brazilians he wanted the US to be their best customer? Obama Who caused thousands of oil workers on those rigs to lose their high paying jobs? Obama

If you want to vote for a guy who caused thousands of full time net tax payers to become consumers of food stamps and unemployment checks, please by all means vote for the incompetent. By the way, virtually all of the so called 4 million jobs created under Obama's watch are part time positions NOT full time jobs paying benefits like health insurance. Way to go Obama! Give him 4 more years and even more people will be working for less. This is the wealth redistribution that Obama promised.

Posted by: dscott at October 7, 2012 7:59 PM

You can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into to begin with. I don't see much benefit to continuing the conversation.

Posted by: Daniel Ream at October 7, 2012 7:59 PM

Forget about blaming Bush, or for that matter Clinton who actually started the mortgage mess with unrestricted mortgages to people with unverified income or assets.

America needs to get people back to work, off of government dependency and Food Stamps. Working people pay taxes and until people are contributing and the economy is thriving again, America will continue to be on the edge of existence.

Obama never was up to the job. Dump him now.

Facts are facts. You can't have opinions on facts!

Posted by: David at October 7, 2012 8:08 PM

The fact that Bush inherited a death spiral from Clinton

What?

Posted by: LAS at October 7, 2012 8:13 PM

Robert, I have known people such as your friend. I once simultaneously worked with a diehard Democrat lesbian and a diehard Republican whose wife worked for an oil company. Watching the two "talk" with one another about politics was fascinating. Sorta like watching two ping-pong balls being shaken in a large plexiglass box. Most of the time there was no interaction in the conversation; each was just projecting a diatribe into the ether. Every once in a while their monologs collided hard and violently, but mostly their rhetorical paths were non-interacting.

I finally had an insight when I thought about how each of them talked about their life-partners. I realized that loyalty was the primary value of each of them, not just in personal relationships, but also in politics. I concluded that the only way to change the views of either of them would be to get them to switch their party loyalty - a near impossibility since their loyalties had the intensity of religious fervor and such a switch would be an all-or-nothing affair.

As to your SF friend, don't discuss politics with her unless you want to get the latest pro-Obama talking points. If you have no interest in maintaining a friendship with her, suggest that she move out of SF before her brain damage becomes permanent.

Posted by: Sadistic Eristic at October 7, 2012 8:18 PM

Have here watch "If I wanted America to fail". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc

Posted by: Yeti at October 7, 2012 8:23 PM

Lass


actually the whole mess started just after the "depression" and just kept on rolling, interlopers lie Jeeemeee and Sick Willy just sped the thing up, and Bush, as a god kristin didn't have the heart to impeed the progress of the P'o folk. It is Politicians fault, and more so the leftist politicians!!!

Posted by: NME666 at October 7, 2012 8:35 PM

Obama got the hand he wanted.

If he's not up to the problems, fine, let's get someone who is.

Posted by: pullmychain at October 7, 2012 8:42 PM

If unemployment has been solved, and declining, why are the number of people on Food Stamps at a RECORD HIGH?

Posted by: DanBC at October 7, 2012 9:03 PM

Say this:

"Get yo shit together, you crazy bitch, your stupid a--hole of a president blew a trillion bucks each of the
last four years paying the wages of teachers and govt workers who should have been laid off in a recession.
The money he didn't waste there provided loans down the toilet for his administration's crony capitalist friends.
The housing meltdown? Ever heard of Barney Frank,Fannie Mae, and subprime, which when Bush tried to clamp down on
it almost every rent seeking politically connected crook in the US went bananas, you dunce?"
.

Posted by: Sgt Lejaune at October 7, 2012 9:05 PM

What they really deserve, Robert, is to be de-friended. These people are insane. Aside from the facts that just ain't so, she is so deeply rooted in leftist dogma, this sort of glib response rolls off her tongue without two brain cells firing. This person is not someone who can be trusted or loved. They want to commit suicide and take you with them for your own good. You see, to her humans beings are a blight on the planet and Republicans are just a more deadly virus. You couldn't penetrate that thick skull with anything less than .357 magnum truth.

Spend your time reasoning with people who are reasonable. The only liberals I know who ever snapped out of it are ones who were brought near tragedy by their own machinations. A neo-con, they say, is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.

Look at San Francisco and California. Billions in debt while overtaxed. The democrats in total control are beginning to eat their young. Jerry Brown is beating back labor unions. The sheriff of SF was arrested for spouse abuse and his lawyer is accusing the Chinese mayor of perjury (which he probably is guilty of).

They destroy themselves. We just need to keep their civil wars contained within their borders. The Obama legacy will implode if we let it happen and strike him hard enough with truth.

There is an election coming up:spend your time talking to someone whose vote matters, not beating your head against 30 years of accumulated doublethink and crimestop.

Notice that she never answered your question. Her head would explode if she tried.

Posted by: Reginald at October 7, 2012 9:25 PM

I would suggest she learn to speak Mandarin...

Posted by: syncrodox at October 7, 2012 9:27 PM

The Republicans demolished the Democrats in the 2010 House election so why is the narrative always that Republicans are blocking Obama, who was elected in 2008? I would contend that Obama & the Democrats are blocking House Republicans, as they have the people's mandate at present.

Posted by: Tim at October 7, 2012 9:31 PM

Click Unfriend and move on...

Posted by: Glenn at October 7, 2012 9:39 PM

How would I respond? 2x4 to the head, or laugh in her face and walk away.

There is no middle ground. You either beat the hell out of them yourself, or leave them for someone else to mug.

So far I've got a 100% record of laughing and walking, but as I get older option one is looking more and more attractive.

Posted by: The Phantom at October 7, 2012 9:41 PM

"If Obama can't change things (in Washington) as he said, maybe he should get out of the way and let an adult do the job that he can't/won't/doesn't do."

Posted by: DanBC at October 7, 2012 9:48 PM

More fool you for being on Facebook at all. You'd be best off wiping the dust of Facebook off your feet and leaving it behind. Life's too short.

Don't bother with a response. She deserves none. She has the Law, the Prophets and the Gospels. Let her listen to them. If she won't attend to them, she won't attend to you.

If you must respond, merely tell her you're leaving Facebook and she need not contact you any more if all she wants to do is talk rot about politics.

Trust me, she won't.

Posted by: Dick Slater at October 7, 2012 10:01 PM

Actually, your friend may come to change her mind but, if you value your friendship, it is best to let her do this without your interference.

Many of my friends are hopelessly left leaning.

Your friend has a right to her opinion. I'd suggest that you back off.

If she never changes her mind, that's okay!

Posted by: David at October 7, 2012 10:01 PM

How can you discuss these issues, with those who are bedazzled with THE ONE, when they believe tripe such as:

"I think he was a little taken aback at the brazenness with which Gov. Romney walked away from so many of the positions on which he's run, walked away from his record,” Axelrod said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

It boggles the mind, how stupid the partisans are, to actually agree with this.

Posted by: DanBC at October 7, 2012 10:26 PM

The article is on Huffington Post (Brainwashing Central).

Don't even bother. Your friend is immune to reasoning or evidence.

Posted by: David at October 7, 2012 10:46 PM

Well, let's take her points one by one, shall we?

"George W. Bush is the one who got us into two wars,"

It was the Taliban and Al Qaeda got us into the war in Afghanistan. The US went into Iraq because of WMDs and Iraq'a military attacks against the air units enforcing the no-fly zone.

"gave tax cuts,"

And those were the only thing keeping the economy going.

"and added medicare benefits without EVER including them in his budget."

Yes, that was a Democrat-controlled Congress did that. It's worth noting that Congress has failed to pass a budget throughout Obama's term in office, despite the Democrats having super majorites in both Houses for the first two years.

"Obama hasn't gotten us into this mess, which is the worst recession since the 1930's, and based on the fact that much of the collapse revolved around lack of regulation in the housing loan business, there's no quick fix."

Obama may not have created it, but he has made the situation worse, by adding $10 trillion to the national debt with nothing to show for it. The lack of regulation in the housing sector was from legislation created by Carter and broadened by Clinton.

And where did the lack of regulation come from? Oh yes, Democrats in Clnton's Congress repealing Glass-Steagal under lobbying from Wall Street banksters.

Posted by: cgh at October 7, 2012 10:55 PM

And where did the lack of regulation come from? Oh yes, Democrats in Clnton's Congress repealing Glass-Steagal under lobbying from Wall Street banksters.

Oh not this crap. The repeal of Glass-Steagal was 1) a bipartisan effort and 2) had nothing to do with the housing crash and GS probably would have made it worse. Canada repealed its quasi-GS in the '80s.

Some of the commenters here are as tribally insane as the woman in the Facebook.

Posted by: LAS at October 7, 2012 11:04 PM

Robert, as Bill suggested, I expect that nothing you counter with will sink in. She will have to learn the hard way just as millions in the former Soviet Union did, and western Europeans are today.

Reginald and cgh are right.

Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at October 7, 2012 11:14 PM

How would I respond to this? I would suggest that she get a brain transplant - the sooner the better. Just remember this - neither can you fix stupid nor can you argue with stupid.

If you argue with stupid pretty soon the casual observer will be unable to disguish which is which. They kind of drag you down to their level.

Posted by: a different bob at October 7, 2012 11:27 PM

You could have her watch this:
http://www.mrctv.org/public/eyeblast.swf?v=e4SUkUSUQu
Clinton HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo bragging about banks being forced to give bad loans - in 1998. There is a longer version out there somewhere.

Posted by: Robert S. at October 7, 2012 11:47 PM

Oh, and Dear Leader Obama had a role as well:
http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/

And from 2004, democrats insisting there is no problem at the GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while Republicans wanted more regulation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPoksfSf2nA
BTW, Franklin Raines was Obamas housing advisor for awhile.

Posted by: Robert S. at October 7, 2012 11:59 PM

Math is hard, but reality is harder and that is the problem. Too many think that by sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting the "government will fix it", will actually change reality. "Government" has become an addiction.

Posted by: annie at October 8, 2012 12:09 AM

There is a video on youtube showing the timeline between when bush asked for the housing issue to be taken care of in his first year and then in 2007 when democrats took over. Both times Dodd and Frank shut it down saying it was fine. Next bring up that this exact thing happened in Japan over a couple decades ago and they are still suffering the effects. We tried their same solution and having the same effects.

Posted by: dashing at October 8, 2012 12:13 AM

There is a video on youtube showing the timeline between when bush asked for the housing issue to be taken care of in his first year and then in 2007 when democrats took over. Both times Dodd and Frank shut it down saying it was fine. Next bring up that this exact thing happened in Japan over a couple decades ago and they are still suffering the effects. We tried their same solution and having the same effects.

Posted by: dashing at October 8, 2012 12:14 AM

The best way to respond to your friend is to ask why Obama has continues Bush's failed policies. He's involved in more wars, and spent more than Bush.
It took over 200 years for the debt to reach 6 trillion and only 12 years to reach 16 trillion.

Ask her what policies to fix the economy the Republicans are blocking. She won't know; it makes leftists very uncomfortable when you ask them specifics.

You can't argue logic or reason with someone on the left. If you can't come up with an emotional argument, don't waste your time.
So, make federal spending numbers relate to a household budget.

Posted by: SDH at October 8, 2012 12:26 AM

Obama vs Obamalite: not a lot to choose between. Neither of these fellows has shown even the slightest desire to administer the tough medicine needed to get America back on track. Overall, though Obamalite would delay hitting the wall by a few years.

Posted by: Ras Erasmus at October 8, 2012 12:27 AM

Politics, as is life, is a continuem not an event...Obamalite is one stupid comment Ras.

Posted by: syncrodox at October 8, 2012 1:00 AM

Lack of regulation? More like the opposite. As in, laws and regulations requiring lenders to give mortgages to people with no demonstrable likelihood of living up to their end of the deal.

That's the Left's eternal playbook: use the government to create a mess, then refer to that mess as a reason for more government control. Rinse, repeat.

Posted by: MissAnthropy at October 8, 2012 1:17 AM

Obamalite is one stupid comment Ras.

The truth hurts. It's just a continuum of pain for braindead partisans like you.

Posted by: LAS at October 8, 2012 1:38 AM

Romney is Obamalite.

If you look at his record as Governor of Mass, you will see that expansion and socialist policies were expanded, not retracted or even held in place.

Health care was a runaway train under his administration, with more government control and massive spending increases.

His conservative voting record was a joke, he flip-flopped more than Alison Redford at the Stampede Pancake Breakfast.

Let's not be quick to jump up and down and expect the moon from Captain Underoos. He has the potential to be the President, but the Public Sector Unions and Government Administration Employees are lifers and tell the President the way things are and will be.

And the Banksta's are holding the keys to the clubhouse, either way they are still in charge.

Idiots!!!!

Posted by: glacierman at October 8, 2012 1:41 AM

Point out that Obama's spending policies and Bush's are indistinguishable
~LAS at October 7, 2012 5:05 PM

Your inability to distinguish between poicies does not make them the same, neither does it present you as one whose own ideas are to be taken seriously.
----------------------------------------

Robert,
Obama did get us into this mess.(google Community Reinvestment Act[CRA] + Obama)
The mortgage regulation that caused it was the one which forced the banks to issue subprime loans in order to prove that banks weren't racially discriminating against bad risk loan applicants.
Obama himself was a litigator on behalf or a community group that he himself organized(yes Obama was a Community Organizer) to coerce(Occupy type protests) Citigroup in Chicago with the threat of the public accusation of 'Red Lining' if Citigroup didn't issue subprime loans in the 1990's.

Republicans demonstrably DID NOT do absolutely EVERYTHING they could to stop every effort Obama made to get the economy back on track.
Solyndra is a prime example of an Obama effort to 'get the economy working' again, so too was Cash 4 Clunkers.
The basic fact is, Obama's efforts to get the economy working again were simply failures in general and in detail.

Obama never even promised to get the economy "Back on Track". Rather, Obama promised "Change" not 'back on the old track'.
It was just that Obama's "Changes" were primarily subject to his political agenda rather than targeted for optimum economic results, results being a fleeting secondary consideration of each measure he implemented if at all.

Since Obama's goal was CHANGE, it is no surprised that he didn't get it BACK on TRACK when he wasn't interested in the track at all.

So it was that Obama's "Changes" took to the U.S. economy like a train takes to a gravel road.

Posted by: Oz at October 8, 2012 1:42 AM

Could someone please release my comment from the filter?
In light of the effort I put into writing it, I would appreciate it.

Posted by: Oz at October 8, 2012 1:45 AM

I'm not hurting at all Las and I will put my brainpan against yours any time pal.

Populations are moved in increments...both to the left and right...pendulum stuff...you simple fuck.

Posted by: syncrodox at October 8, 2012 1:58 AM

Things turn in increments or degrees...societal pendulumns swing LAS...through it all some folk stay stone effing stupid. Know what I mean?

Posted by: syncrodox at October 8, 2012 2:07 AM

Robert, all I can say is that you can drag people into reality but you can't make them live there. You're dealing with a case of incongruent reality tunnels and, unless you blow apart that persons reality tunnel and let them experience unfiltered reality, there's no point in even talking to them until their personal virtual reality is so out of sync with objective reality that their wetware sensory filters are unable to deal with the external inputs. Unfortunately, someone living in a large city like SF can live in a personal virtual reality having no connection to objective reality and still survive; this is not something one can do living in the countryside.

Usually, for leftists, their reality tunnels can be breached by being mugged or raped by a young black male. Often this is the first step in their road to expanding their reality tunnels to overlap those of conservatives.

In the case of a person who's so entrenched in a discordant self-created reality, I'd suggest they read some of Robert Anton Wilson's books which should push them in the direction of Libertarianism if they grok RAW's musings about the artificial realities we all construct for ourselves.

Posted by: Loki at October 8, 2012 2:16 AM

"based on the fact that much of the collapse revolved around lack of regulation in the housing loan business, there's no quick fix"

Much of the collapse revolved around REGULATIONS in the housing market requiring banks to lend to people who were not making enough money to justify the loans, on pain of false accusations of racism against said banks.

No, there's no quick fix, but the ONLY fix is to get rid of the regulations that caused the problem, and let the market sort itself out.

Another action that would be of immense help is to streamline the tax system, get rid of all the fancy loopholes and surtaxes that encourage people to do such-and-such or to discourage them from doing it. Eliminate business subsidies as soon as possible, and eliminate government funding of "activist groups" even sooner.

There has apparently been fraud in the housing loan business; whether it amounted to more than in any other aspect of business (or in society in general) I do not know.

In the financial sector there are numerous transactions every day that would surely be considered fraud anywhere else, such as short-selling; it's just the way the business has developed, it's accepted by everyone, and traders are on the hook when things turn sour.

More importantly, the whole economy is based around the financial sector, including the Federal Reserve. All of this is why I would be fairly cautious in deregulating, but deregulate one must.

Posted by: nv53 at October 8, 2012 2:28 AM

Thanks largely to people like you Syncro, things do not change. They stay statist; only the color alternates between red and blue.

Posted by: LAS at October 8, 2012 2:39 AM

glacierman @5:05 and others - thank you. The idea that "lack of regulation" caused the housing crisis was was of Obamas lines during the debate and I wish Mitt had called him on it. (There must be a pat democrat response or else Obama's handlers would never have encouraged him to bring it up.)

As for Robert's Facebook acqaintance, I would just have gone with "stimulus package, anyone?"

Posted by: Black Mamba at October 8, 2012 2:49 AM

LAS...you confuse statism with realism ...

Mamba...stimulus package it is...

Posted by: syncrodox at October 8, 2012 3:04 AM

You have to cure the disease before you can stop the symptoms.

“How did you go bankrupt?"
Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”

― Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises

I wouldn't argue that BO inherited a mess. Let's agree that he did for the sake of argument. I would ask her if she was in his seat, what would she do?

I would also ask her "How progressive do you think a tax system can be and still be effective?" There's numbers which show when the rich flee or their income drops.

And if possible I would get her to watch something introductory. Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" series is available free on the internet, for example.

Posted by: Larry at October 8, 2012 7:02 AM

You have to cure the disease before you can stop the symptoms.

“How did you go bankrupt?"
Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”

― Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises

I wouldn't argue that BO inherited a mess. Let's agree that he did for the sake of argument. I would ask her if she was in his seat, what would she do?

I would also ask her "How progressive do you think a tax system can be and still be effective?" There's numbers which show when the rich flee or their income drops.

And if possible I would get her to watch something introductory. Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" series is available free on the internet, for example.

Posted by: Larry at October 8, 2012 7:02 AM

They never answer the question, do they.

Posted by: Jamie MacMaster at October 8, 2012 7:33 AM

Laughter is usually the most appropriate response. You surely are familiar with the term "ROTFLMFAO"?

Take it literally...

Posted by: Mark Matis at October 8, 2012 7:33 AM

Yes Obama didn't initiate this mess but he has dug the a whole lot deeper. WHo can truly say that 1.5trillion dollars of overspending each yearis wise?

The mess was created by politicians, and Obamah was one of the lawyers, who gleefully forced banks and mortgage companies to make loans to people who could not afford them. This was NOT a lack of regulation, but of political interference.

"It's Bush's Fault"

Well, that's original but don't you think it's a bit stale now?

Posted by: Robert of Ottawa at October 8, 2012 8:38 AM

Robert, above all be polite in your response(s).

First ask if she could respond to your three (reasonable) questions first. Once she has done that then you would be more than happy to move on to addressing her comments.

After she has done that (and not before) respond to her declarations using whichever comments above you agree with.

I would add that Obama and the democrats had an entirely free hand for two years and proceeded in an entirely non- partisan manner to dramatically increase regulation of markets, the environment and one sixth of the American economy - healthcare. In every case it has been widely documented that almost no direction was provided by Obama - he left it to pelosi and Reid et al to design and get legislation passed. In effect Obama voted "present" yet again. There is no evidence whatsoever that a modern economy can be stimulated to recovery by increasing regulation. Every major rebound economically in America since WW2 was in part stimulated by a decline in the role of govt: post ww2 massive cuts to military spending; huge tax cuts by Kennedy in the early sixties, extensive cuts to regulation begun in the carter administration that bore fruit during the Reagan era are three examples - ALL done during periods when a dem POTUS was in power. There is not one single instance where Obama has cut regulation - unless you want to include enforcement of illegal immigration laws...

The lack of cooperation by the gop claim is simply false. One need only look at how often Obama has tried to contact and discuss the issues with GOp members - he has done it less than any president - far less than even the reclusive Nixon ever. As the chief executive it is his job to initiate such discussions - not the other way around.

Posted by: Gord Tulk at October 8, 2012 8:44 AM

Loki and Mark Matis have individually recapitulate my comment above I see. I concur, gentlemen.

Lefties don't partake of the same reality we do. Limbaugh said the perfect thing the other day, "liberals make up alternate realities and then live in them."

More than half the problem is they are hateful. They will say anything to make you angry, just to see the look on your face. The rest of the problem is numbers don't mean anything in their alternate reality.

You can't argue with alternate reality. All you can do is walk away and wait for Reality to impose itself upon them by way of pain and suffering, or you can administer the pain and suffering yourself.

Some of our Eastern European friends here bear the scars of Reality imposing itself on Communism, perhaps walking away is not the kindest way.

Posted by: The Phantom at October 8, 2012 8:44 AM

Robert, above all be polite in your response(s).

First ask if she could respond to your three (reasonable) questions first. Once she has done that then you would be more than happy to move on to addressing her comments.

After she has done that (and not before) respond to her declarations using whichever comments above you agree with.

I would add that Obama and the democrats had an entirely free hand for two years and proceeded in an entirely non- partisan manner to dramatically increase regulation of markets, the environment and one sixth of the American economy - healthcare. In every case it has been widely documented that almost no direction was provided by Obama - he left it to pelosi and Reid et al to design and get legislation passed. In effect Obama voted "present" yet again. There is no evidence whatsoever that a modern economy can be stimulated to recovery by increasing regulation. Every major rebound economically in America since WW2 was in part stimulated by a decline in the role of govt: post ww2 massive cuts to military spending; huge tax cuts by Kennedy in the early sixties, extensive cuts to regulation begun in the carter administration that bore fruit during the Reagan era are three examples - ALL done during periods when a dem POTUS was in power. There is not one single instance where Obama has cut regulation - unless you want to include enforcement of illegal immigration laws...

The lack of cooperation by the gop claim is simply false. One need only look at how often Obama has tried to contact and discuss the issues with GOp members - he has done it less than any president - far less than even the reclusive Nixon ever. As the chief executive it is his job to initiate such discussions - not the other way around.

Posted by: Gord Tulk at October 8, 2012 8:46 AM

Don't bother...walk away. The only difference between genius and stupid is genius has it's limits.

Posted by: mray at October 8, 2012 9:31 AM

Robert,

Ask her if she is interested in being "right" or if she is interested in debate?

If she just wants to be right, all the facts, numbers and arguments are wasting your time in something productive and able to help somebody who genuinely could use some. Sometimes those if front of you are nothing but a distraction to keep you from doing some real good.

Kind of like the trolls on a blog. If they come around to changing their beliefs from the liberal / socialist mindset we have done our job. If they choose not to be persuaded, they will leave or say something so offensive or rude they will be banished.

Just like your "friend".

Posted by: glacierman at October 8, 2012 9:40 AM

Robert: Wrt her blaming Bush, you should send her this.

It would be better to show it to her in person, of course, just so you could watch her reaction as she tries to come up with a counter-response....

Posted by: EBD at October 8, 2012 9:45 AM

Sorry to be about 100 comments late to this party, but Kate's original question was > "How would you resspond to this?"

I'd respond this way, as I have numerous times as the election nears and Obama voters get more and more defensive > "Well if you think Obama inherited a real mess in 2008 just wait until he and you see the size of the mess he will be inheriting if he gets re-elected in November"

Never over-estimate the intelligence of the left, and never under-estimate the left's powers of self-delusion.

Posted by: Davers6 at October 8, 2012 11:26 AM

Sorry to be about 100 comments late to this party, but Kate's original question was > "How would you resspond to this?"

I'd respond this way, as I have numerous times as the election nears and Obama voters get more and more defensive > "Well if you think Obama inherited a real mess in 2008 just wait until he and you see the size of the mess he will be inheriting if he gets re-elected in November"

Never over-estimate the intelligence of the left, and never under-estimate the left's powers of self-delusion.

Posted by: Davers6 at October 8, 2012 11:30 AM

Never fight or 'escalate' the debate with relatives or good friends to whom you REALLY wish to remanin close.

My grown 30-something son (the leftist) lives/works in Chicago. He loathed Bush, LOOOVES Obama ... he's my only son, don't wish to destroy our relationship, so we simply do NOT TALK about ANY political events or issues in order to keep peace in the family.

Occasionally he will float a trial balloon along the lines of "So dad, what's YOUR take on _____?" I no longer EVER take that bait, and reply with the much-hated "parental" response of > "Oh, I don't know, Jeff ... but I suspect my thoughts on that political stuff would be as disappointing to you as yours have been to me." ... end of THAT topic!

But on ALL OTHER things we remain close, we remain friendly, and we have a LOT of good times together.


Posted by: Davers6 at October 8, 2012 11:44 AM

Agree with her. Obama's luck is all bad. The obvious answer is to elect someone with better luck.

Posted by: MarkD at October 8, 2012 11:44 AM

Kyla wrote, “Just laugh and say, 'If Obama was to get re-elected, just imagine the mess he'd inherit this time!’" That’s my favourite of plenty of really fine responses.

I’ve lately been “defriended"—not on Face Book, but in real life—by a person whom I used to respect. It seems that this person’s ego is just too fragile to deal with the truth, even though intelligence doesn’t seem to be the problem. Even having lots of $$ in investments, which will go south if Zer0 returns, doesn’t have any purchase with this person. I might also mention that, in return for reasonable argument on my side, facts and figures, and an invitation to challenge . . . all I’ve had for over six months is silence, from someone I thought was a gentleman: pop goes the weasel! So, a decades old friendship ended—not by me—because we don’t agree on Obama. Frankly, I don’t give a damn. It’s always a one way street with lefties: tolerance is a one-sided proposition. “Aren’t we tolerant to be your friend?” I don’t think so.

So, Godspeed, Robert, with a person, where speaking truth to ignorance seems to be a losing—or not!—proposition. I actually feel somewhat liberated. Who needs a fair-weather friend?

Posted by: lookout at October 8, 2012 1:04 PM

Respond with this;

"Now my administration has a job to do as well and that job is to get this economy back on its feet. That's my job. And it's a job I gladly accept. I love those folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, 'Well, this is Obama's economy.' That's fine; give it to me."

Barack Obama,
Warren Mich. 2009

You can't take the credit when things go right and blame everyone else when things go wrong. Not when you've made this declaration of responsibility as Obama did.

Posted by: pkuster at October 8, 2012 1:32 PM

Davers6 @ 11:44, I have the same problem with a son-in-law and a daughter-in-law. Believe me it is tough avoiding the topic of politics or the AGW/green scam.

lookout, "It’s always a one way street with lefties: tolerance is a one-sided proposition." Exactly!

Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at October 8, 2012 1:36 PM

Great photoshop of Kyla's thesis at Power Line:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/consequences-of-a-defective-education.php

Posted by: lookout at October 8, 2012 1:39 PM

Concede the wars. Point out that Obama extended the tax cuts. Democrats stopped Bush from reigning in the home loan business (read, Barney Frank). As far as Medicare, part d, the democrats wanted to give more lavish benefits (ie, no donut hole, for example).
Basically put, Obama has added more to the federal debt in four years than Bush did in eight years. There is no apparent benefit to what he's done during that eight years.

Posted by: Half Canadian at October 8, 2012 3:00 PM

There is too much emotion (on both sides) for a rational debate. Pointing fingers is easier than solving problems.

That said, if you must go into it, take it bit by bit:

1) Yes, Bush did send US forces into a couple of wars. So what? Bringing in Dubya's having "started two wars," is a red herring, a failure of logic, an attempt to distract or turn the discussion onto a different path rather than deal with the issues at hand. The topic under discussion is current deficit financing in the USA, not Middle-East wars.

If it matters, if she persists, the US was taken into the most destructive war in history, World War 2, by the leading Democrat in US history, FDR himself. (It was the right decision, of course.) Oh, and the A-Bomb was dropped on the orders of another Democrat, Harry Truman (who I personally think was the best president the Yanks have ever had.) Truman also committed US troop to the Korean War. And it was under Lyndon Johnson (Dem, TX) that the US really got committed in Viet Nam. And it was the Republican Nixon who got them out. My point is that dragging up unrelated actions by previous First Executives is silly, because there's enough mud to fling anywhere.

2) The entire sub-prime fiasco was in reality the fault of *both* Democratic and Republican governments. The policy of granting mortgages to people without jobs or assets was insane, but it took more than just that. Traditional mortgage practices involved the bank accepting the risk if the borrower defaulted; banks were therefore careful about who they lent to. Starting in the 80s, (Reagan and Bush Sr), banks started the clever habit of bundling such mortgages into investment packages and selling them - the default risk was part of the package and the buyer assumed the risk as well as any potential profit. It was like a clever practical joke, one so clever that the joker forgot the whole thing was a joke and became one of the 'joke-ees', with the MC meanwhile stepping out for a quick beer. Banks and other institutions wound up making huge investments in things they had never bothered to fully research, things that ultimately were worthless. This bundling became increasingly significant under Clinton, a Democrat. Clinton had eight solid years in office (three of them with Democratic majorities in Congress). He and a Democratic Congress had the opportunity to re-regulate everything, put the brakes on and solve the problem before it started.

Obviously, they didn't.

In short, trying to point the fingers at the Republicans is silly; your opponent's logic (and facts) fail. Everybody helped cause the problem, get over it.

And *that* takes us back once again to the real topic at hand, which is not which party caused the subprime problem then, but rather the fact that the USA is now deeply in debt and digging itself in deeper.

3) As for the Republicans working to block Obama's allegedly great solutions, Obama had a fully majority in Congress for two years. He could have passed any legislation, brought down any measures he chose. He had a completely free hand.

And didn't solve the problem.

That doesn't mean the Republicans would've done better (different discussion which we can do later, dear), but it is very clear that Obama's hands have *not* been completely tied by party politics - and that means that her statement is basically false, even if the Republicans *had* subsequently been trying to block everything he has tried.

Note that you are not arguing that Romney is better than Obama. That may or may not be so (I have my own opinion) but it's harder to win such an argument. What I am suggesting here is simply refuting her points, on her own ground. You're never going to actually convince her, but at least you can wear her down long enough that she'll be quiet in your presence.

Posted by: Bob at October 8, 2012 3:26 PM

I wouldn't. Walls are notoriously difficult to communicate with. The Greeks aren't listening either.

Posted by: Thomas_L..... at October 8, 2012 3:28 PM

Regarding "Obama versus Obamalite". I don't look just at governing record. How, exactly, did Bain make money again? (hint - it wasn't by running all companies into the ground and putting them out of business - there's no profit in that.)

Posted by: C_Miner at October 8, 2012 4:21 PM

No dear Bill Clinton got us into the housing crisis way back in 1994 and an argument can be made He caused 911 by not going after Osama when He had at least 3 different opportunities!

Posted by: Adrian Smits at October 8, 2012 4:33 PM

Do you have numbers that back up your assertions?

Or are you simply a freeloader who isn't honest enough to admit you are, in fact a freeloader?

By the way, by Obama's own standards for his admin, expressed in 2008, he should be fired.

Posted by: small c conservative at October 8, 2012 6:27 PM

I got into it with a guy on Facebook the other day, and after enduring another lamentation of the woeful situation Obama found - same things as the SF correspondent cited from an apparently standardized MSM list - I encouraged him, in the interest of time, in the future to please recite Obama's excuses by number. No word back from him so far.

Posted by: portage & main at October 8, 2012 6:34 PM

DEMOCRATIC MYTH NO. 3: THEY WANT TO RETURN TO SAME PRACTICES THAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/08/democratic-myth-no-3-they-want-us-to-return-to-the-same-practices-that-got-us-into-this-mess/

Posted by: dscott at October 8, 2012 7:09 PM

Cash for Clunkers, introduced within 6 months of President Obama's inauguration, should be re-visited in any conversation with folks about the upcoming election.

That program reflects the unintended consequences of government interference with the free market, involving a popular/essential item, of considerable expense.


Posted by: Maikeru at October 8, 2012 8:07 PM

Actually the houseing mess really started with Clinton He is the one that deregulated the banks to make it easier for low income families to get homes. My I say homes that they had no way of paying for. They had ballon mortgages with low interest to start then ten years later it went up to the point they could not pay for the homes. Republicains stopping Obama? How can anyone say that when he had a Democratic controlled congress to start off. He has used Excutive Powers to pass laws without anyone even looking at then. By the way he did not inherit this economy he asked for it he campaigned for it. He got! We got the highest debt ever.

Posted by: John at October 8, 2012 9:05 PM

Actually the houseing mess really started with Clinton He is the one that deregulated the banks to make it easier for low income families to get homes. My I say homes that they had no way of paying for. They had ballon mortgages with low interest to start then ten years later it went up to the point they could not pay for the homes. Republicains stopping Obama? How can anyone say that when he had a Democratic controlled congress to start off. He has used Excutive Powers to pass laws without anyone even looking at then. By the way he did not inherit this economy he asked for it he campaigned for it. He got! We got the highest debt ever.

Posted by: John at October 8, 2012 9:05 PM

The housing mess had its roots in Carter's administration. Reagan and Bush 1 are passively-guilty to the extent that they didn't dismantle it, whereas Clinton is actively-guilty for expanding the scope and siccing the Dept. of Justice on lending institutions who failed to comply.

Government is the author of this mess, and now roughly half the population are dumb enough to think it the solution.

Posted by: MissAnthropy at October 8, 2012 9:20 PM

Respond with a quote from my dad.

"You BS your friends and I'll BS mine; but let's not BS each other"

(censored as this is a clean family website)

Posted by: Mike T at October 8, 2012 9:41 PM

Upon reading all the comments, Kyla is the clear winner. Genius!

Posted by: The Phantom at October 8, 2012 10:38 PM

Kyla, I like your comment so much I'm going to steal it and use it in the next discussion I have with an Obozo supporter.

One of the things I've found works best when discussing political subjects with friends who have opposing views is either using humor, or declining to discuss certain subjects by mutual agreement.

The other option is being Libertarian because then, if someone starts ranting about Bush, I can easily bring up all of the unconstitutional actions that Bush was engaged in. Very rarely have I had people respond to me negatively when they find out I'm Libertarian, and it's usually extreme leftists who do. Such people are never going to be convinced that there's an objective reality out there other than the distorted one they see through their Marxist spectacles.

One of the places I rarely discuss politics is at the hospital. If the same discussion were held online anonymously, I'm sure we'd be flaming each other after a short exchange of posts. The nice thing about medicine is that it's a meritocracy and incompetence is a far greater sin than having the wrong political views. I once accidentally got into a political discussion with a few of the local doctors at a dinner meeting and it rapidly got quite heated (the bottle or more of wine I consumed over the evening probably didn't help matters any). The lineup featured the retired arch-conservative physician and myself on one side and some liberals on the other and I think we basically cleaned up. For a while I didn't talk much with people sitting at that table, but now we're back into discussing medical subjects with the same degree of enthusiasm as before but know not to get into politics.

If you have no choice but to get into a political argument, approach it from a novel aspect. I find the reality tunnel approach very useful as most people have never thought about how their brains create what they consider to be reality. The success of this approach is predicated on the other side accepting the premise that there is an objective reality outside our skulls that our sensory systems attempt to model in individual ways in our wetware. Thus, this approach won't work with with a post-modernist who denies the existence of an objective reality and the best counter to that argument is to hit them hard over the head with a 2x4. I should note I don't have any post-modernists as friends.

Posted by: Loki at October 9, 2012 2:23 AM
Site
Meter