thus post 34 is absolutely correct. in order for your logic to be true, we need:
1. obama not responsible for anything
2. obama cannot do anything in 2.5 years to help the situation
it is fairly simple logic, but obviously to complex for you
Obviously you think Obama is responsible. Maybe you should explain the "logic" behind that. What should Obama have done that he didn't do to improve new home sales? And, better yet, why is higher new home sales an important policy objective?
you are either truly stupid or a liar. which is it? reread what i said in the OP about a president's responsibility. and then take careful notice of the highlighted text above. your weak, pathetic attempt to make it out as if those are my thoughts is completely dishonest or completely stupid.
nice deflection off your earlier idiocy, but it failed to hide the fact my statement about YOUR logic is 100% accurate.
You're an idiot.
thanks for sharing such intelligence. way to logically take apart my argument. you must be so proud.
You have no argument, logically or otherwise. There is nothing to take apart. It's just more of your standard jackassery.
right, that is why you tried and then when you realized i was right, you resort back to insults. you either lied or made an exremely stupid comment. i get it, you have to try and save face.
you can't attack my points, so you attack me.
you are either truly stupid or a liar. which is it? reread what i said in the OP about a president's responsibility. and then take careful notice of the highlighted text above. your weak, pathetic attempt to make it out as if those are my thoughts is completely dishonest or completely stupid.
nice deflection off your earlier idiocy, but it failed to hide the fact my statement about YOUR logic is 100% accurate.
I think Yurt did make a point; it was something along the lines of whining about the incessant need to hold Bush accountable, while not blaming Obama for things that happened under Bush, because 2.5 years have passed, and that is the limit for effects any preceding President can have on anything...
there are the points. you dishonestly tried to say my statements about YOUR logic meant that believed i them and believe obama is responsible. when the truth was, the statements are about YOUR logic. my statements about YOUR logic are 100% accurate and you have not been able to show otherwise. all you did was dishonestly deflect away from YOUR logic.
thus post 34 is absolutely correct. in order for your logic to be true, we need:
1. obama not responsible for anything
2. obama cannot do anything in 2.5 years to help the situation
it is fairly simple logic, but obviously to complex for you
Obviously you think Obama is responsible. Maybe you should explain the "logic" behind that. What should Obama have done that he didn't do to improve new home sales? And, better yet, why is higher new home sales an important policy objective?
Except Bill Clinton. A lot of people don't know this, but Bill Clinton was on the job for an entire 8 years after most believe he left office. Everything from 9/11 to the banking collapse happened on his watch. When righty pundits claim there were no terrorist attacks on Bush's watch, they're telling the truth. But not that many people realize this historical fact, so they are often mocked. Undeservedly.