Okay dude... you actually asked for it this time.
Consider if you will the stupidity of your previous post.
Maybe you might appreciate it better if we reversed the order of arguments:
With regard to the patriot act, the congress signed off on that.
With regard to the iraq war, the congress gave him that power and could have taken it back at any time.
...you actually provided not one, but two examples of Bush pushing unpopular legislation through the Congress and Senate only one line AFTER you made the following assertion:
With regard to housing, how can you blame GWB while at the same time ignore the fact that he urged the congress to reign in fannie and freddy who were buying up all these crap mortgages and fueling the housing bubble? To ignore the fact that the congress itself bears a lot of responsiblity for this mess, alon with a lot of other players, is just dishonest on your part.
So which is it?
Bush pushed through unpopular budgets; unpopular legislation; two wars; torture; evisceration of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... but he just couldn't address the unprecedented housing bubble because Congress wouldn't let him?
That's plain apologetic reasoning, the very thing I have been accusing you of. You are actually providing examples of your faulty ideologically blinkered arguments to counter the claim that your argument is faulty and ideologically blinkered...? WTF?
Dude you simply don't understand.
Aside from this nitpicking, you have completely missed the entire point of my argument throughout this thread.
I'm asserting that you (and your ilk) behave in an intellectually dishonest manner when you exaggerate every single failing of Obama's while simultaneously remaining ideologically blinkered to the horrendous behaviour of the Bush administration.
Let me repeat that:
You (and your ilk) behave in an intellectually dishonest manner when openly attack Obama while simultaneously remaining ideologically blinkered to the horrendous behaviour of the Bush administration.
Sorry for the repetition, but I can only question your reading comprehension when you futilely attempt to counter my assertion by:
-accusing me of blaming everything on Bush (I haven't, and that isn't my point)
-making excuses for Bush's failings (which actually makes my point for me)
How can we have a reasoned discussion when your only counter arguments are to attack a point I am NOT making, and angrily PROVING the point I am making.
This is fast sounding like one of your many "Missile Defense Shield" threads... threads I have deliberately avoided posting in because as a trained physicist, taking on THAT much delusional misunderstood pseudo-science at once would probably make my head explode.
The Luke