Not Socialist?
Was the President concerned he could be labeled a Socialist? Maybe so. After mishandling a question from the New York Times Monday, he clarified later in the day, saying, “It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question. It wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch.”
Doesn’t matter. It was a socialist move on Bush’s part, and if you let it slide on your watch, it’s still socialist! We’ve already had a look at your associates. Every time you open your mouth, every time you pass a bill, you quack!
Maybe the reason some want you to fail, is because they want Socialism to fail. I know I want Socialism to fail. It never works. The pigs never get enough at the trough.
“I inherited it.” “He inherited it.” When are you going to own it? It was Bush’s when he was a candidate. He was talking down the economy. Democraps and the media count on public education so people forget what they said, even eight years ago. Barack Obama talks down the economy and it’s still Bush’s fault.
Let’s not forget the earmarks. “Oh, those are Bush’s earmarks”. You were a Senator when those earmarks were put in there, and some of them are yours. If you say your going to stop earmarks, I guess you could have vetoed the bills. Sound like the same ol’ politics to me. I so love “change”.
Well, alot of those earmarks were really a sneaky way to get your socialist agenda through, and blame Bush in so doing. And the sheeple… well indoctrination goes a long way. Your not a socialist? Mr. President, you quack.
