Quote:
|
This is the issue. You assumed a negative connotation with the phrase "Obamanomics." I don't, and didn't intend it to have one. If you would have questioned what I meant by the remark then I could have kindly explained it to you
|
No, actually I assumed no such thing. And I did in fact ask what you meant by the remark. My first post in here was to ask you what Obama has to do with the bailout. When your response was still vague, I proceeded to mock your vague reasoning. And I would have done the same if you had used the word "McCainanomics." Despite the rhetoric flying back and forth between the two presidential campaigns, this bailout has nothing to do with either of them and it wasn't really defeated because of either of them either.
This issue is bigger and older than either of their candidacies. Making reference to either Obama or McCain is a polarizing comment by its very nature, especially in this forum where political rhetoric flies free and fast. And I guess that's fine if you want to turn the issue into yet another partisan debate. But for someone who claims to not engage in polarization, it seems to me that you ought to know better than to make a gratuitous reference to presidential politics when the subject has nothing to do with it. Kind of like how your intelligence otherwise has nothing to do with it either.