<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Theodore Roosevelt and George Bush</title>
	<atom:link href="http://deannaizme.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/theodore-roosevelt-and-george-bush/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://deannaizme.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/theodore-roosevelt-and-george-bush/</link>
	<description>Political Commentary from a Progressive Perspective</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:44:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: deannaizme</title>
		<link>http://deannaizme.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/theodore-roosevelt-and-george-bush/#comment-326</link>
		<dc:creator>deannaizme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:39:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deannaizme.wordpress.com/?p=347#comment-326</guid>
		<description>Cheetos, thanks for commenting again.  I agree with you about Congress.  Their approval ratings are also pretty bad.  I haven&#039;t written much about Congress as yet -- I&#039;m one writer and only have so much time.

I agree that there will be economic rebound in the future.  That&#039;s the nature of the business cycle.  But we have a good while -- maybe another year -- before home prices start to rebound and people start feeling better, and job losses begin to abate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cheetos, thanks for commenting again.  I agree with you about Congress.  Their approval ratings are also pretty bad.  I haven&#8217;t written much about Congress as yet &#8212; I&#8217;m one writer and only have so much time.</p>
<p>I agree that there will be economic rebound in the future.  That&#8217;s the nature of the business cycle.  But we have a good while &#8212; maybe another year &#8212; before home prices start to rebound and people start feeling better, and job losses begin to abate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cheetos for breakfast</title>
		<link>http://deannaizme.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/theodore-roosevelt-and-george-bush/#comment-322</link>
		<dc:creator>cheetos for breakfast</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:49:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deannaizme.wordpress.com/?p=347#comment-322</guid>
		<description>fair enough dean @ 12 &amp;13. was not aware &amp; didn&#039;t consider my comment could have been delayed by spam catcher. i apologize for appearing overanxious.

poll popularity for Bush I will give you. By the same measurement, his poll popularity is still around 3x greater than the approval rating given to Congress, which in the last either Gallup or Rasmussen poll was around 9%.

I think Bush has made his share of errors; not sure of any president that hasn&#039;t and it&#039;s easy for both sides to be critical based on biases, mine included.

On defense, capitalism and the economy in general I think Bush has done a decent job. We all can debate Iraq until the cows come home (not saying you did or that you pushed the issue) but we are there now and the past is the past and as I referenced to the Snopes site there are plenty of Democrats on record prior to Bush and during the last two years of the Clinton presidency all saying the same thing about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. My issue is that today&#039;s Democrat politicians pretend (again this is not directed at you) that they never said what they said.

There are signs of a slowing economic growth  &amp; I will agree with you on this, but there is rebound in the future.

My point is that it&#039;s easy for the opposition to call it a recession as a generalized term, although the actual definition of a recession doesn&#039;t apply to the current economic condition because we have not had two qtrs of negative growth. We have a great language and words have both specific and generalized meanings. I understand that many on the left want to paint a picture of a recession for political purposes (not saying this is what you did) but only noting that in terms of the definition of what a recession actually is, the economy does not reflect that definition.

Appreciate your open-mindedness.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>fair enough dean @ 12 &amp;13. was not aware &amp; didn&#8217;t consider my comment could have been delayed by spam catcher. i apologize for appearing overanxious.</p>
<p>poll popularity for Bush I will give you. By the same measurement, his poll popularity is still around 3x greater than the approval rating given to Congress, which in the last either Gallup or Rasmussen poll was around 9%.</p>
<p>I think Bush has made his share of errors; not sure of any president that hasn&#8217;t and it&#8217;s easy for both sides to be critical based on biases, mine included.</p>
<p>On defense, capitalism and the economy in general I think Bush has done a decent job. We all can debate Iraq until the cows come home (not saying you did or that you pushed the issue) but we are there now and the past is the past and as I referenced to the Snopes site there are plenty of Democrats on record prior to Bush and during the last two years of the Clinton presidency all saying the same thing about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. My issue is that today&#8217;s Democrat politicians pretend (again this is not directed at you) that they never said what they said.</p>
<p>There are signs of a slowing economic growth  &amp; I will agree with you on this, but there is rebound in the future.</p>
<p>My point is that it&#8217;s easy for the opposition to call it a recession as a generalized term, although the actual definition of a recession doesn&#8217;t apply to the current economic condition because we have not had two qtrs of negative growth. We have a great language and words have both specific and generalized meanings. I understand that many on the left want to paint a picture of a recession for political purposes (not saying this is what you did) but only noting that in terms of the definition of what a recession actually is, the economy does not reflect that definition.</p>
<p>Appreciate your open-mindedness.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: virginiaharris</title>
		<link>http://deannaizme.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/theodore-roosevelt-and-george-bush/#comment-320</link>
		<dc:creator>virginiaharris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:57:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deannaizme.wordpress.com/?p=347#comment-320</guid>
		<description>New saga about the suffragettes features Presidents Roosevelt, Wilson and Harding.

Guess which two of them had mistresses, and how that helped women win the vote?

Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won.

Now finding out the sexy, shocking truth is as easy as opening your e-mail.

&quot;The Privilege of Voting&quot; is a new e-mail series that follows eight women from 1912 - 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.

Two beautiful and extremely powerful suffragettes -- Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan, Alice Roosevelt and two gorgeous presidential mistresses.

There is a ton of heartache, and lots of hot affairs on the rocky road to the ballot box.

Presented in a unique sequential e-mail series that makes discovering history fast and FUN! Each exciting episode is about 10 minutes - perfect to enjoy during coffeebreaks, or anytime.

Subscribe free at

www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/tpovpage.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New saga about the suffragettes features Presidents Roosevelt, Wilson and Harding.</p>
<p>Guess which two of them had mistresses, and how that helped women win the vote?</p>
<p>Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won.</p>
<p>Now finding out the sexy, shocking truth is as easy as opening your e-mail.</p>
<p>&#8220;The Privilege of Voting&#8221; is a new e-mail series that follows eight women from 1912 &#8211; 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.</p>
<p>Two beautiful and extremely powerful suffragettes &#8212; Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan, Alice Roosevelt and two gorgeous presidential mistresses.</p>
<p>There is a ton of heartache, and lots of hot affairs on the rocky road to the ballot box.</p>
<p>Presented in a unique sequential e-mail series that makes discovering history fast and FUN! Each exciting episode is about 10 minutes &#8211; perfect to enjoy during coffeebreaks, or anytime.</p>
<p>Subscribe free at</p>
<p><a href="http://www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/tpovpage.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/tpovpage.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: deannaizme</title>
		<link>http://deannaizme.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/theodore-roosevelt-and-george-bush/#comment-318</link>
		<dc:creator>deannaizme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Aug 2008 05:12:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deannaizme.wordpress.com/?p=347#comment-318</guid>
		<description>Cheetos, thanks for your comment.  Bill Clinton&#039;s presidency was beyond the scope of this post (although I&#039;ve been plenty critical of both Clintons), as is Obama&#039;s and McCain&#039;s résumés.  As I said in my first paragraph, I may come back to them as we go into the fall.

While a rule of thumb for a recession is, as you state, 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth, in practicality, a recession is defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.  We have a recession when they say we&#039;re in recession.  The point of that graph, though, is that people are feeling real economic pain.  To many people, we are indeed in a recession, whether it&#039;s officially called one or not.

You state, &quot;Bush isn’t unpopular with Americas, only with American democrats who hate their own country.&quot;  Does that mean that only 28% of the country is made up of Republicans?  Didn&#039;t think so.  There are plenty of Republicans who see what a disaster Bush is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cheetos, thanks for your comment.  Bill Clinton&#8217;s presidency was beyond the scope of this post (although I&#8217;ve been plenty critical of both Clintons), as is Obama&#8217;s and McCain&#8217;s résumés.  As I said in my first paragraph, I may come back to them as we go into the fall.</p>
<p>While a rule of thumb for a recession is, as you state, 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth, in practicality, a recession is defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.  We have a recession when they say we&#8217;re in recession.  The point of that graph, though, is that people are feeling real economic pain.  To many people, we are indeed in a recession, whether it&#8217;s officially called one or not.</p>
<p>You state, &#8220;Bush isn’t unpopular with Americas, only with American democrats who hate their own country.&#8221;  Does that mean that only 28% of the country is made up of Republicans?  Didn&#8217;t think so.  There are plenty of Republicans who see what a disaster Bush is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: deannaizme</title>
		<link>http://deannaizme.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/theodore-roosevelt-and-george-bush/#comment-317</link>
		<dc:creator>deannaizme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Aug 2008 04:58:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deannaizme.wordpress.com/?p=347#comment-317</guid>
		<description>Cheetos, first off, I don&#039;t appreciate your tone in the &quot;comments not appearing&quot; crack.  Your comments were picked up as spam.  You made the same comment three times, so I recovered one.  I don&#039;t stifle debate on this blog as long as it&#039;s civilized and doesn&#039;t attack the person.  Argue the facts; calling someone names or flaming them weakens your argument, and I won&#039;t tolerate attacks anyway.  Calling someone delusional qualifies as an attack.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cheetos, first off, I don&#8217;t appreciate your tone in the &#8220;comments not appearing&#8221; crack.  Your comments were picked up as spam.  You made the same comment three times, so I recovered one.  I don&#8217;t stifle debate on this blog as long as it&#8217;s civilized and doesn&#8217;t attack the person.  Argue the facts; calling someone names or flaming them weakens your argument, and I won&#8217;t tolerate attacks anyway.  Calling someone delusional qualifies as an attack.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
