The consequences of electing someone like Bush

Thing1 said:
It's funny - you always say people are "silent," but lefties are some of the most principled people I know. Most liberals I deal with abhor the drone bombings, and say so - vocally.

And yeah - you're just a hater. You were far more "silent" about things you object to under Bush, and you were wrong about TARP & the stimulus. And you hate to be wrong.
Click to expand...

This righty condemnation of drone strikes rings false in so many ways. Nobody even talked about drones during bush's eight years in office. Take Pakistan for example, hundreds and hundreds of attacks since 2004 but it was propagandized about stopping the war on terror and defeating militants so no problem. bush increased drone attacks every year, did righties condemn him for the civilian deaths? Maybe some did, somewhere, but it wasn't widespread.

Liberals condemned bush's war-mongering, torture, drone attacks right from the start and it's outright lying to say we didn't.
 
Rune said:
Funny, Palin didn't know either.
Click to expand...


Because officially, there was no "Bush doctrine"....its was a phrase used by media to describe just about anything Bush happened to decide to do.

Different pundits would attribute different meanings to "the Bush Doctrine", as it saw fit....

So Paliin wasn't so ill-informed after all.....
 
bravo said:
Because officially, there was no "Bush doctrine"....its was a phrase used by media to describe just about anything Bush happened to decide to do.

Different pundits would attribute different meanings to "the Bush Doctrine", as it saw fit....

So Paliin wasn't so ill-informed after all.....
Click to expand...

Ha, the "media" meaning Charlie Krauthammer? Or cheney, when he said "If there is anyone in the world today who doubts the seriousness of the Bush Doctrine, I would urge that person to consider the fate of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-Cheney_use_of_term-7 ?
 
christiefan915 said:
Just wondering how you think we could have stopped the people of Egypt and Libya from electing those in the Muslim brotherhood.

And it's just hilarious how you glossed over the bush spending just to slam Obama.

Those of us on the left had bush's number from the get go while those on the right didn't give a hoot what he did. If righties really, really cared about spending, wiretaps, rendition, Guantanamo, etc. you never would have given the man a second term. But like all Monday morning quarterbacks you've found a way to offload bush's SNAFUs onto Obama and pretend they were his from the onset.
Click to expand...


If I was privy to the confidential and secret information that is available to Obama, I might answer that question...Obama practically handed both Egypt and Libya to the
Muslim fanatics.....

I didn't 'gloss' over anything. I said Obama is responsible for staggering debt in excess of the Bush spending...

Rendition was started by Bill Clinton, Gitmo is still open because its the best place to hold terrorists, even Obama knows that.

Obama has carried on just about all of what Bush started....the war in Afghanistan, the Bush negotiated withdrawal from Iraq, Gitmo, tax policy, TARP, Patriot Act, etc....
you have to a total hack to deny any of that....Obama's done nothing on his own....even healthcare was Hillary Clinton's ........
 
With President Bush we had Victory for our Military and plenty of jobs instead of defeat and large layoffs under Barack Hussein Obama.
 
christiefan915 said:
Ha, the "media" meaning Charlie Krauthammer? Or cheney, when he said "If there is anyone in the world today who doubts the seriousness of the Bush Doctrine, I would urge that person to consider the fate of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq." ?
Click to expand...


Is Krauthammer not a media pundit ?....and am I now supposed to list the hundreds of other media pundits and politicans that mentioned "the Bush Doctrine"
to counter your cherry-picking ?....

The point remains, Bush never defined a Bush Doctrine, because there was no such thing until it was created by media....no matter who
they were....

If thats all ya got....save your keyboard from more useless wear and tear.
 
Thing1 said:
You're cherrypicking very specific policies, many of which are fairly inconsequential to my world view. Has Obama been a great President? No. But he has been far more competent in foreign & domestic affairs than Bush, he got the guy who was actually behind 9/11, and I happen to agree with Keynesian economics. Obama's spending was more in line with Keynes. Bush's was more in line with we have no idea how to balance a budget or say no to pork, so what the hell, I'll sign it.
Click to expand...


Iraq war
Afghanistan War
Execution by drone
Gitmo
Expansion of Patriot Act
TSA acts of terror on travelers

All inconsequential to Things "world view"

Makes you wonder just wtf might be important to the Thing.....Abortion ?....Homo marriage ?....union extortion ?.....being a hack ?
 
I'm not a huge fan of TV "gotcha" moments, but the Bush Doctrine question was clearly not intended that way. Palin was like a deer in the headlights on that, which was mystifying for someone in politics. Everyone knew at that time what was meant by the "Bush Doctrine."

Everyone.
 
bravo said:
History, when it is looked at by a less divided people and less fanatical group of far left academic nutters, will access Bush as a more than adequate and competent leader...
they will give the proper recognition to the left wing Congress that fucked up the economy and managed to avoid the blame for their actions by media propagandists....
so you're particular take on things is irrelevant......the Bush record is, by far, much better than you will ever admit....just as you are blind to
the incompetence and irresponsible administration of Obama in foreign policy and our domestic economy.....
Click to expand...

Bush sucked. Republicans controlled Congress throughout most of his term and you are quite the partisan moron if you think the last two years were the only ones that were a factor.

I wish you racist pos would quit claiming to be defenders of capitalism.
 
bravo said:
Iraq war
Afghanistan War
Execution by drone
Gitmo
Expansion of Patriot Act
TSA acts of terror on travelers

All inconsequential to Things "world view"

Makes you wonder just wtf might be important to the Thing.....Abortion ?....Homo marriage ?....union extortion ?.....being a hack ?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously pretending that as a worshiper of Bush you are an opponent of these things? You need to differentiate between Bush and Obama and we know what the important difference to you is.
 
Thing1 said:
I'm only speaking personally. I was never a big "wiretapping" guy or anything like that. As for foreign policy, you may disagree w/ our actions in Egypt and Libya, but 2 brutal dictators are no longer in charge. Did I mention that we never had to send American troops in on either situation? Obama worked with our allies, and didn't act unilaterally, and didn't act recklessly. He got the guy who was actually behind 9/11. He has dealt with key countries like China & Israel with a much more measured & goal-oriented approach. To me, there is no comparison whatsoever to the cowboy diplomacy of the Bush years & the Bush doctrine. Obama is light years ahead of Bush on foreign policy.

Your characterization of the stimulus - a third of which was tax cuts, btw - is just silly. It's not even worthy of right-wing talk radio.
Click to expand...

As already mentioned, if brutal dictators that were friendly to the US are replaced by even more brutal regimes that are not friendly to the US, then that is not a foreign policy win for the US. True, we did not send in troops... nor did we really do anything to effect change in Egypt. We did in Libya in the grand lead from behind strategy of Obama. Yes, he got Osama... and he lost Stevens and three others. His handling of Israel has been abysmal at best. China.... what exactly has he done there that differentiates from Bush in your eyes?

My characterization of the stimulus is not incorrect. He did not implement Keynesian theory as you proclaimed. He just spent money. I agree that he needed to have the stimulus, it is the manner in which he spent it that I disagree with. It was anything but Keynesian.
 
Superfreak said:
As already mentioned, if brutal dictators that were friendly to the US are replaced by even more brutal regimes that are not friendly to the US, then that is not a foreign policy win for the US. True, we did not send in troops... nor did we really do anything to effect change in Egypt. We did in Libya in the grand lead from behind strategy of Obama. Yes, he got Osama... and he lost Stevens and three others. His handling of Israel has been abysmal at best. China.... what exactly has he done there that differentiates from Bush in your eyes?

My characterization of the stimulus is not incorrect. He did not implement Keynesian theory as you proclaimed. He just spent money. I agree that he needed to have the stimulus, it is the manner in which he spent it that I disagree with. It was anything but Keynesian.
Click to expand...

And the difference your politicians offer is to take a bigger bolder role in Libya and places like Syria. You argued that we should show no regard for the sovereignty of Libya when it suited your political purposes.

Your position on the economics is no different.

Your reason for arguing against the administration has nothing to do with principle and is solely about partisanship.

You lack integrity.
 
I would say that not sending us into a needless war while simultanously cutting taxes would be the biggest change from Bush to Obama!
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
Bush sucked. Republicans controlled Congress throughout most of his term and you are quite the partisan moron if you think the last two years were the only ones that were a factor.

I wish you racist pos would quit claiming to be defenders of capitalism.
Click to expand...

Best post of the month award. Thankyou.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
And the difference your politicians offer is to take a bigger bolder role in Libya and places like Syria. You argued that we should show no regard for the sovereignty of Libya when it suited your political purposes.
Click to expand...

You are quite the fool if that is what you believe. your ignorance of my positions doesn't mean you get to make up what you want to believe they are.

Your position on the economics is no different.
Click to expand...

So basically you are just here to stomp your feet and you have nothing of value to add?

Your reason for arguing against the administration has nothing to do with principle and is solely about partisanship.
Click to expand...

which is pure nonsense. Thanks for again proving which of us lacks integrity.
 
Jarod said:
I would say that not sending us into a needless war while simultanously cutting taxes would be the biggest change from Bush to Obama!
Click to expand...

So Obama ramping up the war in Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan etc... while extending the Bush tax cuts and cutting the social security tax is somehow different???
 
Superfreak said:
So Obama ramping up the war in Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan etc... while extending the Bush tax cuts and cutting the social security tax is somehow different???
Click to expand...

You can't possibly be serious.

Yes, Freak - there is a significant difference between starting wars like Iraq & Afghanistan, and doing something like a temporary ramp-up to bring about an end game in Afghanistan.

Do you have any sense of scale whatsoever? Do you know the difference between unilateral & multilateral? Do you understand what it means to do something pre-emptively, vs. cleaning up someone else's mess?

Get a grip. You really aren't thinking straight if you think there is any comparison at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top