To The Bush Haters

[Balloon guy 158]

And if Bush is responsible for nothing that went wrong during his tenure, how could Obama possibly be responsible for anything that goes wrong in his? I guess he won't be, and since BG is so objective, we get to watch him spend the next few years arguing just that.BG, you're right that I should spend more of my life in here. Point taken.It's this very argument -- that Bush is responsible for nothing -- that is costing Republicans credibility. The country is NOT better off today than it was eight years ago. Virtually anybody with eyes can see that, including Democratic partisans, the swing voters who supported Bush last time and Obama this time (oh, those voters -- so wise in your view four years ago, so foolish today), non-voters, and several thousand Republican voters who crossed party lines. So when we see the remaining 20% of hardcore Republican partisans waste time continuing to polish his turd of a presidency rather than offer ideas beyond tax cuts for themselves, it leaves us thinking they have nothing to offer but repeated attempts to piss in voters' mouths and tell them it's raining gold.I probably am naive, because despite my entire life as a voter, I still believe that Republicans are capable of offering good ideas. I'd like to hear them someday.I'm perfectly willing to take ownership of what happens over the next eight years. But it's time for you to take ownership of the last eight, instead of saying Bush was a genius, but responsible for nothing.

See this is why you leftys are so insane.You can't wrap your heads around the idea that Bush could be wrong on something, but that doesn't make him wrong on everything.For 8 years the democrats have done nothing but whine and complain about Bush, talking bad about our troops, about the war, about the economy, about everything in the entire country. They did this for political power, consequences be damned on how it affected our country.Bush won reelection, would probably have won a 3rd term if he could have run again. Along comes terrorist attacks, not his fault, his response was to take the battle to the enemy on their soil not ours, and was successful more than he failed. But the democrats can't have that. So they vote for the war, pretend they didn't, vote for the Patriotic act, twice, then whine about it, vote for the spending bills, than blame Bush for it.Well you got all the power now, both houses, and the white house. And your focus is still Bush.Bush inherited a recession, did he whine, no, he cut taxes and turned it around, watched record economical growth, and because of coughdemocratruncough congressional intrusions into finance Bush was in charge during the banking crisis.Sure that's on Bush, as is the next few months of the economy. But Obama is making his changes, jamming his plans ( actually Plosi and Reed's plans but shhh) through, with no bipartisian support, not that they care about bi-partisian support mind you. If they did they might have at least asked the republicans in the house to at least have SOME input into the stimulus plan.This thread was about blaming Bush for what he did wrong, which was act like a democrat. Bloat the size of government, spend too much, and not do a better job of calling the democrats who were saying our soldiers were jack booted thugs to task. And to point out whining about the things he did right, taking the fight to the radical muslims, for what it is, a signal that you have lost touch with reality and have no business having your ideas considered as viable while you are so hung up on hate.But now you have a tax cheat in charge of the IRS, a woman with serious international monetary connections in charge of our foriegn policy, a VP who is so dumb that the most anti-black racist groups in America have shelved any plans to remove Obama for fear of how bad he would be if he took over, and a Jr senator from Chicago in charge of the whole ball of wax, who could only convince 54% of the population that he was qualified.Congratulations, you win.I guess

[Balloon guy 158]

Lets play hangman to see who is really to blame_ _ n _ _ _ s __ e _ _ t _

WinlisamClenton?

[Loismustdie 0]

Currently reading this topic:3 Members: Loismustdie, Balloon guy, 85suited The new conservative frontline.

[Balloon guy 158]

Currently reading this topic:3 Members: Loismustdie, Balloon guy, 85suited The new conservative frontline.

We are in trouble then :icon_confused:And for the record I like SB..she's good people even if she is whacky

[Loismustdie 0]

We are in trouble then :icon_confused:And for the record I like SB..she's good people even if she is whacky

Agreed.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

See this is why you leftys are so insane.You can't wrap your heads around the idea that Bush could be wrong on something, but that doesn't make him wrong on everything.For 8 years the democrats have done nothing but whine and complain about Bush, talking bad about our troops, about the war, about the economy, about everything in the entire country. They did this for political power, consequences be damned on how it affected our country.Bush won reelection, would probably have won a 3rd term if he could have run again. Along comes terrorist attacks, not his fault, his response was to take the battle to the enemy on their soil not ours, and was successful more than he failed. But the democrats can't have that. So they vote for the war, pretend they didn't, vote for the Patriotic act, twice, then whine about it, vote for the spending bills, than blame Bush for it.Well you got all the power now, both houses, and the white house. And your focus is still Bush.Bush inherited a recession, did he whine, no, he cut taxes and turned it around, watched record economical growth, and because of coughdemocratruncough congressional intrusions into finance Bush was in charge during the banking crisis.Sure that's on Bush, as is the next few months of the economy. But Obama is making his changes, jamming his plans ( actually Plosi and Reed's plans but shhh) through, with no bipartisian support, not that they care about bi-partisian support mind you. If they did they might have at least asked the republicans in the house to at least have SOME input into the stimulus plan.This thread was about blaming Bush for what he did wrong, which was act like a democrat. Bloat the size of government, spend too much, and not do a better job of calling the democrats who were saying our soldiers were jack booted thugs to task. And to point out whining about the things he did right, taking the fight to the radical muslims, for what it is, a signal that you have lost touch with reality and have no business having your ideas considered as viable while you are so hung up on hate.But now you have a tax cheat in charge of the IRS, a woman with serious international monetary connections in charge of our foriegn policy, a VP who is so dumb that the most anti-black racist groups in America have shelved any plans to remove Obama for fear of how bad he would be if he took over, and a Jr senator from Chicago in charge of the whole ball of wax, who could only convince 54% of the population that he was qualified.Congratulations, you win.I guess

I'm not even sure that was addressed to anything I said, although it does continue to polish the turd quite feverishly. So Bush's only wrong was to act like a Democrat, bloating the government and spending too much? Funny, the last time Democrats were in charge, they shrank the government to its smallest size in 40 years and built the biggest surplus in history. When the sainted Reagan was in charge, he grew the government and racked up the then-largest deficit. Bush I grew both the government and deficit even more, and Bush II hit the trifecta, doing both for three out of three Republican administrations. You might want to take a more direct look at how Democrats and Republicans actually behave than just reading what the talking points say about how they behave.And he could have won a third term with 25% approval ratings? Ohhhhkay. Stepping back from the non-rational argument here.But you know I love you, too, dear.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm not even sure that was addressed to anything I said, although it does continue to polish the turd quite feverishly. So Bush's only wrong was to act like a Democrat, bloating the government and spending too much? Funny, the last time Democrats were in charge, they shrank the government to its smallest size in 40 years and built the biggest surplus in history. When the sainted Reagan was in charge, he grew the government and racked up the then-largest deficit. Bush I grew both the government and deficit even more, and Bush II hit the trifecta, doing both for three out of three Republican administrations. You might want to take a more direct look at how Democrats and Republicans actually behave than just reading what the talking points say about how they behave.And he could have won a third term with 25% approval ratings? Ohhhhkay. Stepping back from the non-rational argument here.But you know I love you, too, dear.

So we can completely disagree, and still like each other.This is how adults act people, take notes.Oh and you are way wrong...again...about everything.Good luck

[CaneBrain 95]

So we can completely disagree, and still like each other.This is how adults act people, take notes.Oh and you are way wrong...again...about everything.Good luck

George W Bush could not have won a third term. You really sullied a lot of good thoughts in that post by throwing that out there. I mean, let's all agree to be serious in our serious posts.

[brvheart 1,752]

See this is why you leftys are so insane.You can't wrap your heads around the idea that Bush could be wrong on something, but that doesn't make him wrong on everything.For 8 years the democrats have done nothing but whine and complain about Bush, talking bad about our troops, about the war, about the economy, about everything in the entire country. They did this for political power, consequences be damned on how it affected our country.Bush won reelection, would probably have won a 3rd term if he could have run again. Along comes terrorist attacks, not his fault, his response was to take the battle to the enemy on their soil not ours, and was successful more than he failed. But the democrats can't have that. So they vote for the war, pretend they didn't, vote for the Patriotic act, twice, then whine about it, vote for the spending bills, than blame Bush for it.Well you got all the power now, both houses, and the white house. And your focus is still Bush.Bush inherited a recession, did he whine, no, he cut taxes and turned it around, watched record economical growth, and because of coughdemocratruncough congressional intrusions into finance Bush was in charge during the banking crisis.Sure that's on Bush, as is the next few months of the economy. But Obama is making his changes, jamming his plans ( actually Plosi and Reed's plans but shhh) through, with no bipartisian support, not that they care about bi-partisian support mind you. If they did they might have at least asked the republicans in the house to at least have SOME input into the stimulus plan.This thread was about blaming Bush for what he did wrong, which was act like a democrat. Bloat the size of government, spend too much, and not do a better job of calling the democrats who were saying our soldiers were jack booted thugs to task. And to point out whining about the things he did right, taking the fight to the radical muslims, for what it is, a signal that you have lost touch with reality and have no business having your ideas considered as viable while you are so hung up on hate.But now you have a tax cheat in charge of the IRS, a woman with serious international monetary connections in charge of our foriegn policy, a VP who is so dumb that the most anti-black racist groups in America have shelved any plans to remove Obama for fear of how bad he would be if he took over, and a Jr senator from Chicago in charge of the whole ball of wax, who could only convince 54% of the population that he was qualified.Congratulations, you win.I guess

You forgot to mention the head of the CIA has absolutely no experience or background in intelligence.

I'm not even sure that was addressed to anything I said, although it does continue to polish the turd quite feverishly. So Bush's only wrong was to act like a Democrat, bloating the government and spending too much? Funny, the last time Democrats were in charge, they shrank the government to its smallest size in 40 years and built the biggest surplus in history. When the sainted Reagan was in charge, he grew the government and racked up the then-largest deficit. Bush I grew both the government and deficit even more, and Bush II hit the trifecta, doing both for three out of three Republican administrations. You might want to take a more direct look at how Democrats and Republicans actually behave than just reading what the talking points say about how they behave.And he could have won a third term with 25% approval ratings? Ohhhhkay. Stepping back from the non-rational argument here.But you know I love you, too, dear.

Say whatever you want about Reagan but your just deceiving yourself. Reagan entered office with record high unemployment, and almost immediately was hit with the largest farm crisis in history, he also had the cold war at it's peak moment.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Say whatever you want about Reagen but your just deceiving yourself. Reagan entered office with record high unemployment, and almost immediately was hit with the largest farm crisis in history, he also had the cold war at it's peak moment.

I'm deceiving myself that the government had more personnel when Reagan left office than when he took it? I'm deceiving myself that the deficit was larger when he left than when he came in? Look up the numbers. They can be confirmed easily enough, and I am not wrong about either point. You implicitly disagree with my interpretation, maybe, but the points I raise are completely correct and quite easy for you to check. BG asserted that it is Democrats who spend and grow government. I countered with the simple factual records of the last three Republican administrations and last Democratic administration, covering the last 28 years. Every administration has its explanations and interpretations, but the numbers are what the numbers are.

[strategy 4]

When the sainted Reagan was in charge, he grew the government and racked up the then-largest deficit.

Say whatever you want about Reagen but your just deceiving yourself. Reagan entered office with record high unemployment, and almost immediately was hit with the largest farm crisis in history, he also had the cold war at it's peak moment.

What isn't factual about what she said? edit: looks like she handled this oneI don't really understand how anyone can look at the changes to drug enforcement under the man and maintain that he was for smaller government. Nevermind all of this conflicting shit that went on under his nose.As an aside, one of the funnier moments during the debates (to me, anyway) was the deadening silence that came after each and every time Ron Paul quoted Reagan's advice on the Middle East from his memoirs.

[brvheart 1,752]

Every administration has its explanations and interpretations, but the numbers are what the numbers are.

This is the only important sentence in your last post, and I disagree with your conclusion. Sure, every administration can make up explanations, but it's obvious if they are real or made up. W = 9/11, Reagan = Cold war & Farm Crisis. These are not small issues and had to be dealt with, agreed upon by the FAR majority of both parties, by spending money. Nothing happened during the Clinton administration, other than several murder missions in Africa and Eastern Europe. Luckily for Clinton, Newt Gingrich was able to take power and force policies in the right direction. Also, it didn't hurt that the INTERNET was invented... which is obviously why we had a very profitable economy. Maybe Gore was responsible for that, which is why you think Clinton deserves all the credit?

What isn't factual about what she said? edit: looks like she handled this oneI don't really understand how anyone can look at the changes to drug enforcement under the man and maintain that he was for smaller government. Nevermind all of this conflicting shit that went on under his nose.As an aside, one of the funnier moments during the debates (to me, anyway) was the deadening silence that came after each and every time Ron Paul quoted Reagan's advice on the Middle East from his memoirs.

Facts can be deceiving.

[strategy 4]

Facts can be deceiving.

re: the crises cited above. they're nice arguments for why these politicians had to selectively abandon their platforms, but the fact is that we're all given compelling reasons to go against our beliefs at one time or another. there is nothing deceptive about it--reagan and bush43 allowed the issues of the day (drugs for the former, terrorists for the latter) to completely override what they campaigned on. I don't know why this is such a hard pill to swallow.. it's just the way our government encourages politicians to behave. hopefully the next guy the republicans pick will actually stick to the small government idea, but history tells us they'll probably abandon it when given the choice between more or less influence.

[brvheart 1,752]

re: the crises cited above. they're nice arguments for why these politicians had to selectively abandon their platforms, but the fact is that we're all given compelling reasons to go against our beliefs at one time or another. there is nothing deceptive about it--reagan and bush43 allowed the issues of the day (drugs for the former, terrorists for the latter) to completely override what they campaigned on. I don't know why this is such a hard pill to swallow.. it's just the way our government encourages politicians to behave. hopefully the next guy the republicans pick will actually stick to the small government idea, but history tells us they'll probably abandon it when given the choice between more or less influence.

we agree here, but that's about it. Drugs was nothing that I mentioned, nor that I care about. The major issue with Reagan was the heightening of the cold war... had Russia thought he was weak who knows what they would have done. It's a WAY bigger deal than you are implying. As was 9/11.Let's please not forget that after 9/11 nearly all of the DEMOCRATS voted for the spending on the war, and before 1994 the democrats controlled congress for like 40 years, which would include the entire Reagan presidency. Any spending bills would have had to been written and then approved by them.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

we agree here, but that's about it. Drugs was nothing that I mentioned, nor that I care about. The major issue with Reagan was the heightening of the cold war... had Russia thought he was weak who knows what they would have done. It's a WAY bigger deal than you are implying. As was 9/11.Let's please not forget that after 9/11 nearly all of the DEMOCRATS voted for the spending on the war, and before 1994 the democrats controlled congress for like 40 years, which would include the entire Reagan presidency. Any spending bills would have had to been written and then approved by them.

Incorrect. For his entire first term and the first half of his second term, hence for 3/4 of his tenure, Reagan had a Republican-controlled Senate, and spending bills must be passed by both houses. Try looking things up some time.

[Zeatrix 0]

For me as a foreigner Bush was a bad president. But not only for what he did, also HOW he did it.The things he did that I felt was bad was taking your economy (far from his fault entirely) and your budget (his fault) and really destroying it. Your national debt is ridiculous and your future generations will have to repay it, somehow.He also did a lot of bad things with science IMHO. Banning stem cell research on fetuses was just plain stupid. Making sure your auto industry didn't have to lower emissions was utterly stupid, and we can see some of the results now, few want to buy American cars here (as in Europe). Denying global warming for sooo long was unforgivable. And then when he finally acknowledge it, he did nothing.But the worst part was how he did it. "Come and get us". Stuff like that. Totally alienating citizens of other nations.Frankly I did not mind you guys going to Afghanistan at all. I did not mind Iraq at the beginning, my opinion about that only changed after I realized you killed more civilians than Saddam. Epic fail on rebuilding Iraq too.So yeah, if Iraq becomes this center for democracy that the Bush gang is hoping for then I will at least give him some credit for it. But the rest that I've mentioned overshadows this by far.Now I didn't realize what a huge thing it would be at the time, but I'm fairly sure the first four years with Gore would have been better. So much for having an election where the guy with the most votes win!

[85suited 0]

For me as a foreigner Bush was a bad president. But not only for what he did, also HOW he did it.The things he did that I felt was bad was taking your economy (far from his fault entirely) and your budget (his fault) and really destroying it. Your national debt is ridiculous and your future generations will have to repay it, somehow.He also did a lot of bad things with science IMHO. Banning stem cell research on fetuses was just plain stupid. Making sure your auto industry didn't have to lower emissions was utterly stupid, and we can see some of the results now, few want to buy American cars here (as in Europe). Denying global warming for sooo long was unforgivable. And then when he finally acknowledge it, he did nothing.But the worst part was how he did it. "Come and get us". Stuff like that. Totally alienating citizens of other nations.Frankly I did not mind you guys going to Afghanistan at all. I did not mind Iraq at the beginning, my opinion about that only changed after I realized you killed more civilians than Saddam. Epic fail on rebuilding Iraq too.So yeah, if Iraq becomes this center for democracy that the Bush gang is hoping for then I will at least give him some credit for it. But the rest that I've mentioned overshadows this by far.Now I didn't realize what a huge thing it would be at the time, but I'm fairly sure the first four years with Gore would have been better. So much for having an election where the guy with the most votes win!

I am sure the socialist european media gave him a fair shake...

[SpatsJ 0]

look, i voted for the guy twice and i still have to admit that he wasnt much of a president. although i think a lot of the economic problems cant be blamed on him completely. after all, clinton only balanced the budget because of the tech bubble. it wasn't anything he did. as far as the war, i keep thinking about how we didnt need to be there. i lost a couple friends and i'm not sure what we gained by it. even if we are winning now. and unlike a lot of my friends, i know that iraq had no connection with osama. most of the hijackers were from sadi arabia. why didnt we attack them? i guess hindsight is 20-20.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Making sure your auto industry didn't have to lower emissions was utterly stupid, and we can see some of the results now, few want to buy American cars here (as in Europe).

There is no way you can blame that on Bush. No one outside the US has wanted to buy an American car since the Dukes of Hazard and the A-Team ended.Just ask Jeremey Clarkson

[brvheart 1,752]

spending bills must be passed by both houses.

Thanks for totally proving my point.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Thanks for totally proving my point.

Actually SB showed that your claim that 'Democrats controlled congress' was ludicrous because the Republicans controlled one of the houses.What she did prove is that you don't know how your own government works.Quite sad really

[Sheiky 0]

Did I just read a Republican calling the democratic vice president stupid? Pot, meet kettle...

[ahosang 0]

your post.

your signature:"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless theevidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered somethingwhich affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightestevidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way." - Bertrand RussellIt might be an idea to realise that we all have been guilty of both in our lives. Not a reflection on your post necessarily, just appreciating your sig, that's all.

[brvheart 1,752]

For me as a foreigner Bush was a bad president. But not only for what he did, also HOW he did it.The things he did that I felt was bad was taking your economy (far from his fault entirely) and your budget (his fault) and really destroying it. Your national debt is ridiculous and your future generations will have to repay it, somehow.He also did a lot of bad things with science IMHO. Banning stem cell research on fetuses was just plain stupid. Making sure your auto industry didn't have to lower emissions was utterly stupid, and we can see some of the results now, few want to buy American cars here (as in Europe). Denying global warming for sooo long was unforgivable. And then when he finally acknowledge it, he did nothing.But the worst part was how he did it. "Come and get us". Stuff like that. Totally alienating citizens of other nations.Frankly I did not mind you guys going to Afghanistan at all. I did not mind Iraq at the beginning, my opinion about that only changed after I realized you killed more civilians than Saddam. Epic fail on rebuilding Iraq too.So yeah, if Iraq becomes this center for democracy that the Bush gang is hoping for then I will at least give him some credit for it. But the rest that I've mentioned overshadows this by far.Now I didn't realize what a huge thing it would be at the time, but I'm fairly sure the first four years with Gore would have been better. So much for having an election where the guy with the most votes win!

I disagree with the bolded part, but for the most part I totally respect this post. It's not condescending at all, like I remember you being, it's just your opinion in a nice respectful presentation. ...and then theres Toad:

Actually SB showed that your claim that 'Democrats controlled congress' was ludicrous because the Republicans controlled one of the houses.What she did prove is that you don't know how your own government works.Quite sad really

I'm SO happy that I checked this thread out when I got to work and I wasn't logged in... otherwise I wouldn't have seen your post since youre on ignore. Once again, this post says nothing... you just take the opportunity to join someone elses argument... say nothing... and just throw out insults, even when you clearly don't know what you're talking about. At least you're consistent.SB, you are once again simply nickpicking since you know I'm right. Of COURSE I was talking about the House... I even mentioned Newt Gingrich by name (which state was he a senator from again?). Of COURSE I was talking about the House... because the Dems controlled the house for 40 years... like I mentioned. Of COURSE I was talking about the House... since I'm sure you know that only the House can introduce spending bills. Of COURSE I misspoke, thanks for ignoring what I was talking about, to nickpick my vocabulary.

[brvheart 1,752]

The Origination Clause of the Constitution (Article I, section 7) grants the House the sole prerogative to originate revenue legislation. Yet I have heard Senators say they must wait for an appropriations bill to come over from the House. Must spending bills also originate in the House? How important is the power to originate in the actual process? - 5/3/00You are right that the Constitution is clear about revenue legislation but does not directly address appropriations, or spending, measures. Extending the House's right to originate to the spending category has been a matter of long dispute between the House and the Senate. The Senate has repeatedly asserted its right to originate spending legislation, adopted resolutions to that end, even called for commissions to study the dispute. However, the House has a different perspective. House precedents have defined "revenue measures" to include general appropriations bills, claiming that at the time the Constitution was adopted, "raising revenue" meant "raising money and appropriating the same."So, whenever the Senate does initiate appropriations legislation, the House practice is to return it to the Senate with a blue piece of paper attached citing a constitutional infringement of House prerogatives. The practice of returning such bills and amendments to the Senate without action is known as "blue-slipping."Without House action, Senate-initiated spending legislation cannot make it into law. So in practice, the Senate rarely attempts to initiate such bills anymore, and if it does, the House is diligent about returning them.