Does Anyone Else Like George Bush?

Quote:

Originally posted by RogueLeader

I like Obama... I think he inherited a lot of crap that had been building up for quite some time. Thanks to divided government and the GOP becoming the "Party of No", he can't get much done, even when he tries to compromise (which a good politician must do to succeed).

, Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Obama have a Democrat controlled Senate and a Democrat controlled House of Representatives for TWO FULL YEARS, Not to mention the Democrats held a fiibusterproof super-majority for part of those TWO YEARS

No need to answer it's rhetorical, I'm just pointing your obvious inability to remember what doesn't suite your agenda.

Bush was the lesser of two evils in 2000. Obama was the alternative to more of the same in 2008.

Neither was , or is, presidential material. It is a failing in our electoral/primary system. Both major parties are controlled by the fringe in the primaries, because they are the committed and get out to vote. The result is two candidates who are not really acceptable to the majority. So it comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils, and the majority do not understand the ramifications of who or what they vote for.

Quote:

Originally posted by lc69hunter

Bush was the lesser of two evils in 2000. Obama was the alternative to more of the same in 2008.

Neither was , or is, presidential material. It is a failing in our electoral/primary system. Both major parties are controlled by the fringe in the primaries, because they are the committed and get out to vote. The result is two candidates who are not really acceptable to the majority. So it comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils, and the majority do not understand the ramifications of who or what they vote for.

well put by a fellow tucsonan!!

when it comes down to the nitty gritty, the politicians pander to the political donors who bought them into office. that's the system. "the majority" doesn't get it.

Az

no

Yeah and this pic raises my hackles,



A bit1

Full story here...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/moments-remember-9-11-ceremony-125807936.html

I think this thread pretty much confirms that you shouldn't mix porn and politics. W is certainly a polarizing figure. As F said, I do respect him as a former U.S. President, however, I feel like he was "on duty" during some particularly egregious and repeated ass-raping. The saddest part is that most of the people that got screwed over the worst, don’t even realize it and will defend most of his decisions because they were repeatedly delivered with an “aw, shucks” and an easily digestible slogan...

So, that's all I got to say about that (at least for purposes of WBW forum discussion).

Now, can we please get back to some beautiful women!

Quote:

Originally posted by RogueLeader

Obama... Excellent public speaker...

Are you serious? His speaks are plain, with total lack of change of tone throughout them.

Bush is a self serving dick who did more harm to the US than any religious/political extremist ever could - through lies, deceipt and (not so well) hidden agendas. He also destroyed the US and arguably the global economy through unjustifiable wars and ridiculous economic policies creating and protecting the super wealthy. His lack of reaction to Katrina starkly showed his contempt for minorities and the poor.

Being blindly patriotic and having conviction in your own extreme ideology is not enough to make a good president. He was piss-poor and Obama is unfortunately taking the bullet with Bush's name on it.

Quote:

Originally posted by absent

He also destroyed the US and arguably the global economy through unjustifiable wars and ridiculous economic policies creating and protecting the super wealthy.

No, that required a lot of actors and started well before Bush even came to office. They include, Alan Greenspan (first appointed by Clinton), Senators Gramm–Leach–Bliley and those members of Congress who voted for their Financial Services Modernization Act, Most of the largest investment banks operating in the US, the major ratings agencies (Fitch, Moodys, Standard & Poors), millions of individual homebuyers, the regulating bodies (The Fed, SEC, FHFA, FINRA, etc), the bailout of LTCM, etc.

There were a lot of cooks in that kitchen, and blaming a singular president is just silly partisanship.

The wars had almost nothing to do with the economic collapse of 2008.

Quote:

Originally posted by absent

His lack of reaction to Katrina starkly showed his contempt for minorities and the poor.

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

I'm just pointing your obvious inability to remember what doesn't suite your agenda.

oooo....the pot callin the kettle black

GEORGE BUSH DOESN'T LIKE BLACK KETTLES!

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr_Bubbles

...

oooo....the pot callin the kettle black

Meh... My comment was a direct answer to Republicans and divided Govn't being the reason Obama couldn't get anything done, when in fact there was not a divided Govt for Obama's first two years because Republicans did not have enough members in Congress to block the Democrats. The fact is that Obama couldn't get enough of his own party on board to get his agenda passed, and when they finally did, they did so in clear opposition to the will of the people and they got slaughtered in mid-terms because of it.

Now if you'd like to point out factual inaccuracies in my posts, I'm right here.

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

...

, Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Obama have a Democrat controlled Senate and a Democrat controlled House of Representatives for TWO FULL YEARS, Not to mention the Democrats held a fiibusterproof super-majority for part of those TWO YEARS

No need to answer it's rhetorical, I'm just pointing your obvious inability to remember what doesn't suite your agenda.

Point taken, brownell... But here's the deal... he didn't have a super majority (by 1 vote if I remember correctly) so there were enough GOP members to still cause problems. And yeah, I'm not saying the democrats aren't to blame... They THOUGHT that since they had the majority, they could cram certain things down the GOP's throats without compromise. My point is... Obama has been about compromise, but the Congress and the Senate, no matter who is in charge, hasn't been. BUT the larger point is this... the GOP, ever since Obama has been in the White House, has presented itself as "The Party of No". But ever since the Tea Party won the midterm elections, that problem has really caused major gridlock. I've proposed this theory in other forums... If the GOP can't control the Tea Party, they should just split into two separate parties. Same with the Democrats... If they have a far left faction that they can't control, they should also split. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says that there has to be only two political parties.

Quote:

Originally posted by eclipseo

...
Are you serious? His speaks are plain, with total lack of change of tone throughout them.

Unlike you who seems to have a problem with the English language...

Nobody here is gonna change anyone else's mind or opinion by back 'n forth jabs an' cliche's...No politician these days can be presumed to be honest, or trustworthy...some are better than others - an' some are worse - depending upon their own gifts, circumstances an' choices...
This started out as a question an' has spiraled downward into pointlessness an' political posturing...
It gets harder an' harder to have any sort of civil or purposeful political discourse or debate, becuase everyone has an agenda, an' a point they feel they MUST make.
I vote that we get back to WBW's mission statement, an' leave the political jabbing an' back-biting to those who are best at it...
I vote we turn our eyes to beautiful women...

Quote:

Originally posted by RogueLeader

...

Point taken, brownell... But here's the deal... he didn't have a super majority (by 1 vote if I remember correctly) so there were enough GOP members to still cause problems.

For 4 months there were 60 Democrats in the Senate ... a 3/5 margin and what's commonly referred to as a filibuster proof super-majority. Whether or not having rules that permit the minority to "cause problems" is a good thing depends on which side of the fence you're on.

Quote:

Originally posted by RogueLeader

My point is... Obama has been about compromise, but the Congress and the Senate, no matter who is in charge, hasn't been.

Depends on how you look at it. If you start far from center, there's lots of room to move and still be objectionable.

Quote:

Originally posted by RogueLeader

...
BUT the larger point is this... the GOP, ever since Obama has been in the White House, has presented itself as "The Party of No". But ever since the Tea Party won the midterm elections, that problem has really caused major gridlock.

"Party of No" is just a clever label, but the reality is that it's no difference than the party-line voting that's been going on long before Obama, and long before the "Tea Party" If you want to look at it objectively, you should be blaming the "Blue Dog" democrats for Obama's failure to get things done in the first 2 years since the "Tea Party" and mid-terms didn't change the balance of power until his 3rd year.

Quote:

Originally posted by RogueLeader

... If the GOP can't control the Tea Party, they should just split into two separate parties. Same with the Democrats... If they have a far left faction that they can't control, they should also split. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says that there has to be only two political parties.

Is that how it's supposed to be? Everyone that has an "R" or "D" next to their name is supposed to vote however their leaders tell them? I for one am thankful that some members still have the courage of their convictions to vote "Yes" or "No" based on principle rather than political affiliation.

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

Is that how it's supposed to be? Everyone that has an "R" or "D" next to their name is supposed to vote however their leaders tell them? I for one am thankful that some members still have the courage of their convictions to vote "Yes" or "No" based on principle rather than political affiliation.

It's a sad truth, isn't it? Yeah D's vote as D's and R's vote as R's... If they don't, the RNC and DNC usually call for their members to "get in line". I'm not saying that's right, but that's the way it seems to be.

But you misunderstand me. I believe the Tea Party has enough philosophical differences that they COULD be their own party. So why can't they be? There's nothing saying that we HAVE to have only 2 parties in the Congress & Senate. You know what I find interesting, too? Ron Paul identifies himself as a Libertarian even though he's in the Republican party. But I guess I can't blame him. If he was in the Libertarian Party, it would have been harder for him to be elected to Congress. Oh well, it falls back on the thinking of the American people in some ways. They don't understand that there IS more than 2 parties. And only a few really know what those parties represent. Libertarian, for example, is just a philosophical shift further to the right than a Republican.

I like these sites for examples of political thought and philosophies... as well as just how many parties are out there. If the American people would look at their real beliefs and then match them up with all the political parties, I have a feeling there would be a lot that would realize they are not really a Democrat OR a Republican.


http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

Quote:

Originally posted by RogueLeader

...
But you misunderstand me. I believe the Tea Party has enough philosophical differences that they COULD be their own party.

Apparently you and I have a different perception of the "tea party" The "tea party" is about reducing the size of Govnt by being committed to the idea that we, as a Nation and as individuals, are Taxed Enough Already, and regulated enough already. Opponents have done a good job of misrepresenting the "tea party" as being "far right" and "extremists", but when you separate the labels from the ideas and bring it down to a personal level, ask yourself this "Do you want to pay more taxes, and do you want the Govnt to regulate you more?

Quote:

Originally posted by YESNO1

Agree!!!!
George W is one of America's most patriotic presidents!


Obamanation on the other hand............

Agree!!!!!!