obama comparison to BUSH

[PistolBob]

GWB's failing oil business got a bailout from Salem bin Laden (Osama's older brother) in 1988. Surely that is worthy of remembering on his presidential resume.

The president and the terrorist: does George W. Bush have business ties to Osama bin Laden? | USA Today

Obama and Bin Laden pray to the same god.

 

[88GT]

Bush should have been reminded of the veto power much more often, but I think it's a gross mischaracterization of him to say that he is cut from the same cloth as Obama. Similar results are not indicative of similar motivations.

 

[dross]

Come on now. Bush's fighter pilot training came in real good on two occasions.

1. When he dodged Vietnam
2. When he announced major military operations had ended in Iraq.

.

There are lots of fair criticisms of Bush, but these are two that are not.

1. He volunteered for Vietnam.
2. If you're talking about Mission Accomplished, it was the ship's mission not the war, and major operations WERE ended. It's a technical term, and it didn't mean that there would be no more fighting.

As to some of the other comments on this thread:

Seeing these two as the same means either that you're over on some extreme where your perspective is skewed, or you're one of those folks measures politics with a go/no go guage. Differences in degree actually matter in the real world.

If you really believe that having a Bush type for the next twenty years or an Obama type for the next twenty years would mean the same thing for the things you believe in, I don't really even know what to say to you.

 

[Fletch]

If you really believe that having a Bush type for the next twenty years or an Obama type for the next twenty years would mean the same thing for the things you believe in, I don't really even know what to say to you.

Every president in my lifetime has outdone the one before him with growing the government, in terms of money or authority or both. The only thing I am sure of is that the next president, whether Democrat or Republican, will either outdo Obama or cause the system to collapse in the attempt. Neither side is concerned with the size of government, only who's in control. Both parties are hell-bent on driving this thing right off a cliff.

 

[Fletch]

Bush should have been reminded of the veto power much more often, but I think it's a gross mischaracterization of him to say that he is cut from the same cloth as Obama. Similar results are not indicative of similar motivations.

If the end result is more government weight on our backs, does it really matter whether it was put there in the name of "security" or "social justice"?

 

[88GT]

If the end result is more government weight on our backs, does it really matter whether it was put there in the name of "security" or "social justice"?

If you're talking about the effect on the nation and the people? No. But if you're comparing the characters of the men responsible and you make a claim that they are cut of the same cloth simply because their choices had similar results, I think it does matter.

I'll not sway your opinion on this, but I think Bush did what he did because he truly believed it was a better option and that things would improve for Americans....or at least be better in the long run. That makes him gullible, naive, and ignorant, as well as compassionate and sympathetic.

The Nutmegger is doing what he's doing because (and I can only speculate here) because he truly wants to tear down the U.S. as a powerhouse of freedom, democracy, and Christianity; he's a Marxist to his core provided he's on the receiving end of the redistribution, and I personally think he's so damn full of himself and out of touch with reality that it is quite within the realm of possibility that somewhere in that brain of his he is actually contemplating the logistics of making "President for life" a reality. There are others, but for the sake of time....Anywho, that makes him evil, selfish, egotistical, as well as calculating, manipulative, and deceptive.

Probably not even from the same fabric store, let alone the same bolt.

 

[dross]

As a side note, I don't think ANYTHING he's done to visitors from Britain is accidental. Read about his views and his father's views on Britain. I believe he HATES them with passion.

 

[dross]

Every president in my lifetime has outdone the one before him with growing the government, in terms of money or authority or both. The only thing I am sure of is that the next president, whether Democrat or Republican, will either outdo Obama or cause the system to collapse in the attempt. Neither side is concerned with the size of government, only who's in control. Both parties are hell-bent on driving this thing right off a cliff.

What that tells you is that it's a systemic problem more than a problem of any one individual.

Two ways to fix it: Three possibilities for fixing it: The ballet box, the jury box, or the bullet box.

Two don't appear to be working, and it's too early for the other. My choice is to continue to try to influence the two, with an eye towards the other.

 

[Fletch]

I'll not sway your opinion on this, but I think Bush did what he did because he truly believed it was a better option and that things would improve for Americans....or at least be better in the long run.

And on this I absolutely agree.

The Nutmegger is doing what he's doing because (and I can only speculate here) because he truly wants to tear down the U.S. as a powerhouse of freedom, democracy, and Christianity; he's a Marxist to his core provided he's on the receiving end of the redistribution, and I personally think he's so damn full of himself and out of touch with reality that it is quite within the realm of possibility that somewhere in that brain of his he is actually contemplating the logistics of making "President for life" a reality. There are others, but for the sake of time....Anywho, that makes him evil, selfish, egotistical, as well as calculating, manipulative, and deceptive.

But on this I don't.

I have a personal policy of always assuming the best of anyone's intentions. I'm not always able to do it, but I try like hell to do so. It has never done me any good to impugn the motives of others, even those against whom I have been in vehement opposition. Their reasoning or their means may be faulty, but the ends they choose represent something positive or beneficial, at least in their mind.

I can look at what little Obama has done to push a leftist agenda (and it is darned little, honestly -- just ask the leftists), and I can see that what he aims at is a betterment of condition for America, as he sees it. Just as Bush wanted what was best for America with the things he did.

But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as the old saying goes. Means are chosen with faulty reasoning or impure influences or bad information or all three. It doesn't matter to the end person getting thrown in jail or fined or shot dead that the law he supposedly broke was created with the best intentions. The end result is tyranny and oppression, and it needs to be stopped.

 

[88GT]

And on this I absolutely agree.



But on this I don't.

I have a personal policy of always assuming the best of anyone's intentions. I'm not always able to do it, but I try like hell to do so. It has never done me any good to impugn the motives of others, even those against whom I have been in vehement opposition. Their reasoning or their means may be faulty, but the ends they choose represent something positive or beneficial, at least in their mind.

You're free to assume however you want, but the man tells you his intentions clearly enough. His history and his peerage are sufficient to explain his agenda and his methodology.

But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as the old saying goes. Means are chosen with faulty reasoning or impure influences or bad information or all three. It doesn't matter to the end person getting thrown in jail or fined or shot dead that the law he supposedly broke was created with the best intentions. The end result is tyranny and oppression, and it needs to be stopped.

That doesn't make two people cut from the same cloth though, which was my original point. I agree that tyranny in any form for any reason is unacceptable, and I'll not forgive a man simply because he didn't know better or really and truly thought it was for the good of the whole. But neither will I label him the depraved fiend who purposefully wants to impose a tyranny for his own selfish benefit.

The difference is that if given the benefit of hindsight and the consequent knowledge that a particular action wasn't going to be beneficial and good for the nation, I think Bush would have at least given pause to it and likely reconsidered it altogether. I seriously doubt the Nutmegger would bat an eye because I think it's his stated goal to do exactly that which he does. I think that to a large extent his means ARE his ends and he's enjoying it,

 

[Bunnykid68]

Republicans are taking us down the highway to hell at 75MPH
Democrats are taking us down the same highway at 145MPH

They are both the same, one is just faster then the other.

 

[dross]

Perhaps someone has a suggestion for how we reverse this decline? One that doesn't involve unicorns, or people changing their basic nature, or any other fairy tales.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Perhaps someone has a suggestion for how we reverse this decline? One that doesn't involve unicorns, or people changing their basic nature, or any other fairy tales.

But everyone loves unicorns and rainbows and stuff

 

[dross]

But everyone loves unicorns and rainbows and stuff

Oh, me too. I just don't think they're going to fix our problems. Neither is, "I know, Beav' if we good just get everybody to vote pro-freedom and if we could get everyone to stick to the Constitution and reverse a hundred years of legal precedent, wouldn't the world be swell!"

Ain't gonna happen. So what solutions are we left with?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Oh, me too. I just don't think they're going to fix our problems. Neither is, "I know, Beav' if we good just get everybody to vote pro-freedom and if we could get everyone to stick to the Constitution and reverse a hundred years of legal precedent, wouldn't the world be swell!"

Ain't gonna happen. So what solutions are we left with?

Solutions that no one is willing to talk about. I know nothing

 

[88GT]

Perhaps someone has a suggestion for how we reverse this decline? One that doesn't involve unicorns, or people changing their basic nature, or any other fairy tales.

My honest opinion is that the Libertarians need to do to the Republicans what the communists/marxists did to the Democrats.

This continual response of putting up superior candidates in a third party so the smug conceit of not being "tainted" can be maintained and trotted out for display is nerve-wracking.

Stop being selfish about the label. Stop being obsessed with being able to point out out you aren't the evil Rs. The fact of the matter is that the Rs get the votes in the general election. There's no reason not to. There's no allegiance to the party worth more than getting this country back on track. In fact, I'd say that such allegiance is contradictory to the arguments many libertarians claim about not have party loyalty over policy. Well, damn it, prove it.

So ****in' what if he's elected as an R. There's nothing that says that being a Republican has to mean being a RINO. GO where the votes are. Don't hide behind the holier-than-thou condescension. Be the Republican that leads the change.

If the Libertarian part fails to do this, I will consider them all political cowards. And I will hold them just as responsible for our country's demise as any Dem or Republican.

 

[Fletch]

So ****in' what if he's elected as an R. There's nothing that says that being a Republican has to mean being a RINO. GO where the votes are. Don't hide behind the holier-than-thou condescension. Be the Republican that leads the change.

If the Libertarian part fails to do this, I will consider them all political cowards. And I will hold them just as responsible for our country's demise as any Dem or Republican.

I agree with this, however I think it should be pointed out that the Republicans don't really welcome the libertarian influence. Many of the "old guard", the "Moral Majority", the neo-cons, the neomercantilists, and other factions within the party (even the gun toters) see libertarians as poisonous.

I've been trying to sort out how to get my foot in the door in our local precincts, but it's a byzantine mess. Meeting dates and locations seem to be changed at random, none of them are less than 45 minutes away, and it's run by retirees so getting involved at "the next level" means a lot of days off work for us 8-to-5 folks. I'd be putting more effort into it, but frankly my latest project on the personal front is far more important.

 

[indykid]

If Barack Obama had started the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, would you have approved?

I seem to remember several more buildings in the skyline of New York City, not to mention the approximately 3000 people who are no longer breathing which seems to be easily forgotten as a reason to take the war that was started by certain people to their doorstep. If these attacks occurred under obama-messiah I would have approved as well.

How soon we forget. How sad we are.

 

[rambone]

G.W. Bush was so compassionate and kind, that he unleashed DHS & TSA on the American public. Remember Bush's patriotism when you are being subjected to strip searches, radiation scans, dna-harvesting, feel-ups, grope-downs, property confiscation, privacy violations, warrantless wiretaps, watch-lists, AUUH!! Do I need to go on?? You will know them by their fruits.

You know who George W. Bush *WAS* cut from the same cloth as?

GEORGE H. W. BUSH.

Repeat after me, 3 words.

YouTube - New World Order

 

[gunman41mag]

I think we need to see obama & BUSH at the next UFC, see who is the tougher man