Had The RWers Taken Personal Responsibility For Bush II, They Might Have Won

[LibertyLemming]

I can't think of any. They are partisan too. Most of the electorate is. It's part of the problem.

Thank you, and considering we're coming out of 8 effing years of assault and destruction by the hands of the Bush Regime and these RWers ALL sat silent, you can imagine why I'm pretty focused on them. I'd like to see THEM hold some accountability for their nonsense first.

You can understand that...right?

How did Bush "assault" or "destroy" anything?

Seriously? He went to war with a country that presented ZERO national security threat to the USA. He used a tragedy like 9/11 to pass the Patriot Act and absolutely shit on freedom and due process. He locked human beings, in cages, without due process. He continued the war on drugs which also locks people in cages for victimless crimes. He assaulted my personal property by taxing my labor to keep failed companies afloat. I could go on for HOURS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Instead of holding Bush accountable for the COLOSSAL failure that he was, for damn near bringing total and complete FINANCIAL COLLAPSE on not just the good ole' U.S. of A., but the entire world economy, instead of being outraged over Bush's wanton and MASSIVE SPENDING, waste, fraud and abuse on two unecessary and trumped up wars, they instead chose silence. To Bush, and waited for Obama to come in to Office and heap all that rage and anger on him. Who DIDN'T bring all that upon us.

The man who's fixing it...they are INCENSED at/about...not the man who caused it.

America saw that, and didn't like. Didn't like it one bit, and thus voted him back in.

Republicans would do well to practice what they preach.

Not one of them can tell me they don't support Bush II. I've many many anti-Bush posts and threads and I see most of not all RWers on here either pass the buck to someone else, or outright wrap their arms around Bush II in support stating things like "he wasn't that bad", "Obama's worse" "at least he kept us safe."

They simply. have. not. learned. Unfornately...for them.

My friend, you are partisan.

Secondly, Obama is almost a clone of GWB. Both are gigantic statists on the levels of Wilson and FDR.

Answer me this level-headed one.

Did Bush bring the financial troubles on our heads or no? If not then who?

It stated in 1962 when we started spending more money than we had as a national policy. Eisenhower was the last president to actually exercise fiscal restraint, every single one since then has expanded federal spending.

 

[MarcATL]

I really hope you stick around for four more years just so I can say "I told you."

Told me what?

Even if Obama fails outright...as you stated. He failed in cleaning up BUSH'S MESS...COLOSSAL FAILURE himself. Do you agree?

Why would I agree to a lie? He owns the economy now, the recession ended 3 months after he took office. Blaming Bush only works if you are dealing with mental midgets.

Presidents always have a worse second term than first, it happened with the Reagan and Clinton, it will happen with Obama. When nothing he does makes things any better, and we go into the longest and weakest recovery in the nations history, even Obama won't be able to spin it.

OK, I'm done w/you on this subject. You too Bripat, at least for tonight, getting ready to head outta here pretty soon, spent enough time debating on here for one night.

 

[Glensather]

Hmmm...seems like tepid rebuke of Bush's RW policies. I guess that's the most one can expect from a RWer. The majoritiy of you seem to not have it in you to publicly criticize one of your own, even if he happens to be THE COLOSSAL FAILURE of the century.

I kinda feel bad now; you're one of the few to actually call me a RWer.
Let this be clear: I hate them all. Liberals, Progressives, Conservatives, Libertarians, Teabaggers. I think you're all wrong.

I can tell you are a RWer, you don't believe in the LW policies, so you're prone to dislike Obama and like Bush...I get it, but don't get so rabidly upset at Obama for simply keeping the policies that Bush and the Neocons initiated, especially after sitting idly by while they did this. This is what gets people angry. This is why Romney lost so badly, and why the teabaggers in Congress got their walking papers. The American People don't like hypocrisy.

I haven't noticed your name before tonight, welcome to the board my brother.

I'm not rabidly upset at Obama. A lot of people are, and I can understand why that would color your perceptions of my post (don't act like they don't; you have to be inhuman for someone's words to not affect your judgement) (also double negatives are awesome). My problem is with the government at large. I say I don't hold Bush as accountable as Obama NOW, and I still believe that. But you also have to understand that the fault also lies with the Republican-controlled house and the Democrat-controlled Senate. They don't agree on anything, they'll never agree on anything, because they hate each other so much that their judgments are affected like that.

I want to like you man. But please, please, don't label me as a partisan. If anything I'm a non-violent anarchist, which I'm pretty sure isn't partisan at all.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Instead of holding Bush accountable for the COLOSSAL failure that he was, for damn near bringing total and complete FINANCIAL COLLAPSE on not just the good ole' U.S. of A., but the entire world economy, instead of being outraged over Bush's wanton and MASSIVE SPENDING, waste, fraud and abuse on two unecessary and trumped up wars, they instead chose silence. To Bush, and waited for Obama to come in to Office and heap all that rage and anger on him. Who DIDN'T bring all that upon us.

The man who's fixing it...they are INCENSED at/about...not the man who caused it.

America saw that, and didn't like. Didn't like it one bit, and thus voted him back in.

Republicans would do well to practice what they preach.

Not one of them can tell me they don't support Bush II. I've many many anti-Bush posts and threads and I see most of not all RWers on here either pass the buck to someone else, or outright wrap their arms around Bush II in support stating things like "he wasn't that bad", "Obama's worse" "at least he kept us safe."

They simply. have. not. learned. Unfornately...for them.

My friend, you are partisan.

Secondly, Obama is almost a clone of GWB. Both are gigantic statists on the levels of Wilson and FDR.

Answer me this level-headed one.

Did Bush bring the financial troubles on our heads or no? If not then who?

No. Suggesting that one man, even if that man is the President, can collapse the entire world economy by himself is incredibly delusional.

The fault lies with people at every level, everyone had their role to play. With the middle class for buying homes they couldn't afford on loans they couldn't pay back, and living through credit cards. Banks for handing out loans to people irregardless of their ability to pay it back, and trading security derivatives. And for washington repealing glass-steagall and sitting on their fat asses while there were obvious signs of trouble. Toss a little record high oil prices into the mix and you have the great recession.

You would be an unapologetic partisan hack to blame only Bush, while completely ignoring everything else that was going on.

 

[MarcATL]

My friend, you are partisan.

Secondly, Obama is almost a clone of GWB. Both are gigantic statists on the levels of Wilson and FDR.

Answer me this level-headed one.

Did Bush bring the financial troubles on our heads or no? If not then who?

It stated in 1962 when we started spending more money than we had as a national policy. Eisenhower was the last president to actually exercise fiscal restraint, every single one since then has expanded federal spending.

Going back on my word for not engaging you any more tonight, but so why are you and your ilk so willing to excuse Bush during his time and so eager to blame Obama during his time?

That's the part I don't think you guys are grasping here.

 

[auditor0007]

Instead of holding Bush accountable for the COLOSSAL failure that he was, for damn near bringing total and complete FINANCIAL COLLAPSE on not just the good ole' U.S. of A., but the entire world economy, instead of being outraged over Bush's wanton and MASSIVE SPENDING, waste, fraud and abuse on two unecessary and trumped up wars, they instead chose silence. To Bush, and waited for Obama to come in to Office and heap all that rage and anger on him. Who DIDN'T bring all that upon us.

The man who's fixing it...they are INCENSED at/about...not the man who caused it.

America saw that, and didn't like. Didn't like it one bit, and thus voted him back in.

Republicans would do well to practice what they preach.

Not one of them can tell me they don't support Bush II. I've many many anti-Bush posts and threads and I see most of not all RWers on here either pass the buck to someone else, or outright wrap their arms around Bush II in support stating things like "he wasn't that bad", "Obama's worse" "at least he kept us safe."

They simply. have. not. learned. Unfornately...for them.

I get a little tired of blaming the President for everything. It wasn't all Bush's fault. Greenspan had more to do with it than anyone by keeping interest rates much too low. But there is fault all over the place. The bottom line is that if Greenspan had not kept interest rates so low, we would have had a very long recession under Bush. Greenspan helped delay it, but in doing so, he helped create the real estate bubble that was the real cause of the meltdown. What very few people understand about the housing meltdown is that it was caused by builders who built too many houses because they believed there actually was a demand for those homes. It wasn't because people couldn't pay for their mortgages. That didn't happen until after everyone started losing their jobs.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Marc you seem to have stopped responding to me but riddle me this: how much blame does the Democratic congress that served with Bush?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Answer me this level-headed one.

Did Bush bring the financial troubles on our heads or no? If not then who?

It stated in 1962 when we started spending more money than we had as a national policy. Eisenhower was the last president to actually exercise fiscal restraint, every single one since then has expanded federal spending.

Going back on my word for not engaging you any more tonight, but so why are you and your ilk so willing to excuse Bush during his time and so eager to blame Obama during his time?

That's the part I don't think you guys are grasping here.

My ilk? I blame Bush for what he did, Bush added $4 trillion to the national debt over his 8 year term, Obama has added $5 trillion in 4 years.

By the way, before you start whining about 2009 not counting, I am counting 2001 against Bush. Please try to tell me the debt didn't go up in 2001.

 

[MarcATL]

No. Suggesting that one man, even if that man is the President, can collapse the entire world economy by himself is incredibly delusional.

The fault lies with people at every level, everyone had their role to play. With the middle class for buying homes they couldn't afford on loans they couldn't pay back, and living through credit cards. Banks for handing out loans to people irregardless of their ability to pay it back, and trading security derivatives. And for washington repealing glass-steagall and sitting on their fat asses while there were obvious signs of trouble. Toss a little record high oil prices into the mix and you have the great recession.

You would be an unapologetic partisan hack to blame only Bush, while completely ignoring everything else that was going on.

So it's everyone had a hand in messing up things under Bush, but under Obama he's solely responsible huh? Is that it?

 

[MarcATL]

It stated in 1962 when we started spending more money than we had as a national policy. Eisenhower was the last president to actually exercise fiscal restraint, every single one since then has expanded federal spending.

Going back on my word for not engaging you any more tonight, but so why are you and your ilk so willing to excuse Bush during his time and so eager to blame Obama during his time?

That's the part I don't think you guys are grasping here.

My ilk? I blame Bush for what he did, Bush added $4 trillion to the national debt over his 8 year term, Obama has added $5 trillion in 4 years.

By the way, before you start whining about 2009 not counting, I am counting 2001 against Bush. Please try to tell me the debt didn't go up in 2001.

What did Obama spend it on? What did Obama buy with that 5 trillion bucks?

How much of it was putting things that Bush didn't on the books, like the 2 wars?

Be honest.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Going back on my word for not engaging you any more tonight, but so why are you and your ilk so willing to excuse Bush during his time and so eager to blame Obama during his time?

That's the part I don't think you guys are grasping here.

My ilk? I blame Bush for what he did, Bush added $4 trillion to the national debt over his 8 year term, Obama has added $5 trillion in 4 years.

By the way, before you start whining about 2009 not counting, I am counting 2001 against Bush. Please try to tell me the debt didn't go up in 2001.

What did Obama spend it on? What did Obama buy with that 5 trillion bucks?

How much of it was putting things that Bush didn't on the books, like the 2 wars?

Be honest.

Obama coulda brought every troop home immediately. He didn't. He chose to continue the policies and to expand deficit spending.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Going back on my word for not engaging you any more tonight, but so why are you and your ilk so willing to excuse Bush during his time and so eager to blame Obama during his time?

That's the part I don't think you guys are grasping here.

My ilk? I blame Bush for what he did, Bush added $4 trillion to the national debt over his 8 year term, Obama has added $5 trillion in 4 years.

By the way, before you start whining about 2009 not counting, I am counting 2001 against Bush. Please try to tell me the debt didn't go up in 2001.

What did Obama spend it on? What did Obama buy with that 5 trillion bucks?

How much of it was putting things that Bush didn't on the books, like the 2 wars?

Be honest.

What the fuck difference does it make? Do we have magic money that makes it somehow better for one party to spend and not the other? Does that somehow change just because a different party is in charge? I specifically said that the problem began in 1962, and has gotten worse every year. That means I blame both parties, not just one. your pathetic attempt to make it seem like I am being partisan just makes you look old and tired.

 

[MarcATL]

Marc you seem to have stopped responding to me but riddle me this: how much blame does the Democratic congress that served with Bush?

No, I haven't, as you can see, I'm all over the place, in multiple threads, and working on another one.

I'm just one man. What did I miss?

As far as the Dem Congress, I blame their weakness and cowardice. They do have a part and a role to play. But to pretend it was the Dems pushing and waging for those things is to be dishonest at a level the depths of which I can't even imagine.

You know good and damn well that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld beat the drums of war to death, stroking fear and anger in the American populace, building political capital to get their will done. The Dems pushed back a bit, but very slightly, if you remembered. They caved under political pressure.

The country as a whole wanted blood, thanks to the Bush Regime constant stroking fear and anger...everyone was mad at one point. BTW, I lived in NYC during 9/11, I have close friends that worked down there. Thank God none of them died. I've stomped around the Twin Towers multiple times, I remember the entire thing and NYC atmosphere like it was yesterday.

Bush II, was when I awakened politically, so it's quite fresh in my memory.

I will never forget.

But to be succinct, my answer is that the Dems in Congress felt hostage and caved...that's a blame, but hardly the lion's share.

Surely you agree w/that.

 

[MarcATL]

What the fuck difference does it make? Do we have magic money that makes it somehow better for one party to spend and not the other? Does that somehow change just because a different party is in charge? I specifically said that the problem began in 1962, and has gotten worse every year. That means I blame both parties, not just one. your pathetic attempt to make it seem like I am being partisan just makes you look old and tired.

Ahhhhhhhhhh....the deception begins. Why don't you want to answer that question? Seems you're only interested in spewing the meme that Obama spend trillions. Full stop. Not what, why nor how. What you're mad at, or pretending to be mad at, is Obama putting the wars that Bush initiated and didn't put on the books, on the books.

So Bush used the credit card, and kept his already high spending bill artifically low, and now Obama steps up and the first thing he does is put down the money for what Bush didn't pay for. And you're demonizing HIM for it?

I get it. I get it. Carry on.

 

[Glensather]

Ahhhhhhhhhh....the deception begins. Why don't you want to answer that question? Seems you're only interested in spewing the meme that Obama spend trillions. Full stop. Not what, why nor how.

I get it.

It's easier to spew what you've heard than form a sensible opinion of your own. Surely life has shown you these people time and time again?

 

[LibertyLemming]

I answered it but Quantum has the main idea down.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

No. Suggesting that one man, even if that man is the President, can collapse the entire world economy by himself is incredibly delusional.

The fault lies with people at every level, everyone had their role to play. With the middle class for buying homes they couldn't afford on loans they couldn't pay back, and living through credit cards. Banks for handing out loans to people irregardless of their ability to pay it back, and trading security derivatives. And for washington repealing glass-steagall and sitting on their fat asses while there were obvious signs of trouble. Toss a little record high oil prices into the mix and you have the great recession.

You would be an unapologetic partisan hack to blame only Bush, while completely ignoring everything else that was going on.

So it's everyone had a hand in messing up things under Bush, but under Obama he's solely responsible huh? Is that it?

I don't know if you're just in a cranky ass mood or something, but you need to back off from your assumptions, they're making you look like a hateful idiot.

I have never once blamed Obama for the economy, or even alluded to him being solely responsible for the state of the nation. I don't think he's done a damn thing to fix it, but he's not the cause.

 

[MarcATL]

My ilk? I blame Bush for what he did, Bush added $4 trillion to the national debt over his 8 year term, Obama has added $5 trillion in 4 years.

By the way, before you start whining about 2009 not counting, I am counting 2001 against Bush. Please try to tell me the debt didn't go up in 2001.

What did Obama spend it on? What did Obama buy with that 5 trillion bucks?

How much of it was putting things that Bush didn't on the books, like the 2 wars?

Be honest.

Obama coulda brought every troop home immediately. He didn't. He chose to continue the policies and to expand deficit spending.

Be realistic.

He's not a king, as the Republicans would quickly tell you. He can't just do what he want's, not w/o consequences.

You think the Republicans would let him do that?

They didn't let him close Guantanomo (sp). Did they?

 

[MarcATL]

No. Suggesting that one man, even if that man is the President, can collapse the entire world economy by himself is incredibly delusional.

The fault lies with people at every level, everyone had their role to play. With the middle class for buying homes they couldn't afford on loans they couldn't pay back, and living through credit cards. Banks for handing out loans to people irregardless of their ability to pay it back, and trading security derivatives. And for washington repealing glass-steagall and sitting on their fat asses while there were obvious signs of trouble. Toss a little record high oil prices into the mix and you have the great recession.

You would be an unapologetic partisan hack to blame only Bush, while completely ignoring everything else that was going on.

So it's everyone had a hand in messing up things under Bush, but under Obama he's solely responsible huh? Is that it?

I don't know if you're just in a cranky ass mood or something, but you need to back off from your assumptions, they're making you look like a hateful idiot.

I have never once blamed Obama for the economy, or even alluded to him being solely responsible for the state of the nation. I don't think he's done a damn thing to fix it, but he's not the cause.

Hey, my bad, but that's not the typical RW meme. Unless I've already identified you as a moderate or left-winger, I'm pretty much gonna put you in the RW category. Kudos to you then.