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

[Wacky Quacky]

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.

I love that excuse. You're admitting that your party is full of a bunch of weak kneed pussies, who are incapable of leading, and that cave whenever a bully shakes their finger at them. And you vote for them, why?

I mean, I guess on some level it's better than supporting a party that's full of war mongering, hypocritical, assholes who would bankrupt the country by throwing our money away overseas.

 

[LibertyLemming]

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?

lol dude. So we can send troops to war without congress but can't bring them home?

I'm curious how you're trying to blame Congress (of which half his term he had a supermajority) for not closing Guantanomo.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

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.

I get it from both sides more than you know. Today I'm a right-winger, tomorrow I'm a liberal.

 

[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.

I love that excuse. You're admitting that your party is full of a bunch of weak kneed pussies, who are incapable of leading, and that cave whenever a bully shakes their finger at them. And you vote for them, why?

I mean, I guess on some level it's better than supporting a party that's full of war mongering, hypocritical, assholes who would bankrupt the country by throwing our money away overseas.

Precisely.

You vote for the party that listens to you and/or shares your beliefs.

That's not the Republican Party for me.

 

[LibertyLemming]

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.

I love that excuse. You're admitting that your party is full of a bunch of weak kneed pussies, who are incapable of leading, and that cave whenever a bully shakes their finger at them. And you vote for them, why?

I mean, I guess on some level it's better than supporting a party that's full of war mongering, hypocritical, assholes who would bankrupt the country by throwing our money away overseas.

Precisely.

You vote for the party that listens to you and/or shares your beliefs.

That's not the Republican Party for me.

But that's what so comical to me. Obama is Bush. Finckle is Einhorn.

 

[MarcATL]

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.

I get it from both sides more than you know. Today I'm a right-winger, tomorrow I'm a liberal.

I'll try to remember you're more of a moderate. It's harder remembering the moderates, simply by virtue of...they're more moderate. I have all the RWers pegged, and I know my fellow lefties, mostly, but the moderates....

 

[MarcATL]

I love that excuse. You're admitting that your party is full of a bunch of weak kneed pussies, who are incapable of leading, and that cave whenever a bully shakes their finger at them. And you vote for them, why?

I mean, I guess on some level it's better than supporting a party that's full of war mongering, hypocritical, assholes who would bankrupt the country by throwing our money away overseas.

Precisely.

You vote for the party that listens to you and/or shares your beliefs.

That's not the Republican Party for me.

But that's what so comical to me. Obama is Bush. Finckle is Einhorn.

Continuing what was already established isn't the same as initiating it.

So then if they are so similar why are the Republicans so against him?

You think if McCain and Palin had won, they'd have gotten out of Iraq? Lilly Leidbetter? The Latina Judge?

C'mon...they aren't the same.

There's just things a President has to do, LW or RW, period.

We're all grown-ups here. Aren't we?

 

[LibertyLemming]

Precisely.

You vote for the party that listens to you and/or shares your beliefs.

That's not the Republican Party for me.

But that's what so comical to me. Obama is Bush. Finckle is Einhorn.

Continuing what was already established isn't the same as initiating it.

So then if they are so similar why are the Republicans so against him?

You think if McCain and Palin had won, they'd have gotten out of Iraq? Lilly Leidbetter? The Latina Judge?

C'mon...they aren't the same.

There's just things a President has to do, LW or RW, period.

We're all grown-ups here. Aren't we?

Because of the minor differences (taxation and social policy). They are the same on spending and foreign policy.

Obama didn't get us out of Iraq. (even if he did, which he didn't, you'd be ruining your he can't get us out of afghan argument).

Continuing is not the same as initiating, true. But not changing them is the same as endorsing them.

 

[MarcATL]

But that's what so comical to me. Obama is Bush. Finckle is Einhorn.

Continuing what was already established isn't the same as initiating it.

So then if they are so similar why are the Republicans so against him?

You think if McCain and Palin had won, they'd have gotten out of Iraq? Lilly Leidbetter? The Latina Judge?

C'mon...they aren't the same.

There's just things a President has to do, LW or RW, period.

We're all grown-ups here. Aren't we?

Because of the minor differences (taxation and social policy). They are the same on spending and foreign policy.

Obama didn't get us out of Iraq. (even if he did, which he didn't, you'd be ruining your he can't get us out of afghan argument).

Continuing is not the same as initiating, true. But not changing them is the same as endorsing them.

You make valid points.

Let's see where we're at at the end of his term...shall we?

 

[LibertyLemming]

Continuing what was already established isn't the same as initiating it.

So then if they are so similar why are the Republicans so against him?

You think if McCain and Palin had won, they'd have gotten out of Iraq? Lilly Leidbetter? The Latina Judge?

C'mon...they aren't the same.

There's just things a President has to do, LW or RW, period.

We're all grown-ups here. Aren't we?

Because of the minor differences (taxation and social policy). They are the same on spending and foreign policy.

Obama didn't get us out of Iraq. (even if he did, which he didn't, you'd be ruining your he can't get us out of afghan argument).

Continuing is not the same as initiating, true. But not changing them is the same as endorsing them.

You make valid points.

Let's see where we're at at the end of his term...shall we?

Well we've done that once and it was ugly. I didn't even bring up the worst atrocities. But yes, we will see. I'm personally hoping for gridlock.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

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.

I get it from both sides more than you know. Today I'm a right-winger, tomorrow I'm a liberal.

I'll try to remember you're more of a moderate. It's harder remembering the moderates, simply by virtue of...they're more moderate. I have all the RWers pegged, and I know my fellow lefties, mostly, but the moderates....

Honestly, I hate labels. Having a label restricts open thought as you have to desperately hold on to ideals you may not believe in just to maintain it. A republican could never believe in tax increases, because if they did they would loose the privilege of calling themselves a republican. The same goes for liberals, libertarians, anarchists, and any other affiliation you can label people with.

This philosophy is also one of the main reasons I don't believe in any religion (there are you happy) now.

 

[LibertyLemming]

i get it from both sides more than you know. Today i'm a right-winger, tomorrow i'm a liberal.

i'll try to remember you're more of a moderate. It's harder remembering the moderates, simply by virtue of...they're more moderate. I have all the rwers pegged, and i know my fellow lefties, mostly, but the moderates....

honestly, i hate labels. having a label restricts open thought as you have to desperately hold on to ideals you may not believe in just to maintain it. A republican could never believe in tax increases, because if they did they would loose the privilege of calling themselves a republican. The same goes for liberals, libertarians, anarchists, and any other affiliation you can label people with.

This philosophy is also one of the main reasons i'm an atheist now.

lololololololol

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Because of the minor differences (taxation and social policy). They are the same on spending and foreign policy.

Obama didn't get us out of Iraq. (even if he did, which he didn't, you'd be ruining your he can't get us out of afghan argument).

Continuing is not the same as initiating, true. But not changing them is the same as endorsing them.

You make valid points.

Let's see where we're at at the end of his term...shall we?

Well we've done that once and it was ugly. I didn't even bring up the worst atrocities. But yes, we will see. I'm personally hoping for gridlock.

Yup. I look forward to many hours of political theater. Dems sending repubs budgets with tax increases they know will be shot down, repubs sending dems important bills with the Bush tax cuts attached. It's like a soap opera, but with better actors.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

i'll try to remember you're more of a moderate. It's harder remembering the moderates, simply by virtue of...they're more moderate. I have all the rwers pegged, and i know my fellow lefties, mostly, but the moderates....

honestly, i hate labels. having a label restricts open thought as you have to desperately hold on to ideals you may not believe in just to maintain it. A republican could never believe in tax increases, because if they did they would loose the privilege of calling themselves a republican. The same goes for liberals, libertarians, anarchists, and any other affiliation you can label people with.

This philosophy is also one of the main reasons i'm an atheist now.

lololololololol

Hmmm, perhaps I should rephrase that.

 

[LibertyLemming]

honestly, i hate labels. having a label restricts open thought as you have to desperately hold on to ideals you may not believe in just to maintain it. A republican could never believe in tax increases, because if they did they would loose the privilege of calling themselves a republican. The same goes for liberals, libertarians, anarchists, and any other affiliation you can label people with.

This philosophy is also one of the main reasons i'm an atheist now.

lololololololol

Hmmm, perhaps I should rephrase that.

Hehe sorry I couldn't help myself

 

[MarcATL]

I get it from both sides more than you know. Today I'm a right-winger, tomorrow I'm a liberal.

I'll try to remember you're more of a moderate. It's harder remembering the moderates, simply by virtue of...they're more moderate. I have all the RWers pegged, and I know my fellow lefties, mostly, but the moderates....

Honestly, I hate labels. Having a label restricts open thought as you have to desperately hold on to ideals you may not believe in just to maintain it. A republican could never believe in tax increases, because if they did they would loose the privilege of calling themselves a republican. The same goes for liberals, libertarians, anarchists, and any other affiliation you can label people with.

This philosophy is also one of the main reasons I don't believe in any religion (there are you happy) now.

I like labels. It's just a label that puts you in the general area of something.

The problem comes when people give hard meanings to them, like what you just said. The problem isn't the label themselves.

I'm liberal, I believe in freedom, I'm a Christian (fairly conservative one at that), however don't push those views unto others, many other things, there's a lot of things that I agree w/the Republicans on, I just don't agree with their bully approach. I don't like how they demean others, and are constantly on the attack. I like the
Democratic approach to politics, more thoughtful, intellectual, level-headed, and action-oriented.

 

[editec]

The Right cannot take responsibility for any failure of one of their own.

It never has and it never will.


Just like few Liberals I know will every admit Clinton's MAJOR role in the disaster of 2007-08, either.

Partisans are not interesting in truth, they're interesting in advancing their team.

Expecting ANY of them to approach an issue honestly is a sort of silly.


If they were interested in truth they could not be PARTISANS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The deception began when you started this thread. You want to pretend that all the spending bills Obama signed were Bush's fault, they aren't. He signed them he owns them, He was free to veto them and demand that Congress either send him something he liked, or override his veto. Can you point to one bill that he vetoed and had over ridden that is responsible for the massive deficit?

Didn't think so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

He not only followed the Bush timeline, he actually sent Biden to try to negotiate a new agreement that would have kept troops in Iraq past the deadline agreed to by Bush. Yet you want to give him credit for ending the war, and call me dishonest for refusing to give it to him.

As for Gitmo, Obama blamed the Democrats in his own party for it not being open, why should I think he is lying about that? Especially since he had a super majority three for a few months, and could easily have passed it even if every Republican opposed it.

By the way, there were at least one, possibly two, republicans in the Senate that would have voted with him on that issue.

 

[The Infidel]

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.

Dont lecture Republicans.... Your race voted for him in droves because he had the same skin color as you. You are a shallow little "man" Marc.


Oh yeah... FUCK YOU Marc....