Liberals: Obama has become Bush on super Steroids, I cannot believe it

[Oddball]

Obama is described as "destroying this country" by doing what Bush did that was described as "protecting America"?

oh, ok

Only by necon turds and their useful idiot accomplices, who were enabling the destruction of America.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Obama is described as "destroying this country" by doing what Bush did that was described as "protecting America"?

oh, ok

Only by necon turds and their useful idiot accomplices, who were enabling the destruction of America.

Stop that, Conservatives always are for things while their person is in and when they leave THATS when they were wrong all along. The problem is that no conservative anywhere ever said a negative word about Bush while in office....Maybe they were against it all along but no one heard them? bullshit.

Sidenote: Repubs did the same thing in 2006, agreed and supported everything the senate and congress did, only AFTER they lost is when Hannity and the rest of the repubs said "They lost because they lost their way"

Everytime a conservative wins its because hes conservative, when he loses its because he wasnt conservative enough. Essentially making it impossible for conservatism to be wrong. its spin

 

[JRK]

Obama is described as "destroying this country" by doing what Bush did that was described as "protecting America"?

oh, ok

Only by necon turds and their useful idiot accomplices, who were enabling the destruction of America.

Stop that, Conservatives always are for things while their person is in and when they leave THATS when they were wrong all along. The problem is that no conservative anywhere ever said a negative word about Bush while in office....Maybe they were against it all along but no one heard them? bullshit.

Sidenote: Repubs did the same thing in 2006, agreed and supported everything the senate and congress did, only AFTER they lost is when Hannity and the rest of the repubs said "They lost because they lost their way"

Everytime a conservative wins its because hes conservative, when he loses its because he wasnt conservative enough. Essentially making it impossible for conservatism to be wrong. its spin

They did lose there way to some extent
They also had 9-11 from an expense stand point that hurt
but
2007 we where within 150 billion dollars of a balanced budget passed by the 06 congress
2008 it went to 500 billion
2009 GWB would not sign that budget (it was his to sign) Obama signs it with 1.3-1.5 trillion in deficit
as I have stated
Obama is W on super steriods

 

[Avorysuds]

It's very important to note that Bush has very low support even from his own party. Bush was a key reason for the split in the Republican party, Dems were so happy to announce this just a few years ago but today they like to claim the TPM and nearly all Conservatives are just Neocons.

Why people never seem to realize that Obama is doing just as Bush did to Conservatives.. He lied, he said one thing and did another.

At what point will Obama's supporters ask themselves why Obama has a reason for always doing the opposite of what he wants... I mean name a single issue Obama was able to do what he claimed to want to do.

I do not rcall GWB lying
he said he would lower taxes
he did
no child left behind
done
Medicare part B
done

In fact I am amazed that people have such little respect for him
OBAMA lied
from gitmo to the deficit

Nation building and he grew Government. Bush was a liberal when it came to spending. He also did unconstitutional wars. Bush also lied to get us into the wars, horrible wars that while some fuk ups try and defend have cost this country billions and thousands of American lives. Maybe America should get out of the puppet Government and funding of "bad guy" in other countries, eh?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't get it. Some of 'you' posit President Obama is far left (one even suggested Bush was a centrist). What do 'you' mean when you call someone left, right or center?
Pejoratives, dysphemisms are loaded words used by advocates to negatively portray those with whom they disagree.

Rather than attack someone for their opinion, or attack an elected official ("Bush on steroids") one is better positioned by describing the policy or opinion with which they disagree and why; offering a solution to a problem or problems also helps. Otherwise 'you' might be presumed by the reader to be angry and thoughtless.

 

[Avorysuds]

I don't get it. Some of 'you' posit President Obama is far left (one even suggested Bush was a centrist). What do 'you' mean when you call someone left, right or center?
Pejoratives, dysphemisms are loaded words used by advocates to negatively portray those with whom they disagree.

Rather than attack someone for their opinion, or attack an elected official ("Bush on steroids") one is better positioned by describing the policy or opinion with which they disagree and why; offering a solution to a problem or problems also helps. Otherwise 'you' might be presumed by the reader to be angry and thoughtless.

Calling someone a name by giving them a label means nothing. Liberal - Conservative, neither are bad in reality... It's the Liberal that grows Government and spends into oblivion that is bad... It's the Conservative that Grows Government and spends into oblivion that is bad.

You're post is BS because the first page (and OP) gave exact policies where the two are alike. If you liked Bush then you can't really bitch about Obama can you? If you like Obama then you can't really bitch about Bush, can you? I don’t know if you remember but Independents/Republicans and Democrats pretty much hated the shit out of Bush by then end of his second term… I have to repeat that ALL the fucking time because morons here LOVE to say “But you liked Bush then!” No, most didn’t, it’s just a simple fuckin fact, go look up all the polling.

Maybe YOU should give us a list where Bush and Obama are different, a list that should make us go, "Hmmm, Obama is different than Bush on important issues." Bush was one of the worst president in US history, so what does that make Obama, the greatest?
Put simply… Obama ran off not being Bush…. Well, in 2012 the GOP candidate or Dems in the Dem primaries can run off…. Not being Bush III LOL.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't get it. Some of 'you' posit President Obama is far left (one even suggested Bush was a centrist). What do 'you' mean when you call someone left, right or center?
Pejoratives, dysphemisms are loaded words used by advocates to negatively portray those with whom they disagree.

Rather than attack someone for their opinion, or attack an elected official ("Bush on steroids") one is better positioned by describing the policy or opinion with which they disagree and why; offering a solution to a problem or problems also helps. Otherwise 'you' might be presumed by the reader to be angry and thoughtless.

Calling someone a name by giving them a label means nothing. Liberal - Conservative, neither are bad in reality... It's the Liberal that grows Government and spends into oblivion that is bad... It's the Conservative that Grows Government and spends into oblivion that is bad.

You're post is BS because the first page (and OP) gave exact policies where the two are alike. If you liked Bush then you can't really bitch about Obama can you? If you like Obama then you can't really bitch about Bush, can you? I don’t know if you remember but Independents/Republicans and Democrats pretty much hated the shit out of Bush by then end of his second term… I have to repeat that ALL the fucking time because morons here LOVE to say “But you liked Bush then!” No, most didn’t, it’s just a simple fuckin fact, go look up all the polling.

Maybe YOU should give us a list where Bush and Obama are different, a list that should make us go, "Hmmm, Obama is different than Bush on important issues." Bush was one of the worst president in US history, so what does that make Obama, the greatest?
Put simply… Obama ran off not being Bush…. Well, in 2012 the GOP candidate or Dems in the Dem primaries can run off…. Not being Bush III LOL.

I don't need to list the differences, they're clear as one example can attest.

Bush spent borrowed dollars on a war of choice; Obama spent borrowed dollars too, repairing the damage done by the previous administration which spent unwisely (if you like foolishly).

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act used borrowed money to build and repair long neglected roadways, for example, benefiting communities in every state, providing well paid private sector jobs - borrowed dollars spent which were spent in cafés and movie theaters, at grocery stores and to pay rent and mortgages.

The on-going Iraq war cost the lives of 4,500 (or so) Americans and wounded, many permanently, thousands more. We will continue to pay the cost of the Iraq fiasco for decades; the roads build will continue to serve communities for decades.

Both used borrowed money; the use of the money is the issue not the fact that is was borrowed.

BTW, I purposely didn't used the words "liberal" or "conservative" as they evoke different feelings in different people and do not clarify, they generally confuse or create conflict. Similarly, left and right are evocative which is why a definition offered in posting would help for clarity. And calling an opinion bullshit isn't helpful either, it's rather childish when included in a post that has a bit more straw than substance.

 

[JRK]

I don't get it. Some of 'you' posit President Obama is far left (one even suggested Bush was a centrist). What do 'you' mean when you call someone left, right or center?
Pejoratives, dysphemisms are loaded words used by advocates to negatively portray those with whom they disagree.

Rather than attack someone for their opinion, or attack an elected official ("Bush on steroids") one is better positioned by describing the policy or opinion with which they disagree and why; offering a solution to a problem or problems also helps. Otherwise 'you' might be presumed by the reader to be angry and thoughtless.

Calling someone a name by giving them a label means nothing. Liberal - Conservative, neither are bad in reality... It's the Liberal that grows Government and spends into oblivion that is bad... It's the Conservative that Grows Government and spends into oblivion that is bad.

You're post is BS because the first page (and OP) gave exact policies where the two are alike. If you liked Bush then you can't really bitch about Obama can you? If you like Obama then you can't really bitch about Bush, can you? I don’t know if you remember but Independents/Republicans and Democrats pretty much hated the shit out of Bush by then end of his second term… I have to repeat that ALL the fucking time because morons here LOVE to say “But you liked Bush then!” No, most didn’t, it’s just a simple fuckin fact, go look up all the polling.

Maybe YOU should give us a list where Bush and Obama are different, a list that should make us go, "Hmmm, Obama is different than Bush on important issues." Bush was one of the worst president in US history, so what does that make Obama, the greatest?
Put simply… Obama ran off not being Bush…. Well, in 2012 the GOP candidate or Dems in the Dem primaries can run off…. Not being Bush III LOL.

I don't need to list the differences, they're clear as one example can attest.

Bush spent borrowed dollars on a war of choice; Obama spent borrowed dollars too, repairing the damage done by the previous administration which spent unwisely (if you like foolishly).

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act used borrowed money to build and repair long neglected roadways, for example, benefiting communities in every state, providing well paid private sector jobs - borrowed dollars spent which were spent in cafés and movie theaters, at grocery stores and to pay rent and mortgages.

The on-going Iraq war cost the lives of 4,500 (or so) Americans and wounded, many permanently, thousands more. We will continue to pay the cost of the Iraq fiasco for decades; the roads build will continue to serve communities for decades.

Both used borrowed money; the use of the money is the issue not the fact that is was borrowed.

BTW, I purposely didn't used the words "liberal" or "conservative" as they evoke different feelings in different people and do not clarify, they generally confuse or create conflict. Similarly, left and right are evocative which is why a definition offered in posting would help for clarity. And calling an opinion bullshit isn't helpful either, it's rather childish when included in a post that has a bit more straw than substance.

War of Choice?
Your choice to dis agree with that desc ion is yours, i will not comment on the events of 9-11-2001 and the months that followed them as a choice, right or wrong
and if you want to blame W, then you might want to go at these people also

W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

 

[JRK]

now as far as your failed stimulus
CBO Say’s Obama’s Stimulus Cost Taxpayers $228.000 PER JOB! « Puppieswilldie Blog
230,000 dollars per job

now as far as the rest goes
what did GWB do to cause the housing bubble?
or for it to bust?

 

[ClosedCaption]

oh gawd, not the "Bush isnt to blame because everyone thought it too" arguement. Who was the decider during Bush's term? Lets blame that person

 

[JRK]

oh gawd, not the "Bush isnt to blame because everyone thought it too" arguement. Who was the decider during Bush's term? Lets blame that person

Palin is making way to much money to run for president
I love her to death
Its about the cash

This thread has so much truth to it its scary
The left is desperate to change the subject

CBO Say’s Obama’s Stimulus Cost Taxpayers $228.000 PER JOB! « Puppieswilldie Blog

 

[rightwinger]

The hate the left had for W should have them in a place that hate cannot do it justice for Obama
I am serious

Tax policy? check
Gitmo? Check
Deficit? W had 150 billion in 07, BHO has 1.5 trillion in 10, check
Iraqi freedom? on GWB schedule, check
Afgahn? lets utilize the same tactic we used in Iraq? GWB style? check
UE? GWB 5%, BHO 9% ck
stimulus? GWB has three for the tax payers, BHO has one bigger than those three for the unions, Check

BHO goes from medicare part B to OBAMA-CARE
check
BHO goes from no child left behind to no teacher left behind

I dare anyone to dispute this

If Obama is just Bush on steroids, why do the Republicans oppose every single thing he wants to do?

Because he's a democrat, the same reason you opposed every single thing Bush did, he didn't share your party affiliation.

Oh, I get it now

So the Republicans really supported Obamacare, repealing DADT, Stimulus, extending unemployment, financial reform and credit reform after all

 

[ClosedCaption]

oh gawd, not the "Bush isnt to blame because everyone thought it too" arguement. Who was the decider during Bush's term? Lets blame that person

Palin is making way to much money to run for president
I love her to death
Its about the cash

This thread has so much truth to it its scary
The left is desperate to change the subject

CBO Say’s Obama’s Stimulus Cost Taxpayers $228.000 PER JOB! « Puppieswilldie Blog

I think you quoted the wrong guy mate

 

[JRK]

I don't get it. Some of 'you' posit President Obama is far left (one even suggested Bush was a centrist). What do 'you' mean when you call someone left, right or center?
Pejoratives, dysphemisms are loaded words used by advocates to negatively portray those with whom they disagree.

Rather than attack someone for their opinion, or attack an elected official ("Bush on steroids") one is better positioned by describing the policy or opinion with which they disagree and why; offering a solution to a problem or problems also helps. Otherwise 'you' might be presumed by the reader to be angry and thoughtless.

Calling someone a name by giving them a label means nothing. Liberal - Conservative, neither are bad in reality... It's the Liberal that grows Government and spends into oblivion that is bad... It's the Conservative that Grows Government and spends into oblivion that is bad.

You're post is BS because the first page (and OP) gave exact policies where the two are alike. If you liked Bush then you can't really bitch about Obama can you? If you like Obama then you can't really bitch about Bush, can you? I don’t know if you remember but Independents/Republicans and Democrats pretty much hated the shit out of Bush by then end of his second term… I have to repeat that ALL the fucking time because morons here LOVE to say “But you liked Bush then!” No, most didn’t, it’s just a simple fuckin fact, go look up all the polling.

Maybe YOU should give us a list where Bush and Obama are different, a list that should make us go, "Hmmm, Obama is different than Bush on important issues." Bush was one of the worst president in US history, so what does that make Obama, the greatest?
Put simply… Obama ran off not being Bush…. Well, in 2012 the GOP candidate or Dems in the Dem primaries can run off…. Not being Bush III LOL.

My thread is for that very reason. people hated GWB because they where told to hate him for 8 years
the reason Obama got elected is the masses was told 5% UE was a bad thing
That 150 Billion in deficit spending was a bad thing
On the list the things Obama has done GWB did not
Gays in the military is one
Obama-care? is that not Medicare part B on super steroids?

Allot of people quote Iraq
I have an issue with hating GWB on that matter on not 90% of the dems in power today
snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes
Being told to hate any-one and then doing it is a disease. To live in a level of denial that Obama is sending drones into Pakistan daily and he is a saint is GWB on super steriods
Even W stopped there. BHO knows if he get OBL he is in no matter

 

[JRK]

If Obama is just Bush on steroids, why do the Republicans oppose every single thing he wants to do?

Because he's a democrat, the same reason you opposed every single thing Bush did, he didn't share your party affiliation.

Oh, I get it now

So the Republicans really supported Obamacare, repealing DADT, Stimulus, extending unemployment, financial reform and credit reform after all

Obama care is Medicare GWB style on super steroids
GWB had 3 stimuluses, he gave the tax payer a rebate, the last one was a huge one and is about 300-400 billion of his total debt
GWB extended UE Bush Extends Unemployment Benefits - CBS News
financial and credit reform?
Did you forget about Enron?
Rollback of post-Enron corporate regulations in US
http://raw.rutgers.edu/MiklosVasarh...RS/P28. law of unintended consequences155.pdf
do your research, I will say it again
GWB on steriods

 

[Wry Catcher]

I was in a management training program in Sacramento the day Powell spoke before the UN. Everyone in that training had an advanced degree and had at least ten years experience in the criminal justice system on a local or state level.
After Powell spoke I was shocked by the drum beat for war by the majority of those attending. During that week I spoke with many attendees on the wisdom of war with Iraq and discovered only two others who had the same misgivings as I; they like me were Vietnam era vets, one was a combat wounded Marine.
My point being members of Congress made decisions to vote for or against the resolution; 156 members voted no. One memorable no vote was Ron Paul.
The act by 19 young men, most of whom were Sudai Arabian nationals was a criminal; act not an act of war. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a choice made by the Bush Administration and was a huge mistake, if not a crime.

 

[Sallow]

Or it proves that, despite attempts to create deep divisions over small issues, the nation and its parties are actually quite centrist and no single person has the authority to drag it dramatically in one way or the other.

Not exactly. What it probably proves is that the problems left behind by the Bush administration were far more complex then Obama realized. That...and there has been some very stiff opposition to changing course from the Republicans. The Republicans put up a record number of filibusters. Couple that with the fierce opposition to things like Trials in NYC for Gitmo detainees and you get a better picture of what really is happening.

The Republicans didn't say they wanted President Obama to fail for nothing..they wanted to make it happen.

what?
what problems did W leave behind has what to do with Obama dealing with them the way he has?
filler busters?
the voter filler busted his ass in Nov 2010

You're kidding. The 2008 presidential election was put on hold by the REPUBLICAN candidate so he could rush off to Washington to deal with the looming financial crisis. And Boehner went in front of a skeptical congress and turned on the water works to get them to vote for TARP..a bill crafted by the darlings of Wall Street. Add in 2 wars and a collapsing employment situation, detainees that had their rights violated on numerous occassions making any trial for them a perlious legal mission, and an absolute abject disaster of an economy and you have the perfect storm.

Conservatives created this mess..partly in enrich their "base" and partly to fulfill the Grover Norquist meme to "starve the beast". Well Conservatives made government so dysfunctional, that the first two years of the Obama administration was spent digging out from the mess. And they want to put us right back into the same spot.

 

[JRK]

I was in a management training program in Sacramento the day Powell spoke before the UN. Everyone in that training had an advanced degree and had at least ten years experience in the criminal justice system on a local or state level.
After Powell spoke I was shocked by the drum beat for war by the majority of those attending. During that week I spoke with many attendees on the wisdom of war with Iraq and discovered only two others who had the same misgivings as I; they like me were Vietnam era vets, one was a combat wounded Marine.
My point being members of Congress made decisions to vote for or against the resolution; 156 members voted no. One memorable no vote was Ron Paul.
The act by 19 young men, most of whom were Sudai Arabian nationals was a criminal; act not an act of war. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a choice made by the Bush Administration and was a huge mistake, if not a crime.

Wry I respect your thread and its content
My take on those events where and are to this day Saddam's fault

He made the mistake of playing with fire not thinking an event like 9-11 would come along. Did he have anything to do with 9-11?
of course not
did he harbor terrorist?
Of course he did
Was he threat?
If he was not, then why was it on 9-16-2001 when GWB called him out he did not say "hey, come on in, I do not want no trouble"
Of course it is more complicated than that, but not to blame Saddam Hussein for that entire event is nuts
he had 18 months, I remind you also that this started long before the speech Powell gave
snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes
H.R. 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

 

[JRK]

Not exactly. What it probably proves is that the problems left behind by the Bush administration were far more complex then Obama realized. That...and there has been some very stiff opposition to changing course from the Republicans. The Republicans put up a record number of filibusters. Couple that with the fierce opposition to things like Trials in NYC for Gitmo detainees and you get a better picture of what really is happening.

The Republicans didn't say they wanted President Obama to fail for nothing..they wanted to make it happen.

what?
what problems did W leave behind has what to do with Obama dealing with them the way he has?
filler busters?
the voter filler busted his ass in Nov 2010

You're kidding. The 2008 presidential election was put on hold by the REPUBLICAN candidate so he could rush off to Washington to deal with the looming financial crisis. And Boehner went in front of a skeptical congress and turned on the water works to get them to vote for TARP..a bill crafted by the darlings of Wall Street. Add in 2 wars and a collapsing employment situation, detainees that had their rights violated on numerous occassions making any trial for them a perlious legal mission, and an absolute abject disaster of an economy and you have the perfect storm.

Conservatives created this mess..partly in enrich their "base" and partly to fulfill the Grover Norquist meme to "starve the beast". Well Conservatives made government so dysfunctional, that the first two years of the Obama administration was spent digging out from the mess. And they want to put us right back into the same spot.

Tarp worked and all funds except Chrysler, GM, GMAC and AIG have been paid back. Obama voted for Tarp
2 wars? you forget 9-11? we did not start those wars son
Saddam had 18 months to do the right thing. after 9-11 there was no more sanctions
you say they created the mess, yet you do no say how

UE was 7% 1/2009
its 9 (Gallup has it @ 10.35)
deficits where running at 2-400 billion with tax rebates in the 100 billions
today there in the trillions

Digging? out? of what?
fixing?
whose mess?

 

[Dr.Drock]

If Obama is just Bush on steroids, why do the Republicans oppose every single thing he wants to do?

Because he's a democrat, the same reason you opposed every single thing Bush did, he didn't share your party affiliation.

Oh, I get it now

So the Republicans really supported Obamacare, repealing DADT, Stimulus, extending unemployment, financial reform and credit reform after all

When the Republicans next take full power (2017 is my guess) they won't repeal Obamacare, they won't reinstate DADT, yes they support big spending stimulus type packages, they'll increase the unemployment budget, financial reform and credit are broad terms that happens to some extent (sadly) every year.

I wish you got it now.

Should I list all the things Bush did that democrats whined about that Obama has continued?