Obama really is Dubya II

[TheGreatGatsby]

We knew the policies were about the same. Seems the intelligence is roughly the same too:

 

[TheOldSchool]

Not even close

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Seen all that. Obama doesn't look any more intelligent. If you can't see that, then you haven't come face to face with your biases.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Seen all that. Obama doesn't look any more intelligent. If you can't see that, then you haven't come face to face with your biases.

Obama might look dumb every once in a while, but every single word that came out of Dubya's mouth was embarrassing. There's a reason Dubya has a global reputation as a complete moron.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We knew the policies were about the same. Seems the intelligence is roughly the same too:

Yeah, intelligence is the same as popularity ratings and wars started and all of that. Er.....

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

We knew the policies were about the same. Seems the intelligence is roughly the same too:

Yeah, intelligence is the same as popularity ratings and wars started and all of that. Er.....

Yea, cos deposing a homicidal dictator is way worse than being serially complicit in the collapse of the Middle East... Er....

Thanks again for another brilliant take, 'Mr. Objective'

 

[frigidweirdo]

We knew the policies were about the same. Seems the intelligence is roughly the same too:

Yeah, intelligence is the same as popularity ratings and wars started and all of that. Er.....

Yea, cos deposing a homicidal dictator is way worse than being serially complicit in the collapse of the Middle East... Er....

Thanks again for another brilliant take, 'Mr. Objective'

Saddam was far more than a homicidal dictator. He was a guy stopping ISIQ and ISIS taking ground. Replace one homicidal dictator for ISIS, good job? Not unless you think putting fear into your people so you can take away their rights is a good thing.

I'm objective. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm not.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Obama might look dumb every once in a while, but every single word that came out of Dubya's mouth was embarrassing. There's a reason Dubya has a global reputation as a complete moron.

Well, there's everything Obama has done to the economy through business regulation. He got the number of states wrong. He claimed the economy is growing as he regulated it into oblivion. Dumped a ton of money into a 'stimulus package', which was full of nothing but pork. Oh, made a deal to fund terrorists. Dumped a ton of money into an algae research program that's going nowhere. For me, that's already enough.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Seen all that. Obama doesn't look any more intelligent. If you can't see that, then you haven't come face to face with your biases.

Obama might look dumb every once in a while, but every single word that came out of Dubya's mouth was embarrassing. There's a reason Dubya has a global reputation as a complete moron.

Check you biases is still my advice.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

We knew the policies were about the same. Seems the intelligence is roughly the same too:

Yeah, intelligence is the same as popularity ratings and wars started and all of that. Er.....

Yea, cos deposing a homicidal dictator is way worse than being serially complicit in the collapse of the Middle East... Er....

Thanks again for another brilliant take, 'Mr. Objective'

Saddam was far more than a homicidal dictator. He was a guy stopping ISIQ and ISIS taking ground. Replace one homicidal dictator for ISIS, good job? Not unless you think putting fear into your people so you can take away their rights is a good thing.

I'm objective. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm not.

Yea, Saddam was a fucking hero

Was ISIS a Bush problem or was it a problem that Obama created by cutting and running? Maybe if he wasn't worried about getting his Muslim Brotherhood friends into power in Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc. he might of done sh** about it.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Seen all that. Obama doesn't look any more intelligent. If you can't see that, then you haven't come face to face with your biases.

Obama might look dumb every once in a while, but every single word that came out of Dubya's mouth was embarrassing. There's a reason Dubya has a global reputation as a complete moron.

Check you biases is still my advice.

I can say that Rubio, Cruz, Walker, Romney, Paul, and other republicans sound fairly intelligent when they speak. Even Trump, though spouting off some pretty wild stuff, has clarity and competence in his voice. Dubya was like a 3rd grader, having to stand up in front of class to give a report that he and everybody else knew he hadn't studied or prepared for.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We knew the policies were about the same. Seems the intelligence is roughly the same too:

Yeah, intelligence is the same as popularity ratings and wars started and all of that. Er.....

Yea, cos deposing a homicidal dictator is way worse than being serially complicit in the collapse of the Middle East... Er....

Thanks again for another brilliant take, 'Mr. Objective'

Saddam was far more than a homicidal dictator. He was a guy stopping ISIQ and ISIS taking ground. Replace one homicidal dictator for ISIS, good job? Not unless you think putting fear into your people so you can take away their rights is a good thing.

I'm objective. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm not.

Yea, Saddam was a fucking hero

Was ISIS a Bush problem or was it a problem that Obama created by cutting and running? Maybe if he wasn't worried about getting his Muslim Brotherhood friends into power in Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc. he might of done sh** about it.

You can complain about Saddam all you like. I didn't like him. This isn't the point, you just seem to want to simplify the situation to a point where it's useless debating with you.

Saddam might have been bad, but in 1991 they knew that Saddam was far more stable than what could come after. So, they didn't depose him.

2003, with an idiot in the White House, they thought they could do it. Why? Who knows, maybe people who see the world in a simplistic way think simplistic solutions work. How'd that work out?

ISIS was a problem was created during BUSH's time in office. The guy who started ISIS went to Afghanistan to fight, got injured, ended up in Iran, then fought in Iraq, which is where many of them learned their trade.
Bush signed the order to pull US troops out of Iraq, and then the Arab Spring happened which weakened the area further, which allowed ISIS and ISIQ to take a hold of parts of those countries.

Without BUSH this wouldn't have happened. There simply wouldn't have been armed Islamic fundamentalist groups ready to pounce, as they did, and did so successfully.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Seen all that. Obama doesn't look any more intelligent. If you can't see that, then you haven't come face to face with your biases.

Obama might look dumb every once in a while, but every single word that came out of Dubya's mouth was embarrassing. There's a reason Dubya has a global reputation as a complete moron.

Check you biases is still my advice.

I can say that Rubio, Cruz, Walker, Romney, Paul, and other republicans sound fairly intelligent when they speak. Even Trump, though spouting off some pretty wild stuff, has clarity and competence in his voice. Dubya was like a 3rd grader, having to stand up in front of class to give a report that he and everybody else knew he hadn't studied or prepared for.

And that's how Obama has sounded on many of occasions as well; more than I can count.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

And that's how Obama has sounded on many of occasions as well; more than I can count.

Said "uh" way more often, that's for sure... annnd got the number of states wrong.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

We knew the policies were about the same. Seems the intelligence is roughly the same too:

Yeah, intelligence is the same as popularity ratings and wars started and all of that. Er.....

Yea, cos deposing a homicidal dictator is way worse than being serially complicit in the collapse of the Middle East... Er....

Thanks again for another brilliant take, 'Mr. Objective'

Saddam was far more than a homicidal dictator. He was a guy stopping ISIQ and ISIS taking ground. Replace one homicidal dictator for ISIS, good job? Not unless you think putting fear into your people so you can take away their rights is a good thing.

I'm objective. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm not.

Yea, Saddam was a fucking hero

Was ISIS a Bush problem or was it a problem that Obama created by cutting and running? Maybe if he wasn't worried about getting his Muslim Brotherhood friends into power in Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc. he might of done sh** about it.

You can complain about Saddam all you like. I didn't like him. This isn't the point, you just seem to want to simplify the situation to a point where it's useless debating with you.

Saddam might have been bad, but in 1991 they knew that Saddam was far more stable than what could come after. So, they didn't depose him.

2003, with an idiot in the White House, they thought they could do it. Why? Who knows, maybe people who see the world in a simplistic way think simplistic solutions work. How'd that work out?

ISIS was a problem was created during BUSH's time in office. The guy who started ISIS went to Afghanistan to fight, got injured, ended up in Iran, then fought in Iraq, which is where many of them learned their trade.
Bush signed the order to pull US troops out of Iraq, and then the Arab Spring happened which weakened the area further, which allowed ISIS and ISIQ to take a hold of parts of those countries.

Without BUSH this wouldn't have happened. There simply wouldn't have been armed Islamic fundamentalist groups ready to pounce, as they did, and did so successfully.

Few were openly touting that the Middle East would be more stable with Saddam in the picture. Sure, there were a few people that understood the maniacal nature of Islamic culture who were of that opinion. But Saddam being good for America's interests was far from a popular view.

And you're talking about idiots and their simplistic solutions? Okay, well ISIS was spawned on Obama's simplistic get out at all costs and damn the consequences agenda. ISIS came to power because Obama allowed it to happen. Blaming Bush does not offset reality.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah, intelligence is the same as popularity ratings and wars started and all of that. Er.....

Yea, cos deposing a homicidal dictator is way worse than being serially complicit in the collapse of the Middle East... Er....

Thanks again for another brilliant take, 'Mr. Objective'

Saddam was far more than a homicidal dictator. He was a guy stopping ISIQ and ISIS taking ground. Replace one homicidal dictator for ISIS, good job? Not unless you think putting fear into your people so you can take away their rights is a good thing.

I'm objective. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm not.

Yea, Saddam was a fucking hero

Was ISIS a Bush problem or was it a problem that Obama created by cutting and running? Maybe if he wasn't worried about getting his Muslim Brotherhood friends into power in Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc. he might of done sh** about it.

You can complain about Saddam all you like. I didn't like him. This isn't the point, you just seem to want to simplify the situation to a point where it's useless debating with you.

Saddam might have been bad, but in 1991 they knew that Saddam was far more stable than what could come after. So, they didn't depose him.

2003, with an idiot in the White House, they thought they could do it. Why? Who knows, maybe people who see the world in a simplistic way think simplistic solutions work. How'd that work out?

ISIS was a problem was created during BUSH's time in office. The guy who started ISIS went to Afghanistan to fight, got injured, ended up in Iran, then fought in Iraq, which is where many of them learned their trade.
Bush signed the order to pull US troops out of Iraq, and then the Arab Spring happened which weakened the area further, which allowed ISIS and ISIQ to take a hold of parts of those countries.

Without BUSH this wouldn't have happened. There simply wouldn't have been armed Islamic fundamentalist groups ready to pounce, as they did, and did so successfully.

Few were openly touting that the Middle East would be more stable with Saddam in the picture. Sure, there were a few people that understood the maniacal nature of Islamic culture who were of that opinion. But Saddam being good for America's interests was far from a popular view.

And you're talking about idiots and their simplistic solutions? Okay, well ISIS was spawned on Obama's simplistic get out at all costs and damn the consequences agenda. ISIS came to power because Obama allowed it to happen. Blaming Bush does not offset reality.

A popular view is more often than not a simplistic view.

Obama pulled out because his predecessor signed the pulling out order.

ISIS came to power in a place where Obama didn't have control, wasn't the president, didn't have the right to have troops in the country.

Blaming Bush doesn't offset reality. What you're spouting isn't reality. It's what you want to believe.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yea, cos deposing a homicidal dictator is way worse than being serially complicit in the collapse of the Middle East... Er....

Thanks again for another brilliant take, 'Mr. Objective'

Saddam was far more than a homicidal dictator. He was a guy stopping ISIQ and ISIS taking ground. Replace one homicidal dictator for ISIS, good job? Not unless you think putting fear into your people so you can take away their rights is a good thing.

I'm objective. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm not.

Yea, Saddam was a fucking hero

Was ISIS a Bush problem or was it a problem that Obama created by cutting and running? Maybe if he wasn't worried about getting his Muslim Brotherhood friends into power in Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc. he might of done sh** about it.

You can complain about Saddam all you like. I didn't like him. This isn't the point, you just seem to want to simplify the situation to a point where it's useless debating with you.

Saddam might have been bad, but in 1991 they knew that Saddam was far more stable than what could come after. So, they didn't depose him.

2003, with an idiot in the White House, they thought they could do it. Why? Who knows, maybe people who see the world in a simplistic way think simplistic solutions work. How'd that work out?

ISIS was a problem was created during BUSH's time in office. The guy who started ISIS went to Afghanistan to fight, got injured, ended up in Iran, then fought in Iraq, which is where many of them learned their trade.
Bush signed the order to pull US troops out of Iraq, and then the Arab Spring happened which weakened the area further, which allowed ISIS and ISIQ to take a hold of parts of those countries.

Without BUSH this wouldn't have happened. There simply wouldn't have been armed Islamic fundamentalist groups ready to pounce, as they did, and did so successfully.

Few were openly touting that the Middle East would be more stable with Saddam in the picture. Sure, there were a few people that understood the maniacal nature of Islamic culture who were of that opinion. But Saddam being good for America's interests was far from a popular view.

And you're talking about idiots and their simplistic solutions? Okay, well ISIS was spawned on Obama's simplistic get out at all costs and damn the consequences agenda. ISIS came to power because Obama allowed it to happen. Blaming Bush does not offset reality.

A popular view is more often than not a simplistic view.

Obama pulled out because his predecessor signed the pulling out order.

ISIS came to power in a place where Obama didn't have control, wasn't the president, didn't have the right to have troops in the country.

Blaming Bush doesn't offset reality. What you're spouting isn't reality. It's what you want to believe.

Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq, dude. I know you may not be used to him keeping campaign promises (not that he actually kept that one; as he belatedly did it); but he did take them out and always broadcasted very strongly that that was what he thought was best. Was it? Clearly not, dude. And ISIS came to power after Obama completely split when he had the power to negotiate. That's not Bush. Stop trying to make this about a signature on paper. That's a fucking cop out, 'Mr. Objective'.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Saddam was far more than a homicidal dictator. He was a guy stopping ISIQ and ISIS taking ground. Replace one homicidal dictator for ISIS, good job? Not unless you think putting fear into your people so you can take away their rights is a good thing.

I'm objective. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm not.

Yea, Saddam was a fucking hero

Was ISIS a Bush problem or was it a problem that Obama created by cutting and running? Maybe if he wasn't worried about getting his Muslim Brotherhood friends into power in Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc. he might of done sh** about it.

You can complain about Saddam all you like. I didn't like him. This isn't the point, you just seem to want to simplify the situation to a point where it's useless debating with you.

Saddam might have been bad, but in 1991 they knew that Saddam was far more stable than what could come after. So, they didn't depose him.

2003, with an idiot in the White House, they thought they could do it. Why? Who knows, maybe people who see the world in a simplistic way think simplistic solutions work. How'd that work out?

ISIS was a problem was created during BUSH's time in office. The guy who started ISIS went to Afghanistan to fight, got injured, ended up in Iran, then fought in Iraq, which is where many of them learned their trade.
Bush signed the order to pull US troops out of Iraq, and then the Arab Spring happened which weakened the area further, which allowed ISIS and ISIQ to take a hold of parts of those countries.

Without BUSH this wouldn't have happened. There simply wouldn't have been armed Islamic fundamentalist groups ready to pounce, as they did, and did so successfully.

Few were openly touting that the Middle East would be more stable with Saddam in the picture. Sure, there were a few people that understood the maniacal nature of Islamic culture who were of that opinion. But Saddam being good for America's interests was far from a popular view.

And you're talking about idiots and their simplistic solutions? Okay, well ISIS was spawned on Obama's simplistic get out at all costs and damn the consequences agenda. ISIS came to power because Obama allowed it to happen. Blaming Bush does not offset reality.

A popular view is more often than not a simplistic view.

Obama pulled out because his predecessor signed the pulling out order.

ISIS came to power in a place where Obama didn't have control, wasn't the president, didn't have the right to have troops in the country.

Blaming Bush doesn't offset reality. What you're spouting isn't reality. It's what you want to believe.

Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq, dude. I know you may not be used to him keeping campaign promises (not that he actually kept that one; as he belatedly did it); but he did take them out and always broadcasted very strongly that that was what he thought was best. Was it? Clearly not, dude. And ISIS came to power after Obama completely split when he had the power to negotiate. That's not Bush. Stop trying to make this about a signature on paper. That's a fucking cop out, 'Mr. Objective'.

Yeah, so he campaigned on getting out of Iraq. That doesn't stop the FACT that he didn't sign the pulling out order, does it?

Now, you're saying he campaigned to pull out, and then saying he hasn't kept a single promise, and yet you're blaming him for pulling the troops out, for campaigning that he would pull troops out, and not living up to his campaign promises.

What you're smoking must be good.

ISIS came to power after Obama came to office. But get this. Things don't just suddenly appear out of no where. It's not like you go to the fridge and all of a sudden it's full of food and nothing happened to get that food there.

Imagine. Bush puts food in the fridge. Leaves office. Obama takes over, opens the fridge. What's in the fridge? Different food to what was put in there? Give me a fucking break.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yea, Saddam was a fucking hero

Was ISIS a Bush problem or was it a problem that Obama created by cutting and running? Maybe if he wasn't worried about getting his Muslim Brotherhood friends into power in Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc. he might of done sh** about it.

You can complain about Saddam all you like. I didn't like him. This isn't the point, you just seem to want to simplify the situation to a point where it's useless debating with you.

Saddam might have been bad, but in 1991 they knew that Saddam was far more stable than what could come after. So, they didn't depose him.

2003, with an idiot in the White House, they thought they could do it. Why? Who knows, maybe people who see the world in a simplistic way think simplistic solutions work. How'd that work out?

ISIS was a problem was created during BUSH's time in office. The guy who started ISIS went to Afghanistan to fight, got injured, ended up in Iran, then fought in Iraq, which is where many of them learned their trade.
Bush signed the order to pull US troops out of Iraq, and then the Arab Spring happened which weakened the area further, which allowed ISIS and ISIQ to take a hold of parts of those countries.

Without BUSH this wouldn't have happened. There simply wouldn't have been armed Islamic fundamentalist groups ready to pounce, as they did, and did so successfully.

Few were openly touting that the Middle East would be more stable with Saddam in the picture. Sure, there were a few people that understood the maniacal nature of Islamic culture who were of that opinion. But Saddam being good for America's interests was far from a popular view.

And you're talking about idiots and their simplistic solutions? Okay, well ISIS was spawned on Obama's simplistic get out at all costs and damn the consequences agenda. ISIS came to power because Obama allowed it to happen. Blaming Bush does not offset reality.

A popular view is more often than not a simplistic view.

Obama pulled out because his predecessor signed the pulling out order.

ISIS came to power in a place where Obama didn't have control, wasn't the president, didn't have the right to have troops in the country.

Blaming Bush doesn't offset reality. What you're spouting isn't reality. It's what you want to believe.

Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq, dude. I know you may not be used to him keeping campaign promises (not that he actually kept that one; as he belatedly did it); but he did take them out and always broadcasted very strongly that that was what he thought was best. Was it? Clearly not, dude. And ISIS came to power after Obama completely split when he had the power to negotiate. That's not Bush. Stop trying to make this about a signature on paper. That's a fucking cop out, 'Mr. Objective'.

Yeah, so he campaigned on getting out of Iraq. That doesn't stop the FACT that he didn't sign the pulling out order, does it?

Now, you're saying he campaigned to pull out, and then saying he hasn't kept a single promise, and yet you're blaming him for pulling the troops out, for campaigning that he would pull troops out, and not living up to his campaign promises.

What you're smoking must be good.

ISIS came to power after Obama came to office. But get this. Things don't just suddenly appear out of no where. It's not like you go to the fridge and all of a sudden it's full of food and nothing happened to get that food there.

Imagine. Bush puts food in the fridge. Leaves office. Obama takes over, opens the fridge. What's in the fridge? Different food to what was put in there? Give me a fucking break.

You're giving me fine print that does not belie reality. It doesn't matter what Bush signed. Obama completely pulled out on his own accord. He was quite definitive in his undeniable rhetoric on the matter as well.

On the sidebar point: I was saying that Obama promised to pull out of Iraq by a certain time; I think it was a year or two. He went well past the date. So, I was saying that was ultimately another campaign promise that he broke. Nonetheless, his hastiness has cost lives. There is no denying that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You can complain about Saddam all you like. I didn't like him. This isn't the point, you just seem to want to simplify the situation to a point where it's useless debating with you.

Saddam might have been bad, but in 1991 they knew that Saddam was far more stable than what could come after. So, they didn't depose him.

2003, with an idiot in the White House, they thought they could do it. Why? Who knows, maybe people who see the world in a simplistic way think simplistic solutions work. How'd that work out?

ISIS was a problem was created during BUSH's time in office. The guy who started ISIS went to Afghanistan to fight, got injured, ended up in Iran, then fought in Iraq, which is where many of them learned their trade.
Bush signed the order to pull US troops out of Iraq, and then the Arab Spring happened which weakened the area further, which allowed ISIS and ISIQ to take a hold of parts of those countries.

Without BUSH this wouldn't have happened. There simply wouldn't have been armed Islamic fundamentalist groups ready to pounce, as they did, and did so successfully.

Few were openly touting that the Middle East would be more stable with Saddam in the picture. Sure, there were a few people that understood the maniacal nature of Islamic culture who were of that opinion. But Saddam being good for America's interests was far from a popular view.

And you're talking about idiots and their simplistic solutions? Okay, well ISIS was spawned on Obama's simplistic get out at all costs and damn the consequences agenda. ISIS came to power because Obama allowed it to happen. Blaming Bush does not offset reality.

A popular view is more often than not a simplistic view.

Obama pulled out because his predecessor signed the pulling out order.

ISIS came to power in a place where Obama didn't have control, wasn't the president, didn't have the right to have troops in the country.

Blaming Bush doesn't offset reality. What you're spouting isn't reality. It's what you want to believe.

Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq, dude. I know you may not be used to him keeping campaign promises (not that he actually kept that one; as he belatedly did it); but he did take them out and always broadcasted very strongly that that was what he thought was best. Was it? Clearly not, dude. And ISIS came to power after Obama completely split when he had the power to negotiate. That's not Bush. Stop trying to make this about a signature on paper. That's a fucking cop out, 'Mr. Objective'.

Yeah, so he campaigned on getting out of Iraq. That doesn't stop the FACT that he didn't sign the pulling out order, does it?

Now, you're saying he campaigned to pull out, and then saying he hasn't kept a single promise, and yet you're blaming him for pulling the troops out, for campaigning that he would pull troops out, and not living up to his campaign promises.

What you're smoking must be good.

ISIS came to power after Obama came to office. But get this. Things don't just suddenly appear out of no where. It's not like you go to the fridge and all of a sudden it's full of food and nothing happened to get that food there.

Imagine. Bush puts food in the fridge. Leaves office. Obama takes over, opens the fridge. What's in the fridge? Different food to what was put in there? Give me a fucking break.

You're giving me fine print that does not belie reality. It doesn't matter what Bush signed. Obama completely pulled out on his own accord. He was quite definitive in his undeniable rhetoric on the matter as well.

On the sidebar point: I was saying that Obama promised to pull out of Iraq by a certain time; I think it was a year or two. He went well past the date. So, I was saying that was ultimately another campaign promise that he broke. Nonetheless, his hastiness has cost lives. There is no denying that.

I'm sorry if you think Iraq isn't a sovereign country and the US can do whatever the fuck it feels like with it, but it is actually a sovereign country and when the US sign a withdrawal of troops, they can't just turn around and say "sorry Iraq, we were just fucking with you, we're staying".

Do you not understand this simple point?

Obama said 16 months. Last troops left after 3 years based on the agreement with Bush.

Obama reduced the troops by quite a bit by 16 months, then increased then in 2011 before the final withdrawal.

However, you're complaining because he withdrew troops too early AND you're complaining he withdrew troops too late.

Hmmm.....

A campaign promise of pulling all troops out in 16 months was always going to be one that might not make it, these things are not easy operations and a guy who isn't president making such a statement must be taken with a pinch of salt (as is everything they say). However, he did what he said, he got the troops out of Iraq. Just not in the timetable that he said he would do it.