President Bush

[RedScare]

Facetiousness, right? You really can't be serious when you take the stance that socialism is an innoucuous bit of political difference.

You know (on some level don't you) how very lucky you are to be living in a democracy and not living in a socialist state? You haven't lost your understanding that socialism deprives people of freedom and that loss of freedom is a bad thing?

It's one thing to bash Bush or conservative ideaology in general but don't be too glib as to dismis socialism as just another acceptable political position. Socialism cannot ever be ethically presented as acceptable; it's on the list of political idealogies containing marxism, nazism, and totalitarianism.

You know (on some level don't you) that we do not live in a democracy?

Just thought I'd point that out, since it seems to be central to your argument.

kthxbye

[Disastro]

I heard Obama try to quantify today his problem with the Bush administration today.

He said something along the lines of 8 years of failed economic and foreign policy when going into his spill about change...four more years of the same...yadayada

I personally think this is revisionist history. What do you think? What has been your problem with the Bush administration regarding the job he has done.

I don't want to hear about your philosophical differances. We all have them. I want to hear about his supposed failed policies.

Of our or your current state of affairs, what do you attribute as being the administrations fault?

I'll say as a republican voter that I have been dissapointed with his weak stance on illegal immigration. However, I understand this is politics and things like this hot button issue will likely never change not in the abrupt sudden way I suppose there is too much at stake in this case.

1. Failure to order the release of border agents/political prisoners Ramos and Campean

2. A perceived sense of Bush Administration corruption (sellout) with Mexico due to #1, #3, and #4

3. Marines FALSELY accused in Falluja and his COMPLETE lack of support as Commander In Chief. Outrageous!!!!!!

4. Support of globalist policies/North American Union

5. Failure to secure the borders after 9/11

6. Failure to direct the military to use tactical nuclear weapons to end the War on Terror quickly (and thus serving notice to ALL enemies of the US at the same time) and decisively in Iraq, Afghanistan and the badlands of Pakistan

7. The attempt to force the Dubai Ports deal on the US

8. Selling out conservative principles and turning into, basically, a fiscal liberal. I thought I voted twice for a conservative...what a fool I was.

9. $700 Billion Wall Street bailout.

These are the immediate problems I have with Bush.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Disastro

[westguy76]

now that is a better response, can't seem to get one from someone who votes democrat.

How can the canditates and pundits keep talking about how the Bush adminstration has run up the national deficit to record numbers and fail to mention the cause? THE WAR against terror that we were thrust into soon after the Bush administration took office. Now let me stop you if you disagree with the war in Iraq, because I know a lot of people do. Didn't we go there on principal, didn't we go their to impose UN sanctions and remove what we believed to be weapons of mass destruction, didn't we go their as a natural extention of the war on terror to protect americas people and are allies? The answer is yes before you try to spin it. So isn't national defense after being attacked on our own soil a valid excuse. Don't we all remember the first years of the war hearing the astronimical amounts of dollars that were being spent every month on bunker buster boms and troops and weapons and transport? Why did the media stop talking about this? political... I understand if the war did not go as smoothly as we could hope, we found no stockpiles, didn't get out as we wanted, etc. but Isn't the war a big chunk of the spending that Bush did? Isn't it justifiable based on our fears and defense, isn't freedom worth the price? and finally why are we blaming all this on one administration who took action with the authorization of congress and the support of the american people, and why are we crying for change? I'm a nutjob, apparently

Edited October 15, 2008 by westguy76

[west20th]

now that is a better response, can't seem to get one from someone who votes democrat.

How can the canditates and pundits keep talking about how the Bush adminstration has run up the national deficit to record numbers and fail to mention the cause? THE WAR against terror that we were thrust into soon after the Bush administration took office. Now let me stop you if you disagree with the war in Iraq, because I know a lot of people do. Didn't we go there on principal, didn't we go their to impose UN sanctions and remove what we believed to be weapons of mass destruction, didn't we go their as a natural extention of the war on terror to protect americas people and are allies? The answer is yes before you try to spin it. So isn't national defense after being attacked on our own soil a valid excuse. Don't we all remember the first years of the war hearing the astronimical amounts of dollars that were being spent every month on bunker buster boms and troops and weapons and transport? Why did the media stop talking about this? political... I understand if the war did not go as smoothly as we could hope, we found no stockpiles, didn't get out as we wanted, etc. but Isn't the war a big chunk of the spending that Bush did? Isn't it justifiable based on our fears and defense, isn't freedom worth the price? and finally why are we blaming all this on one administration who took action with the authorization of congress and the support of the american people, and why are we crying for change? I'm a nutjob, apparently

Bush took a 128Billion dollar surplus and turned it into a 400+billion dollar deficit. The 400 billion does not include the supplementals to fund the Irag war. It is beyond me how you can continue to justify this man's incompetence.

Edited October 15, 2008 by west20th

[Disastro]

now that is a better response, can't seem to get one from someone who votes democrat.

That's because only two thought processes go through the brain (?) of a Democrat -- 1. "I hate Bush. Anybody but Bush" and 2. "Hope and Change".

[N Judah]

USA looked great on paper but nobody actually *built* anything. Financial "products" (ie math equations in a zero-sum framework) don't count.

Edited October 17, 2008 by N Judah

[Fringe]

I'll be the first to admit Bush is a misguided imbecile. What I hate though is how Bush is blamed for EVERYTHING. I even hear people blaming him for the market collapse but not mentioning the hand our Democratic congress has had in it. Where’s the impeachment cries for Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi? If Obama gets elected and this country continues to tank, who will the libs blame next?

[Disastro]

I'll be the first to admit Bush is a misguided imbecile. What I hate though is how Bush is blamed for EVERYTHING. I even hear people blaming him for the market collapse but not mentioning the hand our Democratic congress has had in it. Where

[IronTiger]

As you may know, when Bush was president, there were lots of people against him. So now that Obama's president, everyone who wasn't happy then would be happy now, right?

Wrong.

I've noticed an alarming number of people (some RL, some Internet) that despise Obama just as they despised Bush, and frankly, I'm curious as to why that is? Are they moderates who want everything relatively fair and balanced or are they third-party peoples who would try to be shot down from either side based on their beliefs (i.e. libertarians)?

I'm kind of confused on that fact. Enlighten me, HAIF.

[AtticaFlinch]

Some people are never content, some people like to moan and whine and blame anyone other than themselves for their problems that they themselves created and some others are just plain ol' garden variety idiots. That's the gist.

[TheNiche]

As you may know, when Bush was president, there were lots of people against him. So now that Obama's president, everyone who wasn't happy then would be happy now, right?

Wrong.

I've noticed an alarming number of people (some RL, some Internet) that despise Obama just as they despised Bush, and frankly, I'm curious as to why that is? Are they moderates who want everything relatively fair and balanced or are they third-party peoples who would try to be shot down from either side based on their beliefs (i.e. libertarians)?

I'm kind of confused on that fact. Enlighten me, HAIF.

These are mostly people whose primary considerations are policies that promote free and efficient markets, and the group is a messy collection of moderate Republicans, Independents, and Libertarians.

They didn't like that Bush promoted deficit spending and were quite frustrated that a Republican president, a Republican congress, and (ultimately) a conservative-leaning supreme court ultimately did not resolve issues such as the Alternative Minimum Tax or Social Security in a way that aligned with the Republican platform, and they were especially unhappy that government just kept getting bigger and bigger. Many of them were OK with the Iraq war at first (because of intel that turned out to be crappy) but in hindsight were only grudgingly willing to let us keep troops there so as to fix the mess we were responsible for making. They don't like Obama for...obvious reasons.

There is another group, smaller I think, that don't like Bush for "obvious reasons", but that aren't satisfied with Obama's lack of attention on special issues, like gay rights. Others on this side of the asile are on a more extreme footing and think that Obama isn't being aggressive enough with regulations, environmental policy, creation of new social programs, etc.

But everybody discussed in this post I've just written here tends to place too much blame or responsibility on the office of the President. Congress is usually the limiting factor, regardless of which party is in control.

[AtticaFlinch]

But everybody discussed in this post I've just written here tends to place too much blame or responsibility on the office of the President. Congress is usually the limiting factor, regardless of which party is in control.

But, as any sixth grader can tell you, all federal law and all federal policy must stop by the president's desk before being executed. As such, he's not just a figurehead and a lightning rod. His desk is where the buck stops. Congressmen and Senators are responsible to their districts and their states. The president is responsible to the entire country. It's a bit disingenuous to absolve the president of any responsibility and place the blame on congress instead. Personally, I've found people use that excuse only when it clears the party they back from any criminal or negligent culpability... kinda sorta how the recession plays out in a lot of Republicans' minds: "During Bush's last two years in office, congress was controlled by Democrats! It's their fault! And, even though Clinton mostly had a Republican congress, it was also Clinton's fault! No wait, it was Jimmy freakin' Carter's fault!"

[TheNiche]

But, as any sixth grader can tell you, all federal law and all federal policy must stop by the president's desk before being executed. As such, he's not just a figurehead and a lightning rod. His desk is where the buck stops.

Lake Travis is at its lowest point in over 50 years. Are you going to blame the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) for the low water levels because the "water stops there," at the dam, or are you going to acknowledge that forces largely beyond their control were at play?

Congressmen and Senators are responsible to their districts and their states. The president is responsible to the entire country.

Yah...well think about how that all works out, with congressmen negotiating quid pro quo deals on various legislation before it gets to the President's desk.

[AtticaFlinch]

Lake Travis is at its lowest point in over 50 years. Are you going to blame the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) for the low water levels because the "water stops there," at the dam, or are you going to acknowledge that forces largely beyond their control were at play?

Interesting analogy. The only problem with it is the water doesn't stop at the dam. It stops at the Gulf. Regardless, I get your point. Can I blame the lack of rain on the dam or the Gulf? Of course not, but I could simplify your analogy by saying the dam could have kept the water levels up had it cut off the downstream water supply. Unfortunately, this analogy is limited in that it only really has two possible outcomes: 1) everybody has less water or 2) the downstream folks have no water. No president's decisions are so clearly black and white.

Yah...well think about how that all works out, with congressmen negotiating quid pro quo deals on various legislation before it gets to the President's desk.

I won't say this president is particularly strong, but think about this, WWLBJD. In matters of policy, Obama needs to become an uncompromising bully. He's a little too reliant on Republican's willingness to work out quid pro quo deals, when they've clearly and consistently demonstrated the opposite course of action.

[TheNiche]

Interesting analogy. The only problem with it is the water doesn't stop at the dam. It stops at the Gulf. Regardless, I get your point. Can I blame the lack of rain on the dam or the Gulf? Of course not, but I could simplify your analogy by saying the dam could have kept the water levels up had it cut off the downstream water supply. Unfortunately, this analogy is limited in that it only really has two possible outcomes: 1) everybody has less water or 2) the downstream folks have no water. No president's decisions are so clearly black and white.

I won't say this president is particularly strong, but think about this, WWLBJD. In matters of policy, Obama needs to become an uncompromising bully. He's a little too reliant on Republican's willingness to work out quid pro quo deals, when they've clearly and consistently demonstrated the opposite course of action.

The point of the analogy was not that the analogy made any sense, but to illustrate that the phrase "the buck stops here" also does not make sense. Where does the buck start? If it stops at the President's desk (which it doesn't, obviously, because there's a full circle of checks and balances), then it starts with Congress. The President can't very well help that.

This is a pretty strong President...but the Republican Party is dead-set against the most effectual policy proposals, and winning over even one or two converts is very difficult. Simultaneously, many of the new Democratic congressment (freshmen who are just learning the ropes and that aren't entrenched incumbents) that rode Obama's coattails into office are actually moderates with somewhat conservative constituencies, and they're deeply concerned about mid-term elections.

[AtticaFlinch]

The point of the analogy was not that the analogy made any sense, but to illustrate that the phrase "the buck stops here" also does not make sense. Where does the buck start? If it stops at the President's desk (which it doesn't, obviously, because there's a full circle of checks and balances), then it starts with Congress. The President can't very well help that.

This is a pretty strong President...but the Republican Party is dead-set against the most effectual policy proposals, and winning over even one or two converts is very difficult. Simultaneously, many of the new Democratic congressment (freshmen who are just learning the ropes and that aren't entrenched incumbents) that rode Obama's coattails into office are actually moderates with somewhat conservative constituencies, and they're deeply concerned about mid-term elections.

A colleague of mine suggested something so brilliant it's doomed to work. Every elected position in government must have term limits, and that limit is one. Things might actually get done if people aren't as concerned about their job stability in two to six years time.

Edited October 3, 2009 by AtticaFlinch

[bachanon]

being that it's impossible to legislate morality, i can't see how term limits would somehow make elected officials less self serving or more principled. term limits might simply create a culture of "whatever, i'm out of here next term.", "might as well enjoy it while it lasts.", "screw the big picture, i have (insert elected office) on my resume." they could say whatever they wanted to get elected and then enjoy the perks for the rest of their lives (which is what many do anyway). to think that term limits would motivate elected officials to get things done is naive.

the wheels of government should be slow. nothing permanent or long term should ever be made law based on public sentiment or short term circumstances, regardless of immediate difficulties.

[barracuda]

^ Agree, multiple terms allow elected officials to be held accountable to the voters in a way that single term-limits can't. And as with any job or career, a politician needs to learn the ropes to become effective. If they don't, they risk losing their next election.

IMO, the bigger problem than term limits is the extreme idealogical partisanship that exists today. Those running for office have to adhere to one party's ideology to win election, particularly on the republican side, where straying from the party on even a single issue gets the candidate labeled a traitor or not "a real republican." As a result, we are forced into a position where we can't realistically vote for the other party's candidates.

As an example, I tend to lean liberal on social issues, but more conservatively on fiscal matters. But I can't realistically vote for a republican because they are so hell-bent on drawing social conservatives who hate people like me (but don't even know me). On top of that, they aren't actually a party of fiscal discipline (and lost the right to that title long ago), but that's another issue. So I vote for the opposing candidate simply because I don't really have a choice. Like I've said before, if Republicans would drop the social conservative BS and just focus on economic and security issues, we might have some reasonable political discourse in this country where people could vote for the best candidate instead of the best ideologue.

[bachanon]

^ Agree, multiple terms allow elected officials to be held accountable to the voters in a way that single term-limits can't. And as with any job or career, a politician needs to learn the ropes to become effective. If they don't, they risk losing their next election.

IMO, the bigger problem than term limits is the extreme idealogical partisanship that exists today. Those running for office have to adhere to one party's ideology to win election, particularly on the republican side, where straying from the party on even a single issue gets the candidate labeled a traitor or not "a real republican." As a result, we are forced into a position where we can't realistically vote for the other party's candidates.

As an example, I tend to lean liberal on social issues, but more conservatively on fiscal matters. But I can't realistically vote for a republican because they are so hell-bent on drawing social conservatives who hate people like me (but don't even know me). On top of that, they aren't actually a party of fiscal discipline (and lost the right to that title long ago), but that's another issue. So I vote for the opposing candidate simply because I don't really have a choice. Like I've said before, if Republicans would drop the social conservative BS and just focus on economic and security issues, we might have some reasonable political discourse in this country where people could vote for the best candidate instead of the best ideologue.

this is exactly the reason i like the goofy ron paul. dems don't get it, repubs don't get it. if the whole country would disengage from the current parties in power and vote specifically for libertarians, it would create a new party. yet, people are afraid of the extremes in the current two parties. conservatives are crazy fearful of the socialist, big spending liberals and the dems are crazy afraid of the religious zealots on the right. however, my thoughts are that the majority of americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. every republican i know has a gay family member and wouldn't give a rat's ass if there were some kind of legal commitment that gave marriage type rights to gay couples. every liberal i know whinces at the thought of run away spending. there is a middle ground, but voters will have to leave party affiliation behind and start voting for the ron pauls in each party.

yes, there are better politicians than ron paul, but someone, some group, has to start a ground swell. i'll call it "THE THIRD PARTY". bumper stickers anyone?

[AtticaFlinch]

this is exactly the reason i like the goofy ron paul. dems don't get it, repubs don't get it. if the whole country would disengage from the current parties in power and vote specifically for libertarians, it would create a new party. yet, people are afraid of the extremes in the current two parties. conservatives are crazy fearful of the socialist, big spending liberals and the dems are crazy afraid of the religious zealots on the right. however, my thoughts are that the majority of americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. every republican i know has a gay family member and wouldn't give a rat's ass if there were some kind of legal commitment that gave marriage type rights to gay couples. every liberal i know whinces at the thought of run away spending. there is a middle ground, but voters will have to leave party affiliation behind and start voting for the ron pauls in each party.

yes, there are better politicians than ron paul, but someone, some group, has to start a ground swell. i'll call it "THE THIRD PARTY". bumper stickers anyone?

The only real problem with Ron Paul is they guy's an unmitigated loon. Other than that, he's okay. I would be a little worried that during a meeting with someone like Demetry Medvedev, he might start flinging handfuls of his own feces, but it could be worse I suppose.

[Daniepwils]

this is exactly the reason i like the goofy ron paul. dems don't get it, repubs don't get it. if the whole country would disengage from the current parties in power and vote specifically for libertarians, it would create a new party. yet, people are afraid of the extremes in the current two parties. conservatives are crazy fearful of the socialist, big spending liberals and the dems are crazy afraid of the religious zealots on the right. however, my thoughts are that the majority of americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. every republican i know has a gay family member and wouldn't give a rat's ass if there were some kind of legal commitment that gave marriage type rights to gay couples. every liberal i know whinces at the thought of run away spending. there is a middle ground, but voters will have to leave party affiliation behind and start voting for the ron pauls in each party.

yes, there are better politicians than ron paul, but someone, some group, has to start a ground swell. i'll call it "THE THIRD PARTY". bumper stickers anyone?

Third Party Yes Please!!!

[brian0123]

if the whole country would disengage from the current parties in power and vote specifically for libertarians, it would create a new party. yet, people are afraid of the extremes in the current two parties.

Sorry, but if libertarians ever did get in power... Americans would vote them out as soon as they started turning every road into a toll road.

BTW, I'd love to see a third party... but libertarians are as nutty as Lyndon LaRouche cultists (and are more extreme than either Dems or Repubs). They are in no way a party that unites Repub and Dem ideals (that would be moderates instead). In many regards, they are the extremes of what both sides fear.

[ricco67]

Sorry, but if libertarians ever did get in power... Americans would vote them out as soon as they started turning every road into a toll road.

BTW, I'd love to see a third party... but libertarians are as nutty as Lyndon LaRouche cultists (and are more extreme than either Dems or Repubs). They are in no way a party that unites Repub and Dem ideals (that would be moderates instead). In many regards, they are the extremes of what both sides fear.

I totally agree with some of the "other" candidates are just a bit on the loony side, but I think that even the loons would disappear once the contribution took hold and started to weed out the far left and right wingers.

[TheNiche]

Sorry, but if libertarians ever did get in power... Americans would vote them out as soon as they started turning every road into a toll road.

BTW, I'd love to see a third party... but libertarians are as nutty as Lyndon LaRouche cultists (and are more extreme than either Dems or Repubs). They are in no way a party that unites Repub and Dem ideals (that would be moderates instead). In many regards, they are the extremes of what both sides fear.

Every party (Republicans, Democrats & Libertarians) have extremist kooks among their ranks. That's a given. The difference between Libertarians and the establishment parties is that kooks run the show and are unwilling to compromise on pretty much anything. Reasonable moderates that might otherwise be inclined to vote Libertarian decide to make political decisions on the assumption that Libertarians cannot succeed and so that they must choose the lesser of two evils from the establishment party; the same thinking is applied to individuals that consider a career in politics, and the outcome creates an extremist death spiral within the Libertarian ranks.

It doesn't have to be that way; I think that if they could put forth a celebrity candidate that appears more articulate and stable than Ron Paul, but that also had a genuine courage of personal conviction...that might be a transformative experience for them and make them viable. But I doubt it.

[AtticaFlinch]

Every party (Republicans, Democrats & Libertarians) have extremist kooks among their ranks. That's a given. The difference between Libertarians and the establishment parties is that kooks run the show and are unwilling to compromise on pretty much anything. Reasonable moderates that might otherwise be inclined to vote Libertarian decide to make political decisions on the assumption that Libertarians cannot succeed and so that they must choose the lesser of two evils from the establishment party; the same thinking is applied to individuals that consider a career in politics, and the outcome creates an extremist death spiral within the Libertarian ranks.

It doesn't have to be that way; I think that if they could put forth a celebrity candidate that appears more articulate and stable than Ron Paul, but that also had a genuine courage of personal conviction...that might be a transformative experience for them and make them viable. But I doubt it.

Generally speaking, Americans are not people who like to think critically, and giving most of us more than just two choices can become a bit confusing. While a third party is a great idea, I doubt it'll ever work.

[IronTiger]

On HAIF (and practically everywhere else), a good (if not the majority) part of the people always gripe about what Bush did or didn't do and what Obama is doing to repair it. Being conservative, part of me wants to dismiss it as just whiny liberal rumblings, as do many other conservatives.

However, knowing many liberals are intelligent, thoughtful people, there must be a reason behind all that hate.

So, this is kind of an "open topic": where you tell what you think Bush did wrong. No debating.

Knowing the can of worms I'm about to open, I'd request everyone follow these rules:

- no personal attacks on Bush (includes deliberate misspellings, violence, name-calling, the like) or the rest of the administration

- no blanket accusations ("He started a war with Country X", "He screwed up the economy", etc.)

- no conspiracy theories ("The administration knew about September 11th beforehand")

- no outright lies

- no off-site links

Why am I doing this? It's because I want to learn about the reasons behind people's actions, and in the words of About This Particular Macintosh's R.D. Novo: "Being an informed person, whetheryou're buying a computer or discussing the new blue M&M, is never a bad sort of person to be."

[BryanS]

Didn't you apologize not too long ago for getting into these kinds of topics?

[crunchtastic]

Tiger, sweetie, how many times do you have to touch the hot stove before you decide burns suck?

[LTAWACS]

There are a lot of things he did wrong...

[IronTiger]

@ Bryan, Crunch: Well, I wasn't really trying to successfully argue a case, I just kind of wanted to learn about it.

I did post something like this, but this topic for me isn't really an entertainment and recreation source, it's rather an educational experience. Sorta.