Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 102

Thread: Bush won't join attacks on Obama

  1. #91
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:55 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,940

    Re: Bush won't join attacks on Obama

    Mr. Cheney is smarter and more successful that everyone here conservative or liberal. As far as GWB goes that just it he is gone and my guess is he really could give a **** less about anyone's opinion of his work. I did not like him and I could care less what heis doing. There are huge fish to fry as we are in deepr dung than ever before and this is the tip of the iceberg and this subject is waste of time like the dems wasting our tax dollars.
    It's nothing more than X's and O's.

  2. #92
    Sage
    akyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,459

    Re: Bush won't join attacks on Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    I supported Obama on the one thing he said that made sense.
    .
    What was that exactly? I was paying attention but still did not catch it.
    -
    Thanks
    Thank you

  3. #93
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Bush won't join attacks on Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    I will have to respectfully disagree. George W. Bush's principles are quite controversial and certainly fair game for debate. Nobody here can claim to actually know what his true principles consist of, we can only go on his past actions and surmise what they probably are. And it is from this that I say he isn't criticizing Obama out of self preservation. The media would draw and quarter him in round the clock, 24 hour news cycle fashion. Everyone knows this. And let's not forget, GWB was abandoned by his own party out of political expediency. That has to sting. Bush has no motivation to get involved. I don't think it has anything to do with his principles.

    These are all just opinions. I appreciate yours, but disagree with it.
    You spout this drivel and YOU have the gall to accuse others of hyperpartisanship?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  4. #94
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Bush won't join attacks on Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by chevydriver1123 View Post
    Ive also heard that Bush will be putting out a book soon. I kinda wanna get it just to know what he was thinking all this time.
    It is always interesting to read the books of past presidents, whether you agreed with them or not. I couldn't stand Clinton, yet it is fascinating to get an insight into his thought processes while he was president. While I have my issues with Bush 43, I am sure the book will be an interesting read as well.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #95
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Bush won't join attacks on Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    So those of you calling Bush classy and principled for not saying anything about what he thinks of Obama's presidency so far--what do you think about what Cheney has said? BE HONEST.
    I honestly put Cheney in the same class of characters as Clinton and Carter. Happy?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  6. #96
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:40 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,449
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Bush won't join attacks on Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by akyron View Post
    What was that exactly? I was paying attention but still did not catch it.
    -
    Thanks
    It was last week.
    I heard his Education Secretary make the case for what they wanted to do.

    A day earlier I wrote a post about what I'd like to see done.
    The thread fell off the first page... and I went back and inserted the following.

    Had I been a hyper or blind partisan I would have never brought up the thread and agreed with what I heard.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...ink-slips.html
    Post #4
    ALERT TO LIBS
    Please be seated.

    I heard a short bit about what Obama wants to do with schools and teachers.
    I heard his Secretary of Education make their case with Wolf Blitzer.

    I liked most of what I heard.

    I think they have a number of good ideas.
    Promote teachers on merit.
    The Secretary of education actually parroted my reasoning.
    Let the Principals do the firing. They are closest to the situation.

    Which means Principals that run crap schools will get the axe.
    The dead weight moves out and a better manager can take their place.
    Just like businesses.

    Lengthen the school year.
    Keep schools open longer for activities concerning arts and tutoring.

    All great stuff.

    We need educated folks to compete with other nations.
    Japan, China. Germany. India.

    We can acquire theirs, but this comes with risks.
    .
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  7. #97
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:40 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,449
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Bush won't join attacks on Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    I will have to respectfully disagree. George W. Bush's principles are quite controversial and certainly fair game for debate.


    Nobody here can claim to actually know what his true principles consist of, we can only go on his past actions and surmise what they probably are.

    So what is it?
    Red: Are his principles controversial? Which means we know them.
    OR
    Blue: Are his principles unknown; guesswork?

    Such is the confusing muddle of a mind infected by Socialist claptrap.
    In two sentences, not at the start of a chapter and at the other at the end, but one right after the other we get diametrically opposing views.

    The media would draw and quarter him in round the clock, 24 hour news cycle fashion. Everyone knows this.
    This is why lawyers pound into their clients to answer the question only.
    Preferably in a yes/no fashion.
    As witnesses ramble on, all manner of potential landmines are produced.
    Like the above... actually Lerxst's entire thread.

    Why would the press automatically "draw and quarter him in round the clock"?
    Because they are objective reporters of fact?
    Or because they are propagandists for Obama and his Marxists and seek to destroy the opposition?

    Fineman: 'Mainstream Media Party' is over - Howard Fineman- msnbc.com
    Still, the notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto. Now it's pretty much dead...

    The seeds of its demise were sown with the best of intentions in the late 1960s, when the AMMP...

    Good crusades at the time
    The crusades... The problem was that, once the AMMP declared its existence by taking sides, there was no going back. A party was born.

    ...the AMMP, which became the new forum for choosing Democratic candidates. A "reform" movement opened up the nominating process, taking it out of the smoke-filled backrooms and onto television and into the newsrooms...
    As for Bush's principles?
    He showed you what he believed was most important.

    National Security.

    He stuck to his principles as the elected opposition and the AMMP Propagandists sided with the enemy.

    Together they:
    Pissed on our troops when they needed all our support most.
    Called the troops Nazi's and terrorists.
    Defamed our Generals.
    Used the body count as a weapon.

    That being a short list

    A lesser President would have polled his way though, succumbed to the heat, and handed the enemy a victory.

    Bush was strong, principled.
    For that I am grateful.

    And let's not forget, GWB was abandoned by his own party out of political expediency.
    Not true.
    We opposed him on spending and immigration to name two large items we disagreed with.
    We didn't "cut and run" from his War on Terror policies.

    .
    Last edited by zimmer; 03-21-09 at 07:15 AM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  8. #98
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,441

    Re: Bush won't join attacks on Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    You spout this drivel and YOU have the gall to accuse others of hyperpartisanship?
    What exactly in my post indicates any level of hyper partisanship? Do you know what hyper partisanship is?
    *insert profound statement here*

  9. #99
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Bush won't join attacks on Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    What exactly in my post indicates any level of hyper partisanship? Do you know what hyper partisanship is?
    Yes, I do. Being neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I am more likely to spot it from either side than someone who is devoted to one side is likely to notice it from one of their own (or themselves).
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  10. #100
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,441

    Re: Bush won't join attacks on Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    So what is it?
    Red: Are his principles controversial? Which means we know them.
    OR
    Blue: Are his principles unknown; guesswork?
    I think I was pretty clear in that we can only surmise what they are based upon his actions. That's pretty easy to comprehend. How else would you determine (for yourself) what you thought his principals were? We form opinions from what we observe. It isn't a case of "you either know or you don't" in this instance. Nice try though.

    Such is the confusing muddle of a mind infected by Socialist claptrap.
    In two sentences, not at the start of a chapter and at the other at the end, but one right after the other we get diametrically opposing views.
    Not at all. You set up a false dichotomy in order to make a run at me. It's called opinion, and we form debates around them quite frequently here.

    This is why lawyers pound into their clients to answer the question only.
    Preferably in a yes/no fashion.
    As witnesses ramble on, all manner of potential landmines are produced.
    Like the above... actually Lerxst's entire thread.
    Says the king of hyper partisan bloviating? How many times have you been called out about your antics now?

    Why would the press automatically "draw and quarter him in round the clock"?
    Because they are objective reporters of fact?
    Or because they are propagandists for Obama and his Marxists and seek to destroy the opposition?
    Because Bush's actions during his Presidency would be placed right back under the MSM microscope and he doesn't want that. Those actions made him a pariah to the Republican party during the last election or don't you remember that? The media would pounce on him.
    Cry?

    As for Bush's principles?
    He showed you what he believed was most important.
    It absolutely did.

    National Security.
    And that is part of the problem. It's one thing to cite national security as a concern, and quite another to exploit that in order to launch unnecessary and incredibly costly military endeavors.
    He stuck to his principles as the elected opposition and the AMMP Propagandists sided with the enemy.
    Blah blah blah. Zimmer, why must you always leave the tracks with this retarded bull****? The Democrats didn't side with the enemy, the criticized Bush's strategy, or lack thereof. He led the Congress and the public to war against a nation that was no significant threat to anyone except itself, and when the smoke of post-9/11 nationalism and desire for revenge started to clear, people began to see the need to question and criticize what we were doing and why.
    Together they:
    Pissed on our troops when they needed all our support most.
    Called the troops Nazi's and terrorists.
    Defamed our Generals.
    Used the body count as a weapon.
    Blah blah blah blah blah blah. You're skirt is blown up again.
    That being a short list
    Thank god.
    A lesser President would have polled his way though, succumbed to the heat, and handed the enemy a victory.
    And a wiser and more principled President wouldn't have whipped this nation into a fervor through dishonesty and then spent it into the poorhouse by invading and occupying a nation that was not a significant national security threat.
    Bush was strong, principled.
    Certain individual principles aren't always good. Sticking to his guns so that he could perpetrate one of the most heinous acts in our nations history isn't good.
    For that I am grateful.
    No doubt about that whatsoever.

    Not true.
    It absolutely is true.
    We opposed him on spending and immigration to name two large items we disagreed with.
    We didn't "cut and run" from his War on Terror policies.
    The GOP cut and run on him during the last election. And you know why they did it too.
    *insert profound statement here*

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •