• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bush won't join attacks on Obama

No its what the left(esp the Far Left) want. They are utterly lost without being able to bash Bush 24/7.

They want nothing more then him to bash Obama so that they can then bash him for it.

That's much easier then defending Obama.

Quoted For Truth.
 
I think this is true.

This thread is amazing to read. Bush is refusing to criticize Obama. Forget motives. That IS classy.
Yet people on here are still critical of that.

The alternative - Bush criticizing Obama - would make the left angry. For some on the left, Bush just can't win. This is proof. lol

Exactly. I love watching the slapnut liberals foam at the mouth over Bush.

Quigmire, the war is lost, no Iraqi free elections, the economy etc...

Bush proved them all wrong.

Saddam was toppled and brought to justice. Free elections in a new democratic Iraq. The surge was brilliant.

The economy here was doing fine until the democrats took over in '07, and that was with 2 wars going on.

The liberal slapnuts never want to bring up what Bush did for the people of Africa in regard to AIDS & malaria.

Bush is a class act all the way. He doesn't need to bash Obama.
 
Except we aren't suffering, we are making plans to counter the personal damage that the current government setup, we are laughing our asses off when Obama voters are shaking their heads and realizing what "change" means.

Wow. And you can make this assessment with less than 2 months in office. Okay. :rofl
 
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.
 
You're the DP Forum attention whore. You're always trying to squeeze your tits into threads.

I am? Okay. *shrugs shoulders*

Like I said, I've seen your pics, don't flatter yourself.
spew.gif

If it makes you feel better to insult my looks....have at it. :2wave:
 
Bush's "silence" is being played to in the media and even here on the forum. Once one sides starts attributing "principles" to it it is fair game for counter arguments.
We know you Libs have difficulties with principles and morals.
Don't blame us you have classless Leaders and as a party lack moral direction.

This isn't a "feel good let's all hug" kind of site. Opposing opinions do sometimes collide here.
This isn't opposing opinion.
Your logic is there is no code. No honor... when there has been.
That Clinton did not adhere is no surprise.
He, the sexual predator, has no class, and no morals.
We understand your frustration of having Bush make The Clintons behavior look un-Presidential.
We feel your pain.

But it your party's problem.

Questioning Bush's motives is not being critical of him for remaining silent, it's questioning his motives.
The Lib revealing their general lack of logic.

Motive? He spent 8-years in the White House as the Decider.
He did his elected service.
Now he's letting the NEW president do his thing.
It is not that complicated.
Really, it's not.

We know honor, morals and class are difficult concepts for the Modern Lib to grasp.
Even at the Presidential level.
Until you do, Republican Presidents will lead by example.

Where you see "class" I see "good reason to keep his mouth shut." And it has nothing to do with what past Presidents have done and everything to do with what he did.

The lack of common sense is astounding.
"...nothing to do with what past Presidents have done..."

The ignorance abounds, and this is yet another worthy example of how Libs use precedent.
Though not a legal issue, it reveals their mindset.
Once we drag society into the sewer, it's the New Standard by which to operate.

The Clintons set precedent.
An ugly one.
Classless just as their administration was.

Bush's sticking to unwritten protocol makes a nice contrast to The Little Rock Sewer Society.

I see youz guyz are still searching for game... aps and Lerxst...

It's a tough task trying to extricate yourselves from the Clinton Latrine...

Enjoy... you folks own this one all by your lonesome.
Self created.

As you were...
 
Last edited:
Former President George Bush refuses to attack Obama. When giving his speech in Calgary on Tuesday, Bush said that Obama deserves his silence, and deserves an opportunity to deal with our nation's problems. Bush also said that, if Obama would like any help, and if he agrees ideologically with Obama on an issue, he is willing to give it.

I will say this right now - Thank you, Mr. President, for choosing to put partisan politics aside, and for choosing the well being of America over hackery. Rush Limbaugh could learn a thing or 100 from you. If you had been like this during your presidency, instead of the "my way or the highway" approach you ended up taking, I believe things would be much different now. But hindsight is 20/20, so I will end this post in a very simple way, by saying "Well done". And yes, you ARE a patriot, Mr. President.

Article is here.





:lol: i agree with you except for your rush comment, that is kinda what he does, his job you know? :lol:
 
Former President George Bush refuses to attack Obama. When giving his speech in Calgary on Tuesday, Bush said that Obama deserves his silence, and deserves an opportunity to deal with our nation's problems. Bush also said that, if Obama would like any help, and if he agrees ideologically with Obama on an issue, he is willing to give it.

I will say this right now - Thank you, Mr. President, for choosing to put partisan politics aside, and for choosing the well being of America over hackery. Rush Limbaugh could learn a thing or 100 from you. If you had been like this during your presidency, instead of the "my way or the highway" approach you ended up taking, I believe things would be much different now. But hindsight is 20/20, so I will end this post in a very simple way, by saying "Well done". And yes, you ARE a patriot, Mr. President.

Article is here.

This is typical Bush.
He did what he believed was right to secure the nation.
He's doing what is right as a former president.
Bush 41 didn't go out swinging at The Clintons.

As for Rush, it was Obama's and Obama's Own that went after Rush.
"Don't listen to Rush"... was not the fine art of Presidential tact.

Rush is the Loyal Opposition, and the Loyal Opposition is supposed to take on the leader when they believe the Dear Leader is leading the country astray.

It's how the Founders saw things.
As a grand battle to inch forwards... or in Obama's case... backwards.

To not oppose when you have a case to make is to be derelict in your duties as a citizen.

Right now, and for the past 21-months the press has been derelict.
It's more than OK to have a few people actually voice coherent opposition to the Obamatrons.

The nation could have used some sober reporting on Obama.
Instead dereliction of duty reigned supreme and look at what we got?
Somebody the press admittedly knew little about... forget about the public cult created in the process for a guy who is tainted in the worst ways.
 
Last edited:
Wow. And you can make this assessment with less than 2 months in office. Okay. :rofl
I'm looking at all angles of the stated goals, the stated don't differ from past Democrat representation and there was massive damage done then, this current setup has less common sense and even less patience than the last Democrat total majority under the peanut farmer. Let's see, insane policy goals, unfair taxation, socialist agendas, probability of attacks on the first and second amendment, an overall attitude that we the people work for they the elected........and it's only been 2 months of the current administration, then again, the house has given us this attitude since '06. so yeah, the signs are all there.
 
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.
Cheney isn't a former president, he could run for the office any time, his comments are fair game as he could be considered on the campaign.
 
There is no game needed here, you are absolutely hyper partisan.


You absolutely are.


Your posting history here is fairly sufficient.

Not necessarily.

I voted for Bush in his first election and basically towed the party line for the first few years of his Presidency. Bashing Bush or not bashing Bush is not the definition of partisanship or hyper partisanship.


Yeah, okay.
Hyper or blind partisans simply do not do this.

Post 4
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/45317-calif-teachers-see-red-over-mass-pink-slips.html

I admit it, I am a partisan.
I am a Conservative.
I am a true believer.
Though I was once like Obama.
Thick as a brick.

.
 
We know you Libs have difficulties with principles and morals.
Don't blame us you have classless Leaders and as a party lack moral direction.


This isn't opposing opinion.
Your logic is there is no code. No honor... when there has been.
That Clinton did not adhere is no surprise.
He, the sexual predator, has no class, and no morals.
We understand your frustration of having Bush make The Clintons behavior look un-Presidential.
We feel your pain.

But it your party's problem.


The Lib revealing their general lack of logic.

Motive? He spent 8-years in the White House as the Decider.
He did his elected service.
Now he's letting the NEW president do his thing.
It is not that complicated.
Really, it's not.

We know honor, morals and class are difficult concepts for the Modern Lib to grasp.
Even at the Presidential level.
Until you do, Republican Presidents will lead by example.



The lack of common sense is astounding.
"...nothing to do with what past Presidents have done..."

The ignorance abounds, and this is yet another worthy example of how Libs use precedent.
Though not a legal issue, it reveals their mindset.
Once we drag society into the sewer, it's the New Standard by which to operate.

The Clintons set precedent.
An ugly one.
Classless just as their administration was.

Bush's sticking to unwritten protocol makes a nice contrast to The Little Rock Sewer Society.

I see youz guyz are still searching for game... aps and Lerxst...

It's a tough task trying to extricate yourselves from the Clinton Latrine...

Enjoy... you folks own this one all by your lonesome.
Self created.

As you were...

More of your classic style I see.
 
Hyper or blind partisans simply do not do this.

Post 4
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/45317-calif-teachers-see-red-over-mass-pink-slips.html

I admit it, I am a partisan.
I am a Conservative.
I am a true believer.
Though I was once like Obama.
Thick as a brick.

.

You are absolutely hyper partisan. The vast majority of the time you are on your pony whipping it for all it's worth. In fact your earlier post is a prime example. Your gross over the top exaggerations. You pretty much liked what you heard about Obama's education idea. Yet you post like you do the majority of the time.

This isn't "oh but I said this once" and you get a free pass.
 
There are changes, just not the kind that was marketed. Foreign policy strategies, domestic priorities, the faces influence...those are the changes we will see. Politically astute individuals will realize that one man, even if he is the President, cannot change how Washington works. There will be no paradigm shift in who politics work in this nation. His campaign slogan was not a promise he could actually keep...it was a slogan. He ran a campaign, he got elected. Many of us realized this, that so many on the right did not is either testament to their naivete or the depth of their partisanship. Obama might as well have said "If elected I am going to cure cancer." Then everyone could run around and say "but but but he said he would cure cancer! This is unbelievable!" Only he was much more ambiguous in his context.

I hear so much about "but he promised change, this isn't change!" Many things have changed and are changing. For the better? That is debatable. To the right's liking? Certainly not...but who ever thought the right would like anything Obama does? To say he's not delivered any kind of change and then rail on him for his policies that are obviously different from George Bush's is quite disingenuous (much like the "hope and change" mantra was).

He only been in office a few months. I'll let the right harp on "he's not changed anything." It gives them something to do as they ponder their defeat from the last election. We'll see how many things change and to what extent.

Obama=Bush
Torture policy-To sign an executive order "thinking" about closing Gitmo then threatening Britain when they are about to expose some torture process is not change. Mere Theatre for the masses.

No lobbyists(big campaign promise)--Rememeber Bush's trouble with lobbyists back in the day? Lets appoint a pack of lobbyists to office for now and see what happens. Big change? Negative.

Obama, tax evaders' nightmare 180 degree turn there when it suits him.

It is a wall street administration. No labor, No small business, no automobile industry reps, etc. etc.

Obama is a corporate pitchman bought and paid for like every president since JFK. JFK got a bit out of their control signing Executive Order No. 11110 and look what happened.

Money, vote fraud, media whores, all given to Obama as the puppet of choice. Most were puppets but he was the best puppet of them all. The "stimulus" package is a perfect example. Pay the banks then have them loan us our own money on interest....Watch for the inflation over the next 2 years.
Carter was a huge puppet. Look for that kind of administration.


The Obama Deception
 
Last edited:
You are absolutely hyper partisan. The vast majority of the time you are on your pony whipping it for all it's worth. In fact your earlier post is a prime example. Your gross over the top exaggerations. You pretty much liked what you heard about Obama's education idea. Yet you post like you do the majority of the time.

This isn't "oh but I said this once" and you get a free pass.

I oppose Marxism.
Which means I oppose Obama and all his Marxists in Congress.

I opposed Bush when he behaved like Marx.
I supported Obama on the one thing he said that made sense.

When have Libs shown this in Bush's last seven years?
LOL.

No Lerxst,
I am an equal opportunity opponent of Marxism.
Socialism.
Reaching beyond The Constitution.

I really don't care who it is.

Obama hs shown what type of person he is.
An Alinsky Radical set on "changing" America.
A Marxist.

And I should just sit there and be nice as he gives America an anal probe?
Be a "Coward" in the words of AG Holder?
Just take it like a good drone.

Yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can... take it from behind.

Not.

No, no, no... I'm not going to take it willingly in Obama's KKK of A.

.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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/breaking-news/45317-calif-teachers-see-red-over-mass-pink-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.

.
 
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:
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?
 
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).
 
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? :rofl

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. :rofl

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom