View Poll Results: Is Obama just really Bush II?

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    19 35.85%
  • No

    34 64.15%
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 113

Thread: Is Obama just really Bush II?

  1. #101
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Is Obama just really Bush II?

    Quote Originally Posted by mpg View Post
    Those would be losses, but not losses of freedom.
    Most consider that financial security and good health provides freedoms those without it do not possess.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #102
    Sage
    mpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,769

    Re: Is Obama just really Bush II?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Most consider that financial security and good health provides freedoms those without it do not possess.
    That's a highly unorthodox definition of "freedoms".
    If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.

  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    01-05-17 @ 02:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,479

    Re: Is Obama just really Bush II?

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice For All View Post
    I mean look at the evidence and similarities of what Obama has done-

    1.He continues wars in the middle east and will likely attack Iran if elected another term
    2. Like Bush passed a expensive healthcare bill (Bush's was medicare part D)
    3. Passed into law a act for military drones to patrol our own skies while keeping the patriot act. (obviously Bush passed the Patriot Act)
    4. Continues to pile on debt like Bush
    5. Does nothing about immigration like Bush
    6. Continues tax breaks for the rich, case in point he is now wanting to take the corporate tax from 34% to 28%.



    That being said I think the republican canidates for 2012 would be Bush III to 99th power, except for Ron Paul.
    Obama governs from the center right yet definitely not Bush II.

  4. #104
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Is Obama just really Bush II?

    Quote Originally Posted by mpg View Post
    That's a highly unorthodox definition of "freedoms".
    No, actually that is the very first example in the definition of freedom:

    "Definition of FREEDOM

    1
    : the quality or state of being free: as
    a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action"

    Freedom - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #105
    Professor
    Kane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    09-09-13 @ 09:13 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,661

  6. #106
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is Obama just really Bush II?

    Smirking Chimp? Oh my...

    Yes, lesser evil even by a minute bit, is better.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  7. #107
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,029

    Re: Is Obama just really Bush II?

    Americans were so fed up with Bush and the Republicans that they would rather roll the dice with Democratic inexperience than deal with a Republican McCain. They voted more on the idea of “Hope and Change” and celebrated slogans such as “A Vote for McCain is a Vote for Bush.” Less than a year in the White House, Europeans gave the new starry eyed President the Nobel Peace Prize, based entirely on the themes of Hope and Change. I would submit that the evidence is clear that the U.S., indeed Europe, was entirely hypnotized with the idea of a different America than the one they had seen since 9/11.

    In the end, they got “Bush” anyway and still many of the Left pretend that their guy has delivered on any of his promises. The reason for this is that the Left have a long history of relying on the fantasy of things rather than the reality of them. What else can explain away Kennedy's Camelot (Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, and marital infidelities), Carter's ineptness of foreign affairs and inability to free hostages, and Clinton's willingness to spurn the UN (Bosnia and Kosovo) and his own marital infidelities? I would not go as far as to declare Obama a liar. I would even defend Bush on this matter. The absence of WMD in Iraq was not absolute and we did need an excuse to kick in that burdensome door. So I am more than willing to excuse political maneuvering that meets the best interests of America. But I will declare that inexperience, naiveté, and plain stupidity are traits that are shared between politicians and their constituents.

    I have no doubts that President Obama thought he could enter the White House and make all the right decisions and that he could set America on the right path by changing it. But I also believe that once he entered those doors he was greeted with enough reality to make him dumbstruck. His response was to make as little decision as possible and to carry on the torch of his predecessor. In the absence of ideas on how to deal with what the world was giving him, he focused on Universal Health Care and gays in the military as his stage. Everything else that the Left complained about for eight years under President Bush was to remain the same and “Change” all of a sudden fell to the side. Consider what should be obvious. Bush was criticized to no end by the Left for Guantanamo, Bail-Outs, violations of sovereign territories, the surge in Iraq, civilian deaths, and the economy. He was also criticized for his callous relations with European countries. But it didn’t take long for Obama to prove that “Change” didn’t mean foreign policy.

    - Bush is on record for wanting to close Guantanamo, after unfair and inaccurate comparisons to Hitler and the Gulag by members of the Left, but he could not answer the question of what to do with the inmates. Obama came to the White House expressly promising to close Guantanamo, but immediately struggled with the same question as Bush, but to the silence of the Left to this very day.
    - Car company bail-outs under Bush were mocked in the day, but mimicked later under Obama along with a stimulus package to protect companies and banks “too big to fail.” President Obama has now added even more to our budgeting woes than Bush to the silence of the Left.
    - President Obama has multiplied the number of UAV drones into the sovereign country of Pakistan, continuing to kill civilians as he hunts for jihadists. To this day the idea of sovereignty from the Left has not been verbalized nor the escalated number of civilian deaths through UAVs been thrown into Obama’s face. Republicans don't want to seem hypocritical and Democrats have amnesia.
    - There has been no change to the ratcheting up of sanctions on Iran while leaving “all options” on the table as we talk our way into a nuclear Iran.
    - President Bush turned Iraq around with a surge and set the timetable to wind down and withdrawal. Obama followed the same time table set by the Bush Administration and used the surge to turn Afghanistan's most troubled Provinces around in similar fashion.
    - Obama’s reluctance to join France’s political ambition to save face by supporting the civilians of Libya (after following the political mistake of supporting Tunisia’s dictator a month prior) resulted in America doing the heavy lifting. Like every single President of the past, Europe continued to dictate America’s focus on what it felt mattered. Since this was actually different from the Bush administration and was a step back to every President before, I guess we could consider this a change from the recent path. But ultimately Obama’s reluctance was based on the confusion of whether or not Muammar Qaddafi might win against the protestors. His apathy (support) toward a dictator in the MENA was very in line with all the foreign policies of every President since the start of the Cold War. So no real change here.
    - Still reeling from the sting of “if you’re not with us then you are against us,” Europe awarded the yet proven new President with the Nobel Peace Prize. After eight years of cold they wanted “Hope” and “Change” to matter to them so they tried to enforce Obama’s words with the incentive of a medal. But events would prove the award to be an obnoxious gesture and pathetically pre-mature. Obama sent back the bust of Churchill that Tony Blair gave Bush. He declined dinner with the Sarkozys to have a night out in Paris. He rejected a US-EU summit in Madrid. He abruptly changed America’s missile-defense plans with Poland (One of history's staunchest defenders of Democracy) dismissing Pole sentiment in favor of Europeans elsewhere. He turned down the invitation to attend the 20th anniversary celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Despite these snubs, Obama does remain more favorable in Europe than Bush, but the disdain across the Atlantic remains the same.

    In the end nothing has changed on the foreign policy front. Obama has met every situation as Bush did. He meets them with broad stroke decisions and leaves the details to the “experts.” Fortunately for Obama, he has neither a Rumsfeld nor a Cheney and has the ability to sweeten the deal through the microphone to the turned heads of his supporters.
    So considering the unchanged foreign policies of this nation, “Change” for the Left must have meant only about internal governance, to the dismay of Europeans hoping for a European loyal President. Well, President Bush was criticized for wire taps, a lack of transparency, and immigration issues. Obama came to the White House with promises of gay rights, transparency, immigration reform, health care reform, action on global warming, and a faster exit from Afghanistan.

    - A federal judge ruled that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was unconstitutional in September 2010 after a couple years of court procedures and ordered a halt. This was followed up by the Pentagon’s decision to place the burdensome rule aside, accepting that social times are changing again. This was met by the Obama Administration’s immediate insistence that the Pentagon continue “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” against the federal judge’s decision on technical reasons. He believed such an undertaking was a Congressional matter and not a court issue. DADT eventually went away in November of 2010, but it was President Obama and Democrats that took the credit. And constituents gave it to them.
    - Obama promised the most transparent administration in history. He praised whistle blowing in the past, arguing that “such acts of courage and patriotism should be encouraged rather than be stifled.” Of course, this was before walking into the White House, when criticizing Presidents fall in line with ignorant voters and is convenient to personal ambition. However, he and his Justice Department have pressed criminal charges against five suspected leakers under the Espionage Act, which is more than all other administrations combined, including Nixon’s. As far as wire tapping, a few laws of accountability have merely allowed the program to go on while the Left looks away.
    - He has yet to make a serious attempt to reform immigration nor even talked about the importance of our immigrants from the south to the dismay of Hispanic voters.
    - The Copenhagen Summit was a flop and the cap-and-trade energy bille got stuck in the Senate because of the president’s decision to make health legislation his priority. So much for action on Global Warming.

    So, with all the criticism from the Left towards President Bush being shelved i order to spare President Obama, unemployment remaining at a high level, the economy struggling back and forth, and Foreign Policy remaining much the same, where’s the “Change?” With Iraq’s end already on the time table, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” already in the court room, Osama Bin Laden already being hunted, Obama really only merely fell into some false credit. But if “Change” only meant gays in the military and Universal Health Care as a right then President Obama has proven to be everything the Left wanted. Their continued celebration lends support to this shallow definition of the former hype. I believe the same phenomenon that had the Left celebrating Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton exists under Obama. They want so badly for the dream to be real that they are willing to deny the reality and excuse the truth. The utter failure of voters to remember what they stand for from one inadequate President to the next is staggering.

    Thus far, President Obama has proven that without any creativity or courage to introduce fresh ideas, the Left merely treads water until they can release the reigns again. Not since the workers of the world won, manifested into Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, and proven that socialist dreams are really nightmares, has the Left had a reasonable practical idea to the world’s social economic issues. There answer is to always return to the past for ideas. And aren't Republicans supposed to be the traditionalists? Where is the creativity or the design to meet the future in the Left? Even the Conservative movement in the U.S. saw the creation of the obnoxious Tea Party. Always, when it comes to economy, we only ever see a wish to return to the past as if the answer lies between the disasters of social engineering. This is a phenomenon well known. All people tend to think of a "golden age" when all things were better. The problem is that people in that golden age also dreamed of a golden age before them. The truth is that there is no golden age. There is only a difference in society in accordance to the historical times. People who dream of the 1950s when "all things were better," should remember the beginning of the nuclear Cold War, gender inequality, race upheaval, and the Korean War. Of course, for people who dreamed in the 1950s, the Roaring 20s was the golden age at the advent of the mafia, the global Great Depression, and ignored Armenian genocide in Turkey. The "Golden Age" is a myth and Leftists can't fathom this fact, which is why they turn to the socialist past for answers.

    After eight years of Republican dominance and an exhausted populace, Americans merely needed two years of Democratic leadership to welcome back Republicans to the Senate. There's a reason Democrats have been drubbed at the polls for the last thirty years. There's no real base of creativity or design among Leftists who see social unfairness as their main mission in life. Without ideas, Obama has merely carried the Bush torch with small offerings of social protesting on the side. And he is forgiven quite easily for it.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  8. #108
    Professor
    Kane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    09-09-13 @ 09:13 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,661

    Re: Is Obama just really Bush II?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Smirking Chimp? Oh my...

    Yes, lesser evil even by a minute bit, is better.
    Obama laid off 550,000 teachers and they still think the Democrap Party represents them. What delusion.

  9. #109
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,701

    Re: Is Obama just really Bush II?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Most consider that financial security and good health provides freedoms those without it do not possess.

    NOt government provided Freedoms

  10. #110
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,701

    Re: Is Obama just really Bush II?

    Quote Originally Posted by mpg View Post
    That's a highly unorthodox definition of "freedoms".
    a lazy person's "freedom" from starvation trumps your freedom not to have to work to feed him according to people like catawba

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 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
  •