• 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!

George Bush Interview- Hannity

Of course not.

Except these were the papers being written back then...

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON...
America’s First Communist President

"Bill Clinton Much More Than A "Stealth" Communist President: He Is An Illuminist"

Correspondent J.R. Nyquist, writing in World Net Daily, recounts how he was told in 1982, when he was still in college, that Bill Clinton was picked to be a "stealth" Marxist President. While we welcome this revelation, we will demonstrate that the issue goes far above and beyond Clinton being a Communist. It is much more serious than that.​



Communist
Murderer of around 80 people
Draft dodger
Liar

All these are just conveniently... pooof... forgotten in modern memories for some reason.

So you resort to use an extreme site and broadbrush all repubs into it?
Kudo's to you.....I guess, no matter how misguided that was on your behalf.
 
Exactly. I agree. As you see above where I said US Conservative's notion that Obama is the most socialist president in US history. My retort was "really? more than FDR?" And he doubled down.

There is a case to be made.
Obama is being held back by the politicians from both parties.
He would be more left if he had his way.
 
There is a case to be made.
Obama is being held back by the politicians from both parties.
He would be more left if he had his way.

Of course he would. All president's have to compromise. But that being said, I still don't think to the level of an FDR's new deal.
 
So you resort to use an extreme site and broadbrush all repubs into it?
Kudo's to you.....I guess, no matter how misguided that was on your behalf.

I'm just noting the hackery I'm seeing in this thread. It was there then and it's here now. Not saying you are. But to watch Republicans reminisce as if they just loved Bill back then... it's nonsense. The hate was flowing for Bill then as it is for Obama now. And in the future I'll hear the same people talk about how that leader is a marxist maoist communist and Obama was at least a moderate that they could tolerate.
 
That's a mixed record, to be honest. Frankly, I care more about what "those in political circles remember" more than I do the general public.

They haven't forgotten NCLB, most American's don't know the ADA let alone IDEA-so I'm not concerned about that, the hoopla over faith-based initiatives was largely a left-wing fantasy, Medicare Part D was good, the Bioethics committee went in directions unconventional for the time (and since), Bush's Africa aid venture was widely praised in the early years of the Obama administration.

True I would say, NCLB and Medicare Part D are the popular ones. My grandma still talked about that one up until her death.
 
Why is it partisan? It's not. I am comparing Bush to Obama. Bush simply has a better family life than Obama does. Heck, even Clinton has a better family life than Obama and his family is WAAAAY more scandalous than the Bush's. Yet, there will NEVER be another Obama in the White House. Unless Michelle Runs. If the election were held tomorrow it's a slam dunk for another Clinton.

Yes, Obama has overcome more than Bush and achieved greater things. What is your point?
 
What has President Obama overcome?
 
True I would say, NCLB and Medicare Part D are the popular ones. My grandma still talked about that one up until her death.

NCLB deserved to be criticized, but not in the manner it has been today.

What I appreciated most about it was that, quite honestly, it put the fire to the schools in the exact spots it needed to be. For my stakeholders (students with disabilities and their families), it was impressive seeing the turnaround after NCLB. Before there was almost a non-existent sense of accountability for that student, and afterward, suddenly schools were being a bit more responsive to families. They were required to separate that data much more than they had in the past, and to this day we use it to guide policy.

What's disappointing me is that Republicans are starting to listen to teacher unions in clamoring for removing these accountability measures for the demographics that had been so ignored and mistreated in the past. The Bush family wouldn't have tolerated that.
 
Good thing Dems were all in on Medicare Part D and helped Bush save the program with its disastrous roll-out.
 
Good thing Dems were all in on Medicare Part D and helped Bush save the program with its disastrous roll-out.

Yeah I don't get this whole "medicare part D was a great thing" that people put forth. It was Bush's attempt at privatizing medicare. It made it so only private companies could participate in the prescription drug program and hence that drastic "donut hole" that had seniors going broke or going to Mexico trying to fill their drug prescriptions. And drugs have been skyrocketing in prices ever since.
 
Last edited:
What has President Obama overcome?

Having no real father in his life, being middle class, being multiracial -- starting from essentially nothing and rising to one of most powerful positions on the planet (and the first black president).

Compare that to Bush, who was born into unlimited wealth and opportunity, with a bought-and-paid for Harvard degree. Despite unlimited everything, he was pretty much a failure until he entered politics. And because he couldn't think for himself and was wholly unqualified for any elected position, he became a pawn of evil men who twisted his administration into an abomination that will have negative global repercussions for decades.
 
Having no real father in his life, being middle class, being multiracial -- starting from essentially nothing and rising to one of most powerful positions on the planet (and the first black president).

Compare that to Bush, who was born into unlimited wealth and opportunity, with a bought-and-paid for Harvard degree. Despite unlimited everything, he was pretty much a failure until he entered politics. And because he couldn't think for himself and was wholly unqualified for any elected position, he became a pawn of evil men who twisted his administration into an abomination that will have negative global repercussions for decades.

A bought-and-paid-for degree? I don't think you really want to get into a discussion of degrees and who paid for them, do you? Or to denigrate one advanced Harvard degree over another. But if you do, let's talk about transcripts and Obama's from Occidental.

:lamo
 
A bought-and-paid-for degree? I don't think you really want to get into a discussion of degrees and who paid for them, do you? Or to denigrate one advanced Harvard degree over another. But if you do, let's talk about transcripts and Obama's from Occidental.

I guess you're conceding the larger point, since you've zeroed in on a small segment of my response in an attempt to divert attention.
 
Bush I did a pretty credible job as president. It's too bad he didn't get a second term. Bush II might have been a lot better for the country if he hadn't listened to the Neocons and their rattling of sabers. Unfortunately, his legacy will remain the war in Iraq, thanks to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.

Actually...I think GWB's legacy will be more about what he did to the economy of this country. History will remember him as the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century.
 
Actually...I think GWB's legacy will be more about what he did to the economy of this country. History will remember him as the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century.

Hoover's reputation among historians has been improving for quite a while.
 
He was certainly not born into privilege.

It was still better than most, even most middle class American of the era. His grandparents on both sides contributed significantly, as did his step father in indonesia. He spent time eating dog there-perhaps to save money?

And then he coasted thanks to affirmative action and racial quotas. Right into the cliche'd community organizer role-except this one went to Harvard.
 
Last edited:
Hoover's reputation among historians has been improving for quite a while.

probably because he acted like a liberal and raised taxes?
 
probably because he acted like a liberal and raised taxes?

Your first half was correct. A development in the progressive historiography (by that I mean, the published body of historical research surrounding the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century) had started to remind scholars and any other readership that Hoover was perhaps America's "forgotten progressive," if in part because of his pre-Presidential activities. In other ways it was also because we got over the silly idea that the President of the United States somehow perpetrated the biggest economic collapse in the country's history and because many of the ideas FDR promoted came from Hoover (sometimes only increased in emphasis).
 
Did anybody watch the Bush Interview on Hannity?

Please forgive me if this is in the wrong section. Not really sure where to put it. I was thinking political platforms, but in the interview Bush said that he is genuinely wanting just to talk about his father. It was as non-political as you can get.

Here are some highlights:
Both recent Presidents have written about their fathers. While Obama hardly ever knew his, Bush's father lived to see and praised his son becoming President.
Bush has a deep loving relationship with his father.
Bush 41 never wrote a memoir and his story is often overshadowed.
Bush 41 refused to help Bush 43 on major decisions except in an effort to make him laugh, smile or feel loved.
The Bush's don't think of themselves as a dynasty. Each man had different advisers, political beliefs, and were President during different times in History.
The Bush's and the Clintons are actually quite friendly. Bush said that if/when Jeb beats Hilary. His friendship with Bill will remain in tact.
Obama has great admiration for Bush 41. It is unknown if they talk regularly.
Obama has only once called Bush 43 and that was after the Osama Bin Laden raid. He doesn't seek advice from other Presidents. Unlike, any other President.

Another thing I noticed was how humbled Bush 43 was in this interview. I can detect most BS a mile away and I didn't see any of that in the interview. It is easy for me to point out if someone is just trying to sell me a book just to gain publicity, but he just wants to talk about his father. To anyone that would listen.

He seemed reluctant to even answer specific questions about world events like ISIS. He said he was happy to stay out of the limelight because he doesn't like attacking people or the Presidency. He thinks the people have complete control over the electoral process, as proven by the recent Republican wave.

Let me know if I have left anything out. Here is part of the interview. The longest I could find: Exclusive: George W. Bush on growing up in the Bush family | Hannity | Fox News


My god what a pandering ass Hannity is!
 
I think slick willy is done with running for office-you will have to settle for Hillary. :lol:

Unfortunately, we are probably going to be stuck with her in 2016, and that is not good. She is a very strong Neoliberal, who is owned by the corporations. Pretty much the same as Romney, and here is another sad fact. Both Hillary and Romney have been bought and paid for. However, Republicans supported Romney due to the R by his name, and Democrats will support Hillary due to the D by her name. Never mind that neither is patriotic, and would sell out their country in a heartbeat. People only care about the D or the R. And, of course, Obama kissed the asses of the banksters, and kept them rich with OUR freakin' money, and Dems supported him too. Why? Again, because he is a Democrat. Pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, we are probably going to be stuck with her in 2016, and that is not good. She is a very strong Neoliberal, who is owned by the corporations. Pretty much the same as Romney, and here is another sad fact. Both Hillary and Romney have been bought and paid for. However, Republicans supported Romney due to the R by his name, and Democrats will support Hillary due to the D by her name. Never mind that neither is patriotic, and would sell out their country in a heartbeat. People only care about the D or the R. And, of course, Obama kissed the asses of the banksters, and kept them rich with OUR freakin' money, and Dems supported him too. Why? Again, because he is a Democrat. Pathetic.

I'd like to think that Romney is caput. He had his shot and lost. But Hillary is sad as hell.
 
I guess you're conceding the larger point, since you've zeroed in on a small segment of my response in an attempt to divert attention.

You'd be guessing incorrectly; I was avoiding the temptation to scoff at the pitiable claim that Obama had to overcome being middle-class and the incorrect characterization of him as multi-racial when he is, in fact, bi-racial. Would you like to discuss the fatherly influence of Obama's "Uncle" Frank (Marshall Davis)?
 
so long as everyone forgets about invading Iraq based on lies and tanking the economy. He's not a bad guy but his legacy is in the toilet no matter how much GOP spin there is.
Does anyone understand why the leftists are still going on about "Bush lies"? Do they genuinely not know any better or are they so determined to create a myth that the truth is simply ignored and discarded?
 
Back
Top Bottom