• 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 W. Bush Slams 'Bigotry,' Politics Of Populism That Led To Trump, Sanders

99percenter said:
Bush lost two wars, let 3000 americans die in 9-11, gave poor people loans, couldn't catch bin laden, did nothing after Katrina, caused two recessions including the great recession, pass no child left behind, passed bushcare, let mexico take our country, raised gas prices to 4 dollars. I can't name another president with the amount of colossal failures as Bush. can you?
Click to expand...

Jimmy Carter.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Pipewrench. :2wave:

:agree: I read a most interesting - and frightening - article recently which stated that the next attacks on us would likely be in the form of innocent-looking suitcases being shipped, because no one would know who was behind the destruction and deaths that it would cause! Are Fed Ex and UPS, plus companies that use semi trucks to transport goods from place to place across the country being set up to take the blame for what our enemies may be planning, and how can we protect ourselves against that? :afraid: :shock:
Click to expand...

Well that will always be a problem. Every defense has it's weakness. That is why sometimes a good offence can keep them to busy to find that weakness. Most mail and packages are run through detectors. Our ports are even protected with detectors. These safeguards are even more effective if the bad guys don't know where they are or know that we even have them until it is too late and they are caught. Good intelligence combined with knowing who is coming and going in and out of our country with a secure borders is essential today. It makes it much harder for the bad guys to slip people into our country to scope out defenses eventually finding our weaknesses. Border security is not an option but a necessity today. That is if you wish to protect the people of this country.
 
99percenter said:
Bush started subsidizing loans for poor people in 2002.

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617-2.html
George W. Bush: Fact Sheet: Expanding Homeownership Opportunities for All Americans

He even considered it his biggest accomplishment in is 04 nomination speech.
"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high." George Walker Bush


You can be biased all you want but you can't make up your own version of history.

And the fact you think that the subprime mortgage bubble had "nothing to do with what caused the crash" just shows how ignorant you are with what happened.
Click to expand...


I agree. Only an idiot as president would want to help the poor of this country become home owners. They should be lining the pockets of the rich paying rent.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I agree. Only an idiot as president would want to help the poor of this country become home owners. They should be lining the pockets of the rich paying rent.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously think helping the poor was his goal? He was trying to help his wall st buddies. They made lots of money during his presidency. And when it went to ****, they were the ones that got bailed out. The middle class lost everything because of him.
 
Last edited:
Tigerace117 said:
Isolationism has literally never worked. It's only ever made things worse.
Click to expand...

Never said it did. This had nothing to do with isolationism. I didnt object to going into Afghanistan.

I specified invading Iraq and that one of the excuses, removing Saddam the tyrant abusing his people, was hypocritical because we dont do that everywhere there's a tyrant abusing his people.
 
99percenter said:
Bush lost two wars, let 3000 americans die in 9-11, gave poor people loans, couldn't catch bin laden, did nothing after Katrina, caused two recessions including the great recession, pass no child left behind, passed bushcare, let mexico take our country, raised gas prices to 4 dollars. I can't name another president with the amount of colossal failures as Bush. can you?
Click to expand...

Is Saddam in charge of Iraq?

Are the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan?

No?

Then your lie that we "lost" is easily exposed.

No, Bush didn't "let" anyone die, especially not on 9/11.

Giving poor people loans. The horror.

Except he laid the groundwork which made it possible to kill OBL later.

He very clearly didn't "do nothing after Katrina" and no, he didn't singlehandedly, or even mostly, cause any recessions.

"Let Mexico take our country".

lol what a load of crap.

Clearly you can't name a president with the failures you claim either
 
Lursa said:
This thread cracks me up already.

When Obama was in office, right-wingers claimed GWB had done no wrong and Obama was destroying all the 'good' he had done, all the 'progress' he'd made.

:lamo
Click to expand...
We right wingers had lots of critiques of Bush; whom we saw as a centrist with some leftist assumptions.

Nor is it conservatives you see attacking him in this thread. It's liberals and Trump fans.
 
Lursa said:
Never said it did. This had nothing to do with isolationism. I didnt object to going into Afghanistan.

I specified invading Iraq and that one of the excuses, removing Saddam the tyrant abusing his people, was hypocritical because we dont do that everywhere there's a tyrant abusing his people.
Click to expand...

Because every time we do overthrow a dictator we have to listen to people whining about it. The US can't overthrow every single dictator, just the most brutal and aggressive ones.
 
cpwill said:
We right wingers had lots of critiques of Bush; whom we saw as a centrist with some leftist assumptions.

Nor is it conservatives you see attacking him in this thread. It's liberals and Trump fans.
Click to expand...

Ah...the first was very very rare.

And I see both attacking him in this thread.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Because every time we do overthrow a dictator we have to listen to people whining about it. The US can't overthrow every single dictator, just the most brutal and aggressive ones.
Click to expand...

LOL. If bush had any balls he would have gotten rid of the saudi king. They were the ones that attacked us on 9-11. Instead he goes after two unrelated countries.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Because every time we do overthrow a dictator we have to listen to people whining about it. The US can't overthrow every single dictator, just the most brutal and aggressive ones.
Click to expand...

Saddam was not the worst. We ignored the terrorization in Africa, for instance. And Myanmar?

Saddam was just in a key area and finally, he no longer served his purpose for us and it was more in our interests to get rid of him.
 
Lursa said:
Ah...the first was very very rare.
Click to expand...

Bush blew up the budget, massively expanded spending, expanded the Federal role in the States, and bought into Keynesianism. Conservative critiques weren't all that rare.

And I see both attacking him in this thread.
Click to expand...

"Trump fan" =\= "conservative. Hawkeye' second candidate was Bernie.
 
Lursa said:
Saddam was not the worst. We ignored the terrorization in Africa, for instance. And Myanmar?

Saddam was just in a key area and finally, he no longer served his purpose for us and it was more in our interests to get rid of him.
Click to expand...

Saddam was certainly one of the most brutal and aggressive dictators in the Middle East. And the US has been training and aiding African governments to fight guerrillas, do we clearly haven't been ignoring terrorism there.

People would have thrown a **** fit had we overthrown the "Myanmar" regime for killing Muslims.

We were never allied with Saddam other than in a grudging, he's better than Iran way for a few years.
 
99percenter said:
LOL. If bush had any balls he would have gotten rid of the saudi king. They were the ones that attacked us on 9-11. Instead he goes after two unrelated countries.
Click to expand...

Lol. You have no understanding of.....well.... anything it looks like. Invading Saudi Arabia would have been utterly pointless. It also would have set off the idiot CTers even more than they already did.

"Two unrelated countries"?

:lamo

I guess you don't think hunting down OBL was important?
 
Bush is right on, but I am enjoying the difficulty liberals are having with this.

A number of them are chanting "yeah, Bush!" without necessarily confronting their prior views, while others are trying to convince their brethren that Bush still remains evil. "No no, my fellow liberals...Never Forget!" You know?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Tigerace117 said:
Saddam was certainly one of the most brutal and aggressive dictators in the Middle East. And the US has been training and aiding African governments to fight guerrillas, do we clearly haven't been ignoring terrorism there.

People would have thrown a **** fit had we overthrown the "Myanmar" regime for killing Muslims.

We were never allied with Saddam other than in a grudging, he's better than Iran way for a few years.
Click to expand...

Ah Iran, another country where our foreign policy decisions came back to bite us.

Operation Ajax is the reason why there is a theocracy in charge of Iran.
 
Fiddytree said:
Bush is right on, but I am enjoying the difficulty liberals are having with this.

A number of them are chanting "yeah, Bush!" without necessarily confronting their prior views, while others are trying to convince their brethren that Bush still remains evil. "No no, my fellow liberals...Never Forget!" You know?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I may have my problems with bush, but he at least understands that the United States has a moral reputation to uphold.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Ah Iran, another country where our foreign policy decisions came back to bite us.

Operation Ajax is the reason why there is a theocracy in charge of Iran.
Click to expand...

The government of Iran at the time was getting very cost with the Tudeh. That was a bad mistake on their part.

Yes, Operation Ajax is why there is a theocracy instead of the remnants of a communist state.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Lol. You have no understanding of.....well.... anything it looks like. Invading Saudi Arabia would have been utterly pointless. It also would have set off the idiot CTers even more than they already did.

"Two unrelated countries"?

:lamo

I guess you don't think hunting down OBL was important?
Click to expand...

Hunting down obl was important. Invading afghanistan wasn't. Obama found obl in pakistan and killed him without a war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom