[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Obama is fundamentally reorienting our Republic end quote
That is what he said he would do, but no one listened. All they heard was hope, change, and “free stuff”[/quote]
Everyone heard what they wanted to hear. His vapidness was precisely his strength.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
Obama is fundamentally reorienting our Republic end quote
That is what he said he would do, but no one listened. All they heard was hope, change, and “free stuff”[/quote]
Everyone heard what they wanted to hear. His vapidness was precisely his strength. [/quote]
Agreed, lets hope everyone has had enough come 2012
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
I think the big difference, for me atleast between bush and Obama is simple and someone already said it. Bush was misguided but at the end of the day, loved this country and what we stand for, Obama does not love this country and what it stands for.
[/quote]
I would say thats a load of shit, Bush hated this country just as much as Obama, he signed TARP, entered 2 unconstitutional undeclared wars, had massive deficit spending, created an entitlement program(perscrition drug plan) and many other failures.
The Tea Party must reject Bush as well as Obama or it just turns into a Republican force that will dissipate after the electiona and ultimatly change nothing.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Obama has sent 40,000 more troops to A-Stan, continuing Bush policies (Obama ran his election of bringing the boys home).
[/quote]
This is one thing I never really understood. Obama’s campaign quite explicitly about “bringing the boys home” FROM IRAQ. He always then talked about Afghanistan as the necessary war. Did people just stick their fingers in their ears at that point of his speeches?
Sorry to nit-pick. From a libertarian perspective, I can understand why you made the rest of the post.
[/quote]
He ran as a pseudo anti-war candidate. He talked frequently of bringing the troops home from both theaters. No need to split hairs.
And as big a cluster frick as Iraq and A-Stan are, people bought into his rhetoric.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Dustin,
Well, I don’t know - I’ve been fairly active in the Tea Party since the beginning here in Boston, and I don’t see it as a “libertarian” thing at all. I think that misunderstands the movement. Also, you keep repeating that Obama is simply a continuation of Bush. Whatever you’re smoking, may I have some? LOL! Seriously, I think you’re taking that shtick a bit too far. Donchya think? [/quote]
Not to go too far off the topic, but how are that different?
Bush spent like a drunken sailor and Obama picked up where he left off.[/quote]
No he didn’t - Obama accelerated that spending to a degree that is - by far and away - unprecedented the history of the Republic.
[quote]Obama has sent 40,000 more troops to A-Stan, continuing Bush policies (Obama ran his election of bringing the boys home).
Bailouts started under Bush and were continued by Obama. [/quote]
Those bailouts first of all were during the last few months of Bush’s presidency? I’m sure most of the people who show up at the Tea Parties were flabbergasted. So?
And, the transition team designed and implemented much of it.
That is HUUGE. And the Financial Bill. And the takeover of most of our auto industry. And so on and so on.
Obama is fundamentally reorienting our Republic - to degrees that Bush didn’t come close; and in ways that Bush never dreamed of.
So far the only “sameness” is the sending of troops. Otherwise, you haven’t made a particularly strong case. I’m willing to listen though.
Edit: one other thing - as I have said before, Bush - for all his faults, and there were many - was at least a patriot. I cannot say the same about Obama. In my opinion, Obama has all but declared war on the American Republic.
[/quote]
John S. hit the nail on the head in response to your point about President Bush.
As for Obama and Bush’s similarities, look at foreign policy, expansion of government power, government spending/bailouts and then tell me what the differences are between the two Administrations.
I’m not really disagreeing with you, especially regarding how horrible Obama has been, but I’m not under any illusions that President Bush was defending liberty.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
I’m not really disagreeing with you, especially regarding how horrible Obama has been, but I’m not under any illusions that President Bush was defending liberty.[/quote]
You seem to ignore the fact that many of us voted for Bush simply because he wasn’t Gore or Kerry. I know I did. I opposed many of his policies, and never wanted him on the GOP ticket, but voting 3rd party would have given the election to Gore or Kerry. As many problems as Bush had, he sure as hell wasn’t as bad as either of those 2 assholes.
[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
I’m not really disagreeing with you, especially regarding how horrible Obama has been, but I’m not under any illusions that President Bush was defending liberty.[/quote]
You seem to ignore the fact that many of us voted for Bush simply because he wasn’t Gore or Kerry. I know I did. I opposed many of his policies, and never wanted him on the GOP ticket, but voting 3rd party would have given the election to Gore or Kerry. As many problems as Bush had, he sure as hell wasn’t as bad as either of those 2 assholes.[/quote]
That’s fine, but I wasn’t ignoring anything.
I was debating the differences, or lack thereof, between President Bush and President Obama.
I am going to lob something out there for debate and this is more comparison.
Bush being a Christian had a hard time allowing people to suffer. When you are the most powerful man in the world and have that much money at your disposel why not help out the poor? I just think Bush wanted to help people, and his motives were to turn people to God. He should have allowed the church to do it instead of the govenrnment.
Obama wants to help poor people so that the government is more powerful than the church. Obama’s motives are to turn people away from God.
Both are on the same page when it comes to the war.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
http://www.glennbeck.com/828/
Anyone else going? I’m flying down that morning; and staying the night in DC. Should be lots of fun. Also though, I have a funny feeling that this will be a very important day in history. We’ll see. [/quote]
Not sure why it is at the Lincoln Memorial.[/quote]
To pay tribute to the father of modern statism and nationalism, of course.
…one of the biggest war criminals in US history that guy is.
edit – the irony of a “Tea Party” rally being held at Lincoln Memorial is too hysterical for words.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
http://www.glennbeck.com/828/
Anyone else going? I’m flying down that morning; and staying the night in DC. Should be lots of fun. Also though, I have a funny feeling that this will be a very important day in history. We’ll see. [/quote]
Not sure why it is at the Lincoln Memorial.[/quote]
To pay tribute to the father of modern statism and nationalism, of course.
…one of the biggest war criminals in US history that guy is.
edit – the irony of a “Tea Party” rally being held at Lincoln Memorial is too hysterical for words.[/quote]
I have three initials for you Lifty: M. L. K.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Obama has sent 40,000 more troops to A-Stan, continuing Bush policies (Obama ran his election of bringing the boys home).
[/quote]
This is one thing I never really understood. Obama’s campaign quite explicitly about “bringing the boys home” FROM IRAQ. He always then talked about Afghanistan as the necessary war. Did people just stick their fingers in their ears at that point of his speeches?
Sorry to nit-pick. From a libertarian perspective, I can understand why you made the rest of the post.
[/quote]
He ran as a pseudo anti-war candidate. He talked frequently of bringing the troops home from both theaters. No need to split hairs.
And as big a cluster frick as Iraq and A-Stan are, people bought into his rhetoric.[/quote]
This just isn’t true. And I’m not splitting hairs. Can you provide one source where he said he would “bring troops home” from Afghanistan? On the contrary, he consistently said he would add more troops. I’m surprised (and unsure as to why) someone as politically literate and aware as yourself is unaware of this.
I ran a quick search, here you are:
As Obama removes our combat brigades from Iraq, he will send at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent. He will also provide our armed forces with the reset capability that they need. He will replace essential equipment, and he will ensure that our men and women in uniform get the care and support they have earned."
From pg2: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Defense_Fact_Sheet_FINAL.pdf
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]dk44 wrote:
Ok smartass, well then since you speak of FDR I guess you are talking to the T-Nation members in the 80 or older demographic. You should post this in the “Over 35 Lifter” forum and pray. [/quote]
My post apparently doesn’t apply to you because while Bush was in office you were graduating highschool and “figuring out how the world works”. So why did you respond?
The fact remains that not all, but many of the Conservatives/Republicans that post here had nothing to say about a “bloated and runaway bureacratic socialist government” (IrishSteel’s phrase), while Bush was in office. I mean really, with a few exceptions, Obama has continued Bush’s policies.
Where was the Tea Party then? Where was the Tea Party under Clinton or Bush Senior?
I’m not trying be a douche, but can some of the Tea Partiers explain this to me?[/quote]
I was screaming bloody murder all the while . . . could not stand Bush’s (both of them) economic policies . . .
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
http://www.glennbeck.com/828/
Anyone else going? I’m flying down that morning; and staying the night in DC. Should be lots of fun. Also though, I have a funny feeling that this will be a very important day in history. We’ll see. [/quote]
Not sure why it is at the Lincoln Memorial.[/quote]
I think it is because that is where God told him to have it (at least, that is what he says)
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Also regarding the whole “Where was the Tea Party under Bush?”:
My recollection is that the widespread unrest about gov’t spending really took fire after TARP occurred. Anybody else recall the “They caused this mess and now we’re spending $1 trillion to bail them out?!!” sentiment? It wasn’t like it was hard to miss during that time.
TARP was the stick that stirred the hornet’s nest. And as any Obama supporter will gladly tell you, TARP happened while Bush was still in office.
The Tea Party movement has grown and formalized since Obama took office, but only those with a 15-minute memory (or New Zealanders) think it began only after Obama moved in. [/quote]
No, you bring up solid points and I agree. But wouldn’t you agree that the Tea Party became “fashionable” after Obama was elected?
I’m speaking from my own experiences and observations, but it is odd that people who previously (pre-Obama administration) never considered themselves libertarians now proudly proclaim themselves as card carrying members.[/quote]
But that is because a lot of the publicity for the Tea Party has been done by Fox News and given that Fox has a slightly right of centre bias they have started drumming since Obama came to power.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
http://www.glennbeck.com/828/
Anyone else going? I’m flying down that morning; and staying the night in DC. Should be lots of fun. Also though, I have a funny feeling that this will be a very important day in history. We’ll see. [/quote]
Not sure why it is at the Lincoln Memorial.[/quote]
I think it is because that is where God told him to have it (at least, that is what he says)[/quote]
Actually, it’s because he’s calling on all Americans to return to our values and principles, personally and Constitutionally. In so many ways, that’s exactly what MLK did (until he began to lose hope, but that’s another story.) Anyway, I don’t think Beck is another MLK; but he’s firmly planted in that tradition. I think it’s most fitting that he’s speaking there.
I’m flying out tomorrow morning early; it’s going to be quite a weekend. If I see or hear anything of interest I’ll post it up.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I have a funny feeling that this will be a very important day in history. We’ll see. [/quote]
For Beck’s bank account? [/quote]
Can’t stand that the guy has awaken the country can you.[/quote]
LOL. Yea, the moron hillbilly part. Go back to sleep.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I have a funny feeling that this will be a very important day in history. We’ll see. [/quote]
For Beck’s bank account? [/quote]
Can’t stand that the guy has awaken the country can you.[/quote]
LOL. Yea, the moron hillbilly part. Go back to sleep.[/quote]
LOL. You mean the same people who defeated the English crown at, say, Saratoga? You mean those people?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I have a funny feeling that this will be a very important day in history. We’ll see. [/quote]
For Beck’s bank account? [/quote]
Can’t stand that the guy has awaken the country can you.[/quote]
LOL. Yea, the moron hillbilly part. Go back to sleep.[/quote]
Vox populi, vox dei.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I have a funny feeling that this will be a very important day in history. We’ll see. [/quote]
For Beck’s bank account? [/quote]
Can’t stand that the guy has awaken the country can you.[/quote]
LOL. Yea, the moron hillbilly part. Go back to sleep.[/quote]
Don’t be mad that even the people in your own state think you are a loon.
Ah, a nice jingoist circle jerk.