[quote]forlife wrote:
You’re still missing the point. I’m not debating whether or not Bush was a failure. I’m saying that an Obama presidency represents a revolutionary change from the Bush presidency. Whether or not you like that change is irrelevant.[/quote]
No. There is nothing revolutionary about Obama in terms of his ideas. In pre-socialist times it might have been considered so.
I’m talking about revolutionary relative to the current regime (alliteration at its best).
[quote]forlife wrote:
You’re still missing the point. I’m not debating whether or not Bush was a failure. I’m saying that an Obama presidency represents a revolutionary change from the Bush presidency. Whether or not you like that change is irrelevant.[/quote]
How will he be a “revolutionary change from the Bush presidency”?
[quote]malonetd wrote:
How will he be a “revolutionary change from the Bush presidency”?[/quote]
Because Bush was only moderately liberal. He only expanded government so much.
If Bush was a Democrat, practically everything he has done would have been praised.
[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Which is Bush? The dumbest bumbling motherfucker of all time, or is he a charismatic genius?
You left-wingers love to play on both sides.
You’re still missing the point. I’m not debating whether or not Bush was a failure. I’m saying that an Obama presidency represents a revolutionary change from the Bush presidency. Whether or not you like that change is irrelevant.[/quote]
It’s not a revolution. “Change” is subjective. The only “change” you can bank on is an increase in taxes, and the color of the President’s skin.
Please define your criteria for “revolutionary change”. I don’t think you know the definition of either “revolutionary”, or “change”.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
malonetd wrote:
How will he be a “revolutionary change from the Bush presidency”?
Because Bush was only moderately liberal. He only expanded government so much.
If Bush was a Democrat, practically everything he has done would have been praised.[/quote]
I never realized what your avatar was until just now. I always thought it was three Casper the Ghosts spinning around.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
We need a real revolution where people are willing to fight to defend the original precepts of the constitution.
[/quote]
And I’ll be right there with you. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately and I do believe that this WILL happen.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
rainjack wrote:
We need a real revolution where people are willing to fight to defend the original precepts of the constitution.
And I’ll be right there with you. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately and I do believe that this WILL happen.
[/quote]
No violence please. That doesn’t change people’s minds. It just scares them into acquiescence or instigates more violence.
Learn how to speak convincingly about freedom and all of its implications.
For example:
Obama has a significantly different tax policy than Bush.
Obama believes in international diplomacy rather than cowboy isolationism.
Obama has a comprehensive plan to revolutionize health care compared to what we have under Bush.
Obama has a dramatically different leadership style, and welcomes a diversity of opinions from his advisors rather than surrounding himself with bobbleheads.
Obama wants to set a firm timetable for troops to leave Iraq rather than an open-ended occupation under Bush.
Obama is far more liberal on a number of social issues than Bush.
Obama would be the first black president in our history.
Collectively, it represents a revolutionary change to what we have under Bush.
[quote]forlife wrote:
For example:
Obama has a significantly different tax policy than Bush.
Obama believes in international diplomacy rather than cowboy isolationism.
Obama has a comprehensive plan to revolutionize health care compared to what we have under Bush.
Obama has a dramatically different leadership style, and welcomes a diversity of opinions from his advisors rather than surrounding himself with bobbleheads.
Obama wants to set a firm timetable for troops to leave Iraq rather than an open-ended occupation under Bush.
Obama is far more liberal on a number of social issues than Bush.
Obama would be the first black president in our history.
Collectively, it represents a revolutionary change to what we have under Bush.
[/quote]
So - not Bush = “Revolutionary Change”?
Thank you for making my point for me.
If there is a tie, we will see the following:
The Dem. controlled house elects Barack Obama to be the next president.
The Senate deadlocks at 50-50, and VP Dick Cheney gets the deciding vote for next VP, and elects Sarah Palin.
We would be looking at an Obama/Palin presidency.
That would make for some interesting campaigning come 2012…
[quote]forlife wrote:
For example:
Obama has a significantly different tax policy than Bush.[/quote]
Yup, steal from the rich and give to the poor.[quote]
Obama believes in international diplomacy rather than cowboy isolationism.[/quote]
Bullshit. Isolationism would have meant we would not be in Iraq.[quote]
Obama has a comprehensive plan to revolutionize health care compared to what we have under Bush.[/quote]
And that scares me to death. Although there is no reason to mention Bush. (Think about it.)[quote]
Obama has a dramatically different leadership style, and welcomes a diversity of opinions from his advisors rather than surrounding himself with bobbleheads.[/quote]
That’s funny, I remember Bush attempting to work with the Democrats from the beginning, and they immediately started their attacks.[quote]
Obama wants to set a firm timetable for troops to leave Iraq rather than an open-ended occupation under Bush.[/quote]
Stupidest idea ever. You do not give your plans to the enemy, and it is not right to abandon these people. I do believe it is time for a phased withdrawal, but there were calls to leave when Iraq was guaranteed to be controlled by Al-Qaeda.[quote]
Obama is far more liberal on a number of social issues than Bush.[/quote]
Hell yeah.[quote]
Obama would be the first black president in our history.[/quote]
Why does that matter unless your a racist?[quote]
Collectively, it represents a revolutionary change to what we have under Bush.[/quote]
Interesting that you used the term collectively, as collectivism is going to reign for at least 2 years under an Obama presidency.
I will leave it to RJ to continue the argument about semantics.
I just watched a video about what happens in a tie, and it was mentioned that Obama would be elected as president, but Palin could be elected Vice President.
That would be interesting.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Isolationism would have meant we would not be in Iraq.[/quote]
Isolationism, as it has historically been used by US political pundits, is a pejorative term used to rhetorically attack opponents of interventionism. It is, in fact, policies like those of the Bush administration that are politically isolating.
The governments of North Korea and Cuba are also isolationist in nature because it is the only way they can keep control over their subjects.
There is a big difference between non-interventionists who want to trade and have open, peaceable relations with other nations than there is with actual isolationists who must take an aggressive stance from outside invaders.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
forlife wrote:
Clearly, the large majority disagree with you given the vehemence for or against Obama being our next president. If he was just more of the same people would stay home instead of voting in record numbers.
They’re voting in record numbers because the MSM has infected them with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome); because their lives are empty and they need a “leader” to redeem them; because thanks to postmodern educational methods and indoctrination, they don’t understand the past and the meaning of liberty.
In other words, they’re voting for Obama out of a mixture of ignorance & emptiness. [/quote]
Not so sure about the ‘derangement’ part. It’s because Bush has been such a horrendous president and incompetent manager. Anything that seems diametrically opposed will get a lot of support.
But the ignorance part is correct. People that are hugely excited about an Obama presidency really don’t understand what it will mean.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Not so sure about the ‘derangement’ part. It’s because Bush has been such a horrendous president and incompetent manager. Anything that seems diametrically opposed will get a lot of support.
[/quote]
Spoken like a kid who wasn’t alive to enjoy the Carter admin.
You wouldn’t know horrendous if it slapped you in the face if you think Bush was horrendous.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Not so sure about the ‘derangement’ part. It’s because Bush has been such a horrendous president and incompetent manager. Anything that seems diametrically opposed will get a lot of support.
Spoken like a kid who wasn’t alive to enjoy the Carter admin.
You wouldn’t know horrendous if it slapped you in the face if you think Bush was horrendous. [/quote]
Bush was horrendous. Fucking horrendous.
Carter was an incompetent peanut farmer. A horrible president. Doesn’t mean Bush wasn’t a fucking cancer that has done more to hurt the Republican party than any president before. Fracturing its very identity. Hasn’t been much better for the country as a whole.
He deserves all the criticism he gets and more for every single terrible and misguided policy he pursued and the billions he spent in incompetent execution of them.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Not so sure about the ‘derangement’ part. It’s because Bush has been such a horrendous president and incompetent manager. Anything that seems diametrically opposed will get a lot of support.
Spoken like a kid who wasn’t alive to enjoy the Carter admin.
You wouldn’t know horrendous if it slapped you in the face if you think Bush was horrendous.
Bush was horrendous. Fucking horrendous.
Carter was an incompetent peanut farmer. A horrible president. Doesn’t mean Bush wasn’t a fucking cancer that has done more to hurt the Republican party than any president before. Fracturing its very identity. Hasn’t been much better for the country as a whole.
He deserves all the criticism he gets and more for every single terrible and misguided policy he pursued and the billions he spent in incompetent execution of them.[/quote]
Hurting a party does not make him a horrendous president.
He turned into a liberal. He abandoned the right. He was a piss poor conservative. But so were the sorry fuckers we elected in 2000. That hurt the party. Not the country.
Carter hurt the country. He destroyed the economy. He was a fucking pussy when it came to the defense of this nation.
Carter defines horrendous presidency. Bush defines a horrendous republican.
There is a difference.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Not so sure about the ‘derangement’ part. It’s because Bush has been such a horrendous president and incompetent manager. Anything that seems diametrically opposed will get a lot of support.
Spoken like a kid who wasn’t alive to enjoy the Carter admin.
You wouldn’t know horrendous if it slapped you in the face if you think Bush was horrendous.
Bush was horrendous. Fucking horrendous.
Carter was an incompetent peanut farmer. A horrible president. Doesn’t mean Bush wasn’t a fucking cancer that has done more to hurt the Republican party than any president before. Fracturing its very identity. Hasn’t been much better for the country as a whole.
He deserves all the criticism he gets and more for every single terrible and misguided policy he pursued and the billions he spent in incompetent execution of them.
Hurting a party does not make him a horrendous president.
He turned into a liberal. He abandoned the right. He was a piss poor conservative. But so were the sorry fuckers we elected in 2000. That hurt the party. Not the country.
Carter hurt the country. He destroyed the economy. He was a fucking pussy when it came to the defense of this nation.
Carter defines horrendous presidency. Bush defines a horrendous republican.
There is a difference. [/quote]
Bush hurt the country. His wasteful spending, terrible iniatives, arrogance and power grabs, were very bad for this country. It didn’t only fracture the Republican party.
I don’t want to get in a debate over it. I have about a half hour to watch election coverage before I have to work on memo for tomorrow and then hit the sack. I think Bush most definitely left this country much worse than he found it. But no reason to argue it when he’s outta there and it’s a moot point anyhow.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Bush hurt the country. His wasteful spending, terrible iniatives, arrogance and power grabs, were very bad for this country. It didn’t only fracture the Republican party.
I don’t want to get in a debate over it. I have about a half hour to watch election coverage before I have to work on memo for tomorrow and then hit the sack. I think Bush most definitely left this country much worse than he found it. But no reason to argue it when he’s outta there and it’s a moot point anyhow.[/quote]
Spending I will agree on.
What terrible initiatives?
Power grabs? Where?
You need to be a little more specific.
His tax cuts were a godsend, and should be made permanent.
Even if he matched Carter point for point on the “suck scale” - the tax cuts pulled him ahead, and was very very good for the country.