straightUp Loc: California

Is that the list from the 2002 attacks?

Yeah - it's horrible... and it's horrible that the program is continuing today under Obama... Like I said I detest Obama's drone program. But that doesn't make me forget that Bush killed MILLIONS... MILLIONS!!!!

Honestly, I don't know how you can use something like the drone program to filter out the genocide that was the Bush administration and then say the killings are even close to being comparable... Bush didn't use drones to do all his killing.

And while I'm at it let me remind you that all the drone killings done by the Obama administration is a continuation of Bush policy. If not for Bush, there would be no war against terrorism to start with and we probably would't be hearing anything about drone attacks today. I'm sure Obama could have found other things to do - like focus on domestic issues which has always been his main concern anyway - the American people.

Wow - the more I discuss this with you the more I'm starting to actually LIKE Obama.

boofhead

I did not like Bush (any of them) because he was not who he said he was. He was a Progressive and I agree was a warmonger. However he was not against the American people; he did not want to fundamentally change the country. He would be, in my opinion, the worst president we have ever had, even including Carter, until Obama came along.

Obama is many degrees more dangerous to us, and to the world, has so many personal faults it is impossible to list them here, and I don't need to wait until this is proven to be true; I know from my gut that we are all in huge danger from this man, way more so than anything we faced under Bush.

Arguing in support of Obama by bashing Bush is a cheap way to proceed. You restrict your audience because too many people supported Bush simply because he said he was a conservative/Republican. When they (and me, I will admit) see the old complaints brought out (it's all Bush's fault!) I usually stop reading.

Even if it is true, the only person who can stop the drone attacks, bring the troops home, close Gitmo, shut down Obamacare, stop alienating our allies, stop spending money we don't have, improve race relations, start working on the economy, move the country away from Fascism, shut down the private armies, etc etc etc is Obama.

You know and I know he has no intention of doing any of these things because he is working to an agenda. He is not being challenged because of the useful idiots and I am afraid, Sir, you fit that category.

Patty

I agree Bush was the second worst president ever behind Wilson till Obama came along. You are the one trying to make excuses for Obama based on Bushs record. I didn't vote for either one of them. Bus, Cheney and Blair should have all been handed over to the Hague and this occupier would not be getting away with what he is doing now.

Patty

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Patty

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38650.htm

John Major Demands Tony Blair and George Bush
Iraq Notes Should All Be Released Uncensored

By Jason Beattie

May 30 2014 "ICH" - "The Mirror" - Former Tory prime minister John Major insists his New Labour successor Tony Blair's notes to president Bush should be released without being edited
Tony Blair was yesterday put on the spot over the Iraq inquiry by the man he defeated in 1997.

Former Tory Prime Minister John Major said Mr Blair should demand the release of all his secret notes to former US President George Bush in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq...........

straightUp Loc: California

I guess like a lot of other bastardized words, the term "progressive" has lost it's meaning. The progressive movement, as initiated by Republican Teddy Roosevelt, was a way of brokering peace between the capitalists and the workers who were at the time building up a serious socialist threat. The idea was to pacify the workers with smaller concessions that didn't involve the elimination of private ownership, which is what the socialist movement was pushing for and in doing so, taking the wind out of the sails of the socialist movement itself. So, to be called a progressive you have to be willing to compromise between business and labor. This is something the Republicans stopped doing several decades ago and it's certainly not something Bush had ANY interest in. Bush was about as progressive as he was black.

The schism between Bush and the conservative establishment was primarily in his aggressive approach to globalization. Bush was a new version of conservative often called neoconservative, that pushes for liberal economics to create world dominating transnational power. (Liberal economics confuses a lot of people BTW... Liberal economics, otherwise known as free-market economics, is strongly opposed by most social liberals like myself and strongly supported by the Libertarians.)

Now, what really sets the neoconservatives apart from the conservative establishment is their disloyalty to America. Of course Bush always did put on a show but his actions speak louder than his patronizing. The Bush family has business investments all around the world, which is fine except for the fact that Jr. abused his position as president to use the American people as collateral against which he borrowed billions of dollars through the U.S. Treasury to fund his wars to advance his own global dynasty and dynasties of other oligarchs in the top 1%. When he left office the Bush dynasty came out WAY ahead and America was practically left in ruins.

So call him a neoconservative if you want to distance yourself from him, which I can't blame you for, but progressive? I think not.


That depends on whether you think exploiting the American people for your own personal gains qualifies as being "against" them.


He didn't CARE about the country. He cared about Iraq, Afghanistan and any other country standing in the way of his global dynasty. The only part of America he cared about was it's worth as collateral.


I gotta say, the "gut feelings" of some internet user called "boofhead" doesn't do much to convince me.


I'll keep that in mind in case I ever want to support Obama by bashing Bush. Ya know, sometimes it's the people who hate Obama so much that they THINK any attack on Bush is meant to support Obama. Well - that isn't happening here. I would say the same things about Bush if Romney were president.


I never said it was ALL Bush's fault. What I said is that many of the problems that we associate with Obama started with Bush and I'm not going to stop saying it just so I can appeal to people who are stupid enough to like Bush simply because he was a conservative/Republican, because 1, those people aren't going to listen to me anyway simply because they think I'm a liberal and 2, most of what I have to say is going to fly over their heads anyway and 3. I'm a free thinker who speaks his mind - it's not my task to "win support" for Obama.


Well, I'm not exactly suggesting we get Bush back in office to fix all the problems he caused, but I wouldn't suggest Obama is the only one that can fix these problems either. Your suggestions indicate a different perspective than mine. Where you seem to be more focused on "presidents" as if they have the power to change the world all by themselves. I tend to focus more on the systems in which presidents are limited by laws and the commitments that precede them.


Speak for yourself, I am undecided. He "says" he intends to do these things and so far I have no reason to disbelieve him. He has already withdrawn troops from Iraq and he is working on Afghanistan. He tried to close Gitmo but was faced with severe opposition and he is trying again. I don't qualify Obamacare as a problem... I think it's the beginning of what will be a long process to improving our healthcare which is sorely needed because outside of cancer treatment we have the worst AND most expensive healthcare system in the developed world.

And of course he's working on an agenda. Every president has an agenda. A president without an agenda is just a big question mark. Good Lord, the things you say... LOL


After calling Bush a progressive I can't say I'm even offended by you calling me a useful idiot. I don't get the impression that you have much grasp on what these types words actually mean. So if you want to call me a useful idiot for not challenging Obama then knock yourself out - or educate me on what things other than a "gut feeling" makes Obama so much more dangerous than the president who allowed the largest terrorist attacks ever on American soil, started two wars and helped create the worst financial disaster since 1929.

Patty

"Is that the list from the 2002 attacks?"
no 2012 nice try though.

ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio

boofhead

I apologize, I over-estimated your intelligence. My bad.

straightUp Loc: California

Wasn't "trying" anything. You were describing the attacks in 2002 then added the list without saying which attacks the list was relevant too. Writing skills help - you ought to look into it ;)

Patty

So do reading comprehension skills. You ought to look into it.
"The first drone strike was two years into Bushs presidency he had 6 years and Obama has had 5 1/2. on February 4, 2002"

Might want to look into a basic math course while your at it also.

straightUp Loc: California

...or just resort to insults. That's pretty much all I've come to expect from the Obama-haters anyway.

straightUp Loc: California

How about some basic grammar?

1. "The first drone strike was two years into Bushs presidency he had 6 years and Obama has had 5 1/2." ...That there is what we call a run-on sentence.
2. There should be an apostrophe between the "h" and the "s" in Bush's..
3. The second sentence is not capitalized.
4. The second sentence is a fragment....

I can actually point out more faults, just in that one expression, but you get my point. I'm not saying you have to use perfect English when typing on this site - I know I don't. But you should at least try to make complete sentences; until then, don't talk to ME about reading comprehension.

And the math? How many years each of them had to execute drone attacks explains nothing about what specific attack the list pertains to. Maybe you ought to just give it up. This is why your politics will never gain critical mass - because educated Americans can actually SEE when something is written by an illiterate and that really doesn't help the argument. And it's not just you, it's a LOT of people that seem to share your politics and you're all helping to build up this consensus among educated Americans that the extreme right is basically incapable of understanding anything above the 5th grade level. Patty, why don't you go to school?

straightUp Loc: California

ABBAs - I always enjoy your two-cents no matter how irrelevant. Something like 85% of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government... Maybe Bunday can ask the Koch Brothers how they managed to take advantage of that by raising their cattle on federal land? 'Nothing like getting the tax payers to cover your rent.

straightUp Loc: California

Patty - I went back and read your post with the casualty list and found my reading comprehension mistake.... You described the 2002 attacks as having occurred in Afghanistan and then described the list of casualties as being relevant to attacks in Pakistan and Yemen.

So... my bad.

I feel bad about that last post... I was simply carrying on with our volley of insults, which I sometimes find myself doing. I'm trying to change that about myself. Anyway, I'm obviously not perfect but I AM the type of person that will admit my mistakes.

So there we go.