Has Obama Turned Into Bush?

1. 60

   lady_love158posted 13 years ago

   With the announcement of military tribunals for detainees in gitmo, which remains open, the transformation of Obama into Bush is complete. Obama surged in Afghanustan and is continuing the war in Iraq, executing drone strikes in Pakistan and causing regime change in Libya.
   
   So all of you libs that hated Bush and thought he was stupid now must admit Obama is the same or you must apologize for your criticism of Bush. So what's it going to be? Lol! (Can anyone say hypocrite?)

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Name one politician who is not a hypocrite?
      
      Don't bother answering. There are none and to say there is is a lie.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         DannyMaioposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I honestly do not think Ron Paul is a hypocrite!

         replyreport
2. 60

   BillyDRitchieposted 13 years ago

   Well, I kinda figured that once Obama got into office, he would better understand what was going on why Bush made the decisions he did. 
   
   Of course it will come with a price because the extreme left of his party (i.e. his base) will NOT be pleased......

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The only difference between Bush and Obama is Obama is a bigger spender big government socialist.

      replyreport
      1. 52

         33rdn8thposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         What is the largest expansion of the federal government in the past 40 years?  Department of Homeland Security.  Created redundancies with at least 5 other major US Federal Agencies.  Need I say more?  Facts will, one day, rule America.  Not Fox News Soundbites,  Let's get this straight.  2 unfunded wars, the "ownership Society", and massive tax cuts are what dug the ditch that we are currently trying to get out of.  None of those things were done or created by the current Administration.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That's right, and any attempt to get us out of the problems, is met with resistance from the Right!

            replyreport
            1. 60

               BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Gee, I can't possibly understand why the opposing party would resist policies that they believe are bad for the nation, can you?

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Bad for Big Business, not bad for the nation.
                  
                  And, it kinda flies in the face of their current political stance:
                  Give us 100% of what we want, or we shut it down.
                  Like, weren't they JUST crying that "Obama doesn't compromise enough?" That Obama has to work with them?
                  
                  Hypocrits!

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Um, hate to break it to you, love, but for all the hyperbole, the government will not "shut down".
                     
                     And yes, I would hope the GOP has the stones to strong arm Obama into actually working with them.  Remember it was Obama who left the GOP out in the cold, and when pressed said, "well, they can come along, but they gotta ride in back."
                     
                     Nice ring of partisanship, no?

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Obama reached out many times, the Repubs spit in his face.
                        Blocking appointments--even minor ones, Record number of filibusters, calling him liar, refusing to meet with him....
                        
                        Nah---what Obama said is tame compared to their deliberate, PLANNED obstruction.
                        AND--you forget, we voted you out! Aren't you the ones saying you got a mandate?
                        Well, so did we!!
                        For the Pub-Bots to even say the words "work together" is an excercise in complete double-talk.
                        
                        They mean: You work with us, we don't work with you.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           And the Dems never blocked any of Bush's nominees?  Riiight.
                           Calling him a liar....yep, the Dems did that to Bush as well...
                           We could go on and on.....
                           
                           Um, love?  Do you remember a little thing called the 2010 mid-terms?  Where Dems were voted out in near record numbers?  Or is it that whole selective memory thing acting up again?
                           
                           If Obama shows some willingness to back down from his radical left agenda, he will find the GOP willing to work with him......

                           replyreport
                           1. 75

                              lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Yeah, but before that was the 2008 referendun, which you all said: "So What?" Only thing that matters is you.
                              
                              And no opposing politician ever called Bush a liar during a public speech. It was obviously meant to send a message: "You're the president, Who cares...Boy."
                              
                              And as far as I'm concerned, Obama has bent over backwards to appease the Republicans and THEIR radical agenda! No more!

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Bush was outright booed during his SOTU address, something that had never happened before, so don't go pretending you have the moral high ground here.
                                 
                                 And exactly where did Obama make ANY move towards working WITH the GOP?  Just one example will do.
                                 
                                 And if the GOP is "radical" then I guess that means over half the country is radical since we are a center right nation.....

                                 replyreport
         2. 60

            lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Let's see Obama has expanded the budget of homeland security... if the democrats are so opposed to bigger government why not cut off funding and eliminate it?
            
            Oh and you forgot about Obama's healthcare bill a 2.5 trillion dollar take over of 1/6 of the economy that will dwarf the homeland security budget!

            replyreport
            1. 52

               33rdn8thposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Now you are completely off course, and are reading straight out of the Michelle Bachman handbook (yes the same one that said that thefounding fathers fought to end slavery).  Expanded Homaland Security?  Absolutely incorrect.  Based on Enron type of accounting, that appears to be the case, however any DHS Budget you look at from the Bush Administration has one very important footnote, whic reads "Does not include Iraq Supplemental" 
               
               Now let's go to your hypothetical, which can go both ways.  If Repubs are so against big government and government interference, then why are they trying to regulate people's bedrooms, and a woman's freedom of choice?   Afterall, after "hearing the overwhelming voice of the American People on November 2nd", all they have done is start a full on assult on a woman's right to choose.  I thought it was about jobs...  na, it's about abortion, gay marriage, and the illusion of the size of government.

               replyreport
            2. 52

               33rdn8thposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Oh, I forgot the job killing, blah, blah, Obamacare...  Just tell me this, where is it a government takeover?  Facts, please?  Last I read, it is not a single payor system, and government will only be involved in HC the way it always has been (well at least since 1965) which is for the elderly and the poor.  Many states have adopted CHP systems to cover children.  However, this is in no way (there are no facts to prove otherwise) that this is a government takeover.  So please stop.  It has been posed by the president to Congress, and the National Governors Association that "If you have a better idea, let's try it out and debate the merits.  Not sure if you have been keeping count, but not one counter proposal has been submitted. 
               
               Also, this is another case in point of how the soundbites rule.  This is the real problem.  Obama's plan looked very much like the Republican response to the Clinton healthcare proposal, submitted and champoined by Bob Dole.  So why was there no problem wit hthe proposal then, but now it "kills jobs"?  Also, that is when the republican party had actual ideas, and didn't simply bark out talking points that many times are not even true. 
               
               Unless we, as Americans, are willing to engage in honest dialouge, we have no shot.  This is our current state.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  To say it isn't a takeover is NOT honest dialogue. Obama campaigned on a single payer system clearly he intends to get us there in steps and the pieces are in place in thus bill which unconstitutionally mandates everyone buy insurance and creates exchanges that will force insurance companies out of business leaving the government as the insurer of last resort thus single payer.
                  
                  Never mind that healthcare us not one of the enumerated powers. This bill continues the march toward socialism which is the goal of the left IF we are to be honest.

                  replyreport
                  1. 52

                     33rdn8thposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     What pieces are in place?  Federal courts already disagree about the individual mandate.  If it goes to the Supreme Court, it will get struck down.  So that assertion really falls flat.  Also, you can't be serious about "forcing insurance companies out of business"?  How would that work if there was an individual mandate, and they automatically get 7.5 million new customers?  Does that even make sense? 
                     
                     March toward socialism?  Another talking point.  Haven't we already had various forms of socilaism in this country, that 95% of Americans are willing to fight for every day?  How about Social Security?  Why was Bush not called a Socialist when he expanded Medicare Prescription plan (without paying for it, thus growing the deficit, and growing government at the same time)?  The rhetoric is so flawed.  That is the tragedy of the current republican party, they speak is circles. 
                     
                     You want to reduce deficits, but but have already turned a record surplus into a record deficit.  We want nothing to do with foriegn dictators, but the Saudi Prince has a direct line to the president.  We want to be the party of Ronald Regan, but by today's standards, he would be on the far left of Obama on most issues.  With no sense of history, no regard for the truth, the republican party is trying to hijack this country, and the yare doing so by preying on folks who are affraid to pick up a book that is not read by a Fox News Contributor.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        So the mandate gets struck down then what? Onpayer to fix that is with single payer.
                        Sure insurance companies get new customers but 80% of their profit has to go to paying claims and of course they have all the other federal mandates for coverage and have to compete with the exchanges. How long will they last? Again single payer will fill the void left by companies that drop out.
                        
                        Well at least you didn't deny socialism is the goal of the left. Rather you seek to justify past steps toward that form of governance. Well done!

                        replyreport
                        1. 52

                           33rdn8thposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Again, absolutely, unequivically wrong.  No business, or industry operates on a 20% profit margin.  Insurance companies pay on avg, 20-25% on claims, another 10-15% on salaries, and clear about 60-70%.   Please stop beating the socialist drum, it's turning into noise....You are speaking of a hypothetical that is first, off base.
                           
                           I don't have to deny that socialism is a goal of the left, because it really isnt.  I believe that you have to understand certain facts, which seem to escape your analysis.  America was never set up wo be purely one economic or social system.  Heck, it's not even a true democracy, and was never intended to be.  That said there is no such thing as a pure Adam Smith version capitalism, just as there never was a pure example of Marx's socialism, Benthem's utilitarianism, so please stop. 
                           
                           Start with Thomas Hobbes to understand why there is a need for government, then go to Mill and understand the greater good, then to Rouseau and Locke for the social contract.  Then we can start to have a discussion on the merits of a political, economic or social system.

                           replyreport
3. 52

   33rdn8thposted 13 years ago

   No he has not, in fact he is in many ways the antithesis of Bush.  Not closing GITMO, was more of a congressional issue.  Those on the right wing made it out to seem that tax dollars would be used to bring terrorists into their back yard.  Then the alarms for additional security and the costs associated with that.  Lastly, they thrust on the notion that having trials in Federal Courts would promoste attacks.  That is point one. 
   
   Point two: Yes we went into Lybia, with a solid coalition (unlike Bsh), and a clearly defined objective (again unlike Bush).  The wars that were inherited are a different story.  Afganistan was poorly planned, funded, or paid attention to.  Thus a surge was necessary to create an exit strategy (I almost feel redundant, but, that is something else that Bush lacked, an exit strategy).  Iraq, He is proposing to completely leave, but we again have Congress, (lindsey Grahm is a huge proponent of this) wants to leave no less than 15,000 troops on the ground indefinately. 
   
   I believe that the differences are clearly defined herein, although are deeper than a soundbyte, thus, most Americans will not understand.  There is no comparison between the two Presidents.  Bush was a shhot from the hip, "gut feeling" type of guy, while Obama is the eternal pragmatist.  One was a bull in a China Shop, while the other carefully plots every step.  I don't think they could be any more opposite.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly right!! The People in Congress...Dems included, would not let him do it.
      
      I agree with the rest of your post too 33.
      There is a WORLD of difference !
      
      Because, if he WAS Bush--all these righty's would LOVE him!

      replyreport