"Dick Cheney was worse"

I am constantly amazed that ANYONE can still buy into this clown's activities...

Michale

Even if ya'all are correct, even if Democrats and Bush were joined at the hip Post-9/11 up until the invasion of Iraq, Democrats did NOT (post Iraqi Invasion) confine their obstructionism and attempted obstructionism solely to the Iraq War issue..

It's well-documented that Democrats opposed, obstructed and/or attempted to obstruct virtually ALL of Bush's Counter Terrorism policies..

Policies that Democrats now embrace enthusiastically and with absolutely NO opposition, now that it's "their guy" who is in charge..

So, once again, no matter how ya'all try to spin it, it is an indisputable and undeniable fact that Democrats put Party agenda and ideology before the safety and security of this country.

If one wants to find the source of my utter contempt and hatred towards Democrats, one need not look any further than that..

Michale

No matter how ya'all try to spin it, you simply cannot deny that, in the Bush years, Democrats put Party ideology ahead of the safety and security of this country and, to add a further layer of hypocrisy, tried to pass it off as some moral/ethical stance...

These are the facts, whether ya'all choose to acknowledge them or not..

Michale

I am saying that Bush would have been a lot more successful in his counter-terrorism policies if Democrats have put country before Party...

I think he failed because the ideas he believes in are simply bad.

And yet, Obama has proven that the ideas are great... And quite successful...

These beliefs led to bad decisions such as the Iraq War, deregulation of the financial industry (and yes, Clinton was involved here too), and No Child Left Behind.

I understand.. Your argument falls apart with regards to counter-terrorism, so you have to drag in non-sequitors to bolster and prop up the argument. :D

Obama has proven beyond ANY doubt that Bush's CT ideas were dead on ballz effective...

And that just drives the Left batshit. :D

All the rest is just smoke-screen....

Michale

I think he failed because the ideas he believes in are simply bad. As a person, he's a likable guy, but many of the conservative ideas he believed in led to decisions which were bad for the country.

Here's a few:
1) The Cheney 1% doctrine which got us into the Iraq War.
2) Trickle down theory.
3) The belief that the private sector will regulate itself.
4) School testing as the be all, end all for education (supported overwhelmingly by the school testing industry).

These beliefs led to bad decisions such as the Iraq War, deregulation of the financial industry (and yes, Clinton was involved here too), and No Child Left Behind.

It's beliefs like these that need to change, no matter whether they're held by Republicans or Democrats.

-David

That's because what I posted was from memory.

Anything prior to 2005 was before my Great Political Awakening (IE Having met CW :D).

But if you are certain that Democrats and Bush were joined at the hip 2001 thru 2004, I can research it and locate the facts that show otherwise.. :D

Just say the word and show me how to GOOGLE date ranges, because for the life of me, I can't figure it out! :D

Michale

everything you're referring to occurred in bush's second term, 2005-2008 - still no evidence that anyone did jack until then. in his first term bush bungled all things foreign and domestic, with the full support of both republicans AND democrats.

~joshua

MoveOn had those attacks and many more on their website..

Once Obama selected Patraeus to be the top commander in Afghanistan, MoveOn santized their website and removed all attacks on Patraeus..

"We are at war with East Asia. We have always been at war with East Asia."

Once again, I am amazed how it's the Left that is so closely aligned with Orwell's 1984.

Michale......

It's ya'alls position that the daily hysterical outcry and machinations (Remember "General BetrayUs"?? Harry Reid's "The War Is Lost"??) from the Left over everything Bush did had absolutely NO negative impact or effect on the capability of the Bush Administrations ability to prosecute the war against terrorists and terrorism..

Is such a claim logical??

Is such a claim backed up by ANY facts??

Michale

Google Gitmo, Military Commissions, Civilian Trials For Terrorists, Jose Padilla, AT&T DataCenter, Domestic Surveillance and a host of other subjects to learn the opposition Bush had to endure from Democrats over National Security.

The facts are all there for everyone to read.

And the ONLY logical conclusion that fits the facts is that, during the Bush years, Democrats put their own Party's agenda before the safety of this country when they chose to obstruct and impede Bush's Counter Terrorism policies...

If you have another possibility that fits ALL the facts, well...

"I'm all ears."
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates

Michale

Bush's lack of competency in THAT area is tied solely and completely to Democrats actions of placing National Security at risk in pursuit of an obstructionist agenda to further Party ideology...

as CW asked, do you have any specific evidence, preferably prior to bush's second term, to back that assertion? it's not that we don't believe you, but these things require some sort of objective verification. as yet, nobody's made me aware that any such evidence exists.

We're not talking about Foreign Policy..

We're speaking of actions that relate to Counter Terrorism and associative military functions in support thereof...

Bush's lack of competency in THAT area is tied solely and completely to Democrats actions of placing National Security at risk in pursuit of an obstructionist agenda to further Party ideology...

In short, Democrats sought to screw Bush at the expense of this country's security...

Michale

But they just aren't competent about it..

with the lone exception being their successful fight against bush on foreign policy? which caused bush to bungle the response to katrina? don't get me wrong, on the whole i agree with your statement above. it's just inconsistent with your other statements about democrats vis-a-vis bush foreign policy. a much simpler and more likely explanation for bush's failures in foreign and domestic policy (and obama's successes with essentially the same political tactics and essentially the same policy) is that bush just wasn't all that competent, and obama is.

No, they only believe in Democratic Party Government...

When it's a GOP Government, Democrats TRY to be just as obstructive as Republicans are...

But they just aren't competent about it..

Michale

Democrats have no incentive to filibuster. They believe in Government and using Government to help people and fix the problems caused by Corporations. They are more likely to compromise and reach the middle ground than push their own extreme agenda. They try to make the system work, not break it.

Republicans hate Government. They want to push this moronic far right agenda about how bad Government is. No compromise, nothing. Their way or else. So they strangle Government at the throat and stall it - and they did so right at the time when it was REALLY needed (a massive financial crisis). Screwing people over and the cost to the recovery that they continue keep heaping on means nothing to them. As long as the paymasters are being looked after screw everyone else.

You read into it whatever else you want.

I read into it what the facts show..

And the facts show that Democrats couldn't keep their members in line enough to mount a successful filibuster...

I believe the term most used around here was "herding cats"...

Now if you want to celebrate the incompetence of the Democrats, by all means.. I'll likely toot a horn or two myself.. :D

But there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that the Democrats woefully pathetic stats on filibusters was based on any noble PuttingCountryFirst morality or patriotism...

It was a question of competence, pure and simple..

Or, in this case, lack thereof...

Michale

The fact is that Democrats didn't filibuster nearly as much as obstructionist Republicans.

You read into it whatever else you want.

-David

As I said, Democrats can't keep their members in line enough to MAKE it to a vote...

You seem to want to make the fact that Democrats didn't filibuster as much, you want to make it out to be some noble Country-Before-Party endeavor..

When the facts clearly show that Democrats were simply incompetent about it...

Michale...

By progressive propaganda, you mean actual number of cloture votes, right?

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

Notice the big jump when Republicans became the minority party in the Senate and Obama was elected.

-David

Yes they did, your progressive propaganda notwithstanding..

Democrats TRIED as much as Republicans. They simply couldn't succeed....

I thought you were an 'objective independent'?

Joshua said it best...

I really hate Republicans and I really REALLY hate Democrats... :D

Michale

No they didn't.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/03/31/37195/republican-filibusters-skyrocket/

Republicans have taken the filibuster to a new level of obstructionism.

And it's a BIG part of why I am so 'fanatical' in my hatred of Democrats.

I thought you were an 'objective independent'?

-David

The actions are the same..

Obstructionism.. Opposition... In pursuit of a partisan agenda.

The Republicans are simply better at it than the Democrats.

Michale

Change that to months or weeks of total support and you would be correct..

Oh, a few of them may have bitched, but when did Bush get ANYTHING blocked in Congress on the War on Terror from 2001 to roughly 2005? Please introduce facts, because for that time period, Democrats gave Bush EVERYTHING he (and Cheney) asked for.

Then explain the formation of the Military Commissions Act?? It was in response to Dems pushing the SCOTUS to outlaw torture and enhanced interrogations.

How is that not opposition and obstruction??

Name me one filibuster, for instance, that some Democrat led to stop Bush. You can't -- because they just don't exist.

That's because, as I have stated time and time again, Democrats couldn't get their members in line..

They TRIED to filibuster Bush as often as Republicans succeed in filibustering Obama..

But they couldn't do it. Not out of any sense of really CARING about their country or being patriotic. It's obvious by their opposition to Bush that they didn't care one iota..

They simply were incompetent. Incompetence in their attempt to pursue a partisan agenda...

And yet still... Tora Bora. Please explain how Tora Bora is Obama's fault... I'd like to hear that one....

That one's simple...

Bad luck.. The war on terror was still in it's infancy..

Dems didn't begin to pile on Bush until it was obvious that it was a monumental Iraqi cluster... um, rhymes with "duck"...

Oh come now.. Don't make me research it and see how soon after 9/11 that Bush became a war monger, a hitler, a war criminal..

My guess is it was by Christmas, 2001 but I can document it if you wish......

You can slam them for being ineffective in these years, or maybe too Jingoistic, but you certainly can't blame the Bush/Cheney FAILURES during that time on Democrats, as they were giving Bush everything he wanted.

Yes they were.. AFTER running to the papers and screaming and whining about how Bush is a war-monger, a war criminal etc etc... You DO remember the hysteria from Left over Abu Ghraib, right?? An incident that BARELY rose to the level of college hazing...

The entire Left "piled on" Bush and enjoyed it..

When any Republican does that to Obama, they were labeled as a racist...

If Democrats supported Bush in the area of Counter Terrorism policies as much as they support Obama, Bin Laden wouldn't have lasted the year..

The fact that, during the Bush years, Democrats put Party before Country is well-established...

Michale

I'm disappointed.

Michale -

Democrats gave Bush quite a number of years of total support to get things right. Oh, a few of them may have bitched, but when did Bush get ANYTHING blocked in Congress on the War on Terror from 2001 to roughly 2005? Please introduce facts, because for that time period, Democrats gave Bush EVERYTHING he (and Cheney) asked for. Name me one filibuster, for instance, that some Democrat led to stop Bush. You can't -- because they just don't exist.

And yet still... Tora Bora. Please explain how Tora Bora is Obama's fault... I'd like to hear that one....

Dems didn't begin to pile on Bush until it was obvious that it was a monumental Iraqi cluster... um, rhymes with "duck"...

You can slam them for being ineffective in these years, or maybe too Jingoistic, but you certainly can't blame the Bush/Cheney FAILURES during that time on Democrats, as they were giving Bush everything he wanted. EVERYthing. Sorry, that revisionist history is nothing but pure bunkum, pal.

-CW

A> Republicans are better at it

these statements are logically inconsistent. either republicans are better at it, worse at it or the same; they can't simultaneously be all of the above.

I'm just sayin...

Michale

Put another way, Republicans are to Obama exactly as Democrats were to Bush....

It's just that..

A> Republicans are better at it

and

2> Bush told Democrats to frak off....

Michale

Not so...

Democrats opposition to Gitmo, Domestic Surveillance, Military Oriented Extra-Judicial activities and Torture/Rendition is well documented..

Right up to the point that Obama took office...

republicans have by their own stated purpose intended to stymie anything and everything obama might do, and put party before country, even more than democrats under bush.

If this were true, Republicans would be as opposed to Obama's CT policies as Democrats were to those same policies under Bush...

The fact that Republicans are not indicates that there are lines that Republicans won't cross...

in my opinion, that is because obama has been more competent than bush, or at the very least better at playing defense against his detractors.

It's not a question of competence...

It's a question of obstructionism...

If Bush had Democrats in his back pocket as much as Obama has, Bin Laden would have been toast a long time ago...

Michale

again, this statement is not supported by the facts. republicans have by their own stated purpose intended to stymie anything and everything obama might do, and put party before country, even more than democrats under bush. they just didn't succeed at it. in my opinion, that is because obama has been more competent than bush, or at the very least better at playing defense against his detractors.

I don't think Bush "sucked" at it.. He had Democrats second-guessing him thru the media and throwing up roadblock after roadblock. And doing so for NOTHING more than serving their political agenda..

The fact that Democrats would put their own Party agenda before the safety and security of the country pisses me off to no end. And it's a BIG part of why I am so 'fanatical' in my hatred of Democrats...

It's to Bush's credit that he was as successful as he was, despite having CongressCritters that were more of a threat than Al Qaeda...

Michale

i can't speak for anyone else here, but my problem with bush on foreign policy was not that he abused executive power, though he did. my main problem with him is that he sucked at it. he was incompetent. even before the democrats finally woke up and started to push back, bush was bungling all things foreign and domestic, setting precedents for abuse of power along the way. obama on the other hand is almost TOO good at it. he abuses power like a champ. david bromwich wrote something interesting awhile back about the continuity between the two:

http://www.thenation.com/article/162842/george-w-obama-symptoms-bush-obama-presidency

"the Bush-Obama presidency has sufficient self-coherence to be considered a historical entity with a life of its own."

Can you imagine the blow back if Obama used a drone to kill an American on American soil?

No, I can not..

But I (along with everyone here, I would wager) would never have imagined Obama would have killed an American citizen w/o trial or any semblance of due process..

And yet... That is EXACTLY what happened..

Basically, your argument is one I have made many times..

"We elect our leaders to make the decisions we can't, or won't make and we have to trust them to do the right thing."

Again, *I* don't have a problem with that argument, since it is one I have made on many occasions...

I also don't have a problem with the actions itself..

*MY* only point is that ya'all SHOULD have a problem with that argument and with those actions because ya'all had a problem with them during the Bush years..

That's been my only issue..

Our POTUS can kill a hundred terrorists (Americans or no) with drones and I will cheer him on, shake his hand when he is done and by him a beer..

But ya'all are supposed to be better than that. :D

Michale

But why bother using a drone, when you've got the FBI etc?

Drones don't abuse power, Presidents do. The drone meme is just apple polishing an old and vexing problem.

Can you imagine the blow back if Obama used a drone to kill an American on American soil? Would there be effective deniability?

"I did not have specs with drone?"

We still have a press, we still have a government of shared powers. There are people with values in the chain of command. Not every order will be followed without question, or at least leakage. Obama can imagine what. That's one reason why he most likely won't use a drone on American soil. Sometimes, deterrence is all you can expect.

Do ya think Obama will swallow his ego and open up the White House tours again??

Sheeya right.. And pigs will fly outta my butt, too.... :^/

Michale

No. Democrats want the American people to THINK it's a myth...

But, with a 16-Trillion Dollar debt, it's tough to convince the American people that we are at war with East Asia. That we have always been at war with East Asia.

Michale

This is a myth though. As previously discussed, government spending under the Obama administration is the lowest since Eisenhower. 50+ years ...

-David

No...

I support a great idea that reigns in the orgasmic spending of the Democrats and shows that that a BALANCED approach, spending cuts not just taxing everyone and everything to death, is the best way to proceed..

And because it makes the Democrats look bad..

Hoisted on their own Picard.... :D

Michale

So you support a terrible idea because it makes Democrats look bad ...?

-David

This sounds like pure right-wing fringe accusation.

Maybe..

But it's also well-documented fact.. I provided numerous examples to Liz last http://FTP...

I thought we were talking about ownership of "cuts". Since you seem to think they're a good idea, I'm just surprised you won't own it.

Take some responsibility for once! You support it, own it!

Are you kidding!?? I love it!!!

Anything that exemplifies that ineptness and incompetence and Party-Before-Country mindset of Obama and the Democrats, give me more of that!!! :D

Michale

Huh?

What happened to your "independent" streak, Michale?

This sounds like pure right-wing fringe accusation.

I thought we were talking about ownership of "cuts". Since you seem to think they're a good idea, I'm just surprised you won't own it.

Take some responsibility for once! You support it, own it!

-David

And Democrats are the only people screaming about taxes..

The difference is, Democrats GOT the tax increase on the wealthy. And like the spoiled irresponsible brats they act like, they blew all their money and now they want more..

We want to grow the economy. We should be making investments, not cuts.

All things being equal, that would be true..

But, as Democrats have proven time and time again, their idea of "investments" is paying off croonies and donors and union thugs..

In other words, Obama and Democrats are investing in the Democratic Party to the detriment of the country.

The answer is obvious, of course. It's a terrible idea.

And yet.. It was OBAMA'S idea.... :D

Michale

Republicans are the only people screaming about cuts.

We want to grow the economy. We should be making investments, not cuts.

If making cuts is such a good idea, why won't conservatives own it? Why do they want Democrats to own it?

The answer is obvious, of course. It's a terrible idea.

-David

If Obama and the Democrats are smart, they would make moves to own Obama's Sequester and take credit for it..

Much like they pivoted to embrace "ObamaCare" right before it survived the SCOTUS...

That would be the smart move...

Michale

Let me put it this way..

There's a reason why Obama's approval ratings have dropped considerably in the past week or two..

And it's because of the apocalyptic fear-mongering that never materialized..

And it's only going to get worse..

Michale

Absolutely. Who wants the recovery to stop?

I mean ... other than the wealthy who stand to benefit from any downturn.

-David

https://www.google.com/

Google's got a pretty awesome doodle up today. :D

Michale

Asinine? Really? Everything is relative, my friend. :)

But that's just it.

Obama and the Democrats have gone on and on for WEEKS that THAT is exactly how it would happen...

Ya gotta admit. They are looking pretty asinine right now..

Michale

... the war on government ... hmmm ... I like it!

I mean, well ... you know what I mean ... :)

Yea.. We've been hearing that for weeks...

Well, not everything happens at the snap of your fingers, you know.

Besides, the worst thing about this sequester is how much sense it doesn't make, regardless of how long it may take to see the effects of it. :(

It's just so stupid, you know ...

Yea.. We've been hearing that for weeks...

And yet.... Nothing happened..

And I am sure ya'all join with me in hoping that all the dire predictions DON'T come true....

Right...??? :D

Michale

It's likely going to take a little time before the effects are felt Liz but they will be. Going to be weird though and likely bad for the recovery. Lots of strange things are likely to get cut as a result of the war on government.

-David

well, I am sure glad that the Sequester hasn't caused the Obamas to pare down their glitzy glamor hobnobbing...

Great message Obama is sending to Americans....

"Ya'all gotta sacrifice and tighten your belts... But we're gonna hobnob with the stars...."

nice..... very nice....

Michale

"The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices, those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines."
-Senator Dianne Feinstein

Who knew that it was "legal" to hunt humans....???

Michale

Some CongressCritter from Texas has put forth legislation that would eliminate Obama's golf junkets until White House tours are resumed..

Obama's infamous golf outing with scumbag Tiger Woods would have paid for a year of White House tours...

No matter how ya spin it, Obama is taking one in the chin over "TourGate"... :D

Michale

With evidence to back that up...

Park ranger: Supervisors pushed sequester cuts that visitors would see
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/08/park-ranger-claims-supervisors-pushed-sequester-cuts-that-visitors-would-notice/?intcmp=HPBucket

A case in point..

Michale

Hell, let's forget about drones for a second..

Think of all the sweeping powers that the Left turned a blind eye to when Obama acquired them..

Recess Appointments when the Senate was NOT in recess..

Domestic Surveillance/Wiretapping..

And so on and so on and so on..

Now think of all those powers in the hands of a (as CW points out) President Cheney or a President Nixon..

Such a thought should be making ya'all quake in your boots with fear..

And yet, it's the LEFT that allowed the POTUS to gain such powers..

If (gods forbid) the United States ever devolves into a police state, the Left will have only itself to blame..

Michale

"Mr President, that is not entirely accurate"
-DefSec Nimzicki, INDEPENDENCE DAY

What Holder stated under pressure from Paul's filibuster is that the POTUS does not have the authority to kill NON-COMBATANT Americans with an armed drone on American soil..

But, as has been amply established, the POTUS *CAN* declare an American citizen an "enemy combatant" on a whim, in secret with no justification or due process.

Once this American has been deemed a combatant, then he (or she) becomes drone bait...

So, basically, Holder has established that the POTUS *DOES* have the authority to kill an American citizen on American soil with an armed drone.

All the POTUS has to do is declare the American an enemy combatant.

And there is LESS oversight and LESS transparency for THAT process than there is for drone play...

Welcome to Obama's Brave New World...

OK, sure, you don't think President Obama would ever do such a thing -- but what about a President Bush (or, if he had been in an unforeseen accident, a President Cheney)? For those with longer memories, how about a President Nixon (see: COINTELPRO, for context)? Executive precedents are important, and the precedents set for drone warfare now will likely be with us for a long time to come -- so it is indeed important to get all the details out on the table for discussion.

I have been asking that exact question for years now..

Maybe you'll have better luck getting an answer. :D

Republicans have been claiming Obama's going to make sure the cuts hurt average people, because he is "playing politics."

With evidence to back that up...

"I notice that an Al Qaeda terrorist is now being tried in a federal court in New York. This should be seen as a triumph of the Constitution, and prove that such suspects are fully capable of being tried, convicted, and locked away forever using nothing but the tools the Constitution lays out. The world did not come to an end because this terrorist is being tried in federal court rather than being shipped to a secret prison or held by the military. The trial will only serve to strengthen our country and put us back on the road to trusting our own judicial system once again."

Little premature on this one..

How bad is it going to look for the Obama Administration if this scumbag terrorist is found Not Guilty and set free??

Michale

This particular problem has very little to do with size.

Well, I'd say that is a pretty dire consequence of the sequester. Why hasn't anybody hyped that up? Oh, wait ...