Barack Obama

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

HAIL BUSH

Well he was ok, but let's not get carried away.

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Well he was ok, but let's not get carried away.

For all your trying to distance from him earlier I figured your true colors would show.

[desirouspussy]

I don't really want to get involved in American politics but there is one thing I just dont understand. It seems that many people, including the experts, classify George Bush II as the worst American president ever. I can understand that first time mistake, but how could you people ever elect him for a second term?????

Diana

[transjen]

Originally Posted by GGadmirer

I don't really want to get involved in American politics but there is one thing I just dont understand. It seems that many people, including the experts, classify George Bush II as the worst American president ever. I can understand that first time mistake, but how could you people ever elect him for a second term?????

Diana

Forget the claims by Creative Mind, Bush did not win in 2000 he stole the election and was appointed president 5/4 by the unsupreme court and 04 there have been questions about Ohio plus Weasel Bush ran on fear after9/11 claiming only he could protect us from the terrorist Jennifer

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

Forget the claims by Creative Mind, Bush did not win in 2000 he stole the election and was appointed president 5/4 by the unsupreme court and 04 there have been questions about Ohio plus Weasel Bush ran on fear after 9/11 claiming only he could protect us from the terrorist Jennifer

LMAO! Jen, I love you. You are always so nice overall on the boards.

But, yeah, just "forget the claims by Creative Mind" -- you know, my mad scientist claims -- BWA-HA-HA-HA (insert maniacal laughter here). You know, the claim that I could back up with an actual news link, which again cited an actual recount that cost over half a million dollars, that was conducted by a reputable accounting firm and which was sponsored by a consortium of nationally recognized newspapers. A recount, by the way, that was held and conducted to the very same standards that GORE wanted. And the end result? Bush still won.

But, hey, I'm sure THEY were all on the take, TOO, right?

Look, no one is saying it wasn't a close election, but you people on the Left have GOT to get over "Bush derangement syndrome" and just accept that he won the Florida race. Seriously, get on with your lives. And when it came to his 2004 re-election, he not only won the Electoral College, but he won the POPULAR vote by a wide margin of OVER 3 MILLION VOTES. Which is what cracks me up. When Bush won a tight election...he stole it. He didn't have the numbers to make you happy. But then when he turns right around and DOES win by a wide margin and with large numbers...you still can't change your tune. Somehow he stole THAT election too.

And yet you people on the Left are ALSO the same ones who refuse to acknowledge the lies and fraudulent votes that a group like Acorn got away with in the Obama election. And let the record show that's NOT just me making a baseless accusation. For fuck's sake, they're now under FEDERAL INDICTMENT in 14 states for voter fraud.

What makes this so laughable to me is that those on the Left...who apparently toss and turn in their sleep and just can't accept Democrats lost the Florida election and who continue...to this day...to still bitch about it and play their broken record...

...Are the SAME people who are now insisting that Al Franken won the Minnesota Senate race, even though the numbers in that election are SMALLER and TIGHTER than they were in the Bush/Gore race.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

When it was Bush, it was a stolen election.
Or not every vote was counted.
Or they weren't counted right.
Or the margin wasn't wide enough to declare him winner.

But when it comes to Al Franken and AFTER the election is over and the votes are tallied and Norm Coleman wins, suddenly... gasp!... something like 300 votes are "accidentally" discovered in a box in the back seat of a car that... gasp!... "someone" conveniently forgot to turn in which... gasp!... just HAPPENS (>wink, wink<) to be JUST enough to tip the election. At which point that IS good enough for those on the Left to say "Franken won! I don't care if it was only by one vote! He won! That's good enough for me! No need to count or recount any further! We're done here! Move along! PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN STANDING BEHIND THE CURTAIN OVER THERE!"

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by GGadmirer

I don't really want to get involved in American politics but there is one thing I just dont understand. It seems that many people, including the experts, classify George Bush II as the worst American president ever. I can understand that first time mistake, but how could you people ever elect him for a second term?????

Diana

Try to remember something, Diana: Americans don't see things the same way the rest of the world does. I mean, I know that's a pretty obvious statement, but frankly Europeans and other countries around the world just... don't... get... that... no matter...how many times...we say it. It's funny, but the same way that Europeans or other foreigners look as us and say "Why don't you just do this?", we look back at the rest of you with an incredulous look and say "Why the hell would ANYONE want to do that?"

Bottom line: We're Americans, and we have our own ideals and views of how things should be done.

That said, keep in mind two things. When George Bush ran against John Kerry, America was still feeling the effects of 9/11 on our psyche. We still wanted a President that we felt would keep us safe, and we had already begun the Iraq War and many Americans didn't feel it was wise to change Commander-in-Chiefs in the middle of things. Not to mention, as an opponent for the office, John Kerry did a piss poor job of convincing anyone he was anything but a two-faced liar.

In fact, if you want to know WHY Bush won a second term, here's all you need to know and it plays off that last point. The night that the election was held in 2004, an exti poll was taken. And the two questions that the poll asked was very simple and very insightful and ultimately revealed why Bush won.

The first question was: "Who do you think is more likely to say whatever they need to say in order to get elected?" In other words, who was more likely to be a typical politician that would lie out of both sides of their mouth -- say one thing, one day, to one group of people, on one side of the country, but then say a different thing, the next day, to another group of people, on the other side of the country.

The result: 75% said Kerry would say whatever it took to get elected...but only 25% said Bush.

The poll then asked a second parallel question. It asked "Who do you think is more likely to tell you what they REALLY think -- regardless of whether or not you will agree with them?" In other words, if you ran into Bush or Kerry in a bar or while you were out shopping and said "Look, no bullshit and all kidding aside, just lay it on the line for me. Tell me what you REALLY think about abortion...tell me what you REALLY think about gay marriage...etc, etc, etc."

The result: It literally flipped. 75% felt Bush was more likely to tell you what he REALLY thought, whether you agreed with him or not...while only 25% felt Kerry would tell you what he REALLY felt in his heart.

And lastly, your one statement is a bit deceptive when you say he was the worst president ever and even the "experts" agree with that. That's a very disingenuous statement since you're NOT actually naming any of these so-called "experts" -- and let's be totally honest. So many people who do different things call themselves "experts" with the thinnest of qualifications, thus making their opinions either valueless or just another opinion that's no better than the next person's.

Case in point: back in the fall as the new election was held, 40 prominent Presidential scholars and biographers and researchers were asked to rank all of the Presidents through history, and Bush did NOT land in the last spot -- in fact, he didn't even make the bottom 10. Most agreed that it was too early for history to judge him, especially if the war in Iraq turned around (which it seems to have done) and a democracy (of sorts) was actually established there.

Another example of that: those same scholars noted that for years and years, Dwight Eisenhower was always considered "average" as a Presidentat best, but now looking back with the passage of time...and looking back on his two terms as President and looking at the economy he oversaw, his dealings with foreign matters, etc...he suddenly leaped into the Top 10 and is now regarded of as one of the most successful and best Presidents ever.

[transjen]

Shall we make the lieing weasel Bush a saint now or shall we just make him GOD? Most eveybody hated the weasel GEORGE W BUSH the man never told the truth a day in his life and has never been held accountable a day in his life be it drunk driving drug use not paying taxs on stock options being AWOL from the air national guard lieing about WMDS and the countless other crimes he committed , plus he F up the econemy big time and ran up record debts, But the weasel did give hope to the retarted by showing even a retart can be president if he has family in high enough places to steel an election Jennifer

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

Shall we make the lieing weasel Bush a saint now or shall we just make him GOD?

Plus he F up the econemy big time and ran up record debts, But the weasel did give hope to the retarted by showing even a retart can be president if he has family in high enough places to steel an election Jennifer

First...no one is calling for Bush to be a Saint or god. For crying out loud, Jen, if you really read what many of us have been posting and saying here -- instead of having just a knee-jerk reaction to simply outright hating Bush -- you'd clearly see that many of us on the Right WERE MAD AT BUSH for many of his mistakes, such as spending too much. And WE'VE CRITCIZED HIM AND SAID IT HERE IN THIS THREAD REPEATEDLY.

Which brings me to addressing your second point.
Tell you what, let's have a show of hands over this one...

In the long run, as each and every American is FINALLY going to have to pay the piper for all the debt that our government has racked up, to reduce the national debt, who are you REALLY going to be MORE mad at? And who do you REALLY think your children or grandkids, your young nieces and nephews, are REALLY going to be pissed at as they grow up themselves and inherit tomorrow's financial world as all these bills come due?

George Bush, who left you with a $900 Billion dollar debt, which frankly was too large and should be held against him.

OR...

Barack Obama, who in only his first 100 days in office, has spent more money than EVERY PRESIDENT since George Washington COMBINED. And whose budget for this year could actually exceed TWO TRILLION-PLUS DOLLARS -- and still counting and going upwards since he's not even done spending yet, since NOW he wants to tack on Healthcare reform this year TOO. Which means in just ONE YEAR ALONE he's already managed to TRIPLE the Bush debt. Not to mention his economic plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office (which is a non-partisan group and simply runs the numbers to an accurate degree) has ALSO already calculated that Obama's plan is going to run a ONE TRILLION DEFICIT PER YEAR -- per year!!! -- FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS AS WELL.

So, let's have a show of hands. Who did worse?
Bush leaving you with $900 Billion in debt...
...Or Obama leaving you THIRTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS in the hole?

Come on, I know everyone took basic math.
This one isn't THAT tough to answer.

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

First...no one is calling for Bush to be a Saint or god. For crying out loud, Jen, if you really read what many of us have been posting and saying here -- instead of having just a knee-jerk reaction to simply outright hating Bush -- you'd clearly see that many of us on the Right WERE MAD AT BUSH for many of his mistakes, such as spending too much. And WE'VE CRITCIZED HIM AND SAID IT HERE IN THIS THREAD REPEATEDLY.

It's funny I read this over and over on political discussion boards, and I have for the past year and a half. You know when it was politically prudent for Cons to distance themselves from Bush. Suddenly he went from being a poor guy who wasn't given a chance by whining liberals to "spending like a drunk sailor". Funny how those behaviors were hardly invisible during the previous 7 years, but rank-n-file Cons were so willing to overlook that as long as Georgie stopped funding foreign aid that supported abortion and/or birth control, threatened a Constitutional amendment to define marriage, and gave tax money to churches to fund their programs rather than secular bodies.

Now when you all are being called out you are trying to play it off like "yeah he made some mistakes, and he wasn't a real Scotsman..urm Conservative". Better yet distancing yourselves from the social right wing that kept getting your stuff elected because middle America is starting to be wary of that agenda.

You all may have been spending the past 8 years ranting into the wind, and I have no doubt that you honestly feel what you are saying. However, I have been seeing the same stuff on different sites posted by people who couldn't stop blaming (whining, divisive, communist, petulant, etc.) liberals/Democrats for 6+ years of the trouble with Bush/Cheney/Rove.

[desirouspussy]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

And lastly, your one statement is a bit deceptive when you say he was the worst president ever and even the "experts" agree with that.

What I said was 'It seems that many people, including the experts, classify George Bush II as the worst American president ever'.

It appears you are twisting things around a bit. Perhaps a habit you picked up from George Bush.

[transjen]

The 900 billon is not counting the wars KING GEORGE always left the funding for them out of the budget and every other month was running to congress for more funds for the troops, As far as Obamas buliding apon the debt is due to his idea on how to restart the econemy, His plan is to create jobs by rebuliding roads dams and other projects, Will it work? IN the short term i think it will help but the jobs created are only tempery at best as sadly KING GEORGE was on the lets outsource all the US jobs express, Oh if you and Rush are so worried about the debt level then stop crying we need more tax cuts for the rich only and by the way the 13 trillon debt figure is counting KING GEORGES WARS Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

Oh if you and Rush are so worried about the debt level then stop crying we need more tax cuts for the rich only and by the way the 13 trillon debt figure is counting KING GEORGES WARS Jennifer

LOL all of Bush's debt during his 8 years in office is 8% of that $13 trillion. Obama's debt during his first 2 months is 21%. What part of this don't you understand?

Originally Posted by transjen

Of course we all know W never lied In fact when did that lieing little weasle W ever tell the truth? Q: how did you know W was lieing? A: his lipps were moving Jennifer

Jen you are so full of blind hate for Bush. I don't think you've ever backed up anything you've said, and consequentially no one takes you seriously. And btw, if you claim Bush lied about WMD, then you'd have to conclude that Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and John Edwards also lied about the same thing. Half these people "lied" about WMD before Bush ever took office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

Originally Posted by transjen

Yes it was the Charlotte SUN TIMES or SUN HAROLD i forget which now but it was a locale paper in SW FL that did the recount Jennifer

This is the closest you've ever come to backing up any of your claims. Unfortunately it's a dead end. I can't find anything to your sources that even you don't have. What your claiming happened would have been huge news... that when all the votes were carefully counted, free of any deadlines, Gore won!? That's huge news. Give me some sources!