OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

[fsquid]

"record profits" of course being the monetary amount and not a return on revenue which puts it in a bit of perspective.

[Feanor]

Wars? Plural? Are you saying that Afganistan was unnecessary? I can see the argumant for Iraq, but what other unnecessary wars did he start?

Invading Afghanistan was totally necessary and I only wish it had been done more thoroughly and met with more success.

[matthewk]

The rumored reason why W left his fellow Texan hanging (on the pardon):

And Obama is rumored to be a Muslim and not an American born citizen. What's the point?

I commend Bush for not opening the pardon floodgates. The one I was looking for, he made. Compean and Ramos deserved to have their sentences commuted.

[GTHobbes]

Those who did not support Obama during the election have been gracious, complimentary, and are giving the guy a chance.

As evidenced by Teal's avatar and his tagline that he "support[s] Barack Obama for NCAA commander-in-chief. (In 2012, when he no longer has a job)," I suppose?

Of course you don't quote his whole post which includes the following:

This of course does not apply to everyone, but as a whole, that's how this thread has flowed.

Typical cherrypicking

You're right....my bad.

[Feanor]

Oh those border agents did get a pardon; that's good news I hadn't heard yet.

[Naples39]

Oh those border agents did get a pardon; that's good news I hadn't heard yet.

Technically they weren't pardoned, but they had their sentences commuted. So they're still 'guilty', but don't actually need to serve anymore prison time.

[GTHobbes]

Where is your point of reference for oil comapnies still recoding record profits? Oil has dropped from $147 to about $35 a barrel. I have not heard one word about "record profits" since the summer.

Exxon announced the "biggest profit in history" in October. Naturally, with W and crew getting set to leave, they also said at the time "[t]hat's probably the last of the big profit quarters[.]"

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/30/news/co ... tm?cnn=yes

[fsquid]

Where is your point of reference for oil comapnies still recoding record profits? Oil has dropped from $147 to about $35 a barrel. I have not heard one word about "record profits" since the summer.

Exxon announced the "biggest profit in history" in October. Naturally, with W and crew getting set to leave, they also said at the time "[t]hat's probably the last of the big profit quarters[.]"

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/30/news/co ... tm?cnn=yes

it couldn't be that the price of oil was in a free fall at the end of October. It had to be W, right?

[JackB1]

As far as pissing on Bush... After you get pissed ON for 8 years, forgive us if we feel the need to piss back.

So you're admitting that what you are doing is nothing more than a pi$$ing contest.

No. There is no contest at all. I am just saying you have to expect a lot of anger towards an outgoing President that did the magnatude of damage that Bush did. Just because we finally have a replacement doesn't erase everything he's done in the past 8 years. That foul odor will linger for a long time. Just ask the families who have lost loved ones over an unnessesary war if they are ready to forgive and forget.

Did the Republican b*tching about Clinton cease when he stepped down? Hardly. I feel that Bush and Cheney got away with bloody murder and I can't just dismiss it all so easily. I felt the same way when OJ skated the first time. Hopefully Bush & Cheney will have to answer to someone or something for the dispicable deeds they did.

We will have thousands of returning soldiers from Iraq soon to deal with. Many with mental illness, countless injuries, missing limbs, etc. trying to fit back into society and recieve badly needed healthcare, during the upcoming years. Hopefully Obama will do everything in his power to care for these returning soldiers. But unfortunately Bush's "legacy" will be with us for a long time and will be analyzed many times over by historians, Americans and the rest of the world. Would we like to forget? Of course. Is that possible. Don't think so.

[davet010]

Wars? Plural? Are you saying that Afganistan was unnecessary? I can see the argumant for Iraq, but what other unnecessary wars did he start?

Invading Afghanistan was totally necessary and I only wish it had been done more thoroughly and met with more success.

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of history would be well aware that Afghanistand and 'success' do not often go together. Have a read of a book called 'The Great Game' by Peter Hopkirk, which reviews the British Empire's entanglements there in the 19th century. Once I'd read that, the experiences of both the Russians after 1980 and of the CIA once the Russians had gone became much more explicable.

[Feanor]

I am anyone and was well aware, but I don't think saying Afghanistan's a hard place to succeed excuses the lack of ground troops, Tora Bora and the failure to capture bin Laden.

[Brando70]

Ah, yes, the civilized conservative. The people who label any and all criticism of their patron saint, George W. Bush, as "deranged." Because of course all of these "mistakes" and "problems" are but mere fabrications of a media set out to destroy the one true, honest American we have. The people who loved to throw words around like "traitor" toward people that asked why were were invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. People who bought millions of copies of books from civilized, polite people like Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, and others. People like Joe the Plumber, who just recently said the media should only report what the military tells them to report when it comes to the war.

It is true that most liberals were upset when Bush won in 2000, as I'm sure most conservatives would have been upset if Gore had won that election. However, the idea that there was unhinged criticism of Bush from the get-go is delusional. After 9/11 and before Iraq, the president had support from pretty much the entire mainstream political spectrum. There were some on the far left who still opposed him, but generally speaking he had the support of nearly all Americans.

Iraq was the turning point, and the time when that criticism became more pointed, because suddenly the stakes were raised very high. We became committed to building a nation, a strange democracy-by-invasion concept that seemed illogical. To sell this, the specter of mushroom clouds over Manhattan was trotted out by the vice president. Then, of course, like the g-spot, the WMD were never found, although those in charge were sure they were there. Over time, as it became clear there were no weapons, the logic shifted -- it was never about WMD, they said, completing the greatest bit of a wartime shell game since the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

This deception, along with the administration's crusade to have the U.S. government have a literal come-to-Jesus moment, caused a lot of people to get rather angry with the administration. And sometimes, when citizens get angry, they vocalize that anger. Our society in general has become more coarse over the years, as taboos and standards change. So some of this criticism was rather coarse.

Of course, the same people urging America to stay strong and have the guts to "finish the job" (the job being however the president defined it that week) would suddenly clutch their pearls and cover their mouths with their white gloves whenever someone said something nasty about Dear Leader. It seemed that, while they certainly had the balls to support telling other people to STFU and let the president do his job, their conversational gonads appeared to have not dropped when it came to hearing harsh language directed at their hero.

So, when the polite conservative asks, "golly, friend, why are you so deranged about President Bush," the angry liberal gets annoyed, because despite the laundry list of reasons for being angry, the polite conservative still doesn't see what all the fuss is about, and chalks it up to insanity. Clearly, that must be the answer.

[RobVarak]

Ah, yes, the civilized conservative. The people who label any and all criticism of their patron saint, George W. Bush, as "deranged." Because of course all of these "mistakes" and "problems" are but mere fabrications of a media set out to destroy the one true, honest American we have. The people who loved to throw words around like "traitor" toward people that asked why were were invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. People who bought millions of copies of books from civilized, polite people like Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, and others. People like Joe the Plumber, who just recently said the media should only report what the military tells them to report when it comes to the war.

It is true that most liberals were upset when Bush won in 2000, as I'm sure most conservatives would have been upset if Gore had won that election. However, the idea that there was unhinged criticism of Bush from the get-go is delusional. After 9/11 and before Iraq, the president had support from pretty much the entire mainstream political spectrum. There were some on the far left who still opposed him, but generally speaking he had the support of nearly all Americans.

Iraq was the turning point, and the time when that criticism became more pointed, because suddenly the stakes were raised very high. We became committed to building a nation, a strange democracy-by-invasion concept that seemed illogical. To sell this, the specter of mushroom clouds over Manhattan was trotted out by the vice president. Then, of course, like the g-spot, the WMD were never found, although those in charge were sure they were there. Over time, as it became clear there were no weapons, the logic shifted -- it was never about WMD, they said, completing the greatest bit of a wartime shell game since the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

This deception, along with the administration's crusade to have the U.S. government have a literal come-to-Jesus moment, caused a lot of people to get rather angry with the administration. And sometimes, when citizens get angry, they vocalize that anger. Our society in general has become more coarse over the years, as taboos and standards change. So some of this criticism was rather coarse.

Of course, the same people urging America to stay strong and have the guts to "finish the job" (the job being however the president defined it that week) would suddenly clutch their pearls and cover their mouths with their white gloves whenever someone said something nasty about Dear Leader. It seemed that, while they certainly had the balls to support telling other people to STFU and let the president do his job, their conversational gonads appeared to have not dropped when it came to hearing harsh language directed at their hero.

So, when the polite conservative asks, "golly, friend, why are you so deranged about President Bush," the angry liberal gets annoyed, because despite the laundry list of reasons for being angry, the polite conservative still doesn't see what all the fuss is about, and chalks it up to insanity. Clearly, that must be the answer.

Your memory is short, Brando.

While you are correct that there was a rallying around Bush post-9/11, the intervening months between his inauguration and that tragedy were marked by foaming at the mouth about Florida, the Supreme Court etc., that was far beyond the typical post-election fallout. There were effigies burned after Bush v. Gore and I recall people calling Gore a traitor in the big daily papers after his second concession in December.

I am happy to admit that this atmosphere is a bi-partisan creation with its roots in the Clinton impeachment era. I am not suggesting, indeed I expressly wished, that Conservatives refrain from losing their minds over Obama. Bush is no hero of mine, and I'm not labelilng any and all criticism as deranged. But if you think the level and content of the venom directed at the previous administration was appropriate, I think that you may be rather too close to the illness for proper diagnosis.

Just because sneering anti-Bush bon mots became the lingua franca of "enlightened" conversation does not make it any more appropriate.

[DivotMaker]

1. Exactly. The fact that he helped run this country into the ground financially with his unnecessary wars (which cost us billions each month)

2. and his allegiance to the oil companies (which have continued to post record profits in the last 6 months, while everyone else is hurting) haven't done much to help his cause either.

1. You can make the case for the Iraq war costing us $billions. At the time the decision was made to attack, the information available led Bush AND Congress to approve the attack and subsequent war. it is however convenient for you and others to totally overlook the strategy at the time which had it come to pass (a flawed strategy when looking at it today), the Iraq war would have been over years ago with a far lower loss of innocent lives on both sides as well as a far lower price tag on both sides. once the train leaves the station, it is next to impossible to bring it back. Whats done is done.

2. Absolute BULLSHIT. Bush had no more influence on oil company profits nor the escalating price of energy than you or I. That run up was thanks largely to fund managers and Wall Street investment firms. IOW, it was all generated by paper trading of which the bubble burst beginning in October and has receded to oil prices from 4-5 years ago. Stop trying to blame Bush for something he nor OPEC had any control over.

[matthewk]

Ah, yes, the civilized conservative. The people who label any and all criticism of their patron saint, George W. Bush, as "deranged."

Ah, the condescending know-it-liberal.

I never voted for Bush, so he's far from my patron saint. I happen to think labeling him as "evil" and the reason for everything that is bad today is being way too melodramatic and oversimplifies too many issues.

[JackB1]

Ah, yes, the civilized conservative. The people who label any and all criticism of their patron saint, George W. Bush, as "deranged." Because of course all of these "mistakes" and "problems" are but mere fabrications of a media set out to destroy the one true, honest American we have. The people who loved to throw words around like "traitor" toward people that asked why were were invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. People who bought millions of copies of books from civilized, polite people like Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, and others. People like Joe the Plumber, who just recently said the media should only report what the military tells them to report when it comes to the war.

It is true that most liberals were upset when Bush won in 2000, as I'm sure most conservatives would have been upset if Gore had won that election. However, the idea that there was unhinged criticism of Bush from the get-go is delusional. After 9/11 and before Iraq, the president had support from pretty much the entire mainstream political spectrum. There were some on the far left who still opposed him, but generally speaking he had the support of nearly all Americans.

Iraq was the turning point, and the time when that criticism became more pointed, because suddenly the stakes were raised very high. We became committed to building a nation, a strange democracy-by-invasion concept that seemed illogical. To sell this, the specter of mushroom clouds over Manhattan was trotted out by the vice president. Then, of course, like the g-spot, the WMD were never found, although those in charge were sure they were there. Over time, as it became clear there were no weapons, the logic shifted -- it was never about WMD, they said, completing the greatest bit of a wartime shell game since the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

This deception, along with the administration's crusade to have the U.S. government have a literal come-to-Jesus moment, caused a lot of people to get rather angry with the administration. And sometimes, when citizens get angry, they vocalize that anger. Our society in general has become more coarse over the years, as taboos and standards change. So some of this criticism was rather coarse.

Of course, the same people urging America to stay strong and have the guts to "finish the job" (the job being however the president defined it that week) would suddenly clutch their pearls and cover their mouths with their white gloves whenever someone said something nasty about Dear Leader. It seemed that, while they certainly had the balls to support telling other people to STFU and let the president do his job, their conversational gonads appeared to have not dropped when it came to hearing harsh language directed at their hero.

So, when the polite conservative asks, "golly, friend, why are you so deranged about President Bush," the angry liberal gets annoyed, because despite the laundry list of reasons for being angry, the polite conservative still doesn't see what all the fuss is about, and chalks it up to insanity. Clearly, that must be the answer.

POST OF THE YEAR!!!

Brando, you clearly missed your calling. This post was so well written and said everything so well, I am so jealous I don't have your ability with the written word.

Personally, I was amazed that their wasn't more outrage over the
"war shell game" that Bush pulled off. I don't think many other leaders of other countries could have gotten away with it. The vast majority of our population still believes we went into Iraq to "fight the terrorists" and we are so blase about the whole thing at the present time, while soldiers continue to put their lives on the line every day.

Bush used our outrage over 9/11 in the worst possible way. To feed into a misguided war that had ZERO to do with what went down that day. This was the biggest crime of all.

[matthewk]

I am anyone and was well aware, but I don't think saying Afghanistan's a hard place to succeed excuses the lack of ground troops, Tora Bora and the failure to capture bin Laden.

I too wish we would have done a better job at that point in the war on terror. I still don't quite understand why capturing Bin Laden dropped off our list of priorities so quickly. We went from almost having him to focusing on Iraq pretty quickly, and that I do not understand.

[matthewk]

POST OF THE YEAR!!!

You do realize it's January 21st, right?

[Leebo33]

I thought political avatars were a no-no on DSP anyway. Was that an actual rule or just common courtesy?

I'd vote YES! Enough...

Funny, I find your avatar sexist and offensive to ugly women everywhere.

[webdanzer]

POST OF THE YEAR!!!

Brando, you clearly missed your calling. This post was so well written and said everything so well, I am so jealous I don't have your ability with the written word.

I agree. I think Brando very acutely summarized the origin of left-wing anger, frustration, and despair:

Then, of course, ...the g-spot [was] never found...

[GTHobbes]

2. Absolute BULLSHIT. Bush had no more influence on oil company profits nor the escalating price of energy than you or I. That run up was thanks largely to fund managers and Wall Street investment firms. IOW, it was all generated by paper trading of which the bubble burst beginning in October and has receded to oil prices from 4-5 years ago. Stop trying to blame Bush for something he nor OPEC had any control over.

Maybe you're right. Maybe Bush, the oil man, had nothing to do with the success of the oil companies, which helped put him into office. Maybe he really didn't turn a blind eye to the price gouging that was going on last year. Then again, USA Today has a story this afternoon on the companies whose stocks have done the best over the last 8 years of Bush's administration.

"The runaway winner: Southwestern Energy, (SWN) the natural gas exploration and production company that had a compounded annual return of 48%.
***
Chevron, (CVX) ConocoPhillips (COP) and ExxonMobil (XOM) have [also] out-performed the average S&P 500 company, as have defense companies such as Lockheed Martin. (LMT)."

[Naples39]

I am anyone and was well aware, but I don't think saying Afghanistan's a hard place to succeed excuses the lack of ground troops, Tora Bora and the failure to capture bin Laden.

I too wish we would have done a better job at that point in the war on terror. I still don't quite understand why capturing Bin Laden dropped off our list of priorities so quickly. We went from almost having him to focusing on Iraq pretty quickly, and that I do not understand.

For me, this was Bush's major blunder. I was pretty appalled when I read "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward and how the Bush administration was asking General Franks to re-evaluate plans for invading Iraq when the war in Afghanistan had barely begun. All those member of congress who voted for the war without paying much attention the evidence share blame for the Iraq war, but when Bush thrust focus on Iraq completely unnecessarily in the early days of Afghanistan, it will be remembered as huge blunder I think.

I know many here have staked me for a conservative based on my views around this election, but I recall being devastated when Bush won re-election in 2004. I still patently reject the idea that Bush is an evil tyrant however, which is exactly what many of my friends and contemporaries insist.

[Brando70]

Then, of course, ...the g-spot [was] never found...

Yet I can never get my mind out of the gutter.

It's always been on serious step forward, two easy dick jokes steps back for me.

[Feanor]

For me, this was Bush's major blunder. I was pretty appalled when I read "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward and how the Bush administration was asking General Franks to re-evaluate plans for invading Iraq when the war in Afghanistan had barely begun. All those member of congress who voted for the war without paying much attention the evidence share blame for the Iraq war, but when Bush thrust focus on Iraq completely unnecessarily in the early days of Afghanistan, it will be remembered as huge blunder I think.

There is a possible silver lining to what happened in Afghanistan. If the US had actually captured, tried and executed bin Laden the matyrdom-factor might have led to more terror attacks in the US and other Western countries.

[fsquid]

For me, this was Bush's major blunder. I was pretty appalled when I read "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward and how the Bush administration was asking General Franks to re-evaluate plans for invading Iraq when the war in Afghanistan had barely begun. All those member of congress who voted for the war without paying much attention the evidence share blame for the Iraq war, but when Bush thrust focus on Iraq completely unnecessarily in the early days of Afghanistan, it will be remembered as huge blunder I think.

There is a possible silver lining to what happened in Afghanistan. If the US had actually captured, tried and executed bin Laden the matyrdom-factor might have led to more terror attacks in the US and other Western countries.

Not a silver lining, that is a p***y excuse.