Symptoms of the Bush-Obama Presidency, George W. Obama?

An examination of the continuities of the Bush-Obama Presidency, "a new yardstick for measuring the promises, the acts, and the nature of the Obama administration."

Quote:

---

Let us examine Obama, then, by the standard of his cabinet members, advisers, and favored influences, and group them by the answers to two questions: Whom has he wanted to stay on longest, in order to profit from their solidity and bask in their influence? Which of them has he discarded fastest or been most eager to shed his association with?
- read more -

---

Symptoms of the Bush-Obama Presidency
The Saved and the Sacked

These Bush/Obama comparison are laughable....they are nothing alike...

Dan is determined to be a true believer till the very end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

These Bush/Obama comparison are laughable....they are nothing alike...

---

Right. Both Bush and Obama believe in Bush's tax cuts, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, corporate welfare, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, massive defecits and a whole slew of other similarities, but Obama does it in an "it's okay because I'm on blue team" kind of way. Big difference there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Right. Both Bush and Obama believe in Bush's tax cuts, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, corporate welfare, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, massive defecits and a whole slew of other similarities, but Obama does it in an "it's okay because I'm on blue team" kind of way. Big difference there.

---

this. Obama = Bush Jr Jr

Obama = Reagan tbh.

But reagan never had the tea party congress to worry about

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

Obama = Reagan tbh.

But reagan never had the tea party congress to worry about

---

Yeah, because we all know the Tea Party has caused all the problems.:rolleyes

if not for them taxes would have been raised. just like under Reagan.

Did I just step into the Twilight Zone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Did I just step into the Twilight Zone?

---

no, you stepped in when you said baaaaachman would make gas under $2 a gallon.

tbh, it all started when Colin Powell commited career suicide that day he went in front of the UN with his powerpoint presentation :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

tbh, it all started when Colin Powell commited career suicide that day he went in front of the UN with his powerpoint presentation :lol

---

I remember that :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

if not for them taxes would have been raised. just like under Reagan.

---

The Dems could have raised taxes, raised the debt ceiling, or even passed a budget in 2010, when they contolled the White House, the Senate, and the house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

tbh, it all started when Colin Powell commited career suicide that day he went in front of the UN with his powerpoint presentation :lol

---

He should have put the Deathstar in his drawings of the mobile weapons labs tbh.

http://www.slideshare.net/colin_powe...o-disarm-80932


:lmao

Quote:

---

Both Bush and Obama believe in Bush's tax cuts

---

Buy into your own spin much?

No they don't...Obama wanted to let them expire but you don't raise taxes in the middle of the Bush recession..the worst this century...that would have been a disaster....so congress extended them...now with the new budget deal wing-nuts will have to come up with equal cuts in pet projects to protect their for extention of tax cuts for the rich,,,,yeah Obama did that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Yeah, because we all know the Tea Party has caused all the problems.:rolleyes

---

Thanks to standard and Poors, it's evident the tea party has made the budget problem and unemployment worse, and what has been saved? diddly

Lol @ evident.

Much of what dubya Repugs put in play simply cannot be stopped as of 21 Jan 2009.

And much of what Barry wanted to do has been terminally obstructed by Repugs + Dem Blue Dogs.

more fortuitously timed Bush/Obama tax cuts:

Quote:

---

As Congress returns from its Independence Day recess, President Obama on Monday will call for a one-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for Americans making less than $250,000 a year, the New York Times reports.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

The Dems could have raised taxes, raised the debt ceiling, or even passed a budget in 2010, when they contolled the White House, the Senate, and the house.

---

You Lie (aka, you're a right whiner)

Since Jan 2009, the Dems never had 60 Senators to overcome Repug fibilusters, which are threatened/bullied now on nearly every Dem Senate action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Since Jan 2009, the Dems never had 60 Senators to overcome Repug fibilusters, which are threatened/bullied now on nearly every Dem Senate action.

---

Lame excuse. You act like Obama & Co are the first ones in history to ever have to deal with the threat of a filibuster.

If you can't get 60, the filibuster is fatal.

Repugs threats of filibusters have been automatic, reflexive, not sporadic. And they actually filibuster excessively. The are ideological assholes, denying the non-Repugs the ability to govern

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Lame excuse. You act like Obama & Co are the first ones in history to ever have to deal with the threat of a filibuster.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

The Dems could have raised taxes, raised the debt ceiling, or even passed a budget in 2010, when they contolled the White House, the Senate, and the house.

---

:lmao

You're kidding, right?

With the extremely limited amount of time in which the dems held a razor thin filibuster proof majority (and even that was contingent on Blue Dog democrats who might switch their votes at any time), do you honestly believe that any of those initiatives would've passed both the house and senate?

With the stated goal of "making Obama a one-term president," it's been clear from the beginning that Republicans (and the blue dog democrats who occasionally cave in to the Republicans' whims) had no intention of allowing anything to pass, despite Obama's elected majorities and/or mandate to enact sweeping change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juggity

:lmao

You're kidding, right?

With the extremely limited amount of time in which the dems held a razor thin filibuster proof majority (and even that was contingent on Blue Dog democrats who might switch their votes at any time), do you honestly believe that any of those initiatives would've passed both the house and senate?

With the stated goal of "making Obama a one-term president," it's been clear from the beginning that Republicans (and the blue dog democrats who occasionally cave in to the Republicans' whims) had no intention of allowing anything to pass, despite Obama's elected majorities and/or mandate to enact sweeping change.

---

And yet they got Obamacare through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

And yet they got Obamacare through.

---

By watering it down to the 1990s Republican plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Lame excuse. You act like Obama & Co are the first ones in history to ever have to deal with the threat of a filibuster.

---

The Republican minority in congress from 2009-2010 whored the filibuster unlike any other congressional minority has.

Extending Bush's tax cuts though Obama has no excuse for. And Obama isn't extending them just for "the good of the economy," Obama is extending them because he has rich friends who benefit from the Bush tax cuts just like the rich friends Romney and Bush had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DUNCANownsKOBE

The Republican minority in congress from 2009-2010 whored the filibuster unlike any other congressional minority has.

---

Link?

Seems to me like it's more a case of Obama & Co liking Bush's policies, but not wanting to take the PR hit over it. Had Obama and the dems actually tried to pass legislation to get rid of things like the bush tax cuts, the patriot act, gitmo, and all the other Bush era policies they like to pretend to be against and the republicans fillibustered them all, then you might have a point. Instead, the dems did nothing and gave the excuse that the republicans would have filibustered. Pretty cowardish of them IMO.

I don't feel like linking a Huffpost or thinkprogress article that sites quantitative totals only for you to respond with "lol the source!"

The Democrats have undoubtedly contributed to how effective the Republican filibusters have been because Obama, Reid and Pelosi are all extremely weak leaders, but there is plenty of evidence out there that the Republicans planned to make a concerted effort to block as much as they could.

Obama would have a much better gripe about the Republicans blocking his plans if he actually took strong stances on issues and focused on the economy rather than try to make Obamacare the signature of his presidency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DUNCANownsKOBE

I don't feel like linking a Huffpost or thinkprogress article that sites quantitative totals only for you to respond with "lol the source!"

The Democrats have undoubtedly contributed to how effective the Republican filibusters have been because Obama, Reid and Pelosi are all extremely weak leaders, but there is plenty of evidence out there that the Republicans planned to make a concerted effort to block as much as they could.

Obama would have a much better gripe about the Republicans blocking his plans if he actually took strong stances on issues and focused on the economy rather than try to make Obamacare the signature of his presidency.

---

Huffpo is generally pretty good with their data. Thinkprogress rarely is.

Link away if you have anything approaching quality data/analysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DUNCANownsKOBE

I don't feel like linking a Huffpost or thinkprogress article that sites quantitative totals only for you to respond with "lol the source!"

---

If it's good info, I'll acknowledge it. In fact, I remember the republicans trying to filibuster damn near every Obama appointment, so I'll even backtrack and admit that it wouldn't surprise me at all if the republicans did use the filibuster more than any time in history. That still doesn't justify the inaction by the democrats though. That was still their best chance to undo all those Bush policies they claimed to be against and they did nothing.

Quote:

---

The Democrats have undoubtedly contributed to how effective the Republican filibusters have been because Obama, Reid and Pelosi are all extremely weak leaders, but there is plenty of evidence out there that the Republicans planned to make a concerted effort to block as much as they could.

---

When you don't even try to beat a filibuster you haven't contributed to that filibuster's success, you've guaranteed it.

Quote:

---

Obama would have a much better gripe about the Republicans blocking his plans if he actually took strong stances on issues and focused on the economy rather than try to make Obamacare the signature of his presidency.

---

Obama has to make Obamacare the signature of his presidency because everything else he's done has just been a continuation or an expansion of a Bush policy.

"When you don't even try to beat a filibuster"

If you KNOW you don't have 60, and you KNOW the Repugs are intimidated into rigid, dickless block voting (eg, vowing NEVER to raise taxes), then you're wasting your time.

The House Repugs KNOW they can't repeal ACA but they plan to have a vote on it anyway, because they LOVE wasting their time (self-fulfilling their ideology that "govt is the problem") vs. moving the country forward.

lol @ wasting time. As if efficiency was ever a metric congress was concerned with.:lol

The Myth of Republican Irrationality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich Lowry

President Barack Obama thinks Republicans are in the grips of a “fever.” Only if they can be coaxed back to rationality, through the calming effects of his reelection and perhaps some aromatherapy and a deep-tissue massage, will Washington ever work again.

By work, he means pass his priorities, of course. That is the operative definition, too, for all the liberal analysts rending their garments over the breakdown of our governing institutions. If only everyone could sit around a table and agree that President Obama is the personification of reasonableness, the country’s faith in government could be restored.

Instead, Republicans insist on the extreme tactic of . . . blocking the president’s agenda. Eminent Washington-based think-tankers Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein have devoted a book, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, to explicating the horrors of an opposition party opposing things. It’s a nightmare brought about by Republicans who are “dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” The duo writes this, unironically, at the end of a paragraph calling Republicans extreme and immune to facts and evidence. How very civil.

This whole line of argument from Obama on down is partisanship wrapped in a veneer of high-mindedness. The current crisis is that not enough bills are passing; if Mitt Romney is elected with a Republican Congress, the new crisis will be that too many bills are passing.

The scourges of Republican obstructionism must have missed 2009–2010, when the president basically worked his will, and it wasn’t exactly a tableau of good government. He signed a stimulus bill that even supporters admit was poorly crafted. He passed a health-care bill by buying off special-interest groups and abusing the legislative process; it remains unpopular, and a central provision may be ruled unconstitutional. He signed an enormous financial reform that is so complex, no one quite knows how or if it will work.

The resulting backlash was the product of the passage of the president’s big-ticket items at a time when Republicans lacked the power to obstruct. If President Obama didn’t want to be stymied by Republicans in Congress, he should have been more careful about stoking a wave election that brought 63 more of them to the House. None of them campaigned in 2010 on passing higher taxes to pay for the Obama spending binge, or on lending a bipartisan imprimatur to the status quo they were elected to change.

The case for their kamikaze impulsiveness always comes back to last year’s debt-limit showdown. Republicans wanted the debt-limit increase coupled with significant spending cuts; the president, initially, wanted it coupled with no spending cuts at all. In a country with a $15 trillion debt, which of those positions is more outlandish? In the end, the Republicans settled for a dog’s breakfast of a debt deal that satisfied no one — i.e., made a pragmatic choice that acknowledged their limited power in a divided government.

It was one of a number of compromises during the past year. “Tax Cut Extension Passes; Everyone Claims a Win,” read the New York Times headline last February when Congress passed an extension of the payroll-tax and unemployment benefits. In the summer of 2011, the president went barnstorming and demanded that Congress pass measures — including free-trade deals, patent reform, and tax credits for veterans — he said were essential to the economy. Congress obliged on almost every count.

The deadlock on the more consequential matters is a function of the conflict of visions. The mindlessly obstructionist, heedlessly irresponsible Republicans in the House have written their vision into a comprehensive budget and passed it twice, knowing full well that Senate Democrats would reflexively say “no.” The budget embodies a partywide consensus on an affirmative agenda that will quickly be taken up should Romney win the White House, to the howls of almost everyone now complaining that nothing gets done in Washington.

By that time, partisan obstruction will no longer be an offense against good government, but the highest duty of all patriotic lawmakers.

---

"partisan obstruction will no longer be an offense against good government, but the highest duty of all patriotic lawmakers"

QED: Repugs are fucking insane, 100% ill will towards the 99%, while wrapping themselves dishonestly in the "patriotic" flag (implying their opposition is both traitorous and illegitimate,to be eliminated).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"partisan obstruction will no longer be an offense against good government, but the highest duty of all patriotic lawmakers"

QED: Repugs are fucking insane, 100% ill will towards the 99%, while wrapping themselves dishonestly in the "patriotic" flag (implying their opposition is both traitorous and illegitimate,to be eliminated).

---

You didn't really get the last sentence, did you? He was saying 'partisan obstruction' will be the highest duty of patriotic lawmakers when those lawmakers are on team blue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"When you don't even try to beat a filibuster"

If you KNOW you don't have 60, and you KNOW the Repugs are intimidated into rigid, dickless block voting (eg, vowing NEVER to raise taxes), then you're wasting your time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Lame excuse. You act like Obama & Co are the first ones in history to ever have to deal with the threat of a filibuster.

---

filibusters succeed, that's why they are used.

how do you "deal with" less than 60 Senators voting with your side?

Once a bureaucracy and precedents are established (DHS, 2 wars, Patriot Act, etc under dubya and dickhead and ACA under Barry) and $100Bs are committed, it's effectively impossible to kill them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

filibusters succeed, that's why they are used.

how do you "deal with" less than 60 Senators voting with your side?

---

Perhaps the first step would be to resolve to actually try rather than fold like a cheap lawn chair?

if you don't have 60, you don't have 60.

The Repugs think any compromise with a illegitimate Dems is not manly. Repugs don't compromise, they VOW not to, they only obstruct.

Ok. So your answer is: It's so hard we shouldn't even try.

Got it.

no, it's impossible, so why waste time?

the House Repugs will repeal the ACA soon to throw red-meat to their extreme right wing rabid dogs, but Reid already said repeal ACA is dead in the Senate because the Repugs dont' have 60.

Arithmetic isn't your strong point, is it?

lol @ impossible. Reason isn't your strong point, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Right. Both Bush and Obama believe in Bush's tax cuts, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, corporate welfare, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, massive defecits and a whole slew of other similarities, but Obama does it in an "it's okay because I'm on blue team" kind of way. Big difference there.

---

And on the flip side there are the "Obama is a socialist" crowd, who think we should add Bush to Mount Rushmore.

Only Blue Teamers and Red Teamers are incapable of seeing the similarities between these two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

lol @ impossible. Reason isn't your strong point, is it?

---

To boutobot's credit here, he actually does make a good point. Both sides are so hell-bent on never compromising that there is nothing to try for.

Marco Rubio, all other opinions of him withstanding, went on the Daily Show a few weeks ago and was (begrudgingly) willing to accept that his party is (at least partially) responsible for the deadlock. The modern idea of compromise is "the other side does what we want." Some of the New School make no bones about it, and even go so far as to say it publicly and are winning support BASED on that idea! It was Mourdock's entire theme in ousting Sen. Lugar.

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T_tvlCtYuPQ

This is all the spiraling bitterness from Ken Starr and the Bush v. Gore decision. Both sides have made it their #1 priority to beat the other side, not to do what's best for our country.

[Insert boutons telling us it's only the Republican's doing it here]

(PS: I think the Blame Game goes 70:30 Red Team:Blue Team right now)

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, both parties have followed Gingrich's playbook ever since. According to UCLA political scientist Barbara Sinclair, about 8 percent of major bills faced a filibuster in the 1960s. This decade, that jumped to 70 percent. The problem with the minority party continually making the majority party fail, of course, is that it means neither party can ever successfully govern the country.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122301319.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

This is all the spiraling bitterness from Ken Starr and the Bush v. Gore decision. Both sides have made it their #1 priority to beat the other side, not to do what's best for our country.

[Insert boutons telling us it's only the Republican's doing it here]

(PS: I think the Blame Game goes 70:30 Red Team:Blue Team right now)

---

Where did I say it's only the Dems?

But since Pappy Shrub/Atwater, then Gingrich, then the Repugs suckering the "Christians", then Fox Repug Propaganda network and the entire right-wing hate media empire, ALL ALL ALL the Repugs have been polarizing and dividing and moving to the extreme right for 25+ years.

There has been no such extreme leftward movement from the Dems.

Reagan and Eisenhauer wouldn't have chance of holding power in today's Repug block-voting, vow-taking hate circus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

These Bush/Obama comparison are laughable....they are nothing alike...

---

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

To boutobot's credit here, he actually does make a good point. Both sides are so hell-bent on never compromising that there is nothing to try for.

Marco Rubio, all other opinions of him withstanding, went on the Daily Show a few weeks ago and was (begrudgingly) willing to accept that his party is (at least partially) responsible for the deadlock. The modern idea of compromise is "the other side does what we want." Some of the New School make no bones about it, and even go so far as to say it publicly and are winning support BASED on that idea! It was Mourdock's entire theme in ousting Sen. Lugar.

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T_tvlCtYuPQ

This is all the spiraling bitterness from Ken Starr and the Bush v. Gore decision. Both sides have made it their #1 priority to beat the other side, not to do what's best for our country.

[Insert boutons telling us it's only the Republican's doing it here]

(PS: I think the Blame Game goes 70:30 Red Team:Blue Team right now)

---

Nothing ever changes without some kind of force/pressure/change agent brought to bear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

filibusters succeed, that's why they are used.

how do you "deal with" less than 60 Senators voting with your side?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Lame excuse. You act like Obama & Co are the first ones in history to ever have to deal with the threat of a filibuster.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Once a bureaucracy and precedents are established (DHS, 2 wars, Patriot Act, etc under dubya and dickhead and ACA under Barry) and $100Bs are committed, it's effectively impossible to kill them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

And yet they got Obamacare through.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

And on the flip side there are the "Obama is a socialist" crowd, who think we should add Bush to Mount Rushmore.

Only Blue Teamers and Red Teamers are incapable of seeing the similarities between these two.

---

Agreed. democrats = republicans; bush = obama

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Link?

---

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/pol..._and033982.php

Consider this tidbit: cloture was invoked 63 times in 2009 and 2010, which isn’t just the most ever, it’s more than the sum total of instances from 1919 through 1982. That’s not a typo.

Just posting a link... there's an actual chart to Congress' numbers in the article... other than that, I fully agree Barry = Bush Jr Jr

What Jr did better than Barry to pressure Congress was do more pressers... I recall him many times going out there and giving a speech on TV saying "I'm sending this bill to Congress <blah, blah, blah>"... with the increasing amount of 24 hrs news outlets begging to get a new story, there's no way you don't get coverage from a presidential presser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

To boutobot's credit here, he actually does make a good point. Both sides are so hell-bent on never compromising that there is nothing to try for.

---

Really? When it comes to pieces of the Bush agenda that needed deliberate congressional/presidential action to continue, not only was that compromise apparently worth trying for, it sure seems to have always been found successfully. Bush tax cuts, continuation of the patriot act powers and expansion of warrantless wiretapping being three prime examples. Frankly, continuing the Bush agenda appears to be the only thing that both parties can agree on.

Quote:

---

Marco Rubio, all other opinions of him withstanding, went on the Daily Show a few weeks ago and was (begrudgingly) willing to accept that his party is (at least partially) responsible for the deadlock. The modern idea of compromise is "the other side does what we want." Some of the New School make no bones about it, and even go so far as to say it publicly and are winning support BASED on that idea! It was Mourdock's entire theme in ousting Sen. Lugar.

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T_tvlCtYuPQ

This is all the spiraling bitterness from Ken Starr and the Bush v. Gore decision. Both sides have made it their #1 priority to beat the other side, not to do what's best for our country.

[Insert boutons telling us it's only the Republican's doing it here]

(PS: I think the Blame Game goes 70:30 Red Team:Blue Team right now)

---

I don't think it's as much bitterness from Starr & Bush/Gore as it is the fact that the two parties have become homogenized. They're both for the same things yet need to distinguish themselves from the other. All they can do to accomplish that is cling to a handful of social wedge issues and demonize the other.

The Democrats biggest mistake during the past few years was not changing the filibuster rule after it became clear that Republicans were going to abuse it. I believe the rule could have been changed with a simply majority vote, which they had. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if the Republicans gain control of the Senate in this next election, they will quickly make the change to prevent Democrats from doing to Romney what Republicans did to Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Really? When it comes to pieces of the Bush agenda that needed deliberate congressional/presidential action to continue, not only was that compromise apparently worth trying for, it sure seems to have always been found successfully. Bush tax cuts, continuation of the patriot act powers and expansion of warrantless wiretapping being three prime examples. Frankly, continuing the Bush agenda appears to be the only thing that both parties can agree on.

---

Because this country has turned debate into catchphrases/buzzwords... "soft on terror!", "death panels!", "tax the millionaires!"... and politicians have bought into all of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/pol..._and033982.php

Consider this tidbit: cloture was invoked 63 times in 2009 and 2010, which isn’t just the most ever, it’s more than the sum total of instances from 1919 through 1982. That’s not a typo.

---

Good info. :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Because this country has turned debate into catchphrases/buzzwords... "soft on terror!", "death panels!", "tax the millionaires!"... and politicians have bought into all of it.

---

Yep. Catering to the short attention spans of the population.

Speaking of catchphrases & buzzwords, I live in one of the new redistricted congressional districts here in the state. The district I am in was drawn to be republican. Needless to say, whoever won the republican primary this year for that seat basically gets a sweet congressional gig for life. I believe there were 8 (edit: I looked it up, there were 12!) republicans vying for the nomination. Thanks to a decision I made in 2008 to vote in the republican primary so that I could vote for Ron Paul, I'm now on "the list" as someone who might actually give enough of a shit to vote in a primary. Literally I would get at least two mailers a day. Didn't matter which candidate sent them, they all read the same. Same catchphrases, same buzzwords, every one of them wanting to save me from Barack Obama's socialist policies. :lol Oh it was annoying as fuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Yep. Catering to the short attention spans of the population.

Speaking of catchphrases & buzzwords, I live in one of the new redistricted congressional districts here in the state. The district I am in was drawn to be republican. Needless to say, whoever won the republican primary this year for that seat basically gets a sweet congressional gig for life. I believe there were 8 (edit: I looked it up, there were 12!) republicans vying for the nomination. Thanks to a decision I made in 2008 to vote in the republican primary so that I could vote for Ron Paul, I'm now on "the list" as someone who might actually give enough of a shit to vote in a primary. Literally I would get at least two mailers a day. Didn't matter which candidate sent them, they all read the same. Same catchphrases, same buzzwords, every one of them wanting to save me from Barack Obama's socialist policies. :lol Oh it was annoying as fuck.

---

It gets worse... nowadays things like presidential debates end up rated on "how did he do" and "what did he say" vs the actual ideas or proposals. Did he say the right buzzwords and catchphrases that pleases the sector of the population he's vying for? Pathetic stuff, tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

It gets worse... nowadays things like presidential debates end up rated on "how did he do" and "what did he say" vs the actual ideas or proposals. Did he say the right buzzwords and catchphrases that pleases the sector of the population he's vying for? Pathetic stuff, tbh.

---

Nowadays? It has been like that for a long time. I remember Perot shredding both Bush and Clinton on NAFTA during a debate but all anyone could talk about was his big ears. I remember Bradley just curbstomping Gore in the ABC Nightline debates in the primary season leading up to the 2000 election, but Gore had that huge smile, good hair, and soothing voice complete with useless storytelling and won the nomination going away. The 2000 election just made me completely give up faith in this nation ever being any good again, and this one is even worse.

http://graphicdesignhero.com/blog/wp...ush4thterm.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Nowadays? It has been like that for a long time. I remember Perot shredding both Bush and Clinton on NAFTA during a debate but all anyone could talk about was his big ears. I remember Bradley just curbstomping Gore in the ABC Nightline debates in the primary season leading up to the 2000 election, but Gore had that huge smile, good hair, and soothing voice complete with useless storytelling and won the nomination going away. The 2000 election just made me completely give up faith in this nation ever being any good again, and this one is even worse.

---

Sorry, time flies :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

http://graphicdesignhero.com/blog/wp...ush4thterm.jpg

---

As if Romney's any different

Romney is no better than Obama. Obama and Romney are basically the same person.

http://streetcents.net/blog/wp-conte...-prez-2012.jpg

Obama and Romney the same....Tell that to the one million Iranians who are still alive today because Obama beat crazyman McCain in 2008

Obama and Romney both support Gitmo, the so-called war on a tactic/crime, the Patriot Act, and the NDAA. Yep, Obama and Romney are nothing alike. :rolleyes :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Right. Both Bush and Obama believe in Bush's tax cuts, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, corporate welfare, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, massive defecits and a whole slew of other similarities, but Obama does it in an "it's okay because I'm on blue team" kind of way. Big difference there.

---

don't forget open borders

Quote:

---

Obama and Romney both support Gitmo

---

no they don't...I'm not sure of Romney's position on GITMO....I would suppose he if for the GOP plan of keeping it open indefinitely...Obama is for closing GITMO...he is for closing GITMO except that he can't return most of the prisoners who are left to their own countries, he can't send them to a third country and he can't bring them to jails in the US mainland...so what can Obama do to the prisoners still in GITMO?

...besides, GITMO is no longer the 24-7 'frat party' it was under Bush/Cheney...the underlying point in your own post acknowledges that their was likely abuse of prisoners at GITMO...that in itself is progress I guess...

Quote:

---

the Patriot Act

---

Obama is for repealing most parts of the Patriot act, except that the nation is not ready to repeal the patriot act..when people quit overreacting to the propaganda that voting for the repeal of the patriot act is a vote against the sovereignty and security of the U.S....you'll see the Patriot Act repealed...not that it matters because the GOP seems hell bent to look the other way when it comes to investigating National Security matters...

Quote:

---

and the NDAA

---

You mean the same NDAA the veto-proof GOP-controlled Congress voted for?
The one which Obama issued a specific executive order saying he did not want this nor will he use it?

That NDAA?

Quote:

---

Yep, Obama and Romney are nothing alike

---

You said it..just ask the millions of Syrians and Iranians who are still alive today..

Nbadan, Syria and Iran are the tie breaker for me. Obama being more diplomatic with the middle east than Romney is are why I'm probably voting for him. If not for that issue, I'd be truly indifferent. Point being, foreign policy is the exception with two candidates who are pretty similar in countless other ways.

Quote:

---

Nbadan, Syria and Iran are the tie breaker for me

---

Unfortunately, for most people, Syria and Iran will fall way down the list of Economic and abortion rights concerns..the GOP has to keep playing the economy-is-struggling because unemployment is at 8.2%, a rate which many nations envy, meme...it's what they've banked the 2012 election on...

If I actually thought Romney would handle the economy in a much better way than Obama does, I'd vote for him.

However, anyone who thinks Romney will be any better for the economy than Obama is a moron :lol

Then in your eyes, I am a moron.

At least I'm not a Moore-on!

Then in your eyes, I am a moron.

At least I'm not a Moore-on!

Obama supports closing Gitmo? You fuckin serious? Last time I checked, that funhouse that holds terrorists/terror suspects is still open and running.

Why can't Obama lovers and supporters admit that he is very similar to Bush and Romney? Is it about pride and arrogance?

What they all refuse to understand is there are things in place already that cannot be changed without congress first voting to change it.

I made a prediction someplace here in this forum before Obama was elected, that if elected, that when he was briefed in the secret meetings, that he wouldn't put an end to the war. My God.... I never thought he would expand it!

Let's see...he signed an executive order to close GITMO

Quote:

---

During a signing ceremony at the White House, Obama reaffirmed his inauguration pledge that the United States does not have "to continue with a false choice between our safety and our ideals."

The president said he was issuing the order to close the facility in order to "restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism."

A second executive order formally bans torture by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations. That essentially ends the Bush administration's CIA program of enhanced interrogation methods.

---

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/...der/index.html

News reports are that Obama still wants to close GITMO

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON — The White House insisted on Monday that President Barack Obama was determined to close Guantanamo Bay, despite failing to do so by the war on terror camp's 10th anniversary this week.

Obama declared within a few hours of taking office in January 2009 that he would shutter the camp within a year, saying it was used as a recruiting tool for terrorists, and detrimental to US national security.

But in the face of deep opposition in Congress to moving inmates to the US mainland and over the idea of holding civil trials for key Al-Qaeda suspects, Obama has failed to live up to his vow.

"The commitment that the president has to closing Guantanamo Bay is as firm today as it was during the (2008) campaign," said White House spokesman Jay Carney.

---

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...nH1UxCKNKo62YN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Let's see...he signed an executive order to close GITMO





http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/...der/index.html

---

Wow.

I didn't know Gitmo closed. When did that happen?

The fact of the matter is Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo within a year on January 22, 2009. Congress voted 90-6 against providing funds in order to close it. Many Americans wanted and still want Gitmo closed but don't want the Prisoners in their "backyards". The matter is where to move them, and in order to move them, Congress needs to provide the funding in order to do so. While this is a campaign promise broken, Obama didn't break it. Congress did. He still reiterates wanting to close it. The executive order is there, but no funding to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

The fact of the matter is Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo within a year on January 22, 2009. Congress voted 90-6 against providing funds in order to close it. Many Americans wanted and still want Gitmo closed but don't want the Prisoners in their "backyards". The matter is where to move them, and in order to move them, Congress needs to provide the funding in order to do so. While this is a campaign promise broken, Obama didn't break it. Congress did. He still reiterates wanting to close it. The executive order is there, but no funding to do it.

---

So his actions were worthless.

rather ineffective president, isn't he?

And it had less to do with funding, but there were more serious concerns that didn't allow it to close.

Quote:

---

And it had less to do with funding, but there were more serious concerns that didn't allow it to close

---

Yeah, like politics

Quote:

---

rather ineffective president, isn't he?

---

Or...perhaps Obama doesn't believe that one branch of government should act omnipotent to other branches of government....

Until Gitmo is closed, Obama is like Bush on the issue. Case closed.


I mean seriously, why can't Obama lovers and supporters state the obvious truth? Their guy is a fraud and a joke just like evil dummy Bush. No better, no worse, Just the same fuckin' guy.

Quote:

---

Until Gitmo is closed, Obama is like Bush on the issue. Case closed.

---

You are a blind partisan...case closed.

If I'm partisan, then why do I say that Obama and Bush are the same and similar? Liberals think Obama is Jesus Christ while neo-cons think that Obama is the fuckin' anti-Christ.

And please don't attempt to call me a Bush supporter. If I was a Bush supporter then why would I think that it's highly possible that Bush may have had information about the 9/11 attacks before they happened? Thank you.