I thought you never used the word "hate"...I see you only use forms of the word "hate"...
hip hip hypocrite...
I knew you were going to come back with that when I wrote. I guess I should have said I HARDLY ever use the word.....because yes....I HATE SADAM. So now i'm a hypocrite??? UUUUUGGGHHHH, The Insanity can drive me crazy sometimes...I hate it! Saying I hate somebody pretty much means if they were dying I wouldn't give a shit....there are very few people on the planet that I hate, Obama is not one of them.
I gueess i'm the one on the stand here taking all the questions and not asking any, and if I don't answer these questions with enough Bush bashing then I have failed. Where did I skirt the subject...I don't see it. I think it just looks like I skirted the subject(to you)because I didn't bash Bush enough to your liking even though I gave you a very open an honest answer. I don't believe Obama threw water on the fire but fuel. Some people choose to see that and some people don't.
Krauthammer defined Bush Derangement Syndrome as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush".[1][2] While Krauthammer's column was somewhat tongue-in-cheek (eg., "What is worrying epidemiologists about the Dean incident, however, is that heretofore no case had been reported in Vermont, or any other dairy state"), the term indicates a belief that some extreme criticisms of President Bush are of emotional origins rather than based on facts or logic. The term has occasionally been adopted by other writers in the political arena.[3][4][5]
...
You are being asked to clarify a previously made statement that resulted in confusing, mixed messages.
You ARE skirting the main subject by continually trying to make this a Bush vs. Obama thing. No one is asking you to 'Bash Bush'. We just would like you to clarify the logic you employ that lets former President Bush off the hook, regarding the decisions he made between 2001 and 2008 that have lead to the current situations we face in 2009 and beyond. You don't need to step up to your martyr pedestal, donning your persecuted hat. We are just trying to figure out how you reconcile these opposing messages you spew.
And whether or not you believe President Obama is throwing water or gasoline onto the fire.... you completely fail to acknowledge that former President Bush started the fire. I am saving my judgement on the water or gasoline thing until i have gotten clearer, more defined data.
...
As for your 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' catch phrase... the greatest flaw I see in it is the blatant misperception that people hate Bush... just because. No... we hated the DECISIONS and ACTION made by the Bush Administration that have lead our nation to the prediciment we see today. If it were President Al Gore... we would be saying the same things.... and you would be defending Al Gore by telling us we have 'Gore Derangement Syndrome'... right?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
I gueess i'm the one on the stand here taking all the questions and not asking any, and if I don't answer these questions with enough Bush bashing then I have failed. Where did I skirt the subject...I don't see it. I think it just looks like I skirted the subject(to you)because I didn't bash Bush enough to your liking even though I gave you a very open an honest answer. I don't believe Obama threw water on the fire but fuel. Some people choose to see that and some people don't.
Krauthammer defined Bush Derangement Syndrome as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush".[1][2] While Krauthammer's column was somewhat tongue-in-cheek (eg., "What is worrying epidemiologists about the Dean incident, however, is that heretofore no case had been reported in Vermont, or any other dairy state"), the term indicates a belief that some extreme criticisms of President Bush are of emotional origins rather than based on facts or logic. The term has occasionally been adopted by other writers in the political arena.[3][4][5]
...
You are being asked to clarify a previously made statement that resulted in confusing, mixed messages.
You ARE skirting the main subject by continually trying to make this a Bush vs. Obama thing. No one is asking you to 'Bash Bush'. We just would like you to clarify the logic you employ that lets former President Bush off the hook, regarding the decisions he made between 2001 and 2008 that have lead to the current situations we face in 2009 and beyond. You don't need to step up to your martyr pedestal, donning your persecuted hat. We are just trying to figure out how you reconcile these opposing messages you spew.
And whether or not you believe President Obama is throwing water or gasoline onto the fire.... you completely fail to acknowledge that former President Bush started the fire. I am saving my judgement on the water or gasoline thing until i have gotten clearer, more defined data.
...
As for your 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' catch phrase... the greatest flaw I see in it is the blatant misperception that people hate Bush... just
The reason why he's disliked by me is his decisions, actions and arrogance which has led to the predicament this country now faces and has to deal with. Nothing more.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
...The reason why he's disliked by me is his decisions, actions and arrogance which has led to the predicament this country now faces and has to deal with. Nothing more.
Peace
...
Exactly. Why can't Krauthammer (and McCarthy, Malkin, Hannity or MB262200) see this? If it were a President Gore.. or hell, a President Vedder that made the same decisions... undertook the same actions and displayed the same arrogance... we would STILL be saying the same things.
Would the Krauthammer/MB262200 crowd have come up with the same defense of those decisions, actions and arrogance? Probably.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
LET'S BE FAIR...
There are and were pleanty of democrats that were right there with Bush and let's not forget who has had control of the house ansd senate for the last 4 yrs.
LET'S BE FAIR...
There are and were pleanty of democrats that were right there with Bush and let's not forget who has had control of the house ansd senate for the last 4 yrs.
...
I agree. But this is NOT a Democrats vs. Republican thing... it is placing responsibility and accountability for the decisions.
...
And as a side note... which doesn't really matter in this discussion... but, who held the House and senate from 1994 to 2006? Here's a hint... they made a 'Contract With America' and promised us that they'd clean house.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I gueess i'm the one on the stand here taking all the questions and not asking any, and if I don't answer these questions with enough Bush bashing then I have failed. Where did I skirt the subject...I don't see it. I think it just looks like I skirted the subject(to you)because I didn't bash Bush enough to your liking even though I gave you a very open an honest answer. I don't believe Obama threw water on the fire but fuel. Some people choose to see that and some people don't.
Krauthammer defined Bush Derangement Syndrome as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush".[1][2] While Krauthammer's column was somewhat tongue-in-cheek (eg., "What is worrying epidemiologists about the Dean incident, however, is that heretofore no case had been reported in Vermont, or any other dairy state"), the term indicates a belief that some extreme criticisms of President Bush are of emotional origins rather than based on facts or logic. The term has occasionally been adopted by other writers in the political arena.[3][4][5]
...
You are being asked to clarify a previously made statement that resulted in confusing, mixed messages.
You ARE skirting the main subject by continually trying to make this a Bush vs. Obama thing. No one is asking you to 'Bash Bush'. We just would like you to clarify the logic you employ that lets former President Bush off the hook, regarding the decisions he made between 2001 and 2008 that have lead to the current situations we face in 2009 and beyond. You don't need to step up to your martyr pedestal, donning your persecuted hat. We are just trying to figure out how you reconcile these opposing messages you spew.
And whether or not you believe President Obama is throwing water or gasoline onto the fire.... you completely fail to acknowledge that former President Bush started the fire. I am saving my judgement on the water or gasoline thing until i have gotten clearer, more defined data.
...
As for your 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' catch phrase... the greatest flaw I see in it is the blatant misperception that people hate Bush... just
The reason why he's disliked by me is his decisions, actions and arrogance which has led to the predicament this country now faces and has to deal with. Nothing more.
Peace
You asked a question and I anwered them, wither you accept or acknowledge the answers are completely up to you. But please stop accusing me of skirting the issues, I clearly answered what you asked.
Clinton Derangement Syndrome [is] "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of Bill Clinton".[1][2] ....the term indicates a belief that some extreme criticisms of President Clinton are of emotional origins rather than based on facts or logic. The term has occasionally been adopted by other writers in the political arena.[3][4][5]
Fixed.
Seriously, I found the whole "Bush Derangement Syndrome" a classic example of Republican projection - they find fault in others what they do themselves.
Didn't we hear chorus after chorus of "Clinton did it too!" for years?
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
...The reason why he's disliked by me is his decisions, actions and arrogance which has led to the predicament this country now faces and has to deal with. Nothing more.
Peace
...
Exactly. Why can't Krauthammer (and McCarthy, Malkin, Hannity or MB262200) see this? If it were a President Gore.. or hell, a President Vedder that made the same decisions... undertook the same actions and displayed the same arrogance... we would STILL be saying the same things.
Would the Krauthammer/MB262200 crowd have come up with the same defense of those decisions, actions and arrogance? Probably.
Where have I gave any notion that I can not see this? I have made it very clear that I believe Bush is responsible for some things.
Clinton Derangement Syndrome [is] "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of Bill Clinton".[1][2] ....the term indicates a belief that some extreme criticisms of President Clinton are of emotional origins rather than based on facts or logic. The term has occasionally been adopted by other writers in the political arena.[3][4][5]
Fixed.
Seriously, I found the whole "Bush Derangement Syndrome" a classic example of Republican projection - they find fault in others what they do themselves.
Didn't we hear chorus after chorus of "Clinton did it too!" for years?
I don't recall Bush stepping up to the podium time after time clarifying that he is trying to clean up someone elses mess. Seems childish and immature to me for an American Leader.
You asked a question and I anwered them, wither you accept or acknowledge the answers are completely up to you. But please stop accusing me of skirting the issues, I clearly answered what you asked.
...
So, here's what you are saying... you DO believe a person should be held responsible for consequences of the decisions they make and the actions they take.
But... you don't think former President Bush should be held responsible for any of the consequences that exists today, that are a direct result of his past decisions and actions.
How is this NOT contradictary? Do you see the confusion in this line of thought?
...
And how are you skirting it? By continually trying to bring President Obama into this equation.
The question is... how can you claim support of personal responsibility... and let President Bush have a 'Get Out Of Responsibility, Free' card?
If you have already answered this... please... direct me to it, because i can't find it.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I don't recall Bush stepping up to the podium time after time clarifying that he is trying to clean up someone elses mess. Seems childish and immature to me for an American Leader.
What was there to clean up? He entered office with a $700 million projected budget surplus, a booming economy (one perfectly tailored to his corporatist allies), a peace accord completed in Ireland and one looming in the Middle East, and an overall time of prosperity. Barack Obama inherited the opposite, a complete disaster.
Unless, of course, you're referring to a certain stained blue dress that the Republicans spent millions of taxpayer dollars on to impeach the Clenis.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
I gueess i'm the one on the stand here taking all the questions and not asking any, and if I don't answer these questions with enough Bush bashing then I have failed. Where did I skirt the subject...I don't see it. I think it just looks like I skirted the subject(to you)because I didn't bash Bush enough to your liking even though I gave you a very open an honest answer. I don't believe Obama threw water on the fire but fuel. Some people choose to see that and some people don't..
...
Poor, poor persecuted you... having to answer all of these questions from some sort of stand... like you are being held in court. No one is judging you... we just want you to clarify your statements... that's all.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
You asked a question and I anwered them, wither you accept or acknowledge the answers are completely up to you. But please stop accusing me of skirting the issues, I clearly answered what you asked.
...
So, here's what you are saying... you DO believe a person should be held responsible for consequences of the decisions they make and the actions they take.
But... you don't think former President Bush should be held responsible for any of the consequences that exists today, that are a direct result of his past decisions and actions.
How is this NOT contradictary? Do you see the confusion in this line of thought?
...
And how are you skirting it? By continually trying to bring President Obama into this equation.
The question is... how can you claim support of personal responsibility... and let President Bush have a 'Get Out Of Responsibility, Free' card?
If you have already answered this... please... direct me to it, because i can't find it.
You want to hold him responsible the go ahead and hold him responsible if it makes you feel better....sure as hell ain't going to fix anything though. So while Obama keeps spending billions of dollars that do nothing we'll just keep blaming Bush...who is giving who the free pass...the pendilum swings both ways. Seems like you're just trying to get me to sit here and say how bad Bush was. Certain things I liked about Bush and certain things I didn't like.....sorry to upset you.
I gueess i'm the one on the stand here taking all the questions and not asking any, and if I don't answer these questions with enough Bush bashing then I have failed. Where did I skirt the subject...I don't see it. I think it just looks like I skirted the subject(to you)because I didn't bash Bush enough to your liking even though I gave you a very open an honest answer. I don't believe Obama threw water on the fire but fuel. Some people choose to see that and some people don't..
...
Poor, poor persecuted you... having to answer all of these questions from some sort of stand... like you are being held in court. No one is judging you... we just want you to clarify your statements... that's all.
You want to hold him responsible the go ahead and hold him responsible if it makes you feel better....sure as hell ain't going to fix anything though. So while Obama keeps spending billions of dollars that do nothing we'll just keep blaming Bush...who is giving who the free pass...the pendilum swings both ways. Seems like you're just trying to get me to sit here and say how bad Bush was. Certain things I liked about Bush and certain things I didn't like.....sorry to upset you.
...
There it is... again! Dragging President obama into the Bush equation.... it does not equate.
Using this logic:
"You want to hold him responsible the go ahead and hold him responsible if it makes you feel better....sure as hell ain't going to fix anything though."
If I went into your house and took a big shit in the middle of the floor... and your wife accidentially stepped in it and complained about shit on her foot... you would say, "That shit ain't going back where it came from... deal with it, Bitch". And i would be free of all responsibility.
Cool.
...
And, just for the record... I never said I'm giving President Obama a free pass. I have said that I will hold him responsible for his actions and the consequences he paases on t the next President.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
You want to hold him responsible the go ahead and hold him responsible if it makes you feel better....sure as hell ain't going to fix anything though. So while Obama keeps spending billions of dollars that do nothing we'll just keep blaming Bush...who is giving who the free pass...the pendilum swings both ways. Seems like you're just trying to get me to sit here and say how bad Bush was. Certain things I liked about Bush and certain things I didn't like.....sorry to upset you.
...
There it is... again! Dragging President obama into the Bush equation.... it does not equate.
Using this logic:
"You want to hold him responsible the go ahead and hold him responsible if it makes you feel better....sure as hell ain't going to fix anything though."
If I went into your house and took a big shit in the middle of the floor... and your wife accidentially stepped in it and complained about shit on her foot... you would say, "That shit ain't going back where it came from... deal with it, Bitch". And i would be free of all responsibility.
Cool.
...
And, just for the record... I never said I'm giving President Obama a free pass. I have said that I will hold him responsible for his actions and the consequences he paases on t the next President.
Well first of all, you hold Bush responsible for not"intervening", so in your world I would hold my wife responsible for not stopping you.
You avoided multiple questions of mine. Either because you have no answer or because you are afraid of my belittling your answers.
So I pose this question to you or anyone who could possibly support the war in Iraq for the reasons you described earlier. If it was so imperitive to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam because he was cruel and may or may not had WMD's, why then is it not also imperitive to invade North korea or China? :?: :?: Both are just as bad as Iraq(if not worse) and both actually have WMD's.
Plaese enlighten me. I'd like to know why it was worth the trillions and trillions of dollars and counless lives to remove Saddam when there are far worse dictators throughout the world??
When you are done with that question you can start telling me why insurance companies are such a wonderfull thing to have. And all the great things they do for the health care industry in the United States???
Or you can just keep skirting the questions because you are persicuted or you hate me...sorry, dislike me. :roll:
Well first of all, you hold Bush responsible for not"intervening", so in your world I would hold my wife responsible for not stopping you.
...
What the fuck???
In the example... I am Bush... taking a shit in your house. Your wife are the people complaining about me... taking a shit and leaving it with her to deal with. You... are YOU... who thinks I should not be held responsible for the shit I left and that you stupid wife just needs to deal with the shit on her feet.
Do you even know how logic works?
...
Oh... and... answer, please. Where is the re-post or the repeat of the answer you claim to have given me?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
You avoided multiple questions of mine. Either because you have no answer or because you are afraid of my belittling your answers.
So I pose this question to you or anyone who could possibly support the war in Iraq for the reasons you described earlier. If it was so imperitive to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam because he was cruel and may or may not had WMD's, why then is it not also imperitive to invade North korea or China? :?: :?: Both are just as bad as Iraq(if not worse) and both actually have WMD's.
Plaese enlighten me. I'd like to know why it was worth the trillions and trillions of dollars and counless lives to remove Saddam when there are far worse dictators throughout the world??
When you are done with that question you can start telling me why insurance companies are such a wonderfull thing to have. And all the great things they do for the health care industry in the United States???
Or you can just keep skirting the questions because you are persicuted or you hate me...sorry, dislike me. :roll:
I wasn't skirting your questions...I was simply ignoring you, the first time you ever commented on one of my posts you call me a racist....you judge me too quick so I left it at that. Maybe Kim Jung does deserve some extreme attention someday but the fact that you think there are worst dictators then Sadam is very inacurate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYlhHxl66cQ
I thought you never used the word "hate"...I see you only use forms of the word "hate"...
hip hip hypocrite...
I knew you were going to come back with that when I wrote. I guess I should have said I HARDLY ever use the word.....because yes....I HATE SADAM. So now i'm a hypocrite??? UUUUUGGGHHHH, The Insanity can drive me crazy sometimes...I hate it! Saying I hate somebody pretty much means if they were dying I wouldn't give a shit....there are very few people on the planet that I hate, Obama is not one of them.
Well first of all, you hold Bush responsible for not"intervening", so in your world I would hold my wife responsible for not stopping you.
...
What the fuck???
In the example... I am Bush... taking a shit in your house. Your wife are the people complaining about me... taking a shit and leaving it with her to deal with. You... are YOU... who thinks I should not be held responsible for the shit I left and that you stupid wife just needs to deal with the shit on her feet.
Do you even know how logic works?
...
Oh... and... answer, please. Where is the re-post or the repeat of the answer you claim to have given me?
...
Don't get off subject... do you believe that a person should be held responsible for their actions and the consequences of their actions... no matter how well intended they were?
I don't care what justification or rationale you try to tie to those decisions... the decision to divert military resources from afghanistan towards Iraq was Bush's decision... right?
of course I believe a person should be held resposible for their actions....when they break the law, not when he does something I do not agree with. Yes it was Bush's decision...never said it wasn't
Did you miss this or something? For fuck sakes dude....you say you blame Bush for not "intervening". Here is a fucking example for you...if someone murders somebody do you hold the murderer responsible or the cop for not stopping it fast enough? Are you aware of how stupid that sounds. YES YES YES YES YES a person should be held responsible for there fucking actions YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!Bush did not intervene and stop the so called meltdown, get the fuck over it! All i'm saying when I bring up Obama is , how does that justify spending a trillion fucking dollars that has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for jobs or the economy? IT FUCKING DOESN"T....that is how logic works!!!!!! If you want to get nasty then fuck it, i'll get nasty.
I thought you never used the word "hate"...I see you only use forms of the word "hate"...
hip hip hypocrite...
I knew you were going to come back with that when I wrote. I guess I should have said I HARDLY ever use the word.....because yes....I HATE SADAM. So now i'm a hypocrite??? UUUUUGGGHHHH, The Insanity can drive me crazy sometimes...I hate it! Saying I hate somebody pretty much means if they were dying I wouldn't give a shit....there are very few people on the planet that I hate, Obama is not one of them.
:yawn:
well, if you're so bored why don't you try getting into a debate and saying something intelligent.
Probably get banned for all the F-Bombs but fuck it.....bunch of fucking wack jobs on here any way. By the way, how many of your so called miracle democrats have quit or retired now.....kinda like there running for there lives isn't it. I would say it should tell you something but most the fucking people on here wouldn't see it anyway....too busy blaming Bush while our president destroys all the real values of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
I thought you never used the word "hate"...I see you only use forms of the word "hate"...
hip hip hypocrite...
I knew you were going to come back with that when I wrote. I guess I should have said I HARDLY ever use the word.....because yes....I HATE SADAM. So now i'm a hypocrite??? UUUUUGGGHHHH, The Insanity can drive me crazy sometimes...I hate it! Saying I hate somebody pretty much means if they were dying I wouldn't give a shit....there are very few people on the planet that I hate, Obama is not one of them.
:yawn:
well, if you're so bored why don't you try getting into a debate and saying something intelligent.
You avoided multiple questions of mine. Either because you have no answer or because you are afraid of my belittling your answers.
So I pose this question to you or anyone who could possibly support the war in Iraq for the reasons you described earlier. If it was so imperitive to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam because he was cruel and may or may not had WMD's, why then is it not also imperitive to invade North korea or China? :?: :?: Both are just as bad as Iraq(if not worse) and both actually have WMD's.
Plaese enlighten me. I'd like to know why it was worth the trillions and trillions of dollars and counless lives to remove Saddam when there are far worse dictators throughout the world??
When you are done with that question you can start telling me why insurance companies are such a wonderfull thing to have. And all the great things they do for the health care industry in the United States???
Or you can just keep skirting the questions because you are persicuted or you hate me...sorry, dislike me. :roll:
About your health care question....it was only 10 or 15 years ago and americas health care was very affordable to almost all companies. In the course of 10 years my ins went from $10 to $150.That's not that far away where we can't set some regulations on the ins companies and bring that back. Our government wants us to believe that it is a lost cause and that they have to take it over. Just my opinion. Please don't belittle me :roll:
About your health care question....it was only 10 or 15 years ago and americas health care was very affordable to almost all companies. In the course of 10 years my ins went from $10 to $150.That's not that far away where we can't set some regulations on the ins companies and bring that back. Our government wants us to believe that it is a lost cause and that they have to take it over. Just my opinion. Please don't belittle me :roll:
will you ever wake the fuck up? if you would listen for one fucking second you would know that the public option is DEAD ON ARRIVAL! there will be no public option, so THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT TAKING OVER HEALTH CARE!! period, end of discussion. i do not know how that can be made more clear unless i put it in braille or something. read the newspaper for once please.
i am trying to help you, because as an outside observer, i can tell you that you are making yourself look like a damn fool by holding on to these contentions that the government is taking over healthcare and that presidents and people are not responsible for their actions. like bush should not be blamed for anything, when everything today is a DIRECT result of his policies. you are not answering the questions from cosmo or brandon and a few others, yet you resort to name calling, which you have a tendency to do on here more and more frequently. you did it to me the other day. name calling and anger and frustration is a sign of a lost debate, or a feeble mind. by the way, feel free to drop f-bombs all you want, i think the mods have stopped monitoring this forum years ago...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
hip hip hypocrite...
I knew you were going to come back with that when I wrote. I guess I should have said I HARDLY ever use the word.....because yes....I HATE SADAM. So now i'm a hypocrite??? UUUUUGGGHHHH, The Insanity can drive me crazy sometimes...I hate it! Saying I hate somebody pretty much means if they were dying I wouldn't give a shit....there are very few people on the planet that I hate, Obama is not one of them.
You are being asked to clarify a previously made statement that resulted in confusing, mixed messages.
You ARE skirting the main subject by continually trying to make this a Bush vs. Obama thing. No one is asking you to 'Bash Bush'. We just would like you to clarify the logic you employ that lets former President Bush off the hook, regarding the decisions he made between 2001 and 2008 that have lead to the current situations we face in 2009 and beyond. You don't need to step up to your martyr pedestal, donning your persecuted hat. We are just trying to figure out how you reconcile these opposing messages you spew.
And whether or not you believe President Obama is throwing water or gasoline onto the fire.... you completely fail to acknowledge that former President Bush started the fire. I am saving my judgement on the water or gasoline thing until i have gotten clearer, more defined data.
...
As for your 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' catch phrase... the greatest flaw I see in it is the blatant misperception that people hate Bush... just because. No... we hated the DECISIONS and ACTION made by the Bush Administration that have lead our nation to the prediciment we see today. If it were President Al Gore... we would be saying the same things.... and you would be defending Al Gore by telling us we have 'Gore Derangement Syndrome'... right?
Hail, Hail!!!
You are being asked to clarify a previously made statement that resulted in confusing, mixed messages.
You ARE skirting the main subject by continually trying to make this a Bush vs. Obama thing. No one is asking you to 'Bash Bush'. We just would like you to clarify the logic you employ that lets former President Bush off the hook, regarding the decisions he made between 2001 and 2008 that have lead to the current situations we face in 2009 and beyond. You don't need to step up to your martyr pedestal, donning your persecuted hat. We are just trying to figure out how you reconcile these opposing messages you spew.
And whether or not you believe President Obama is throwing water or gasoline onto the fire.... you completely fail to acknowledge that former President Bush started the fire. I am saving my judgement on the water or gasoline thing until i have gotten clearer, more defined data.
...
As for your 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' catch phrase... the greatest flaw I see in it is the blatant misperception that people hate Bush... just
The reason why he's disliked by me is his decisions, actions and arrogance which has led to the predicament this country now faces and has to deal with. Nothing more.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Exactly. Why can't Krauthammer (and McCarthy, Malkin, Hannity or MB262200) see this? If it were a President Gore.. or hell, a President Vedder that made the same decisions... undertook the same actions and displayed the same arrogance... we would STILL be saying the same things.
Would the Krauthammer/MB262200 crowd have come up with the same defense of those decisions, actions and arrogance? Probably.
Hail, Hail!!!
LET'S BE FAIR...
There are and were pleanty of democrats that were right there with Bush and let's not forget who has had control of the house ansd senate for the last 4 yrs.
I agree. But this is NOT a Democrats vs. Republican thing... it is placing responsibility and accountability for the decisions.
...
And as a side note... which doesn't really matter in this discussion... but, who held the House and senate from 1994 to 2006? Here's a hint... they made a 'Contract With America' and promised us that they'd clean house.
Hail, Hail!!!
You asked a question and I anwered them, wither you accept or acknowledge the answers are completely up to you. But please stop accusing me of skirting the issues, I clearly answered what you asked.
You are very confusing....I don't see anywhere where I could be accused of acting like this in our discusion.
Fixed.
Seriously, I found the whole "Bush Derangement Syndrome" a classic example of Republican projection - they find fault in others what they do themselves.
Didn't we hear chorus after chorus of "Clinton did it too!" for years?
Where have I gave any notion that I can not see this? I have made it very clear that I believe Bush is responsible for some things.
I don't recall Bush stepping up to the podium time after time clarifying that he is trying to clean up someone elses mess. Seems childish and immature to me for an American Leader.
So, here's what you are saying... you DO believe a person should be held responsible for consequences of the decisions they make and the actions they take.
But... you don't think former President Bush should be held responsible for any of the consequences that exists today, that are a direct result of his past decisions and actions.
How is this NOT contradictary? Do you see the confusion in this line of thought?
...
And how are you skirting it? By continually trying to bring President Obama into this equation.
The question is... how can you claim support of personal responsibility... and let President Bush have a 'Get Out Of Responsibility, Free' card?
If you have already answered this... please... direct me to it, because i can't find it.
Hail, Hail!!!
So.. this is an admission that you also suffer from 'Bush Derangement Syndrome'... right?
Hail, Hail!!!
What was there to clean up? He entered office with a $700 million projected budget surplus, a booming economy (one perfectly tailored to his corporatist allies), a peace accord completed in Ireland and one looming in the Middle East, and an overall time of prosperity. Barack Obama inherited the opposite, a complete disaster.
Unless, of course, you're referring to a certain stained blue dress that the Republicans spent millions of taxpayer dollars on to impeach the Clenis.
Here you go... ...
Poor, poor persecuted you... having to answer all of these questions from some sort of stand... like you are being held in court. No one is judging you... we just want you to clarify your statements... that's all.
Hail, Hail!!!
You want to hold him responsible the go ahead and hold him responsible if it makes you feel better....sure as hell ain't going to fix anything though. So while Obama keeps spending billions of dollars that do nothing we'll just keep blaming Bush...who is giving who the free pass...the pendilum swings both ways. Seems like you're just trying to get me to sit here and say how bad Bush was. Certain things I liked about Bush and certain things I didn't like.....sorry to upset you.
WHERE HAVE I NOT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION?
SIMPLE... Just cut and paste it from the post where you answered my question... or just fucking RESTATE it.
Hail, Hail!!!
There it is... again! Dragging President obama into the Bush equation.... it does not equate.
Using this logic:
"You want to hold him responsible the go ahead and hold him responsible if it makes you feel better....sure as hell ain't going to fix anything though."
If I went into your house and took a big shit in the middle of the floor... and your wife accidentially stepped in it and complained about shit on her foot... you would say, "That shit ain't going back where it came from... deal with it, Bitch". And i would be free of all responsibility.
Cool.
...
And, just for the record... I never said I'm giving President Obama a free pass. I have said that I will hold him responsible for his actions and the consequences he paases on t the next President.
Hail, Hail!!!
Well first of all, you hold Bush responsible for not"intervening", so in your world I would hold my wife responsible for not stopping you.
You avoided multiple questions of mine. Either because you have no answer or because you are afraid of my belittling your answers.
So I pose this question to you or anyone who could possibly support the war in Iraq for the reasons you described earlier. If it was so imperitive to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam because he was cruel and may or may not had WMD's, why then is it not also imperitive to invade North korea or China? :?: :?: Both are just as bad as Iraq(if not worse) and both actually have WMD's.
Plaese enlighten me. I'd like to know why it was worth the trillions and trillions of dollars and counless lives to remove Saddam when there are far worse dictators throughout the world??
When you are done with that question you can start telling me why insurance companies are such a wonderfull thing to have. And all the great things they do for the health care industry in the United States???
Or you can just keep skirting the questions because you are persicuted or you hate me...sorry, dislike me. :roll:
What the fuck???
In the example... I am Bush... taking a shit in your house. Your wife are the people complaining about me... taking a shit and leaving it with her to deal with. You... are YOU... who thinks I should not be held responsible for the shit I left and that you stupid wife just needs to deal with the shit on her feet.
Do you even know how logic works?
...
Oh... and... answer, please. Where is the re-post or the repeat of the answer you claim to have given me?
Hail, Hail!!!
I wasn't skirting your questions...I was simply ignoring you, the first time you ever commented on one of my posts you call me a racist....you judge me too quick so I left it at that. Maybe Kim Jung does deserve some extreme attention someday but the fact that you think there are worst dictators then Sadam is very inacurate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYlhHxl66cQ
:yawn:
...
Don't get off subject... do you believe that a person should be held responsible for their actions and the consequences of their actions... no matter how well intended they were?
I don't care what justification or rationale you try to tie to those decisions... the decision to divert military resources from afghanistan towards Iraq was Bush's decision... right?
of course I believe a person should be held resposible for their actions....when they break the law, not when he does something I do not agree with. Yes it was Bush's decision...never said it wasn't
Did you miss this or something? For fuck sakes dude....you say you blame Bush for not "intervening". Here is a fucking example for you...if someone murders somebody do you hold the murderer responsible or the cop for not stopping it fast enough? Are you aware of how stupid that sounds. YES YES YES YES YES a person should be held responsible for there fucking actions YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!Bush did not intervene and stop the so called meltdown, get the fuck over it! All i'm saying when I bring up Obama is , how does that justify spending a trillion fucking dollars that has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for jobs or the economy? IT FUCKING DOESN"T....that is how logic works!!!!!! If you want to get nasty then fuck it, i'll get nasty.
well, if you're so bored why don't you try getting into a debate and saying something intelligent.
what debate...?
About your health care question....it was only 10 or 15 years ago and americas health care was very affordable to almost all companies. In the course of 10 years my ins went from $10 to $150.That's not that far away where we can't set some regulations on the ins companies and bring that back. Our government wants us to believe that it is a lost cause and that they have to take it over. Just my opinion. Please don't belittle me :roll:
will you ever wake the fuck up? if you would listen for one fucking second you would know that the public option is DEAD ON ARRIVAL! there will be no public option, so THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT TAKING OVER HEALTH CARE!! period, end of discussion. i do not know how that can be made more clear unless i put it in braille or something. read the newspaper for once please.
i am trying to help you, because as an outside observer, i can tell you that you are making yourself look like a damn fool by holding on to these contentions that the government is taking over healthcare and that presidents and people are not responsible for their actions. like bush should not be blamed for anything, when everything today is a DIRECT result of his policies. you are not answering the questions from cosmo or brandon and a few others, yet you resort to name calling, which you have a tendency to do on here more and more frequently. you did it to me the other day. name calling and anger and frustration is a sign of a lost debate, or a feeble mind. by the way, feel free to drop f-bombs all you want, i think the mods have stopped monitoring this forum years ago...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."