Jump to content

If Hillary or Obama take the White House


silentbob1272
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think Hillary would be a complete and utter disaster, I think Obama would be slightly better, but a disaster none the less. I'm not asking people to argue that point, I know very well many of you will disagree with it. Suspend your beliefs for one moment and assume that my above statement proves absolutely true. Say that the country is in undeniably far worse shape at the end as we enter into either of their re-election bids. My question is, do you think that they would take any responsibility for it? Would they still four years later find a way to blame their failures and shortcomings on George Bush? One thing I'm looking forward to is Democrats being forced to answer for their actions again, rather than simply bringing out the old trusty "I hate Bush" drum to beat on when asked a question about their policy they do not like.

It's crazy now to hear them constantly invoke Bush's name, I want to hear their plan for improvement in the future, not the reasons why the current state not your fault. Granted, they are too busy wailing on one another right now to really concentrate on the usual amount of bashing of the president, but I believe it will come back with a fury.....is that ok with all of you, or would you agree it's time the Democrats stood on their own merits rather than passing every buck to Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I disagree with you and yes I will put that aside for now. The Clintons' inability to take full responsiblity for their actions pretty much defines their existence. The only exception would be if Hillary played the Woman Card (again) and gave a tearful plea for understanding and forgiveness and faith in her to create a brighter future for the chiiiildreennnnn (sob!).

I would like to think Obama would admit some responsibility, but we don't know how four years as President will change his current outlook. I see him keeping the concentration on the future more than (not in place of) placing blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (1/31/2008)
I think Hillary would be a complete and utter disaster, I think Obama would be slightly better, but a disaster none the less. I'm not asking people to argue that point, I know very well many of you will disagree with it. Suspend your beliefs for one moment and assume that my above statement proves absolutely true. Say that the country is in undeniably far worse shape at the end as we enter into either of their re-election bids. My question is, do you think that they would take any responsibility for it? Would they still four years later find a way to blame their failures and shortcomings on George Bush? One thing I'm looking forward to is Democrats being forced to answer for their actions again, rather than simply bringing out the old trusty "I hate Bush" drum to beat on when asked a question about their policy they do not like.

It's crazy now to hear them constantly invoke Bush's name, I want to hear their plan for improvement in the future, not the reasons why the current state not your fault. Granted, they are too busy wailing on one another right now to really concentrate on the usual amount of bashing of the president, but I believe it will come back with a fury.....is that ok with all of you, or would you agree it's time the Democrats stood on their own merits rather than passing every buck to Bush.

If things head in the crapper when the Dems are in power, then they get the blame. No exceptions.

Now let's turn this around, the country was in far better shape (economically and militarily) during the Clinton years than they are now. I know you may disagree with that, but suspend your disbelief. Are YOU willing to credit Bill Clinton with the prosperity and lay blame on George Bush for the problems the next president will face?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (1/31/2008)
I think Hillary would be a complete and utter disaster, I think Obama would be slightly better, but a disaster none the less. I'm not asking people to argue that point, I know very well many of you will disagree with it. Suspend your beliefs for one moment and assume that my above statement proves absolutely true. Say that the country is in undeniably far worse shape at the end as we enter into either of their re-election bids. My question is, do you think that they would take any responsibility for it? Would they still four years later find a way to blame their failures and shortcomings on George Bush? One thing I'm looking forward to is Democrats being forced to answer for their actions again, rather than simply bringing out the old trusty "I hate Bush" drum to beat on when asked a question about their policy they do not like.

It's crazy now to hear them constantly invoke Bush's name, I want to hear their plan for improvement in the future, not the reasons why the current state not your fault. Granted, they are too busy wailing on one another right now to really concentrate on the usual amount of bashing of the president, but I believe it will come back with a fury.....is that ok with all of you, or would you agree it's time the Democrats stood on their own merits rather than passing every buck to Bush.

Sure they will, JUST LIKE THE REPUBLICANS ARE STILL BLAMING BILL CLINTON FOR EVERY THING THEY SCREW UP(ie: 911)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramen (1/31/2008)
silentbob1272 (1/31/2008)
I think Hillary would be a complete and utter disaster, I think Obama would be slightly better, but a disaster none the less. I'm not asking people to argue that point, I know very well many of you will disagree with it. Suspend your beliefs for one moment and assume that my above statement proves absolutely true. Say that the country is in undeniably far worse shape at the end as we enter into either of their re-election bids. My question is, do you think that they would take any responsibility for it? Would they still four years later find a way to blame their failures and shortcomings on George Bush? One thing I'm looking forward to is Democrats being forced to answer for their actions again, rather than simply bringing out the old trusty "I hate Bush" drum to beat on when asked a question about their policy they do not like.

It's crazy now to hear them constantly invoke Bush's name, I want to hear their plan for improvement in the future, not the reasons why the current state not your fault. Granted, they are too busy wailing on one another right now to really concentrate on the usual amount of bashing of the president, but I believe it will come back with a fury.....is that ok with all of you, or would you agree it's time the Democrats stood on their own merits rather than passing every buck to Bush.

If things head in the crapper when the Dems are in power, then they get the blame. No exceptions.

Now let's turn this around, the country was in far better shape (economically and militarily) during the Clinton years than they are now. I know you may disagree with that, but suspend your disbelief. Are YOU willing to credit Bill Clinton with the prosperity and lay blame on George Bush for the problems the next president will face?

Oh Bush gets a ton of the blame from me without doubt, he has spent like like a drunken sailor on shore leave in Bangkok. Its been disgusting. I have always thought that Bill was not as bad as the far right say, but far from the god on earth that the Libs seem to have believed him to be. That being said, Clinton did not leave Bush a rosy economy coming in. The tech bubble had just burst and while the Clinton did (in my view) a very good job on the National Debt. we were in the midst of a mini-recession when Bush took office. It could have gone either way. I believe it was Bush's tax cuts that stimulated the economy to a recoverable degree.

My opinion of Bush is that; he has abandoned the Conservative principles that he claimed to have and that got him elected. Libs love to chant that Bush lied, Bush lied. He did not lie about the war, he was going on the intelligence given to him, which was all he could do. You can argue that he was rash, or misguided in the invasion of Iraq, but the lie crap is a silly argument. Bush did lie, in my opinion about who and what he is. He is no Conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (1/31/2008)
I think Hillary would be a complete and utter disaster, I think Obama would be slightly better, but a disaster none the less. I'm not asking people to argue that point, I know very well many of you will disagree with it. Suspend your beliefs for one moment and assume that my above statement proves absolutely true. Say that the country is in undeniably far worse shape at the end as we enter into either of their re-election bids. My question is, do you think that they would take any responsibility for it? Would they still four years later find a way to blame their failures and shortcomings on George Bush? One thing I'm looking forward to is Democrats being forced to answer for their actions again, rather than simply bringing out the old trusty "I hate Bush" drum to beat on when asked a question about their policy they do not like.

It's crazy now to hear them constantly invoke Bush's name, I want to hear their plan for improvement in the future, not the reasons why the current state not your fault. Granted, they are too busy wailing on one another right now to really concentrate on the usual amount of bashing of the president, but I believe it will come back with a fury.....is that ok with all of you, or would you agree it's time the Democrats stood on their own merits rather than passing every buck to Bush.

wasn't 9/11 Clinton's fault even though it happened on Bush's watch? wasn't the drop in the economy earlier this decade also Clinton's fault even though it happened on Bush's watch? That's what I kept hearing from the Bush supporters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

charlestonchad (1/31/2008)

Sure they will, JUST LIKE THE REPUBLICANS ARE STILL BLAMING BILL CLINTON FOR EVERY THING THEY SCREW UP(ie: 911)

So you believe that the ##### poor ways in which he handled Somalia, the USS Cole, The US Embassy bombingS in East Africa, and the first WTC bombing had no effect on Al Queda? Are you serious? Unbelievable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thesouphead (1/31/2008)
silentbob1272 (1/31/2008)
I think Hillary would be a complete and utter disaster, I think Obama would be slightly better, but a disaster none the less. I'm not asking people to argue that point, I know very well many of you will disagree with it. Suspend your beliefs for one moment and assume that my above statement proves absolutely true. Say that the country is in undeniably far worse shape at the end as we enter into either of their re-election bids. My question is, do you think that they would take any responsibility for it? Would they still four years later find a way to blame their failures and shortcomings on George Bush? One thing I'm looking forward to is Democrats being forced to answer for their actions again, rather than simply bringing out the old trusty "I hate Bush" drum to beat on when asked a question about their policy they do not like.

It's crazy now to hear them constantly invoke Bush's name, I want to hear their plan for improvement in the future, not the reasons why the current state not your fault. Granted, they are too busy wailing on one another right now to really concentrate on the usual amount of bashing of the president, but I believe it will come back with a fury.....is that ok with all of you, or would you agree it's time the Democrats stood on their own merits rather than passing every buck to Bush.

wasn't 9/11 Clinton's fault even though it happened on Bush's watch? wasn't the drop in the economy earlier this decade also Clinton's fault even though it happened on Bush's watch? That's what I kept hearing from the Bush supporters.

Once again, Bush was President, he was the most responsible since it was on his watch, comes with being president. If you you think that the policy of appeasing terrorists in the 90's did not embolden them to attack the U.S. then you're crazy. I am not saying that residue of the mistakes that Bush has made will not affect the next president, but you either look forward or you excuse your actions by blaming the guy behind you. Hillary has made her career off blaming others, Obama not as much but he has played the blame game a ton in short time in public office as well. We may see how he will do, but hopefully not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no matter who the next president is, we'll be feeling the effects of Bush's screw-ups for years to come.

and if Bush didn't outright lie to get us into Iraq, at the very least he was just about criminally neglegent and incompetent in his duties as CnC. Read "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks, it goes through the intel and the leadup to war very thoroughly and is completely and solidly sourced by military and administration officials. (as the title implies, the book purports that the Iraq War was mishandled from the beginning, but it's far from just a political hitpiece or a "bash Bush" book. it's actually pretty light on Bush himself.)

There WAS solid intel that said the WMD threat was overblown and the nuclear threat was nonexistant, and Bush chose to ignore it, for whatever reason. He sent Colin Powell to the UN to make statements they KNEW AT THE TIME were false. They rolled out a very deceptive and dishonest campaign linking Al Qaeda/bin Laden/911 with Iraq/Saddam, and the entire so-called liberal media ate it up with a spoon. Bush chose to listen to "think-tank policy advocates" like Wolfowitz (who is a nut and was campaigning to take down Iraq since the early 90s) on military matters, instead of the generals and mil personnel who actually knew what they were talking about. Wolfowitz/Rumsfield were the idiots who came up with the ideas to go with less troops and to disband the entire Iraqi army and Baathist government (which single-handedly created the insurgency). They're also the ones whose plan didn't account for securing the Iraqi borders and keeping out wannabe jihadists, and didn't plan to secure Baghdad and prevent looting after it fell (which also helped kill good will and fuel the insurgency.) Regardless of who came up with those ideas, Bush is the Commander in Chief and blame falls on his shoulders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

XLDenaliReturns (1/31/2008)
no matter who the next president is, we'll be feeling the effects of Bush's screw-ups for years to come.

and if Bush didn't outright lie to get us into Iraq, at the very least he was just about criminally neglegent and incompetent in his duties as CnC. Read "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks, it goes through the intel and the leadup to war very thoroughly and is completely and solidly sourced by military and administration officials. (as the title implies, the book purports that the Iraq War was mishandled from the beginning, but it's far from just a political hitpiece or a "bash Bush" book. it's actually pretty light on Bush himself.)

There WAS solid intel that said the WMD threat was overblown and the nuclear threat was nonexistant, and Bush chose to ignore it, for whatever reason. He sent Colin Powell to the UN to make statements they KNEW AT THE TIME were false. They rolled out a very deceptive and dishonest campaign linking Al Qaeda/bin Laden/911 with Iraq/Saddam, and the entire so-called liberal media ate it up with a spoon. Bush chose to listen to "think-tank policy advocates" like Wolfowitz (who is a nut and was campaigning to take down Iraq since the early 90s) on military matters, instead of the generals and mil personnel who actually knew what they were talking about. Wolfowitz/Rumsfield were the idiots who came up with the ideas to go with less troops and to disband the entire Iraqi army and Baathist government (which single-handedly created the insurgency). They're also the ones whose plan didn't account for securing the Iraqi borders and keeping out wannabe jihadists, and didn't plan to secure Baghdad and prevent looting after it fell (which also helped kill good will and fuel the insurgency.) Regardless of who came up with those ideas, Bush is the Commander in Chief and blame falls on his shoulders.

Ignorance can be cured, but not stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thesouphead (1/31/2008)
silentbob1272 (1/31/2008)

So you believe that the ##### poor ways in which he handled Somalia, the USS Cole, The US Embassy bombingS in East Africa, and the first WTC bombing had no effect on Al Queda? Are you serious? Unbelievable

who is al queda? are they still around?

As a person who's closer to the action than most, the answer is yes.

Just because the media doesn't throw them in your face 24/7 anymore, doesn't mean they aren't still around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (1/31/2008)
It's funny, I started Fiasco three nights ago, only four chapters in so far. I'll let you know when I'm done.

pretty good book. it's refreshing to have someone look at the issue without the "Bush is stupid" theory (which i don't buy into at all. i hate the guy, think he's been a terrible president, and he's obviously a poor public speaker, but he's no dummy.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (1/31/2008)
Oh Bush gets a ton of the blame from me without doubt, he has spent like like a drunken sailor on shore leave in Bangkok. Its been disgusting. I have always thought that Bill was not as bad as the far right say, but far from the god on earth that the Libs seem to have believed him to be. That being said, Clinton did not leave Bush a rosy economy coming in. The tech bubble had just burst and while the Clinton did (in my view) a very good job on the National Debt. we were in the midst of a mini-recession when Bush took office. It could have gone either way. I believe it was Bush's tax cuts that stimulated the economy to a recoverable degree.

My opinion of Bush is that; he has abandoned the Conservative principles that he claimed to have and that got him elected. Libs love to chant that Bush lied, Bush lied. He did not lie about the war, he was going on the intelligence given to him, which was all he could do. You can argue that he was rash, or misguided in the invasion of Iraq, but the lie crap is a silly argument. Bush did lie, in my opinion about who and what he is. He is no Conservative.

The economic growth during Clinton's years was linked to deficit reduction. Greenspan gave Clinton a deficit reduction target. Clinton met it, and Greenspan's prediction about the bond market and interest rates got realized. And I actually believe that the over-spending during Bush's term (with a GOP Congress, I would add) and growing deficit is part of the soft economy we're seeing now.

As far as Bush lying about Iraq, I agree when it comes to WMD's. However, Bush knew the evidence on a nuclear program was weak and a lot of his own advisors said the evidence was unreliable. Yet Bush made it a key part of his State of teh Union speech and had Cheney and Rice allude to a nuclear strike on US soil. So I think it's fair to say that Bush lied on the nuclear threat from Saddam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramen (1/31/2008)
silentbob1272 (1/31/2008)
Oh Bush gets a ton of the blame from me without doubt, he has spent like like a drunken sailor on shore leave in Bangkok. Its been disgusting. I have always thought that Bill was not as bad as the far right say, but far from the god on earth that the Libs seem to have believed him to be. That being said, Clinton did not leave Bush a rosy economy coming in. The tech bubble had just burst and while the Clinton did (in my view) a very good job on the National Debt. we were in the midst of a mini-recession when Bush took office. It could have gone either way. I believe it was Bush's tax cuts that stimulated the economy to a recoverable degree.

My opinion of Bush is that; he has abandoned the Conservative principles that he claimed to have and that got him elected. Libs love to chant that Bush lied, Bush lied. He did not lie about the war, he was going on the intelligence given to him, which was all he could do. You can argue that he was rash, or misguided in the invasion of Iraq, but the lie crap is a silly argument. Bush did lie, in my opinion about who and what he is. He is no Conservative.

The economic growth during Clinton's years was linked to deficit reduction. Greenspan gave Clinton a deficit reduction target. Clinton met it, and Greenspan's prediction about the bond market and interest rates got realized. And I actually believe that the over-spending during Bush's term (with a GOP Congress, I would add) and growing deficit is part of the soft economy we're seeing now.

As far as Bush lying about Iraq, I agree when it comes to WMD's. However, Bush knew the evidence on a nuclear program was weak and a lot of his own advisors said the evidence was unreliable. Yet Bush made it a key part of his State of teh Union speech and had Cheney and Rice allude to a nuclear strike on US soil. So I think it's fair to say that Bush lied on the nuclear threat from Saddam.

See i believe that the economy has very little to do with the president, he can influence it yes (Clinton was good in that aspect) but is he the sole person responsible, NO. The economy is constantly changing due to so many different factors that its unfair to blame one person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (1/31/2008) I am not saying that residue of the mistakes that Bush has made will not affect the next president, but you either look forward or you excuse your actions by blaming the guy behind you.

Bush pulled our military resources away from Afghanistan where we were fighting the real terrorists(Taliban/qeada) and re-assigned them to Iraq where we fought the Bathists and Saddam. The result is the re-emergence of the Taliban and greater recruitment for Al Qeada.

Do you think the next president, who will indeed have to care of this problem, should be blamed? Or is this the so called "residue" that you speak of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the time of booming economy had virtually nothing to do with Clinton...it had more to do with the insanely low interest rates (I was able to refinance my student loans at 2.77% while right now the rates are just under 7%) and likewise the current problems have a lot to do with Greenspan trying to slow down the booming economy and acting too rashly with his interest hikes. It is rare that a policy change in the economy has a huge effect on an economy that is either racing or in depression and Greenspan wasn't giving enough time between interest rate hikes to see if they worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...