Bush is a hero

[Catcher1]

BobinTX wrote:

<quoted text>
Who's Romney?

He's they guy you people here anointed as the next great Republican president, the one whose victory I saw celebrated here for weeks.

Prematurely, as it turned out.

[Catcher1]

lisw wrote:

<quoted text>I know. I don't think Romney has been mentioned by anyone on the right for three months.

Right.

Now it's Rubio, your next great hope.

Fat chance.

[BobinTX]

WildWeirdWillie wrote:

<quoted text>The bad guy is whoever you didn't want to win the election, lisw - and I kinda thought that would be clear when I wrote it.
What is it that Obama has done or is doing do you want to talk about? We've done health care to death, but there's immigration (I agree with him), gun control (so far I agree), national defense (not so sure), foreign policy (good in some respects, not so good in others), and a host of other things.
I think I've been pretty consistent since this thread started about one thing - Obama ain't nothing but a President, just like the one before him. I was pretty critical of the actions of the one before him, but when people came on just bashing Bush I was pretty damned harsh with them.
Why should I act any differently now? If I skewered the folks who claimed Bush was a bad guy, why should I not equally skewer the folks who are singing the same tune now?

barry's stated policy is that only those illegal immigrants that are in this country illegally, and have committed or been involved in felonies, will be deported.

* The hundreds of folks that ICE is releasing in the USA were all scheduled for deportation.

* Before the election, the obama admistration required that federal contractors not notify those employees that would face layoffs due to sequestration, as they were required to do by law... and guaranteed that the federal government would provide coverage for legal costs if those employees were laid off, and later sued.

* Currently, there have been no cuts to ICE's funding, and yet the administration is releasing hundreds of felons into the US cities, based on possible reductions in the amount of budget increase... that have not yet happened.

Your reasoning in supporting the release of these "undocumented immigrant felons"? Don't we grow enough of our own felons right here in the USA... do we really need to include those from other countries?

Why would an "American" President do this to his country? A "hissy fit" because he isn't getting his way?

[HipGnosis]

lisw wrote:

Oh yes and pretending that Benghazi is "okay" just another incident. Hip if you look it up on fact check you will see that Bush never ever said Saddam Hussein was associated with Al Quaida or 9/11. That's another liberal lie that just stuck it was said so many times.

You're dodging.

Ok. You want to hold Obama responsible for an error in early reporting by an admin official within days of a chaotic incident. An error that caused no deaths, nor prevented any. Right?

You see where I'm going. I specifically said Bush & Company. Did anyone in the Bush admin make these claims (clue: Cheney. Rice. others.) Did Bush correct them? How many died as a result of the erroneous information emanating from the administration over the course of months?

Pertinence to this discussion: Where is the clamor for that investigation?

[WildWeirdWillie]

BobinTX wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course not, you're a "low information" voter because you only listen to barry's BS. And, sad to say, obama lies to us.
I listen to obama too, but the difference is, you believe him.

You're still saying that I'm a low information voter because I don't agree with you.

[Mark_V]

wow

[lisw]

HipGnosis wrote:

<quoted text>You're dodging.
Ok. You want to hold Obama responsible for an error in early reporting by an admin official within days of a chaotic incident. An error that caused no deaths, nor prevented any. Right?
You see where I'm going. I specifically said Bush & Company. Did anyone in the Bush admin make these claims (clue: Cheney. Rice. others.) Did Bush correct them? How many died as a result of the erroneous information emanating from the administration over the course of months?
Pertinence to this discussion: Where is the clamor for that investigation?

If you can find anywhere that anyone of "Bush and company" actually said that, I'll clamor.

[lisw]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Right.
Now it's Rubio, your next great hope.
Fat chance.

Not me. Ben Carson, if he'll run. Rumor has it you'll have a choice between Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.

[lisw]

Btw, Catcher. Where's your defense of Barack Obama?

[WildWeirdWillie]

lisw wrote:

<quoted text>I know. I don't think Romney has been mentioned by anyone on the right for three months.

It's not about Romney per se ... it's about the fact that you lost the election, that Obama won in spite of conditions that SHOULD have made him extremely vulnerable.

[Catcher1]

lisw wrote:

Btw, Catcher. Where's your defense of Barack Obama?

Defense?

President Obama isn't on trial.

He doesn't need a defense.

[bad bob]

WildWeirdWillie wrote:

<quoted text>You can tell yourself what I'm aware of as long, as loud, and as often as makes you feel better, bobby - but I'm telling you straight up if you think there were more 'low information voters' for Obama than Romney, I think you're dead wrong.

Yes I think there are quite a few more for Obama than Romney, and is one of the reasons for his 2nd term.

WildWeirdWillie wrote:

<quoted text>
As far as the assumption that minority voters are low information ... that's just sad.

Race has no bearing, Wilson. Hispanics and Blacks wanted the "stuff" Obama was giving away. Minorities did NOT concern themselves with important issues other than those related to them. That's what made them "low information voters".

[lisw]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Defense?
President Obama isn't on trial.
He doesn't need a defense.

Of course he does. When Bush was president I remember mentioning often the good things he did. I can still mention them if you like. I don't hear anything good about Obama from the left, except like I said by a rare few. A president doesn't just ride out the years, he has to do something. Tell me what he has done that you think is good.

[lisw]

WildWeirdWillie wrote:

<quoted text>It's not about Romney per se ... it's about the fact that you lost the election, that Obama won in spite of conditions that SHOULD have made him extremely vulnerable.

Well I'm still hearing an awful lot of stories about voters in Ohio that voted for him three four times and when confronted on it see nothing wrong with it. But yes he won. And I wouldn't be honest if I said I was glad about it. But that doesn't make me a sore loser. I didn't like Obama when he ran the first time and I didn't like him any better this time. But I'm quite capable of facing reality.

[Lyndi]

HipGnosis wrote:

<quoted text> How much mileage you think there is on that "low-information voter" clinker?

Evidently, plenty.
To date, he's been awarded two presidential elections because of them.

[Catcher1]

lisw wrote:

<quoted text>Of course he does. When Bush was president I remember mentioning often the good things he did. I can still mention them if you like. I don't hear anything good about Obama from the left, except like I said by a rare few. A president doesn't just ride out the years, he has to do something. Tell me what he has done that you think is good.

One you'll like: He got Osama.

One you probably won't: He has taken a stand in favor of same sex marriage.

And remember, it's hard to move forward when battling the Party of No.

[bad bob]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Young people helped. So did women, Hispanics, Blacks. The Republican Party was, and remains, out of touch. You can whine all you want, and insult people as uninformed and stupid, but the fact is that all you have left are Tea Partiers, old white men (and their wives sometimes) and a bunch of dinosaur southerners.

"Stupid" is your word not mine. We were not discussing the Republican Party, we were discussing "low information voters".

But since you brought it up, the Republican Party lost the election on numerous fronts, some of which you and other lefties continue to drum.

But the R's also should never have underestimated the D-machine capabilities of simply getting their people to the polls.

Romney arrogantly coasted after the 1st debate, assuming the economy would foil Obama's bid for 4 more years. Hurricane Sandy played a minor role (IMO). Those are just SOME of the other major reasons.

Thanks to Obama and the left, this once great nation of self-made
men & women has shifted dramatically to half a nation of self-providing people and half who demand the government provide for them.

As a leftie,(and non-native), it's no surprise you are gleefully
happy about this. But the worst part is that when this nation goes bankrupt, you still won't give a d@mn. For you, it's all about the ideology, and not what's best for the US.

[Catcher1]

bad bob wrote:

<quoted text>
"Stupid" is your word not mine. We were not discussing the Republican Party, we were discussing "low information voters".
But since you brought it up, the Republican Party lost the election on numerous fronts, some of which you and other lefties continue to drum.
But the R's also should never have underestimated the D-machine capabilities of simply getting their people to the polls.
Romney arrogantly coasted after the 1st debate, assuming the economy would foil Obama's bid for 4 more years. Hurricane Sandy played a minor role (IMO). Those are just SOME of the other major reasons.
Thanks to Obama and the left, this once great nation of self-made
men & women has shifted dramatically to half a nation of self-providing people and half who demand the government provide for them.
As a leftie,(and non-native), it's no surprise you are gleefully
happy about this. But the worst part is that when this nation goes bankrupt, you still won't give a d@mn. For you, it's all about the ideology, and not what's best for the US.

You are the perfect example of why Republicans lost, and will continue to lose.

You look for all sorts of excuses for your party's ineptitude.

You question the honesty of those who disagree with your views.

And you resort to an ad hominem attack on me.

You should develop some personal integrity instead.

[lisw]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
One you'll like: He got Osama.
One you probably won't: He has taken a stand in favor of same sex marriage.
And remember, it's hard to move forward when battling the Party of No.

Well he didn't exactly get Osama, he just followed what was being done during the Bush administration but I'll give him that. I do give him credit for following up with the Bush plan. I'd give him more credit if he hadn't thrown the doctor who helped under the bus, not to mention the Seals that actually did the killing. I happen to agree with him on the same sex marriage, but he didn't "do" anything. That is being decided state by state. He just expressed an opinion. quite timely too, right before the election. Do you mean lifting the "don't ask don't tell"?
He's not battling anyone. The opposition is of his own making. He's had so many opportunities to work with Congress and he has been AWOL. People have been trying to work with him but he won't do it, much like he won't work with Israel. He seems a little spoiled brat to me.
But thank you for trying. At least it gives a chance for real discussion.

[bad bob]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
One you'll like: He got Osama.
One you probably won't: He has taken a stand in favor of same sex marriage.
And remember, it's hard to move forward when battling the Party of No.

More like he happened to be President when UBL was finally caught.

Alienating the majority who are against same sex marriage.

This is just dumb. The opposition party is usually the party of "no". From 2000-2008, the Dems were the party of "no". Wake up.