Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Is Obama just another Bush?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 The Ogre of POF
Joined: 6/5/2010
Msg: 1
Is Obama just another Bush?Page 1 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
People like to talk about how George W. invaded Afghanistan & Iraq illegally and without proof and all of this, stating clearly and loudly that it's just for oil. Okay, that argument has been made.

Now, we have Mr. Obama who is invading Libya under the guise of human rights without the consent of congress and no clear plan for handing off control of this invasion to the countries allegedly assisting us once the air attacks are done. Now Libya is a pretty oil rich country mind you.

How come we never invaded Nigeria to stop all the slaughtering of innocent civilians that took place over there in the past?

Is Obama really any different than what people accuse Bush of being? To me it looks like he's just out for the oil too. And what about Brazil? He wants us to be an oil customer of Brazil instead of making Brazil an oil customer of the US. Hmmm...
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 3/27/2011 10:03:42 AM

Now, we have Mr. Obama who is invading Libya under the guise of human rights without the consent of congress and no clear plan for handing off control of this invasion to the countries allegedly assisting us once the air attacks are done. Now Libya is a pretty oil rich country mind you.

First of all, he is the President. His title is "President Obama".

The War Powers Resolution gives him the power to exercise military action for 60 days before Congress can block him. It was not under the "guise" of human rights. It was the stated mission to protect civilians from military arms. Furthermore, there hasn't been an invasion. Furthermore, the US doesn't handle "control" of this. It's an international mission.


How come we never invaded Nigeria to stop all the slaughtering of innocent civilians that took place over there in the past?

Because the UN, nor NATO, voted in favor of it. Partially because they feared the image of a bunch of white guys killing a bunch of black guys.


Is Obama really any different than what people accuse Bush of being?

Yes.


To me it looks like he's just out for the oil too.

I can't fathom how or why. There is no indication of any such thing.
 The Ogre of POF
Joined: 6/5/2010
Msg: 3
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 3/27/2011 11:22:49 AM
I like it when people pick a part out of a statement and choose to ignore the entire statement. Especially when they pick the last sentence out of it and iggie the preceeding statements and then claim there is no proof.

Okay, invasion: Just because we don't have ground forces on the ground yet is not bombing a type of invasion? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if they sent planes here to bomb our country wouldn't we call that an invasion? What about missiles? Sounds to me like an invasion, just haven't sent the ground forces in yet. How much oil does Libya have again?

Did you miss the part about Brazil? While we have billions of barrels of oil sitting off our coasts, along the Canadian border and in Alaska Mr. Obama very directly gave Brazil oil rigs to begin drilling and then told their leader that he hopes the US can become Brazil's oil customer. So instead of depending on just the Middle East for our oil we are now going to depend on South America?



<div class='quote'>Because the UN, nor NATO, voted in favor of it. Partially because they feared the image of a bunch of white guys killing a bunch of black guys.

I love this statement. Are you saying that it's bad to invade a country because they are black but it's okay to invade a country because they are middle-eastern? Come on. Let's face the truth on this one, Nigeria has no oil, no real natural resources that we're just begging to get our hands on. Libya has billions if not trillions of barrels of oil that we'd love to have. To claim that we will not invade a country because it's black and it wouldn't look right for us (as whites as you put it) to be killing anyone over there but it's okay to watch blacks kill blacks is immensely a racist comment.

What I love the most is how Democrats are so focused on swearing the Mr. Obama is different, yet he's invading countries in his first 2 years, increasing ground forces to nations Bush invaded (that just happen to have a massive play in the oil industry) and ignoring any country with real issues that has no resources we want and/or need. And wasn't it all the Democrats who were screaming when Bush invaded Iraq that he didn't have the right to do it? Amazing how the tune changes when the White House has a new Pres...

What about PEMEX? Mr. Obama has blocked the ability of oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, costing 10,000 US Jobs and a 1/4 of a million a day in rig leases. Now wasn't Mr. Obama playing President of the United States in 2009? If so, then why is he loaning $1 Billion dollars to PEMEX in 2009 to drill in the Gulf of Mexico and why did he loan that money.

Further, on May 27, after the British Petroleum oil spill, President Obama imposed a moratorium on U.S. deepwater drilling in the Gulf, effecting 33 deepwater drilling rigs in the region.

PEMEX was the Export-Import Bank’s largest borrower in 2009 and has borrowed $8.3 billion from the U.S. federal government since 1998. Under the 2009 loan agreements, PEMEX agreed to contract with American firms and purchase equipment from American manufacturers in exchange for the money.

So, it seems that while Mr. Obama can block US Companies from drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, he has no problem helping PEMEX drill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Makes ya wonder, who's blantantly ignoring the American People to line the pockets of others. Is Mr. Obama different, yeah he is, he can speak clearly as he rips of the working American.

\/\/\/\/ To Halftimedad. I'm familiar with Ruwanda and what Canada and others did there. To bad the USA couldn't jump into that one. Don't hold your breath for Syria or any other country that doesn't have massive oil reserves that we want. That's a massive difference between Canada & the US, I have ot admit that at least Canada will step up to help others without the mindset or appearance of what's in it for us. Of course, Ruwanda does have some awesome drum players.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 4
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 3/27/2011 11:34:28 AM
The imposition of a "no - fly" zone comes out of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. I'm proud of this doctrine as it was a Canadian initiative following the Rwanda massacres. Basically, if a government if slaughtering its own people, the UN members have a responsibility to intervene.

What's interesting is that the same thing seems to be going on in Syria right now. Syria is bigger and stronger than Libya. I'm wondering if the world nations will intervene there.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 3/27/2011 12:50:51 PM

Okay, invasion: Just because we don't have ground forces on the ground yet is not bombing a type of invasion?

No.


Did you miss the part about Brazil? While we have billions of barrels of oil sitting off our coasts, along the Canadian border and in Alaska Mr. Obama very directly gave Brazil oil rigs to begin drilling and then told their leader that he hopes the US can become Brazil's oil customer. So instead of depending on just the Middle East for our oil we are now going to depend on South America?

Okay, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, or how this supports your original post.


I love this statement. Are you saying that it's bad to invade a country because they are black but it's okay to invade a country because they are middle-eastern?

I have no idea how you got this from what I wrote.


Let's face the truth on this one, Nigeria has no oil, no real natural resources that we're just begging to get our hands on. Libya has billions if not trillions of barrels of oil that we'd love to have.

So you think the only difference between Nigeria and Libya is oil? There can't be any other difference that could affect this? Like, perhaps, a history of regional aggressiveness, naval attacks, etc...?


To claim that we will not invade a country because it's black and it wouldn't look right for us (as whites as you put it) to be killing anyone over there but it's okay to watch blacks kill blacks is immensely a racist comment.

You are absolutely right. Unless you are using the word "racist" correctly. But I'm assuming you're not.


What I love the most is how Democrats are so focused on swearing the Mr. Obama is different, yet he's invading countries in his first 2 years, increasing ground forces to nations Bush invaded (that just happen to have a massive play in the oil industry) and ignoring any country with real issues that has no resources we want and/or need.

He hasn't invaded anyone. He ran on the platform of increasing troop count in Afghanistan (that also "just happen to have a massive play" in harboring the group that attacked the US on 9/11).


And wasn't it all the Democrats who were screaming when Bush invaded Iraq that he didn't have the right to do it?

Uh... the right? He had Congressional approval. I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.


What about PEMEX? Mr. Obama has blocked the ability of oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, costing 10,000 US Jobs and a 1/4 of a million a day in rig leases. Now wasn't Mr. Obama playing President of the United States in 2009? If so, then why is he loaning $1 Billion dollars to PEMEX in 2009 to drill in the Gulf of Mexico and why did he loan that money.

What about NASA? Or the moon? None of these things have any relevance to Libya.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 6
view profile
History
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 3/27/2011 1:14:29 PM
"Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if they sent planes here to bomb our country wouldn't we call that an invasion?"
I hereby correct you: you are wrong here. Invasion by definition requires boots on the ground. An attack is what we have here.
As to the Oil connection, that IS the favorite reason given for any time anyone gets into a conflict with an Oil Producing nation. Deciding whether or not that is THE main reason for action or inaction requires a LOT more evidence than I've ever seen anyone submit, including here.
It's very hard to make direct comparisons between any incidents,or the Presidents who were involved with them, because so MANY factors change from one time to the next. We still don't REALLY know why Bush sent us into Iraq. We know why he SAID he did, and we know that he was wrong about that, and that he refuses to admit his mistakes (doesn't every President?), but it has yet to be determined that Oil was the main reason. The biggest challenge to that, is that even though he had the opportunity, Bush never did anything during or after the invasion of Iraq to GET Iraqi oil under our control. My own thought, is that Bush fooled himself into thinking it was a good idea to go after Hussein, because he thought that he could take advantage of the 9-11 mess to try to "clean up the whole world". From a certain point of view, at that time, it might have appeared that taking out Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea, might result in World Peace. Bush chose Iraq next, because it was right there next to Afghanistan, and pretty much everyone already hated Hussein. But he blew it big time, both in using the pretense of WMD's, and in overlooking the fact that taking out Iraq would free Iran to do what ever it wanted to. Exceptionally dumb to my thinking, but I wasn't in a position to stop him.
Obama's mess in Libya bears no resemblance to Bush's messes. By the way, I don't recall many people saying Bush sent us into Afghanistan illegally. At the time, or afterwards. Iraq, yes. Almost everyone in the world said THAT was a mistake. Anyway, what confuses me about the Libya mess is, that we were supposed to create a no-fly zone. When we started bombing and sending missiles at land targets, that struck me as being outside the parameters of a "no fly zone." But still, no invasion.
When you look at things like the PEMEX stuff, that can be confusing if you misunderstand the reasoning claimed for each decision. Many times, Presidents and governments can make APPARENTLY contradictory decisions, but when you actually delve into the details, it turns out that they are consistent after all. You might not LIKE what they did and why, but they WERE doing the same thing in each case, just not what you mis-expected.
Not every decision made by either Bush or Obama in the middle east, has been about oil. The countries we feel dependent on DO get more leeway than those we don't, so yes, Saudi Arabia gets a pass on oppressing THEIR people, that Syria and Libya wont get. Libya and Syria both have a long history of doing horrible things endangering their neighbors, so we will tend to come down harder on them. Syria has a special situation due to their physical position, next to Israel, which complicates things.
Do I think Obama is making a bunch of GOOD decisions, while Bush made all bad ones? No way. I think Obama is slightly better so far, because unlike Bush, he hasn't gone out of his way to INSULT the rest of the world while he takes action. Bush took a situation in September of 2001, where the whole WORLD was in support of the US, and managed in the space of a few months to alienate more than half the planet, simply because he insisted on making "loose cowboy" remarks about everything, and on ignoring EVERYONE ELSE when it came to dealing with Iraq.
As for Obama and Afghanistan, increasing the troop levels, I don't recall him saying he wouldn't do that. In fact, a majority of MOST rational people I've read about, have insisted that we SHOULD have kept more troops in Afghanistan from the beginning, and that the Bush admin's idea of "low budget wars" is why they were also FAILED wars. I personally, was SORT of hoping Obama would get us out of Iraq altogether by now, transferring that mess over to the Iraqis. But I don't elect a representative to do what I want, I elect them to make the best decision THEY can, based on principles I agree with.
So far, I'm not pleased with Obama, because he HAS done too many things that Bush also did, and I wanted more of a change than he's actually given us. But to say he's another Bush, is ridiculous.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 7
view profile
History
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 3/28/2011 10:35:19 AM
Unfortunately a lot of Americans have had a thing for gaddafi since the 80's
Now will America take all the African refugees that head for Europe every day?
With low birth rate and a culture that has to be saved Italy cant handle it.
Send them to America.
Just because Lybia didnt deal with Amerika, way to screw over your allies.

You know the French and the British spearheaded this operation. The US just provided fire support and contributed some missiles and a few F-15s and Growlers.

You're aware this wasn't just an American op, right? Because it sounds like you don't know that.

Furthermore, eliminating threats to civilians in the area is SLOWING the refugee flow northward towards Europe. Are you just looking for something to complain about?
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 3/28/2011 11:21:19 AM
" Bush went to Congress and to the UN, please explain the difference...Sadaam murdered anywhere between 100,000 and 500,000 Civilians(unarmed) before we interceded..If Bush had framed the War as "Humanitarian" would that have made it OK?"
Actually, you have a bit of historic facts slightly off there. Bush specifically did NOT go through the UN when he decided to take us back to war with Iraq. The UN would not vote to support an incursion, so Bush got together his "coalition of the willing," and went in. And since he DIDN'T make it a humanitarian mission in any way, it's moot as to whether that would have made it "right."
the whole WORLD watched as Saddam murdered his people, long before 9-11. Bush wasn't alone in that, Clinton didn't invade to stop it either.
I still think the main reason the world is using Humanitarian reasons as a cover to attack Kadafi, is that pretty much the whole world hates him, and wants him out, including his Arab neighbors. That's the only reason I can see, why the bombing and ,missile attacks have gone beyond keeping planes out of the sky.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 3/28/2011 3:35:29 PM

the whole WORLD watched as Saddam murdered his people, long before 9-11. Bush wasn't alone in that, Clinton didn't invade to stop it either.

Quick note: that wasn't on Clinton's watch. It was Reagan/Bush Sr.
 wisguyingb
Joined: 1/5/2008
Msg: 10
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 3/29/2011 5:25:09 AM

You might start by understanding the No Fly Zone


Since when does a "No fly zone" include knocking out tanks (from the air)(and from a nation who is not our enemy and who we are not at war with)?

So do we have a No Drive Zone as well as a No Fly Zone in Libya?

Personally I think American ground troops(as well as others) could find themselves in Libya IF a stable Government is not formed along with countiuned fighting and unrest after Gaddafi is gone.
 The Ogre of POF
Joined: 6/5/2010
Msg: 11
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 3/29/2011 1:46:27 PM

How many "Civilians" were Slaughtered in Iraq before we intervened?


So many people seem to forget that the satellite photos showing WMD's actually turned out to be mass graves of civilians that had been slaughtered in Iraq. Curious what we will find once ground troops move into Libya and check out what Obama says we're there to prevent. Maybe in the alleged grave sites we'll find WMD's.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 12
view profile
History
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 3/29/2011 3:45:43 PM

Since when does a "No fly zone" include knocking out tanks (from the air)(and from a nation who is not our enemy and who we are not at war with)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_creep
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 13
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 3/30/2011 6:35:29 AM

Since when does a "No fly zone" include knocking out tanks (from the air)(and from a nation who is not our enemy and who we are not at war with)?


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


I will disagree with the notion that attacking Kaddafy's tanks and other artillery weapons are part of a "mission creep."

The UN authorization for use of force in Libya, in my opinion, is not limited to the imposition of a "no-fly zone. It includes the use of "all necessary measures to protect civilians in Libya." Since it was reported that Kaddafy's tanks and artillery forces were bombarding the cities and towns that were controlled by the rebels, one could argue that destroying that weaponry is a necessary measure and authorized by the UN.


Libya: Ban welcomes Security Council authorization of measures to protect civilians

Members of the Security Council vote to adopt Resolution 1973 dealing with Libya
18 March 2011 –

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for “immediate action” on the Security Council’s authorization of the use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya, terming it a “historic” affirmation of the global community’s responsibility to protect people from their own government’s violence.
The Council yesterday passed a resolution permitting the use of all necessary measures, including the imposition of a no-fly zone, to prevent further attacks and the loss of innocent lives in Libya, where the regime of Muammar al-Qadhafi has conducted a military offensive against citizens seeking his removal from power.


http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37809&Cr=Libya&Cr1=


I am sure that if president Obama had not acted as he did, and if Kaddafy had been able to re-take control of Eastern Lybia by slaughtering thousands of people, then you would be criticizing president Obama for having allowed that to happen.

It is about time that America learn that we will not always be in absolute control on the rest of the world, and it would be much better for us if we can work with other nations to make the world a little better for all people. We are are much better off if we can effect change in a country without resorting to an invasion, like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I am hoping that after the dust settles in the countries of North Africa and the Middle East there would be a couple of democracies, or perhaps three or four countries that get rid of the dictatorships, opening a path for progress and freedom for the people in those countries. Should that happen, people would have to recognize that president Obama did the right thing in this difficult time.

There are signs that indicate that at least some people in the countries in turmoil don't see the US as the enemy. In one of the news reports I saw that, along with the Lybian flag, people were waving the US flag.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 14
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 3/30/2011 8:25:55 AM

When one country uses its Military against another countries Army it is an act of War.....whatever you want to call it for whatever reason a country uses to justify it,it is still an act of War.."A rose by any other name will smell as sweet"


Let's say, for argument's sake, that I accept your point, and we can call the bombing of Kaddafy's arsenals and tanks an "act of war." Still, there is a huge difference between the actions of president Obama and ex-president Bush. President Obama didn't go to congress to lie about the reasons and the need to go to war against Iraq, nor did he plan to invade Libya to get control of the oil so that his friends would benefit from that grab. The cost to America in blood and treasure will be much less than the cost of the Iraq war has been to the US. And with the uncertainty of the outcome of all the wars that we are involved in, perhaps the one that presents the best possibilities, given the investments that have been made so far, is Libya.


Bush believed in the greatness of our Country and in our Sovereignty.


It is really sad to see that there are people who still say sh.t like that, after all we know about the disastrous consequences for our country for having believed the lies of ex-president Bush and his cronies.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 15
view profile
History
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 3/30/2011 11:07:48 AM

The UN authorization for use of force in Libya, in my opinion, is not limited to the imposition of a "no-fly zone. It includes the use of "all necessary measures to protect civilians in Libya." Since it was reported that Kaddafy's tanks and artillery forces were bombarding the cities and towns that were controlled by the rebels, one could argue that destroying that weaponry is a necessary measure and authorized by the UN.

Oh for sure, it can be argued. But the original argument was just imposing a no-fly zone over Libya.
 CallmeKen
Joined: 9/4/2009
Msg: 16
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 4/1/2011 2:49:46 PM
Our current President was elected on the campaign of being NotBush. He was more NotBush than McCain the Maverick. And that's what we got - President NotBush.


that is not consistent with values that made America Great

I've heard that ever since I used to watch Governor Reagan of California. Nobody has ever explained to me WHICH values.

Side note: you had to watch Reagan. There were only 3 networks. When the debates were on, your night was shot. I couldn't even watch PBS, because it was down on channel 40, and the UHF dial was broken from too much surfing. You needed a pair of pliars to change the channel above 12. It was a 70's thing.


Nobel Peace Prize Winner Engages America in a Third War

Senator McCain of Arizona is also for a war in Libya. So much for the two party system.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 17
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 4/2/2011 7:30:34 AM

He has a World view and a view of America that is not consistent with values that made America Great....The tenets of his Church and his days as a community organizer give great insight into his true feelings about America and Americans.


Since you don't let go of this topic, I will try to answer by simply saying that some reflection on your part is needed to understand how wrong it is to accuse president Obama of not being a "true" American.

When you are referring to "the tenets of his Church" I understand, having read your rants in other discussions in this site, that you are talking about liberation theology as interpreted by some ministers in the USA. I have read your posts before saying that Black Liberation Theology is a racist enterprise. However, I have also heard and read some of the preachers insisting on the need to overcome the way of thinking inherited from the times of slavery. That is clearly an anti-racist message, teaching people not to oppress others who are less powerful than them. It is a message that insists in the need to accept that all men and women are created equal, and no one should think of himself/herself as being less, or more, than others by divine right.

How does that message square with the values that "made America great"?

What about the reality of slavery which lasted about a century after America became independent and declared its values to the world; and then it ended at the cost of a brutal civil war that took the lives of thousands and thousands of Americans, before America could join other civilized countries that had banned slavery voluntarily. Did slavery, and the values that such system represent "made America great'?

Why isn't it consistent with American values to attempt to end the slavery mentality which is continued in the abject exploitation of other human beings born in other countries?
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 6/19/2011 8:35:56 PM
Hardly ! The list would be too great,geez give me 10,000 words to describe the differences
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 19
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 6/21/2011 8:29:05 AM
Obama is much more the Euro cookie-cutter type than Bush was. A good example of this is that if Western European leaders were electronic components, you could unplug them & plug Obama into the empty socket, & the circuit would still work. You couldnt do that with Bush. Bush was wired more "American" than Obama is, in that respect. Different operating systems, so to speak.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 6/21/2011 1:46:00 PM

Bush was wired more "American" than Obama is, in that respect
you must be referring the the older generation American right ,Like J. Edger Hoover stuff back when we spyed on people in general ,wiretapping,eves dropping,hoping anything could be dicovered whether we had a reason or not,that John Wayne stuff , because we are the police of the world.

Its true when we had Bush it did remind me of those more American types.Was torturing people also what you meant,we did become like many other countries when we became that American.Yes your right there are those differences,true Obamas not as extreme as an old fashioned American,should he be more McCarthy?

You have a great point where I agree,Obama made it a priority to get along well with all the other countries leaders since we trade globally and we claim to be there friends and Bush I think without trying alienated all the other countries until we were a bad taste in there mouth.I prefer the European Global acting Obama now that you pointed that out.I believe keeping on a level of talking with the enemy as a way to watch them and understand them ,and prefer all the others to be treated like a good friend.heck that even makes for a better vacation when visiting,I know we Americans had been sneered at by the time Bush left office,even Russia was starting to draw a hard line,unless the Cold war scenario is preferred choice of yours,but I say its cheaper to be friends and less death than alienating them.No Obama is not perfect,just better.
 mateo45
Joined: 1/17/2008
Msg: 21
view profile
History
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 6/25/2011 9:22:24 AM
I suspect there are more "partisan" motivations behind the OP, especially since 'winger hatred for Obama is so extreme, now they'll even start taking "liberal" positions if they think it'll help bring him down! A good example is the GOP's so-called "New Attitude On Military Intervention" (translation: any military action by a Democratic president is "bad".... unless of course it's an attack on Iran)!

But more to the literal question of Obama compared to Bush, one could argue that Obama has adopted too much of Clinton's habit of "triangulation" (playing both sides against the middle and trying to appear "above" the fray). Which has also resulted in Obama reneging on many of his promises (re: Gitmo, the Patriot Act, Healh Care, Unions, Bush Tax Cuts, reforming Wall Street, etc.).

Clinton could get away with that because he had that old engaging Charm, but he was also a fighter when need be, while Obama not so much. Consensus-building and compromise may be fine in "community organizing", but not when dealing with foes who will only accept the "compromise" of receiving your head on a platter!
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 22
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 6/25/2011 11:22:37 AM

Hardly ! The list would be too great,geez give me 10,000 words to describe the differences


Bush and Obama are nothing alike. Consider:

Iraq: Bush got us into Iraq under false pretenses. Obama's first act as President was to bring all the soldiers home from the war.

Afghanistan: Bush got us into Afghanistan to kill OBL and destroy the Taliban. Obama has been opposed to this from the beginning. The second thing he did as President was bring all the troops home and not kill OBL.

Health Care: Bush was responsible for a huge expansion of the government's role in health care for seniors. Obama opposes such government interference in health care and successfully defeated the Republican plan to extend Romneycare to the whole country.

Gitmo: Bush deprived people of basic civil liberties under the rubrick of the War on Terror. Obama shut down Gitmo, brought the prisoners back to the US, and gave them all civilian trials to determine their guilt or innocence.

Torture: Bush had his evil minions torture suspected terrorists by sending them off to secret prisons in foreign countries that aren't so squeamish about torture. Obama has closed all those secret prisons and ended the torture.

TARP: Bush was the mastermind behind the Wall Street bailouts. Obama voted against TARP and made sure that GM paid back all of its ill gotten gains.

Housing market: Bush had his buddy Bernanke keep interest rates artificially low in order to inflate the housing market. Obama, realizing the folly of such artificial distortions in the market, b1tch slapped Bernanke repeatedly until he agree to raise interest rates. There's no way Obama is going to try to inflate the housing market again.

Gay rights: Bush hates gays and fought tooth and nail to deprive gays the right to marry. Obama has been a leader in the fight to allow gays to marry legally. He thinks that giving them the ability to have civil unions instead of marriage is akin to having "separate but equal" schools for blacks and whites.

Gun rights: Bush said that if Congress had renewed the assault weapon ban he would have signed it into law. Obama has been a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment and applauded the Supreme Court's decision to end the DC gun ban.

Budget: Under Bush the national debt had exploded. Under Obama it's shrunk to its lowest level in a decade.

So as you can see Bush and Obama are nothing alike. Hm....hang on a minute, Obama actually did the opposite of all those things. Hey, where's that delete button?
 mateo45
Joined: 1/17/2008
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 6/26/2011 1:54:50 AM
Well done, Count!

BTW, recently came across an interesting article that speaks to much of this:
"The 3 Wings of the Republican Party: The Crazies, the Corporatists.... and Democrats"

http://www.alternet.org/news/151345/the_3_wings_of_the_republican_party%3A_the_crazies%2C_the_corporatists_..._and_democrats/?page=1

Basically it makes a pretty damning case that this Administration, and a majority of the Dems have not just allowed, they've "enabled" the GOP and the wingnuts to dominate!
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 6/26/2011 9:25:39 AM
well said message 36,all recorded historical facts
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Is Obama just another Bush?
Posted: 6/26/2011 1:10:40 PM
Politifact the 2009 Pulitzer prize winning site for accurate facts has the cuurrent rating for each promise kept in entire detail and those comprimised,stalled or in the works,this is the most cuurent tally,so just because he has not closed Gitmo or not lived up to what you think he should you cannot state he has done nothing,and as so many state,this same question,what has he even done ,well go to Politifact and look,that way we can save ourselves a 100,000 words.

The Obameter Scorecard

Promise Kept 137

Compromise 40

Promise Broken 42

Stalled 69

In the Works 218

Not yet rated 2
further more at what point does a humanitarian mission in Libya led by the UN and Haiti efforts,Japans earthquake,the Gulf oil spill,winding down in Iraq,Afghan war,several record breaking floods,twisters,our Arizona wild fires already consuming well over 1000 square miles of forest and homes,and such slowing of the works,or at least be taken into account,geez look back,and tell me how many presidents throughout history had so much happening during their term,heck even if Palin was in office I'd say give her a break,shes got a lot on her plate at the moment.Do you not expect the same consideration when you promised your report hand delivered at work by the end of tomorrow yet on the way to work a flood swept you away,would you not expect the boss to add a minute or two on your promised delivery under such a circumstance before he started becoming all unrealistic with you.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Is Obama just another Bush?