The Gaming Den

Clinton uses wiretaps. ACLU criticizes him; little Democrat opposition.
Bush uses wiretaps. Democrats: HOLY SHIT WE HAVE NO FREEDOM U.S. IS 1939 GERMANY.
Obama continues using wiretaps. Democrats: OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA.

Think of every news story, and think to yourself, "Imagine if Bush did it." For instance, when Obama bought Gordon Brown twenty-five DVDs.

The DVD thing was fucking hilarious. But it's clear that Obama and company have less patience for the UK and Australia than G.W bush.

I suspect this is in part a retreat from Bush style adventurism, and extremely pressing needs at home.

That certainly is a nice way of spinning it. I would wager that it was a bout of ignorance that caused such a gaff. Not that I criticize the President for such inconsequential things--like I said, I learned my lesson from the past two terms--and I feel that those who believe that they reflect negatively on President Obama's intellect are incorrect. Then again, I think that those who believe that President Bush's inarticulate speech reflects negatively on his intellect are incorrect, so what do I know?

It's more than just that - even appointing Clinton was a clear sign that he was going to focus domestically and let someone else do foreign affairs.

As for the bush thing, the dichotomy between perosnal accounts and his public persona demonstrates that he was certainly an inarticulate public speaker.

But his entire organization had a disdain for outside opinions and a certain intellectual narrowness. Just check what happened to Shinseki. The gap between Rumsfield's plan and reality are well documented.

It's more than just that - even appointing Clinton was a clear sign that he was going to focus domestically and let someone else do foreign affairs.

Which is kind of funny, given that he has more credentials in foreign affairs. After all, his undergrad degree was in international relations. In fact, I think overall the Obama administration has been doing better in foreign policy than domestic affairs. That might partly be because he has his own database of foreign affairs knowledge and can tell when his advisors might be barking up the wrong tree. Some of it might also be the fact that he can do more things without Congress in foreign affairs.

cthulhu wrote:It's more than just that - even appointing Clinton was a clear sign that he was going to focus domestically and let someone else do foreign affairs.

He was elected President of the USA, not the world.

Though he is also very popular and already much more successful in the field of foreign affairs than Bush ever was.

True. It is a different approach to, say, Bill Clinton's.

I think the fact that he doesn't have to deal with Congress is precisely why he's more successful internationally - the administration doesn't have to pass to ball to the rank-and-file in Congress or the Senate and have their shenanigans reflect on him.

Attacks, yes. But not justified.

Honestly, I voted for Obama because 1) Palin was Vice President nominee 2) McCain is getting up to that age where people just die for no reason. Palin would have then been in power. Yikes.

tzor wrote:The second worst attack was to deride him for his handicaps.

I think you'll find it was more an issue of "He's getting very nice pension benefits for being handicapped. And also running to be president. And condemning the system for daring to give money to people who are injured or otherwise unable to work for health reasons.

As for evidence of Bush being evil and/or stupid, I could just point at his reign over the past 8 years and call it a day. I'm not going to drag up a list of Bushisms, on the grounds that 1) most are actually fabricated, and 2) you can say any number of stupid things without necessarily being stupid. You should hear me on the phone some time.

But seriously.

"Fuck you all, the wealthiest 1% isn't getting enough of the money, let's squeeze more money back up into that small category!" (includes funnelling EPA money into ads for his re-election... while happily signing away more "destroy the environment" bills. Also includes saying "This new bullshit scheme will create jobs!" and when it doesn't, decides that, rather than not going and handing money to the rich, just begs foreign countries to change their currencies to make American manufacturers more competitive.)

"Let's declare this flooded hurricane area to no longer be in a state of disaster, otherwise we'd need to declare it an emergency and actually spend money and people and shit."

"Waterboarding isn't torture, it's just entertainment!"

"Making fun of me on the Internet makes me sad. There should be limits to freedom of speech." <-- he didn't act on this one, just basically stated that Freedom of Speech should not cover its actual intended purpose (speaking out against those in power).

"Sure, species extinction is a bad thing, but is it as bad as, say, not having a wastebasket made out of real ivory?" (note: this only applied to *foreign* animals. See? He used restraint!)

"Powell? The UN respects you, so here, tell them this stuff about Iraq so I can send people to die there."

"Shit, nobody is getting married any more! So let's set up a protection of marriage week! We'll protect it from gays, who want to attack marriage by getting married!"

"What? This guy revealed I used false information for my war? Well I'll show him. HEY EVERYBODY, HIS WIFE IS AN UNDERCOVER CIA AGENT!"

"What? Let prosecutors and judges have some leeway in the prosecution, taking variables into account? Screw that, they have to charge for the maximum, to prove I'm TOUGH ON CRIME!"

"Hmm, okay, I managed to squeeze more money out, so... oh! Let's give more funding to evil religious organisations! That benefits everyone!"

"Why should we pass tax cuts for the rich? The September 11 attacks. Why should we clear cut forests and let polluters write environmental policy? The September 11 attacks. Why has America lost millions of jobs since Bush took office? The September 11 attacks."

"The Patriot Act doesn't take away enough civil liberties. Let's expand it! Yay, Patriot Day! If you don't like it, that makes you a terrorist!"

"I only like killing people when they're old enough to beg me not to - then I can mock them, too! So, if an international organisation provides even their own money for abortions, we give them no funding. Screw those women in poor nations, it's what they get for being women."

In a time when the death penalty ought to be shrinking into nonexistence what with dozens of innocent people being discovered on death row, President Bush pushes for an expansion of the death penalty, saying the current law is one of the "unreasonable obstacles" to fighting terrorism...

Oh, and his fondness for electrocuting people when Governor. Now, I'm aware that as a Catholic, killing people who are old enough to say "I don't want you to kill me" is A-ok in your books, but most people consider it pretty evil.

A cheap shot there? Sure, but you earned it, all those years ago when I first arrived here. Yeah, revenge is a dish best served cold and all that.

tzor wrote:Crissa, you want “evidence” that people (and the MSM) were obsessed with insulting, demeaning, cursing, deriding, and generally appearing smug and highly intellectual by attacking, G.W. Bush? I wonder how far I would have to search to show evidence. Perhaps Koumei’s post just above yours?

Dude, EVERYONE makes fun of the president in America. It's more of a national pastime than Baseball. And modern times aren't any different. Jefferson was an atheist, a coward, and a traitor. Grant was a drunk and a crook. Hays stole the election. Reagan was legally retarded. Seriously, every president gets made fun of. Bush didn't get it worse than anyone else did.

tzor wrote:

Crissa, you want “evidence” that people (and the MSM) were obsessed with insulting, demeaning, cursing, deriding, and generally appearing smug and highly intellectual by attacking, G.W. Bush? I wonder how far I would have to search to show evidence. Perhaps Koumei’s post just above yours?

Oh please. Like conservatives don't adopt a smarmy, homespun-wisdom-trumps-studious-intellect attitude? Hell, wasn't that Sarah Palin's entire schtick?

I'm generally of two minds in regards to this. The first thought is that even if liberals are quantifiably more insulting and demeaning than conservatives, the conservatives can shut up and eat it. I seriously don't care about conservative boo-hooing that the liberals are mean to them.

Why? Because, as a general rule, liberal extremists in the U.S. do not murder their adversaries. When was the last time Pro-Choice proponents bombed a church or assassinated a pastor? When did a gang of homosexuals drag a good ol' boy out of his truck and beat him to death? When was the last time someone shot up a church to advance a liberal agenda?

My second thought is that, in broad terms, I'm tired of these insane equivalencies between hammering on someone for their crimes and mistakes, and the nature of those crimes and mistakes in the first place. Do liberals sometimes get overzealous in attacking the actions of conservatives? Of course they do. But the intensity of the outrage and criticsm would have to be way overblown in comparison to the action for me to give any credence to the "meanie!" argument. And, like pornography, I'll know a situation like that when I see it.

Psychic Robot wrote:Clinton uses wiretaps. ACLU criticizes him; little Democrat opposition.
Bush uses wiretaps. Democrats: HOLY SHIT WE HAVE NO FREEDOM U.S. IS 1939 GERMANY.
Obama continues using wiretaps. Democrats: OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA.

Think of every news story, and think to yourself, "Imagine if Bush did it." For instance, when Obama bought Gordon Brown twenty-five DVDs.

Letsee... A guy without connections in the elite class accidentally gives another guy the wrong format video discs. Umm, who cares?

Next... wire taps. Did Clinton use wiretaps without court authorization, yes/no? Did Clinton or Obama use wiretaps on US citizens without court authorization, yes/no?

Go learn about the real world, you know, the one we live in. The one that the previous administration did their damnedest to ignore. The one where Congress passes laws, the president bides by it or vetoes it, and there are courts to check whether those powers are being abused. Not that it has ever said no... But the Bush administration didn't even bother with that check. I think that's a clear difference.

Today's news: Republicans refuse to stop paying banks to administer loans to college students at a profit. I mean, gee, the government is going to take all that nice business away from the banks! It's not that the banks are loaning their own money, taking any risk, and not already being paid handsomely by the government to do it, so much so that it would be cheaper to pay someone else to administer the loans than banks!

Why are the Republicans so afraid of competition in a market?

-Crissa

PS: Still no media sources insulting the previous administration. Where's your liberal Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Hannity or whatever? C'mon, I know there isn't one as big as Rush Limbaugh and there's no elected Senators, Governors, or major party leaders on the liberal side yelling at them. So... Who were these voices? Some guy on the street?

Even an avowed middle-of-the-roader like myself thinks that the GOP have lost a significant amount of legitimacy due to their actions over the last eight years.

It's not just he-said/she-said here, there are actual instances where you can clearly see that shit got way out of hand. When Republicans and more importantly conservatives begin atoning for their sins by articulating reasonable policy stances then their complaints will resonate. Until then they're pandering fools.

I don't mind the pandering as its just part of our political culture at this point, but they're not actually doing much of anything in addition to pandering. I can even accept that they're the opposition in a 2-party system, meaning that they have to drag their heels a little. But to just be idiots about it, flailing around is inexcusable.

The list of effective responses to a massive economic slow-down combined with a liquidity crunch should never include TAX CUTS. Fighting against a public health insurance option still does not address fundamental issues such as the cost of care itself, but to fail to see that insurance costs are a massive, obvious and growing threat to the economy is inexcusable.

The GOP has no big ideas at the moment.

It get better. Last night, I was passing by a TV and they had a quote from President Obama where someone asked him why he was setting deadlines so much.

Obama spake something like this: "Because the culture is Washington right now is to put off doing anything for as long as possible. If I say I want them to discuss it and let them work out the details, I'll be out of office before it gets done. If I tell them they have two months or two weeks to do it, they get cracking."

Well, okay, that's the general gist of what he said.

I kinda think he knows that the Republicans are just opposing him right now. Just because they're the opposition. And maybe they see themselves as doing damage control to try to stop him from, in their view, mucking the country up. Whatever.

mean liar wrote:The GOP has no big ideas at the moment.

They're suffering from the same problem the Democrats were in the Bush elections: a lack of charismatic leader. Kerry and Gore may have had influence, but their starpower wasn't enough to defeat Bush. Obama has that charisma, regardless of actual policy, so the Democrats have reversed the trend.

After the response to her in the election, lots of people thought Palin could carry the party, but she's not quite a true It girl.

There is no way Republicans are anything like a leaderless Democratic Party...

...For one, they still vote in lock-step.

-Crissa

cthulhu wrote:But his entire organization had a disdain for outside opinions and a certain intellectual narrowness. Just check what happened to Shinseki. The gap between Rumsfield's plan and reality are well documented.

Oh, I agree completely. Don't misunderstand my statements--I believe President Bush was (and is) a very stubborn man. But that doesn't mean that he's suddenly a moron because he's a poor public speaker.

No, he was a moron because he disdained opposing opinions, and believed in 'gut' and 'religion' over observable evidence.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:No, he was a moron because he disdained opposing opinions

Haha, oh, wow. Get back to me on that one.

Did, thanks for fixing the thread.

-Crissa

Bush wasn't actually stupid. Which sucks for him, because without the cover of being just a little slow to fall back on, he's just malicious. I can accept that he is a poor public speaker, not everyone is good at that; smart people aren't good at that. It doesn't make him a bad president. What makes him a horrible president is his narrow mindedness, willingness to work outside of the law, crazy religious beliefs that he took as facts, ability to lie to the public and officials in his own administration, continuation and expansion of disastrous conservative policy that seems to be founded on hatred and self interest, and his deep participation in his party's disgusting morality.

Tzor, you might want to stop acting like an arrogant hypocrite while you call others by the title. It just makes you look like a dick, and undermines anything else that issues from your flapping gums. Not that asserting that people attack Bush only because it made them look good and not because he was shitting on our national principles is a particularly valid claim.

And, you are what is wrong with politics in America. Seriously, your sweeping generalizations and vitriolic disdain for those with opposing viewpoints is fundementally opposed to the compromise that is inherent to the political process. But I love to hear it, because it makes those that share your unreasonable and ill-advised views look worse every time you bust out the hate speak. Enjoy obscurity.

Psychic Robot wrote:

cthulhu wrote:But his entire organization had a disdain for outside opinions and a certain intellectual narrowness. Just check what happened to Shinseki. The gap between Rumsfield's plan and reality are well documented.

Oh, I agree completely. Don't misunderstand my statements--I believe President Bush was (and is) a very stubborn man. But that doesn't mean that he's suddenly a moron because he's a poor public speaker.

He's not smart because he never really re-evaluated his world view despite contrary evidence, or even evaluated it for internal consistency.

if you're accepting a doctrine that says massive social re-engineering programs in true liberal style don't work, why the hell are you trying it in iraq?

Conversely, if your ideology is advancing liberal reforms in a tempered and realistic manner, while proposing real altenatives to the liberal social change initatives, and specifically NOT just doing the reactionary old style conservative, how the hell does your position on gay marriage make any sense at all.

Seriously, he's a moron because he accepted the statements

Massive social re-engineering projects don't work AND the statement

Massive social re-engineering projects do work at the same time.

If you are unable to see a problem with A = NOT A, then you are defective.

Maj wrote:

mean liar wrote:The GOP has no big ideas at the moment.

They're suffering from the same problem the Democrats were in the Bush elections: a lack of charismatic leader. Kerry and Gore may have had influence, but their starpower wasn't enough to defeat Bush. Obama has that charisma, regardless of actual policy, so the Democrats have reversed the trend.

After the response to her in the election, lots of people thought Palin could carry the party, but she's not quite a true It girl.

Actually, they're suffering from the problem the Democrats had in the late 60s and early 70s. Namely, they've become dominated by a wing of the party that is out of step with the broad middle of American culture. In the time of Nixon, it was the Democratic New Left. Now, it's the reactionary religious right.

Until they lose enough elections to cow that part of the party into taking half a loaf in order to avoid the allegedly socialist/fascist/Islamist leaders they claim all the Democrats are, the Republicans are going to have problems regaining political power. They might win the odd presidential election, since those are mostly measures of the national mood at the moment. But they'll have a hard time getting control of Congress or winning governorships.