It Speaks!

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 19, 2009 11:12 AM GMT
    George W Bush comes out of hiding and starts criticizing Barack Obama

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    Some Bush ditties .... "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money... Government does not create wealth.
    "cept the private sector is how we got in this mess IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

    On closing Guantanamo
    Therapy isn't going to cause terrorists to change their mind."
    I thought Obama was going to use Occupational Therapy
    What an ASS

    When Asked if Obama was a Socialist
    Instead of saying the obvious .... which is That's a F**king stupid question our former Dolt In Chief simply said .... We'll See icon_confused.gif

    and this man was the leader of the free world for 8 years
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2009 2:00 PM GMT
    What a lame post, sorry. Not that I agreed or ever liked Bush. But what's your point. Apparently, you've never heard Clinton or Al Gore and other democrats spread criticism during the Bush years. The first amendment doesn't only apply to democrats you know.

    "George W Bush comes out of hiding and starts criticizing Barack Obama."

    That comment sounds like "how dare anyone criticize The Messiah." Apparently, Gay folks can criticize him all they want, but Republicans cannot when he's dismantling what's left of this country.

    "When Asked if Obama was a Socialist
    Instead of saying the obvious .... which is That's a F**king stupid question our former Dolt In Chief simply said .... We'll See"

    Why is "that's a f$%king stupid question" an obvious answer. I don't see a more neutral response than "we'll see." And how do you know Obama is not a socialist? People claim he's not liberal enough, he's a closest conservative, etc. How about a closet socialist?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 19, 2009 5:03 PM GMT
    Nope ....

    Never happened before
    Criticism of an administration this quickly after another President has taken office
    Al Gore didn't criticize or say anything about the Bush administration until April of 2002

    and Dude ..... I don't actually see anything wrong about criticism
    But say something he actually needs criticism ABOUT

    So criticize him about his campaign promises to the gay community
    Don't hold your breath for Bush to come to your aid

    or that he's compromising on Healthcare and on the economy

    But Bush's criticism is much like his entire life ...... L-A-M-E
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2009 5:42 PM GMT
    Who's compromising on healthcare and the economy? Are you kiddin me!!

    And no offense, but you're being hypocritical --that its ok to criticize him as long as it matters to you and the gay community, but it's not if Bush disagrees with him on everything else. Obama has been blaming everything on his predecessors so its only fair to expect a response, and I think it was actually too soft when he said "Obama deserves my silence."

    The last person I wanna be seen defending is Bush, nor am I saying that its not partially his fault that we're in the mess we are in. But one thing is already clear -- that Obama failed with the stimulus and bailouts, why should I trust him on healthcare and other aspects of the economy withiout cooperation with the opposition. And don't get me started with his ego in foreign policy where he literally thinks that if he talks nice to the arabs and spreads his Muslim roots, they will actually give a f^^k.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2009 6:15 PM GMT
    I think Bush's comments were restrained. He obviously has disagreements with Obama's policies, and he has the right to speak up like anyone else.

    Obama is not the messiah, he needs checks and balances too, therefore the media needs to step up asking the hard questions; when they aren't, it's the duty of anyone with an opinion, including retired presidents to speak up.

    I believe in Obama's foreign policy acumen, and his perspectives on domestic social policies, but his socialist tendencies does bother me. The fact that he empathizes the most with the bottom rungs of society, those honest but unsophisticated folks who are powerless in the system and wish to be taken care of by the government at the expense of entrepreneurial spirit, is a bit alarming. We'll see.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2009 7:06 PM GMT
    MtndudeSF said The fact that he empathizes the most with the bottom rungs of society, those honest but unsophisticated folks who are powerless in the system and wish to be taken care of by the government at the expense of entrepreneurial spirit, is a bit alarming.


    That´s right, let the powerless and weak die.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2009 7:16 PM GMT
    GQjock said

    and this man was the leader of the free world for 8 years


    This fact made me increasingly ill during that entire 8 year period. The fact that he has made virtually incoherent comments comes as no surprise.

    The fact that he was making such comments all along and was reelected is still astonishing to me, even without considering his politics.

    This was our spokesperson to the world...a source of perpetual embarassment to me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2009 7:48 PM GMT
    I just wish Dubya whould have a massive painful heart attack and die.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2009 7:52 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]GQjock said[/cite]George W Bush comes out of hiding and starts criticizing Barack Obama

    GeeDub makes a great case for the promotion of taxidermy...icon_twisted.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 19, 2009 9:37 PM GMT
    But one thing is already clear -- that Obama failed with the stimulus and bailouts, why should I trust him on healthcare and other aspects of the economy withiout cooperation with the opposition

    But you might want to believe that's true but it's not
    It might have been handled in a different way but without the intervention in the Banking system we would have had a meltdown of worldwide proportions

    And why did we have this near meltdown? .... Because of unbridled free market capitalism without the proper regulation by the gov't
    Again ... Thank you George W Bush

    As for Obama's foreign policy
    He has done more for us across the world by just not BEING Bush than anything else
    and many diplomats and Statesmen are saying that his one speech in Cairo might have spurred BIG changes that just happened in the Lebanon elections
    where Netanyahu for the first time is talking about a two State solution with the Palestinians and finally where the Young Iranians are standing up against oppression
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2009 9:47 PM GMT
    GQjock said
    "cept the private sector is how we got in this mess IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!



    Um, the private sector is what drives this economy. Consumer spending accounts for 66% of the economy. The private sector drove the economy during the Clinton years, the (shutter) Carter years, the Johnson years, the Kennedy years.....
    Are you saying we should get rid of the private sector or the public sector should drive the economy? It was tried once. The Soviet Union didn't work so well. Hell even China gave up on that idea. He is right, government does not create wealth. Its IS the private sector. What all this excessive government spending is supposed to do now is STIMULATE private sector spending to help create wealth.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jun 19, 2009 10:05 PM GMT
    Although there were some inaccuracies in Bush's criticisms, I think he said them as genuinely as he possibly could. You can't really expect him to be hunky-dory agreeable to a liberal?
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jun 19, 2009 10:07 PM GMT
    DClifterguy said, "Um, the private sector is what drives this economy. Consumer spending accounts for 66% of the economy. The private sector drove the economy during the Clinton years, the (shutter) Carter years, the Johnson years, the Kennedy years.....
    Are you saying we should get rid of the private sector or the public sector should drive the economy? It was tried once. The Soviet Union didn't work so well. Hell even China gave up on that idea. He is right, government does not create wealth. Its IS the private sector. What all this excessive government spending is supposed to do now is STIMULATE private sector spending to help create wealth."


    I think you missed his point. The point he's making is that government deregulation allowed the private sector to become so greedy as to cause the economy to become what it is.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 19, 2009 11:36 PM GMT
    Ibid and Obsid icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2009 12:12 AM GMT
    There is a difference between "the private sector" and the portions of the financial sector though.

    Yes, government spending can be useful to stimulate private sector spending but it can never take the place. There is a point too when too much government spending can have the opposite effect. When you finance too much debt like we are, you run the risk of causing interest rates to climb, jumps in inflation and a weakening dollar as we can see happening. Unfortunately this has secondary effects like a rise in the price of oil, rise in mortgage rates (during a housing crisis) and a rise in commodities which can further hurt the economy.

    More needs to be done to stop the crazy spending an work on reducing the deficit. No one seems to really care about it, its all lip service. Blaming previous administrations for current spending will not help reduce our dependence on foreign governments funding our deficit spending.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jun 20, 2009 12:27 AM GMT
    I know what you're saying. I'm very disappointed in the lack of regulatory legislation being introduced to reign in sloppy credit and lending practices, amongst other things.

    I wasnt' for the first (failed) and second (passed) $700B bailouts because there was no regulation added to the spending. Not the kind of regulation that is specific to those getting bailed out, mind you, but the kind that restores the protections that prevents this from happening again.

    If it's too big to fail, it's too big. My view of what too big to fail means, is that it's bigger than the GDP or the country itself. United States of Merril Lynch my @$$!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2009 12:29 AM GMT
    GQjock said
    On closing Guantanamo
    Therapy isn't going to cause terrorists to change their mind."

    GWB sent terrorists to therapy actually. It was some Al-Qaeda thing in Saudi Arabia.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2009 12:29 AM GMT
    Exactly, spending for the sake of spending is dangerous. Unless its me spending at the Apple Store icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2009 1:13 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    MtndudeSF said The fact that he empathizes the most with the bottom rungs of society, those honest but unsophisticated folks who are powerless in the system

    You think this is ALARMING?

    Wow.

    Just wow.


    Well you surely know about labor demagogues, populists, and the kind of countries they used to run? These countries have collapsed one by one. Their people are now impoverished.

    The private sector is the engine of prosperity, if lightly but efficiently regulated by government. The government should not have a large role in spending money in the economy. Obama doesn't have a lot of private sector experience, but fortunately he is willing to listen to expert economists. He needs to make sure not to over-reward the undeserving poor as to destroy incentives for private capitalist entrepreneurship.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2009 1:30 AM GMT
    *grinds teeth
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2009 1:57 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    Who makes these judgements, you? The Republican Party?
    I'm sure all the poor people chose that lifestyle and are desperate to hang on to it. All they ask is a little respect and some lovin'.


    I'm a democratic voter, by the way. Poor people deserve respect and help, but they don't know how to run something profitably. They've never learned nor have experience with. A lot of them have the fantasy that government can run everything and take care of them. Their alienated state can make it easy for stupid fiscal ideas to become popular. I have confidence in Obama that he understands what makes America the most advanced in the world, it's not socialist principles, it's freedom and free enterprise.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jun 20, 2009 2:59 AM GMT
    jprichva said, "And anyone who uses "socialist" and "Obama" in the same paragraph has been pretty thoroughly marinated in right-wing vinaigrette."


    icon_surprised.gif Ooh! I'll have some right-wing vinaigrette on my bitterweed salad! icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2009 3:12 AM GMT
    It's my dream to see poor/low income citizens more respected and taken care of. But I wouldn't have faith in Obama or Democrats to make it reality. Honestly, I don't think politicians care, they just speak like they do. Jprichva, I expect a smart guy like you understand that it's a complex issue. I could have misinterpreted, but I got a sense you expect Democrats have the magic stick for poverty.