|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:09 pm Post subject: I Miss George W. Bush |
 |
|
So sitting around, I find myself actually missing W a bit...
I can't really explain why...he was the worst President ever, but he wasn't as bad as everyone says...Actually he was...but...
He was the President we deserved...I think that's it...
At least you knew where you stood with ol Bush...
Anyone else missing the ol guy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:21 pm Post subject: Re: I Miss George W. Bush |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Anyone else missing the ol guy? |
When Bush was in office I had a lot of hope for the future. Sure things were terrible and he'd gone back on a lot of his campaign promises (he actually spoke out against the U.S. policy of nation-building). But the previous Democrat president had done a decent job.
But now Obama's programs have failed and he's decided to break his promises on the Patriot Act, government transparency, U.S. international aggression, lobbyists and corporatism.
There's one presidential candidate who's been consistent, honest, and incorruptible... but those features are likely to lead to big money keeping him out of the Presidency. So while I don't exactly miss GWB... I do miss the feeling that things could get better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No_hite_pls
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Location: Don't hate me because I'm right
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I thought he still was president, we're still in two wars, still got the patriot act, Guantanamo, big corporations still pay little or no tax, and the economy is still in the sh-tier. Where is the change I heard all about in 2008? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No_hite_pls wrote: |
| I thought he still was president, we're still in two wars, still got the patriot act, Guantanamo, big corporations still pay little or no tax, and the economy is still in the sh-tier. Where is the change I heard all about in 2008? |
Oh, I'll update you: it's a little thing called the Obama administration. Basically all your above stuff is wayy wayy worse now, but you forgot to add debt, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weso1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As a liberal, I don't miss W by any means. But I'm certainly disheartened over Obama's performance.
Not health care, I think that needed to be done. Not the debt, having a lot of debt does not mean the end of you country. Germany has a lot bigger debt to GDP than we do and their economy is doing swell.
No, I'm not frustrated with his policies. I'm frustrated with how he was attempted to implement those policies. I'm mad at his constant submission to the Republicans. He bows to whatever they want. There were a super minority in the first half of his term, yet he treated them like they were in control. You can't win a deal if you immediately leap to the center and give up all that you wanted. You can't expect the other side to be "nice" and let you have a few things you wanted after you give them "98%" of what they wanted. Politics isn't bean bags. Still today, he refuses to stand strong on liberal beliefs. He'd rather compromise them all away if that meant that a few Republicans might "like him."
I'm also angry that Democrats in Congress have yet to find a spine or grow a pair. They let the Republicans force them to get 60 votes on even the most trivial of issues. Yet, when the Republicans win the Senate next year, the Democrats wont do that to them. They'll let them go back to the old rules and continue to get steamrolled by conservatives.
I know giving up on the Democratic party and not voting means we'd be handing it all over to the Repubs and that means certain doom for everyone (except wall street.) But I'm just so apathetic on the spineless, weak, submissive cry babies that are in that party, it's hard for me to hold my nose and vote for them.
I want a liberal with a backbone. I want a liberal that seeks bipartisianship, but when it's obvious he isn't going to get it, to fight for what he wants. I want a liberal that when the Republicans punch him the face, he makes a fist and knocks a few of their teeth out. I want a liberal that rallies the media every time Republicans filibuster a bill necessary to the American people and says "look right now. We're trying to govern and do the job you sent us here to do and they're just standing in the way." I want a liberal that calls Republicans out on their BS. I want a liberal that calls out Republican propaganda and beats them to death with facts and figures. I want a liberal to make a fist and learn how to use it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| weso1 wrote: |
No, I'm not frustrated with his policies. I'm frustrated with how he was attempted to implement those policies. |
You're happy with his continued use of the Patriot Act? You're happy that he tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan and has no real intention of leaving anytime soon? You're happy that he's massively expanded the use of military force outside of Iraq and Afghanistan? He has 100% executive control over all of these things. The bank bailouts? The lobbyists he campaigned to remove which run his campaign? Are these the policies you like?
I'll give him Guantanamo... he tried on that and failed, but SO MUCH ELSE is completely under his control and he ACTIVELY CHOOSES to disregard his campaign promises.
WTF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itistime
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| weso1 wrote: |
No, I'm not frustrated with his policies. I'm frustrated with how he was attempted to implement those policies. |
You're happy with his continued use of the Patriot Act? You're happy that he tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan and has no real intention of leaving anytime soon? You're happy that he's massively expanded the use of military force outside of Iraq and Afghanistan? He has 100% executive control over all of these things. The bank bailouts? The lobbyists he campaigned to remove which run his campaign? Are these the policies you like?
I'll give him Guantanamo... he tried on that and failed, but SO MUCH ELSE is completely under his control and he ACTIVELY CHOOSES to disregard his campaign promises.
WTF |
Really? Didn't witness that one.
Obama campaign = Pepsi campaign
Bush = Obama (except worse)
You ninnies that voted for 'change' got hogs waggled.
His only attribute is that he speaks well.
I don't miss 'w' either. Only answer is a revolution. 'Mercans are too occupied to 'think' of such a thing, though. Divide and conquer, baby!
the depression is gonna be a beach! Vote for Ron Paul if you have any 'hope' for the U.S. in the next couple of decades. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
itistime:
He intended to close Guantanamo, but public opinion turned against it and:
| LA Times wrote: |
May 19, 2010: The House Armed Services Committee, controlled by members of....
...the president's own Democratic party, absolutely prohibits any opening of a Guantanamo detention replacement facility within these United States. To underline its ban, the powerful committee erupts in an unusual display of bipartisanship: The prohibition vote is unanimous. |
I remember joking with friends at the time that the idiots complaining about having Al Qaida imprisoned in the U.S. thought they were super villains. It was as though Magneto was one of the detainees and he would wreak havoc on the continental U.S. if he were brought to our shores.
Still, that's yet another time that he campaigned on something and either failed or intentionally recanted his position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I want a liberal that seeks bipartisianship, but when it's obvious he isn't going to get it, to fight for what he wants. I want a liberal that when the Republicans punch him the face, he makes a fist and knocks a few of their teeth out. I want a liberal that rallies the media every time |
I'm a liberal like you, but you do realize those two are not mutually compatible, don't you?
When all the major bills that Congress passed came to a vote, I think the maximum total number of Republican votes in favor was 3. Given that the GOP leadership has openly said their main goal is to make him a one-term president, I have a hard time seeing how it's Obama's fault. I'm not convinced surrendering Social Security for one more vote would have been a good deal, not surrendering Planned Parenthood for only one addition vote to bring it up to 5, or abolishing the Department of Education would have been worth that 6th vote.
Bipartisanship can be a nice thing, but not when it means surrendering the gains of the last 70 years to get it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itistime
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
itistime:
He intended to close Guantanamo, but public opinion turned against it and:
| LA Times wrote: |
May 19, 2010: The House Armed Services Committee, controlled by members of....
...the president's own Democratic party, absolutely prohibits any opening of a Guantanamo detention replacement facility within these United States. To underline its ban, the powerful committee erupts in an unusual display of bipartisanship: The prohibition vote is unanimous. |
I remember joking with friends at the time that the idiots complaining about having Al Qaida imprisoned in the U.S. thought they were super villains. It was as though Magneto was one of the detainees and he would wreak havoc on the continental U.S. if he were brought to our shores.
Still, that's yet another time that he campaigned on something and either failed or intentionally recanted his position. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I actually miss ol W's governance. At least some crap got done and some attempts at sweeping reform took place. Now these were all debacles, but at least he tried. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, George Dubya was very likeable in his own way. He was also an absolute scream. Most of the time, when funny, he was unintentionally so - but that is the best form of humor.
Who in his right mind would pass up the opportunity to go for a whiskey drinking session with George W? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weso1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| weso1 wrote: |
No, I'm not frustrated with his policies. I'm frustrated with how he was attempted to implement those policies. |
You're happy with his continued use of the Patriot Act? You're happy that he tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan and has no real intention of leaving anytime soon? You're happy that he's massively expanded the use of military force outside of Iraq and Afghanistan? He has 100% executive control over all of these things. The bank bailouts? The lobbyists he campaigned to remove which run his campaign? Are these the policies you like?
I'll give him Guantanamo... he tried on that and failed, but SO MUCH ELSE is completely under his control and he ACTIVELY CHOOSES to disregard his campaign promises.
WTF |
This is where I differ with much of the mainstream left. I'm a liberal hawk. That doesn't mean I believe in shooting first and asking question later and that every war is justified. Iraq was an enormous mistake that should have never happened. Afghanistan was a necessary war. We didn't go in as prepared as we should have been and it was largely ignored under W while the focus was on Iraq. So when Obama came in, there was a lot of work to be done in Afg. and we needed the numbers and dollars to do it. I'm for getting out of Afg. but not a rapid withdrawal that will lose all that we've gained. A timely yet organised withdrawal spread out over a few years is the answer.
Rushing into war is a terrible idea. But rushing out can be just as bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
As unintelligible and anti-intellectual as he seemed at the time, W. actually doesn't look too bad compared to the current crop of Republican candidates. Watching these newer Republican debates was like watching a bad episode of the Beverly Hillbillies, only less intellectually stimulating. They've really sunk low. Even if one isn't thrilled with Obama, does anyone really want to throw the country to any of these clowns?
(except Ron Paul, but he's the outlier in that party) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stout
Joined: 28 May 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
No one would be able to do much with the mess W left behind.
Face it, Obama only got into the White House because W screwed up so bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
