how?... explain to me how you've come to that conclusion when, let me just remind you

the Bush admin.: = war under false pretences
warrant-less search and seizure
abu ghraib torture scandal
and my personal favorite--- not many people seem to know this, but during the bush admin reign over the u.s., the CIA could take anyone they wanted at any time in the u.s. and transfer them to gitmo without cause, without notification of closest relatives, without trial, and could hold them there indefinately..
and we know the bush cabinet gave executive orders allowing the use of sleep deprevation, waterboarding, insect torture and a few others to gain knowledge from the so called terrorists they had locked up.

Define the mess that obama is doing it ?


and

you are calling obama a man of appeasement ? then what you call bush ?

At this point in America:
The American people, I think, are done with the left-right thing. We are done with the Democrats and Republicans. We can see that both of them, some of them are good, some of them are bad; both of them lie to us. It’s time for them to just deal straight and just do the right thing for the country.

Not the ones that are dishonest. Dishonest can also mean, anti-constitutional, anti-bill of rights, breaking the law, breaking the rules of human rights. Dishonest can also hold the meaning breaking the rules/laws for what they believe to be the greater good. Dishonest can also mean obtaining a position just for personal gain. There are plently of these people, so its not "Whenever someone gets into office" or every person that gets into office... but yes, I do believe some of these officials do still exist, I think more so though at lower levels of government. To that your point has merit.

since were on the subject of obama and the Dems and Reps political parties, i wanted to ask why people seem to think of obama as a socialist? does it really matter?


also to Samurai007

Bush burned down the house and now Obama is rebuilding it. of course obama is going to have problems fixing our economy and making things right, but you cant exactly fix something and expect it to be the same as before.

I guess you say something enough times it then becomes a fact.

President Obama is not a socialist, has never been a socialist, and will likely never be a socialist. The Socialist Party of America does not recognize him as one, and it's thanks the presidential campaign speeches by Republicans like McCain, Palin and Huckabee that started this last year, and even though the campaign is over, the right-wing finds it easy to tear down anything Pres. Obama says and does with the blanket statement that "Obama is a socialist." This has now leaked down into the vernacular of your average American who like to spout the same phrase when chances are few of them know what it even means.

To be socialist is to be anti-capitalist and anti private industry. Look at how much money has been poured into private industry. Obama is clearly a free-market democrat...much the opposite of socialist ideals.

Look at health care. "Socialized health care", like in Japan and Canada and other industrialized nations eliminates the need for private insurance companies. This isn't even on the table in terms of what the debate is about.

So please steer me to the policies of this administration that really are socialist. Anyone.

I love you.

I love people who think the president is God almighty sitting in the White House.

My friend, the president does not have all the power in the world. In fact, the President can do very little without the approval of the Senate.

If you want to blame anyone for "burning down the house," then you should blame the Senate for allowing Mr. Bush do do the things he did.

First of all our nation was attacked and the Senate gave him there full support, so he did get away with alot.
But the senate was republican controlled when bush was president. HE did ALLOW our military to invade IRAQ when the culprits who bombed the world trade center WERE known Saudi's including Bin Laden. HE changed health care reform and introduced NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND which i applaud him for. wasnt that a waste of money. when his own party told him that the war in iraq wasnt going well and to end it, HE didnt want to. HE tried to sell the ports of Dubay to Arabia . It doesnt matter if he had senate approval or not, he still fucked up pretty bad. He sat down for 7 minutes when they told him we were under attack. Ive been hearing it alot on the news that he is or may be the worst president in history, but apparently there wrong.

graci for that MMM . I saw an episode of Jon stewart where some guy was saying "Because hes a socialist! We should be afriad! We should all be afraid!" end qoute. its weird how political parties have more say than effective leaders in our country

not to mention, bush wasn't the real instigator of many of the atrocities associated with him.. for the most part he was simply Cheney's pawn.

I'm not going to argue about the American government with an individual who can't even properly speak English.



Yes, I agree.
Still, either way you look at it, it's not entirely Bush's fault.
Personally I think he (or Cheney) was a great president, and did what needed to be done.

Like what?

Namely sending the country to war. I think if Gore had gotten office, we would still be sitting on our butts.

So why did we go to war?

In retaliation of being attacked.

By who exactly?

There were no Iraqis on the planes that were used in the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and there was no real connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq at the time we went to war.

Where did you hear that? A liberal, of course.

Actually from George Bush himself. He said his "biggest regret" in office was going to war in Iraq based on bad intelligence.

Interview: Iraq war my biggest regret, Bush admits | World news | The Guardian

"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq."

Even if you were right, it's still not bushes fault. Taken from the same page

"It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington DC, during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world, were all looking at the same intelligence."

I am just responding to the fact that you think his greatest accomplishment is, in his eyes, his biggest regret.

don't bother MMM, this guy is just giving warre\ant-less claims and is obviously so shrouded by bias that he is unwilling to question his disposition...

i have no problem w/ someone making a claim and sticking to it, but you need to supply backing, as in facts... and you should never be so one sided that you completely block yourself from even considering the oppositions thought on the subject
:rheart:

God, what are you talking about, kid? I never ever did any of these things you just said. Get out of this thread, you don't even know what's going on.

Let me try:
You just said a collaboration of arbitrary sentences totally irrelevant to the debate at hand, in order make your argument seem more rationalized, not to mention the exiguous lack of competent English.

See, I can do it too. It doesn't make you appear more intelligent.

":rheart: "

excuse me,... all you have been doing is saying " Bush is good "... " bush never did anything wrong "... etc.

let me explain how the argument process works young one.
first, you must, in your case, make a statement... (at this point, you can leave that statement in tact and end it at that.. this is what we call a warrant-less claim)
next, if you decide to back up your remarks you need evidence and possibly some citation... although that's usually not necessary w/ information that is widely accepted as being fact
k?

and i do sincerely disagree with your request for me to leave the thread. simply because i oppose you and am obviously more intelligent, or at least can construct a better case than you, you move straight to a short demeanor

remember, anger is generally the first refuge of the ignorant

and i always include a heart at the end of my posts...;):rheart::rheart::rheart:
sometimes three

You are constructing a claim. A very poor claim, but a claim.
But, the claim has nothing to do with anything. You're telling me how people debate one another. What does that have to with Obama or Bush?

Are you sure you're talking to the right person? Because I don't know what you're trying to get at.

Who's angry?

he was great yeah , and his greatest accomplishments was the current economical crisis in America , the war in Iraq , the war in Afghanistan ..

Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the worst president in all of American history.

You can't be serious about this , are you?

president Obama is cleaning his mess up ..

However , this is your point of view and I respect it ..


Thank you MMM

^_^

Obama (along with Chris Dodd and Barney Frank) are responsible for the economic mess, as they caused the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie May. Bush warned against it repeatedly, but was ignored.

How come ?

when President obama won the election the U.S was already in the middle of the economical crisis . It is not Obama's fault ..

it is actually bush's great mistake ..


^_^

The deregulation of mortgage lenders like Freddie Mac and Fannie May happened under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress.

The failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie May happened months before Obama was even elected.

Bailout attempts were not what cursed these huge mortgage lenders but deregulation in billions in bad loans. Why lend $200,000 at an ARM low interest rate when you can make 50% more money lending $300,000? The only problem is when the interest changes so dramatically so suddenly, then suddenly you have hundreds of millions of dollars in loans that will quickly default.

thank you MMM

during the bush era our banks developed a policy of giving out mortgages and loans to almost anyone who applied, regardless of ability to repay... what they essentially figured they could do was to put all these bad loans into a blender, scoop out a handful of them, sell them to international banks with the assurance they were a solid investment...(which is why we were not the only one effected) it was pure deregulation and greed on the part of upper level execs which caused the market collapse
:rheart:

I just want to point out that this is probably the most truthful thing Iv read in this thread and should be taken to heart. Im not sure when it happened but this nation has turned into a instant gratification country complete with enough whining to open several vineyards. It would be great if people would give the president more than 9 months to enact change it does not happen over night.

again sorta not
 

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.Repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies.
This happened under President Clintons administration with full support of both republican and democratic parties.
Senate 90-8 House 362-57 the Gramm-Leach Bliley GLBA passed with a lopsided victory and was signed into law by Bill Clinton - November 12, 1999.

"I think this is a case where Freddie Mac (FRE) and Fannie Mae (FNM) are fundamentally sound. They're not in danger of going under…I think they are in good shape going forward." —Barney Frank (D-Mass.), House Financial Services Committee chairman, July 14, 2008

Because none of you seem to know the facts about how this economic crisis started, who pushed for more regulation, and who opposed it. You are just saying "Bush was President" without examining the details of what happened.

YouTube - Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Barack Obama & John McCain
YouTube - Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis? Bombshell
YouTube - Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
YouTube - Obama Ranks Second In Freddie & Fannie Contributions

These are just the tip of the iceberg, but they'll help get you caught up to what happened. ACORN (and Obama) had more to do with this as well, since they were pressuring (and threatening to sue) banks that refused sub-prime mortgages, calling them "racist" for refusing to lend to people who couldn't pay it back, many of whom were minorities. And that demographic is why many Dems kept pushing and defending sub-primes, and attacking anyone who tried to regulate them, and also why some Republicans chickened out of forcing the regulation through even when they had control of the Senate... they were afraid of being called "racist". (The race card has been a Dem favorite for a very long time...)

Thank you so much for saying this. I don't even think half the whiners realize how bad it is...

Iraq kicked out the UN inspecters, that gave us full and legal authority, via international law, to go in and finish the war, so that's a moot point. Plus it had the added bonus of bringing in 10's of thousands of Jihadi's to fight the "infidel". They were much easier to kill in Iraq than they are in Afganistan, wich is like one giant mountain. WMD's were never really the primary issue, and it's too bad bush used it as a "selling" point.

Plus haveing Iraq become a western ally with an American trained and equipt army helps bottle up Iran. It's why we pay so much attention to Pakistan as well, since it also borders Iran. That was the intent anyhow, the actions were sound tactically. They were essentially trying to fight fanatics while at the same time trying to build a wall of containment around Iran.

Obama isn't a socialist, he's more in tune with facists, since that's a governmental system that tends to join corperate with government as a joint venture, more so than nationalizeing everything like Socialists tend to do. Owning GM, takeing over banks, trying to take over health care, are all moves the Nazi's made in Germany dureing the 30's.

I'm not saying he's a Nazi, so lets nip that in the bud right here. What I am stateing is that much of what he has done so far, and is trying to do, is very similer to what they did then. In other words, the policy is following a familer path. Remember that was dureing the Great Depression, many of the moves Germany did dureing the mid to late 30's were highly successful economically speaking.

I would also point out that America itself has flirted with Facists idealogy on and off, for nearly 100 years, so it isn't anything new. FDR was a hero in Germany and Italy before WW2 because of his governmental policies. The Nazi party was also very strong in the US in the 30's, even garnering support from folks such as Linberg.

It will take a couple years to see how this plays out so maybe folks should stop with the doom and gloom. Afterall, I lived through Clinton, Bush, Carter, Reagan and blah blah blah. The US is still here and still a superpower, despite what others like to say.

Side Note; fluffy0000 is correct, the intial mess started in 99 and both parties were party to it. There were those who saw the inpending disaster even then but no one listened. By the way, the Bush administration warned about it repeatedly for years and Barny franks kept stalling it, claiming Bush was just about "class warfare". Bush was mostly at fault for not explaining loudly enough to the people what was really happeneing.

Most Presisdents are really judged decades later becuase what they did doesn't bear fruit for a generation. It will be well into the 2020's before the results of the Bush doctrin will be made clear.

It is good to see Godwin's Law is still alive and well.

@ samurai... you can give out sub-prime mortgages with apr balancing to give a longer, yet payable mortgage to lower level income families... what did us in were the people buying unnecessary items essentially on credit... what i meant to say was that we grew fat on credit in this country during the 20 years of the clinton and bush reign. the banks made it so easy to get loans for anything and everything, in fact it has been easier for people to get financing on an atv than a loan for college... try to fathom that. i assure you, the ammount lost by the mortgages given to the urban, mostly black civilians is unparalleled by the monstorus mountain of money engulfed by the middle class citizens. what i am saying really killed our economy were the people who borrowed to get their stupid jet skis or boats or a house which they obviously didn't need or have income for, or brand new trucks and atvs etc..... i had relatives exactly like this, they were so far into loans it was unbelievable .. during a 4 year period, they financed a new truck, a boat, two jet skis and a new house... i assure you this was not the result of Obama and ACORN pushing for housing for the low income families

this was a zero sum game for everybody, the banks had a dominant strategy to allow easy financing and sell out the bundled, useless loans- the people had a dominant strategy to grab the easy financing and get their hands on whatever they could imagine...
the only thing that could have prevented this would have been strict government regulation, yet everybody seems to be/ have been sreaming "yes to capitolism!, we want unbridled, free reign, dog eat dog, everything goes, free market economy!"
:rheart:

And I am sorry samurai, I am not going to watch a bunch of Fox "News" videos. If you have some text sites I will be happy to scan them.

I think we can both agree there isn't one person to blame for the economic crisis we are in.