"JLH" wrote in message
...
Not sure what you mean by the Bush Rationale,

Since you'e speaking nicely...

The 'Bush Rationale' is the reason many liberals provide for any
negative critique of an Obama action.

I believe that is from a right-wing talking point. There's no shortage of
criticism of Obama from the left.

For example, "You didn't say anything when Bush did it." Or, "Bush did
it, so it's OK if Obama does it too." Hopefully you get the idea.

And, as I've said, I'm willing and able to call Obama on crap that's either
a hold-over from the Bush years or newly implemented along the same lines.
There are very few people who believe that Obama is perfect, I certainly am
not among them.

As I've said before, for you guys - yourself, w3fh, Harry, etc. - a
'debate' consists of personal insults and name-calling.

I absolutely reject that line of reasoning or implication. I don't engage in
such behavior. Feel free to show otherwise. I can't speak for others.

And, for the record, Bush may have screwed up a few things during his
eight year tenure. But, Bush is gone. Obama is trying damn hard to
catch up in his first 3/4 of a year.

A few things???? Yeah, a few things like a war of choice and a war of
necessity, like ruining the economy, like taking approximately 1/3 of his
time in office as vacation, like lying to the American public, like spying
on Americans, like engaging in intense cronyism, like promoting and
condoning torture, and on and on and on.


since Bush's "rationale" was
based on a twisted notion of religion mixed with failed economics and
fear-stoking actions.

If you'd like to debate things that Obama has done or not done that are
good
or not good for the country, and you're willing to actually cite
verifiable
facts, there's room for discussion. There are plenty of facts from Bush's
8
years worthy of debate, including some things that might be construed as
"good" for America (in my opinion of course). A quick example is the
African
AIDS program (except for the insertion of "abstinance" requirements).
There
are a plethora of facts/decisions he and his admin made that were terrible
(my opinion and the demonstrable results)... no need to repeat them, as
I'm
sure we're all familar with them.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:24:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JLH" wrote in message
.. .
Not sure what you mean by the Bush Rationale,

Since you'e speaking nicely...

The 'Bush Rationale' is the reason many liberals provide for any
negative critique of an Obama action.

I believe that is from a right-wing talking point. There's no shortage of
criticism of Obama from the left.

For example, "You didn't say anything when Bush did it." Or, "Bush did
it, so it's OK if Obama does it too." Hopefully you get the idea.

And, as I've said, I'm willing and able to call Obama on crap that's either
a hold-over from the Bush years or newly implemented along the same lines.
There are very few people who believe that Obama is perfect, I certainly am
not among them.

As I've said before, for you guys - yourself, w3fh, Harry, etc. - a
'debate' consists of personal insults and name-calling.

I absolutely reject that line of reasoning or implication. I don't engage in
such behavior. Feel free to show otherwise. I can't speak for others.

I may stand corrected. If so, I apologize. You're much different from
the pack.

And, for the record, Bush may have screwed up a few things during his
eight year tenure. But, Bush is gone. Obama is trying damn hard to
catch up in his first 3/4 of a year.

A few things???? Yeah, a few things like a war of choice and a war of
necessity, like ruining the economy, like taking approximately 1/3 of his
time in office as vacation, like lying to the American public, like spying
on Americans, like engaging in intense cronyism, like promoting and
condoning torture, and on and on and on.

Again, Bush is history.


--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

"The Fish" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:24:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JLH" wrote in message
. ..
Not sure what you mean by the Bush Rationale,

Since you'e speaking nicely...

The 'Bush Rationale' is the reason many liberals provide for any
negative critique of an Obama action.

I believe that is from a right-wing talking point. There's no shortage of
criticism of Obama from the left.

For example, "You didn't say anything when Bush did it." Or, "Bush did
it, so it's OK if Obama does it too." Hopefully you get the idea.

And, as I've said, I'm willing and able to call Obama on crap that's
either
a hold-over from the Bush years or newly implemented along the same lines.
There are very few people who believe that Obama is perfect, I certainly
am
not among them.

As I've said before, for you guys - yourself, w3fh, Harry, etc. - a
'debate' consists of personal insults and name-calling.

I absolutely reject that line of reasoning or implication. I don't engage
in
such behavior. Feel free to show otherwise. I can't speak for others.

I may stand corrected. If so, I apologize. You're much different from
the pack.

I accept your apology.

And, for the record, Bush may have screwed up a few things during his
eight year tenure. But, Bush is gone. Obama is trying damn hard to
catch up in his first 3/4 of a year.

A few things???? Yeah, a few things like a war of choice and a war of
necessity, like ruining the economy, like taking approximately 1/3 of his
time in office as vacation, like lying to the American public, like spying
on Americans, like engaging in intense cronyism, like promoting and
condoning torture, and on and on and on.

Again, Bush is history.

History, unfortunately, has a direct impact on our current situation.

When Bush was first elected, I was shocked that someone like him was
acceptable to 50% of the electorate. Despite my strong anger at the
situation in Florida and the US Supreme Court vote, I accepted his
legitimacy as president (well, reluctantly). I believed that he would mostly
not do to much, especially since the enconomic climate was decent. I, and
most Americans, supported him in the days and weeks after 9/11, but as the
war in Iraq approached, and I began to suspect that we were being lied to,
my attitude toward him as a fool with ok advisors changed to contempt and
disgust.

Before the last presidential campaign, I had a lot of respect for McCain. I
thought he would run a decent, forthright (and of course partisan) effort to
take the presidency, even though I thought he was probably too old and I
disagreed with a lot of what he stood for both economically and socially. I
am, after all, a liberal. It soon became obvious that he was unable to
restrain the crazies, and when he picked Palin, I concluded that he had
completely missed the boat. If he had picked a reasoned, responsible,
intelligent woman, who happened to be right of center, he might have pulled
it out. There's no doubt that the Palin pick generated momentum and
interest. Talking with my friends, we thought he became pathetic toward the
end. I, for one, felt sorry for him. Frankly, he scared me with his
"maverick" moves... e.g., "suspending" his campaign.

At this point, it's Obama's economy and Obama's two wars, but the historical
detritious can't be swept under the rug, not if we're to move forward. I'm
willing to give the Obama administration some time to sort things out. Not
forever, but he deserves to be respected as the President, even if you
disagree with his policies. We need civil discourse if we are to succeed as
a people.

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:24:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JLH" wrote in message
.. .
Not sure what you mean by the Bush Rationale,

Since you'e speaking nicely...

The 'Bush Rationale' is the reason many liberals provide for any
negative critique of an Obama action.

I believe that is from a right-wing talking point. There's no shortage of
criticism of Obama from the left.

For example, "You didn't say anything when Bush did it." Or, "Bush did
it, so it's OK if Obama does it too." Hopefully you get the idea.

And, as I've said, I'm willing and able to call Obama on crap that's either
a hold-over from the Bush years or newly implemented along the same lines.
There are very few people who believe that Obama is perfect, I certainly am
not among them.

As I've said before, for you guys - yourself, w3fh, Harry, etc. - a
'debate' consists of personal insults and name-calling.

I absolutely reject that line of reasoning or implication. I don't engage in
such behavior. Feel free to show otherwise. I can't speak for others.

I may stand corrected. If so, I apologize. You're much different from
the pack.

And, for the record, Bush may have screwed up a few things during his
eight year tenure. But, Bush is gone. Obama is trying damn hard to
catch up in his first 3/4 of a year.

A few things???? Yeah, a few things like a war of choice and a war of
necessity, like ruining the economy, like taking approximately 1/3 of his
time in office as vacation, like lying to the American public, like spying
on Americans, like engaging in intense cronyism, like promoting and
condoning torture, and on and on and on.

yeah, and he snuck into your house and took your money, and he killed
your dog, and he sold military info to the Chinese (oh wait, that was
Clinton), well then he got caught on tape taking a bribe (oh wait..) or
he lied to congress and stated "the CIA lied" oh wait.... Oh well,
guess that was all Bush's fault too...

Again, Bush is history.




--
Wafa free since 2009

"JustWait" wrote in message
...
A few things???? Yeah, a few things like a war of choice and a war of
necessity, like ruining the economy, like taking approximately 1/3 of
his
time in office as vacation, like lying to the American public, like
spying
on Americans, like engaging in intense cronyism, like promoting and
condoning torture, and on and on and on.

yeah, and he snuck into your house and took your money, and he killed
your dog, and he sold military info to the Chinese (oh wait, that was
Clinton), well then he got caught on tape taking a bribe (oh wait..) or
he lied to congress and stated "the CIA lied" oh wait.... Oh well,
guess that was all Bush's fault too...

Again, Bush is history.


So, what you're saying is that if someone else does something wrong, then
it's ok for you to do something wrong. Now that's just wacked.

--
Nom=de=Plume

The Fish wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:24:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JLH" wrote in message
...
Not sure what you mean by the Bush Rationale,
Since you'e speaking nicely...

The 'Bush Rationale' is the reason many liberals provide for any
negative critique of an Obama action.
I believe that is from a right-wing talking point. There's no shortage of
criticism of Obama from the left.

For example, "You didn't say anything when Bush did it." Or, "Bush did
it, so it's OK if Obama does it too." Hopefully you get the idea.
And, as I've said, I'm willing and able to call Obama on crap that's either
a hold-over from the Bush years or newly implemented along the same lines.
There are very few people who believe that Obama is perfect, I certainly am
not among them.

As I've said before, for you guys - yourself, w3fh, Harry, etc. - a
'debate' consists of personal insults and name-calling.
I absolutely reject that line of reasoning or implication. I don't engage in
such behavior. Feel free to show otherwise. I can't speak for others.

I may stand corrected. If so, I apologize. You're much different from
the pack.
And, for the record, Bush may have screwed up a few things during his
eight year tenure. But, Bush is gone. Obama is trying damn hard to
catch up in his first 3/4 of a year.
A few things???? Yeah, a few things like a war of choice and a war of
necessity, like ruining the economy, like taking approximately 1/3 of his
time in office as vacation, like lying to the American public, like spying
on Americans, like engaging in intense cronyism, like promoting and
condoning torture, and on and on and on.

Again, Bush is history.

--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

So everything in history gets erased?

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:51:56 -0400, NotNow wrote:

The Fish wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:24:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JLH" wrote in message
...
Not sure what you mean by the Bush Rationale,
Since you'e speaking nicely...

The 'Bush Rationale' is the reason many liberals provide for any
negative critique of an Obama action.
I believe that is from a right-wing talking point. There's no shortage of
criticism of Obama from the left.

For example, "You didn't say anything when Bush did it." Or, "Bush did
it, so it's OK if Obama does it too." Hopefully you get the idea.
And, as I've said, I'm willing and able to call Obama on crap that's either
a hold-over from the Bush years or newly implemented along the same lines.
There are very few people who believe that Obama is perfect, I certainly am
not among them.

As I've said before, for you guys - yourself, w3fh, Harry, etc. - a
'debate' consists of personal insults and name-calling.
I absolutely reject that line of reasoning or implication. I don't engage in
such behavior. Feel free to show otherwise. I can't speak for others.

I may stand corrected. If so, I apologize. You're much different from
the pack.
And, for the record, Bush may have screwed up a few things during his
eight year tenure. But, Bush is gone. Obama is trying damn hard to
catch up in his first 3/4 of a year.
A few things???? Yeah, a few things like a war of choice and a war of
necessity, like ruining the economy, like taking approximately 1/3 of his
time in office as vacation, like lying to the American public, like spying
on Americans, like engaging in intense cronyism, like promoting and
condoning torture, and on and on and on.

Again, Bush is history.

--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

So everything in history gets erased?

Using Bush's actions to legitimize Obama's actions is somewhat stupid.
No, it's really stupid.

Here is an example of a stupid comment: "So everything in history
gets erased?"

--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

"John H." wrote in message
...
Using Bush's actions to legitimize Obama's actions is somewhat stupid.
No, it's really stupid.

Here is an example of a stupid comment: "So everything in history
gets erased?"


I absolutely agree with the first sentence.

I don't know if the second quoted comment is stupid or ill-informed. Orwell
had an interesting take on history... "Those who control the present control
the past." From this we certainly need to be wary. I support Obama and his
policies, but no one gets a free ride and the present administration must be
held to the same high standards that we would hold those from the past - no
revisionist history need apply. Just as those who "forget the past are
doomed to repeat it," we need to ensure that the past is accurate. Bottom
line, the facts and the lies need to be exposed to sunlight.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
Using Bush's actions to legitimize Obama's actions is somewhat stupid.
No, it's really stupid.

Here is an example of a stupid comment: "So everything in history
gets erased?"


I absolutely agree with the first sentence.

I don't know if the second quoted comment is stupid or ill-informed. Orwell
had an interesting take on history... "Those who control the present control
the past." From this we certainly need to be wary. I support Obama and his
policies, but no one gets a free ride and the present administration must be
held to the same high standards that we would hold those from the past - no
revisionist history need apply. Just as those who "forget the past are
doomed to repeat it," we need to ensure that the past is accurate. Bottom
line, the facts and the lies need to be exposed to sunlight.



If we hold the Obama Admin to the same standards as the Bush Admin,
we'll be holding it to no standards at all.

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:55:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
Using Bush's actions to legitimize Obama's actions is somewhat stupid.
No, it's really stupid.

Here is an example of a stupid comment: "So everything in history
gets erased?"


I absolutely agree with the first sentence.

I don't know if the second quoted comment is stupid or ill-informed. Orwell
had an interesting take on history... "Those who control the present control
the past." From this we certainly need to be wary. I support Obama and his
policies, but no one gets a free ride and the present administration must be
held to the same high standards that we would hold those from the past - no
revisionist history need apply. Just as those who "forget the past are
doomed to repeat it," we need to ensure that the past is accurate. Bottom
line, the facts and the lies need to be exposed to sunlight.

Ah yes. But as you said, "Those who control the present control the
past." I assume you used the quote because you believed it.

Keep in mind then that those in control of the present will be doing
the 'exposing of the facts and lies', i.e., controlling the past.

To me, the attitudes I see are, in fact, giving Obama a free ride.
Hopefully the country will wake up to what he is doing before it is
too late. Why do you suppose so many of his appointee positions are
unfilled. Could it be that he doesn't want those doing the jobs
scrutinized, so he appoints another 'czar' to do the job?

Agree all you will.
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson