Originally posted by: chucky2
Bush started his presidency with the Left hating him, it just went downhill from there.
False. He certainly started poorly by "stealing" the election, but outside the very hardcore fringe, he was mostly seen as inconsequential, an unremarkable President whose performance was mediocre but not horrible. Rather than going downhill as you claim, his support actually grew tremendously, to an overwhelming majority in the wake of 9/11 and the natural surge in patriotism as he lied his way into invading Iraq. It was only after the invasion, as the lies started to unravel and he shamelessly exploited 9/11 to subvert American values that anger with him blossomed.
Obama gets to eat the sh1t getting thrown at him because he's just like the religious family values Republican's who get caught in a cheating and/or gay scandal. Don't pretend you are some genius, have all the answers, are all knowing, high and mighty
Except he didn't do those things. It was a caricature of him by you wingnuts, and like any caricature, it was grossly exaggerated.
.....and then do the same F'ing things - or worse - than the person before you, that you slammed to get the votes from that persons haters.
This is where your argument totally fails. I'm not happy with many of the things Obama's done to date, and I agree he's continued SOME of the same repugnant polices of the Bush administration. To suggest Obama has pulled even one-tenth the shit Bush did, let alone "or worse," shows you are a blind partisan hack completely out of touch with reality. Get back to us when he's unilaterally invaded another country on false pretenses, and consequently killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, to name just one example.
'Bush&Co' were claimed by all the Lefties here to be the stupidest most incompetetant bunch of folks ever to run the White House...and yet, the Genius Messiah and his (tax cheating) Dream Team are - gasp! - doing the same F'ing things as the people before them.
You again conflate different things to form a bogus argument. Bush was NOT considered "dumb & incompetent" for invading Americans' privacy. He was considered anti-American ... and I consider Obama's continued support of these policies to be equally anti-American. It undermines our civil liberties and shields companies who knowingly violated Americans' Constitutional rights. The Bush administration was considered incompetent for the way they mishandled so many things, i.e., for handling them
incompetently -- go figure -- not to mention George couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag even with a teleprompter.
So which is it: Obama&Co are dumb as rocks incompetent lobbyist shills like Bush&Co were, or, all the Lefties here were amazing wrong on Bush&Co's intelligence and purity level (that is: Way F'ing better than the Lefties here alleged)? It can only be one or the other, you pick, doesn't really matter to me.
Chuck
Wrong. I'll take option 3: Chuck is too partisan to recognize tremendous differences in scope and scale. Obama is wrong; Bush was
WRONG, WRONG, and MORE WRONG. Two wrongs don't make a right, but some wrongs are worse than others.
Meh. This whole argument is a giant duhversion anyway. I don't see many on the left supporting the Obama administration on this. I did see most of the right doing back-flips through hoops to rationalize why it was OK when BushCo did it. It's just another example of right-wing hypocrisy. They can't criticize Obama on this without admitting they're hypocrites, so instead they preemptively attack "the left."
Facebook
Twitter