Why the GOP must come to terms with George W. Bush's disastrous presidency

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
I find it very funny the notion that Democrats are to blame for not pursuing charges against GWB and Republicans.
Obama is a weak get-along type of president, kind of like GHWB or a weaker Clinton.
He doesn't want to rock the boat. I knew that from the beginning, that's why I voted for Hilary in the primaries.
This doesn't excuse the Republicans. They were so quick to impeach Clinton for lying about his sex life, and there were no national security implications.
Bush took us to war based on lies, thousands of Americans died, billions of dollars wasted, but where is the outrage?
You would think Republicans would want to exorcise their demons, have big hearings, blame everything on Bush/Cheney, and tell us how they've changed for the better. Instead, let's just hide GWB and pretend everything is rosy, and try and blame everything on Obama. Nice try, but the American public saw through it and re-elected Obama.

You mean like LBJ and Vietnam?

I find it funny that if you think about GWB is really LBJ + JFK put together.

LBJ: War on false pretenses + Medicare for old people
JFK: Tax cuts for the rich

So much for the Bush advancing a radical right wing agenda huh?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Ouch. That hurt so good.:p

Heh, I thought so. ;)

I'm sure you know I'll never back those bastard neocons, but I'm very frustrated that those who called for accountability back then either ignore their words or even make excuses. Feinstein herself wants to make sure we're incapable of ever learning if we're targets of illegal wiretaps.

With friends like that we haven't any friends.

Back to the Reps. I'll not argue they didn't drive the war. They did. But if the old sheriff's office lynched a bunch of blacks and were tossed out for a new one who ran on a platform of accountability for past wrongs then upon winning acted for all practical purposes as if it never happened? What if his supporters then only blamed the past but didn't insist the promise was kept? Would those who promised to give justice and did not be as bad as those who did it? No, but they ought to be ashamed and yet they act like it's not a big thing. That's how I view it.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,794
568
126
Seriously, the GOP moved on the moment Obama won.

If that was true then this meeting wouldn't have happened on inauguration evening in 2009 talking about how to slow down any of President Obama's plans as much as possible

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2012/03/The-Conspiracy-to-Commit-Legislative-Constipation

During a lengthy discussion, the senior GOP members worked out a plan to repeatedly block Obama over the coming four years to try to ensure he would not be re-elected.

In his book, Draper opens with the heady atmosphere in Washington on the days running up to the inauguration and the day itself, which attracted 1.8 million to the mall to witness Obama being sworn in as America's first black president.

Those numbers contributed to a growing sense of unease among Republicans as much the defeat in the White House race the previous November. The 15 Republicans were in a sombre mood as they gathered at the Caucus Room in Washington, an upscale restaurant where a New York strip steak costs $51.

Attending the dinner were House members Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions. From the Senate were Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign and Jon Kyl. Others present were former House Speaker and future – and failed – presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who organised the dinner and sent out the invitations.

The dinner table was set in a square at Luntz's request so everyone could see one another and talk freely. The session lasted four hours and by the end the sombre mood had lifted: they had conceived a plan. They would take back the House in November 2010, which they did, and use it as a spear to mortally wound Obama in 2011 and take back the Senate and White House in 2012, Draper writes.

"If you act like you're the minority, you're going to stay in the minority," said Keven McCarthy, quoted by Draper. "We've gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign."

The Republicans have done that, bringing Washington to a near standstill several times during Obama's first term over debt and other issues.

This is a description of details reported in the book Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the House of Representatives by Robert Draper.

Additionally they wouldn't have fought so hard to make sure that the Bush Tax cuts which had an expiration or "sunset" date at the end of 2010 were extended for another few years.

They didn't let of one of the biggest parts of the Bush legacy (his tax cuts enacted during what for all intents and purposes were two wars; something that has practically never been done before) until they had to.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
"something that has practically never been done before"

That is another way of saying "has been done before but I want to attack the guy who did it this time so I am going to make it sound like it has not been done before"
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,473
16,933
136
"something that has practically never been done before"

That is another way of saying "has been done before but I want to attack the guy who did it this time so I am going to make it sound like it has not been done before"

It hasn't happened before unless you want to count Kennedy who lowered taxes when the conflict in Vietnam was barely a blip on the budget but even then they were raised within several years to pay for the conflict.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...n-says-bush-was-first-president-lead-country/
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,473
16,933
136
It hasn't happened before except when it happened before. Wow...

Yes if you want to twist the truth. Vietnam at the time was a conflict not a full force war like iraq was.
Of course I'd expect you to twist the truth so no surprise there.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Either it happened before or it did not. Claiming it did not happen before except when it happened before is silly. Claiming something has practically never happened before is just as nonsensical - it either never happened before or it happened before.

You are just mad the verbal gymnastics was so easily spotted and exposed.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,473
16,933
136
Either it happened before or it did not. Claiming it did not happen before except when it happened before is silly. Claiming something has practically never happened before is just as nonsensical - it either never happened before or it happened before.

You are just mad the verbal gymnastics was so easily spotted and exposed.

The only one doing verbal gymnastics is you.

Sorry your bs is no good here.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,794
568
126
"something that has practically never been done before"

That is another way of saying "has been done before but I want to attack the guy who did it this time so I am going to make it sound like it has not been done before"

They also lowered taxes during the Vietnam War when I was looking for examples taxes being raised during wars. That was the one example I found and new taxes were implemented within a five years make up for the tax rate being lowered when they realized it wasn't going to be a short war.

So for all intents and purposes it wasn't done before.

It's me being accurate instead of painting things with broad brushes the way reactionary radicals like you do.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
They also lowered taxes during the Vietnam War when I was looking for examples taxes being raised during wars. That was the one example I found and new taxes were implemented within a five years make up for the tax rate being lowered when they realized it wasn't going to be a short war.

So for all intents and purposes it wasn't done before.

It's me being accurate instead of painting things with broad brushes the way reactionary radicals like you do.
No, that's not what this was about at all. His seemingly retarded semantics game had a calculated purpose: DUHverting the thread. You posted something rather damning for the GOP. That is not acceptable to him, yet he was incapable of rebutting it. So instead he invented a stupid, trivial non-issue and attacked it. This nicely sidetracked you and Iwshane off onto a tangent, leaving your original point unanswered and forgotten. He accomplished his goal and derailed yours.

That's how he operates, again and again and again. Don't play his game. Don't let him change the subject or re-frame issues into some mindless caricature he can attack. Either force him back to the topic, or better yet, just ignore him entirely. At this point everyone here knows what he is, he has zero credibility, so there is no need to address his nonsense. His only value here is as a punching bag, a fun target for mockery and contempt.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
So for all intents and purposes it wasn't done before.

It either was done before of it was not. You cannot be the first person to climb Mount Everest when someone climbed it before you - you either are the first to do it (it wasn't done before) or you are not (it was done before).

You are simply couching the language in a way to make it appear it has not been done before when it actually has been done before. I suspect partisanship is your underlying motivation for this.

Saying it was never done before except for when it was done before is silly. You would have been better served to say it was only done X times before and then explain why it is horrible this time but not horrible the other times.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
No, that's not what this was about at all. His seemingly retarded semantics game had a calculated purpose: DUHverting the thread. You posted something rather damning for the GOP. That is not acceptable to him, yet he was incapable of rebutting it. So instead he invented a stupid, trivial non-issue and attacked it. This nicely sidetracked you and Iwshane off onto a tangent, leaving your original point unanswered and forgotten. He accomplished his goal and derailed yours.

Oh no, you actually think something that has been done before has not been done before? While not surprising, I am still shocked.

One day you may post something intelligent, something that you have practically never done before.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,473
16,933
136
No, that's not what this was about at all. His seemingly retarded semantics game had a calculated purpose: DUHverting the thread. You posted something rather damning for the GOP. That is not acceptable to him, yet he was incapable of rebutting it. So instead he invented a stupid, trivial non-issue and attacked it. This nicely sidetracked you and Iwshane off onto a tangent, leaving your original point unanswered and forgotten. He accomplished his goal and derailed yours.

That's how he operates, again and again and again. Don't play his game. Don't let him change the subject or re-frame issues into some mindless caricature he can attack. Either force him back to the topic, or better yet, just ignore him entirely. At this point everyone here knows what he is, he has zero credibility, so there is no need to address his nonsense. His only value here is as a punching bag, a fun target for mockery and contempt.

I don't respond to his posts for his sake, I respond to them to make sure the people who read his posts are correctly informed so they can make up their own mind. Most people aren't so pig headed that they will ignore the facts when presented to them and if those facts are counter to their thinking they usually adjust their thinking. Guys like cybersage and others on this board will never change their minds but there are plenty of people like them who don't post but who are willing hear facts to shape/change their view. Those are the people I post for.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I don't respond to his posts for his sake, I respond to them to make sure the people who read his posts are correctly informed so they can make up their own mind. Most people aren't so pig headed that they will ignore the facts when presented to them and if those facts are counter to their thinking they usually adjust their thinking. Guys like cybersage and others on this board will never change their minds but there are plenty of people like them who don't post but who are willing hear facts to shape/change their view. Those are the people I post for.
I absolutely understand, and used to adamantly advocate the same thing. It's come to the point, however, where nobody takes him seriously anyway, and trying to expose all his stupid and dishonesty simply overwhelms P&N with tangents. I've therefore concluded that in his case and a couple of other vacuous sacks (Incorruptible and Nehalem), it is safe to simply ignore them. They not only count on their noise to derail discussion, they thrive on the attention. Starve them of that attention and they'll die the lonely, bitter e-deaths they deserve.

IMO. YMMV.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I don't respond to his posts for his sake, I respond to them to make sure the people who read his posts are correctly informed so they can make up their own mind.

Then why are you trying to mislead people? You use weasel terms to mislead people into thinking something was not done before when you know it is not true.

Bow is just mad because I call him out on his attempts to mislead as well. He is not used to not getting his way and he throws a tantrum. I hope you are not like him in that regard.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Obama cut taxes during war and Kennedy cut taxes during war. Bush is one of three presidents to cut taxes during war and the only republican to do it. Now you know twice as many dem presidents have cut taxes during wartime and Bush was certainly not the first nor only president to do it.

The lie has been exposed, you should stop repeating it already.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
I absolutely understand, and used to adamantly advocate the same thing. It's come to the point, however, where nobody takes him seriously anyway, and trying to expose all his stupid and dishonesty simply overwhelms P&N with tangents. I've therefore concluded that in his case and a couple of other vacuous sacks (Incorruptible and Nehalem), it is safe to simply ignore them. They not only count on their noise to derail discussion, they thrive on the attention. Starve them of that attention and they'll die the lonely, bitter e-deaths they deserve.

IMO. YMMV.

Amen.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
OK...so you guys say Bush cut taxes during war which was "something that has practically never been done before". You then also say Kennedy cut taxes during, which was "something that has practically never been done before", right?

And Obama also cut taxes during war, which must also be "something that has practically never been done before" too.

So far, I notice a free pass given to the president who did it first and the third president to do it - but hate piled on the second president to do it.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
My highest respects to Bowfinger to pointing out that which many of us should have embraced sometime ago...
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
I think we can take the diversion as agreement, even if reluctant agreement with everything else posted by blankslate. Since has taken issue with none of the content of the post but rather merely takes exception to the way something was phrased, we can safely conclude he recognizes the inherent truth in blankslate's quoted description of how the Republicans did not in fact move on the moment Obama was reelected but instead planned from the beginning to oppose all Obama initiatives solely on the ground they were Obama initiatives.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
I only put someone on my ignore list if they've repeatedly insulted me AND the mods havent taken action against them. I've got about 30 people on my list, which goes to show how big a problem this is.

Mere trolls are just not taken seriously as my eyes scan the page.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I definitely agree that Kennedy, Bush, and Obama should not have cut taxes during a war. That is something which should not be done. Calling out only Bush for doing it as something evil but giving Kennedy and Obama a pass is stupid. I am surprised so many here are being stupid on purpose. It is one thing to blindly believe Bush is the only person to do it and then decry Bush for it - but after being told the truth to continue doing it is both lame and stupid.