For eight years...

[Charade]

Way to twist words . . . of course Pres. Bush can "defend" himself. But his quote “...these baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will. . .” was being used to point out that Administration people questioned the patriotism of those who disagreed with the administration.

Sounds like you see criticism of Pres Bush and his policies as unpatriotic.

Speaking of twisting words...

 

[Charade]

It sounded to me like he was trying to stifle criticism by those who protested the war. Baseless, my foot.

Hmm...

Harry Reid: "The war is lost"

Ted Kennedy: "George Bush's Viet Nam"

That's criticism? I guess you could call it that but it sure does undermine IMHO because it's not constructive.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Hmm...

Harry Reid: "The war is lost"

Ted Kennedy: "George Bush's Viet Nam"

That's criticism? I guess you could call it that but it sure does undermine IMHO because it's not constructive.

First of all I'd like to know your definition of 'winning' and what you think has been won?

I'd say there was and will be nothing to win. Trillions of dollars of debt. Thousands of Americans dead and many, many more whose lives will never be the same. Iraq's infrastructure has been destroyed. Untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead or severely injured. How is that winning.

Secondly, I don't believe Senator Kennedy has yet been proven wrong.

 

[Charade]

First of all I'd like to know your definition of 'winning' and what you think has been won?

I'd say there was and will be nothing to win. Trillions of dollars of debt. Thousands of Americans dead and many, many more whose lives will never be the same. Iraq's infrastructure has been destroyed. Untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead or severely injured. How is that winning.

Secondly, I don't believe Senator Kennedy has yet been proven wrong.

Well, by those standards, it could be said WWII wasn't a "win" either.

 

[shortbun]

Hmm...

Harry Reid: "The war is lost"

Ted Kennedy: "George Bush's Viet Nam"

That's criticism? I guess you could call it that but it sure does undermine IMHO because it's not constructive.

Au contraire my friend! (You don't mind if I call you 'my friend' do you?) I believe both statements were true and valid therefore constructive in conversation. 'Undermine' what? Undermine the determination to keep our fathers, brothers, sisters, mothers, cousins, friends and so forth in harms way? Bully!!!

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Well, by those standards, it could be said WWII wasn't a "win" either.

Piffle. We attacked Iraq, Iraq didn't attack us and was not a threat to us ~ no matter what claptrap we were told. We didn't need to , we didn't have to and we can't fix what we've broken.

 

[chris1gill]

Well, by those standards, it could be said WWII wasn't a "win" either.

Knowing one's WWII history and admitting one's Iraq mistakes are so hard aren't they? It's almost like torture to do. History books are best on the shelf, and mistakes are best left not to be spoken of.

 

[disykat]

History books are best on the shelf, and mistakes are best left not to be spoken of.

While I'm not really interested in defending Bush or his policies, I don't think that's the point here. Regardless of who you support politically, I still think this whole thread was started on a false premise that points directly to this statement and makes it seem like the OP was saying this as truth rather than sarcasm.

I'm guessing this statement is meant to imply that history IS important and you should look at it accurately and admit when mistakes happen. Yet somehow you refuse to see why people are so amused by your claims that our current President elect being criticized is something new and different.

I'm still interested in knowing if you remember the Bush/Gore election and all the hullabalu that surrounded it. I'm still astounded by that and don't get why you don't just admit you were wrong about that. Pages and pages of people wondering why you are trying to rewrite history and you keep trying to argue politics.

 

[pr surfer]

Geez... I leave on business and this is what I come back to

We have an OS on this message board that has refused to even live in the United States while Bush is president. That's how much he hates the man. I'm assuming that he'll be returning to the US at some point in the future now that Obama is elected?

I'm not sure if I'll return immediately, or at all. I've submitted my application for Canadian permanent residency at the Canadian High Commission in Barbados. I'm very happy that Obama is president, and I no longer discreetly pull out my US passport (or use my Spanish passport) when traveling overseas. However, I've learned that I am suited for life outside the US than the US. Not for any negative reasons, but rather just my mentality and that of the like minded persons I've come to encounter outside of the US.

But if I return, I'll be moving to DC... Adams-Morgan area... maybe in the fall of 09 IF I return.

Actually, I remember some of his posts that concerned the drug laws in the US and how it conflicted with his lifestyle.....

Yes, I did, and still do inhale. It's not a lifestyle though, since I remain a productive member of society, and would most certainly at this point pass any test sent my way.

I think of it as an alternative to drinking. One that comes with a side effect of hunger and a lot of laughing.

And living off your family's wealth is not a learned behavior. You kinda have to born into it....

I'd give every penny back if it meant getting my parents back. EVERY CENT.

I'd even give away every penny I've earned if it meant getting them back.

 

[Carpenters]

While I'm not really interested in defending Bush or his policies, I don't think that's the point here. Regardless of who you support politically, I still think this whole thread was started on a false premise that points directly to this statement and makes it seem like the OP was saying this as truth rather than sarcasm.

I'm guessing this statement is meant to imply that history IS important and you should look at it accurately and admit when mistakes happen. Yet somehow you refuse to see why people are so amused by your claims that our current President elect being criticized is something new and different.

I'm still interested in knowing if you remember the Bush/Gore election and all the hullabalu that surrounded it. I'm still astounded by that and don't get why you don't just admit you were wrong about that. Pages and pages of people wondering why you are trying to rewrite history and you keep trying to argue politics.

The hullabalu surrounding the Bush/Gore contest is unique in American History, and really can't be compared to Barack Obama's clear victory in this election in 2008. Those of us who hadn't voted for Bush in 2000, the majority of the country, were justifiably upset that the Supreme Court chose to award the election to him. The hullabalu was due to the disenfranchisement of voters and the utter disregard for the will of the people. There are many of us that still believe that he did not win or deserve that election victory. It's hard to accept an individual as your president when 9 people on the court make the decision and not the American people. We had to do it, however, because that was the reality, and apparently enough people believed he deserved to be re-elected in 2004. I personally don't care too much if people are upset over Barack Obama's election. He won in a clear mandate, and I believe he's going to do a fine job.

 

[designermv]

I think of it as an alternative to drinking. One that comes with a side effect of hunger and a lot of laughing.

It's good for your blood pressure too.

 

[CarlaKay]

Actually it seemed to me, that he was stating that the baseless attacks were undermining our troops that were in harms way. It didn't sound to me like he was worried about the adminstration but the troops.

What baseless attacks? bush lied to the US about the reasons for the war in Iraq. President Elect Obama got the Democratic nomination in large part because he opposed the war in Iraq. There are legitimate issues about the war in Iraq that needed to be addressed. The issue came up in the debate and President Elect Obama's slam on mccain's poor judgement was very effective according to the polling.

I am pleased that bush gutted mccain's position on the Iraq war by agreeing to a withdrawal timetable. The Iraqis do not want the US in Iraq and instead of naming a square in Baghdad for bush as hoped for by the idiotic neocons, the Iraqis burned bush in effigy last week. In case you missed it, the "Status of Forces Agreement" being considered by Iraq is called by the Iraqis by a far different name-An US Withdrawal Agreement.

The idiotic neocons defended the war in Iraq by claiming that you could not question bush's lies without undercutting support for thte troops. Such attacks were baseless and it is nice to see that these attacks and talking points were rejected by the American voters.

 

[pr surfer]

It's good for your blood pressure too.

So's a glass of red wine I'll have a nice malbec with dinner tonight.

Ironically though, this thing that the US prohibits is far more effective for my ADHD and depression than any meds prescribed by a shrink... and it doesn't make me feel nauseous like some of the meds do... and I can use it much more sparingly than 2, 3, 4, 5, etc pills per day.

 

[Tigger Woods]

The hullabalu surrounding the Bush/Gore contest is unique in American History, and really can't be compared to Barack Obama's clear victory in this election in 2008. Those of us who hadn't voted for Bush in 2000, the majority of the country, were justifiably upset that the Supreme Court chose to award the election to him. The hullabalu was due to the disenfranchisement of voters and the utter disregard for the will of the people. There are many of us that still believe that he did not win or deserve that election victory. It's hard to accept an individual as your president when 9 people on the court make the decision and not the American people. We had to do it, however, because that was the reality, and apparently enough people believed he deserved to be re-elected in 2004. I personally don't care too much if people are upset over Barack Obama's election. He won in a clear mandate, and I believe he's going to do a fine job.

Obama got 52% of the popular vote. Bush got 51% in '04. Did you view Bush's re-election as a clear mandate?

 

[shasess]

We could not point out the flaws in our Country or President. If we did, we were seen as Anti-American by the current Administration and his minions.

I find it fascinating that the people who fell straight in line do nothing but bash the 44th President before he has even taken office. Which Country exactly do you put first?

For all of you asking innocent questions, go read the platform.

For all of you with a Right Wing philosophy, get over yourselves, you lost, why don't you show just a little respect to the majority who voted for our President Elect.

For all you conservatives who do not agree with the President Elect based on your own research and not what some crackpot has told you, we can certainly respect your choice.

Very well said!!!!
I'd give you a standing ovation but I don't have a smiley for that.

 

[Planogirl]

What baseless attacks? bush lied to the US about the reasons for the war in Iraq. President Elect Obama got the Democratic nomination in large part because he opposed the war in Iraq. There are legitimate issues about the war in Iraq that needed to be addressed. The issue came up in the debate and President Elect Obama's slam on mccain's poor judgement was very effective according to the polling.

I am pleased that bush gutted mccain's position on the Iraq war by agreeing to a withdrawal timetable. The Iraqis do not want the US in Iraq and instead of naming a square in Baghdad for bush as hoped for by the idiotic neocons, the Iraqis burned bush in effigy last week. In case you missed it, the "Status of Forces Agreement" being considered by Iraq is called by the Iraqis by a far different name-An US Withdrawal Agreement.

The idiotic neocons defended the war in Iraq by claiming that you could not question bush's lies without undercutting support for thte troops. Such attacks were baseless and it is nice to see that these attacks and talking points were rejected by the American voters.

Well said!!!

I've been marveling at Iraq's apparent desire to get the US troops out of Iraq when we supposedly came to help them. I guess that they see it all for what it really is.

 

[Christopher Robin]

Interesting how some cannot even capitalize the names of office holder's that they oppose, let alone refer to them with the title they hold, ie, President or Senator, but never miss properly posting their person's name, and title. Shouldn't both be referenced in the same way?

And if people shouldn't critisize Pres-Elect O's positions until he takes office, does that mean that people shouldn't praise his positions until that time either? Wouldn't that be equitable?

Just wondering.

 

[Carpenters]

Obama got 52% of the popular vote. Bush got 51% in '04. Did you view Bush's re-election as a clear mandate?

If we're going by popular vote, then George Bush lost the 2000 election. That's not what counts in this country, is it? Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but lost where it counted, in the electoral college. Bush beat Kerry in 2004 with an electoral count of 286-252. No, I didn't view it as a clear mandate, but I did agree that he won the election that time, clearly. Trying to compare that margin to Obama's electoral victory of 365-173 for McCain is a nice try, but not even close.

 

[CarlaKay]

Obama got 52% of the popular vote. Bush got 51% in '04. Did you view Bush's re-election as a clear mandate?

You need to get your facts right. President bush had a 2.5% margin of victory compared to a 7 (almost 8)% margin for President Elect Obama. It is my understanding that 7 is much larger than 2.5. President Elect Obama won by 8.6 million votes compared to 3 million for bush. Again, 8.6 million is larger than 3 million.

You really need to check your facts here.

 

[Master Mason]

What baseless attacks? bush lied to the US about the reasons for the war in Iraq. .

And your proof??? Until you can give me proof, your attacks are just as baseless.