Thread: If you Believed that George W. Bush was the worst President Ever...

Originally Posted by Supernova

Eastasia, Eurasia, Eastasia, Eurasia, Eastasia...

What are you talking about Eastasia? It's always been Eurasia!

Nah you guys got it twisted its all about Oceania!

I do hope you guys are talking about 1984 because if not, I'm gonna feel like a douche.

Hell naw DAWG. You got it twisted
Twisted like a little bitch who just got himself enlisted.

Dratz! What a precarious position Ive found myself in
To hide my mortification I let loose a huge grin
...you win

Originally Posted by Spartiate

He's kind of right...

That's not the point I was making though.

Originally Posted by tommo

See he has been corrupted by the money. Those companies would have paid him a shitload.
This is why every country needs to ban political donations. Problem is the politicians have to do that lol

Stormcrow's argument is perfectly in line with his policies thus far, it's uncanny.

Come on, he has been a corporate big shot since his creation. As you may recall, he had all the big banks (Lehman Bros., J.P. Morgan, Citibank) to back him up and finance his election campaign '08, which was the most expensive / in the history. To say he has been corrupted now is... well... either naive or a bit dishonest.

While people were going crazy over Bush, Obama can expand a bunch of Bush's most criticized policies (secretive state & spying, secret wars, military spending records, patriot act, etc.) yet only a minority expresses concern. And if the criticism is brought forth it is being downplayed by the liberal "latte drinking hippies", like ninja that don't even engage in debate, because ..I'm not republican..? (Still don't really understand that argument)

Election campaigns are also ridiculous. It just enables people to not look at the party's actual policies.

It's probably the biggest waste of money ever. Ever.
*Millions of dollars on some words printed everywhere.
Just looked at that link - *Billions.

Fucking ridiculous.

I don't know if he was corrupt from the start or not.
For all I know you're still in the situation Joe Rogan talked about.
YouTube - ‪Joe Rogan: Prophet‬‏ Skip to 20 seconds in.

So true lol Except now the guys not dumb, they're just seeing how long you can all fall for and blindly follow rhetoric.

Military-wise I think Obama has been far more successful than his predecessor. To assume that he would've just pulled out of everywhere is kind of silly, you can't start a fire and then just leave it unattended.

What he has done is shifted priority away from Iraq (which should never have been trampled on in the first place) and back to Afghanistan/al-Qaeda. He eliminated bin Laden and many al-Qaeda tops in his first term. He's used clandestine and covert surgical strikes to kill terrorists in other countries (Yemen, Pakistan, etc.) instead of outright invading them as Bush would've probably done. There hasn't been a major terrorist attack in the West since he took office.

It will be difficult for the US to pull out of Afghanistan as all of its allies want to leave first (and rightfully so, they've been there long enough).

Originally Posted by tommo

For all I know you're still in the situation Joe Rogan talked about.

I've seen his act before. What situation may I be in exactly?

edit.: oh i see, I'm not from the US

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Military-wise I think Obama has been far more successful than his predecessor. To assume that he would've just pulled out of everywhere is kind of silly, you can't start a fire and then just leave it unattended.

What he has done is shifted priority away from Iraq (which should never have been trampled on in the first place) and back to Afghanistan/al-Qaeda. He eliminated bin Laden and many al-Qaeda tops in his first term. He's used clandestine and covert surgical strikes to kill terrorists in other countries (Yemen, Pakistan, etc.) instead of outright invading them as Bush would've probably done. There hasn't been a major terrorist attack in the West since he took office.

It will be difficult for the US to pull out of Afghanistan as all of its allies want to leave first (and rightfully so, they've been there long enough).

Well, I don't think much of the war on terror to begin with, both in terms of foreign policies and domestic legislatures, which he both empowers. He tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan and is increasing presence in other countries, that is quite the opposite of pulling out everywhere. Military operations rather than wars is what got us into this mess in the first place. And as far as efficiency goes, we are still talking about a neverending war that is expanding under Obama.

Originally Posted by dajo

Well, I don't think much of the war on terror to begin with, both in terms of foreign policies and domestic legislatures, which he both empowers. He tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan and is increasing presence in other countries, that is quite the opposite of pulling out everywhere. Military operations rather than wars is what got us into this mess in the first place. And as far as efficiency goes, we are still talking about a neverending war that is expanding under Obama.

Obama inherited the "War on Terror", which is something that most Americans support. He's simply done a better job at it than Bush. I'm not quite sure what you mean regarding military operations/wars and "this mess". As far as expansion goes, I believe that it has expanded in the right places (surgical strikes instead of all out war at the expense of civilians) and that we have seen some actual progress that we didn't under the Bush administration.

As for domestic affairs, I obviously don't follow politics as much as the average American (well that may not be true ), but I'm pretty convinced that Obama has the toughest job in the world. Never has there been a nation so polarized on so many different issues, mostly related to the role of government. He constantly has to juggle popular support when enacting any kind of progress and has the Republican party trying to destroy him at every turn. I don't envy his position...

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Obama inherited the "War on Terror", which is something that most Americans support. He's simply done a better job at it than Bush. I'm not quite sure what you mean regarding military operations/wars and "this mess". As far as expansion goes, I believe that it has expanded in the right places (surgical strikes instead of all out war at the expense of civilians) and that we have seen some actual progress that we didn't under the Bush administration.

As for domestic affairs, I obviously don't follow politics as much as the average American (well that may not be true ), but I'm pretty convinced that Obama has the toughest job in the world. Never has there been a nation so polarized on so many different issues, mostly related to the role of government. He constantly has to juggle popular support when enacting any kind of progress and has the Republican party trying to destroy him at every turn. I don't envy his position...

Well, there are certainly different perspectives in this very complex issue.
I know we disagree on a couple fundamental aspects. I have got to go soon, so just quickly:

Why do you think that there are extremist groups that want to attack the US in the first place? Do you think it's because of different religious beliefs? Of freedom? Or all the shiny things that we own in the west? That didn't seem to bother the same people when they were fighting for the US in the cold war. I think the roots are much more due to political and military involvement in these areas that had been going on for years.

By "mess" I mean simply the entire situation we are in, meaning suicide bombings, invasions, war, etc. that seem to be impossible to get out of. And by military involvement I mean the ongoing US operations all over the world, long before any of the radical muslim thing popped up. Isn't it possible that there may be some kind of connection?

Beneath its commitment to soft-spoken diplomacy and beyond the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials.

Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget, and are deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year. In addition to units that have spent years in the Philippines and Colombia, teams are operating in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.

U.S. 'secret war' expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role

It is this kind of (typical) shit that the US is involved in that is fueling hatred and I am sure that for everyone they kill, they will push two more people on the radical side.

Originally Posted by dajo

I've seen his act before. What situation may I be in exactly?

edit.: oh i see, I'm not from the US

I just meant that there's some guy trying to see how stupid America really is lol

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Obama inherited the "War on Terror", which is something that most Americans support.

Not sure what Americans you get this information from, but the majority of Americans (in polls the past couple years) oppose it, and most of the people I know personally oppose it as well, even in a conservative community area. The only problem with a War on Terror is that it is a war on an idea. Ideas cannot simply be killed, therefore, it gives an excuse for an eternal presence in one location, because a new threat of terror can always be created/exaggerated/sought out. It's a brilliant idea, to declare war on an idea.

The problem with the Obama Doctrine and the use of surgical strikes is that, according to HIS logic, it's not "war", therefore Congress cannot outlaw his actions. Of course if it continues and the Republican Party gets fed up with it, they have grounds for impeachment by violation of the War Powers Act. It all depends on how Libya (and now Yemen and soon Syria) will play out in the public eye. If it's unfavourable, the Senate may actually find his actions in violation of the WPA.

Every modern President ends up being ranked on the economy and wars. If the economy is doing well when they leave office, we liked them (Clinton). If it is doing poorly, we refuse to re-elect them and dislike them (Hoover, Bush, Obama if the economy doesn't turn around). It's not even in their power to decide whether or not a war continues, or how to turn around the economy. They can't control it, it controls them and how we view them. They are a scapegoat for our country's woes, one that we can "hope" will "change" things next time, by leading us to believe electing a single figurehead will ACTUALLY change how the legislature functions.

Faith in the figurehead is the very top of the faith pyramid. You can't topple the whole structure with a loss of faith in the actual person, but the position of "president" itself can be toppled by a succession of failed presidents (especially since an emerging pattern shines a light on the negative aspects of 'successful' presidents as well). That right there is a whole third of the next tier of faith which is the position of government as a whole.

If we start to realize that all presidents lie (and can't be trusted) then it won't matter who takes the job. Then, the eye of pessimism will quickly and easily pass over the other two pillars and and when they are also found to be morally bankrupt, the weight of the world will fall on the backs of the people at large. The reason why many of us may be screwed is because we allowed the government to build high and some of us will be crushed by their fall. The majority can though, if a common good is truly kept in mind by that majority, survive well and even thrive after such a setback. It would be good to actually learn from the prisoner's dilemma, lest we all become prisoners out on probation after a shortened sentence.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The majority can though, if a common good is truly kept in mind by that majority, survive well and even thrive after such a setback. It would be good to actually learn from the prisoner's dilemma, lest we all become prisoners out on probation after a shortened sentence.

Can you elaborate on this? I ask because (assuming that each player only cares for herself which, imo, most people do)the optimal strategy for the prisoners dilemma is to defect. This is because no matter what the other player does, you improve your situation by defecting.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Can you elaborate on this? I ask because (assuming that each player only cares for herself which, imo, most people do)the optimal strategy for the prisoners dilemma is to defect. This is because no matter what the other player does, you improve your situation by defecting.

In the prisoner's dilemma, it is in the individual's best interest to defect for personal gain. Ultimately though if everyone behaves that way then everyone will be serving 3 month sentences, and we will just be waiting until the next time we will have to betray each other once we get out. The game pits us against each other when in reality the game is between the the suspects and the enforcers. It would be better to have faith in each other and act based on the best interest of the group, especially since in the real world, the "minor sentence" is akin to what is going on in syntagma square right now. It is like a fast in which the bonds of brotherhood are strengthened instead of weakened and the time can be spent learning better ways to oppose the oppressors and support each other in the future.

Another way to look at it is, would you rather spend one month in jail with someone who didn't betray you or 3 months in jail with someone who did?

This is where I left off before my hiatus.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

UM! <3

Hello Ninja! I was gone for a while and may disappear into the night again soon. I have a little time for debate and friendly major degradation here for now. I know that you are out presently, but here are my thoughts.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Really? He gave billions in tax breaks to those who hire domestic workers, and raised taxes on those who outsource. Also, the top 1% is not the job creators, the companies are, and they have different tax codes.

That's a plus, but it doesn't make up for what I mentioned. The top 1% (along with other rich people) are the job creators because they start the companies and handle their money. Also, the companies themselves are ridiculously overtaxed, and that is awful for the economy. How many poor people have you worked for?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Blame your countrymen. Maybe if the news wasn't plastered with images of anti-gay rallies in Alabama, we might be a little more tolerant. Besides, I know not all Alabamans are mindless dumbfucks. You are a gun-toting nutjob, but you are no mindless hillbilly. If you'd like you can tell me to move to San Francisco with the other latte drinking, pot smoking hippies.

Those mindless dumbfucks who are also majorly intolerant are a reality, but they are not the majority in the South, at least not any more. I tote a gun (in my vehicle) because there are gun toting nut jobs all over the place, and why should they have the advantage? However, I do love latte drinking, pot smoking hippies. I am the first two of those, and arguably the third. I don't meet all of the criteria, but possibly enough of them.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No he didn't the soviet union was having money problems long before Reagan, it was only a matter of time before it collapsed under it's own weight. Who was president of the US at the time was irrelevant.

Reagan used the disaster of socialism along with the arms race to collapse the Soviet Union much earlier than it would have collapsed on its own.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Hitting a military target with conversional weaponry would have done the same thing. Russia was entering the pacific war from the north, and we were closing in from the south. The war would have ended quickly without slaughtering a quarter of a million civilians. The drop of the bomb was to show our strength to Russia as much as it was to end the war, it was unnecessary.

We had already bombed 67 Japanese cities with conventional bombs, and that didn't convince them to surrender. Even the first nuke didn't convince them to surrender.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

He also destabilized the region. He put us there, we have to at least stabilize it a little before leaving. Setting up a government from scratch takes time, everybody but Bush knows that. Hell, the USA took 6 years to set up and we didn't have two warring religious factions in a volatile region.

That is exactly why I wanted our presence to continue for so long, but Obama and his supporters were against it until Obama was elected. The war protests came to a screeching halt when Obama became president. Do you remember all of the talk about "freedom fighters?" When would you say our leaving Iraq became something that could wait a while?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Nice to see you again

You too.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

That would be Gorbachev. Reagan was well on the way towards starting WW3 in the early 80s with his escalation policies.

Do you support how Reagan "stopped the Soviet Union from expanding its sick oppression" (read toppled legitimate left-wing governments) by funding terrorists?

Gorbachev made the Soviet Union a much better place, but he did not cause the government to collapse. Reagan's arms race pressure on socialism is what did the trick.

We toppled Soviet allies and helpers of their sick mission, and we teamed up with some bad folks to do it in some cases because we had a common enemy. It is like when we teamed up with the Soviet Union to bring down the Nazis.

Originally Posted by tommo

He's taking the troops out. Slowly, but surely.
Suck it.

The end of a war that is wrong as Hell (according to the left) can wait, huh? Interesting philosophy. Suck yourself.

You should really go back on hiatus

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

.

UM, ninja was finally banned from DV for his douchebaggery.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

.

I didn't read what you posted. Well I read something about you blaming the fall of the USSR on Reagan. Then I chuckled and continued giving 0 fucks.

Originally Posted by cmind

UM, ninja was finally banned from DV for his douchebaggery.

Yeah, I read about the ordeal. I thought somebody said something about a 1 year suspension, but maybe it is permanent.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I didn't read what your posted. Well I read something about you blaming the fall of the USSR on Reagan. Then I chuckled and continued giving 0 fucks.

That's pretty awesome.

Pretty sure scheming to steal everyone's passwords amounts to a perma-ban.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Pretty sure scheming to steal everyone's passwords amounts to a perma-ban.

It seems like it would.

Kudos to the OP. I don't think Obama is particularly bad, although I agree his actions prove that he is working for the same groups and enacting basically the same agenda as Bush.

Its sad that anyone would trot out that pathetic line about us having to finish the war since we started it. First, the wars are problematic because we are there; to say we need to stay there is nonsensical unless you can define what our goals are and how we measure victory. Second, Obama ran on a quick end to the wars. Third, the democrats took control of congress in 2007, which means we've had five years and didn't even get an investigation into a single one Bush's crimes. Any thinking person can see the Democrats implicitly have endorsed Bush's agenda. Fourth, Obama is playing games to make the drawdown look bigger than it is- he is replacing government soldiers with private contractors and moving troops to makeshift bases where they don't get counted in official numbers (The Army times did a great report on this if you doubt it). Fifth Obama has squashed attempts by whistleblowers and advocacy groups to bring light to the war so that public pressure to end the wars can build. And lastly, it looks as if the drawdown is just prep for going into Iran and/or Syria at this point (which means the war is not being concluded but is a conscious choice). I can't believe anyone would be so naive as to repeat this rehash of Bush's propaganda that we need to "stay the course."

The war against the middle-east has been going on at one level or another for over 20 years. Only in the brainwashed west could we conduct siege warfare against Iraq and euphemise it as "sanctions", bomb Iraq at regular intervals while patrolling "no-fly" zones, irradiate its people with depleted uranium, have the CIA poison its water, starve the poorest while bolstering the Baathists and still believe that we were at peace until ol' W stirred things up.

Bush didn't do anything that wasn't already being planned and enacted by the previous administrations. We bombed Iraq under false pretenses in 98 to provoke Saddam and no one cared. Bush just made the public aware of how evil American foreign policy became long ago because he was an inarticulate stooge. If you think torture is something Bush introduced or something that ended when Bush left, I got some of Saddam's "Nooklear" weapons to sell you.

My only point is that you cannot intelligently criticize Bush without damning the entire system of Anglo-American interventionism. Bush was just a minor symptom and he would have begun pulling troops out by this time himself. I don't particularly dislike Obama, he has thrown a few crumbs to his demographic, but he is a cog in the wheel as much as Bush was, and his actions prove that America's agenda is Bush's agenda.

The deep dark secret is Democrats are scared to death of an open global village where the middle-east gets to vote for whatever leader appeals to the masses and those masses are reproducing fruitfully and freely immigrating to the west, bringing their traditional values with them. The Democrats had to pretend to be against the war to appeal to their demographics. End of story.

I know someone's going to yammer on about how much evil Bush did, and I will have to explain repeatedly that I agree Bush was evil and try to get them to understand that I am not vindicating Bush. Then I will get sick of arguing and move on to better ways to spend my time. For those who really want to condone mass murder, we have little to discuss.