posted
Saw this from a friend, could be fun to see how many more good examples we could come up with.
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W.. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
The gross federal deficit was 5.6 trillion (58% of GDP) when George W Bush assumed office and 10 trillion (70% of GDP) when he left office 8 years later. He may not have proposed it but he did it. And he managed to do it even though he had a record surplus when he entered office.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other notable fact-misses are that teleprompters have long been common at press conferences; by definition, some President would have to have had one installed for that to be true.
It has long costed thousands of dollars for the first family to do any sort of public outing. Every play and other similar event GWB went to would have costed a similar amount.
Numerous members of the Bush White House did have tax problems (and some still are, for events that occurred back then).
Obama was attempting to make a joke when he said Cinco de Cuatro, since it was the 4th when he made the speech. The mistake was because it was extemporaneous and he doesn't speak Spanish. How horrible!
posted
"mistake was because it was extemporaneous" As most of his mistakes are. That man NEEDS a script...
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Yeah Lisa, usually your interesting to read but this list is as laughably incorrect and misleading as Mr Card's latest World Watch.
Also
quote: given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
This is a case of perception, I as a Socialist see nothing wrong with this, its workers seizing the means of production.
quote:If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
I am of the impression that Austrians do speak a slightely different dialect of German in the same way Quebec French is different from France French.
quote: If George W.. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
At least his trying to be welcoming rather then not bothering at all.
Of course Bush doing it would elicit the same reaction "alright, hes trying."
quote:If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If the government owns the company then yes he does have the authority. He also has the ability to make a public statement that a CEO SHOULD be fired.
I should also point out that all evidence points to UHC being substantially cheaper then what you have now.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.
Correction, 7 years and 7 months.
TWO TERMS BABY!
I want to see what that crazy wildcat Obama, who is a BLACK MAN, by the way, is going to be up to in the near future. I'm thinking he's got lots of countries to invade and hundreds of thousands of people to needlessly displace or kill and then "give freedom" without their consent or cooperation. Oh boy, I can't wait!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's kind of an annoying list. It seems like every president has done something incredibly dumb. W. Bush after all used to rub bald guys' heads all the time, so folks sort of need to chill and focus on bigger issues.
Also most of that stuff wouldn't have annoyed me as I was too busy being annoyed at bush over the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and his supply side economic policies. Plus going on a trip with his wife would have been a bit romantic. It's not as if a president can go to such a thing without protection, especially if they are black and have racists to deal with who want to kill him over that. Plus it would have been nice if Bush had a teleprompter at times. He would sometimes say some really stupid things.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny how you can ignore really terrible things your own side does, but imply criminal time for a man who hasn't actually committed anything nearly as bad as your own side did yet...
Well, would be funny, if this change had lost all its irony about the time Obama was inaugurated.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the "Why do conservatives hate America" thing is usually said ironically. I don't doubt that some people are actually being sincere in the sentiment, but in most usages of that phrase or similar that I've seen it's been in proximity to a perceived exercise of hypocrisy - conservative actions which, when performed by liberals, had been described as treasonous or anti-American.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That isn't how it was used in the article. It was a straight-up question, modified only by "okay, maybe not ALL conservatives, just the ones who are not on the feet clapping enthusiastically for Obama".
Very disappointing. People totally suck.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
I do not, do not, do not get this. Many politicians use teleprompters, and many other use notes. Obama got through many interviews -- and, notably, several important debates -- without one. The only reason to mock him for it is to "prove" he's not a good speaker after all.
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
Sure. It's not like he, say, took a 26-day vacation in August of his first year in office, like his predecessor did. How much did it cost taxpayers for G.W. Bush and family to fly back to Crawford and Camp David during his record number of vacation days?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
Don't know that offhand, will have to research. It's notable that the bailouts for GM began under Bush's watch, however.
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
Nope. Just like I didn't find it funny when Bush joked about looking for weapons of mass destruction underneath a table.
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
No. But then Obama never gave an impromptu backrub to German Chancellor Angela Merkel at G8, either.
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If it is meant as a sign of respect, on their soil, yes. Here in the United States he should never bow.
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
Are you seriously forgetting the impressive number of verbal gaffes George W. Bush uttered, here and abroad?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
No. And this is unconscionable, something that Obama and his administration should carry the responsibility for. I also note Bush committed the far worse (to me) act of over and over again appointing lobbyists who have fought against regulation of industry as regulatory heads of those same industries.
If George W.. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
The Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi forgave Bush for yelling "Amigo!" at him at the G8 summit, I can let this slide as well.
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
Um, people have been making fun of Bush's "nuklear" ever since he was in office. There are many sites devoted to Bushisms, in fact, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Thing is, and I said this about Bush, misstatements and word gaffes do not mean you're stupid.
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
As mentioned already, Bush did a similar thing. And it's not supposed to be a one-for-one tradeoff gas-vs-tree deal anyway. The president participating in Earth Day brings attention to it and lends it legitmacy.
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
Obama's Air Force One incident was in very bad taste and a shocking lapse in judgment.
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
Was this before or after he was in office? Beforehand, Obama's organization did in fact organize volunteer workers for the Midwest flood victims, setting links and info on the campaign site and going in person to fill sandbags.
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
Again, not sure about this one, personally. But if it was a restriction on the car companies before they could accept the money, I have no problem with it.
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
Bush did in fact double the debt. He just didn't tell us ahead of time he was going to.
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
Depends. Would he have a plan to manage it?
Cherry picking things like this is a bit silly, when Bush offers as many and more things to poke at and far worse besides. But mostly you seem to be trying to point out that because Obama isn't a god on earth, we should all abandon him.
I have never thought he was more than he is: an intelligent man who excels at community creation and inspiration and who says what I want to hear regarding how the country should be run. I am still waiting to see if he follows through with those words. I'm happy with some of his actions, unhappy with some of them, and disappointed that more has not been done in some areas.
But I have yet to see anything that made me think that McCain would have been a better choice, and while Obama has not yet accomplished what I would have hoped by now, he has not done as much damage to so many areas of government as Bush had by this time in his first term.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cant we all agree that the overwhelming majority of politicians are back stabbing power-hungry sociopaths willing to make a buck off a country's people while attainging self worth and authority? The last president that I think would have been a stand up guy to have known was Andrew Jackson, and thats just because he had a cursing parrot to unsettle the pithy brown-nosers he had to meet and work with.
So lets be honest, Pres. Obama is not Jesus in any way shape or form, he is not going to free us of our sins and we can only hope that he leaves America in better condition than when he took office. Bush, well the man needed redo's or something most times that he was in front of the camera and I have alot of problems with him, him specifically, instead of transferring the entire Republican parties faults onto him or vice versa. Its really friggin simple, country's are run by those who can calmly make orders involving death, poverty, starvation and poor education and still go to sleep at night. These are not the moral examples I strive to emulate, I simply vote for who ever I think will the least damage.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, people in general suck. It was right the first time. The crappy My Team Rocks/Your Team Sucks that apparently turns critical thinking to mush is not confined to any one country.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Andrew Jackson? Are you crazy? That guy drove off all these native americans off their own land. That guy was a jerk.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think having as much time as any president in the spot light and you are sure to have a few things that people decide is stupid or slightly offensive.
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Andrew Jackson? Are you crazy? That guy drove off all these native americans off their own land. That guy was a jerk.
That's not really a fair interpretation. Yes, the "Trail of Tears" was a horrific event, but Jackson fully expected their resettlement to be permanent, and he also thought that having the federal government do it was far more a kindness than what they would have been put through if state governments had done it. In fact, it probably was. Southern governments at the time were itching to get at that land, due to a combination of mineral wealth and the fact that it lay in their zone of expansion due to basic population growth. If Jackson hadn't moved them, the governors would have, and it wouldn't have been called the "Trail of Tears," it either would have been an out and out genocide, or they would have simply expelled them from the land to fend for themselves, taking no care for their long term survival. Granted, Jackson didn't exactly set them up at a 4 star resort, but he honestly thought it was a one time resettlement, not taking into consideration the full extent that manifest destiny would lead Americans to.
There are some things I don't care for about Jackson, but on that one, I think he did his best to make the best of an awful situation with no clear solution, keeping in mind that 21st century ideas and applications of morality didn't exist back then. Given the situation, what would you have done?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Synesthesia. Andrew "John Marshall Has Made His Decision; Let Him Enforce It Now If He Can" Jackson stands among the worst presidents in U.S. history.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: I'm with Synesthesia. Andrew "John Marshall Has Made His Decision; Let Him Enforce It Now If He Can" Jackson stands among the worst presidents in U.S. history.
I'm not saying I love the guy, I'm just saying on that particular instance, it wasn't a fair characterization.
Though if you want more bright side, I thought his handling of the Nullification Crisis, which had potentially explosive consequences, was genius. I'm not particularly happy with the rise he gave to the Imperial Presidency, but then, without it, Lincoln might not have had the power necessary to prosecute and win the Civil War as he did, so maybe it was a short term blessing in disguise.
Regardless, I wasn't assessing his presidency as a whole, I was talking about a specific instance, to which no one has specifically replied.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
...the quote in the middle was about the specific instance. What he could have done was enforce the treaty the federal government had made with the Cherokee Nation, as the Court ruled he was required to do. Justifying his commission of illegal and immoral actions on the grounds that if he hadn't, he might not have been able to prevent others from committing even more illegal and immoral actions doesn't make for a very compelling argument, even if there were any reason to believe he really did have the Native Americans' best interests in mind. Which is frankly pretty doubtful.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, that quote is likely fictitious. From what I've read, there's no confirmed evidence that Jackson ever said any such thing, though it DOES sound nice doesn't it? And it's certainly in keeping with a period of Executive vs. Judiciary squabbles.
And by the way (I misspoke earlier), the Cherokee Nation was removed under Van Buren, not Jackson. You see my point about indicting ALL presidents that followed him under that rationale now perhaps.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nope, people in general suck. It was right the first time. The crappy My Team Rocks/Your Team Sucks that apparently turns critical thinking to mush is not confined to any one country.
Nor, sadly, to one belief system.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of the petty little things Bush did were the reasons I disliked him. It had much more to do with his administration claiming war was a last option while hurtling towards it head first, manipulating the press, letting large contributors write policy, using tragedy to silence dissent, refusing to accept even incredibly lenient legal guidelines in monitoring the communications of American citizens, wholesale bribing of the public while the economy and infrastructure of the country slid into a hole... To name a few small things. Things like rubbing the German chancellor's shoulders or even taking a record number of vacation days are little more than small and precious reminders that the man was a goober. Or to put it more precisely, that also, the man was a goober.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, it must be traditional that American presidents give notoriously terrible gifts.
As for jokes about the Queen, that's also traditional. America is a whole country based on being saucy to the Queen. Couple that with the stress and regimentation associated with meeting the queen and almost everyone messes up... including British PMs (see: Blair). I am not at all surprised at Bush's muddle.
COming back to the giving of silly gifts, what surprises me that although Obama is clearly responsible for the gifts that he himself gives, it's his team-- a team of people supposedly accrued from the best in the country-- who decide that these gifts are appropriate.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: None of the petty little things Bush did were the reasons I disliked him. It had much more to do with his administration claiming war was a last option while hurtling towards it head first, manipulating the press, letting large contributors write policy, using tragedy to silence dissent, refusing to accept even incredibly lenient legal guidelines in monitoring the communications of American citizens, wholesale bribing of the public while the economy and infrastructure of the country slid into a hole... To name a few small things. Things like rubbing the German chancellor's shoulders or even taking a record number of vacation days are little more than small and precious reminders that the man was a goober. Or to put it more precisely, that also, the man was a goober.
This. Plus the disdain shown to intelligence, education and science. The lack of intellectual curiosity. But President Bush was a symptom of that rather than the cause, I think.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To state the obvious, given a pass by whom? A Republican president is going to be given a pass by many Republicans, as they support his general platform. A Democrat will be given a pass by many Democrats for the same reasons. Is anyone really surprised that now it's the Republicans who are pointing out Obama's flaws and before it was Democrats (or Democrat-like people) who were pointing out Bush's.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
O' Reely? Cause this post, along with all the other whining, isn't exactly a pass.
Agreed, the opposition to Obama has been remarkably pathetic and desperate in its actual execution, but he doesn't get a pass. You obviously don't recall the immediately post 9/11 Bush era, because I recall him having incredibly high approval ratings, though he had actually yet to do very much to earn them. He then *did* a lot of stuff that people didn't like- nobody gets a pass.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's obvious Obama's being given a pass. You can tell by the way many of his supporters have been criticizing him for his health care plan not being liberal enough and the way he's trying to do the right thing in Iraq rather than just pull everything out. Why, thousands of his supported marched in Washington last weekend to show their support for how he's getting rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell so quickly.
The Dems are not lockstep behind him, and certainly not as much as many Republicans were behind Bush. How many dared disagree with Bush publicly? McCain? It wasn't until Bush's immigration plan (one of the few things he proposed I liked) that any of them publicly spoke up against him. What's happening is that the minor stuff listed above -- and, with a few exceptions, it's minor stuff -- isn't being harped on as much as Bush's gaffes were, and Sterling explained that rather well. If he hadn't made so many big mistakes, the little ones wouldn't have been so funny/sad.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think we have to differentiate between big and small ticket items. Bush was given a pass on Iraq War rationale based largely on the "trust me" doctrine. He got away with a ton of stuff based on the fear we felt over what would happen if he wasn't allowed to get what he wanted. Eventually that gave way, and people became more critical, but a lot of people, centrists and even leftists alike, gave him a pass on extremely hazy big ticket items. Obama on the other hand isn't getting a pass on ANYTHING like that. Look at his major proposals thus far that he has pushed legislatively: Health care and climate change. Both have come under an intense assault of criticism.
Small ticket items on the other hand seem to be the opposite. Bush got ribbed on a daily basis for choking on pretzels, vocal gaffes, awkward moments (the Merkel Massage (btw, I think we need to turn "getting Merkeled" into some sort of colloquial verb)) etc etc. Obama on the other hand has gotten a bit of a pass on those things. The Left hammered Bush for the things Obama gets a pass on now, and the Right is hammering Obama for the little things that they gave Bush a pass on then. When it comes to that stuff, both sides are just playing favorites, but I don't see that as surprising.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glanced through the thread...the usual third grader logic. The only defense for Obama, as usual, is another president did it too. He started it, not me! It works though. Almost a year and Bush is still the scapegoat.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yea, malanthrop, it's only fair to compare Bush to Obama when you're trying to criticize Obama (a la OP), but we ain't likin' it when this stuff goes the other way.
::clings to his guns just a tad more fiercely, nothing dangerous like, just getting ready...::
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first person posts something that implies these are all negatives because Obama doing them is unusual, and GWB didn't do them, and is blatantly wrong and has that corrected.
Your summation is not accurate. I don't care to make Bush a scapegoat. But someone used his "not" doing things as a way to spread lies. That was worth correcting.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't listen malanthrop! Don't take in any of this third grader logic! Obama propaganda! Socialism! Communism! Don't be fooled! Run! For God's sake RRUUUUUNN!!
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
