See post #11.
OK, I’ll step up to defend Bush. While hatred (or strong disapproval, or whatever) is certainly warranted for what went on during his administration, I don’t think he’s actually the appropriate target for that hatred. So far as I can tell, George W. Bush himself is actually a fairly decent human being. The problem is that, first, he was not competent to be President, and that second, in his incompetence, he let himself be led by others who were not decent. If you want to hate on someone, let it be Rove or Cheney. They knew what they were doing, and did it anyway.
Bush, because he did more damage to more people. Not that Obama is any prize.
Yes, plenty.
Yes. Claiming him to be competent is actually an insult, given the results of his actions; if he isn’t an incompetent, then he was President Joker and just wanted to see the world burn.
With the exception of health care reform, I don’t think any of the other items are very high on Obama’s agenda. He just took the breaks when they came along, witness his sudden turnabout on gay marriage.
Well you are right on that point. Obama merely administered TARP. I’m not SO upset about the bank bailouts, it’s the way Obama DIDN’T help out the vast majority of people harmed by the bailout.
Fraud. They knew their CDOs were garbage, but kept selling them to pension funds.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]
Don’t have a statute, but the UN says so (sixth paragraph down).
Actually, they made them available to the people of the United States, but I guess you and Obama share the opinion that we are the enemy.
I do not see why a national leader should not be held to the same standards as other national leaders are, simply because I happen to live in that nation. As to your second point: you do not believe that it would be wrong for a US president to authorize torture techniques such as mutilation, electric shock, burning, etc., so long as there was a US statute permitting it? Would genocide be permissible if US law permitted it?
Good, good, but that’s only half the job done there. This thread is for comparative analysis, as between Bush and Obama.
Yes, but it is interesting that you used “hate” first. You’ve been watching too much Fox. 
You say “turnabout”. I believe Obama’s belief on the subject has genuinely evolved since 2008.
In what way would it have been possible for him to do so? It is not within the president’s authority to distribute bread and circuses by Imperial fiat.
IANAL, but I’m pretty sure that doesn’t amount to the criminal definition of “fraud” in any state.
- Nobody’s “persons, houses, papers, or effects” have been violated.
- There is no aspect of the NSA’s program which is constitutionally “unreasonable”.
- All warrants related to the program have been issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
The president swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, not to uphold the UN Charter.
And is there some magical filter applied to those articles which prohibits the enemy from reading them?
And I do.
I do not believe that any person should be put on trial for violating a vague and subjective ethical standard that “everyone knows is wrong”. If the law states that ethically questionable deeds are in fact legal, then that is the standard that people operating in that jurisdiction ought to be held accountable to.
Only because I was spinning off this thread from another thread where “hate” is the appropriate word.
And by doing so, you admit that America is the enemy of humanity. You are admitting that it a hypocrite and a predator preying upon the world.
In other words, you’d turn Anne Frank in to the Nazis to be exterminated, as long as they did the paperwork to make their genocide legal. A totally morally bankrupt position. And you’ve just justified vigilantism, assassination and terrorism/guerrilla war. If there is no real law but power, if the only rule is “we can get away with it” then it’s unrealistic to expect your victims to just sit there and take it; nor can you realistically claim that people have any moral obligation to obey the law.
I think this pretty much covers it. Say what you will about Obama*, but he hasn’t invaded anyplace or built a shadow justice system**. For forgetting about Afghanistan halfway through a war, everything to do with Iraq, and Gitmo, Bush deserves hatred. Obama, perhaps some mild disapproval.
*Like many liberals, I am increasingly dissapointed by the gap between the rhetoric and the policies in the anti-terrorism area.
**Yeah, there’s the NSA flap, but nobody has actually been prosecuted based on double-secret wiretaps yet.
This is a painfully stupid rejoinder.
I want to apologize to Clothahump on behalf of my fellow Dopers, who seem to have completely overlooked this provocative and important observation.
I would ask for clarity though. It seems you’re saying that Obama’s horrid policies are intended deliberately to harm America, right? Can you help us with the motive?
- As America sinks, and middle class people become lower class, the Democrat voting base increases?
- American failure is good news for Obama’s Islamist friends?
- By increasing anger and violence, Obama can get more suckers to support gun control; once the 2nd Amendment is lost the rest of the Bill of Rights goes with it?
- All of the above?
I apologize if it appears I’m trying to put words in your mouth, Clothahump, but please do explain.
It’s psychological projection; Clothahump is attributing Republican style behavior to the Democrats. Many Republicans are deliberately trying to harm America, and Americans. The ones who are willing to torch the country to make Obama fail, the various types of bigots who want to torment wide swathes of the population, the End Timers who want to end the world for Jesus, the “Starve the Beast” types who want an economic collapse in order to strangle the government from a lack of revenue, the “punish America for not voting Republican” types; there’s no shortage of Republicans actively working to harm America.
People who are really terrible at math?
He’s a socialist. He’s out to destroy the American economy. His regime has saddled us with a mountain of debt through profligate spending that shows no sign of stopping. In addition, he promotes class warfare and dissension.
Now, I’m sure that others will disagree. That’s fine. Different strokes for different folks and all that. But all I can say is that the numbers don’t lie, and since Obama took office, our debt has increased astronomically and we went bankrupt for all practical purposes in 2012, when the debt exceeded the GDP.
HA! Obama is a socialist? That’s utterly ridiculous, he’s a standard right wing corporatist who would fit in well with the Reagan era Republicans. And the Republicans have done far more to put us in debt. Nor does he promote class warfare which is a shame; this country needs class warfare, instead of one sided class persecution by the wealthy.
As it typical of the right wing Obama bashers your criticisms of him have no basis in reality, which is extra bizarre given that there’s plenty of legitimate reasons to bash him.
So, Obama is a socialist to be lumped with Lenin, Mao and Margaret ``I’ll never privatize British Rail’’ Thatcher.
Or he’s a right wing corporatist reminiscent of Attila the Hun, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret ``the Milk Snatcher’’ Thatcher.
It sounds like you two are almost in agreement – can you work out your minor differences and help confused European Dopers to understand U.S. politics? 
I’ll admit I’m confused. On the one hand, this cartoon seems to be the only explanation for recent American politics, but I do have an alternative hypothesis:
Physicists, can you help out – is this indeed related to a Schrodinger-cat paradox? Obama is definitely extreme left or extreme right, but we can’t be certain until we open some box? Perhaps a Socialist Obama world and a Right-wing Obama world exist in parallel and, like a Twilight Zone episode, are intersecting here at SDMB. (Mods, would you check the ISP numbers of these posters, please? IIRC, Internet ISPs change from integer to imaginary Gaussian integer when they pass through certain wormholes.)
Well … yes. I knew it was his fourth term, yep. I knew that!
B.O.
I think history is going to kick the living shit out of the last 4 Presidents.
And all 4 of them make my argument against the primary election system. The parties should be picking their candidates and presenting them to the populace, not John Q. public picking them!
George HW Bush strayed from the beliefs of the base and blatantly broke several promises. He did not deserve a second term and should have been booted from the ticket in '92.
Bill Clinton is the luckiest man in politics. The economy that boomed under him was not because of him.
The public foolishly picked W as the Republican candidate in 2000 when there was a better alternative.
They made the same kind of mistake in '08 and '12.
W. did some unforgivable things. But he did not try to dramatically change this country like Obama is. The socialist Disneyland that Obama wants is crazy, evil, and impossible. 100 years from now Bush will be a mostly forgotten blip of history, but we will still be paying a heavy price for Obamas sick dream.
So does he support the public ownership of all major industries?
Intentionally because a Moslem Communist America-hater or unintentionally?
Right. Which is why Obama hasn’t offered to reduce spending on Social Security by chaining the CPI, or called for reducing military spending…
How so?
Numbers don’t lie of course. And the numbers indicate that the short-term deficit is being rapidly reduced over the next decade.
Japan’s percentage of debt in relation to GDP is far higher than ours yet their economy is improving due to Prime Minister Abe’s stimulative economic policies.
In other words, candidates should be tools of the party bosses chosen in smoke-filled rooms.
While unfortunately Bush Sr. did break his campaign promise, his tax increases were necessary and showed a great deal of political courage.
Don’t diagree with this much.
Who were the ideal candidates for 2008 and 2012 in your opinion? Granted the GOP might have done better with Huntsman in 2012 but McCain was the best candidate in 2008.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Except Obama doesn’t want a “socialist Disneyland” nor is he “dramatically changing this country”. He is a moderate social liberal reforming some of the less sustainable parts of the current system (such as health care). Obama is certainly not a FDR or LBJ.