Obama or Bush?

[North Suran]

You know absolutely nothing.

I'm just basing my logic off of liberal logic, so I guess you're right because their is no Liberal logic because that is an oxymoron.

Oh, the irony. You must realise that you are giving Republicans a bad name, yes?

People like Emericanland undermine their own side's arguments more than we could ever hope to.

[Emericanland]

Yes, I understand that things of such magnitude would be sufficient to shock someone something fierce, but a good president would have bounced back and reacted calmly.

Right, a "GOOD" president would be able to devise a strategy for dealing with the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor instantaneously without knowing the details (or that there was even more hijacked planes). Bush sat around for a few minutes at a prior speaking engagement before acting, TERRIBLE!

Nah; a good President would be able to devise a strategy for dealing with an attack that he had been fully briefed on previously.

I hear rhetoric again. If I remember right conspiracy theorists said the same thing about FDR and you Liberals love how much he went against the Constitution.

[Buffett and Colbert]

ok go look it up yourself, but be careful if you find too liberal of a news source then they might not have reported it.

MSNBC is crap because of it's LIBERAL BIAS.

How does this not support my claim?

The complete lack of correlation between your statement and his?

If Liberals could stop being emotional for five seconds then they would realize how stupid they sound.

Please stop being a hypocrite.

[The Scandinvans]

All I have to say is Bush screwed our children with his spending and Obama screwed many generations to come with his spending and if the terrorists had attacked under Obama all he would have done is apologize to the world at how evil America is. At least Bush loved this country.

Both attempt to enforce their petty morals on us.

One seeks to install a strong sense of individual morality, aka related to Christian morality.

The other seeks to install a collective morality, at the expense of the rights of the individual. To impose a false sense of morality for the sake of the 'greater good'.

Both seek to damn us into a cycle of regret and failure.

[Ralkovia]

Wasn't he talking to kindengartners or something? Oh what fun it would have been,"Sorry kids I have to go now, we just had a major terrorist attack and a bunch of people are dead."

As opposed to just - you know - leaving early?

I doubt the kids would have demanded to know why he had to leave.

And if the worst came to worst, he could have lied; Christ knows, he has enough experience.

And risk fright. You obviously have never had a president just get up and leave without knowing something horribly wrong happened. Its an OSHI- kind of state of mind when the leader of the free world gets up and leaves in the middle of something. I'm sure he could have lied but you want him to lie when the oppurtunity suits you best.

[North Suran]

Right, a "GOOD" president would be able to devise a strategy for dealing with the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor instantaneously without knowing the details (or that there was even more hijacked planes). Bush sat around for a few minutes at a prior speaking engagement before acting, TERRIBLE!

Wasn't he talking to kindengartners or something? Oh what fun it would have been,"Sorry kids I have to go now, we just had a major terrorist attack and a bunch of people are dead."

A plane struck the empire state building previously in history. It wouldn't be completely out of the question for it to be an accidental occurrence. These facts weren't known within 5 seconds...[/quote]
Except, of course, for the fact that he stayed a further five minutes after being conclusively told by an aide that the country was under attack.

But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of your baseless propaganda!

[Rolling squid]

Considering only one is a war criminal, this ain't exactly a hard choice.

You kids throw around that term far too often. Are you seriously trying to compare bush to the likes of Goebbels and Bormann? Have you ever even studied the Nuremberg Trials?

Just because Bush didn't commit atrocities on the same level as the Nazis doesn't exempt him from war criminal status. Ted Bundy and some dude who shot his ex-wife are both murderers.

Um, what?

Just because a crime can be committed on a much greater magnitude doesn't mean that committing the same crime on a smaller magnitude isn't a crime. Bush's acts of torture were a war crime, as were the acts of Nazi Germany.

[Buffett and Colbert]

[I hear rhetoric again.

So?

If I remember right conspiracy theorists said the same thing about FDR and you Liberals love how much he went against the Constitution.

Do you know what the D stands for in FDR? Just curious. I challenge you not to Google it.

[Tunizcha]

Ya gotta admitt. For 9/11, Bush was the right man at the right time.

Also, mad respect for Appointing John Bolton as our UN rep.

/sarcasm?

Do you remember the eyewitness accounts of Bush when he learned of the attacks?

He stood there, slack-jawed with his eyes wide open for about a minute.

And? What was your response? Shock and horror?

Yes, I understand that things of such magnitude would be sufficient to shock someone something fierce, but a good president would have bounced back and reacted calmly.

Right, a "GOOD" president would be able to devise a strategy for dealing with the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor instantaneously without knowing the details (or that there was even more hijacked planes). Bush sat around for a few minutes at a prior speaking engagement before acting, TERRIBLE!

Please, spare me your sarcasm. I am not implying that a president would instantaneously know the situation, best possible course of action, etc. But do you think Reagan, Clinton, or Bush Sr. would have"(sat) down with a classroom of second-graders and begin a 20-minute pre-planned photo op" fifteen minutes after it was clear we were under attack?

[North Suran]

Wasn't he talking to kindengartners or something? Oh what fun it would have been,"Sorry kids I have to go now, we just had a major terrorist attack and a bunch of people are dead."

As opposed to just - you know - leaving early?

I doubt the kids would have demanded to know why he had to leave.

And if the worst came to worst, he could have lied; Christ knows, he has enough experience.

And risk fright. You obviously have never had a president just get up and leave without knowing something horribly wrong happened. Its an OSHI- kind of state of mind when the leader of the free world gets up and leaves in the middle of something. I'm sure he could have lied but you want him to lie when the oppurtunity suits you best.

The President of the USA has better things to do than read "My Pet Goat" with a bunch of pre-teens?

OGOD ANARCHY WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE AH JIHAD AHAHAHAH.

At any rate, I'm pretty sure the whole nation takes priority over a bunch of kids.

And there's a big difference between lying to some school children and lying to the UN.

[Geniasis]

you Libs are picking apart my arguments based on emotion, kinda like how you picked Bush apart.

No, actually. We picked Bush apart based on the fact that repeatedly violated the right to privacy and actively waged a war based on presuppositions that were not only false but could very well have been deliberately false in the first place. Not emotion, reason.

Everything you hated Bush for was not really true. They found WMD's in Iraq and if we were there for just oil then how come we didn't just steal the oil as a "payment."

I don't know if I believe that we were there for oil, but we didn't find any WMDs.

He never broke the constitution on American's where it only applies.

Yes, he did. Furthermore, he violated international treaties that the U.S. both signed and help create in the first place. The Constitution btw grants these treaties the same level of legitimacy as U.S. law. In short Bush's administration showed a consistent disregard for both the spirit and the letter of the law.

Obama is trying to force his healthcare plan on people(it will eventually be the only option because as Obama has proven, the Fed doesn't need to make a profit.) and how does that help anyone?

That is simply an outright lie. Obama's healthcare is simply another option on the table for consumers. If companies cannot compete with that then that is simply the invisible hand of Capitalism weeding out companies. Surely a conservative such as yourself can appreciate that.

He wants to increase the number of people on a health plan without increasing costs to the taxpayer's. The only way to do so is ration healthcare in a way where it is given to people who are actually benefiting more then a couple months to a year's life.

There are actually a myriad of ways in which his goal could be accomplished.

Obama has taken over private companies and fired the CEO's which is so obviously against the constitution I shouldn't have to point it out.

Since this is all entirely fabricated you are going to have to point it out.

[South Lorenya]

Bush is so ineffective that 98% of professional historians think he's a failure and 61% think he's the worst president in the history of the US. (link).

Obama, meanwhile, is less than eight months into his term; It is far too early tyo tell how good or bad he'll turn out, especiually consoidering that Dubya's nratiungs were amazingly high at the equivalent part of his term. (link).

Bush vs Clinton (and no, I don't mean Hillary) would likely be a far better choice for this sort of topic.

[Ralkovia]

Right, a "GOOD" president would be able to devise a strategy for dealing with the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor instantaneously without knowing the details (or that there was even more hijacked planes). Bush sat around for a few minutes at a prior speaking engagement before acting, TERRIBLE!

Wasn't he talking to kindengartners or something? Oh what fun it would have been,"Sorry kids I have to go now, we just had a major terrorist attack and a bunch of people are dead."

A plane struck the empire state building previously in history. It wouldn't be completely out of the question for it to be an accidental occurrence. These facts weren't known within 5 seconds...

Except, of course, for the fact that he stayed a further five minutes after being conclusively told by an aide that the country was under attack.

But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of your baseless propaganda![/quote]

So did the aide say,"Mr. President a plane crashed into the World Trade tower."
Or did the aide say,"Mr. President we're under attack and being invaded."
There is a multitude of differences between those two and the responses that go with them.

[Aedyddia]

In Soviet America, liberals screw you!

Soviet America is exactly what liberals want, but we all know how the Soviet Union turned out

No, it's not.

No you're right. Obama is following the Nazi Germany path.

What?

[North Suran]

A plane struck the empire state building previously in history. It wouldn't be completely out of the question for it to be an accidental occurrence. These facts weren't known within 5 seconds...

Except, of course, for the fact that he stayed a further five minutes after being conclusively told by an aide that the country was under attack.

But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of your baseless propaganda!

So did the aide say,"Mr. President a plane crashed into the World Trade tower."
Or did the aide say,"Mr. President we're under attack and being invaded."
There is a multitude of differences between those two and the responses that go with them.

He was told the first time that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Centre.

On the second time, he was told the country was under attack.

He continued to stay there for at least five minutes.

Stop living in denial.

[Emericanland]

You know absolutely nothing.

I'm just basing my logic off of liberal logic, so I guess you're right because their is no Liberal logic because that is an oxymoron.

Oh, the irony. You must realise that you are giving Republicans a bad name, yes?

People like Emericanland undermine their own side's arguments more than we could ever hope to.

Kinda like Biden, Kerry, Edwards, and the whole of the democrat party for their side. I couldn't give a rat's ass about the Republican party because they are too busy trying to make friends with the Liberal party and be bipartisan(look at McCain, he is like a Liberal's little puppy). If the Republican party would stick with conservative ideals then I would fully support them, but they prove my point that Liberals are not for bipartisanship even though they throw that word around the most.

[Tunizcha]

A plane struck the empire state building previously in history. It wouldn't be completely out of the question for it to be an accidental occurrence. These facts weren't known within 5 seconds...

Except, of course, for the fact that he stayed a further five minutes after being conclusively told by an aide that the country was under attack.

But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of your baseless propaganda!

So did the aide say,"Mr. President a plane crashed into the World Trade tower."
Or did the aide say,"Mr. President we're under attack and being invaded."
There is a multitude of differences between those two and the responses that go with them.

He was told the first time that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Centre.

On the second time, he was told the country was under attack.

He continued to stay there for at least five minutes.

Stop living in denial.

Actually, he went to go finish his photo-op.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Kinda like Biden, Kerry, Edwards, and the whole of the democrat party for their side.

No, not really.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about the Republican party because they are too busy trying to make friends with the Liberal party and be bipartisan(look at McCain, he is like a Liberal's little puppy).

Because constructive dialogue is so terrible.

If the Republican party would stick with conservative ideals then I would fully support them,

I retched.

but they prove my point that Liberals are not for bipartisanship even though they throw that word around the most.

What gives you that impression?

[Ralkovia]

Wasn't he talking to kindengartners or something? Oh what fun it would have been,"Sorry kids I have to go now, we just had a major terrorist attack and a bunch of people are dead."

As opposed to just - you know - leaving early?

I doubt the kids would have demanded to know why he had to leave.

And if the worst came to worst, he could have lied; Christ knows, he has enough experience.

And risk fright. You obviously have never had a president just get up and leave without knowing something horribly wrong happened. Its an OSHI- kind of state of mind when the leader of the free world gets up and leaves in the middle of something. I'm sure he could have lied but you want him to lie when the oppurtunity suits you best.

The President of the USA has better things to do than read "My Pet Goat" with a bunch of pre-teens?

OGOD ANARCHY WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE AH JIHAD AHAHAHAH.

At any rate, I'm pretty sure the whole nation takes priority over a bunch of kids.

And there's a big difference between lying to some school children and lying to the UN.

The whole nation? So your preaching lets go out and traumatize some kids for life. The President was acting calm, do you think that possibly while he finished it up he was planning some sort of response or do you think he was preoccupied with reading his book and can't multi-task. I'm sure if your human you can read a Pre-K book and formulate some sort of plan.

[Geniasis]

Kinda like Biden, Kerry, Edwards, and the whole of the democrat party for their side. I couldn't give a rat's ass about the Republican party because they are too busy trying to make friends with the Liberal party and be bipartisan(look at McCain, he is like a Liberal's little puppy). If the Republican party would stick with conservative ideals then I would fully support them, but they prove my point that Liberals are not for bipartisanship even though they throw that word around the most.

So the Republican party, which is trying to oppose the Democratic party at every imaginable turn, is being too friendly with them?

[Emericanland]

In Soviet America, liberals screw you!

Soviet America is exactly what liberals want, but we all know how the Soviet Union turned out

No, it's not.

No you're right. Obama is following the Nazi Germany path.

What?

Nazi Germany started with a bailout, then a takeover of the auto industry, and after that was their socialized medicine. They treated the Jew's like how Liberal's treat the rich. Besides, we all know Obama prefers Muslim countries over Israel. He even bows to muslim leaders.

[New Kereptica]

The whole nation? So your preaching lets go out and traumatize some kids for life. The President was acting calm, do you think that possibly while he finished it up he was planning some sort of response or do you think he was preoccupied with reading his book and can't multi-task. I'm sure if your human you can read a Pre-K book and formulate some sort of plan.

Because Bush leaving totally would have done that.

[Emericanland]

Kinda like Biden, Kerry, Edwards, and the whole of the democrat party for their side. I couldn't give a rat's ass about the Republican party because they are too busy trying to make friends with the Liberal party and be bipartisan(look at McCain, he is like a Liberal's little puppy). If the Republican party would stick with conservative ideals then I would fully support them, but they prove my point that Liberals are not for bipartisanship even though they throw that word around the most.

So the Republican party, which is trying to oppose the Democratic party at every imaginable turn, is being too friendly with them?

right now they are not, but half the time they are trying to be friends with the Liberal party at every turn. The democrats just want Republican support on these issues, So if something goes wrong then they have someone to blame.

[Epicnopolis]

See how both of them are bad, I pick neither. Both are just as bad as the other.

*In a German accent.* Your Russian. You would have picked some idiot that favor's communism. THEN YOU WOULD INVADE US!!!!

[Geniasis]

Nazi Germany started with a bailout, then a takeover of the auto industry, and after that was their socialized medicine. They treated the Jew's like how Liberal's treat the rich. Besides, we all know Obama prefers Muslim countries over Israel. He even bows to muslim leaders.

Source plz?