[General Battuta]

Yeah, again, gotta say that Liberator seems to be turning a blind eye to a lot of the vicious personal attacks on Obama. The 'Muslim socialist terrorist' line gets used a lot.

[karajorma]

Before Liberator responds, I should point out that the issue is NOT the attacks on Obama's character so much as the fact that they are carried out by the exact same people who claimed that attacking Bush's character was treasonous because he was president during a time of war.

The second Obama was in power they kept suddenly decided it wasn't quite so treasonous at all and was in fact a valid expression of their 1st amendment rights.

[Turambar]

I like pointing out that a good chunk of the ones who criticize socialism don't even know what socialism really is, and are just having cold war flashback emotional responses.

[Janos]

Before Liberator responds, I should point out that the issue is NOT the attacks on Obama's character so much as the fact that they are carried out by the exact same people who claimed that attacking Bush's character was treasonous because he was president during a time of war.

The second Obama was in power they kept suddenly decided it wasn't quite so treasonous at all and was in fact a valid expression of their 1st amendment rights.

"HERE AM I PROTECTING MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH"

[Liberator]

The main difference, from my point of view is this:

Bush was attacked for conducting said war in a way that would lead to victory.  The left/liberals/whatever wailed that he was inhuman and a murderer and so forth.

Obama is being attacked because he is trying to fundamentally change the way the US operates internally, never mind what people in Europe think of the situation, I don't like it.

Bush did many things wrong, I won't deny it, but he didn't try and change the country in a way contrary to her founding.

[General Battuta]

hooooooooooooo hoo hoo hoo

Boy, I dunno. Between an attempt at a broad revision of the Constitution's limits on executive power, an attitude of 'exceptionalism' that allowed the President to do whatever he wanted -- including holding people without trial -- and a drive towards a complete overhaul of US foreign policy in the name of creating a new Pax Americana, I'd say Bush did a lot more of that than Obama has.

Liberator, you are shockingly partisan. Whatever education and information you have received is obviously totally one-sided. And this is coming from someone who considers himself a moderate.

In other news, I was just informed that the primary member of the Blue Planet voice acting effort has decided to leave the forum.

[Nuclear1]

The main difference, from my point of view is this:

Bush was attacked for conducting said war in a way that would lead to victory.  The left/liberals/whatever wailed that he was inhuman and a murderer and so forth.

And how was he going to "lead to victory"?  With 4000 dead American troops, a country in shambles, and every single civil or political right erased or under fire in the homeland?

Obama is being attacked because he is trying to fundamentally change the way the US operates internally, never mind what people in Europe think of the situation, I don't like it.

Well, you know, maybe it's time to change.  Maybe it's time for the US to get on board with what the rest of the developed world discovered fifty years ago.  Unfortunately, we have people still so afflicted with Cold War paranoia and out for blood McCarthy style that we're going to remain the most backwards developed nation for a long long long time.

Bush did many things wrong, I won't deny it, but he didn't try and change the country in a way contrary to her founding.

Which was over 200 years ago.  Blacks were slaves.  Women couldn't vote.  America was a tiny secluded country of thirteen states and not even three million people, most of them WASPs or black slaves.  Now it's the sole remaining superpower in the world whose borders stretch from coast to coast with fifty states and well over 300 million people from all different ethnicities and religions.  Oh, and nevermind the technological advances.

Despite what most ultraconservatives think, we can't keep living in 1783.

[Liberator]

Speaking of black slaves.

Did you know that the slave owning colonies wanted they're slaves to count for a whole person for purposes of census, as opposed to the 3/5 that they ended up counting.

[Turambar]

Speaking of black slaves.

Did you know that the slave owning colonies wanted they're slaves to count for a whole person for purposes of census, as opposed to the 3/5 that they ended up counting.

of course they did! it would have given the slaveowners a whole lot more say in determining policy, or did you really think that the slaves would make informed decisions and vote for the candidate that had their best interests at heart?

[Nuclear1]

Speaking of black slaves.

Did you know that the slave owning colonies wanted they're slaves to count for a whole person for purposes of census, as opposed to the 3/5 that they ended up counting.

And you STILL haven't answered the question I asked you:

And how was he going to "lead to victory"?

If you're going to make statements you've got to back them up.

[NGTM-1R]

Bush was attacked for conducting said war in a way that would lead to victory.  The left/liberals/whatever wailed that he was inhuman and a murderer and so forth.

And all that stuff before and during 2006 was what, again?

I'm currently reading Bob Woodward's The War Within, so I know just how ludcrious this statement is. Before the surge, the war was being lost. While I am of the view that declaring it is currently being won is horribly premature (ask me again in thirty-six years, and if Iraq has a stable, prosperous democracy then I will regard the war as won), it is incontrovertible fact that at this time, three years ago, sectarian violence was getting worse, attacks on US and Iraqi forces were getting worse, and the Iraqi government was a nonentity. This did not change until mid-late 2007.

[General Battuta]

You have to stop throwing out points and then running away when you get destroyed in the cross-examination.

Stick with an argument instead of tossing out spurious fuel for the flames.

[Polpolion]

I've seen this a few times in this thread and a few times in others, so I'll just comment here about it:

If people are being critical about Obama's policies and you don't like that, it's fine and dandy if you want to correct them. But for some odd reason, I've seen people occasionally point out things that Bush did that weren't too cool.

I don't know why they're bringing that up. If they're trying to show how Obama's policies are actually good, then they're supporting that idea fallaciously. Bush has nothing to do with Obama's policies (in the context that I've seen him brought up).

[High Max]

/

[karajorma]

If people are being critical about Obama's policies and you don't like that, it's fine and dandy if you want to correct them. But for some odd reason, I've seen people occasionally point out things that Bush did that weren't too cool.

I don't know why they're bringing that up. If they're trying to show how Obama's policies are actually good, then they're supporting that idea fallaciously. Bush has nothing to do with Obama's policies (in the context that I've seen him brought up).

I hope that you're not referring to me. Cause there is a world of difference between bring up Bush's stupid policies in order to defend Obama's and pointing out that the same people who attack Obama now considered it treasonous to attack Bush in the same way back then.

[esarai]

Bush was attacked for conducting said war in a way that would lead to victory.  The left/liberals/whatever wailed that he was inhuman and a murderer and so forth.

Obama is being attacked because he is trying to fundamentally change the way the US operates internally, never mind what people in Europe think of the situation, I don't like it.

Bush did many things wrong, I won't deny it, but he didn't try and change the country in a way contrary to her founding.

 

What evidence do you have to support the claim that Obama is attempting to change the US contrary to it's founding?  If there was ever a president who did that, it was Bush. He effectively nullified all but two of the Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights: The right to bear arms and the right to not have soldiers quartered in your house against your will.

Speaking of black slaves.

Did you know that the slave owning colonies wanted they're slaves to count for a whole person for purposes of census, as opposed to the 3/5 that they ended up counting.

That may seem fine and dandy as stated, but it leaves out the fact that by being counted in censuses only, the slaves still did not have the power to vote, thus giving the slave owners more representation in congress despite having only a fraction of the southern population actually voting. The reason it was desirable for slaves not to be counted at all was so that the plantation owner's power would be equivalent to how many of the owners there actually were, and not allow them to establish misrepresentation in our system. It checked an attempt at establishing a southern oligarchy. The 3/5ths compromise was arrived at to coax them into the Union, because the South really wanted to be represented more than it justly should have been.

[Liberator]

Despite what most ultraconservatives think, we can't keep living in 1783.

Who would want to do that?  No electricity.  Bad plumbing.  No proper dentistry.  Unshaven women.

Seriously though, I don't understand on a basic level this unhinged desire to have the government do every thing for you except take a dump.

[Blue Lion]

Seriously though, I don't understand on a basic level this unhinged desire to have the government do every thing for you except take a dump.

What on Earth has Obama done or proposed that would fit that bill in regards to me? 

[Turambar]

roads, schools, and basic healthcare should all be a part of basic infrastructure, available to every person.

[Inquisitor]

What happened to 8 years of "trust your president" in the last 90 days?

If this president is so powerful, that in 91 days he has destroyed the social and economic fabric of the country, hell, I'll go vote for him again...

That kind of power can't be stopped.

The conservative politicos should be ashamed of themselves.