Guess who also wanted a president to fail?

The only silver lining to this administration is watching the Democratc Party wring their own necks twisting 180 degrees on everything they did during the last administration...

Remember when "up" was 'down" snd "east" was "west"?...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

What was Bush actually doing in 2006?
People wanted him out of the war in Iraq, and he was ignoring popular consensus. People wanted Bush out of Iraq.

Today, I think everybody wants the economy to rebound.
Except some Republicans don't want Obama to get credit for it. They don't want to see Obama do good with the economy, for political purposes.

I personally did not want to see Bush "fail" in 2006. I believe I had come to the realization that the man would not want to see a "fail" on his score-card, and thus would just end up throwing more U.S. $$$ at the problem and more U.S. soldier lives at the problem.

In 2009, if Obama fails, Americans suffer. Job losses will continue and people will find it difficult to find alternative jobs in this crappy economic environment.
Republicans seem to think the solution is to let it all burn to the ground and start again afterwards, but how many people's lives will be shattered in the process?

I see a significant difference here.

__________________
Republicans have a sweet racket because they run on "government is ineffective," and then when they **** things up, they go, "See." – Bill Maher

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."
--Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara

One, you don't win a war, or for that matter even conduct a war on "popular consensus."

Two, there is no difference at all. American lives were in play during Bush's terms in office. Had he failed America would likely have been attacked again.

Three, just like FDR, Obama is throwing money at a problem and most of it will be pissed, (pardon my french,) away and not do anything for the economy. Under the first eight years of FDR the unemployment rate was still 15% annd we were still in a depression. At the start of WWII the unemployment rate was about 15% so his policies failed, just like Obama's will fail. Myths of the New Deal | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

The Depression in the United States

Four, government is not the solution, they are the problem!

__________________
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
Thomas Jefferson

* An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia regatur orbis?
o Translation: "Don't you know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?


VIVE LIBERTE'

If you think a president's desire for war should be superceded by our democratic government...
Wow. Just wow...


FALSE.
1) American lives were in play during Bush's term in office, for Iraq, cause he PUT THEM AT RISK.
Bush protected NO American lives by invading Iraq, but put military lives at risk.

2) There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was going to attack the U.S.
None whatsoever.


Quite frankly, the "new deal failed" mentality is just a failure to acknowledge reality. And most prevalently, a failure in people's acknowledgement of history.
The Great Depression started in 1929.
The enactment of the New Deal policies went from 1933 to 1939.
To claim he "failed" with such a myopic look at the history is pointless. It's like you want an instant panacea, when the problem was much more wide-spread and deeper than that.

Under the current problem, it isn't going to be solved in a day either.


This is part of the proof of my point.
No matter how much DEREGULATION is shown to be the problem, people like you will insist it was the solution.
No matter how much waste and wanton failure is shown to have occurred in the companies due to their greed and excess, you'll persist in thinking that private greed is the solution.


And finally, you are turning this discussion away from the point of the thread.
This is about people wanting the president to fail.

__________________
Republicans have a sweet racket because they run on "government is ineffective," and then when they **** things up, they go, "See." – Bill Maher

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."
--Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara

I'd love to see the economy recover, but people like me and increasingly people on the left who have a freaking clue about how to help an economy recover believe what Obama's doing won't help the economy. Predicting he will fail and wanting it are two different things.

I predict he will fail.

I want policies that grow the size and scope of government to fail.

I want socialism to fail sooner rather than later because eventually it always does.

I don't know. I think it's Democrats/Socialists who are attempting to burn it all to the ground so that government, and only government, is the solution. When you're busy trying to Europeanize America, who cares how many people's lives will be shattered in the process??? After all, never fail to take advantage of a crisis! I so totally see those words coming back to haunt the Obama administration for years and years to come.

__________________
Dudes ... you're just NOT THAT MUCH ****ING SMARTER than all of us. GET OVER YOURSELVES!
-- Me, to President Obama and the rest of his self-loving amateur staff.

foundit66, comprehension is a good thing, try it sometime.

The President could not have started the war without congress, once there popular opinion ceases to be relevant. You do not win a war or fight a war based on what outsiders, (most of whom have no military experience) think. That my friend will cost the lives of soldiers.

The American people had their chance in 2004 to rid themselves of Bush, they chose not to.

I also never mentioned Iraq, I was thinking more along the lines of terroists. When we show weakness, (which we will under Obama,) the terrorists will attack again in this country. Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not Bush kept your ass safe.

Reality my friend is that the NEW DEAL FAILED and more economists are recognizing that.

See: New Lessons From The New Deal - CBS News

Free market policies go that if a company fails it fails, period. I agree that many of these companies brought it upon themselves and they should not be picking the pockets of the taxpayers to bail them out. When government steps in they usually stifle growth and slow the economy down when we need it to grow.

Sorry, but I'm just answering your questions, not changing the subject. Conservatives don't want Obama to fail they want his socialist policies to fail.

And speaking of who wanted whom to fail see this thread;

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/med...html#post55788

__________________
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
Thomas Jefferson

* An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia regatur orbis?
o Translation: "Don't you know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?


VIVE LIBERTE'

Okay.
I'm talking about people who explicitly state they WANT him to fail.

And moreover, I find it difficult to accept expertise claims from people who refused to even admit how bad this problem was in the first place...
A bit like a veterinarian claiming to be able to operate on a horse, but he can't identify a sick horse in the first place.


I grow tired of that word "socialism".
It is inaccurately used just wayyyy too many times.

It's the lastest iteration in the Republican scare machine.
First, people who didn't agree with violating civil rights or war in Iraq were "terrorist sympathizers".
Now, people who want to shore up the fundamental structure, instead of just letting the whole building collapse, are "socialists".


And there is the inevitable push to ignore WHERE all this started, and accuse the fire fighters of being the fire starters.
It was only a matter of time.

I guess Obama should have come into office, snapped his fingers, and with no $$$ spent he should have fixed the economy.
And when he doesn't, all those job losses and economic melt-downs which started under Bush are all starting to be laid at the feet of the Democrats for responsibility...


Yeah.
There it is...
The irrational attempt to blame Democrats for the current problems, ignoring how the fire clearly started BEFORE the Democrats even started any of this recovery attempt.

I guess that's been the Republican attempt all along. Keep insisting that the problem is less than it is.
And now that we've got a Democrat at the helm, insist that problems that have been popping up long before Democrats started the recovery.
Obama's been in office 48 days now? Time to blame everything on him, right?

People's lives were being shattered by this economic melt-down LONG BEFORE Obama took office.
But I guess for you, instead of pointing out leadership to solve it, you can insist on using it for blame....


And you're not failing to take advantage of a crisis, are you?
You're obviously trying to blame Democrats for it...

__________________
Republicans have a sweet racket because they run on "government is ineffective," and then when they **** things up, they go, "See." – Bill Maher

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."
--Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara

Those in glass houses...
And now you're going to start in with pointless commentary...


This being the pointless commentary.
I do not contest what you said. You fail to grasp the real dispute...

The issue is not how to "win a war". The issue is whether or not the war WAS WORTH MAINTAINING in the first place.
And if you think the people who were PAYING for that war, and sacrificing their sons and daughters should not have a say in whether or not we should be fighting that war, then please proclaim that loudly...
I'm sure there are plenty of non-war hawks who would love to hear your thoughts...


The landscape between 2004 and 2006, and even 2008 were significantly different regarding opinions on the war.
If Kerry had gone up against 2008 Bush, with Bush eligible for re-election, who do you think would have won?

I saw something amusing a while back. It was John Stewart showing the CPAC statements.
Left and right, people were ostracizing Bush. You would have thought he was hated all along.
But then cut to video of the 2008 CPAC with George Bush. And as he came to the podium, loud chants of "four more years. four more years" could be heard.

THAT is what modern Republicanism is really about. Now that George Bush is popular to turn your back on, loyalty is absent. Cut your losses and run.
Something similar happened with McCain. Joe the Plumber said some pretty %@#$ed up things about McCain. They were posted on these forums.
And amusingly enough, it was the OBAMA VOTERS who pointed out that Joe's comments were messed up.
McCain voters were glaringly silent on the issue.


You never mentioned Iraq?
Maybe you should revisit your quote on "comprehension" above...

I WAS TALKING about Iraq in my original post, which YOU responded to.
I FULLY GET that you were trying to shift the topic FROM Iraq onto terrorists.


Bush kept my ass safe by doing the obvious thing that everybody agreed upon and attacking bin Laden in AFGHANISTAN.
Bush PUT MY ASS AT RISK by going to war with Iraq, which INCREASED the terrorist threat.

Do you REALLY think that bin Laden thought "Bush is at the helm, and he's showing weakness", so that's why he attacked on 9/11????
NO. He attacked CAUSE HE COULD.

The whole "when we show weakness" is just your failed attempt to try to blame Obama if America does get attacked again.


You reveal too much of your mentality in your phrasing.
"Free market policies go that ..."

You aren't looking for a way to show the New Deal as failing.
You're looking for a way to JUSTIFY FREE MARKET policies.
You have ALREADY ASSUMED free market policies are superior, yet you fail to recognize how free market policies CAUSED THIS CURRENT DISASTER.


No. You ARE NOT.
Don't try to bullspit and pretend you're "answering" any questions.
HERE are the questions I have ACTUALLY asked (before the post you just made).

What was Bush actually doing in 2006?
Republicans seem to think the solution is to let it all burn to the ground and start again afterwards, but how many people's lives will be shattered in the process?

You have answered neither of these questions.

__________________
Republicans have a sweet racket because they run on "government is ineffective," and then when they **** things up, they go, "See." – Bill Maher

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."
--Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara

Congress (both houses) voted for and passed the Irai war resolution...That means nothing was superceded by "our democratic government"...

But that's okay...In "foundit's world" is nothing more than "president's desire for war"...

And moving the goalposts again...Not even changing the clocks can stop it...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

You're not understanding me.
I am NOT faulting how the war was initiated. People who do fault the mechanism for declaring war are wrong, IMO.
Bush is not a "war criminal".

My point is that Bush HIMSELF said that the major impetus for starting the war was WMDs.
When those are found to be missing, the REASON for why Congress and the nation initially gave support are shown to be false.

And like a guy who drives a lemon off the lot and suddenly finds it doesn't perform as advertised, they've got a right to complain.
They've got a rational to ask for their money back.

And if you can't see the 2008 Democratic Process as a DIRECT RESULT of this fiasco, then I don't know what to tell you...
That didn't happen because the media hates Bush, or cause the Obama supporters are reverse racists, or cause we all thought Obama was going to turn loaves and fishes into food for millions.


You brought up 2006 poll.
I brought up WHAT THE ISSUE WAS in 2006.
And we're here...

What you're talking about is like insisting that we have to talk about Rush saying he wanted Obama to fail, WITHOUT THE CONTEXT of what that was really about.

__________________
Republicans have a sweet racket because they run on "government is ineffective," and then when they **** things up, they go, "See." – Bill Maher

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."
--Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara