Good lord. I've heard more about Bush since Obama has been in office than I did when Bush was. Nobody defends Obama -they just defer to some Bushism. And what's idiotic about that is that they justify what Obama is doing by citing Bush, logically meaning they must of have supported Bush. However, a liberal mind does not thrive on logic. Anyhow, here is transparency for you: April 16, 2009 Categories: Antics One Question Napolitano The GOPers - by that we mean Rep. Eric Cantor's office - are pouncing on an interview today on "Morning Joe" with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, under this subject line: "Administration Permits Only One Question, No Follow-Ups About Extremism Report." Today the Secretary went on Morning Joe but they were only allowed to ask one question. "Apparently, when the Democrats promise an open administration, they really only mean open as long as you ask the questions they want asked and no follow-ups on controversial topics that everyone is reporting on," staffer Joe Pounder wrote in an email. http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0409/One_Question_Napolitano.html
You are missing my point. Obama said Bush was using fear. Now he turns around and does the same thing. That is called hypocrisy of the first order. Of course, he also justified running up a 10 trillion dollar deficit on the grounds that Bush ran up one trillion. There is another more basic point that I'm sure you're too obtuse to understand. 9/11 happened. Bush didn't make it up. There were half a dozen serious terrorist attacks under Clinton. Only the most naive person imaginable would say taking steps to protect the country from more attacks is using "fear" as a political weapon, but of course the democrats did exactly that. Clearly they regard anti-abortion demonstrators as more of a threat than al qaeda.
You are missing my point. You had no problem with Bush and Cheney using fear to manipulate the masses for their own agenda. If you are okay with the tools they used, but not okay with the same tools being used by Obama, then you are essentially taking a position that the end justifies the means only when it suits your own agenda. That is not a principled position...that is exactly what our enemies do...
Agreed. "AAA" continues to be incredibly "blinded" by his own political bias. His bias is in just about every post he makes. For some bizarre reason, he is unable to see his bias and the the hipocrisy that comes about from it. Truly amazing, and pathetic all at the same time. His criticism of Obama's handling of Captain Phillips being held hostage by the Somali pirates was the epitome of bias. All he did was "bitch and moan" about the situation . . . but as is quite typical from this Fool, he was unable to provide his OWN solution. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160732&perpage=6&pagenumber=3
There is a pretty easy way to test the folks like AAA. I call it the dittohead test. Ask them to name 5 specific issues they disagree with Rush Limbaugh on. If they stammer and try to change the subject, you can tell they don't think for themselves at all, but merely follow the talking points of Rush Fatslob and other right wing hate mongers.
Do you really think knocking over your own strawmen impresses anyone? You say Bush and Cheney used fear tactics, not me. I think the charge was a smokescreen by democrats to try to deflect attention away from the fact that they were more concerned about hurting some terrorist's feelings than preventing another 9/11. The hypocrisy comes in because now Obama is doing the same thing, only his bogeyman happens to be based on First Amendment-protected freedom of expression. At least Bush was confronting actual threats, not a bunch of middle-aged white people throwing tea bags or protesting abortion. The real irony here is that the left is always screaming about some government conspiracy to threaten their rights by eavesdropping or racial profiling or looking at their library cards, but the minute they are in power, the first thing they do is try to paint their political opponents as likely terrorists.
Anything but deal with the issue at hand. Right out of the liberal playbook. Liberals are baffled by any argument that doesn't depend on blind emotion. So instead of making a rational argument, you resort to attacks, name-calling, ruling subjects off limits ( like Gore has tried to do with global warming) or just shouting down your opponents. After all, we know the liberals' version of the First Amendment is everyone who disagrees with me, shut the f*ck up. Whatever. So do you find the idea of Homeland Security labelling people potential terrorists because of conservative beliefs or military service to be appropriate or not? That's the issue you seem to want to avoid.
Let's see if I can reduce this to the essential situation of the right wing these day: "It sucks to be a republican, out of power and in the minority party..." The klannish can dish, but they can't take it... Like throwing rocks at a dog taking a shit...
you mean right wingers are now bitchin about how that captain was saved?Retarded. By the way,the DOW is up under obama.It was down 50% under bush and failed gop policies.The gop ruined the economy and now they bitch at the recovery plans and piss about the market recovering.Why do they hate america and positive action? The GOP is an ugly,ugly party.It has decided to move far into the extremist realm accomodating and embracing the sara palin way.Moving into medeival times faster than a speeding cannonball.