GEORGE W BUSH is so good .....

[Elderberry]

Would war crimes include Bosnia?............

Also remember that the powers in the house and senate are made to protect the minority party........as oft used to justify dems actions when in that position, and, the same by reps........

interesting how frustrated you seem with partisanship on the reps part.
Do you feel the same when the dems do it? Don't try to tell me they don't..........grin...........or say "they don't do it nearly as bad or as often".......

I understand, being a dem., that you'd accept their partisanship as ok, because, it's "right thinking", but...........partisanship is just that, and, it seems a lot of representatives are elected to be just that.........

I don't like it on either side, to be set in ideology.......sometimes, right is right,and, you should do it............

I've always thought we should vote nationally for house and senate.
We'd tend to vote for people who'll do whats right (insert your own POV here) for the country, and, not just bring home pork to their respective constituents...........
or, vote for the house or senate person from another district.....and, not reciprocal, ie:

CA votes for DE, who votes for WI, and on and on.........again, I think it would focus more on the county as a whole, not special interest as much.......

IMHO, of course........

I also see differing opinions of "right"............

I don't know about Bosnia.

I didn't like partisanship no matter who did it. I believe it is indisputable that the Republicans had evlivated partisanship to a new level during the Bush administration.

Consequently, when a democratic president and a sweep in the congress affirmed that the country was fedup with that partisan crap, and many democrats wanted revenge, Obama said no. No more partisanship. He had a mandate, as did the democrats overall.

The republicans have had their programs and ideas rebuked by the people in the election.

The winner has done more to extend the olive branch than I can ever remember; yet there is not even one republican that supported his bill--even though he personally met with them, removed all those items the republicans complained about to the newsmedia, etc.

It should have been a new era for politics; You can't disagree with anything I have said except for argument's sake.

The republicans are desperate, hell they are so weak that they are even groveling to Rush Limbaugh.

Their actions are unconscionable and certainly not in the best interest of the american people, and I don't think this is just my humble opinion.

JK

I'm drunk

[ygmir]

I wasn't so much asking if you knew about Bosnia, but, wondering when you spoke to there being on statute of limitations, if, then, it'd be ok to go back and charge people in that administration, or, Gulf War I, or, whatever?.

I think Obama is smarter than to open that door, it will allow him, if he makes a mistake, to be persecuted in the same manner, by some opponent or opposite thinker, down the road..........

I feel, that when you say rep were partisan, I agree, but, I feel it's a very subjective statement to say they've elevated it to new levels..........I think that's totally a POV thing, and, who a person listens to and who they are surrounded by........peers, as such.

I had heard about the reps being stonewalled from many of the discussions regarding the bailout/stimulus.........Just because the prez calls for holding hands and singing, does not mean it happens........and, with a left biased MSM, the reporting will not reflect that.

I would wager, if a person could be the proverbial "fly on the wall" that, the animus and mis-trust on both sides is as alive as ever, the wrangling and subterfuge, active as always........lies and deceit............run rampant......
because, it is "their" (politician/lawyers) way..........
(uh oh, cynical self appearing)

I might also propose, that, if the prez' bill is flawed, perhaps, more should oppose it...............
Just for example, I'm not for any of the bailouts, stimulus, etc..........I know how, if it has to happen, I'd like to see it, but, that is my POV, from, my perspective. And, it's not what's proposed.
So, I'm glad someone is opposing it............I think it's poorly written, to hurriedly, and, not workable.........probably as much as anything, a "feel good" move, to, show "they" (gov) care.........

How can I not disagree with anything you've said?
Most of that is your opinion, (valuable, and, learned, as it is), but, just that...........and, if my opinion is different, I certainly can disagree......................I always see things differently after a robust debate, win or lose.

I remember a huge olive branch being offered by Bush I, regarding taxes the dems wanted, and, got.......it bit him squarely in the ass.........
and, probably, rightfully so.

[Elderberry]

Lots of good stuff in that post Ygmir. Some I don't agree with at all. But I am going to wait till tomorrow to answer as I won't do it justice tonight--not that tomorrow will make that much a difference, at least I won't be able to plead diminished capacity.

Have a good evening,

JK

[ygmir]

thanks JK,
I had to quit writing, my computer started making an L when I typed a G,........all the letters somehow were getting transposed.......
now,
I've lost my poor little train of thought.

I'll look forward to what you say tomorrow, then.........

[DVD Burner]

Iraqi Artist Builds Monument for Shoe-thrower

[youtube][/youtube]

[DVD Burner]

after all this is the "GEORGE W BUSH is so good ....." Thread, not the "lets trool DVD" thread or "Lets create thread drift because DVD posted in this thread" thread.

Cheers!

[Karlene]

that's called the wing tip shuffle.....

[Elderberry]

I wasn't so much asking if you knew about Bosnia, but, wondering when you spoke to there being on statute of limitations, if, then, it'd be ok to go back and charge people in that administration, or, Gulf War I, or, whatever?.

I think Obama is smarter than to open that door, it will allow him, if he makes a mistake, to be persecuted in the same manner, by some opponent or opposite thinker, down the road..........

I think every law has a statute of limitations with the exception of murder? I think SOLs are good because as time goes by, it becomes difficult to produce evidence.

I think Obama needs to open that door--no President is above the law; and if they break the law, they should know that they will be held accountable.

I feel, that when you say rep were partisan, I agree, but, I feel it's a very subjective statement to say they've elevated it to new levels..........I think that's totally a POV thing, and, who a person listens to and who they are surrounded by........peers, as such.

I don't think it is my 'opinion' or even my 'point of view'; and I am not going out on a limb to say that this is fact. Their entire strategy over the past several administrations have been solely based on divisive politics. There are many good books on this and Carl Rove, et.al. I also believe that was one of the biggest reasons Obama won--people were tired of the gridlock.

I had heard about the reps being stonewalled from many of the discussions regarding the bailout/stimulus.........Just because the prez calls for holding hands and singing, does not mean it happens........and, with a left biased MSM, the reporting will not reflect that.

The president said it himself--he'll listen and consider, but "I won the election."

If the election proved one thing, it was that the country was tired of the REPULBICAN's PLANS AND SOLUTIONS. So, they should be THRILLED that the president is even granting them an audience and listening to them at all.

For the past eight years, not even this courtesy was afforded the democrats by Bush and the Republican Congress.

I would wager, if a person could be the proverbial "fly on the wall" that, the animus and mis-trust on both sides is as alive as ever, the wrangling and subterfuge, active as always........lies and deceit............run rampant......
because, it is "their" (politician/lawyers) way..........
(uh oh, cynical self appearing)

This is obvious; but so what? How can we expect (and think that we can even help to negotiate) peace between the Israelis and Palestinians if we can't even negotiate civil discouse and trust between the reps and dems?

The reps are just being obstructionist here.

I might also propose, that, if the prez' bill is flawed, perhaps, more should oppose it...............
Just for example, I'm not for any of the bailouts, stimulus, etc..........I know how, if it has to happen, I'd like to see it, but, that is my POV, from, my perspective. And, it's not what's proposed.
So, I'm glad someone is opposing it............I think it's poorly written, to hurriedly, and, not workable.........probably as much as anything, a "feel good" move, to, show "they" (gov) care.........

Maybe the bill is flawed (actually, I'll go farther, the bill is definitely flawed) but we are in uncharted waters. We don't know what exactly will work. I do know that Obama has gotten some of the best advice available on this problem. I also know that a many of those items in the stimulous bill were removed at the request of the president when the republicans pointed them out--and think about that for a minute--no negotiation, the reps said they didn't like those things, Obama agreed with them, made the phone call and they were immediately struck form the bill.

So flaws or not, it's better to do something less than perfect than to do nothing at all. The biggest obsticle to the recovery is how people feel about the economy. A plan that is put out with bi-partisan support, even a flawed plan, will do a lot to restore the confidence of the american people so that they start spending money again.

I think I finally understand that qoute "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

How can I not disagree with anything you've said?
Most of that is your opinion, (valuable, and, learned, as it is), but, just that...........and, if my opinion is different, I certainly can disagree......................I always see things differently after a robust debate, win or lose.

I remember a huge olive branch being offered by Bush I, regarding taxes the dems wanted, and, got.......it bit him squarely in the ass.........
and, probably, rightfully so.

I don't remember that olive branch.

Almost everything I say is 'my opinion', and hopefully my opinion is based on fact seasoned only slightly by personal bias.

JK

[ygmir]

I wasn't so much asking if you knew about Bosnia, but, wondering when you spoke to there being on statute of limitations, if, then, it'd be ok to go back and charge people in that administration, or, Gulf War I, or, whatever?.

I think Obama is smarter than to open that door, it will allow him, if he makes a mistake, to be persecuted in the same manner, by some opponent or opposite thinker, down the road..........

I think every law has a statute of limitations with the exception of murder? I think SOLs are good because as time goes by, it becomes difficult to produce evidence.

I think Obama needs to open that door--no President is above the law; and if they break the law, they should know that they will be held accountable.

I agree with SOL's, too.
I think, I was wondering, how far back you'd go, though, to prosecute past administration folks.......you, not "the law", I'm wondering your opinion......I understand you feel Bush is and has been the worst, and maybe only, criminal in the white house, but, just wonderin......
And, I agree with the law applying evenly to all......

I feel, that when you say rep were partisan, I agree, but, I feel it's a very subjective statement to say they've elevated it to new levels..........I think that's totally a POV thing, and, who a person listens to and who they are surrounded by........peers, as such.

I don't think it is my 'opinion' or even my 'point of view'; and I am not going out on a limb to say that this is fact. Their entire strategy over the past several administrations have been solely based on divisive politics. There are many good books on this and Carl Rove, et.al. I also believe that was one of the biggest reasons Obama won--people were tired of the gridlock.

Of course it's your opinion regarding partisanship or obstructionism, and, your POV. What else could it be? ?Sure, others agree with you, but, you don't know what they're thinking, so, don't know their true intent. You only know what you believe. How is it any different than calling dem filibusters, etc, partisan? You think they don't do it? Or, since they are "right", it's ok, or, just, as is so often the lament: "They don't do it nearly as much as the other people"........
I'd bet, there are intelligent ( I know you feel anyone on the right that disagrees with you unintelligent.) people on the "other side" that will disagree with you, and, claim "partisanship" as you term it is "defending what's right", in their opinion.
I'd bet there are books that say anything you want, just find the author you like.........
I dislike partisanship, too. But, only when used as such, to be contrary, just for it's own sake. I think, if people have differing opinions, they are obliged to stand up for them, and, fight what they disagree with.

I had heard about the reps being stonewalled from many of the discussions regarding the bailout/stimulus.........Just because the prez calls for holding hands and singing, does not mean it happens........and, with a left biased MSM, the reporting will not reflect that.

The president said it himself--he'll listen and consider, but "I won the election."

yeah, like telling your kids, "I'll think about it".......


If the election proved one thing, it was that the country was tired of the REPULBICAN's PLANS AND SOLUTIONS. So, they should be THRILLED that the president is even granting them an audience and listening to them at all.

For the past eight years, not even this courtesy was afforded the democrats by Bush and the Republican Congress.

I agree the reps were summarily dismissed..........and, perhaps, with good reason.
But, you sound so condescending to say they should be "thrilled" that the prez is listening, or, chuckle, "granting audience".
That's what he said he'd do, I bet he got a lot of votes for that attitude, so, how is it special, then? And, you infer, then, that you'd rather he didn't, therefore being "partisan", exactly what you so abhor.
And, I doubt very much Bush totally stonewalled the dems.......

I would wager, if a person could be the proverbial "fly on the wall" that, the animus and mis-trust on both sides is as alive as ever, the wrangling and subterfuge, active as always........lies and deceit............run rampant......
because, it is "their" (politician/lawyers) way..........
(uh oh, cynical self appearing)

This is obvious; but so what? How can we expect (and think that we can even help to negotiate) peace between the Israelis and Palestinians if we can't even negotiate civil discourse and trust between the reps and dems?

I agree here, totally. I think it takes two to argue, too.
Al Sharpton sure is a person to sit with reps, so in Nancy Pelosi, isn't she.......

The reps are just being obstructionist here.

I might also propose, that, if the prez' bill is flawed, perhaps, more should oppose it...............
Just for example, I'm not for any of the bailouts, stimulus, etc..........I know how, if it has to happen, I'd like to see it, but, that is my POV, from, my perspective. And, it's not what's proposed.
So, I'm glad someone is opposing it............I think it's poorly written, to hurriedly, and, not workable.........probably as much as anything, a "feel good" move, to, show "they" (gov) care.........

Maybe the bill is flawed (actually, I'll go farther, the bill is definitely flawed) but we are in uncharted waters. We don't know what exactly will work. I do know that Obama has gotten some of the best advice available on this problem.


That's one thing that, at times worries me about politicians. That, they'll go off half loaded, and, think doing something flawed or half assed is better than doing it right, later. It's so often the "crisis mentality" that drives some of the biggest blunders.......I'd argue against the stimulus at all, so, it could be argued that a late, but, well planned stimulus is better than a cluster #^%$.


I also know that a many of those items in the stimulous bill were removed at the request of the president when the republicans pointed them out--and think about that for a minute--no negotiation, the reps said they didn't like those things, Obama agreed with them, made the phone call and they were immediately struck form the bill.
So flaws or not, it's better to do something less than perfect than to do nothing at all.

And, how many of those items were put in there, specifically knowing they'd be trashed, so, that, at a point, they could say the opposition is just being partisan? I'd bet a lot. The shotgun effect.......IMHO....

The biggest obsticle to the recovery is how people feel about the economy. A plan that is put out with bi-partisan support, even a flawed plan, will do a lot to restore the confidence of the american people so that they start spending money again.

I'd agree except for major flaws....sure, nothing is perfect and, acceptable to everyone

I think I finally understand that qoute "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

Agreed

How can I not disagree with anything you've said?
Most of that is your opinion, (valuable, and, learned, as it is), but, just that...........and, if my opinion is different, I certainly can disagree......................I always see things differently after a robust debate, win or lose.

I remember a huge olive branch being offered by Bush I, regarding taxes the dems wanted, and, got.......it bit him squarely in the ass.........
and, probably, rightfully so.

I don't remember that olive branch.

When he agreed to the IIRC, largest tax increase in history, to appease the dems....

Almost everything I say is 'my opinion', and hopefully my opinion is based on fact seasoned only slightly by personal bias.

JK

And, I value your opinion, and, thank you for sharing it/them.
So called "Facts" are, quite often, subjective, too............depending on the bias of their reporting and the listeners POV......like accounting, etc, you can often make something look, or be "fact" just any way you want........
But, then again, my cynicism does show through, towards gov, and, lawyers, of which, gov is mostly made........

edit for clumsy red paint......

[Elderberry]

Hi Ygmir,

I'm not going to go over your last post point-by-point, as there really wasn't much that you said that I don't feel is a valid position to have; even though I might not agree 100%. I think if we were running congress, we'd be able to compromise on almost everything!

But a few things I will address:

Bush 2--

No, Bush is not the only president that has committed crimes--Nixon comes first to mind, but I'm sure there are many more. Even with all the crap that Nixon did, I still think he wasn't that bad of a President when compared to GWB. Think foreign relations. I voted for him. I didn't mind Bush 1 all that much--think about how he handled the first gulf war. Point being that there have been many Presidents both republican and democratic that I have liked and disliked. I really hated Jimmy Carter as president, he couldn't inspire the people nor lead them. (I have come to like him since he is out of office.) But in my life time I don't think there has been a worse president than the last one and I believe history will bear this out.

Partisanship--

I have said in several other posts here that I think that Obama's worst enemies will turn out to be left wing Democrats. I don't like Pelosi and I don't know what she did to get that job. Might be an interesting story.

But, let's talk about 'red states and blue states' and PACs as an instance. It has only been in recent years that politics has become this partisan and the attitude of disagreement was associated with being unpatriotic. I really can't remember it ever being this way. Not to mention the additional effect that the religious right had in making the situation even worse. I don't think the effects of this are a figment of my imagination nor are they the result of my personal bias.

Obama winning the election.

I was being a bit flippant regarding Obama granting them an audience; but not any more flippant or self-important than the Republicans are trying to be in their dealing with the president and his policies.

This is not meant to be flippant, but he did win. Which I would assume meant that the country was tired of the same. (Don't forget that the republicans lost the last two elections.) No?

So, the republicans now have lost the right to lead on policy and can only now voice their opinion and make suggestions. (Don't forget that when the Republicans were in power it was their right to lead and set policy--they didn't even give the democrats the option of voicing their opinion and make suggestions.)

I think that if we were talking in person we would find we are more in agreement on these issues than it appears sometimes on eplaya. It's hard for me to express the nuances in my statements and sometimes they are interpreted as being more cut and dry than my actual sentiment on the issues.

JK

[ygmir]