The Bush Years in Retrospect

[mborgia]

Originally Posted by Arion45

Yes it was horrible. It was so bad the American people overwhelming went democrat. Senate, Congress and President all Dems. You are probably one of the last people in the country that still likes what he did.

How do you liberals live with the hypocrisy? Having to alter the definition of just about everything to even be able to try and engage in a debate?

President overwhelmingly Democrat. Only in a liberal's twisted mind can one question the legitimacy of a president who won 51.6% of the vote, yet celebrate the landslide of a president that won 52.8%.

Of the fifteen seats won be Democrats in the Senate, ten were by less than five percent of the vote and of those, one was decided by less than one percent, another by less than five thousand votes, another by less than three thousand, another by less than two thousand and one the Republicans actually won.

Of the fifty-two House seats won by Democrats in the last two cycles, the vast majority were by less than eight percent. Since this Congress sat, the Rasmussen Generic Poll has closed by that same amount, enough to wipe out the Democratic majority were an election to be held today.

And what did Bush do that was so horrible???

Scandal free administration?

Nearly Nine million jobs?

Six uninterrupted years of growth?

Nation kept safe for seven years

Malaria wiped out in afflicted parts of Africa

Fifty million oppressed people liberated

Taxes cut across the board for every American.

I could go on and on but I must get to work. I'm a conservative and must produce to appease the liberals who don't want to work.

[Arion45]

Originally Posted by mborgia

How do you liberals live with the hypocrisy? Having to alter the definition of just about everything to even be able to try and engage in a debate?

President overwhelmingly Democrat. Only in a liberal's twisted mind can one question the legitimacy of a president who won 51.6% of the vote, yet celebrate the landslide of a president that won 52.8%.

Of the fifteen seats won be Democrats in the Senate, ten were by less than five percent of the vote and of those, one was decided by less than one percent, another by less than five thousand votes, another by less than three thousand, another by less than two thousand and one the Republicans actually won.

Of the fifty-two House seats won by Democrats in the last two cycles, the vast majority were by less than eight percent. Since this Congress sat, the Rasmussen Generic Poll has closed by that same amount, enough to wipe out the Democratic majority were an election to be held today.

And what did Bush do that was so horrible???

Scandal free administration?

Nearly Nine million jobs?

Six uninterrupted years of growth?

Nation kept safe for seven years

Malaria wiped out in afflicted parts of Africa

Fifty million oppressed people liberated

Taxes cut across the board for every American.

I could go on and on but I must get to work. I'm a conservative and must produce to appease the liberals who don't want to work.

I said the people went overwhelmingly democratic not the presidency. The legislative branch and executive branch are now socialist liberals. That's what the people voted for and that's what they got. The reason the republicans lost is because they expanded government and did not stick to the platform.
Bush expanded socialized medicine with medicare part D, the largest in history, and expanded socialized education with No Child Left Behind program. He bailed out the car companies without the approval of congress and signed in the tarp which cost Americans 800 billion dollars.
In addition he signed into law the Patriot Act which demolished many of the Bill of Rights and suspended Habeas Corpus. I could go on and on but I won't.

Liberal lol.

[the_conservative_otaku]

Originally Posted by Arion45

Yes it was horrible. It was so bad the American people overwhelming went democrat. Senate, Congress and President all Dems. You are probably one of the last people in the country that still likes what he did.

He didn't do it by himself you know. It was also due in part to the liberal democratic congress and its spending spree that cast a dark shadow over his presidency.

[Susanna]

Originally Posted by the_conservative_otaku

He didn't do it by himself you know. It was also due in part to the liberal democratic congress and its spending spree that cast a dark shadow over his presidency.

[mborgia]

Originally Posted by Arion45

I said the people went overwhelmingly democratic not the presidency. The legislative branch and executive branch are now socialist liberals. That's what the people voted for and that's what they got. The reason the republicans lost is because they expanded government and did not stick to the platform.
Bush expanded socialized medicine with medicare part D, the largest in history, and expanded socialized education with Headstart program. He bailed out the car companies without the approval of congress and signed in the tarp which cost Americans 800 billion dollars.
In addition he signed into law the Patriot Act which demolished many of the Bill of Rights and suspended Habeas Corpus. I could go on and on but I won't.

Liberal lol.

Wrong again...

The people did not go overwhelmingly Democratic. Bush won 51.6%, Obama 52.6%. Obama did marginally better in several normally Democratic constituencies than Kerry did, that's all.

Republicans did not lose because they abandoned the platform or because they grew the government. They lost because they abandoned their leader. Democrats stuck with Bill Clinton through thick and thin. Any Republican who faulted or abandoned Bush need look no farther than the bathroom mirror for the cause of the party's defeat.

Yes, Bush signed TARP and did so in contradiction to every instinct of his political being. But if he did not do so, the banking system would have collapsed in a way not seen since 1929. Yes, the cost was horrible and yes, Obama has taken full advantage of the opportunity to abuse TARP. But the banks are safe and we have Bush to thank.

Are you aware that this bunk about the destruction of habeas corpus was shot down many years ago? Liberals cannot identify one person in the United States, not one who has had their habeas corpus or any other rights violated by the Patriot Act. And thanks to the tools provided by Patriot, you and I can have this debate in freedom and in safety.

[Arion45]

Originally Posted by mborgia

Wrong again...

The people did not go overwhelmingly Democratic. Bush won 51.6%, Obama 52.6%. Obama did marginally better in several normally Democratic constituencies than Kerry did, that's all.

Republicans did not lose because they abandoned the platform or because they grew the government. They lost because they abandoned their leader. Democrats stuck with Bill Clinton through thick and thin. Any Republican who faulted or abandoned Bush need look no farther than the bathroom mirror for the cause of the party's defeat.

Yes, Bush signed TARP and did so in contradiction to every instinct of his political being. But if he did not do so, the banking system would have collapsed in a way not seen since 1929. Yes, the cost was horrible and yes, Obama has taken full advantage of the opportunity to abuse TARP. But the banks are safe and we have Bush to thank.

Are you aware that this bunk about the destruction of habeas corpus was shot down many years ago? Liberals cannot identify one person in the United States, not one who has had their habeas corpus or any other rights violated by the Patriot Act. And thanks to the tools provided by Patriot, you and I can have this debate in freedom and in safety.

What kind of conservative do you think you are? What do you think the conservative political philosophy stands for? Do they stand for free markets or government bail outs? When in crisis do you stick to your principals or crumble under the weight of that crisis.
Do you understand that a bail out is a tax on the public through inflation? With these bail outs we have not stopped what is to come. The U.S. government has only prolonged the recession and when it truly hits, it will be that much worst.
Bush betrayed every small government principal he had and those who defend him is the reason we have a majority of democrats in the House and Senate. I say they need to look in the mirror and wake up! It too bad that the sheeple only know how to vote either Democrat or Republican.

To your last paragraph see Jose Padilla.

[Arion45]

Originally Posted by the_conservative_otaku

He didn't do it by himself you know. It was also due in part to the liberal democratic congress and its spending spree that cast a dark shadow over his presidency.

He signed everyone of those bills that got pasted. The legislature did not have a majority two thirds vote to override a veto the last 2 years. Plus the legislature had 6 years of a Republican majority. Stop making excuses for that failure of a president.

[mborgia]

Originally Posted by Arion45

What kind of conservative do you think you are? What do you think the conservative political philosophy stands for? Do they stand for free markets or government bail outs? When in crisis do you stick to your principals or crumble under the weight of that crisis.
Do you understand that a bail out is a tax on the public through inflation? With these bail outs we have not stopped what is to come. The U.S. government has only prolonged the recession and when it truly hits, it will be that much worst.
Bush betrayed every small government principal he had and those who defend him is the reason we have a majority of democrats in the House and Senate. I say they need to look in the mirror and wake up! It too bad that the sheeple only know how to vote either Democrat or Republican.

To your last paragraph see Jose Padilla.

As to what kind of conservative I am, the answer is that I am the only one in the conversation, so not much else matters. Given that we are not all of a piece (religious conservatives, economic conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, military and foreign policy conservatives) perhaps its best if we stop trying to divide one group against another and realize we are nothing without each other.

Those who defend Bush are not why we are a minority. Those who abandoned him are. It is those voters that stayed home on election day 2006, 22 million strong and caused the loss of Congress. Remember that the Democrats lost 13 million voters of their own between 2004 and 2006.

You think Bush crumbled under the weight of the crisis when he signed TARP? What would you have preferred? Cascading bank failures (17,000 during the Great Depression, over 1,800 savings and loans failed in 1991. Fewer than 100 banks have failed in this panic thanks to Bush)? Bread lines? A decade long depression? Is that what you want? Conservatisim is not about that! But that's what would have happened if Bush did not act. And the cost of getting out from under would have made TARP's cost look like pocket change.

Being a conservative is not just about knowing how to cut budgets. It's also about knowing when spending one can save you ten. Bailing out the banking system after an implosion would have cost ten times what TARP did. I don't deny that spending $750 billion in phony money is inflationary and saving the banks will come with a price if they don't pay back fairly quickly as the S & L's did in the 1990's (remember the gov't made a profit on that bailout). But it had to be done.

Being a leader means sometimes your philosophy comes second. No one who knows history doubts that Woodrow Wilson was a pacifist. But when he had no choice, he fought World War I with a ferocity that shocked the entire world and ended the war in less than a year.

No one who knows history would call Ronald Reagan anything other than the father of modern conservatism. But when he had no other choice, he signed the largest single tax increase in American history, one who's cost can't be computed because we're still paying it.

Great leaders do what they have to do for the good of America, even when it clashes with their personal political philosophy. Bush did that with TARP. He saved our banks. Our savings. Our retirements. If he had not acted, all of it would be gone now. It's not Bush's fault that Obama has abused the program, nor is it Bush's fault that Obama used the opportunity Bush gave him to nationalize two car companies.

You complain about Bush neglecting small government principles. But Bush held the rate of spending growth to lower levels than Reagan and produced deficits far lower than those of Reagan when measured as a percentage of GDP.

Bush's record is a strong conservative one. We must stop wallowing in this kind of divisive, self righteous, self pity and start defending our record. It's not just Bush's record. It belongs to all of us who call ourselves conservatives and Republicans. It's a proud one and easy to defend.

Many on this site consider Reagan an icon. I consider him the second greatest president of all time, after only Lincoln. But consider this before you attack Bush any further.

Reagan ran from terrorists. Bush destroyed terrorists.

Reagan talked about missile defense. Bush built and deployed it.

Reagan raised taxes. Bush never did.

Reagan increased the deficit each year he was in office. Bush reduced it five times.

Reagan put two liberals on the Supreme Court. Bush gave us two solid conservatives.

Nearly a half dozen Reagan officials left the cabinet under ethical clouds. Bush had none.

Reagan himself was involved in a major scandal. Bush had none.

Reagan increased non-security domestic discretionary spending every year he was in office. Bush is the only president to ever have a year of zero growth. And he had three of them, the last two with Democrats running Congress.

George W. Bush...a conservative president we should be proud of. And if we don't start being proud of him soon, the lies being told about him in the press and even in this thread will become a false, yet factual part of history and be hung around our necks for the next fifty years...as Democrats did for half a century with Herbert Hoover.

I don't expect everyone to agree with everything Bush did. Hell, I did not. But he was our president, as Clinton belonged to the Democrats. They still aggressively defend him every day. We must do no less for our own.

Oh, one more thing. I'm still waiting for the name of any person in the United States who had their habeas corpus rights taken away by the Patriot Act. Just one.

[Arion45]

Originally Posted by mborgia

As to what kind of conservative I am, the answer is that I am the only one in the conversation, so not much else matters. Given that we are not all of a piece (religious conservatives, economic conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, military and foreign policy conservatives) perhaps its best if we stop trying to divide one group against another and realize we are nothing without each other.

Those who defend Bush are not why we are a minority. Those who abandoned him are. It is those voters that stayed home on election day 2006, 22 million strong and caused the loss of Congress. Remember that the Democrats lost 13 million voters of their own between 2004 and 2006.

You think Bush crumbled under the weight of the crisis when he signed TARP? What would you have preferred? Cascading bank failures (17,000 during the Great Depression, over 1,800 savings and loans failed in 1991. Fewer than 100 banks have failed in this panic thanks to Bush)? Bread lines? A decade long depression? Is that what you want? Conservatisim is not about that! But that's what would have happened if Bush did not act. And the cost of getting out from under would have made TARP's cost look like pocket change.

Being a conservative is not just about knowing how to cut budgets. It's also about knowing when spending one can save you ten. Bailing out the banking system after an implosion would have cost ten times what TARP did. I don't deny that spending $750 billion in phony money is inflationary and saving the banks will come with a price if they don't pay back fairly quickly as the S & L's did in the 1990's (remember the gov't made a profit on that bailout). But it had to be done.

Being a leader means sometimes your philosophy comes second. No one who knows history doubts that Woodrow Wilson was a pacifist. But when he had no choice, he fought World War I with a ferocity that shocked the entire world and ended the war in less than a year.

No one who knows history would call Ronald Reagan anything other than the father of modern conservatism. But when he had no other choice, he signed the largest single tax increase in American history, one who's cost can't be computed because we're still paying it.

Great leaders do what they have to do for the good of America, even when it clashes with their personal political philosophy. Bush did that with TARP. He saved our banks. Our savings. Our retirements. If he had not acted, all of it would be gone now. It's not Bush's fault that Obama has abused the program, nor is it Bush's fault that Obama used the opportunity Bush gave him to nationalize two car companies.

You complain about Bush neglecting small government principles. But Bush held the rate of spending growth to lower levels than Reagan and produced deficits far lower than those of Reagan when measured as a percentage of GDP.

Bush's record is a strong conservative one. We must stop wallowing in this kind of divisive, self righteous, self pity and start defending our record. It's not just Bush's record. It belongs to all of us who call ourselves conservatives and Republicans. It's a proud one and easy to defend.

Many on this site consider Reagan an icon. I consider him the second greatest president of all time, after only Lincoln. But consider this before you attack Bush any further.

Reagan ran from terrorists. Bush destroyed terrorists.

Reagan talked about missile defense. Bush built and deployed it.

Reagan raised taxes. Bush never did.

Reagan increased the deficit each year he was in office. Bush reduced it five times.

Reagan put two liberals on the Supreme Court. Bush gave us two solid conservatives.

Nearly a half dozen Reagan officials left the cabinet under ethical clouds. Bush had none.

Reagan himself was involved in a major scandal. Bush had none.

Reagan increased non-security domestic discretionary spending every year he was in office. Bush is the only president to ever have a year of zero growth. And he had three of them, the last two with Democrats running Congress.

George W. Bush...a conservative president we should be proud of. And if we don't start being proud of him soon, the lies being told about him in the press and even in this thread will become a false, yet factual part of history and be hung around our necks for the next fifty years...as Democrats did for half a century with Herbert Hoover.

I don't expect everyone to agree with everything Bush did. Hell, I did not. But he was our president, as Clinton belonged to the Democrats. They still aggressively defend him every day. We must do no less for our own.

Oh, one more thing. I'm still waiting for the name of any person in the United States who had their habeas corpus rights taken away by the Patriot Act. Just one.

Jose Padilla.

[mborgia]

Originally Posted by Arion45

Jose Padilla.

Sorry. Wrong.

Jose Padilla is a U.S. citizen arrested at O'Hare Airport in Chicago on May 8, 2002. He was returning from an overseas trip that included stops in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. He was to be held as a material witness in connection with the 9/11 attacks. He was lawfully held in this context for 30 days.

On June 9, 2002, Padilla on the orders of President Bush was designated as an enemy combatant and thus not entitled to a civilian trial. The president's power to do so is indisputable and stems not from the Patriot Act, but from the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002". This authority has been challenged previously and upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Ex parte Quinn. This legalized the military detention of a group of American citizens of German descent found to be working for the Nazis during World War II. Bush's order was subsequently upheld by no less a liberal court than the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

An appeal to the full Circuit Court in late 2003 however did find that Bush acted unconstitutionally in the Padilla matter. But the Supreme Court later overturned the Second Circuit Court's second decision, on the grounds that it was acting outside its juridiction, since Padilla was being held in South Carolina, not in New York.

Through 2004 and 2005, Padilla's case made its way through a South Carolina district court, where he won. Then it went on to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals where the district court was overturned in favor of President Bush.

A Supreme Court challenge was short circuited when the Bush Administration charged Padilla criminally in 2005. Padilla continued to challenge the Bush Administration's authority to hold him in a military brig without charges, but in 2006, the Supreme Court declined to hear his case.

Padilla's criminal trial began in May, 2007 and lasted three months. A jury convicted him after deliberating less than 90 minutes. He was sentenced in January 2008 to 17 years, 4 months and is serving that time in the Colorado Supermax facility.

Jose Padilla? Nothing to do with the Patriot Act. Government acted legally according to the Surpreme Court. Got anyone else?