The Bush Years in Retrospect

[Arion45]

Originally Posted by mborgia

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?

Well I stand corrected, the president of the United States of American held a U.S. citizen and denied habeas corpus with no trial on nothing at all other than he said so. Greatest president ever. I truly applaud your support for this president. You are a great patriot and I am sure if the Founding Fathers were to be here today they would agree with you.
A U.S citzen held without trial, tortured, held and captured on American soil and you are providing explainations and excuses for its actions? Are you crazy?
God what is this country coming to, if this is what a conservative is I never want to be associated with it again.

[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.

You are right I am not a conservative.

Originally Posted by mborgia

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 are right people no longer wanted to support a Neoconservative. Thats why the republicans lost.

Originally Posted by mborgia

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.

I would have preferred the free market take care of the bust. I believe that it would have been bad but not as bad as it will be. The U.S government has only prolonged the recession by propping up bad debt with more debt. Conservatism is about free markets and no governmental intervention so you better believe that is what it is about. But I digress you are the type of conservative that has made it that I no longer what to associate myself with it.
The tarp and all the bail out are only hidden taxes on the American People. The ones who get the money first get to spend it when inflation has not hit yet. When it trickles down to the average American the money will buy less and thus wealth is transferred.

Originally Posted by mborgia

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.

The Tarp did not have to be done, the free market would have liquidated the banks and stronger more prosperous banks would have taken over. Instead the American tax payer picked up the tab, the bankers should have paid for it. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.[/quote]

Originally Posted by mborgia

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.

Being a leader means retaining your beliefs and philosophy even when it makes you unpopular or times are strenuous.

Originally Posted by mborgia

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.

A scar on his presidency. This is not why people admire him it is the opposite of what you just said.

Originally Posted by mborgia

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.

America was not built on great leaders. It was build on great citizens. The United States has no need for great leaders we just need the government to stay out of our lives and preform the duties granted to it in the constitution. The only thing the government knows how to do well is defense, everything else it just screws up. So everything you are praising Bush for is the reason I thing he is a failure.

Originally Posted by mborgia

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 grew the deficit to the highest ever. Reagan had the highest compared to GDP. Your statement says the two highest deficit spenders has great small government principals because one came in second.

Originally Posted by mborgia

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.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by mborgia

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.

I consider Lincoln to be one of if not the worst presidents in history. Slavery was ended in all of the European countries without a civil war that killed more Americans than any war since.
None of the things you stated for Bush redeems the harm he has done to this country.

Originally Posted by mborgia

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.

Hopefully.

Originally Posted by mborgia

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.

Well I guess you were right about the patriot act no one had their rights taken away because of it, just for other reasons.........

[normalperson]

I say George W. Bush is the best president we've had in a long, long, LONG time. He never stopped halfway to victory like his dad, and he was always guided by his faith and let it be known and felt rather than hiding it to satisfy the atheist liberal crowd. I only wish he were President now so that we could bring democracy to Iran as decisively and unequivocally as we did to Iraq. In fact, doesn't the whole world deserve a democracy like ours, the best kind there ever was? Isn't it what's best for the entire world?

[mborgia]

You say you are not a conservative. That was obvious from the beginning.

In your first post, you say Padilla had his rights taken away. The Supreme Court said otherwise. You again claim he was denied habeus corpus. The court said he had no right to it. You claim he was tortured. The trial court laughed at that. There is no evidence to support any of your claims.

Referring to Bush as a "neoconservative" is nothing but name calling. "Neo-conservative" is a made up term created by the elitist liberal media in the early years of the war to try and seperate Bush from Reagan. It failed miserably. Bush went on to win a then record total of 62 million votes.

Being a leader is about doing what is right. About making hard calls. Bush made them and with an amazingly good batting average.

You call rescuing Social Security a scar on Reagan's presidency? And that a great nation does not need great leaders? Yes, we are a nation built around great people but to suggest we could have come through great crises without the leadership of Lincoln, Reagan and Bush is simply silly.

You think we could have done without TARP? Maybe you keep all your money in a pillow case. My 401k and my pension are in banks and President Bush saved my retirement. He saved this nation from a second Great Depression. So you bet I'm thanking him, every day. And the highest duty of a president is to keep my seven year old son safe. He's done that too. And I'm thanking him for that too, every day.

"Great Patriot," you say? That is offered in sarcasm. I accept it as a badge of honor, because I will fight for Bush's legacy. We will never become a majority party again as long as we are not willing to do so. I want my son to grow up in the America I grew up in. Reagan's America. Bush's America. Gingrich's America. Not this quasi-socialist state we're morphing into.

On small government, the only way to accurately measure the size of a deficit across generations is by percentage of GDP. Reagan was not the record holder at that time by any means, Franklin Roosevelt was, until broken by Bill Clinton early in his first term and now shattered by Obama. Since the end of the war, the president with the lowest deficits as a percentage of GDP was actually Clinton (but he had Newt Gingrich holding his leash). Bush was a very close second. Check U.S. Government Spending. Com for the raw data.

You consider Lincoln to be one of the worst presidents in history? That statement is so far off base, it frankly deserves to be ignored. History has written its verdict on Lincoln and it does not agree with you. The United States was late in ending slavery. That was because we had one of the last large agrarian economies in the white European world. That's not any excuse, mind you. It's just the way it was. Lincoln inherited a nation from James Buchanan (who history does agree was our worst president) already disintegrating. Lincoln saved it. He ended slavery. And like Bush, he did it when virtually everyone around him demanded he quit. Like Bush he would not. Like Bush, he found a general to carry out his mission. And they were both proven right.

And as for the "damage" you claim Bush has done to this country, I am still waiting for you to show me some evidence of any damage he has done. You have not yet.

You "hope" we allow Bush's legacy to be falsified in such a way that we wind up with a generation of Obamas in the White House? At least I finally know where you stand. And if this kind of soft socialism is what you believe in, then you may defend it. But you will find it a losing fight.

Your last statement suggests that in some way Bush took away someone's rights. Every single person who goes to prison for a crime loses their rights and Mr. Padilla is no different. He got his criminal trial by a jury of his peers. He was justly convicted and sentenced. The courts say that Bush was right.

History shows that conservatism is right.

And I will defend it, and our party's leader of that time.

[Arion45]

Originally Posted by mborgia

You say you are not a conservative. That was obvious from the beginning.

In your first post, you say Padilla had his rights taken away. The Supreme Court said otherwise. You again claim he was denied habeus corpus. The court said he had no right to it. You claim he was tortured. The trial court laughed at that. There is no evidence to support any of your claims.

Referring to Bush as a "neoconservative" is nothing but name calling. "Neo-conservative" is a made up term created by the elitist liberal media in the early years of the war to try and seperate Bush from Reagan. It failed miserably. Bush went on to win a then record total of 62 million votes.

Being a leader is about doing what is right. About making hard calls. Bush made them and with an amazingly good batting average.

You call rescuing Social Security a scar on Reagan's presidency? And that a great nation does not need great leaders? Yes, we are a nation built around great people but to suggest we could have come through great crises without the leadership of Lincoln, Reagan and Bush is simply silly.

You think we could have done without TARP? Maybe you keep all your money in a pillow case. My 401k and my pension are in banks and President Bush saved my retirement. He saved this nation from a second Great Depression. So you bet I'm thanking him, every day. And the highest duty of a president is to keep my seven year old son safe. He's done that too. And I'm thanking him for that too, every day.

"Great Patriot," you say? That is offered in sarcasm. I accept it as a badge of honor, because I will fight for Bush's legacy. We will never become a majority party again as long as we are not willing to do so. I want my son to grow up in the America I grew up in. Reagan's America. Bush's America. Gingrich's America. Not this quasi-socialist state we're morphing into.

On small government, the only way to accurately measure the size of a deficit across generations is by percentage of GDP. Reagan was not the record holder at that time by any means, Franklin Roosevelt was, until broken by Bill Clinton early in his first term and now shattered by Obama. Since the end of the war, the president with the lowest deficits as a percentage of GDP was actually Clinton (but he had Newt Gingrich holding his leash). Bush was a very close second. Check U.S. Government Spending. Com for the raw data.

You consider Lincoln to be one of the worst presidents in history? That statement is so far off base, it frankly deserves to be ignored. History has written its verdict on Lincoln and it does not agree with you. The United States was late in ending slavery. That was because we had one of the last large agrarian economies in the white European world. That's not any excuse, mind you. It's just the way it was. Lincoln inherited a nation from James Buchanan (who history does agree was our worst president) already disintegrating. Lincoln saved it. He ended slavery. And like Bush, he did it when virtually everyone around him demanded he quit. Like Bush he would not. Like Bush, he found a general to carry out his mission. And they were both proven right.

And as for the "damage" you claim Bush has done to this country, I am still waiting for you to show me some evidence of any damage he has done. You have not yet.

You "hope" we allow Bush's legacy to be falsified in such a way that we wind up with a generation of Obamas in the White House? At least I finally know where you stand. And if this kind of soft socialism is what you believe in, then you may defend it. But you will find it a losing fight.

Your last statement suggests that in some way Bush took away someone's rights. Every single person who goes to prison for a crime loses their rights and Mr. Padilla is no different. He got his criminal trial by a jury of his peers. He was justly convicted and sentenced. The courts say that Bush was right.

History shows that conservatism is right.

And I will defend it, and our party's leader of that time.

Rights can not be taken away they can only be violated and that was what the constitution was put in place to protect. If the courts can just ignore the constitution then what is the point? Not only was habeus corpus but the sixth amendment was also violated in this case. Habeus corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, none of which have occurred. You support a court decision which goes again what our founding fathers fought and died for. The court cannot supersede the constitution and what was written is pretty simple to understand.

Neocons have been around before Bush got into office.

Social security is insolvent it has not been rescued.

Giving me reasons why the tarp is good for you does not refuted any of my positions.

I think Obama will be worse then Bush.

On Lincoln I will not explain because you will have to research for yourself to believe any of it. A life time of indoctrination can not be undone over a forum.

Every Citizen has rights given to them at birth. These cannot be suddenly taken away by the government because the president accuses a person of being an enemy combatant. There must be due process of law.

[mborgia]

Originally Posted by Arion45

Rights can not be taken away they can only be violated and that was what the constitution was put in place to protect. If the courts can just ignore the constitution then what is the point? Not only was habeus corpus but the sixth amendment was also violated in this case. Habeus corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, none of which have occurred. You support a court decision which goes again what our founding fathers fought and died for. The court cannot supersede the constitution and what was written is pretty simple to understand.

The United States was invaded on 9/11/2001. I used to fly for the Civil Air Patrol at that time and had to see the smoking piles of debris every day, so don't try to tell me we were not. I'm sure had the courts supported your position you would be singing their praises, just as I curse them when they rule against what I believe in.

Originally Posted by Arion45

Neocons have been around before Bush got into office.

You have yet to differentiate what a "neo-con" is, other than a perjorative

Originally Posted by Arion45

Social security is insolvent it has not been rescued.

Social Security is not insolvent, yet. It is projected to be so in thirty years, unless we change the way it is financed. It's already been conservatively estimated that the FairTax will raise more than enough money to see it and Medicare through.

Originally Posted by Arion45

Giving me reasons why the tarp is good for you does not refuted any of my positions.

Yes it does, because my economic position is the same as that of over one hundred eighty million Americans who depend on those banks for absolutely everything.

Originally Posted by Arion45

I think Obama will be worse then Bush.

On that you cannot possibly be wrong.

Originally Posted by Arion45

On Lincoln I will not explain because you will have to research for yourself to believe any of it. A life time of indoctrination can not be undone over a forum.

Maybe you had better, because I have read too many historical accounts of Lincoln and his presidency and I can't recall anything at all to support your rather unique opinion of him.

Originally Posted by Arion45

Every Citizen has rights given to them at birth. These cannot be suddenly taken away by the government because the president accuses a person of being an enemy combatant. There must be due process of law.

The power to declare anyone an enemy combatant following declaration of war (and the 4th Circuit effectively ruled that the 2002 Iraq War Authorization constitutes such) is consistent with our Constitution. The power has been upheld by the Supreme Court (see this morning's reply). There must indeed be due process of law, but where such illegal non-uniformed combatants are involved, there is no law or precedent to provide such due process. The Geneva Conventions apply only to soldiers under color, because more often than not in that time such soldiers were draftees and were compelled to fight.

[the_conservative_otaku]

First of all, the Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves seeing how bad a turn this country has taken on its morality and liberalism. Second of all, slavery could have ended in this country a lot sooner, but that would have meant that we lost the Revolutionary War, and would have been a part of Great Britain. You also seem to be talking like the Civil War was the most important and the bloodiest war in the history of the world. While it is one of the most important wars fought in our country's history, it is far from the bloodiest conflict ever fought in the history of the world. As mborgia states, invasion happened on 9/11. Don't believe me? I watched it LIVE. I saw the second plane hit the second tower. I watched both of them fall. I was there when my father received the phone call at 3am that our security threat level had just gone to Delta, the highest possible. To prevent this from happening again, and making sure that our country did not have such a high security threat against it, Bush had to make the decisions that he did, to weed out those who would harm this country. And you are defending them. And, if Lincoln had not been president, then this country would not be one today. Even if it were, the minorities would be severely represented, and the World Wars would have played out very differently. Just take the time to think about certain things, eh?

[TxBrewer]

Originally Posted by mborgia

That's actually pretty easy. If you lean to the left long enough with your eyes closed, you will eventually think you are standing straight up (anatomically it is because the fluid in your inner ears comes to rest, politically it is due to ignorance or apathy). But when you are brought back to vertical, you tend to think you are leaning right. Such is the misconception of many liberals towards Fox News. Since it does not lean left, it seems as though it leans right. But in fact, it is exactly what it's slogan says it is. Fair And Balanced.

I have not seen this explained any better, anywhere. Very good.

[Fantasy Chaser]

Originally Posted by Arion45

I consider Lincoln to be one of if not the worst presidents in history. Slavery was ended in all of the European countries without a civil war that killed more Americans than any war since.
None of the things you stated for Bush redeems the harm he has done to this country.

BS alert...

[Arion45]

Originally Posted by mborgia

The United States was invaded on 9/11/2001. I used to fly for the Civil Air Patrol at that time and had to see the smoking piles of debris every day, so don't try to tell me we were not. I'm sure had the courts supported your position you would be singing their praises, just as I curse them when they rule against what I believe in.



You have yet to differentiate what a "neo-con" is, other than a pejorative



Social Security is not insolvent, yet. It is projected to be so in thirty years, unless we change the way it is financed. It's already been conservatively estimated that the FairTax will raise more than enough money to see it and Medicare through.



Yes it does, because my economic position is the same as that of over one hundred eighty million Americans who depend on those banks for absolutely everything.



On that you cannot possibly be wrong.



Maybe you had better, because I have read too many historical accounts of Lincoln and his presidency and I can't recall anything at all to support your rather unique opinion of him.



The power to declare anyone an enemy combatant following declaration of war (and the 4th Circuit effectively ruled that the 2002 Iraq War Authorization constitutes such) is consistent with our Constitution. The power has been upheld by the Supreme Court (see this morning's reply). There must indeed be due process of law, but where such illegal non-uniformed combatants are involved, there is no law or precedent to provide such due process. The Geneva Conventions apply only to soldiers under color, because more often than not in that time such soldiers were draftees and were compelled to fight.

So where is the invasion? Can terrorists commit one act and therefore we are perpetually invaded and at war for all eternity? People with visas are invaders? This is getting just inane.

A neoconservative supports expansion of the military, interventionism especially in the Middle East, support welfare programs to a lesser degree than democrats, The spread of democracy and American values to other countries, Revulsion of the counterculture of the 60s, nation building, Strong support for Israel, and opposition to political realism.

Social security is going to be paying out more than it takes in as early as 2012. It is failing. Reagan did not save it was my point. You are right it will be insolvent.

So because you depend on the banks I have to pay for it? You depend on the banks for everything? Does the bank pay your bills or do you work for that? Does it pay taxes for you? Does it help raise your family? What do they do for you other than give out loans and have a place to store your money?

How is it consistent with the constitution? Where in that document does it give the president the power to declare an American citizen an enemy combatant and have that person detained without trial and due process of law? Acts cannot grant the president new powers only an amendment to the constitution can do that. Due process of law is granted to every American citizen by the constitution and cannot be taken away.

My opinion on Lincoln stems from the fact that he was responsible for the deaths of 600,000 American lives. His disregard for the constitution and the people of the United States. Suspension of Habeas corpus. The fact that the United States was a voluntary union and therefore if a group of states wanted to leave they could voluntary leave as well. The States were sovereign and the Federal Government was dependent on the states. Lincoln changed that. He installed the income tax.