...

See also, those who agree with Michael Moore that the only remarkable thing about Obama is the color of his skin.



Again, the shark has been jumped.

There is much overstatement of cases being posted today and recently.

Sorry. And even the policies are not the same, in the second place.

and paints shitty portraits of dogs?

Where?


It's about policies

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

It's about their roles as US PRESIDENTS, not them personally

But you already know that

Bush got us into the recession of 2007. Coming into office when jobs were being lost at the rate of $400K PER MONTH, Obama fought the Rethugs for an economic stimulus bill and got one, for $800million. There would have been a $1.2 million stimulus if Obama had his way; and none at all if the Rethugs had won.

Obama is pro-choice, pro marriage equality. Bush favored neither.

Bush had no health plan, but Obama and Reid pushed through the ACA.

Bush started the war in Iraq and Obama voted against it, and then withdrew the troops in 2011 despite all the opposition from Rethugs who wanted them to stay.

It is ludicrous and deeply unfair to say that the two have been following the same policies.

Saying Bush and Obama are the same is slurring Obama with Bush's name.

I would say only for those that the shoe fits, not everyone!

When someone starts in with these memes like Obama and Bush are the same, or their policies are the same, or republicans and democrats are the same it would make people wonder just what kind of agenda is really being pushed here. All those memes are pure BS, and those who want to push them are the same bashers we see day after day coming here with nothing positive to ever say, must negative things towards the president and the whole democratic party.

I totally agree with what you posted, thanks.

but it does. Thanks.

I would have though it would go without the need for stating it. Guess not.

... some on the left see a world that is white and black.

The Obama = Bush meme is now shared by both the far right and the far left.

Well ... actually, the far right is mixed on this point.

They are either claiming that Obama is a sissy because we aren't invading like Bush did ... OR ... they are claiming that Obama sending some advisers and air support is exactly the same as sending 150,000 troops for an invasion and 10+ year occupation.

And yet, that's what we see all too often.

Again, no sitting President would stand by in this situation. Regardless of who was in the White House, some action would be taken. Now, in the past, or in the foreseeable future.

President Obama's response is measured and limited, unlike George W. F. Bush's "jump in with both feet on false pretenses" response.

We are tired of the MIC's appetite. We have fed that f'in beast far too long.

What you call 'measured and limited' is horse-poop. We still sustain the beast for so little benefit to the rest of us. It's profits to them, it's distractions from the issues, it's all a damn clown show that's now about to get screwed up with closing down the government.

So when we say 'it's GWB redux' we're talking about the F'in Beast, man, with PBO now saying his "greatest priority is our safety! We're such babies that we need safety from something that does NOT threaten us, it threatens the fat princes in SA.

So to get real, Mineral Man, you are called out for being an Apologist for a thoroughly uncreative brain-dead policy. I sure would like to know what you mean by "this situation" in "no sitting President would stand by in this situation" -- surely it's not rational behavior to spend a BILLION F'IN DOLLARS on more war, when we don't have the lights or water on in Detroit.

So yes, you're being an Apologist for a policy trumpeted as a BIG DEAL when it's just Business as Usual: distract distract distract from real, substantive, issues.

Like, ya know, Climate Change -- I must have missed that TERRIBLY IMPORTANT national address from our so-concerned president about the eco-holocaust befalling us.

but I'm not familiar enough with you to know what "we" you mean.

Last edited Thu Sep 11, 2014, 11:06 PM - Edit history (2)

for its restraint. And I say that realizing and acknowledging — unlike some who seem to overlook this or have yet to grasp it — the President of the United States is head of the most rapacious, blood-stained, military-industrial-complex dominated empire in the history of the world, i repeat, THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, and the forces that wield power within it, even beyond the power of the president, will not be denied yet again a profit-making opportunity.

Obama has shown remarkable restraint, and courage in the face of those aforementioned forces, in keeping us out of war in Syria, he played his cards right and got rid of Kaddaffi without sending troops, he let the Egypt Arab Spring play out to get rid of Mubarak without troop intervention, and he openly stated we're not sending troops to the Ukraine.

He has constantly shown his anti-war bona fides and even with this ISIS crisis his reluctance to get into a war is obvious to those who take the time to look and access the situation instead of repeating the far right and/or far left talking points against whatever he does.

I said all that to say that the President of the United States, and all that that title entails, could hardly keep out of this ISIS crisis and survive. That's right, I said SURVIVE.

If Barack Obama had went on national TV last night and said we will do nothing in regard to the current ISIS crisis he would, IMO, be either assassinated or perish in an Air Force One crash or some other "accident" within 6 months.

The MIC and its bought-and-paid-for sycophants (repug and some dem politicians and/or their agents in the field) would see to that. Empire and humongous profits, not gained previously in Syria, Libya, Egypt and the Ukraine are at stake here and no reluctant-to-go-to-war president will be allowed to stand in the way, especially a black one. Matter a fact, better make that dead in 3 months instead of 6 because of the black factor.

So, apparently the explanation is needed. It's always a surprise.

He's worse than W? Gag me.

On edit, let me add Gore is the same as Bush. Same folks, probably.

I don't expect to see it here on DU. DUers know better than that, I'm sure.

And completely overlook -understandably- that not one man, President or no, not even 19 hijackers can change the world. The world has been headed for this clash of cultures for a long time. Technology makes the clash more violent and the extremists more extreme because it connects us all.

But none of this happens in a vacuum.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Even that is too simplistic and reductionist.

Both are

1. left handed
2. have masters (or JD) degrees from the Ivories
3. Play golf
4. Have nice wives
5. Tug at their right ear on occasions
6. Tie their right shoes before the left.
7. prefer an oxford knot for their ties
8. enjoy being physically fit
9. eat burgers and hotdogs with absolutely no ketchup (I wonder if they like pissing off Kerry)
10. Have a long history of existence in their community.
11. have wild men as VEEPS
12. had female SecStates

I some times have too much of it.

"United we Stand, Divided we Fall" GOPers love the last part. For Liberal/Progressives, the first part is us.

Lets stand united. Go Vote!

I'll go to my grave knowing many things. That isn't one of those things. I don't love Obama, but I did vote twice for him. I regret neither vote.

mainly because it is in the ME hornets' nest that DicKKK and Chimpy just had to kick, but I think Clinton's actions in Bosnia is a better analogue, at least for now.

Do you mean the people who are opposed to war based upon principle, as opposed to those who are against war when being so provides a convenient means of denigrating an opposition President?

for the supreme court...


Tikki

Or frankly anything else that is questioned with respect to optics or drone attacks.

Then W is a fine standard bearer. Here and in the James Brady room

They know it's not true but they think making outrageous claims like that will somehow influence people. Reminds me of rw talk radio crap. Garbage from both extremes.

Their agenda is that the US quits bombing the shit out of innocent people.

In response to 9/11 Bush bombed, invaded and occupied a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. There is nothing that Obama has done in his 6 years in office that remotely compares to that.

Bush did, and now Obama is, using war as an answer.

We are sick of war and warmongers, or bombers. Sorry if our agenda upsets some of you.

Thank goodness our past leaders weren't as short-sighted and narrow-focused as you.. otherwise we would be speaking German or Japanese or who knows what.

Carter took down the USSR without one fucking bomb.

So take your bomb agenda and put it where the sun don't shine.

What is it with some of you who support bombing your way to peace? Don't you know such a position is insane? Einstein said as much. You do know who he was, eh? You forgot about Carter, maybe you forgot about what one of the smartest men ever said about war as an answer. Are you having fun being ignorant of him, too?

And you can just imagine what else I might say about you and the other bombers, eh? Just do it. Imagine what I might say to you face-to-face as you point your bombs at more innocents.

Just the whacko warmongers. Same shit, different day.

You do realize people like cheney are on the other side from us who want no more bombs?

writing shit that doesn't make sense again.

ciao bro.. off to bed!

Neither Germany nor Japan were any threat to actually invade the US. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor with the intention of keeping the US away from Japan's Pacific empire, but they never actually invaded Hawaii. And Germany never attacked US terrritory, never even came close. With Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, the US had no choice but to declare war on Japan. Since Germany was allied with Japan, and declared war on the US in the ensuing days, the US had no choice but to declare war on Germany as well.

Cut the taxes on the 1% and throw everyone else under the train.

if they succeed in gutting Amtrak

Sid

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Is that a Democratic President is now enacting similar policies and using similar rhetoric that the neocons used in the build up to the Iraq war..... Obama's line about 'if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven" sounds eerily familiar to "if you aren't with us your against us"..

Now you have Russia chiming in about UN security council approval for which they will veto any airstrikes in Syria..... This whole thing is a mess with no good outcome..

Obama should have stayed cool and stayed out of it.... I listen to his speech and found massive amounts of hypocrisy.... You can't be against war and be ok strating wars.....

Some of us are truly against war ISIS didn't bomb us, ISIS is no imminent thrat no matter how many times FOX news says it is, sure they executed a couple of captured journalists but if the President is using that matrix we should be at war in Columbia, Venezuela, and most of the African countries.....


PEACE !!

Journalists may have changed his mind.

Sometimes-a lot of times-there are no good options.

Killed American citizens, maybe not journalists but that wasn't my point....

I suppose you are fully behind Obama's misadventure into Syria, good luck with that.....

Using his own NEOCON justifications for going after ISIS we should be at war with many countries not just a radical group of terrorists, but hey don't let me interrupt your support for the coming death and destruction.

Obama is not a neocon.

And stop the personal attacks you know nothing about me. It's also a violation of TOS.

If anything, DU has been littered with 6 years of non-stop faulty prognostications, until finally when reality plays out, the manic arguments once again fail, and it's on to the next outrage after they pat themselves on the back for somehow changing the course of history with the mighty keyboard.

It was never about criticism, it was about ego wrapped around pure bullshit.

We are not given the security reports which Obama one others are privy, we do know about the beheading of two journalists, the isolation of the group on top of the mountain, the raping of women and captured for their troops pleasure. The Saudi say they are very radical. They want to fly their over the WH, doesn't make me feel good.

Exactly. Different situations and this one was caused by Bush.

Al Gore. I would hazard a guess to say that had Al Gore become President, there would have been NO September 11th attack, nor would there have been an Afghanistan or Iraq Wars.

Oh, and Dick Cheney would have died in the early 2000's of congestive heart failure.

However, I must strenuously disagree with you on one point:

"Equating the two men is specious, in the extreme. I would hope that no DUer would do that. DU is better than that. It truly is."

Your hope that "no DUer would do that" seems to have been crushed repeatedly - not just today, but every day over the past five-plus years.

As for DU being "better than that" - well, apparently it's not. There was a time when it was, but those days are long gone.

my faith, I guess.

It makes a lot of Sense, if you know what I mean.

"President Obama is just like former President George W. F. Bush."

Since that is the basis for your OP, it would seem painfully obvious that is what I was referring to.

GW Bush was appointed for his first term and won the 2nd term by election theft (remember Ohio)
And Im thinking now that with Karl Rove's ability to rig elections, if the truth was really know, GW Bush never won an election in his life even for the Governorship of Texas