PDA

View Full Version : Who do you hate more - Bush or Obama?




lib3rtarian
07-12-2014, 09:01 PM
Simple question to y'all.

As far as I am concerned, as much as I disagree with and dislike Obama's policies, I could never bring myself around to hate him as much as I hated, and still hates, Bush. The primary reason is the Iraq War, which was sold to us, and started, based on lies, and really putting on steroids, this unending militaristic adventures and kick-starting this overbearing police/surveillance state. Now we have successfully created two mega-clusterfucks - Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and everything else we touched (most of which was Obama, to be clear.) On the domestic front, again, Bush spent like a drunken sailor with Medicare Part D, NCLB etc, so he is in no way inferior to Obama in that regard.

My conservative FB friends go ballistic over EVERY little thing Obama does, it really looks ridiculous. Now, I have serious issues with Obama regarding NSA, the wars, Obamacare etc, but I don't have this unadulterated hate towards him. Every single day, every single issue, the root cause, according to my conservative friends is because "Obama is a Marxist-Leninist Kenyan Muslim Communist Who Hates America". If Obama hugs people, "Oh look, that's just how Hitler hugged people.". If Obama makes a joke about himself, "Oh look, what a narcissist".

Sure, Obama continued the same Bush policies, and in many cases, one-upped him, but I still can't get over the fact that it was Bush & Cheney who started all this.

Who do you hate more - Bush or Obama?

kcchiefs6465
07-12-2014, 09:20 PM
Bush and Cheney started hardly little.

All should tried by competent courts.

heavenlyboy34
07-12-2014, 09:23 PM
I prefer to blame puppetmasters rather than puppets like the clowns in office. I also agree with what kc said^^

tod evans
07-12-2014, 09:27 PM
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs6/i/2005/056/9/4/Puppet_on_a_String_by_NotTheOne.jpg

heavenlyboy34
07-12-2014, 09:40 PM
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs6/i/2005/056/9/4/Puppet_on_a_String_by_NotTheOne.jpg

+rep (hope you get it...my repper is acting weird all of a sudden)

Christian Liberty
07-12-2014, 09:52 PM
Bush.

But that really has little to do with either Bush or Obama themselves. Both equally deserve to die, and it really isn't even borderline.

The reason I hate Bush more is because of the circles I am in.

I know very, very few people who like Obama. I know a lot of people who like Bush. And Bush was better at convincing evangelicals that government is in their best interests.

I find Bush more frustrating because I know more people who like them.

That said, if I had to pick one to immediately die of some natural cause, I'd pick Obama since he's the current President.

jkr
07-12-2014, 09:53 PM
B=O

GunnyFreedom
07-13-2014, 08:13 AM
I just can't decide between evilist and evilist-er. :-/

klamath
07-13-2014, 08:27 AM
Neither one stands out. Obama's little air war in Libya has more to do with the current war in Iraq than the Bush's invasion in 2003 and the ongoing civil war in Syria can pretty much be traced to Libya as well.

presence
07-13-2014, 08:36 AM
http://ivn.us/2012/11/06/100-ways-republicans-are-just-like-democrats/


1. A large (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/s230) number (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/h/932) of Democrats and Republicans signed the National Defense Authorization Act for the year 2012, which critics say allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens on U.S. soil without due process. President Obama pledged (http://www.policymic.com/articles/3234/ndaa-another-broken-promise-by-president-barack-obama-and-an-attack-on-civil-liberties) to veto the NDAA, but went back on his word and signed (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/02/president-obama-signed-the-national-defense-authorization-act-now-what/) it into law with the indefinite detention provision included. Mitt Romney says (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1yY3NCiMVQ&feature=youtu.be) that he would do the same.
2. Republicans and Democrats (http://seekingalpha.com/article/577671-republican-keynesians-need-to-come-out-of-the-closet) overwhelmingly favor Keynesian economics rather than other schools of economic thought such as the Austrian School (http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/16/keynes-vs-hayek-oversimplified) of economics.
3. The Bush-era Patriot Act, which allows for warrantless wiretapping, was passed with bipartisan (http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/7877#.UHxfU6mPWSo) support and recently extended (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/1/84) by policymakers of both parties. Romney (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaXfwuGmxg&feature=youtu.be) has voiced his support for the controversial legislation. Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/patriot-act-extension-signed-into-law-despite-bipartisan-resistance-in-congress/2011/05/27/AGbVlsCH_story.html) supported it as a senator and signed the extension into law as president.
4. Both the Republican and Democratic administrations have attempted to justify the use of extrajudicial (http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627) targeted killing, the killing of people without trial or substantive due process, including American citizens. The use of these tactics increased (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/11/obama-drone-wars-normalisation-extrajudicial-killing) under President Obama and has received praise (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/184813-romney-perry-congratulate-obama-perry-gives-backhanded-praise) from (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/02/dick-liz-cheney-obama-awlaki-apology_n_991062.html) members of both parties. There was strong bipartisan (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/bipartisan-approval-targeted-killing) support for the Obama Administration’s extrajudicial killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Aulaqi (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/awlaki-killed-american-cl_n_988929.html) and his 16 year old son without trial, which received praise from Republican Party members (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/washington-praises-killing-al-awlaki/) and was strongly supported (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/10/03/8130791-romney-forcefully-defends-killing-of-al-awlaki?lite) by Mitt Romney.
5. The Democratic and Republican parties both generally support the vastly-growing use of unmanned aerial combat drones in the Middle East:


The use of unmanned drones to patrol foreign skies, which have been responsible (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/timeglider/) for many civilian and child deaths, began under President Bush (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/the-bush-years-2004-2009/) and drone use has drastically increased (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drone-data/) and expanded under President Obama. There has been little (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/09/drones) to no partisan opposition to these tactics and while the GOP platform (http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf) advocates for increased drone use, the Democratic platform (http://assets.dstatic.org/dnc-platform/2012-National-Platform.pdf) doesn’t mention their use at all.
Drone warfare (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/drone-war-admission/) in Pakistan started under Bush, has been significantly escalated by Obama, and Romney has indicated (http://youtu.be/F2gCv_nOvrI) that he will continue using drones in Pakistan if elected. Both parties also support the continued drone warfare being used (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/libya-drone-war/) in Libya, which Romney (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/26/nader-obama-is-a-war-criminal-but-romney-would-be-worse/) has stated he would (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/06/pawlenty-obamas-drone-strikes-dont-go-far-enough/) likely continue.
In Yemen, the Obama Administration has continued (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/al-qaeda-in-yemen/interactive-map-americas-war-in-yemen/) the fighting that the Bush Administration initiated (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/international/middleeast/02MILI.html), which Obama has done with the use of secretive drone warfare and by recently (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-notifies-congress-troops-sent-libya-yemen-182602336--election.html) sending troops back.

6. Both parties will also allow drones to patrol the skies of the United States. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr658), which calls for the use of up to 30,000 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/?page=all) drones in U.S. airspace, passed the Senate (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/s15) with overwhelming bipartisan support.
7. The Federal Reserve is allowed by both parties to continue to operate as an “independent (http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12799.htm) government agency,” whose monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the president nor any other elected member of the executive or legislative branch. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was appointed by George W. Bush and re-appointed by Obama. Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on whether he would reappoint Bernanke, stating in 2010 (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/The_Federal_Reserve/) that he would reappoint him, but stating recently (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/24/business/la-fi-mo-bernanke-romney-federal-reserve-chairman-20120824) that he would not reappoint Bernanke for a third term. Bernanke was reappointed for his second term in 2010 after a bipartisan (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/double-whopper-no-beef/) vote of 70-30. However, the Audit the Fed bill has also received strong bipartisan support (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/audit-the-fed-bill-set-for-house-vote/2012/07/24/gJQAJypU7W_blog.html).
8. In an apparent direct conflict of interest, 130 Republican and Democratic congressional members have invested in company stocks while making legislative decisions that impact those same companies.
9. Democrats and Republicans both played a role in the founding of the Federal Reserve. (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=%22Democrats+and+Republicans+both+playe d+a+role+in+the+founding+of+the+Federal+Reserve.%2 2&url=http://a.ivn.us/UfPNz8&tw_p=tweetbutton&via=IVNetwork&original_referer=http://ivn.us/?p=52898) Initial versions of the Federal Reserve Act were drafted by Republican Senator Nelson Aldrich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Aldrich) and the final version was drafted y Democratic Congressman Carter Glass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Glass) of Virginia, which then went to receive strong bipartisan support (http://www.llsdc.org/FRA-LH/) in Congress.
10. Both Republican and Democrats have allowed the Federal Reserve to inject trillions (http://www.newsmax.com/StreetTalk/Springer-fight-Fed-rise/2012/10/02/id/458344) of dollars (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/01/343-trillion-counting) into the economy through their quantitative (http://www.mybudget360.com/quantitative-easing-and-the-electronic-money-printing-machine-%E2%80%94-saying-goodbye-to-historically-low-mortgage-interest-rates-federal-reserve-95-percent-complete-on-buying-1-25-trillion-in-mor/) easing (http://www.khanacademy.org/finance-economics/core-finance/v/quantitative-easing) programs. While many Republicans including Romney have said they are against the third round of quantitative easing, neither party has or is likely to introduce bills aimed at regulating or halting quantitative easing altogether.
11. Republicans and Democrats love earmarks so much that even the bipartisan earmark moratorium, while greatly cutting back on earmarks, couldn’t stop (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/congress-has-still-found-ways-to-pass-earmarks-despite-ban-heres-how-and-a-list/) the pork (http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2472-House-Getting-Creative-With-the-Earmark-Moratorium) from being slipped (http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2012/) into bills. Approved earmarks in 2010 (http://endingspending.com/fixing-the-budget/earmarks/map/) totaled over $15 billion and the amount of requested earmarks in 2011 (http://endingspending.com/fixing-the-budget/earmarks/map-2011/) exceeded $129 billion. Citizens Against Government Waste reports (http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2012/2012-pig-book.pdf) that $3.3 billion has been approved for 2012.
12. Both parties (http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/) and their national, congressional and senatorial committees have spent more than one billion dollars on their 2012 campaigns.
13. The Democratic and Republican convention committees each received (http://www.fec.gov/pages/fecrecord/december2011/conventionfunding2012.shtml) $17,689,800 from the U.S. Treasury for their conventions in 2012 and an additional $600,000 to cover the cost of inflation. This is paid for through a voluntary check off on federal income tax forms.
14. Both parties are largely backed (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/index.php) by the same corporate (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/sectorall.php?cycle=2012) contributors and interest (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/index.php) groups. Congressional members also receive (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php) contributions from many of the same interest groups. Both parties are heavily lobbied (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php) by corporate (http://www.businesspundit.com/10-of-the-biggest-lobbies-in-washington/) America — to the tune of $3.3 billion in 2011 and $1.68 billion thus far in 2012.
15. The majority of both parties agreed that Wall Street should receive bailouts. The TARP bailout was signed into law by George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program) and initially drafted by Bush-appointed Secretary of Treasury– and Republican– Henry Paulson. Obama supported (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/12/08/obama_supporting_tarp_in_2008_step_up_and_do_whats _right.html) TARP as a senator and the bailout went on to receive overwhelming support from Democrats (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2009/h26) in the House. TARP also received largely bipartisan (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/bail-s24.shtml) support in the Senate (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2008/s213).
16. The same Wall Street TARP recipients (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/02/tarp-recipients-paid-out-114-m.html) who were top contributors to the Democratic (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638) presidential campaign in 2008 are now the top contributors backing the Republican (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00000286) presidential campaign in 2012. In 2008, Republican John McCain (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424) was backed by the same companies, although his campaign received less than the Obama campaign.
17. Both parties are private, non-profit corporations and are in no way an official part of the United States government. Furthermore, neither party is mentioned in the Constitution nor is there mention of a two-party system, and a few of our founding (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-04/opinion/avlon.independents.day_1_independent-voters-party-political-debates?_s=PM:OPINION) fathers (http://books.google.com/books?id=iHpfjCoA1_wC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=did+james+madison+fear+parties&source=bl&ots=L0Pg4-ZTag&sig=tneoB8nc1DP-ZSJE5JdS-hopvLc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CQmHUIjSCJS60QGX3oGADg&ved=0CGwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=did%20james%20madison%20fear%20parties&f=false) expressed concerns regarding the emergence of a rival two-party system. 18. As Glenn Greenwald points out in an article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/04/third-party-us-presidential-debate-deceit) for The Guardian, Republicans and Democrats discuss certain general issues (http://reason.com/reasontv/2012/10/15/split-between-little-differences-matt-we) during debates while ignoring other more controversial issues that they may agree on, hoping to convince the public that there is a huge difference of choice.
19. Both Democrats and Republicans seem to believe that voting for a third party is equivalent to throwing away your vote while in reality, if everyone voted their conscience and avoided voting for the “lesser of two evils,” which 46 percent (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/july_2012/46_will_be_voting_for_lesser_of_two_evils_this_pre sidential_election) of those polled said they would be doing this election, the two-party stranglehold may actually be broken.
20. The Democratic (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A626-2004Jun23.html) and Republican (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/12731-gop-suing-to-keep-third-parties-off-ballot-in-november) parties have both (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/15/153818.shtml) sued (http://www.policymic.com/articles/14389/republican-use-dirty-tricks-crack-down-on-ron-paul-and-gary-johnson-in-state-courts) third (http://chippewa.com/news/article_914887ce-1c07-5a53-9184-7fbaf565a84f.html) parties to prevent them from appearing on the ballot in key states.
21. Both the Democratic and Republican parties exclude (http://www.policymic.com/articles/16794/jill-stein-arrest-why-the-cpd-shutting-out-third-party-candidates-like-gary-johnson-matters) third (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122861&page=1#.UIgv8GfcyYo) parties (http://opendebates.org/theissue/exclusionofpop.html) from the presidential debates. In 1987, the Democratic and Republican parties founded the nonprofit Commission on Presidential Debates (http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/) to regulate the presidential debates, which excludes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDQsIKbQLFY) third party candidates from participating in the only nationally televised presidential debates.
22. The Democratic and Republican parties have both been sued (http://ivn.us/common-sense/2012/09/23/gary-johnson-files-anti-trust-lawsuit-for-entry-to-debates/) for conspiring to exclude third parties from the quadrennial presidential debates.

23. Both also both believe that taxpayers should provide funding to other countries around the world. The bipartisan Commission on Appropriations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Appropriations) approved (http://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=295910) $40.1 billion in foreign aid for the 2013 year. 24. Both party platforms mention Israel, confirm Jerusalem as being the capital city, and both the Democratic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=033gCiurxbg&feature=youtu.be) and Republican (http://youtu.be/6dERXzPQo2U) presidential candidate have pledged their allegiance to Israel.
25. The Democratic and Republican parties both agree (http://www.policymic.com/articles/14111/obama-vs-romney-on-the-israel-palestine-two-state-solution-why-both-must-pledge-to-make-it-happen) that a two-state solution should be pursued between Israel and Palestine.
26. No one other than a Democrat or Republican has been elected president in the last 160 years.
27. Lawmakers from both parties in Congress and the executive branch have been responsible for all foreign interventions since 1853 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1850 .E2.80.931859), keeping America in a near perpetual state of war. They are also responsible for the assistance and direct involvement of the U.S. in at least 31 instances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions #During_the_Cold_War) of covert foreign regime change since the beginning of the Cold War.
28. There is cross-administration support of preemptive cyber attacks. The Obama Administration has continued (http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/230443-report-obama-bush-ordered-cyber-attacks-against-iran) the Stuxnet cyber attacks against Iran which were started under the Bush Administration.
29. Sanctions against Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran) began under Carter and have received strong (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/h250) bipartisan support from every administration (http://www.cfr.org/iran/lengthening-list-iran-sanctions/p20258) since, continuing under the Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/obama-order-implements-iran-sanctions-approved-by-congress/2012/10/09/2536e40e-1266-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_story.html) Administration.
30. Both Democrats and Republicans are eager to place even more sanctions (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/middleeast/obama-and-congress-in-step-over-iran-sanctions.html?pagewanted=all) on Iran, which (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/07/iran-santions-suffering) harm (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-08/how-the-u-dot-s-dot-is-hurting-innocent-people-in-iran) innocent Iranian civilians, hoping to prevent Iran from developing nukes. The fact that eight other countries (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17511816) already have nukes is usually ignored.
31. The Democratic and Republican parties both agree that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is a top priority. Obama (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9127324/Barack-Obama-US-will-not-countenance-Iranian-nuclear-weapon.html) and Romney (http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_War_+_Peace.htm) also both agree that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is a top US security priority.
32. At least 360 former Democratic and Republican (http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z) congresspeople have left office and accepted jobs as lobbyists for corporations or special interest groups who then attempt to influence the same federal government they once worked for. As many as 5,400 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/study-shows-revolving-door-of-employment-between-congress-lobbying-firms/2011/09/12/gIQAxPYROK_story.html) congressional staffers have done the same in the past 10 years alone. Referred to as the “revolving door (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_%28politics%29#United_States),” members of both (http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-revolving-door-geithner-deputy-to-pe-firm/article/996026#.UISuyqmPWSo) parties (http://www.citizensforethics.org/index.php/press/entry/crew-releases-revolving-door-investigation/) routinely (http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/10857.pdf) move between influential private sector positions and policy-making positions in the executive or legislative branches.
33. Republicans (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/02/back-at-home-co/) and Democrats can agree that the economic stimulus package helped the economy. Romney has stated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttn8dnWBQ0Q) that he believes an economic stimulus package was necessary and many Republicans have (http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2012-09-06/story/former-gov-charlie-crist-gives-high-marks-obama-dnc#comment-form) spoke of the success of the Democratic economic stimulus package. Think Progress reports (http://thinkprogress.org/report/touting-recovery-opposed/) that over half of the opposing GOP — 110 members from the House and Senate — returned to their home states to either claim credit for popular stimulus programs or to tout its success.
34. The large scale (http://www.whistleblower.org/press/press-release-archive/2012/1958-nsa-domestic-spying-continues-under-obama) domestic spying program currently underway by the NSA (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm), AT&T, Verizon and others, named Stellar Wind (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/opinion/the-national-security-agencys-domestic-spying-program.html?_r=0), was approved (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abIV0cO64zJE) by Bush (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abIV0cO64zJE) and has been continued under the Obama Administration. There now exist massive domestic spy centers which are designed to collect every single communication made in the U.S., including e-mails, phone conversations, financial transactions, and internet activity. These have been conveniently ignored by the majority of both parties. 35. Both Republicans and Democrats stay relatively quiet about and generally support U.S. reliance on fiat money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money), fractional reserve lending (http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL089F77C6DB7CA452&v=ZyyaE3DIxhc&feature=player_embedded) and our debt based monetary policy. Both platforms are void of any mention of monetary policy reform.
36. The Democratic and Republican parties largely support continuing the War on Terror in which Bush Administration policies have been continued and expanded (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&ved=0CGcQFjAK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fthreatlevel%2F201 2%2F09%2Fbush-obama-war-on-terror%2F&ei=xA2GUJSrMMnw0gHl5ICADw&usg=AFQjCNFwHo0aR2lY5pRROUP5XsmaLWknuA&sig2=yfF_NXEfJADo00llKvlJCA) by the Obama Administration (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/24-10). A Political.com (http://www.political.com/Reports/Majority_Want_Troops_Home) poll found that 72 percent of those polled want troops home from Afghanistan now — not in 2014, and a Rasmussen Reports poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/afghanistan/59_want_us_troops_home_from_afghanistan) found that 59 percent of Americans polled want troops removed from Afghanistan either immediately or within a year.
37. Neither party has constitutionally (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110328-what-happened-american-declaration-war) declared war since World War II. This election cycle, both the Democratic and Republican parties have also chosen presidential candidates who believe (http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/romney-president-has-power-act-unilat) that the president has the power to go to war without congressional approval. Like the Bush (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0128-08.htm) Administration’s unconstitutional (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html) war in Iraq, the Obama Administration is responsible for an unconstitutional (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/24/obama_s_unconstitutional_war) war in Libya (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-notifies-congress-troops-sent-libya-yemen-182602336--election.html). A Romney Administration will consider (http://www.salon.com/2012/10/08/mitts_magical_thinking_on_foreign_policy/) sending more troops to Libya. Also like George H.W. Bush (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/05/world/mission-to-somalia-bush-declares-goal-in-somalia-to-save-thousands.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm), Clinton (http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N48/somalia.48w.html), and George W. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/12/war-terrors-newest-front) Bush (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/12/war-terrors-newest-front), The Obama Administration has sent troops to Somalia (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/world/obama-admits-us-fight-of-al-qaeda-has-extended-to-somalia-and-yemen.html). As demonstrated (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/opinion/bergen-debate-world/index.html) in the third presidential debate, despite (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/jon-stewart-rips-romney-obama-foreign-policy_n_2008581.html) who wins the election, foreign policies will likely remain the same.
38. There was strong bipartisan support in the Senate (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237) and House (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/h455) for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, however congress never officially declared war.
39. Both parties believe that the U.S. should be intervening in Syria. The Obama Administration began arming (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CEcQFjAF&url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19102374&ei=6nB7UOqWLdC80AHbl4D4Cw&usg=AFQjCNGc6f-TuGw5dB3l02XqrRYpQlR3TQ&sig2=VFzZeEBlSiUXcUdC7vu2oQ) the Free Syrian Army rebels, who are joined by (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria) Al-Qaeda factions, and Romney has stated (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/08/mitt-romney-arm-syrian-rebels) that he supports and will continue arming the rebels in the proxy war with Iran (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9526858/Iran-sends-elite-troops-to-aid-Bashar-al-Assad-regime-in-Syria.html) and Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%27s_role_in_the_Syrian_civil_war).
40. The Bush Administration’s use of torture through extraordinary rendition (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alfred-w-mccoy/extraordinary-rendition-torture_b_1775438.html), which is when prisoners are sent from CIA black sites to other countries where “information extraction” will be attempted, began after Clinton signed PDD 39 (http://loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/fisher_aulr57_5_final.pdf) and has continued (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/obama-black-sites-rendition-torture_n_1812578.html) under the Obama Administration. By failing to speak out or attempting to change these practices, Republicans and Democrats both allow for “enhanced interrogation techniques” — such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation, hypothermia and stress positions, among others– to be used to extract information from suspects. The Obama Administration even granted final immunity (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer) to Bush’s CIA torturers.
41. Both (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-27/news/ct-edit-remap-1227-jm-20111227_1_new-congressional-map-judges-democrats) parties (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/14/in_pennsylvania_the_gerrymander_of_the_decade_1124 04.html) use gerrymandering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering) to gain a political advantage through more favorable district boundaries.
42. Despite the increase in use (http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends) of illicit drugs in the U.S., a rising drug war death toll in Mexico (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ted-galen-carpenter/drug-war-mexico_b_1832155.html&ei=q0R7UMCpFdDU0gGY7oDoDg&usg=AFQjCNFEsbt8MBh5GHMNo3-MXZ1_CufXDg&sig2=MxhC7xvWPQkYIrJgeKyrRw), and the highest public support for marijuana legalization (http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/14/10-reasons-to-revisit-marijuana-policy-now/#americans-increasingly-favor-reform) ever, both parties generally avoid speaking about ending the War on Drugs or legalizing marijuana in lieu of a more effective approach. Since the beginning of prohibition in 1937, no administration has attempted to legalize marijuana. Even though there is more scientific evidence (http://beyondchronic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Grannys-List-July-2012.pdf) than ever indicating the benefits of marijuana, every administration has kept marijuana regulated under Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act. A Schedule I classification places marijuana in a stricter regulatory category than cocaine, labels it as having no medicinal benefit, and prohibits doctors from prescribing it. Hemp production, which would (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/kentuckyhempstudy.pdf) provide (http://reason.org/news/show/1002979.html) many environmental and economic (http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html) benefits, continues to remain outlawed and ignored as well.
43. Both parties (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmaE2Aez_XY) rigged aspects of their 2012 conventions by using teleprompters with pre-loaded and predetermined vote outcomes, and then ignored overwhelming delegate dissent during voice votes. 44. Both parties generally ignore the fact that the United States has the highest (http://www.webcitation.org/5xRCN8YmR) incarceration rate (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html?pagewanted=all) per capital in the world with over half imprisoned for nonviolent drug use, and neither platform offers solutions to this problem.
45. It’s common for Republicans (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/05/966031/campaign-surrogate-admits-romney-is-changing-positions-just-to-win-votes/) and Democrats (http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/04/obama-panders-to-coveted-stoner-demographic-video/) to pander (http://voices.yahoo.com/democrat-pandering-illegal-immigrants-costs-taxpayers-11698252.html) to various (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/05/05/175014/gop-representatives-pander-to-constituents-then-vote-to-protect-big-oil/) demographics (http://bearingdrift.com/2012/04/27/bipartisan-pandering-over-student-loan-rates/), attempting to win them over.
46. The Bush Administration’s Guantanamo Bay has remained open under Obama and although he did sign an executive order calling for the closing, the Senate, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2009/s202) effort, blocked the federal funding to ship the prisoners to Illinois. Obama then signed the federal fund-blocking bill into law when he could have vetoed. The Obama Administration has also imposed new arbitrary rules (http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/) for the prisoners (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-turns-back-the-clock-on-guantanamo/2012/08/16/e97f10c2-e62c-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html) and Romney has said that he would like to see it double (http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Homeland_Security.htm) in size.
47. Both parties rely heavily on marketing (http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year/131810/) operations (http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ebrg2114/files/mktletters.pdf) that use brand logos, names, messaging and colors to “sell” their candidate.
48. Under the Bush Administration, not one Senate member voted (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s295) against the bill that founded the Transportation Security Administration and the House displayed overwhelming (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/h448) support as well. Obama supports (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-20/travel/obama.tsa_1_pat-downs-airport-screening-procedures-travelers?_s=PM:TRAVEL) the TSA and Romney claims he will make a few improvements (http://youtu.be/K_b8hzgFImw) but the TSA will remain (http://youtu.be/-z8pxikHMDE).
49. A bill designed to ensure (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2012/08/google-applauds-bipartisan-resolution.html) that the internet remains open and minimally regulated received strong bipartisan (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h555) support in the House. On the other hand, there has been bipartisan support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_Congresspersons_who_support_or_oppose_S OPA/PIPA) for bills such as SOPA (http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/10/technology-a-bipartisan-attempt-to-regulate-the-internet.html) and PIPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act), which critics such as Google (http://www.google.com/takeaction/past-actions/), Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more), and Facebook (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/mark-zuckerberg-sopa_n_1214090.html) say would allow severe internet regulation, censorship and provide the president with an “internet kill switch.”
50. Both platforms agree that “clean coal” (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/4339171) is an essential resource for U.S. energy requirements. Romney (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh17jDbEaSo) and Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GehK7Q_QxPc) both advocate for the use of clean coal as a way of furthering America’s energy independence.
51. Democrats and Republicans are responsible (http://www.debt.org/faqs/government/americas-national-debt-republicans-democrats-blame/) for the 16 trillion (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) national debt and are largely responsible for the 58 trillion in total U.S. debt.
52. Both parties have failed (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/22/seek-truth-from-facts) to propose a plan for the immediate balancing of the budget. Romney (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/mitt-romney-budget-national-debt_n_1890678.html) and Obama (http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-smoke-and-mirrors-obamas-4-trillion-plan-to-cut-the-debt/article/2510501) both propose federal budget plans that would add trillions to the national debt.
53. Neither party plans on cutting (http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/president-obama-is-not-actually-cutting-military-s) defense (http://factcheck.org/2012/10/will-romney-increase-defense-spending-by-2-trillion/) spending, which is currently larger than the combined defense spending of the next 13 countries (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-ol-defense-budget-size-and-potential-for-cuts-20121023,0,6396267.story). 54. According to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/156662/congress-approval-ties-time-low.aspx), Congressional Democrats and Republicans have record low (http://washingtonexaminer.com/republicans-and-democrats-equally-to-blame-for-standing-of-congress/article/164190#.UH8sFqmPWSo) approval ratings of only 10 percent and according to another poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/5392/trust-government.aspx), 81 percent of those polled have trust in the government “only some of the time or never.”
55. Both the Democratic and Republican platforms mention God and both parties (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/religion-leaders-democratic-national-convention-2012_n_1846782.html) are theistic in nature.
56. There is strong bipartisan support (http://ivn.us/editors-blog/2012/07/23/majority-of-americans-support-semi-automatic-weapons-ban/) for increased gun control measures. Both Romney (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/The_Second_Amendment/) and Obama (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/Views/The_Second_Amendment/) are also supporters of increasing gun control.
57. Republicans and Democrats allow the U.S. to maintain military bases in over 120 countries (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/). A Rasmussen Reports poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2012/51_think_u_s_should_withdraw_all_troops_from_europ e) found that 51 percent of Americans polled want all troops withdrawn from Western Europe.
58. The Bush-Clinton NAFTA free trade agreement was passed (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00395) in a bipartisan (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h575) effort. Obama has not only failed (http://www.citizen.org/documents/failed-trade-policy-and-immigration.pdf) to renegotiate NAFTA, but is now pushing (http://www.thetrainofthought.com/2012/06/obama-pushing-new-nafta-style-trade.html) for more NAFTA style deals. Romney has stated (http://www.thenation.com/blog/170437/more-nafta-anyone-romney-positions-free-trade-champion#) that he will be a champion of free trade.
59. The U.S. Cuba trade embargo has been largely bipartisan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHO1irI_73U) and neither a Republican nor Democratic administration (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/us/politics/ryan-criticizes-obamas-cuba-policy-and-explains-his-shift-on-the-issue.html?_r=0) is likely to lift the embargo.
60. There was strong bipartisan agreement (http://www.nbc11news.com/news/nationalnews/headlines/Bipartisan-agreement-Candidates-say-its-time-for-NFL-lockout-to-end-171239631.html) that the NFL lockout should end (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49180750/ns/politics/t/race-obama-romney-blast-replacement-nfl-refs/#.UITDn6mPWSo).
61. Both the Republican and Democratic platform agree that the death penalty should remain in place, which Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcl-T0P7xYU) and Romney (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/romney-town-hall-crowd-applauds-death-penalt) also support. 62. Although 62 percent (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150245/americans-swap-electoral-college-popular-vote.aspx) of Americans polled said they want to get rid of electoral college in favor of a more direct approach to democracy, neither the Republican or Democratic Party present this as an option.
63. As Jon Stewart points out (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future), the last eight presidents have gone on television and pledged to move America toward an energy-independent future. In 2012, both party platforms as well as both Romney and Obama (http://www.c2es.org/publications/candidates-climate-energy-guide-key-policy-positions-president-obama-governor-romney#reducingoilimports) pledge to bring America into a new era of energy independence.
64. Voter fraud paranoia is largely bipartisan. Voters belonging to both parties (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/poll-voter-fraud-paranoia-officially-bipartisan) are paranoid that the opposing party may be involved in voter fraud.
65. Political campaign advertisements from both parties have long (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/us/politics/obama-romney-and-a-campaign-of-attack-ads-political-memo.html?_r=0) focused (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/15/west.negative/index.html) on attacking the other candidate in often misleading ways. Gary Johnson takes a different (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2XSwRU61YI) approach to campaign ads, deciding to not mention his opponent by name.
66. Americans of both parties (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html) overwhelmingly oppose the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that allows corporations and special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money, in secret, on political campaigning.
67. Yet both the Republican and Democratic parties continue to heavily rely on the same super PAC (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php) funded campaign strategies permitted by the Citizens United ruling.
68. Both Democratic and Republican (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/07/27/5409/democrats-and-republicans-alike-are-exploiting-new-fundraising-loophole) parties are exploiting loopholes that allow members of Congress and presidential candidates to assist super PACs in their fundraising efforts.
69. Among those polled (http://www.people-press.org/2012/02/23/auto-bailout-now-backed-stimulus-divisive/), there is strong bipartisan support for Obama’s Keystone Pipeline project, and the bill passed the House with strong bipartisan support (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/222349-house-gop-thwarting-obama-clears-highway-bill-with-oil-pipeline-mandate). Romney has indicated (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJAl5nZTnXw) that he supports this project as well.
70. The Democratic and Republican parties refuse to ban contributions from corporations and interest groups (http://www.opensecrets.org/influence/index.php), whereas the Green Party (http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/12/refuse-corporate-donations-it-is-what-must-be-done/) runs on a platform of refusing to accept corporate donations.
71. The two-party system continues to operate largely due to laws (http://ivn.us/2012/08/09/what-are-your-favored-electoral-reforms/) and regulations (http://www.thenation.com/article/america-needs-electoral-reform#) created (http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=candidate-selection-process) by the two parties, which severely limit and regulate the ability of third party candidates to gain traction and ballot access.
72. There has been bipartisan (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/27/filibuster-reform-achieved-on-bipartisan-basis/) congressional support of filibuster reform.
73. Neither the Democratic or Republican Party are willing to address the 130,000 (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/afghanistan-iraq-wars-killed-132000-civilians-report-says/) plus (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3321) Iraqi and Afghan civilian deaths that have happened as a result of the bipartisan Global War on Terror.
74. Republicans and Democrats are both responsible (http://truth-out.org/news/item/11307-reforming-welfare-and-gutting-the-poor-a-bipartisan-platform) for the gutting of the welfare system.
75. Presidential signing statements (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php#q6) have been a significant source of controversy, but have been employed (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf) heavily by every administration since Reagan.
76. Line item vetoes have been supported (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/08/11/veto.history/) by (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_States) presidents and candidats of both parties: Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney. Bills designed to allow line item vetoes have also received bipartisan (https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/washhigh/highlights2012/273492/021012line-itemvetobillwinsbipartisanhousesupport.html) support (http://www.humanevents.com/2012/02/08/house-passes-line-item-veto-in-rare-bipartisan-action/) in the House (http://votesmart.org/bill/2829/7821/line-item-veto-bill#11818) and Senate (http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/7821#.UH8DqamPWSo).
77. Both Republicans and Democrats are concerned (http://www.technewsdaily.com/5839-bipartisan-support-stuxnet-drone-leaks-crackdown.html) about the public’s knowledge of their use of drones and the use of cyber weapons against Iran.
78. In the 2012 presidential race, both the Democratic and Republican campaigns have decided (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/04/mitt-romney-public-financing-presidential-campaign-/1#.UHpdqKmPWSo) to not spend taxpayer money on their campaigns.
79. Both parties act as if the other (http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/20/the-wrong-side-absolutely-must-not-win) party (http://www.lessgovisthebestgov.com/Mitt-Romney-Barack-Obama-blame-stops-here-America-wins.html) is the worst (http://cincinnati.com/blogs/letters/2012/09/10/both-parties-play-the-blame-game/) thing that has ever happened to America.

80. A new farm bill, which will finance dozens of price support and crop insurance programs for farmers and food assistance for low-income families, received strong bipartisan (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/2/164) support in the Senate.

presence
07-13-2014, 08:36 AM
81. Among those polled (http://www.nature.org/newsfeatures/pressreleases/poll-conservation-is-patriotic-and-has-bipartisan-support.xml), there is strong bipartisan agreement that conservatism is patriotic.

82. Federal term limits, which many say would be a huge step towards ending corruption in Washington, have been repeatedly rejected (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/208395-senate-rejects-amendment-recommending-congressional-term-limit-) through (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/termlimits/stories/033095.htm) bipartisan votes. In a poll conducted by Pollposition.com (http://pollposition.com/2012/01/09/support-term-limit-for-congress/), 51 percent of those polled said they would support a one-term limit for members of the House and Senate.
83. Both parties largely believe that the government has the power and right to take private property for public use, and sometimes private (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) use, through eminent domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain) laws (http://prfamerica.org/speeches/7th/EminentDomainForPrivateGain.html).
84. Both parties are responsible for continually growing (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3423) the size of the federal government.
85. Multimillion dollar no-bid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-bid_contract) contracts are awarded (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/the-yearly-bill-for-the-pentagons-no-bid-contracts-140-billion/) to companies by both Democratic (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/senate-democrat-seeks-investigation-of-obamas-no-bid-contract-for-smallpox-drug/) and Republican (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340998/ns/business-oil_and_energy/t/halliburtons-iraq-contract-extended/#.UIYA76mPWSo) administrations.
86. Instead of encouraging an open press, Republicans and Democrats demonize (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2035994,00.html) the leak publishing organization known as WikiLeaks, and its founder Julian Assange, who are responsible for leaking information that has reportedly (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/19/wikileaks-white-house-state-department) damaged U.S reputation. The U.S. military recently classified (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html) WikiLeaks as an enemy of the state, the same legal category that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are placed in.
87. Medicaid and Social Security were initially passed with strong support from both parties (http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/03/22/an-historic-vote-in-more-ways-than-one/).
88. Republicans and Democrats often claim that their administrations are transparent, but (http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/editorial/obama-congress-both-fail-on-goal-of-transparency/article_6179a99c-d856-51e6-9590-03db6193f5ea.html) there (http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2500212#.UIwo72fcyYp) is plenty (http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-transparency-fail-wont-admit-to-producing-mandatory-fisa-reports/article/2507615#.UIwonWfcyYo) of evidence (http://www.alternet.org/story/61878/shutting_down_transparent_government,_bush-style) indicating (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7904516028875682825) otherwise (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/21/obama-blocks-drones-kill-list-release).

89. The Bush Administration invoked (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2001/09/fr091801.html) a state of national emergency following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the Obama Administration extended (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/09/message-president-regarding-continuation-national-emergency-respect-cert) the state of emergency, which allows for revocation of the right to habeas corpus.

90. Since the 1992 presidential debates — which was the only year to include a Democratic, Republican and a third party candidate — the Republican and Democratic candidates have refused to participate in presidential debates that include third parties. Obama and Romney campaigns both received invitations to the Free and Equal debates as well as the IVN online debate, but neither (http://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005124) candidate responded.

91. Both parties (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/27/gop-rigging-elections-for-romney/) are reportedly (http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/15/ny-democrat-voter-fraud-part-of-the-culture-for-both-major-political-parties/) routinely (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html) involved (http://politic365.com/2012/10/21/republicans-tied-to-voter-fraud/) in voter (http://politic365.com/2012/10/21/republicans-tied-to-voter-fraud/) fraud (http://politic365.com/2012/10/21/republicans-tied-to-voter-fraud/).
92. The United States Intelligence Community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community), which consists of at least sixteen various agencies, has grown out of control (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/) and has been left largely unchecked by either party, with some reports indicating (http://www.npr.org/2011/09/06/140056904/the-top-secret-america-created-after-9-11) that no one knows how much money is spent.
93. Both the Democratic and Republican parties routinely pander to the middle class (http://article.wn.com/view/2012/08/28/Political_pandering_to_Americas_middle_class/) as they blame their opponents for hurting the middle class, and both platforms advocate for middle class tax cuts. However, multiple studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#Internation al_comparisons) have demonstrated that the United States has more income inequality than most other developed nations, with the poverty rate at 15 percent (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-12/record-u-dot-s-dot-poverty-rate-holds-as-inequality-grows) and the middle class suffering from almost a 40 percent (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20120829rs.html) wealth loss between 2007 and 2010. The top one percent, which most of our lawmakers belong to, has seen increased earnings up to 275 percent (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729) in the past 35 years with the top one percent (http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105) now controlling 40 percent of the nation’s wealth.
94. The Republican and Democratic parties and candidate fail to adequately address the issue of peak oil (http://transitionvoice.com/2012/10/neither-presidential-candidate-shows-grasp-of-americas-oil-predicament/), which is when the maximum rate of petroleum extraction has been reached and the rate of production begins to decline.
95. Both parties refuse to accept responsibility for the credit downgrade and neither was successful at stopping the downgrade. When S&P decided to downgrade the United States from an AAA credit rating to an AA+ rating, they (http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563) stated (http://www.thestreet.com/story/11213656/1/sp-blames-inept-congress-for-downgrade.html) that (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/08/05/s_p_downgrades_u_s_to_aa_blames_political_brinksma nship.html) the blame (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20089038-503544/whos-to-blame-for-s-ps-u-s-credit-rating-downgrade-/) lies with Congress and policymakers from both parties, dating back to 2001 (http://www.ibtimes.com/3-us-policy-mistakes-most-responsible-sp-downgrade-841751) and the Bush Administration.
96. Thanks to our Democratic and Republican lawmakers, the United States is one of only two countries in the world that permits pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly (http://ivn.us/2012/05/03/big-pharmas-direct-to-consumer-advertising-corrupts-americas-health-culture/) to consumers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry#Direct_to_consumer_adverti sing). The pharmaceutical lobby (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=H04) is routinely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_lobby) the top lobbying industry, spending a total (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=H04&year=2012) of $124,441,774 on lobbying in 2012 alone. Obama and Romney each received (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2012&ind=H04) over one million dollars. In 2009, nearly three dozen (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/will-12-million-a-day-convince.html) former congressmen worked as lobbyists for a pharmaceutical or health product company.
97. Republicans and Democrats agree (http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/10/dem-and-gop-agree-government-n.php) that the government needs more money.
98. This (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157427/americans-split-need-third-party.aspx) Gallup poll suggests that many Americans — 46 percent of those polled — believe that a third party is needed because the Republican and Democratic parties are not doing an adequate job of representing the people.
99. There is bipartisan agreement (http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121022/NEWS90/210220309/-1/NEWS) that the Social Security payroll tax break should be allowed to expire, which would raise taxes on 163 million Americans regardless of who wins the election.
100. Presidential nominees for both parties are selected through a very complicated and expensive process (http://www.uvm.edu/%7Edguber/POLS125/articles/piroth.htm) which involves state caucuses and primaries that happen over the course of many months...

acptulsa
07-13-2014, 09:28 AM
B=O

This.

To try to sustain the fiction that there's a difference becomes more laughable every day.

Insufficient poll has insufficient options.

cajuncocoa
07-13-2014, 10:35 AM
This.

To try to sustain the fiction that there's a difference become more laughable every day.

Insufficient poll has insufficient options.I would have liked to see a "both equally" choice. That would have been my answer if it had been provided.

RonPaulFanInGA
07-13-2014, 11:22 AM
Insufficient poll has insufficient options.

I like that the poll doesn't contain a third cop-out option.

Vanguard101
07-13-2014, 04:27 PM
Obama. Bush at least looked like he cared and I always feel as if he regrets having to be a tool. Dude is a kind person. Obama is just something else.

William Tell
07-13-2014, 04:32 PM
I like that the poll doesn't contain a third cop-out option.

But most would have used it, which defeats the point.

jmdrake
07-13-2014, 04:34 PM
Why waste my hate on an ex-president and a lame duck? The poll should be "Who do you hate more? Chris Christie or Hillary Clinton?" And frankly I don't hate anyway. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers and spiritual wickedness in high places."

amy31416
07-13-2014, 05:45 PM
How do you decide?

Bush ran on a libertarian/Reagan-esque policy which was total bullshit. Obama ran on a liberal/progressivi-ish platform which was total bullshit. Both are responsible for thousands of deaths of foreigners and Americans alike. Who to detest more? Neocons or progressives? I just don't know, they're equally repulsive on so many levels.

But I guess if you asked me who I'd prefer to sit down and have a beer with, it'd be Obama, if only to show him a big-ass photo album of all the people he's killed so far and hope it might have some effect on his future actions. Bush has so many deaths under his belt that it'd be pointless to even bother with him unless he was trying to re-enter politics.

Dianne
07-13-2014, 07:24 PM
Truthfully, I never imagined in my wildest dreams I would hate anyone more than George Bush. I even told my son in 2007; no way Obama could be a worse President ... Man was I ever wrong.. I fell for the kewl daddy, soul man from whence know one knows of his origin ... I loved his transparent government, lol ... As a civil rights activist since the 1970's, I loved seeing a man of color emerge as President ... I know now his entire presidency was built on lies ... The biggest joke ever perpetrated upon the American people to prove just how ignorant we are... Would you have ever imagined in your lifetime, a gay black man from somewhere (no one really knows where), emerging to become President of the United States married to a Transvestite? I'm not a homophobe, but I point out just how dumb the electorate is to vote for someone they don't know chit about ... We have a President and a First Transy, from where I have no clue. All I know is the ODD Couple is here to harm the country, and there are no more than five in the Congress with any balls to stop them.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
07-13-2014, 07:42 PM
And I thought Reagan was bad. These two? Eh. Some turds float and some turds sink.

Dianne
07-13-2014, 07:46 PM
Simple question to y'all.

As far as I am concerned, as much as I disagree with and dislike Obama's policies, I could never bring myself around to hate him as much as I hated, and still hates, Bush. The primary reason is the Iraq War, which was sold to us, and started, based on lies, and really putting on steroids, this unending militaristic adventures and kick-starting this overbearing police/surveillance state. Now we have successfully created two mega-clusterfucks - Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and everything else we touched (most of which was Obama, to be clear.) On the domestic front, again, Bush spent like a drunken sailor with Medicare Part D, NCLB etc, so he is in no way inferior to Obama in that regard.

My conservative FB friends go ballistic over EVERY little thing Obama does, it really looks ridiculous. Now, I have serious issues with Obama regarding NSA, the wars, Obamacare etc, but I don't have this unadulterated hate towards him. Every single day, every single issue, the root cause, according to my conservative friends is because "Obama is a Marxist-Leninist Kenyan Muslim Communist Who Hates America". If Obama hugs people, "Oh look, that's just how Hitler hugged people.". If Obama makes a joke about himself, "Oh look, what a narcissist".

Sure, Obama continued the same Bush policies, and in many cases, one-upped him, but I still can't get over the fact that it was Bush & Cheney who started all this.

Who do you hate more - Bush or Obama?

Then how does it make you feel that Obama (YOU, the TAXPAYER) is funding obama al qaeda? Just curious why anyone would suggest Obama may have a hint of worthiness, allowing your phones to be tapped, allowing invasion of our southern border, touchy, feeling chit on granny at the airport, drone strikes everywhere and anywhere, in the name of saving us from al qaeda when your tax dollars are funding it ... What about the Southern Border, where Homeland Security has opened the gates for terrorists and drug cartels to enter; while keeping border patrol busy, under gag orders, changing diapers ..

Obama is an extreme muslim terrorist ... How you can't see this, I will never know. George Bush is mentally retarded ... Obama is a Criminal Illegal Alien that should be in prison, along with his husband.

lib3rtarian
07-13-2014, 09:36 PM
Then how does it make you feel that Obama (YOU, the TAXPAYER) is funding obama al qaeda? Just curious why anyone would suggest Obama may have a hint of worthiness, allowing your phones to be tapped, allowing invasion of our southern border, touchy, feeling chit on granny at the airport, drone strikes everywhere and anywhere, in the name of saving us from al qaeda when your tax dollars are funding it ... What about the Southern Border, where Homeland Security has opened the gates for terrorists and drug cartels to enter; while keeping border patrol busy, under gag orders, changing diapers ..

Obama is an extreme muslim terrorist ... How you can't see this, I will never know. George Bush is mentally retarded ... Obama is a Criminal Illegal Alien that should be in prison, along with his husband.

I have no love for Obama, but there is very little that he is doing which Bush and Cheney already wasn't. Or to be precise, if Obama is being evil, Bush and Cheney wrote the manual for it.

As an example, in light of the recent crisis, it's bad enough that Obama sent off 300 "advisers" to die there, but what if it was Bush/Cheney? That number would be 3,000 or 30,000. At least Obama makes some pro forma talk about how we can't be always babysitting the Iraqis and how they should do more to keep their country together. Does the Bush/Cheney neocon wing know or say ANYTHING other than more military intervention? Problem in Nigeria? Send troops. Problem in Syria? Send troops. Problem in Iraq? Send troops.

kcchiefs6465
07-13-2014, 10:00 PM
I have no love for Obama, but there is very little that he is doing which Bush and Cheney already wasn't. Or to be precise, if Obama is being evil, Bush and Cheney wrote the manual for it.

As an example, in light of the recent crisis, it's bad enough that Obama sent off 300 "advisers" to die there, but what if it was Bush/Cheney? That number would be 3,000 or 30,000. At least Obama makes some pro forma talk about how we can't be always babysitting the Iraqis and how they should do more to keep their country together. Does the Bush/Cheney neocon wing know or say ANYTHING other than more military intervention? Problem in Nigeria? Send troops. Problem in Syria? Send troops. Problem in Iraq? Send troops.
The 300 figure is a joke. It was upped to 1,000 last I heard, but regardless that too is a joke. JSOC and mercenaries will be operating out of Iraq for decades to come (unless their checks start bouncing). Thousands of them. The CIA is there as well.

They operate the way they do, and Obama knows this, to one, be able to legitimately lie to the people on the number of troops there and two, to escape Congressional oversight. They have bastardized the meaning of "preparing the battle space" and using absurd precedent operate under a different Title of the US Code (precisely for the two previous reasons I mentioned). Yes, Dick Cheney largely vamped up (and what a suiting word for the occasion) this tactic but nonetheless, Barack Obama understands it and has used it quite extensively. The list of countries American forces, troops or otherwise, are in, probably, or rather, in all certainty, outnumbers the ones they aren't in.

This didn't start with Bush.



WITHIN THE US LAWS governing military and intelligence operations, there are gray areas. Title 50 of the US code, or federal law, sets out the rules and structures for intelligence operations, while Title 10 covers military actions. The code under which a particular operation is performed has serious implications for oversight and accountability. The terms “covert” action and “clandestine” operations are often thrown around as though they mean the same thing. They do not. “Covert action” is a doctrinal and legal term that, broadly speaking, refers to an activity whose sponsorship is meant to be a secret. It is meant to provide the United States with “plausible deniability.” Such operations are extremely risky—not just in terms of the operational danger, but because they often involve secret US agents conducting operations inside the borders of a sovereign country without alerting its government. If the operation is exposed or disrupted, the potential for scandal is very real. The legal definition of covert action, according to Title 50, is “An activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly.” A covert action requires a presidential finding and for the White House to brief the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on its contents. This briefing must occur before the covert action unless there are “extraordinary circumstances.” The requirements for congressional involvement were established to prevent scandals such as the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and Iran-Contra. Those operations were passionately supported by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Although they no doubt regretted the fact that Iran-Contra became public and stirred controversy, they did not regard the operation itself as a scandal but rather as a model for how the United States should conduct its dirty business.

Military doctrine defines another class of activities, “clandestine operations,” in which the point of secrecy is to protect the integrity of the mission, not to conceal its sponsor, the US government. The military may conduct operations that are both covert and clandestine, but these are rare. Unlike covert actions, clandestine operations do not require a presidential finding if “future hostilities” are “anticipated” in the country where they are taking place. Nor is the administration required to report the operation to Congress. Such operations are defined as “Traditional Military Activities” and offer the intelligence committees no real-time oversight rights. Under US law, the military is not required to disclose the specific actions of an operation, but the US role in the “overall operation” should be “apparent” or eventually “acknowledged.”

Jeremy Scahill. Dirty Wars (Kindle Locations 1951-1971). Nation Books.

lib3rtarian
07-13-2014, 10:09 PM
The 300 figure is a joke. It was upped to 1,000 last I heard, but regardless that too is a joke. JSOC and mercenaries will be operating out of Iraq for decades to come (unless their checks start bouncing). Thousands of them. The CIA is there as well.

They operate the way they do, and Obama knows this, to one, be able to legitimately lie to the people on the number of troops there and two, to escape Congressional oversight. They have bastardized the meaning of "preparing the battle space" and using absurd precedent operate under a different Title of the US Code (precisely for the two previous reasons I mentioned). Yes, Dick Cheney largely vamped up (and what a suiting word for the occasion) this tactic but nonetheless, Barack Obama understands it and has used it quite extensively. The list of countries American forces, troops or otherwise, are in, probably, or rather, in all certainty, outnumbers the ones they aren't in.

This didn't start with Bush.

Obama is no saint and he makes sweet talk and does stuff behind our backs. I get it. But when you have Obama AT LEAST paying lip service to the idea of a more restrained FP, and Cheney advocating to put our already messed up FP on steroids, how do you not get more angry towards the latter?

kcchiefs6465
07-13-2014, 10:24 PM
Obama is no saint and he makes sweet talk and does stuff behind our backs. I get it. But when you have Obama AT LEAST paying lip service to the idea of a more restrained FP, and Cheney advocating to put our already messed up FP on steroids, how do you not get more angry towards the latter?
They are both war criminals and should be tried as such.

Give them the old RICO charges. They can sit on the same bench.

Who is better, who is worse? I just don't much think about it that way.

Dianne
07-15-2014, 07:46 PM
Then how does it make you feel that Obama (YOU, the TAXPAYER) is funding obama al qaeda? Just curious why anyone would suggest Obama may have a hint of worthiness, allowing your phones to be tapped, allowing invasion of our southern border, touchy, feeling chit on granny at the airport, drone strikes everywhere and anywhere, in the name of saving us from al qaeda when your tax dollars are funding it ... What about the Southern Border, where Homeland Security has opened the gates for terrorists and drug cartels to enter; while keeping border patrol busy, under gag orders, changing diapers ..

Obama is an extreme muslim terrorist ... How you can't see this, I will never know. George Bush is mentally retarded ... Obama is a Criminal Illegal Alien that should be in prison, along with his husband.

Wow, what did I miss? I think Obama is the worst terrorist that ever hit the U.S. shores. Obama doesn't have one iota of wothiness in him.. What did I say to make you think that?

Dianne
07-15-2014, 07:48 PM
They are both war criminals and should be tried as such.

Give them the old RICO charges. They can sit on the same bench.

Who is better, who is worse? I just don't much think about it that way.

Peeps must begin to demand justice !!! Bush/Bush/Clinton/Obama/Cheney should all be in prison, in my view... Liars, cheats, mafia, crime bosses, drug dealers, first degree murderers ... You name it, they are guilty and should all be enjoying three hots and a cot for the rest of their pitiful, filthy, sickening lives.

GunnyFreedom
07-15-2014, 07:55 PM
Obama is no saint and he makes sweet talk and does stuff behind our backs. I get it. But when you have Obama AT LEAST paying lip service to the idea of a more restrained FP, and Cheney advocating to put our already messed up FP on steroids, how do you not get more angry towards the latter?

So we should prefer the bigger liar because his lies sound nicer?

lib3rtarian
07-15-2014, 08:31 PM
So we should prefer the bigger liar because his lies sound nicer?

I am talking only about FP here. I believe Obama's response to the Iraq crisis is better than what it would have been under Bush/Cheney. Obama's response here is more in line with Rand's than with the GOP hawks. Or do you disagree with that?

GunnyFreedom
07-15-2014, 08:33 PM
I am talking only about FP here. I believe Obama's response to the Iraq crisis is better than what it would have been under Bush/Cheney. Obama's response here is more in line with Rand's than with the GOP hawks. Or do you disagree with that?

Dude is considering re-invading the country.

lib3rtarian
07-15-2014, 08:50 PM
Dude is considering re-invading the country.

Obama? Where do you see that? While he might slip in a few "advisers", I don't think Obama is crazy enough to do a full scale re-invasion of Iraq. His base doesn't want it, the country doesn't want it, except for the Establishment cronies. Because if there is one thing Obama cares about, it is that he will do the popular thing. Now Cheney, if he had any shame, he wouldn't show his face in public after the Iraq War debacle, but since he is back and nuttier than ever, I am convinced that either he is mentally ill and truly believes he is right, or he is really evil and wants permanent war. Either way, he would have launched a full scale re-invasion of Iraq even if 99% of the country said 'no' in the polls. So Obama > Cheney.

Feelgood
07-15-2014, 09:05 PM
http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/art/d/3591-1/gwobama.gif

GunnyFreedom
07-15-2014, 09:07 PM
Obama? Where do you see that? While he might slip in a few "advisers", I don't think Obama is crazy enough to do a full scale re-invasion of Iraq. His base doesn't want it, the country doesn't want it, except for the Establishment cronies. Because if there is one thing Obama cares about, it is that he will do the popular thing. Now Cheney, if he had any shame, he wouldn't show his face in public after the Iraq War debacle, but since he is back and nuttier than ever, I am convinced that either he is mentally ill and truly believes he is right, or he is really evil and wants permanent war. Either way, he would have launched a full scale re-invasion of Iraq even if 99% of the country said 'no' in the polls. So Obama > Cheney.

You have a lot of faith in the word of a man who has never told the truth in his life. As for me, I haven't drunk either flavor of the koolaid and I'm not about to.

GunnyFreedom
07-15-2014, 09:10 PM
Let's invade 2 nations and bomb 4 right out in the open vs lets invade 4 countries and bomb 8 all up in secret. Yeah, I'm not finding any real benefit to the second choice to recommend it to me over the first.

acptulsa
07-15-2014, 09:19 PM
Let's invade 2 nations and bomb 4 right out in the open vs lets invade 4 countries and bomb 8 all up in secret. Yeah, I'm not finding any real benefit to the second choice to recommend it to me over the first.

It has been my experience that the overtly evil individual is always less dangerous than the equally evil individual with a talent for fooling people into believing he's a good guy.

Of course, Dubya would have remained pretty good at fooling people that way if he had only kept Cheney locked up in the closet where he spent 2001-2002...

GunnyFreedom
07-15-2014, 09:34 PM
It has been my experience that the overtly evil individual is always less dangerous than the equally evil individual with a talent for fooling people into believing he's a good guy.

Of course, Dubya would have remained pretty good at fooling people that way if he had only kept Cheney locked up in the closet where he spent 2001-2002...

Yeah, I'd rather see what the guy was doing to me than to have it sneak up and bite me in the rear. Doesn't mean I prefer W's either. He forged all the tools that Ohbombya is now using against us. Do I want another W to forge more tools, or another O to abuse the hell out of them?

Do I want to be shot in the head or in the heart?

"Neither" for a dollar please. None of the above, in fact. They both feed off of each other and are equally wrong in their own way.

GunnyFreedom
07-15-2014, 09:40 PM
You have a good point that the kind of evil that deceives people into seeming good, is particularly evil. I don't think we need examples of the unrejected messiahhood of the O doing that as that is his basic MO and most everybody recognizes it.

http://img2u.info/img/gb3a2320c.jpg

http://www.gop.com/act/i-miss-george-w-bush-t-shirt-43

http://img2u.info/img/ge4a17079.jpg

GunnyFreedom
07-15-2014, 09:45 PM
I guess what I'm saying is even acknowledging that the worst part is how they deceive people, there is still not enough there to really recommend one team over the other. To judge better or worse here I would have to ask "who violated the Constitution more?"

Bush opened nearly all of the doors; and then Obama ran down the aisles of the China Shop in a BEARCAT. Who disrespected the Constitution more? Seems to me they share an equal burden here.

kcchiefs6465
07-15-2014, 11:52 PM
Obama? Where do you see that? While he might slip in a few "advisers", I don't think Obama is crazy enough to do a full scale re-invasion of Iraq. His base doesn't want it, the country doesn't want it, except for the Establishment cronies. Because if there is one thing Obama cares about, it is that he will do the popular thing. Now Cheney, if he had any shame, he wouldn't show his face in public after the Iraq War debacle, but since he is back and nuttier than ever, I am convinced that either he is mentally ill and truly believes he is right, or he is really evil and wants permanent war. Either way, he would have launched a full scale re-invasion of Iraq even if 99% of the country said 'no' in the polls. So Obama > Cheney.
Obama has normalized the policies of Bush and Cheney et. al. He has expanded many of them. From assassinating American citizens, to his drone program, to signature strikes, to the use of Title 50 rather than Title 10 with regards to JSOC and their ever expanding endeavors into torture, assassination and regime change.

He isn't better. If anything he's worse. But I despise neoconservatives and the war mongering pigs so much that I cannot possibly say that. Besides, the sorts of evil these particular individuals are responsible for really need not be compared. It is atrocious how they joke and laugh, lavishly living and squandering wealth. They ought be tried, together, at the Hague.

KingNothing
07-16-2014, 11:14 AM
Boy, I don't know. There's just so much to hate about both. On one hand, Bush ruined conservatism, handed oodles of money to entrenched corporations and banks and started wars that have destroyed millions of lives and wasted trillions of dollars. On the other hand, Obama ruined liberalism, handed oodles of money to entrenched corporations and banks, continued the wars though on a slightly smaller scale, killed an American without trial, and brought in Obamacare, the worst piece of economic legislation in American history.

It amounts to a distinction without a difference.

I'd have to say that Obama is a more colossally terrible president, but only because he had the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of giant.

KingNothing
07-16-2014, 11:22 AM
Obama has normalized the policies of Bush and Cheney et. al. He has expanded many of them. From assassinating American citizens, to his drone program, to signature strikes, to the use of Title 50 rather than Title 10 with regards to JSOC and their ever expanding endeavors into torture, assassination and regime change.

He isn't better. If anything he's worse. But I despise neoconservatives and the war mongering pigs so much that I cannot possibly say that. Besides, the sorts of evil these particular individuals are responsible for really need not be compared. It is atrocious how they joke and laugh, lavishly living and squandering wealth. They ought be tried, together, at the Hague.

I tend to agree with you, though imagine a situation in which Obama were president prior to Bush. Do you think Obama wouldn't have gone to war in Afghanistan, and attempted to nation-build? He certainly would have. Would he have gone to war in Iraq? That might be debateable. My guess is that he would have continued the attacks of Clinton, and attempted to nation-build in other middle eastern, african, and central Asian nations. You know he would have unflinchingly used and abused the Patriot Act. You know nothing would be different with the NSA, torture, Gitmo, etc. You know we'd have Obamacare.

And if Bush came later, do you think he would have put an end to the nation building? No way. Do you think he would have undid Obamacare? No way. He pushed for Medicare Part D. Would he have done anything different with the domestic spying? Would he have cared about the Bill of Rights?

If you swap their time in office, I don't know how much different things would be now. Saddam might still be alive, but Assad and others might not be. As a matter of policy, there'd be no fundamental change. The details of how it were put into action might be somewhat different, but in aggregate, America would be in the same position, and I think that statement is accurate if we'd had 16 years of Bush or 16 years of Obama.

Anti Federalist
07-16-2014, 01:59 PM
I won't waste my hate on pointless puppets.

Hate the puppet-masters.

kcchiefs6465
07-16-2014, 07:22 PM
I won't waste my hate on pointless puppets.

Hate the puppet-masters.
The culpable are culpable.

Fuck em all.

Slave Mentality
07-18-2014, 10:31 AM
Like others, I don't like to put it all on the head puppet. Just a useful idiot in a suit with a security detail.

I could not vote in the poll because Bush + Obama= HillaryJeb

69360
07-18-2014, 07:37 PM
I don't hate Bush.

DamianTV
07-21-2014, 03:29 AM
Where is the choice to hate those who pull BOTH their strings? They are chess pieces, not players.

RonPaulIsGreat
07-21-2014, 10:40 PM
I love em both. They are/were the best candidates to run the country into the ground. If more respectable people had be elected I'd be far to old to survive the economic collapse and upcoming Armageddon as probably would take 20 years longer. Now, just need Hillary in 2016, and you can retreat to your bunkers, and prepare chaos.

It should stabilize in a decade, and then can grow old in relative peace.

lilymc
07-21-2014, 10:51 PM
I just can't decide between evilist and evilist-er. :-/

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I can't decide, so I'll just add this silly video.... speaking of puppets. :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTadWxkRDXw

acptulsa
07-22-2014, 12:13 AM
Do you think Obama wouldn't have gone to war in Afghanistan, and attempted to nation-build? He certainly would have. Would he have gone to war in Iraq? That might be debateable (sic).

Of course he would have. Hussein was going off the petrodollar. You seem to be missing a point. The strings are pulled. What difference does it make what the puppet's name is? Hussein tried to deny the petrodollar and he went down.

This:


I won't waste my hate on pointless puppets.

Hate the puppet-masters.

Peach
07-29-2014, 09:49 AM
The American people supported the policies that Bush and Obama support. Aslong as the American people is statist hating individual politicians will not make any difference since their replacements will also be statist. The road to liberty is in convincing our brothers and sisters to believe in liberty. I don't hate Bush or Obama and neither should you, they're only human beings with political views shared by millions of Americans.

Natural Citizen
07-29-2014, 10:01 AM
The American people supported the policies that Bush and Obama support. Aslong as the American people is statist hating individual politicians will not make any difference since their replacements will also be statist. The road to liberty is in convincing our brothers and sisters to believe in liberty. I don't hate Bush or Obama and neither should you, they're only human beings with political views shared by millions of Americans.

This is true. As well, hate is such a strong word. Is also contradictory when we see that many people continue to support those who would continue implementing the policies in which they have established during their service. Unfortunately, this is the nature of the beast in the two party system. Everyone claims to be about changing things just to hurry up and get elected but do nothing in terms of changing the course of history once they're in. Even the more popular and so called "libertarian" leaning candidates remain loyal to espousing establishment rhetoric as they continue to grow comfortable in the atmoshpere of the mainstream media where most of the interference is run for the establishment parties and interests. Hopefully one day in the future speaking of changing the course of history will be as important as just trying to hurry up and get elected. I think that the day is approaching as we continue to see a mass/global migration from mainstream middlemen doing the asking and people are starting to get the facts directly from the ground. This renders the interference and grandstanding useless. But you're right. The people will always get what they ask for. Every time. Even if they don't truly understand what it is that they are fooled into asking. You know? We ask, you decide and all of that?

Heck, there really is very little difference in Obama and Bush.

jllundqu
07-29-2014, 10:08 AM
Truthfully, I never imagined in my wildest dreams I would hate anyone more than George Bush. I even told my son in 2007; no way Obama could be a worse President ... Man was I ever wrong.. I fell for the kewl daddy, soul man from whence know one knows of his origin ... I loved his transparent government, lol ... As a civil rights activist since the 1970's, I loved seeing a man of color emerge as President ... I know now his entire presidency was built on lies ... The biggest joke ever perpetrated upon the American people to prove just how ignorant we are... Would you have ever imagined in your lifetime, a gay black man from somewhere (no one really knows where), emerging to become President of the United States married to a Transvestite? I'm not a homophobe, but I point out just how dumb the electorate is to vote for someone they don't know chit about ... We have a President and a First Transy, from where I have no clue. All I know is the ODD Couple is here to harm the country, and there are no more than five in the Congress with any balls to stop them.

That's the first I've heard of the gay/tranny reference. Got any sources?

Saint Vitus
07-29-2014, 10:10 AM
From reading the thread it seems like the consensus is that the president doesn't matter because the puppet masters behind the scenes are really in control. So why do you people think that putting "our" candidate in charge will make a difference?

As much as I despise Obama, at least he has shown some restraint in foreign policy. If Bush was still in charge, I have no doubt we would be knee-deep in Persian blood right now. There are few people alive I hate worse than mass-murdering psychopath, George W. Bush.

Natural Citizen
07-29-2014, 10:14 AM
From reading the thread it seems like the consensus is that the president doesn't matter because of the puppet masters behind the scenes are really in control. So why do you people think that putting "our" candidate in charge will make a difference?

Haven't yet determind who is "us" exactly yet. :cool:


It seems to me that we're just being stimulated to run interference for the establishment in order to benefit the GOP as a whole. Much different phenomenon now that the statesman is no longer running. We see more establishment party folks playing the role of "us" but I don't buy it. Especially when we continue to hear the same old tired establishment party rhetoric. The old "Oh, that's just a lil game we're playing" is also tired and transparent.

The world is on fire and we want to play "games" instead of providing an honest and transparent assessment relevant to our understanding of geopolitical scope. This says one of two things.

There is something to be said for lower level projects and getting elected at the local level but on the larger front, I think it's just a matter of keeping the two party system fighting over who gets to crack the whip on the people.

jllundqu
07-29-2014, 10:16 AM
Haven't yet determind whi is "us" exactly yet. :cool:


It seems to me that we're just running interference for the establishment in order to benefit the GOP as a whole. Much different phenomenon now that the statesman is no longer running. We see more establishment party folks playing the role of "us" but I don't buy it. Espoecially when we continue to hear the same old tired establishment party rhetoric. The old "Oh, that's just a lil game we're playing" is also tired and transparent.

Agreed! Once again... I don't see youtube videos with millions of hits for Rand. I don't see "Rand Paul cured my Apathy" TShirts.

Ron > Rand :(

jbauer
07-29-2014, 01:54 PM
We didn't start the fire?


Then how does it make you feel that Obama (YOU, the TAXPAYER) is funding obama al qaeda? Just curious why anyone would suggest Obama may have a hint of worthiness, allowing your phones to be tapped, allowing invasion of our southern border, touchy, feeling chit on granny at the airport, drone strikes everywhere and anywhere, in the name of saving us from al qaeda when your tax dollars are funding it ... What about the Southern Border, where Homeland Security has opened the gates for terrorists and drug cartels to enter; while keeping border patrol busy, under gag orders, changing diapers ..

Obama is an extreme muslim terrorist ... How you can't see this, I will never know. George Bush is mentally retarded ... Obama is a Criminal Illegal Alien that should be in prison, along with his husband.

William Tell
07-29-2014, 02:03 PM
Can't stand either.

Christian Liberty
07-29-2014, 09:00 PM
Why waste my hate on an ex-president and a lame duck? The poll should be "Who do you hate more? Chris Christie or Hillary Clinton?" And frankly I don't hate anyway. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers and spiritual wickedness in high places."

I understand that this is the correct position, but I do hate scumbags that murder hundreds of thousands and destroy our liberty. I guess its just one of those Romans 3:23 flaws.


So we should prefer the bigger liar because his lies sound nicer?

I think Obama's a touch more moderate on foreign policy. Its a hair, it really is, but if you're going to rank establishment loons, you kind of have to rank based on hairs.

Its not a significant difference, it really isn't. I would never have oted for either. But if you put a gun to my head, I'd take a third term of Obama over a third term of Bush. I think the latter would be more likely to start a war with Iran, and when both options suck for us domestically, I'm going to marginally prefer the option that will kill less foreigners. Of course, I' rather see them both treid and executed for murder, but if I have to pick between the two, I'm saying Obama is a touch less bad than Bush. That may be partially because I'm personally sick of conservative drones actually thinking Bush is a good President. I'm not exposed to the liberal drones as often being in evangelical circles. And I hold Christians far more accountable for who they support and what they believe than non-Christians.

William Tell
07-29-2014, 09:06 PM
I understand that this is the correct position, but I do hate scumbags that murder hundreds of thousands and destroy our liberty. I guess its just one of those Romans 3:23 flaws.



I think Obama's a touch more moderate on foreign policy. Its a hair, it really is, but if you're going to rank establishment loons, you kind of have to rank based on hairs.

Its not a significant difference, it really isn't. I would never have oted for either. But if you put a gun to my head, I'd take a third term of Obama over a third term of Bush. I think the latter would be more likely to start a war with Iran, and when both options suck for us domestically, I'm going to marginally prefer the option that will kill less foreigners. Of course, I' rather see them both treid and executed for murder, but if I have to pick between the two, I'm saying Obama is a touch less bad than Bush. That may be partially because I'm personally sick of conservative drones actually thinking Bush is a good President. I'm not exposed to the liberal drones as often being in evangelical circles. And I hold Christians far more accountable for who they support and what they believe than non-Christians.

I think if Dick Cheney was mentioned, more here would prefer Biden over him. With Bush, you get his whole NeoCon cabinet. Granted Holder and Obama's other people are bad.