Geoffy: On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Geoff <[email protected]> wrote: > And for you... > > How many constitutions have you ignored (warrantless tapping)?
None. But Obama has Bush beat in that department by a long shot (continued warrantless tapping, health insurance mandate, special tax arrangements for political supporters vs. everyone else, special treatment for states of senators that vote for certain legislative initiatives, nationalizing several industries with no Constitutional authority whatsoever, etc.) > How many countries did u invade for false reasoning? It wasn't his reasoning that was flawed (even the vast majority of Democrats agreed with the reasoning and voted for it) but the data on the ground. He could have blamed (with some cause) "the failed intelligence policies of the past eight years" for the failure, but he did not. He actually has testicles, unlike the current occupant of the office. > How many men did u deny the right to due process? To whom did Bush deny due process? If you are referring to enemy combatants, sorry, but the due-process rights of U.S. citizens do not apply to them. > How many global recessions (and near depression) did you cause? Same as Bush, zero. You have yet to provide any evidence for your assertion that his "deregulation" caused it, and you've not once addressed the evidence I have provided that in fact he was trying to deal with the then merely potential problem in 2005, but was unable to do so because of Democratic obstructionism. We also know that the most important of Bush's Fed picks have been subsequently endorsed if not promoted by Obama. > How many elections did you cheat in? Same as Bush, zero. We also know that Obama was a trainer of ACORN, which used thuggery to force banks to lend to the subprime market under the guise of the Community Re-Investment Act, a pet policy of Democrats (who lavish money on ACORN despite its rampant voter registration fraud) that is the root cause of the market failure. BTW, do you happen to recall the US unemployment rate when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006? I didn't think so. 4.6%. Statistical full employment. - Publius > > Bush will be judged harshly by history and nearly everybody (except you ) > understands it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Publius Maximus > Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2010 12:52 PM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: [OT] "America Betrayed President Bush" > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Geoff <[email protected]> wrote: >> Actually, I am quite capable of having my own opinions AND expressing them >> with brevity (you should try it some time). > > Brevity I concede ... mainly because you dodge questions, ignore > factual refutations, and repeat the same stupid arguments. To wit, > > "You're a paranoid psychotic" > "Nobody on earth thinks like you." > "You are an ignorant boob." > "OK, you are a well-read and learned ignorant boob." > "The majority is on my side." > "Bush is an idiot." > > But independent thought (I won't even mention wit) you have > demonstrated precisely ... none. > >> Bush is/was/remains an idiot. > > And he's still demonstrably smarter than you, and has done more than > you'll ever be remembered for. > > How many dictators have you overthrown? > > To how many Muslim men (and women!) have you given the right to vote? > > How much aid to HIV victims in Africa have you given? > > We know the answer to all these questions. > > - Publius > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of Publius Maximus >> Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2010 8:41 AM >> To: ProFox Email List >> Subject: Re: [OT] "America Betrayed President Bush" >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 4:28 PM, geoff <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Your fawning admiration for one of the biggest idiots of our time is >> truly >>> vomitous. >> >> Please. My admiration is not fawning -- again, I've been critical, >> particularly of his reckless spending (which looks tightwad compared >> the new improved Hope & Change version of the same), and grown >> doubtful of building "democracy" at home lately, much less abroad. >> >> I agree with the gist of the article, in that I think Bush was the >> object of one of the most massive, coordinated political character >> assassinations in recent memory, a propaganda coup that resulted in >> our electing an actual ideological moron. >> >> Looking at what Obama is actually doing reveals nothing more than Bush >> Lite--- that I also agree with, at least on the surface of his foreign >> policy, the part he really doesn't give 2 shits about, i.e., the war >> on terror. He's very different than Bush in his support of communist >> thugs in South America. Otherwise, he's executing the war with much >> the same strategy, even for all of the bogus ballyhoo about having >> thought about it very hard. >> >> The article was written by a former aid of Sen. Kerry, in case you >> didn't notice. >> >> (Of course you didn't. You're Geoff. You only regurgitate the popular >> opinions of others.) >> >> - Publius >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf >>> Of Publius Maximus >>> Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2010 6:47 AM >>> To: ProFox Email List >>> Subject: [OT] "America Betrayed President Bush" >>> >>> http://bit.ly/7OI42g >>> >>> - - - >>> In addition to enduring criticism for his war policies, millions of >>> Americans demanded the new Obama administration prosecute Bush for his >>> decision to indefinitely holding detainees charged with war crimes. >>> When President Obama signed an executive order in May that reinforced >>> that same Bush policy, the far left was mute. >>> >>> Almost no one said a word. Apparently, its acceptable for Obama to >>> indefinitely hold detainees, just not Bush. >>> >>> As Obama continues to make decisions that mirror the Bush doctrine, it >>> is becoming apparent that the former president was not ignorant or >>> irrational in his foreign policy decisions despite the harsh criticism >>> and disloyalty he endured. He was in fact, ahead of his time, a >>> visionary who understood politics and warfare in the modern age of >>> terrorism. >>> >>> That is why Obama is now following his lead. >>> >>> It should be obvious now, even to Obama's most passionate supporters >>> that shielding the free world requires more than mere words like >>> "hope" and "change." Bush's detractors should be embarrassed having >>> arrogantly thought they could do it better, and those Republicans who >>> abandoned Bush when he needed them most should take a moment to >>> reflect on their fortitude or lack thereof. >>> >>> Americans who chastised President Bush for removing Saddam Hussein >>> from power in Iraq should apologize and show him the same respect they >>> are now showing President Obama as he neutralizes the Taliban in >>> Afghanistan. >>> >>> George W. Bush seemed to have an almost mystical understanding of what >>> the American people needed when we needed it most. He reminded all of >>> us of why we should be proud to be Americans at a time when there was >>> a whisper that we brought the Sept. 11 attacks upon ourselves for >>> promoting democracy abroad. >>> >>> President Bush deserves our respect, not our betrayal. >>> - - - >>> >>> What is remarkable about these (obviously true) words -- insofar as >>> they point out the obvious similarities between Obama's all-purpose >>> whipping-pole, the "failed policies of the last eight years," and his >>> own -- is who said them: >>> >>> "Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a journalist and lawyer who served on >>> Senator John F. Kerry's legal team during the 2004 election." >>> >>> That's a big-time WOW if I ever saw one. >>> >>> - Publius >>> >>> -- >>> >>> "It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, >>> under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object >>> of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to >>> subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign >>> powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of >>> them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be >>> avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose >>> situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful >>> and vigilant performance of the trust." [Federalist Papers #59] >>> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
