"It's Unpatriotic"

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

PapaG

Banned User
BANNED
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
32,870
Likes
291
Points
0
If Bush "by his lonesome" increasing the debt by $4 trillion is "unpatriotic", then how do we label Obama "by his lonesome" adding $5 trillion more in 2.5 years?

[video=youtube;1kuTG19Cu_Q]



What a bozo. This ad writes itself.
 
I hate when people throw around "unpatriotic" or "patriotic" whenever they disagree with someone's opinion or actions
 
Give Obama a break. He probably doesn't even know the meaning of "unpatriotic," having never been a patriot himself.
 
Neither of our last two presidents has done a very good job leading our country. I think we can all agree on that. You can believe one has done a worse job than the other, but in the end neither has been good.
 
I hate when people throw around "unpatriotic" or "patriotic" whenever they disagree with someone's opinion or actions

It appeals to the lowest common denominator. I guarantee whoever the GOP runs as a candidate will turn this soundbite into a very effective add against Obama.

Not only does he call then President simply "Bush", not only does he call him "unpatriotic", but he has increased the debt more in 1/3 the time that the "unpatriotic Bush" did during his entire term. It's a triple whammy of disrepect, demonization, and incompetence rolled into a 30 second ad.
 
Neither of our last two presidents has done a very good job leading our country. I think we can all agree on that. You can believe one has done a worse job than the other, but in the end neither has been good.

The difference is that the current president, by his own definition, is unpatriotic. :)
 
obama sucks, but yall need to get someone worth voting for running against him

because thats what it boils down to
 
Again, when it comes to big talk about debt, it's hard to take you seriously when you were silent during the prior administration. It's apparently okay to run up debt when it's your guy, but not when the other party is in charge.

Call me crazy, but I could just about swear that this conversation has happened before on this forum (like maybe a hundred or so times?)
 
Neither of our last two presidents has done a very good job leading our country. I think we can all agree on that. You can believe one has done a worse job than the other, but in the end neither has been good.

I agree. We haven't had a competent president since Bush, Sr.
 
I agree. We haven't had a competent president since Bush, Sr.

he was a schill for the cia and the MIC

and then

clinton killed our long term industry with nafta and the like
bush jr ran us into the ground with wars to make his buddies rich
obama is digging deeper, and is more or less bush jr jr

id say reagan, but that would be a joke

and anyone else is before i was born, good times
 
he was a schill for the cia and the MIC

and then

clinton killed our long term industry with nafta and the like
bush jr ran us into the ground with wars to make his buddies rich
obama is digging deeper, and is more or less bush jr jr

id say reagan, but that would be a joke

and anyone else is before i was born, good times

To find a good president you have to go back to Washington, and even he caused deforestation with his indiscriminate ax usage.

barfo
 
not to mention his pollution of the delaware river, oil paint slicks killed numerous waterfowl i would guess
 
Again, when it comes to big talk about debt, it's hard to take you seriously when you were silent during the prior administration. It's apparently okay to run up debt when it's your guy, but not when the other party is in charge.

Call me crazy, but I could just about swear that this conversation has happened before on this forum (like maybe a hundred or so times?)

Is it hard to take Obama seriously, then? By his own words, he smears Dubya as being "unpatriotic" for adding $4 trillion to the debt, and then he turns around and adds $5 trillion more in 1/3 of the time?

Seems like your issue should be with Obama, and not with random posters on a message board.
 
Yep, I don't like the debt run up during any administration -- no doubt about it. That said, I think you're oversimplifying things a lot. As has been said (like maybe a hundred or so times?), Obama was sworn in during the worst economic times since the depression. When tax revenues go down, it's pretty much a given that the debt will go up because government spending historically does not slide up/down to match. Again, if the debt is such a big deal, why weren't you squawking when Bush ran up big debt in a strong economy. Surely you must have had a clue that big deficits in a strong economy would lead to even bigger deficits in a down economy? Obama inherited two wars that also impact the budget significantly. Blah blah blah.

We can both go on and on forever about the past and whine like little school girls, solutions would be a much better use of everyone's energy. Start cutting entitlements, specific ideas about restructuring the tax system (as I've said before, does anyone think it's so perfect that it shouldn't be touched?), etc. I'd love to start hearing more about solutions that take the concerns of both parties and attempt to find middle ground that puts us all in a better place.

Lol -- or maybe we should ask admins to merge every single last budget thread, which would reduce the number of of OT Forum threads by 30-40%.
 
It was the worst economic times since the S&L bailouts.

Never let a good crisis go to waste! Politics of fear! We have nothing to offer but fear itself. &c
 
We can debate which crisis was bigger all day long, but our schlong sizes won't increase an inch. We can also talk about utilizing fear as a presidential tactic all day long (obviously, Bush was no slouch on that front.) If it doesn't increase dicksize or decrease the deficit, I don't want to hear about it.

Lol -- just trying to stick to the important stuff. Breast size too -- I'm willing to listen to novel methods of accomplishing that. On women. Not men.
 
Yeah, bush played the fear card, but 3000 people were killed and politicians of both parties took advantage.

An excerpt of Cheney's new book that I saw makes the claim, no, repeats the claim that top democrats were not only informed of interrogation and spying techniques, they urged that we do more and keep the knowledge of those programs from the rest of congress.

And while people cry hypocrisy over silence during deficits and alarm over obama's, he's raised civil liberties violations to new heights. See the TSA, for one, and the indescriminant summary execution of suspected terrorists from drones and in a nation that's supposed to be an ally. Or Gitmo is still open, but the silence from it's critics is deafening.

Fwiw, I was posting in the bush years about how he and republicans increased spending across the board... To unreasonable levels for the nation's income.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top