Quit picking on Obama……

RanchHand

Electoral Member
Feb 22, 2009
209
8
18
USA
RanchHand, the reason there was so much rancor with Bush is that Democrats feel, rightly or wrongly, that Bush stole the 2000 election. Gore got more votes than Bush; the recount in Florida was under way.

Then the Republican majority on Supreme Court ordered the recount stopped, effectively giving the election to another Republican, Bush. The vote was 5 to 4, All Republican justices voting one way, all Democratic justices voting the other.

The whole thing stunck to high heaven as far as Democrats were concerned. In his speech after SC decision, Gore did tell Democrats to forgive and forget and to move on. Again, to his credit, he was not bitter, he moved on, and went on to win the Nobel Prize. He probably came out ahead by losing the election.

The Democrats on the other hand, never forgave Bush for stealing the election. And this included Democratic voters as well, not just Democratic politicians. Also, Bush was not interested in bipartisanship. He, along with Carl Rowe decided to become the President of 50%+1 people from day one. Indeed, that was the strategy of Carl Rowe, divide and conquer. His strategy was to keep 50%+1 Americans happy and hang the rest.

And it worked; Bush won in 2004 by a narrow margin. So neither Bush nor the Democrats were interested in reaching across the isle. Whatever rancor was there, I think Bush was largely responsible for that, with his antics.

With Obama, it is different. He won the election convincingly, struck a bipartisan note right from the beginning, he kept some Bush appointees on, included some Republicans in his cabinet. So it is only the rabid right wingers who have a visceral hatred for him, the rest of the American electorate is willing to wait and see how he performs.

In hind sight they would have been better off had they flipped a coin when millions of votes seperate two candidates by hundreds or a few thousand. I recall that the Miami Herald went through a re-count exercise of some sort and determined that Bush had won.

"The unspoken truth of the 2000 election dispute in Florida is always ignored by the left: Gore never led; not on election night, not after any statewide recount, not after adding the votes from county hand recounts, and not even in the exhaustive statewide post—election recounts conducted by the major state and national newspapers (in almost all of which Bush wound up ahead when any consistent method of counting was used.) Pick your method of counting chads, and it doesn't matter. Bush won. "

American Thinker: The Myth of the Stolen Election
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
RanchHand, American Thinker is hardly an unbiased source. It is one of the most right wing websites around, comparable to WorldNetdaily or TownHall. I wouldn’t believe American Thinker if it tells me that sun rises in the east. It has to be confirmed by an independent source before I will believe that. So American Thinker has zero credibility with me.

I personally don’t know what the right solution was to the 2000 election. Gore did get more votes than Bush, but technically Bush had won. However, there were plenty of questions, plenty of irregularities about Florida election. So I don’t know what the solution was. However, what happened (Republicans in the Supreme Court, by a politically partisan 5 to 4 vote gave the election to a Republican) was the worst possible solution; it poisoned the political climate in USA for the next eight years.

It also gave the Supreme Court a bloody eye. So much so that Chief Justice, Rehnquist, found it necessary to deny that there was any politics involved. He denied it himself, and he sent his surrogate, Justice Clarence Thomas to deny it. Justice Thomas also denied it. It is unprecedented for Supreme Court Justices to comment on the decisions they hand down.

However, Rehnquist probably realized that what Supreme Court did looked bad, so he felt it necessary to do some damage control.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Whenever I have written anything about Bush, I usually get red rep points.

I'm curious to know: when any of you of the right wing criticize Obama, do you get any reds??
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Whenever I have written anything about Bush, I usually get red rep points.

I'm curious to know: when any of you of the right wing criticize Obama, do you get any reds??

I don't give red points but, if I did, I would give them to you simply because nobody cares and you really need to shut the hell up. Bush is done. You really need to move on. Your pedantic whining about him is incredibly tiresome. I mean, good gawd you've just finally changed your signature where you mentioned Reagan. He hasn't been Prez for twenty frickin years. Perhaps if you stuck to current events and stopped pouting like some pissed off woman holding a grudge, people wouldn't be giving you red points.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,665
113
Northern Ontario,
Whenever I have written anything about Bush, I usually get red rep points.

I'm curious to know: when any of you of the right wing criticize Obama, do you get any reds??
In all the time I've been here I only gave one red rep to someone............but that's another story............:lol::sleepy2:
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,843
92
48
Give the guy a break

DaSleeper, if you are saying that to the left wing, you are whistling in the wind. Left and far left have a visceral hatred of Bush. They decided long time ago that he is a terrorist, a Fascist, and so on. He has been compared to Mussolini, to Franco, to Hitler, to practically every dictator imaginable. To my knowledge, no far left columnist has compared him to Mao, but give them time.

So, according to far left everything that happens is Bush’s fault. They started blaming Bush for the economic downturn, even before he took office, right after he was elected (well, perhaps even before that, left wingers were saying that as a candidate, Bush talked the economy down to get elected).

Left and far left has blamed everything on Bush. They haven’t yet blamed the Cole disaster, assassination attempt on Reagan and dot com meltdown on Bush but again, give them time.

So if your message was directed to left and far left, it is wasted, Bush gets no break as far as they are concerned (their attitude was loudly and proudly proclaimed by the drug addicts, enter actors of your choice).

The left and far left on the other hand, will be satisfied with nothing less that arresting Bush and putting him in prison.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
Risus said the following, because he is a self-declared "genius":

"Actually, bush didn't have a brain, couldn't talk, couldn't think, etc etc...

Obama is too full of himself."

Bush was elected to the Presidency of the United States - TWICE!

And the "genius" Risus, obviously, can't think, can't write, doesn't have enough brains to use capital letter with proper nouns.

But fair if fair: he is right about Obama.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
Response #19.

Well, here we go again: Bush stole the 2000 election. He was given the Presidency by a Republican Supreme Court, allegedly. The truth is that it was an EVEN Supreme Court with Sandra O'Connor being the swing voter.

But even long before the election. Bush was constantly ridiculed by the predominanly left-wing press. The fact that Bush cleaned floor with Gore in two out three debates never made any difference.

Majority vote? So what? The law says that the Presidency goes to the candidate with the higher number of electoral votes. The brainless zombies who still bemoan this fact have absolutely no idea (obviously!) that in 1888 Grover Cleveland, who had 48.61% of the popular vote, yielding 168 EC votes, lost the Presidency to Benjamin Harrison who had 47.82% of the popular vote, but got 233 of the Electoral College votes.

But the real clincher that proves that these jealous zombies are nothing but poor and sore losers is the fact that if Gore had won either his own State (Tennesse) or the state of Bill Clinton (Arkansas), the votes in Florida would not even have been an issue at all. He lost both. I guess the people in these two states knew him best.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
At the same time, how about leaving Bush alone?

He left the office to which he was elected twice and served to the best of his ability with honour, with quiet dignity in spite of all the incoherent screeching and "Nya nya, goodby" from low-lifes who probably never voted previously in their lives and never will again.

It is also a safe bet that he will not go around the world bashing and apologizing for his country like Carter and Clinton. Neither Bush nor Cheney bad-mouthed and blamed their predecessors like Obama and Biden are doing day after day.

Bush is out of office and in the quiet anonimity of his ranch. It takes an exceptionally small mind to carry on and bad-mouth, with typical liberal malice, a man who has more honour and dignity in his little finger than any number of self-declared geniuses have in all their bed bug bitten bodies and empty skulls.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Give the guy a break

DaSleeper, if you are saying that to the left wing, you are whistling in the wind. Left and far left have a visceral hatred of Bush. They decided long time ago that he is a terrorist, a Fascist, and so on. He has been compared to Mussolini, to Franco, to Hitler, to practically every dictator imaginable. To my knowledge, no far left columnist has compared him to Mao, but give them time.

So, according to far left everything that happens is Bush’s fault. They started blaming Bush for the economic downturn, even before he took office, right after he was elected (well, perhaps even before that, left wingers were saying that as a candidate, Bush talked the economy down to get elected).

Left and far left has blamed everything on Bush. They haven’t yet blamed the Cole disaster, assassination attempt on Reagan and dot com meltdown on Bush but again, give them time.

So if your message was directed to left and far left, it is wasted, Bush gets no break as far as they are concerned (their attitude was loudly and proudly proclaimed by the drug addicts, enter actors of your choice).

The left and far left on the other hand, will be satisfied with nothing less that arresting Bush and putting him in prison.

Walter, I will say the same thing to you that I said to Yukon Jack a while ago in the canada.com forum.

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I am flattered. But surely you can be more original than that?
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
"They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I am flattered. But surely you can be more original than that?"

Another proverb would have been more appropriate then, just as it would be now:

"There is none so blind as he who will not see".
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
The truth is that it was an EVEN Supreme Court with Sandra O'Connor being the swing voter.

Wrong, Yukon Jack. Sandra O’Connor was a Republican, she was a Reagan appointee. And she voted to give the presidency to Bush, big surprise there.

The fact that Bush cleaned floor with Gore in two out three debates never made any difference.

Wrong again. According to opinion polls, Gore won the debates.

No matter how you color it, it was a partisan apolitical decision by the Supreme Court that gave Bush the presidency. And that really set the stage for the following eight years. Bush managed to split the country right down the middle. It was the classic Carl Rowe strategy, divide and conquer (and it worked, for Bush anyway).
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
"No matter how you color it, it was a partisan apolitical decision by the Supreme Court that gave Bush the presidency."

Definition of the word: "apolitical": 'Having repugnance for, or disinterest in, politics, with no involvement. Having no interest, politically'.

So, you are right: it was an "apolitical" decicion. That is what I tried to say to you all along.

Seems like you are still not prepared to give a counter argument (heaven knows you have avoided it forever) regarding Gore's pathetic inability to win his own state, which would have made the entire Florida fiasco immaterial.

So, no matter how you spin it colour it, try to falsify it and deny it, the U.S. Supreme Court did not steal the votes of Tennesse and Arkansas from Gore and give it to Bush. It was his own fault and in retrospect, a good thing too. If can you not earn the respect of the citizens in your own state you must be delusional to think you can win the respect of the Nation.

.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,665
113
Northern Ontario,
Walter: I started this thread as a lark :smile:.....in the hope that others would add faux pas' by other Presidents and possibly even Prime Ministers....and to show that every body makes mistakes......Instead "Canadian Democrats":roll: and "Canadian Republicans":roll: have made this a pissin' match.....even going back to counting chads all over again......
Only one maybe two "Americans" posted in this thread....Looks like some Canadians get more inflamed :angryfire: over American politics than Americans do:lol:
 
Last edited:

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
The Liberal Left have been accussing GOP President's ever since Reagan whipped Carter. Back then it was called (and still is by the Liberals) the "October Surprise". The sore losing Democrats accused Reagan of secretly cutting a deal with Iran to keep the embassy staff hostage until after the elections.

Bush beat Gore and then beat Kerry... fair and square yet he is accused of "stealing" both elections.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Seems like you are still not prepared to give a counter argument (heaven knows you have avoided it forever) regarding Gore's pathetic inability to win his own state, which would have made the entire Florida fiasco immaterial.


.

That was pathetic and hilarious at the same time. Gore couldn't even carry his home state!
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
"No matter how you color it, it was a partisan apolitical decision by the Supreme Court that gave Bush the presidency."

Definition of the word: "apolitical": 'Having repugnance for, or disinterest in, politics, with no involvement. Having no interest, politically'.

So, you are right: it was an "apolitical" decicion. That is what I tried to say to you all along.


Yukon Jack, that was a typo and you very well know it. What I meant was,

"No matter how you color it, it was a partisan, a political decision by the Supreme Court that gave Bush the presidency."
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
So, no matter how you spin it colour it, try to falsify it and deny it, the U.S. Supreme Court did not steal the votes of Tennesse and Arkansas from Gore and give it to Bush.

Yukon Jack, Supreme Court stopped the recount going on in Florida, and effectively handed the election to Bush by a 5 to 4 partisan, political vote.

It was his own fault and in retrospect, a good thing too.

Indeed. I assume you think that Bush was the greatest president ever (or second greatest, after Reagan? After all, Reagan was your Messiah, and the Messiah of all Republicans). Let us see what Bush gave USA (and rest of the world)

Dot com meltdown

2001 – 2002 economic slowdown, deep recession (NASDAQ crashed from 5500 to 1100).

Fiasco of Katrina aftermath (for which a majority of Americans blame Bush)

Iraq war, resulting in death of 4000 Americans and 500,000 Iraqis (I assume Iraqi lives don’t matter all that much to you, most of them were Muslims).

The worst economic meltdown since the great depression (it may well rival the Great depression, the jury is still out).

Banking crises (and the resultant credit crunch, caused by Bush and Republicans getting rid of most of the regulations on businesses and neglecting to carry out what little oversight was still permitted by the law.

So I agree with you, he was a great conservative President. I suppose one cannot really expect more than that from a conservative. After all conservatives have been famous for economic mismanagement in the recent memory, why should Bush be any different?
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
That was pathetic and hilarious at the same time. Gore couldn't even carry his home state!

EagleSamck, pointing out past triumphs by Republicans (implying how Republicans are the good guys and how Democrats are the spawn of the Devil) is childish and pointless. I am sure Democrats can point to as many election triumphs as Republicans, including the ones in 2006 and 2008.

The fact that Bush won did not mean that he was the representative of God (as religious right thinks) and that Gore was a spawn of the Devil (as Republicans think). It was just an election, which Bush won (many Democrats say it was handed to him by Supreme Court). Democrats have won many other elections, so have Republicans.

As I said, it is childish to point to past Republican triumphs.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
And Liberals like yourself JP are Obama Worshippers. He can do no wrong and you adore him and worship at the Obama Temple.