Didn't vote for Bush, can't blame me for that...nm
Posted By: good grief on 2008-12-17
In Reply to: So giving tax breaks & loopholes to the - sm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I will be saying "Don't blame me. I didn't vote for him."
nm
It's not our fault...At least, I didn't vote for Bush. LOL!nm
x
Sorry honey.....I didn't vote for BUSH
@@
they didn't vote - they registered to vote -
that is a big difference. The votes were not counted, they were stopped by the means in which they were supposed to be stopped - ID verification, address verification, etc. The cards were filled out by the ACORN workers and then given to the proper authorities to sort through.
The phony registrations were pulled out by the actual authorities. ACORN is just a middle man.
Hey, don't blame Libby, she didn't make it up.
That information is all over the blogs and they took it from the National Enquirer which, as you should know if you are paying attention, has long been thought to be a toy of the CIA.
AND, Laura Bush slipped up herself thinking she was off camera and made a comment about some event they were talking about, and said oh yes, that was the night we were ALL drinking! So it seems there may actually be some germ of truth in the story taken right from the horse's mouth.
But just shoot the messenger, eh!
I don't blame her for her opinion....didn't sound like a bash to me....sm
You, on the other hand, have turned into the biggest basher on the board lately. You must be proud.
Well, of course you do, because it's something else to blame Bush for. nm
Bush really is to blame for everything
including natural disasters and including the fact that people built a city below sea level with water on all sides and was told that anything over a Cat 3 storm would wipe out the city. The city failed in adequately planning to evacuate the people in case of such an emergency. While I'm absolutely heartbroken to what is happening to people there, especially those who couldn't evacuate themselves the city has been told this would happen for years. Even if Bush had not cut some funds to the area adequate plans would have still not been in place. Everyone has said at one time or another that New Orleans was a disaster waiting for a Cat 4 or higher storm to happen. You can pin this on Bush like you do everything else that happens in this world, but Bush is hardly to blame for the devastation. Finger pointing does no good at this point. We all must dig deep and do what we can do for those in New Orleans. Arguing the political aspects of this disaster will not hydrate one dehydrated baby or feed one hungry person or build one adequate shelter.
My advice to everyone is to step away from your computer, go buy some non-perishable items and get it to a relief point tomorrow.
We cant blame Bush?
Yes we can, yes we can. Have you not heard that one before? I see no reason to stop now.
Oh, they blame Bush for everything. If we get
nm
blame on bush's shoulders
Not my point at all. Bush caused thousands of deaths, not I. I am glad the American people are finally seeing him for what he is, a truly callous, self centered, immature, lying, vulgar man..I read a study by a psychiatrist who analyzed Bushs behavior and he labels Bush a sociopath. The behaviors that Bush shows America and the world do fit criteria for sociopath. I am not glad of any of the deaths. Im just glad the Americans are seeing Bush in the true light. He is not a uniter, he is a divider. He is not a compassionate conservative, he is a hard core rich boy who caters to his class and the ones who have him in their pockets. Our country has not been this divided since Nixon and the Vietnam War and Watergate. He is so disconnected from reality and what the working class, middle class, who keep this country together really wants, needs and feels. Put the blame where it belongs, on Bush's shoulders.
Wow, that's just ranting. Who will you blame once Bush is gone?
with some facts instead of raving like a lunatic. It sounds like you've been watching too many Michael Moore mockumentaries. Katrina is a good example, people were told to evacuate and didn't, then figured out hmm, maybe we shoulda evacuated. Sorry we didn't listen, but can you help us out NOW? Yes, the buses not being mobilized were troubling, but those buses that sat unused weren't Bush's fault.
Here's the scenario time and again: People don't listen or heed warnings and when there are consequences to that, they want to blame someone else. There were rescuers that risked their lives to save people who didn't listen to evacuation orders, what about them?? Would you do that for someone who didn't listen when you told them to get out of dodge?
But that aside, let's fast forward to Gustav. People are evacuated successfully when a cat. 4 hurricane is headed their way, but when Mother Nature (not Bush, Nagin, the weathermen, or anyone else) decides it will make landfall with less strength, then people complain because they were evacuated and safe! They complain that the RNC stopped to request aid for victims, oh that's all just a show. So they're all damned if they do and damned if they don't, and even if it's the beloved and revered Barack in office, it will be exactly the same in a few years from now. It will all be his fault because he's inexperienced, no matter that the majority of the people in the USA chose to vote him into office. (Oh, but that will be because of corruption at the ballots, no doubt, because we gotta blame anything but ourselves!)
No matter who is elected, I feel sorry for them because the majority of people want their hands held and handouts, few want to be accountable for themselves and their own actions, and MANY people want to place blame on someone or something for all their problems, even the ones that they brought upon themselves. No one person or agency can be there to save every person from every disaster, every pitfall, or just from themselves, so no matter who makes POTUS, they will be blamed and called names regardless because so many people in this country have lost any semblence of respect for their fellow human beings.
And here's the don't blame anyone but Bush rebuttal
like clockwork.
Even the republicans blame BUSH, where have u been? nm
n
Yep! That's it! Blame what Bush has done on Obama...
...again! LOL!
How pitiful. 
The Patriot Act is up but some want to keep it, including Schumer. Don't blame Bush for that. nm
well, if this is true, I blame Bush, Cheney and all the damage
they have done to this country. The republicans will always go down in history as to blame.
They have had full control and yet still manage to blame everyone else for the problems.
Look around, because Bush has left this country with no other option but for the government to step in. This has been breeding because of his carelessness and ineptitude. He ruled like a king/tyrant in the white house.
This will be on his hands.
"we" blame Bush for what he did wrong, sorry if you cannot bear to....sm
take the blinders off. I thought Bill Clinton was a great Preident and humanitarian, but a LOUSY husband, but the country did not marry Clinton, and the Pubs with Ken Star and his WITCH HUNT went after Bill for what he did in his private sexual life that had nothing to do with his job as President. Wow, we impeached the guy and spent millions of tax dollars doing it!!! Yay! But he still led us one of the most prosperous times in American History budget-wise, and if he is kinky in his bedroom, so what? Do you want someone in your bedroom? What do you guys use as a measure for success? Blind loyalty was what REALLY got all the people to drink the Kool-Aid down in Jonestown, and with all the denial about the Bush years, I feel like we are down there in that jungle.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
I didn't vote for the man......sm
and I don't uphold his policies, but this is just SICK! I wish him no harm and, in fact, do pray for his safety and for his administration. I really feel for his family.
Though I didn't vote for him...
I will hope that he will be seen as a role model for young black males. It really is a tragedy in the black community (white too) that so many young men don't have a good male role model, someone to look up to, someone to help them through tough times, etc. I am not slamming mothers out there, but boys really do need the influence of a male in their lives. We all need someone to look up to, guide us in the right direction, encourage us. This may just be what some young kid needs to put him on a better path in life, who knows.
How could that be? I didn't vote for the guy!
xx
Yeah, and guess who he'll blame the whole four years....yep...bush...nm
Bush....they will still blame Bush.
nm
I didn't vote for or against the Patriot Act and neither did you....
Congress did. Obama voted to reauthorize it as well.
The Patriot Act has nothing whatsoever to do with communism. What would make you say that?
No, which is why I didn't vote for Obama....
**
So if McCain didn't vote 64% of the time
how can he vote with Bush 90% of the time? LOL! 
About 40% of the Dems didn't vote for her for speaker...
...and I'm sure a few of the "leaners" who voted for her are regretting their decision - and not just for this, but because she's been so easy for a lot of Americans to hate because her positions are very extreme.
On the other hand, is this a party that is likely to dump her? We've got a tax cheat as the head of the Treasury (and hence, the IRS). We've got Barney Frankfurtive still overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - among other things - with more than a whiff of corruption in his dealings with them. We've got Charlie Rangel, who has had a Senate charge of tax evasion pending for over six months(they can't seem to get around to it). We've got good old Charlie Schumer, who got sweetheart mortgage deals.
All of them are still doing business at the same old stand.
The Democratic "vice squad" doesn't exactly inspire confidence, now does it?
Oh, more "blame Bush" - except Bush didn't send these out, now did he?
Here's a news flash for you since you apparently haven't heard: BUSH IS NOT IN OFFICE and just today Gallup did a poll showing that THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS THINK OBAMA SHOULD START TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT HAPPENS ON HIS WATCH.
G E T A C L U E.
Cole family member, didn't vote for O
You win some, you lose some.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/obama-meets-with-family-members-of-uss-cole-911-victims/
The majority of the people didn't vote him in because of his polcies
They voted him in because he's black. Plain and simple.
BTW - I sitting here with a nice hot cup of coffee trying to warm up these icy toes of mine. Been in reality a long time. You should come join us.
Sticks and stones, my friend. Didn't vote for the man...
he is not MY President. I honor the office, not the man in it. Not Bush, and certainly NOT the great and powerful 0. Last time I looked this was a free country, although Barry from Chicago may change that before he is finished. I don't have to claim him because you folks elected him. I don't have to sig heil. I certainly don't have to respect him. I used to respect the office of the presidency and I might again if an independent nonpuppet with a mind of his freakin own (or HER own) ever gets elected. If McCain had been elected, would he be YOUR president? Would Palin have been YOUR vice-president? Come onnnnnn.
Sorry about that....chief.
VOTE FOR BUSH--As the worst!!!
338 OF 415 HISTORIANS SAY G.W.B.
IS THE FAILING AS A PRESIDENT- DO YOU AGREE?*
An overwhelming 338 of 415 historians polled by George Mason University
said Friday that George W. Bush is failing as a president. And fifty of
them rated Bush as the worst president ever, ranking him above (below?)
any other past president - even those you've never heard of who were
also really awful. Why do these misguided, obviously-socialist,
ivy-smoking and - of course -American-hating intellectuals feel that Bush isn't
doing his best?
Well, they look at the record ...
# He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend
and foe alike in the process;
# He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive
military spending and reduced taxation of the rich;
# He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and
state;
# He has repeatedly misled, to use a kind word, the American people
on affairs domestic and foreign;
# He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and
foreign (Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida);
# He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of
pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity;
# He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress;
# He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems,
corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime.
Quite an indictment. Perhaps it is too early to evaluate a president -
or is it?
I'm sure you did vote for Bush but now u are embarrassed nm
hahahhaa fools!
I agree. Nobody vote for Bush this year.
Problem solved.
Don't blame Obama for the coins...blame the Franklin Mint!
The Franklin Mint has an entire series of presidential coins that are tacky and cheap looking just like everything else they manufacture.
Bush HID those who didn't
So you think Bush was an open book? LOL!!!!!
If there were tax evaders on Bush's team we would never know about it. He was the King of Cover-Up!
I didn't say he blindly supports Bush.
Scarborough is objective and honest, and if something is wrong, he tells people. He doesn't blindfold himself and play follow the leader like so many Bush supporters. He's not a Bush apologist.
Uh Bush didn't wiretap the Kings
Bush Jr. wasn't president then, although you all like to blame him for things that happened before his presidency. I think the Kennedy's had everything to do with the King wiretappings...
Carter is a tool and one biggest failures of a president in American history. The only thing of substance he's ever done was Habitat for Humanity, and I think he would do himself and everyone else a favor by sticking to that.
Of course BUSH didn't wiretap the Kings...
...and nobody including Carter claimed that. Is that the best you can do? How lame. Bush was embarrassed by the REFERENCE and rightfully so. And if you know anything about Hoover's FBI, blaming the Kennedys for the rampant intelligence abuses at the time is even more disingenuous.
Not going to argue about Carter's record - Repugs have always hated him just as they anybody who demonstrates intelligence, bravery and a dedication to public service. No surprise there. George Bush Sr. is the only Republican President in recent times who has not simply retired to live in reclusive luxury - not surprising either that he and Clinton get along so well. Kind of a thorn under the shrub's saddle isn't it?
Those Democratic Presidents though (not to mention the Democratic vice-presidents) - they just seem to keep on giving and contributing in the public arena. Must be the result of a basic difference in ideology between the parties.
EXACTLY. Bush didn't want SCHIP but he darn
healthcare for children is socialism but this is not. He is about 5 beers short of a 6 pack!!
Bush didn't do anything before it was not a democratic congress.
.
Bush didn't create the federal reserve......
xx
Why didn't the Bush bashers leave then? Did you feel the same about them?
//
Okay, but you didn't answer the question... What was Bush's agenda?
?
If it Clinton screwed something up - why didn't Bush fix it? He had 8 years!
As much as you want to blame Bill Clinton......don't forget who held the reins for the last 8 years......who let them run amuck? Why was nothing done?
Check out the mortgage failures.
Tell me which failed more, prime or subprime
Tell me what is the rate of failures under the CRA or even Bush's ADDI (which i attack alll the time)
Once again, REALITY AND THE DATA doesn't fit ya'lls claims.
Basically what happened was.. we reformed bankruptcy laws.. so that people who ran into dire straights could not restructure.
We packaged the loans into commodity derivatives. These are sorta mirror bets on the loans. Sorta..as the same loan will be sold many times in many derivative packages.. that's why the housing derivatives are worth more than all the real estate in the US. Derivatives are actually not that bad.. when a market is stable and only has to deal with natural forces. The housing market was bubbled.. partially due to low interest rates that encouraged everyone to buy, even the rich, and partially due to the CRA and the ADDI.. which did add customers to the market (helping form the bubble was the extent the CRA and the ADDI had in this mess)
All it took was a few failures to pop the bubble..and make real estate prices drop,. and mind you, it was mainly prime loans (READ not loans given to poor people and not loans under the CRA) that failed. The derivative market.,.which like I said, is really mirrors of the same loans.. cause the defaults to explode with ten times the ferocity, because one loan could effect the price of dozens of derivatives.
Really the poor and even irresponsible people .. simply did not have the economic ability to cause this mess. Pool all their money together and waste it on hookers.. it would have zero effect without help from the rich elites and their magnifying packaged derivatives.
THE CRA and ADDI both had stricter requirements than loans you got from normal banks.. both required income data.. where many prime loans did not.. they also greatly limited you on how much home you could purchase..whereas private banks did not care if you tried to buy something you could not afford.
Don't believe me?.. Look in the phone book.. call your own housing authority - you can get a loan for 106% the purchase price of a home even today.. if you're poor enough.
Ask to hear the red tape and hoops you must go through.. Heck, it is probably easier to just get a real job and earn real money than go through the FHA.
Let's blame Clinton...Let's blame Obama.
The FACT is that Bush BECAME prez on 01/20/01. He was told by Clinton to beware!! It was Bush's duty to know, to care what was going on.... the FACT is he didn't give a rat's patooty!!! FACT is he was on vacation most of his first 7 months in office. The FACT is he stared into space for 7 minutes after being told America was under attack while kindergarteners were reading "MY PET GOAT." I am so sick of the LIES you people want to ram down my throat. And when Obama takes office, God-willing, I am positive he will be under a microscope like NO president has ever been as there is a different standard set for him and never has a president-elect undergone so much criticisizm BEFORE taking office.
Yeah and Bush's policies got us in a fine mess didn't they?
Conservatives believe Bush didn’t act in time because God told him to get rid of poor black people
on welfare and old people on Social Security because they cost taxpayers too much money.
A radio talk show host just said that…and I agree. They can’t admit that Bush has shown us all how he will refuse to protect Americans in a national emergency, even though he used that as a campaign promise, and that Bush doesn’t even have to care any more since he can’t be President again. I hope they can live with their collective conscience. That is if they have one. I’m starting to believe they don’t.
I agree neither choice is great, but will vote McCain just as a vote against Obama. nm
x
A vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote. No chance on Earth he can win. sm
Votes for him only take away from the real candidates.
|
