G.W. Bush's Idealism is Winning the World

[Debunker]

So you're saying that the people of Saudi Arabia have freedom and democracy? That human rights and civil liberties are respected and honored there? Really?

No! I did not say that. You said that. If the people can through the Saudis out and keep the radical Muslims out, then that would be another example of Bush's idealism winning the world. It is risky business and I don't think Obama is man enough to manage the march of freedom. GWB could have because he did.

It is an undeniable fact that the Obama administration is operating in 100% darkness. The first thing Obama and the liberals did was dismantle our national intelligence. He put some dude by the name Clapper in charge of our intelligence and he and the Obama administration have no idea what is happening in Saudi Arabia. They did not know about Egypt until the revolt occurred. If CNN had not covered the Egypt's protest, Obama would not know about it today. That is how good his intelligence is. It ain't no good.

Obama refuses to listen to Fox News. If he had Glenn Beck would have told him what was coming in Egypt six months ago. Beck has far superior intelligence than Obama or he is just a gifted prophet sent by a conservative God. With the internet and cell phones buzzing throughout Egypt, Obama is without excuse for being caught flatfooted. Think how pathetic his response would be if the Saudis happen to be next. It is going to happen because like I said Bush's idealism is winning the world.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Obama refuses to listen to Fox News. If he had Glenn Beck would have told him what was coming in Egypt six months ago. Beck has far superior intelligence than Obama or he is just a gifted prophet sent by a conservative God. With the internet and cell phones buzzing throughout Egypt, Obama is without excuse for being caught flatfooted. Think how pathetic his response would be if the Saudis happen to be next. It is going to happen because like I said Bush's idealism is winning the world.

:biglaugh: Obama has better things to do than watch FOX. As do all of us.

You really worship the ground Beck walks on, don't you? That is pathetic.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Apparently you think the Soviets offered a better deal than the Mujahideen and for a short time, that may have been true.

You mean the Mujahideen that were financed and backed by the Reagan administration? The same Mujahideen that gave us Osama bin Laden and the Taliban?

But at that time our nation was locked into a life and death struggle with the USSR.

And the way that struggle was fought gave us our current Middle Eastern situation.

Reagan's main responsibility was to defend our nation against the Soviets.

Yet his actions resulted in the creation of a new and deadly enemy.

He was the only president in the world that had the grit to stand up to the power of the USSR.

Kennedy.

The liberals were cowering in the corner somewhere urging caution and softness.

Caution may have prevented our current problems. Caution is not cowardice, it is reason.

Not only did the Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan, but they walked out of history.

Indeed, Reagan's financial support of the Mujahideen helped to speed up the inevitable demise of the USSR.

It is shameful that the less than patriotic liberals will not acknowledge the great leadership of Ronald Reagan.

It is shameful that you define Patriotism as devotion to a single man rather than as devotion to the overall well-being of our country and its Constitution.

You liberals do damn God everyday for allowing conservatism to run rampant through our country.

Gross over-generalization and blatantly untrue.

I always thought the liberals were more communist than they were American loyalist.

That only shows an ignorance of the difference between American Liberal Socialists and Communism.

You confirm that belief as you apparently would rather had them to have won the Cold War than your own conservative country.

I know of no rational Liberal who would have supported a Communist win in the Cold War.

See, the people were right and just in voting the liberals out of Congress.

Did you notice that the Tea Party Libertarian Republicans voted alongside the Liberal Democrats in rejecting an extension of some of Bush's "Patriot" Act provisions?
And that those Liberal Democrats were voting against Obamas promise to sign the extensions?

With every opportunity you guys prove to the American people that you can not be trusted to protect our freedoms.

You mean those freedoms that were damaged by Bush's "Patriot" Act?

You guys would rather destroy America than see Bush's idealism succeed.

I would rather America followed the idealism of our Founding Fathers that succumb to Bush's attacks on the Constitution.

It is truly ironic that the best argument against liberalism is found in simply examining what liberals are telling us about themselves.

Or simply, your misrepresentations.

You and the liberal posters on this thread certainly demonstrate this fact very well.

You would do well to study a little American History, along with some World History and Governments.

 

[ninerbuff]

Apparently you think the Soviets offered a better deal than the Mujahideen and for a short time, that may have been true. But at that time our nation was locked into a life and death struggle with the USSR. Reagan's main responsibility was to defend our nation against the Soviets. He was the only president in the world that had the grit to stand up to the power of the USSR. The liberals were cowering in the corner somewhere urging caution and softness. Not only did the Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan, but they walked out of history. It is shameful that the less than patriotic liberals will not acknowledge the great leadership of Ronald Reagan.

You liberals do damn God everyday for allowing conservatism to run rampant through our country. I always thought the liberals were more communist than they were American loyalist. You confirm that belief as you apparently would rather had them to have won the Cold War than your own conservative country. See, the people were right and just in voting the liberals out of Congress. With every opportunity you guys prove to the American people that you can not be trusted to protect our freedoms.You guys would rather destroy America than see Bush's idealism succeed. It is truly ironic that the best argument against liberalism is found in simply examining what liberals are telling us about themselves. You and the liberal posters on this thread certainly demonstrate this fact very well.

Ahahaha, you mean Reagan supplied weapons to allies to fight off the Soviets in Afghanistan. And now that "ally" is the same one responsible for the current wave of terrorism today.

 

[T-Dawg]

Apparently you think the Soviets offered a better deal than the Mujahideen and for a short time, that may have been true. But at that time our nation was locked into a life and death struggle with the USSR. Reagan's main responsibility was to defend our nation against the Soviets. He was the only president in the world that had the grit to stand up to the power of the USSR. The liberals were cowering in the corner somewhere urging caution and softness. Not only did the Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan, but they walked out of history. It is shameful that the less than patriotic liberals will not acknowledge the great leadership of Ronald Reagan.

It is shameful that conservatives give Reagan credit for what the Soviets were doing to themselves over decades. Everyone (but Reagan, it seemed) knew the USSR was falling to pieces. Reagan gave a speech and funded a few anti-communist dictatorships and terrorist groups (like in Nicaragua and Afghanistan). At best, Reagan accelerated the process. What's certain is that he set our nation on the wrong track (namely, by making right-wing extremism seem normal and making the US a debtor nation).

You liberals do damn God everyday for allowing conservatism to run rampant through our country. I always thought the liberals were more communist than they were American loyalist. You confirm that belief as you apparently would rather had them to have won the Cold War than your own conservative country. See, the people were right and just in voting the liberals out of Congress. With every opportunity you guys prove to the American people that you can not be trusted to protect our freedoms.You guys would rather destroy America than see Bush's idealism succeed. It is truly ironic that the best argument against liberalism is found in simply examining what liberals are telling us about themselves. You and the liberal posters on this thread certainly demonstrate this fact very well.

You do realize, I'm more of a statist, a communist, and a socialist than a liberal, right? I'm not exactly the best person to point at if you want to quote-mine "liberals." No duh I would rather have wanted the Soviets to win the cold war. They may have been oppressive and not truly communist, but at least there was a possibility of hope since they didn't have the Red Scare causing them to close themselves to good (socialist) ideas.

You really demonstrate how conservatives can't be trusted to protect our freedom. You seem to thrive on attacking others and you worship people who hurt our country. It is truly ironic that the best argument against conservatism is simply examining what conservatives are telling us about themselves (and then doing behind our backs). You and the other conservative posters on that thread demonstrate that very well (well, mostly you, to be honest. Rev Rick at least bases his ideas in reality and sincerely believes them.).

 

[Genuine Realist]

Lord, you are terminally smug.

For some reason, you suggest that Reagan should NOT have aided the Afghans against the Soviet Union - or at least he should have used 'caution'. (What? He should have armed them, but with non-offensive weapons? Gimme a break.)

Then you wax indignant at the notion that liberals didn't want the US to win the Cold War. Of course, they did . . . but with caution . . . and in a way that made history stop and caused absolutely no consequences as the result of the collapse of the Soviets. Why don't you go ahead and blame Reagan for all the misery on the Balkan Peninsula? After all, there was none of that when the good ol Commies ran the show.

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Reagan dealt with the present menace, and hoped that his successors would find the means and wisdom with whatever came next. Somewhat akin to FDR arming the Soviets during WWII, and creating a far more powerful and dangerous enemy than the Taliban ever was or ever will be. You will recall the world teetering on the edge of global thermonuclear war for better than forty years, the Doomsday clock on the front page of the Journal of Atomic Physicists. Which threat was ended by - er - Reagan, in part by arming the Afghans.

And you put out this incredible melange of implicit assumption, smug self-congratulation and plain ol' dumb *** cliche and then criticize someone else for illogic? The mind boggles. Wonders never cease.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Rev Rick at least bases his ideas in reality and sincerely believes them.).

Indeed. If I were forced to choose among the many Conservatives I know on this forum to run our country, it would be Rick.

 

[ninerbuff]

Lord, you are terminally smug.

For some reason, you suggest that Reagan should NOT have aided the Afghans against the Soviet Union - or at least he should have used 'caution'. (What? He should have armed them, but with non-offensive weapons? Gimme a break.)

Then you wax indignant at the notion that liberals didn't want the US to win the Cold War. Of course, they did . . . but with caution . . . and in a way that made history stop and caused absolutely no consequences as the result of the collapse of the Soviets. Why don't you go ahead and blame Reagan for all the misery on the Balkan Peninsula? After all, there was none of that when the good ol Commies ran the show.

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Reagan dealt with the present menace, and hoped that his successors would find the means and wisdom with whatever came next. Somewhat akin to FDR arming the Soviets during WWII, and creating a far more powerful and dangerous enemy than the Taliban ever was or ever will be. You will recall the world teetering on the edge of global thermonuclear war for better than forty years, the Doomsday clock on the front page of the Journal of Atomic Physicists. Which threat was ended by - er - Reagan, in part by arming the Afghans.

And you put out this incredible melange of implicit assumption, smug self-congratulation and plain ol' dumb *** cliche and then criticize someone else for illogic? The mind boggles. Wonders never cease.

That's funny, I don't recall the Soviets stepping in on US soil and attacking the Pentagon and World Trade centers. You can't use speculation of what could have happened to events that did happen. While I admired Reagan's moxie, I thought Kennedy had more balls.

 

[tumbleweed41]

For some reason, you suggest that Reagan should NOT have aided the Afghans against the Soviet Union .

No, he should not have. While he may have sped up the inevitable demise of the USSR, he created a whole new monster in the process.

 

[Luminous]

Hard to call Iraq a failure when Joe Biden named its likely success as one of the achievements of the Obama Administration. I wonder how long the diehard Bush opponents are going to casually call that war an disaster, when more and more moderates are beginning to see it as quite complex.

thanks to George the Third (King of England) America got its independence

And the economic calamity of 2007-2008 was a long time coming, through several administrations, but most severely Clinton's(republican congress) and the second Bush's. Blue dogs (The factors that caused it were embryonic in Reagan's time, and not much more developed during the first Bush. Clinton got the first storm warning in 1994, with the bond market collapse, and a truly significant one in 1998, when LTCM collapsed. He did nothing. Bush Second did utter some warnings about the situation, but not with any real oomph.)

Very few Republicans OR Democrats see the world in strictly ideological terms. Republicans don't 'worship' the free market - they see that model, with appropriate adjustments, as a better model than a managed economy.

hey me too, i must be a Republican now

The Republican Part has a Main Street, small business constituency, that is every bit as wary of Wall Street as the Demos. Wall Street these days is actually more liberal than conservative.

not liberal enough to reliquish their absurd power over everything

That said, it is even more absurd to call Democrats socialists - same belief in the free market model, but with a lot more management.

But, hey! It must be nice to see friends and enemies so clearly. It surely simplifies thought.

yes.

 

[tumbleweed41]

He put some dude by the name Clapper in charge of our intelligence and he and the Obama administration have no idea what is happening in Saudi Arabia. .

Silly Neo-Con.
I have to agree that Obama made a huge mistake in placing Clapper in his current position.
James R. Clapper first came to prominence in 2003 as head of Bush's National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency when he claimed that the reason no WMD's were found in Iraq because the missing WMD's were "unquestionably" shipped out of Iraq to Syria and other countries just before the American invasion.
A claim that lacked any evidence according to his own Agency head at the time.

 

[Debunker]

That's funny, I don't recall the Soviets stepping in on US soil and attacking the Pentagon and World Trade centers. You can't use speculation of what could have happened to events that did happen. While I admired Reagan's moxie, I thought Kennedy had more balls.

The first thing JFK did was to freeze his balls at the Bay of Pigs. That freeze betrayed the Cuban people and set the stage for the USSR to arm Cuba with nukes. JFK's crowdedness created his own crisis forced him to show any balls at all.

 

[Debunker]

Silly Neo-Con.
I have to agree that Obama made a huge mistake in placing Clapper in his current position.
James R. Clapper first came to prominence in 2003 as head of Bush's National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency when he claimed that the reason no WMD's were found in Iraq because the missing WMD's were "unquestionably" shipped out of Iraq to Syria and other countries just before the American invasion.
A claim that lacked any evidence according to his own Agency head at the time.

If Obama knew all this about Clapper,why did he make Clapper the head of his intelligence? Either way the mistake of intelligences relates back to Obama's judgment.

 

[T-Dawg]

Lord, you are terminally smug.

For some reason, you suggest that Reagan should NOT have aided the Afghans against the Soviet Union - or at least he should have used 'caution'. (What? He should have armed them, but with non-offensive weapons? Gimme a break.)

Then you wax indignant at the notion that liberals didn't want the US to win the Cold War. Of course, they did . . . but with caution . . . and in a way that made history stop and caused absolutely no consequences as the result of the collapse of the Soviets. Why don't you go ahead and blame Reagan for all the misery on the Balkan Peninsula? After all, there was none of that when the good ol Commies ran the show.

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Reagan dealt with the present menace, and hoped that his successors would find the means and wisdom with whatever came next. Somewhat akin to FDR arming the Soviets during WWII, and creating a far more powerful and dangerous enemy than the Taliban ever was or ever will be. You will recall the world teetering on the edge of global thermonuclear war for better than forty years, the Doomsday clock on the front page of the Journal of Atomic Physicists. Which threat was ended by - er - Reagan, in part by arming the Afghans.

And you put out this incredible melange of implicit assumption, smug self-congratulation and plain ol' dumb *** cliche and then criticize someone else for illogic? The mind boggles. Wonders never cease.

I'm honestly a bit confused here. You're accusing ME of being smug?

You can try and justify Reagan funding terrorists all you want, but fortunately, most people here won't believe you.

You see, I DON'T think "Evil Empire" when I hear "Soviets." The Soviets certainly weren't flowers and roses, but the Red Scare had and continues to blow them way out of proportion. The Soviets, unlike the Taliban, weren't insane enough to try and start World War III (it is fortunate that the Taliban isn't able).



Hey, someone neutral chime in here: Does ANYONE besides this guy and Debunker agree with the personal attacks quoted in the above post? I know I can be a psychopath sometimes, but I don't think this is one of those times.


EDIT: Btw, some other people here are phrasing what I'm trying to say a bit more eloquently and in more detail than I can. Don't ignore them.

 

[Luminous]

The first thing JFK did was to freeze his balls at the Bay of Pigs. That freeze betrayed the Cuban people and set the stage for the USSR to arm Cuba with nukes. JFK's crowdedness created his own crisis forced him to show any balls at all.

what he should have done...is been an overly agressive and ignorant noe-con :sarcastic
if only he had allowed us to massacre a few more cubans...maybe russia wouldn't have cared that we had a nuclear base in turkey ready to massacre a few russians
while they had no such weapons even remotely close to our capital.

 

[Genuine Realist]

I'm honestly a bit confused here. You're accusing ME of being smug?

You can try and justify Reagan funding terrorists all you want, but fortunately, most people here won't believe you.

You see, I DON'T think "Evil Empire" when I hear "Soviets." The Soviets certainly weren't flowers and roses, but the Red Scare had and continues to blow them way out of proportion. The Soviets, unlike the Taliban, weren't insane enough to try and start World War III (it is fortunate that the Taliban isn't able).

Yeah, they certainly weren't all flowers and roses. My God, what a phrase - The pure damage the Soviets did between 1917 and 1989 to human beings and human values, staggers the imagination. That's why hundreds of millions of people danced in the street when the Wall came down. It is your colossal good fortune that you were born in a time when you could cavalierly dismiss this as 'Red scare'. The Taliban, with all its despicable deeds, has not done 1/100 of one percent of the harm.

There is also the small, obnoxious fact that the Taliban didn't exist during Reagan's administration, nor could the Mujahideen have been classified as terrorists at that time. So I don't know who in the world agrees that 'Reagan shouldn't have armed terrorists' - when they weren't terrorists and they were engaged with the Soviet Union. In fact, i think most would find your statements laughable, if the bone-*** ignorance they display were not so frightening.

Hey, someone neutral chime in here: Does ANYONE besides this guy and Debunker agree with the personal attacks quoted in the above post? I know I can be a psychopath sometimes, but I don't think this is one of those times.


EDIT: Btw, some other people here are phrasing what I'm trying to say a bit more eloquently and in more detail than I can. Don't ignore them.

You weren't attacked personally, friend. What I did was try to thin out that enormous herd of sacred cows you have mooing in your back yard. But this call for reinforcements is kinda interesting. Safety in numbers, eh, what?

 

[Debunker]

I'm honestly a bit confused here. You're accusing ME of being smug?

You can try and justify Reagan funding terrorists all you want, but fortunately, most people here won't believe you.

You see, I DON'T think "Evil Empire" when I hear "Soviets." The Soviets certainly weren't flowers and roses, but the Red Scare had and continues to blow them way out of proportion. The Soviets, unlike the Taliban, weren't insane enough to try and start World War III (it is fortunate that the Taliban isn't able).
As you say you are, we identify you as a bitter radical. Real intelligent people seking an improved world will continue to ignore your cry for help.


Hey, someone neutral chime in here: Does ANYONE besides this guy and Debunker agree with the personal attacks quoted in the above post? I know I can be a psychopath sometimes, but I don't think this is one of those times.


EDIT: Btw, some other people here are phrasing what I'm trying to say a bit more eloquently and in more detail than I can. Don't ignore them.

As you say you are, we identify you as a bitter radical. Real intelligent people seking an improved world will continue to ignore your cry for help. Most people in the world reject radical beliefs like yours. Get a job, raise a family, and show a little responsibility and somebody might decide to listen to you.This thread is about Bush's idealism and not about adolescent foolisness.

 

[ninerbuff]

The first thing JFK did was to freeze his balls at the Bay of Pigs. That freeze betrayed the Cuban people and set the stage for the USSR to arm Cuba with nukes. JFK's crowdedness created his own crisis forced him to show any balls at all.

Lol, the CIA blown invasion was cooked up before Kennedy even took office and you're going to blame how the military failed on the President? Well then both Bushes failed in getting Bin Laden which caused the GREATEST terror in US HISTORY. Laughable.

 

[Genuine Realist]

BOTH Bushes???? Can't anyone here remember a timeline???

OBL did not 'exist' as a terrorist when Bush I left office in 1992. He was ensconced in Afghanistan when Bush II took office in 2000. The responsibility fell on the guy in between - what was his name again?

That said, planning for the Bay of Pigs was well under way when Kennedy took office. His failure was in believing CIA estimates of popular discontent in Cuba, which proved to be disastrously overstated.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's amazing that the CIA is still around. They cause more trouble than they're worth and they're wrong about everything.