Maybe Obama thought that Bush got away with so much BS (and even got re-elected!) that this is insignificant in comparison
Bush got away with nothing, if you think about it. It's such a tired, false trope that I wonder why people even regurgitate it.
Quote:
The NYT link doesn't work.
I think they have some weird subscription coding that screws up some direct links.
Quote:
Bombing people with automated drones means your troops aren't subject to return fire from enemies. That appears to be the technicality skirted.
What a noxious crock. So if the bomb-ees can't fight back, it's not hostility?
Quote:
Now you know why us whiny libs were screaming so much about the horrible precedents that Bush was setting.
Except, of course, Bush wasn't setting ANY precedents and was just doing what the Libs had agreed wholeheartedly with previously.
How's that whole "Imperial Presidency" thing working out for you, by the way?
|||Quote:What a noxious crock. So if the bomb-ees can't fight back, it's not hostility?
Such a law would definitely be a crock but then again, most laws are. I haven't read the entirety of the law in question but it wouldn't surprise me if there was language in the law that attempted to define hostilities and a major qualification would be exposing American troops to return fire. Some nations aren't capable of returning fire against manned planes but most are (effectively returning fire is another issue). On the other hand, having unmanned planes means return fire is literally physically impossible. Hence that type of 'hostility' is skirting through a loophole.|||Is Crop-dusting considered Hostile?
Seriously?|||Bobcox, maybe I get you wrong here or I'm just a bit dense, but did you compare bomb attacks on humans with dusting crops?
Quote:
Bush got away with nothing, if you think about it. It's such a tired, false trope that I wonder why people even regurgitate it.
OK, yes, he didn't get away with it in the eyes of everybody, just for those who voted for him a second time. For some reason it were enough people for a second presidency. 3/4 of the world rolled their eyes and shook their heads about it, whether you like it or not, even though that must not decide about who's worth of being the US president, of course.
I don't like Obama as much as you might think, but I think Bush was far worse. Independently from his party membership, he allowed himself to appear as incompetent in the eyes of the world. Maybe he wasn't and I guess you disagree, but it doesn't depend on that. For a politician it depends of the impression he makes on others. It's pointless to convince or gain the applause of somebody who already is on one's side.
Ronald Reagan, that was a political opponent worth its salt, but Bush? Just embarassing. The strategy of discrediting political opponents doesn't work that well on Obama than on Bush because he has more charisma, a better instinct and thus less of an aura of incompetence than Bush. It's tougher to discredit Obama than to make Bush or Sarah Palin look like idiots.
BTW (and without meaning to make a point with it), how much attention does the "drone attack is no violence" affair catch in the US? It doesn't seem to be an issue elsewhere, I haven't seen it in the media here so far.|||Quote:
It's tougher to discredit Obama than to make Bush or Sarah Palin look like idiots.
To be fair, that's like saying it's much tougher to get wet in a shower than in a swimming pool.|||But it is tougher in a shower. You just need an umbrella there while you need a full wetsuit in the swimming pool.|||Actually Obama has a full blown political machine behind him that includes most of the major news outlets, although its more aligned with the party than it is with Obama himself. The political game isn't just what impression you make on others, but also how badly you can make your opponent look, and the left wing in this country is a lot better skilled at smear campaigns. That's the reason its easy to make Bush or Palin look like idiots. The machine has put a lot of resources into making their very names synonymous with "stupid and evil". As soon as the new republican candidate shows himself, they'll go to work on him too, and you'll likely have another name to use as a curse word.
Quote:
BTW (and without meaning to make a point with it), how much attention does the "drone attack is no violence" affair catch in the US? It doesn't seem to be an issue elsewhere, I haven't seen it in the media here so far.
I haven't seen it mentioned much. We've got plenty of other distractions being used right now, like the latest Wiener update.|||Quote:
OK, yes, he didn't get away with it in the eyes of everybody, just for those who voted for him a second time. For some reason it were enough people for a second presidency.
That makes no sense whatsoever - and the hate was flowing long before he started his first term, as the "stolen election" crowd will never cease to falsely advertise. Plus, just because you and other Euro-libs hated the man doesn't mean everyone did. There was an additional, significant number of people who didn't want to "change horses in mid-stream", even though they didn't necessarily care for him. I probably fall into this camp; I didn't think much of him, particularly his Progressive GOP mentality on spending, but he did well trying to calm the nation after 9/11 and made a good call on invading Iraq despite his mis-handling of the war effort and backpedal on his "no nation-building" claim.
Quote:
I don't like Obama as much as you might think, but I think Bush was far worse. Independently from his party membership, he allowed himself to appear as incompetent in the eyes of the world.
You have a violently leftist media to thank for that. Obama is FAR more incompetent and hapless, but the international media seizes upon any and every opportunity to cover for him when they did the opposite for Bush. They started that routine with Gerry Ford, who they portrayed as bumbling when he was a skilled athlete.
Quote:
It's pointless to convince or gain the applause of somebody who already is on one's side.
But the media counts on your gullibility and incurious mind. The perfect example is Sarah Palin; the media has a gut-level misogynistic reaction and MUST paint her as a stupid zealot/slut - if they don't, people might actually find out more and come to respect her. Katie Couric's only worthwhile act in her career was to take Palin down, because Palin realized only too late that Couric was conducting a hostile interview and feared the 'magazine' question was some sort of ambush.
Quote:
The strategy of discrediting political opponents doesn't work that well on Obama than on Bush because he has more charisma, a better instinct and thus less of an aura of incompetence than Bush.
Utter hogwash. Obama is a bumbling, incoherent fool who barely knows how to use a urinal without Valerie Jarrett holding his executive member. But the media can't afford to let him be discredited - they're too close to a socialist utopia that most of them imagine to be heaven, but that most rational people recognize in Greece. So the media studiously avoids reporting and even plots to misrepresent or distract from the regular stupidity flowing out of the White House, turning dirt-digging on Palin's e-mails into a witch hunt instead.
Quote:
BTW (and without meaning to make a point with it), how much attention does the "drone attack is no violence" affair catch in the US? It doesn't seem to be an issue elsewhere, I haven't seen it in the media here so far.
The media studiously avoided reporting stupid shyte, as I previously identified. So it's pretty much on some Fox opinion shows and the Internet.|||I know you have a different idea about Bush and Obama and the media in the US might not be as unbiased as they should in your eyes, but I was talking about how people in general observed it. That might not be the complete truth or maybe it's all complete BS, but things are as they are. It's a part of a politician's job to appear in a favourable light and Obama or his supporters are simply more successful at that than Bush was. If he finds more support in the media than Bush did, that's tough, but politicians will have to get along with it.
You can certainly find embarassing moments in Obama's career as well, but there are less of them and people seem to let him get away with them because they don't regard them as that important, whatever the reason might be. Maybe they are wrong, but at the end it doesn't depend on how things really are, it depends on which consequences people draw. After all, Obama won the elections, that must have a reason. It's perfectly OK for me if you are of the opinion that it was undeserved or wrong, but that's not my point.|||Quote:
You can certainly find embarassing moments in Obama's career as well, but there are less of them and people seem to let him get away with them because they don't regard them as that important, whatever the reason might be.
Er, no. Obama has made just as many if not more gaffes than Bush ever did. The reason people let him get away with it is, again, the result of media focus. Each and every embarrassing moment of Bush's entire career, not just his presidency, was paraded around and displayed at every available opportunity as if the pronunciation of "nuclear" was the most important thing on the planet. Palin doesn't even have to say or do anything, they'll just make something up to make her look stupid. Obama can fart in the queen of England's face and he'd still be "the smartest man ever to be president."
Its not a question of what people think of him. That's what propaganda is for. To make people think a certain way.
Quote:
After all, Obama won the elections, that must have a reason.
Yeah, and here it is. "EVIL BUSH! BUSH! HOPE AND CHANGE! BUSH EVIL! PALIN BUSH! PALIN STUPID AND EVIL! HOPE AND CHANGE! HAVE SOME OBAMA MONEY! BUSH EVIL!"
No comments:
Post a Comment