I thought this was going to be about the Canadian PM coming out and calling the aloha snack bar attacks as terrorism. Unlike work place violence leader here calls it.

 

Caption:

"Here, I'm going to hug you with one arm and sign The Patriot Act with the other."

In his defense, he initially eluded to it being temporary, but once it came time to re-authorize...

Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens. You need to renew the Patriot Act.

And don't hand me Obama comparisons. Neither will be remembered for their defense of liberty.

 

Since this is about how Presidents should behave:
I don't think the old boss behaved any better than the new boss. Two sides of the same coin. But that was a pretty sweet photo op, makes me all teary eyed.

 

Sheesh...tough crowd.

 

Thread is titled "how a prez should behave". Think we can see a vast difference between the current occupier of the WH and GW. Which one went to Ft. Hood to encourage the survivors and then which one called it a "work place violence". Think that shows where his allegiances are==and his concerns. Playing golf and fund raising are more important than American lives---but what difference does it make.

 

He surely made out to appear like he cared for the troops, and I believe he did care about those he sent in harms way for whatever his reasoning, but as President he signed a bill that has the potential to do tremendous damage to our liberty. Our liberty being one of the most important issues, I have to rank W as one of the worst presidents in US History. I believe George W Bush loved the country, and I don't beleive Obama loves the country. It just seems Bush had a different direction that he wanted to take the country, being more of a statist than libertarian or conservative even. He wanted to and made the Federal government more powerful, and wanted and did police the world, which is financially impractical, although beneficial to the ever dangerous Military Industrial Complex.

I think Bush thought he was doing the right thing, and I don't believe he had bad intention, but what he was doing was bad for the nation and liberty. Security over liberty was his theme. The wars he fought, he may have thought it was making us more secure by taking the fight somewhere else after 9/11, but sticking our nose in so much foreign business, and along with the Iraq war made us more of a target in my opinion.

 

He surely made out to appear like he cared for the troops, and I believe he did care about those he sent in harms way for whatever his reasoning, but as President he signed a bill that has the potential to do tremendous damage to our liberty. Our liberty being one of the most important issues, I have to rank W as one of the worst presidents in US History. I believe George W Bush loved the country, and I don't beleive Obama loves the country. It just seems Bush had a different direction that he wanted to take the country, being more of a statist than libertarian or conservative even. He wanted to and made the Federal government more powerful, and wanted and did police the world, which is financially impractical, although beneficial to the ever dangerous Military Industrial Complex.

I think Bush thought he was doing the right thing, and I don't believe he had bad intention, but what he was doing was bad for the nation and liberty. Security over liberty was his theme. The wars he fought, he may have thought it was making us more secure by taking the fight somewhere else after 9/11, but sticking our nose in so much foreign business, and along with the Iraq war made us more of a target in my opinion.

Personally I think it was Cheney and Rumsfeld pushing that agenda........."finishing what was started" in the Gulf War from '91......they just needed an excuse (9/11) and a President pliable enough to follow their advise. I think W really felt like he was doing the best he could, and it's easy to get caught up in the rhetoric when you've been drummed up to sacrifice self for country. Hell, as a 21 year old in the Navy, I had no problems with the USA PATRIOT Act.......fully bought into the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear let's go waste terrorists" mindset.

It is only after maturing some, reading history and gaining a deeper understanding on what freedom is and more importantly, what it is not that has caused me to come about 180 degrees from my previous position.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I put up this post because I saw it at another blog I frequent and I thought it poignant. It made me feel good about another president, considering the current asshole we have in the oval office. I carry a gun when I wear pants, and I have been out of the country on church mission trips to build churches.

I'd really feel better if this didn't turn into a debate about whether or not we should wage war. The fact is we do, and we have, and that is all.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I put up this post because I saw it at another blog I frequent and I thought it poignant. It made me feel good about another president, considering the current asshole we have in the oval office. I carry a gun when I wear pants, and I have been out of the country on church mission trips to build churches.

I'd really feel better if this didn't turn into a debate about whether or not we should wage war. The fact is we do, and we have, and that is all.

Loud and clear Sir I will respect your request and I agree that its great to see a former president with a soft heart towards our troops.

 

So in the belief that we should stay out of other peoples business let me ask you this. Your getting pushed down a side walk in your wheel chair by your adult son and you see someone getting mugged are you the person that keeps rooling by or do you ask your son to risk his well being to save a complete stranger.

In my eyes if/when the President (the proverbial man in the wheelchair) sees or knows that a tyrant is killing, poisoning, committing acts of mutilation and torture on a group of people, then he has the obligation to ask our troops (the proverbial son) to stand up and end the wicked and the corrupt. Yes good men have died at this request and some have never been laid to rest on American soil, but there actions laid the bricks on the road to salvation and security for the innocent all around the world. A great man once said "All it takes for evil to win is for good men to sit by an do nothing."

 

So in the belief that we should stay out of other peoples business let me ask you this. Your getting pushed down a side walk in your wheel chair by your adult son and you see someone getting mugged are you the person that keeps rooling by or do you ask your son to risk his well being to save a complete stranger.

In my eyes if/when the President (the proverbial man in the wheelchair) sees or knows that a tyrant is killing, poisoning, committing acts of mutilation and torture on a group of people, then he has the obligation to ask our troops (the proverbial son) to stand up and end the wicked and the corrupt. Yes good men have died at this request and some have never been laid to rest on American soil, but there actions laid the bricks on the road to salvation and security for the innocent all around the world. A great man once said "All it takes for evil to win is for good men to sit by an do nothing."

This is the world police argument, which I totally reject. You ever travel to Asia or South America or Africa? Ever read the local papers there? There are small wars being waged all over the planet all the time. If we followed your advice, we'd be meddling in every single one of them. Speaking of killing, torture, etc., Africa has had more than its fair share of brutal dictators. How come we never sent troops there to put an end to "the wicked and the corrupt"?

As for your personal query, I'll answer it with this: My gun is for myself, my family and my friends. Everyone else should carry their own damn gun!

 

One might say a President's circumspection regarding putting troops in harm's way is superior/more desirable behavior than being personable with said troops. No doubt, W treated troops more affectionately than O, but I'd bet the guys with prosthetics would rather have their legs than a round of gold with POTUS after being permanently injured while chasing ghosts and non-threats to the US on behalf of big oil, the military-industrial complex, POTUS' personal agenda, and, of course, US dollar hegemony.

O does all the same BS, but without the warmth for the troops, and that's what we take him to task for?

 

Et tu brute? A Bush/Cheeny "War for Oil" believer? Wouldn't have thunk it. No doubt you're not alone here though.

When did we steal the oil? We have now found out that Saddam did in fact have WMD, lots of it, and that was the stated reason for the war and was enough for prominent dems and most of the rest of the world to back it before he was thrown under the bus for the insurgency that later transpired.

Do I agree that we should have attacked Iraq? No, I think we should keep out of other countries business until there is an obvious blatant threat. If you're 99% they're going to hit you, it's always better to hit them first and I have no problem with that but IMHO Iraq wasn't there yet. I also think there may have been an overall intention to tame/convert that part of the world to our way of life which backfired, but I have always seen the "War for oil!/Halliburton!, etc." thing as the left having a anticapitalism hissy fit.

 

pffffttt, i bet his golf score sucked.

 

But have you ever seen Barry playing with these guys?

 

oh lord, now you've done it lol

 

This was posted right before the cutover to the new platform and got a little buried.

Say what you will about "W" as prez, I liked the man.