Comparing the two presidents
Posted By: an observation on 2006-04-19
In Reply to: It's not a spoof. - ;-)
is a little like comparing a bass (Bush) to a great white shark (Iranian president). 
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
Presidents have been "slandered" since there's been presidents
President Bush took a beating. And you think Obama is somehow above being criticized???? Funny...
Are you comparing Pat
/
39% is a ton when you are comparing she is
nm
She wasn't comparing them.
She was giving an example of unsound reasoning.
this looks like you are comparing a black
person to a "retarded" person, which makes YOU look bad. -and have some respect for the office, please. Talking like a 5-year-old does not help your own cause.
name-calling, same old liberal. Comparing SP to
nm
Yes, but he is comparing policies and emphasizing
words straight from McC's mouth and infinitely verifiable upon inspection of his record. Obama is NOT indulging himself in a character assassinating, fear-mongering, cultural warring free-for-all. People DO notice the difference, you know...at least, some of them anyway.
That congressman is comparing him to Hitler
I can't remember his name, but I saw it on Fox News. All he's doing is getting everybody in an uproar and scaring them. I think that's why people are posting this now.
Let be what is, everybody, and just have a sit-and-wait approach. It's much less stressful! :)
Comparing McCain's and Obama's
life achievements it was obvious I could never vote for Obama. However, as comparatively better as McCain seemed to me, it was still obvious that they were promising to take us in about the same direction, only at slightly different speeds. Still, rather than not vote, or throw my ballot away on a third party, I went for McCain, choosing someone who had served well in the military over someone whose main claims to fame were socialism, gutting the constitution and 'community organization.' Maybe conservatives will have their act together a little better by 2012 and the choice will be clearer.
Relax, you're comparing everybody to Slick Will and Hill.
x
I wasn't comparing Rush to Affleck. sm
And no one here said a word of condemnation against Affleck. That was my point.
I am comparing SP to other repubs - not democrats - in my question - nm
x
stop comparing politicians to fish!
Everyone knows referring to Trout Pout is a subtle racial insult!
Presidents do not yield
to political blackmail -- Obama did the right thing. He believes his time is better spent letting the entire bleppin' congress work the on the issue and then vote when they come up with a plan. McCain is just making another grandstand attempt that has fallen embarrassingly flat.
I was not talking about 16 other presidents...... sm
I am talking about Obama.
I thought the general consensus of this board, or at least the Obama supporters here, was that we were to not look at history but rather to the future. (At least that is what I was told when I posted that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat their mistakes.)
You really should have watched the "YouTube bites." It was Obama himself saying that he did not believe a person that is unqualified for a job should apply for it and that was his reasoning for saying that he did not see himself running for a national office in 2008. Since you didn't watch the video, I believe you are unqualified to comment on it.
They do that with ALL presidents. Usually, initially
nm
Oh, so you don't care if this has been done before with other presidents, . . . sm
but you do care if it has not been done before. Why? Either way, the naysayers will have something to whine about. The only reason there is such a big deal being made is because there has not been a president in recent history that has had been under so much scrutiny in his first 100 days. Even if he were to solve world peace, find a cure for cancer AND turn water into wine, they would still complain and find fault. 
So have all the other Christian presidents, nm
x
Not all presidents do have a gathering
Just because they served the Kool-Aid in the Bush white house for the last 8 years, doesn't mean that's what is supposed to happen. Obama signed a national proclamation honoring the day, which is what many presidents have done since Truman created it 50 some years ago. Not everyone needs to drape themselves in their religion to honor it.
All presidents have done things....(sm)
in secret. It's never caused such a problem before. I'm not trying to slam Bush, but look at all the stuff we're finding out about his administration (i.e. torture memos, etc). And to top that off, Bush was the one who initially stopped access to the guest list to the WH. When Bush did it the news covered it, but there wasn't a wide spread panic about it....so what's the big deal about Obama doing it?
I'm not saying that I agree with blocking the lists, because I don't, but the point is that both Bush and Obama have done it, so why the panic about just one of them? My guess is that right wing media is pushing the issue and using it as a talking point; basically making the media being the ones who are instilling fear, not Obama.
I'm sorry, but are you comparing an embryo, fetus to a turkey?!?!? And you think it is funny?!?!
I wonder if I'm the only one who finds your idea of a joke offensive. Just when I was ready to be offended by "blob of tissue" you chime in with your turkey joke. I'm stunned sometimes at the callousness of some people. I don't know why I would be stunned considering the world we live in, but I still am from time to time. Thank my Heavenly Father! I wouldn't want to be so cold.
Those "blobs of tissue" have heartbeats. Those "blobs of tissue" have such beauty and such potential. Those "blobs of tissue" are alive.
My point is that prior presidents have had their day..sm
and time when they were covered in mud and IMHO none of it is right, except to say in most cases the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
But, to answer Jeb's and Bush's family mishaps with the what about the Kennedy's line is dodging the point to me.
Bringing up the Lynch and Dean ordeal that's something worth listening to, but you guys just can't let go of old democratic presidents. It's like a thorn still sticking in your side. Everytime something comes up with Bush, you talk about Clinton, or even the Kennedy's, as if that dismisses Bush somehow. Whatever gets you though.
Maybe it's time to dump the presidents and
X
16 presidents with less experience than Obama...
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html
1. Abraham Lincoln,
2. FDR
3. Theodore Roosevelt
4. Woodrow Wilson
5. John Adams
6. Grover Cleveland
7. Ronald Reagan
8. Howard Taft
9. Bill Clinton
10. George Bush
11. Chester A. Arthur
12. Herbert Hoover
13. Jimmy Carter
14. Benjamin Harrison
15. Ulysses S. Grant
16. William Harrison
BTW, I do not make such important decisions as selecting a president based on YouTube sound bytes, so no, I did not bother with the video. My vote is between me and my candidate, based on exactly the things I listed in the previous post, which I stand by 100%.
Hogwash. See 16 presidents post above.
x
Haven't all the other Christian presidents? nm
x
No you were not - it's obvious you were talking about the presidents
because you said so in your message! Sheesh - this is about as good as David Letterman saying he was talking about the "other" Palin girl.
This is unbelieveable and ridiculous - your comparing two totally opposite things
You cannot compare the two. You evidently approve of the bible studies and that is fine. There is nothing wrong with a bible study if you keep it under a certain number.
These people are assembling more than 15 people in which case they need to get a license according to the law. There are certain rules why (fire codes, etc). This is being done on a regular basis. Therefore it becomes a business.
The playground for the kids have a license and is zoned for such.
The "folks at the airport for their plane. Lawbreakers?" Are you for real? That is what the airport is for. It is zoned for that and they pay their fees to whatever state, and they abide by the laws.
It's not what they are doing in their home. It's that they are assembling a large congegration of people on a regular basis in a home that is not zoned for the business.
You cannot compare this with a playground, airport, or a tupperware party (which occurs on an infrequent basis here and there).
Having a social event like scrapbooking, tupperware party, having some friends over to watch a sports game is a whole different issue (unless they have it on a weekly basis with open bar and more than 15 people - in which case they need to get a license and follow the law). It's not that we hate what they are doing. That has nothing to do with it. The law is specific and they are breaking the law.
Here's a question for you...if I lived next door to you and I belonged to a Wiccan group would you mind me having 20 or so people over every week so that we could have our ceremonies to celebrate our wiccan holidays and rituals. Would you mind that 20 or so people were in the backyard next to yours completing our ritual of praying to the moon goddess (or whatever gods/goddesses for the ritual) at night. Sometimes we build a fire and dance in circles and chant our prayers. Would you mind that. Some groups even complete their ceremonies in the nude. Would you be fine with that?
It's very simple. The law states that if you have over a certain number of people that hold regular meetings/functions you need to have a business license and follow the law. It doesn't matter what they are doing. They need to follow the law.
Democratic presidents 'suck' in the eyes
of Reps, and Republican presidents 'suck' in the eyes of Dems.....and round and round it goes...
There were assassination attempts on WHITE Presidents. Did the assassinators
think they might not really be white? or that they were too young to run a country?
much ado about nothing...reporter posed question as, "had he spoken to any *living* presidents?..
i agree the reporter's question was absolutely LAME..."has he spoken to any LIVING past presidents?" um...as opposed to talking to dead ones? I thought his response was quick-witted considering the idiocy of the question--at least he didn't put the reporter on the spot and embarrass her...instead he made his first gaffe as POTUSE and already apologized. let's hope the reporters ask SMARTER questions at the next conference.
I love democrats! I love most of the past democratic presidents (sm)
I would love for there to be a good democrat I could vote for. I want good leadership and I want change. But I truly believe to purposely ignore a symbol speaks volumes. He is not just asking the symbol to wait, he is ignoring it on purpose. Avoiding it on purpose. Why do you think that is? There is a reason. Can you not see it?
|
