Obama and Bush - Where are they the same; where are they different?

[kavika411]

This is not intended to be a partisan thread. As I said right after Obama was elected, I wish him all the success in the world (link (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6565615#post6565615)). But now that we are 30-plus days out from his inauguration, I believe there is value in having a single, objective, upgradeable list of where Obama's actual policy implementations (as opposed to rhetoric in which all politicians engage) differ from, or stay the same with, Bush - whether the nature of the policy be social, international, fiscal, etc.

If a single, upgradeable list such as this has already been sufficiently covered in another thread, please shut this down. Otherwise, I hope people will point out policy issues so that I can add them to this list. I will try and have links. Again, the idea is to have a simple, one-stop-shop for listing where Obama and Bush are "the same" and where they "are different."


Obama largely differs from Bush:

close Gitmo link (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/12/obama.gitmo/)
negotiate with Iran link (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/mideast-watch/2009/02/20/obamas-overtures-toward-iran-worry-nearby-arab-nations.html)
ban on lobbyist-administration relations link (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/01/22/no-lobbyist-in-the-obama-administration--except-when-there-is-one.html)
have date-specific target for end of Iraq War link (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/27/obamas-troop-drawdown-decision-end-iraq-war-late-officials-say/)


Obama largely stays the same with Bush:

massive government intervention to fix economy (Bush = TARP; Obama = newer stimulus proposals)
Afghan detainees do not have right to sue in US courts link (http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE51K0S120090221)
do not revive "Fairness Doctrine" link (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/02/63031039/1)
faith-based government spending/charity link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/opinion/16mon2.html)

[Desertrat]

They're both Statist. Monetary policy is unchanged. Obama has expanded upon the power of what Bush started as the "Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives" so their views on separation of church and state are the same.

There is no particular change insofar as appointing corrupt people to high position, with tax cheats being the most obvious.

There is an equal willingness to use federal largesse to buy votes, although the skill level of Obama is infinitely superior to that of Bush.

IOW, no particular change...

'Rat

[mactastic]

Well, let's see... he hasn't disbanded the military yet, so he's exactly like Bush in foreign policy. He hasn't communized America yet, so he's exactly like Bush in fiscal policy. He hasn't shut down Gitmo yet, so he's exactly like Bush on torture. A couple of his appointees have had tax problems (similar to the one it turns out Sarah Palin had, but that's OK) so he's just as corrupt as Bush. He's proposing to do what people want in an effort to earn their vote (oh the horror!), so he's just like Bush in giving away hard-earned taxpayer money.

Yep... he's exactly like Bush.

Seriously, this puts a whole new meaning on "rush to judgement". How many years were we told to be patient by Bush and the right? Constantly begging the American people for six more months. Where's that patience now, may I ask? After the number of 6-month extensions Bush was given, and you can't even wait one month to decide Obama's a failure? It'd be funny if it wasn't such pathetically transparent political bias.

[kavika411]

It'd be funny if it wasn't such pathetically transparent political bias.

Is this directed at 'Rat's post or mine?

[fivepoint]

Here's a good (and humorous) place to start:
Daily Show: Changefest '09 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216538&title=changefest-09-obamas-inaugural)



On a more serious note:

Neither support an federal amendment supporting gay marriage.
"Gays ... should not marry." -BO
Both supported Both supported the Patriot Act.
Both supported FISA.
"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people." -BO
Both support a National ID card.
Both support a larger federal government, more spending, and less personal responsibility.
Both support federal interference with the free market.
Both support large federal bailouts of big business.
Both support the Federal Reserve and the IRS.
Both support offshore drilling.
"We're going to have to explore new ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling." -BO
Both won presidential campaigns with the message of 'change' and bipartisan ship.
Both support the federal 'war on drugs.'
Both are 'weak' on border security.
Both support Capital Punishment
Both support a similar foreign policy with Iran.
Both support foreign 'nation building'.
Both support the military industrial complex.



So, from my perspective, BO is basically a GW on spending steroids. Beyond all of the above similarities including foreign policy, the patriot act (both generally considered to be Bush's weakest points), etc., BO supported local Chicago Gun Bans (2nd amendment anyone?), supports even more government intervention of the free market and the banking system which could possibly be 'nationalized'. Semi-openly supports 'robin hood economics' and the general redistribution of the wealth. Has already passed bills to spend roughly 3 Trillion dollars on a 'stimulus' package most Americans consider to be far to heavily centered on 'pork' instead of stimulus, etc.

[fivepoint]

One big difference though... Obama united the country, and Bush divided it. :D

http://4simpsons.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/bush_obama.jpg

[SmartIndianKid]

One big difference though... Obama united the country, and Bush divided it. :D

http://4simpsons.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/bush_obama.jpg

The political cartoon is funny, but it would be funnier if the numbers were accurate.

[Sun Baked]

Should be interesting to see how the same policies will be treated by the press and the people.

They're the same and sort of different.

I can see both depicted as chimps in political cartoons.

While doing it for Bush you'll get a pat on the back and a chuckle.

Doing it to Obama will likely land you in jail/doghouse for a racial hate crime.

[EricNau]

They're both too conservative. ;)

[és:]

The political cartoon is funny, but it would be funnier if the numbers were accurate.

Well, then they wouldn't be able to completely deceive everyone. Where would be the fun in that?

52.9% of the popular vote to McCain's 45.6% and 349 electoral votes to 173 doesn't really insinuate what they wanted to :D

(No... I'm not taking it too seriously. Just pointing it out)

[bradl]

Fivepoint,

They BOTH support offshore drilling? This definitely must come as a shock to you:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99759724

And the administration is said to be looking at issuing an order that would stop a last-minute Bush proposal that would allow the expansion of offshore drilling in areas that have been previously banned, and to block the Interior Department's plan to develop oil shale fields largely found in Utah.

In lifting the 1981-era ban on offshore drilling before he left office, Bush cited high gas prices faced by Americans. Obama has said he wants to keep the ban.


Yeah, they both support offshore drilling... :rolleyes:

Both support the same foreign policy with Iran?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100477204

On foreign policy, Obama said his administration is looking for a way to open up diplomatic lines with Iran, despite the fact that the country has been "unhelpful in promoting peace and prosperity in the region and around the world."

"In the coming months, we will be looking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table in face-to-face, diplomatic overtures that will allow us to move our policy in a new direction," Obama said. While acknowledging the sense of mistrust between the two countries, the president said, "There's a possibility of a relationship of mutual respect and progress."


When has Bush ever entertained the thought of diplomatic lines with Iran?

Patriot Act, you are right, but to an extent, however:

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obamas_consistent_p_1.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#USA_PATRIOT_Act
http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q19_2006.asp

He voted against Bush's version, said that the compromised version is far from perfect, and filibustered on another vote of it. He doesn't like it in the fact that it took away civil liberties, which he helped to add back in. Could better be done? yes, and he knows it, and things aren't as black and white as you make it out to be.


Pork in the stimulus? When has Bush ever shown what his 'bailout' was going towards? He blindly called for money to be given to the banks, with no means of accountability, let alone showing where the money is going. So instead of getting a stabilized economy out of it, we got more hemmoraging of it, with billions going to corporate executive bonuses. The last two 'stimulus' packages Bush gave out did nothing for the economy except shift money around in tax breaks to checks in the people's pockets that the people already gave the government! $600 or $1200 that we gave them, we got back. We broke even. Now, when people are getting sacked right and left, Obama promises jobs in this package (which I hope it delivers on); something you call 'pork'.

Has Obama bailed out any 'big businesses'? recall, only half of Bush's package was given. The other half is coming to them, as promised by Bush. That isn't Obama's doing, although he could tell them no.

It's funny how one's perspective can be so narrow.. but I don't need nor want to argue that here. It's already tough enough to change someone's mind when it's made up. Better to let time and history change it for them (and prove their perspective wrong).

BL.

[fivepoint]

They BOTH support offshore drilling? This definitely must come as a shock to you:
Yeah, they both support offshore drilling... :rolleyes:

Yes, they both do. BO is wishy-washy, and seems to change his opinion depending on who he is speaking in front of. See his quote above which is more recent than your link.



Both support the same foreign policy with Iran?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100477204


When has Bush ever entertained the thought of diplomatic lines with Iran?

It's essentially the same carrot/stick policy. Bush did it behind closed doors and with other nations taking a lead role, Obama is more open about it but still uses threatening war rhetoric and says no options are off the table. They both have the same requirements of the Iranian government, and make the same threat of war if those requirements are not met. Unchanged.




Patriot Act, you are right, but to an extent, however:

He voted against Bush's version, said that the compromised version is far from perfect, and filibustered on another vote of it. He doesn't like it in the fact that it took away civil liberties, which he helped to add back in. Could better be done? yes, and he knows it, and things aren't as black and white as you make it out to be.

Ah... right, he voted against it before he voted for it. I should have known. Anyway, bottom line... he voted for it in it's current form and in its current form... the Patriot act is damaging to civil liberties. Don't make excuses for these deplorable votes. Unchanged.





Pork in the stimulus? When has Bush ever shown what his 'bailout' was going towards? He blindly called for money to be given to the banks, with no means of accountability, let alone showing where the money is going. So instead of getting a stabilized economy out of it, we got more hemmoraging of it, with billions going to corporate executive bonuses. The last two 'stimulus' packages Bush gave out did nothing for the economy except shift money around in tax breaks to checks in the people's pockets that the people already gave the government! $600 or $1200 that we gave them, we got back. We broke even. Now, when people are getting sacked right and left, Obama promises jobs in this package (which I hope it delivers on); something you call 'pork'.

Has Obama bailed out any 'big businesses'? recall, only half of Bush's package was given. The other half is coming to them, as promised by Bush. That isn't Obama's doing, although he could tell them no.

It's funny how one's perspective can be so narrow.. but I don't need nor want to argue that here. It's already tough enough to change someone's mind when it's made up. Better to let time and history change it for them (and prove their perspective wrong).

BL.

If you're looking for me to stand up for GW, you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't support hawkish-liberals, no matter if it's Bush or Obama. Your implication though that the reason the first 'bailout' failed is because there was no accountability is extremely short-sighted. It failed because it was destined to fail. It failed because it should have failed. The solution to an economy that has over spent itself, been over-controlled by the FED, over lent money, isn't more spending, more government, and more unadultered lending!!! Also, don't try and say that Obama simply spent the second half of Bush's bill. Bush and Obama (and everyone in Washington) worked on that bill together. Obama and McCain were having a pissing contest to see who thought this was a bigger problem, and how much more the other would spend. Also, how about the next 1 Trillion bank money that Obama/Geitner wants, and the talk about nationalizing the banks? If you think all of this is Bush's doing... well, then you're slightly confused.

The Bush/Obama stimulus plans are broken at their very core. They are broken ideas from two like-minded politicians who think that big government, bailouts, and social programs are the solution, when in fact... the opposite is true.

[nbs2]

If a single, upgradeable list such as this has already been sufficiently covered in another thread, please shut this down. Otherwise, I hope people will point out policy issues so that I can add them to this list. I will try and have links...Again, the idea is to have a simple, one-stop-shop for listing where Obama and Bush are "the same" and where they "are different."

I appreciate you doing this, and hope you will continue to update the list, even with the rhetoric that is already flying back and forth. While I don't wish his policies success in getting implemented from a personal view of efficacy, I do hope that I'm wrong and that what does get put in place does pan out for the best.

At teh very least, it will be nice to have a record for the next four years to look at when trying to decide if he has brought the "change from Bush" that he promised or if he is more of the same. I think if he hadn't campaigned so hard on being the "anti-Bush" people wouldn't be examining him so thoroughly. But he did and they are.

(In that regard, if anyone can teach me how to reduce a long link down to the term "link" to save space, I greatly appreciate it.)

Either type in the following format, or select the text you want the link attached to and click the little globe/link icon above the text box you see when typing a post.

Linky (http://www.google.com)

[kavika411]

I appreciate you doing this, and hope you will continue to update the list, even with the rhetoric that is already flying back and forth. While I don't wish his policies success in getting implemented from a personal view of efficacy, I do hope that I'm wrong and that what does get put in place does pan out for the best.

At teh very least, it will be nice to have a record for the next four years to look at when trying to decide if he has brought the "change from Bush" that he promised or if he is more of the same. I think if he hadn't campaigned so hard on being the "anti-Bush" people wouldn't be examining him so thoroughly. But he did and they are.

Either type in the following format, or select the text you want the link attached to and click the little globe/link icon above the text box you see when typing a post.

Linky (http://www.google.com)

Thanks for support for what I hope is, again, a simple, objective, upgradeable thread. And thanks for answering my inquiry on links.

[stevento]

Obama largely stays the same with Bush:

massive government intervention to fix economy (Bush = TARP; Obama = newer stimulus proposals)
Afghan detainees do not have right to sue in US courts link (http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE51K0S120090221)
do not revive "Fairness Doctrine" link (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/02/63031039/1)
faith-based government spending/charity that discriminates against muslim, jews and other religions. link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/opinion/16mon2.html)

Obama thinks healthcare mandate is just too liberal
Both Bush and Obama fail miserably at working across the isle.
Was elected on promises of change and bipartisanship, but failed to deliver.




i added a few for you.

[bradl]

Yes, they both do. BO is wishy-washy, and seems to change his opinion depending on who he is speaking in front of. See his quote above which is more recent than your link.


Really?


In the second presidential debate on Oct. 7, 2008, Sen. Barack Obama listed energy independence as one of the nation's biggest priorities, and touched briefly on the controversial issue of whether to open up new areas to offshore drilling.

"I believe in the need for increased oil production," Obama said. "We're going to have to explore new ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling. It includes telling the oil companies, that currently have 68-million acres that they're not using, that either you use them or you lose them."


Check your dates again. By all calendars, Jan. 22, 2009 is more recent than Oct. 7, 2008.



It's essentially the same carrot/stick policy. Bush did it behind closed doors and with other nations taking a lead role, Obama is more open about it but still uses threatening war rhetoric and says no options are off the table. They both have the same requirements of the Iranian government, and make the same threat of war if those requirements are not met. Unchanged.


And just how do you know Bush did that behind closed doors? All we've ever heard from Bush is that they are a terrorist nation, part of the 'Axis of Evil', and supported a Bush doctrined strike against them. Not once did he put down his gun and extend a hand.


Ah... right, he voted against it before he voted for it. I should have known. Anyway, bottom line... he voted for it in it's current form and in its current form... the Patriot act is damaging to civil liberties. Don't make excuses for these deplorable votes. Unchanged.


Once again, check facts again, and read the bills:


2006: Obama Voted For a PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Bill That Included Three Key Changes Designed to Prevent Abuse of Authority By Law Enforcement. The final conference report to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, passed by Congress in March of 2006, included three key changes that were not in the original bill that President Bush supported in 2005. In a report on the changes made to the final conference report to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, CQ wrote, "One allows recipients of a court-approved request for business records to challenge a gag order, although to overturn it they would have to wait one year and prove the government acted in "bad faith." The second change removes a requirement that recipients of national security letters, which do not require court approval, disclose the names of attorneys they consult or intend to consult. The third change clarifies language in the 2001 law to ensure that libraries operating in traditional roles and not as Internet service providers would not be subject to national security letters." [CQ Legislative Summary on HR 3199, 12/18/06]

Ø The Final PATRIOT Act Conference Report Included Key Changes Based On a Bill Obama Cosponsored Almost a Year Earlier. In 2005, Obama cosponsored a bill, the Security and Freedom and Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2005 (S. 737), which amended the PATRIOT Act to safeguard against privacy violations. The bill required added safeguards to the "roving wiretap" provisions of the PATRIOT Act, requiring that electronic surveillance warrants contain specific information about the identity of the target or the place being wiretapped, and requiring that surveillance of a place only be conducted when a suspect is present at that place. The bill also limited law enforcement's authority to delay notice of a search warrant to circumstances where issuing a warrant would endanger an individual's physical safety, result in an individual's flight from prosecution. The key changes made to the final conference report on the PATRIOT Act were based on provisions in the SAFE Act. [H.R. 3199, S. 737, 109th Congress]



If you're looking for me to stand up for GW, you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't support hawkish-liberals, no matter if it's Bush or Obama. Your implication though that the reason the first 'bailout' failed is because there was no accountability is extremely short-sighted. It failed because it was destined to fail. It failed because it should have failed. The solution to an economy that has over spent itself, been over-controlled by the FED, over lent money, isn't more spending, more government, and more unadultered lending!!! Also, don't try and say that Obama simply spent the second half of Bush's bill. Bush and Obama (and everyone in Washington) worked on that bill together. Obama and McCain were having a pissing contest to see who thought this was a bigger problem, and how much more the other would spend. Also, how about the next 1 Trillion bank money that Obama/Geitner wants, and the talk about nationalizing the banks? If you think all of this is Bush's doing... well, then you're slightly confused.


You read too much into my words, let alone try to put them in my mouth. I never said they failed because of lack of accountability. I said they never had any accountability; just hand them the money and turn away. Of course it was going to fail. Bush was too stupid to look at how it was going to fail, because he was too busy setting up so many cut-and-run plays so he could do as much damage as he could on his way out.


I inherited the deficit that we have right now and the economic crisis that we have right now." -BO 2/9/2009



The Bush/Obama stimulus plans are broken at their very core. They are broken ideas from two like-minded politicians who think that big government, bailouts, and social programs are the solution, when in fact... the opposite is true.

I agree that the stimulus plans are broken, and will continue to, and the markets should balance themselves out, like what would have happened prior to FDR. But this isn't about the stimulus, this is about what is different between Bush and Obama. For one, Obama has a brain, and [wasn't a Fortunate Son, like John Fogerty mentioned (http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/fogerty-john/i-cant-take-it-no-more-23114.html).

BL.

[mactastic]

Obama:

Taking steps to close Guantanamo.
Eliminating at least some of the "fancy accounting" that allowed Bush and other previous presidents to claim the budget was rosier than it truly was.
Reducing connections between lobbyists and government.
Planning to remove troops from Iraq and wind down US involvement there.
Planning to increase troop strength in Afghanistan.
Providing weekly address on radio, and now also on the web.
Moving swiftly to address a teetering economy.
Shows willingness to work with political opponents and make significant concessions if necessary.
Has confidence of somewhere in the neighborhood of 2/3 of Americans, as opposed to fewer than 1/4th.
Has high-ranking opposition party members within his cabinet.
Won a resounding victory over his opponent.
Removed the gag order.
Allowing stem cell research to proceed.
Is reviewing all land grabs handed to extraction industry folks at the end of the Bush administration.
Believes global warming is real, and is influenced by human activity.
Can talk in coherent sentences, without sneer or "heh... heh".
Does not get shoes thrown at him.
Does not come from a blue-blood pedigree of wealth and power.
Does not pretend to be a cowboy.
Believes in science as the basis for policy.
Will not appoint justices like Scalia and Roberts to the SCOTUS.
Has called for caps on executive pay if an ailing company accepts taxpayer money.
Is viewed positively by much of the world.


I'm sure if I actually spent some time the list would be much more extensive.

[EricNau]

Does not pretend to be a cowboy.
Bush wasn't pretending. ;)

[kavika411]

Neither support an federal amendment supporting gay marriage.

Both supported Both supported the Patriot Act.
Both supported FISA.

Both support a National ID card.
Both support a larger federal government, more spending, and less personal responsibility.
Both support federal interference with the free market.
Both support large federal bailouts of big business.
Both support the Federal Reserve and the IRS.
Both support offshore drilling.

Both won presidential campaigns with the message of 'change' and bipartisan ship.
Both support the federal 'war on drugs.'
Both are 'weak' on border security.
Both support Capital Punishment
Both support a similar foreign policy with Iran.
Both support foreign 'nation building'.
Both support the military industrial complex.



Obama:

Taking steps to close Guantanamo.
Eliminating at least some of the "fancy accounting" that allowed Bush and other previous presidents to claim the budget was rosier than it truly was.
Reducing connections between lobbyists and government.
Planning to remove troops from Iraq and wind down US involvement there.
Planning to increase troop strength in Afghanistan.
Providing weekly address on radio, and now also on the web.
Moving swiftly to address a teetering economy.
Shows willingness to work with political opponents and make significant concessions if necessary.
Has confidence of somewhere in the neighborhood of 2/3 of Americans, as opposed to fewer than 1/4th.
Has high-ranking opposition party members within his cabinet.
Won a resounding victory over his opponent.
Removed the gag order.
Allowing stem cell research to proceed.
Is reviewing all land grabs handed to extraction industry folks at the end of the Bush administration.
Believes global warming is real, and is influenced by human activity.
Can talk in coherent sentences, without sneer or "heh... heh".
Does not get shoes thrown at him.
Does not come from a blue-blood pedigree of wealth and power.
Does not pretend to be a cowboy.
Believes in science as the basis for policy.
Will not appoint justices like Scalia and Roberts to the SCOTUS.
Has called for caps on executive pay if an ailing company accepts taxpayer money.
Is viewed positively by much of the world.


I'm sure if I actually spent some time the list would be much more extensive.

As I stated in the original post, the idea is "actual policy implementations." If you choose to read the original post, you will also see that closing Gitmo has been on there since the thread started, and the lobbyist connection since this morning. Regarding removal of troops, stem cell research, and the other actual policy matters (as opposed to whether he likes to play dress-up), if there has been an implementation of that policy, give me a link and I'll be happy to add it.

[mactastic]

As I stated in the original post, the idea is "actual policy implementations." If you choose to read the original post, you will also see that closing Gitmo has been on there since the thread started, and the lobbyist connection since this morning. Regarding removal of troops, stem cell research, and the other actual policy matters (as opposed to whether he likes to play dress-up), if there has been an implementation of that policy, give me a link and I'll be happy to add it.
Now, now... play nice with me. Or at least as nice as you are with your conservative brethren. I notice you neglected to publicly tongue-lash fivepoint for posting many items which were not based on any yet-enacted policy. Why would that be, I wonder? Is it that you just didn't notice his flagrant violations of your edict, and a complete coincidence that his political ideology is closer to yours than mine is? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, but I was only following in this vein:

Here's a good (and humorous) place to start:
Daily Show: Changefest '09 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216538&title=changefest-09-obamas-inaugural)



On a more serious note:

Neither support an federal amendment supporting gay marriage.

Both supported Both supported the Patriot Act.
Both supported FISA.

Both support a National ID card.
Both support a larger federal government, more spending, and less personal responsibility.
Both support federal interference with the free market.
Both support large federal bailouts of big business.
Both support the Federal Reserve and the IRS.
Both support offshore drilling.

Both won presidential campaigns with the message of 'change' and bipartisan ship.
Both support the federal 'war on drugs.'
Both are 'weak' on border security.
Both support Capital Punishment.
Both support a similar foreign policy with Iran.
Both support foreign 'nation building'.
Both support the military industrial complex.

Large portions of that list are in no way policy. Most of them are items are of the "he supports" variety that certainly do not reflect Obama policy moves.

So which is it? Are we allowed to say that one or more of these guys have policy positions that support less personal responsibility, or get shoes thrown at them, or not?

It's your thread, you make up your mind.

[kavika411]

Now, now... play nice with me. Or at least as nice as you are with your conservative brethren. I notice you neglected to publicly tongue-lash fivepoint

The only tongue lashing I've read in this thread is in Post No. 3 where you assailed this thread as having a "pathetically transparent political bias." Then again, because you didn't respond to Post No. 4, I still don't know whether that tongue-lashing was directed at me or 'Rat.



Are we allowed to say that one or more of these guys have policy positions that support less personal responsibility, or get shoes thrown at them, or not?

It's your thread, you make up your mind.

You are "allowed" to say whatever you want, but you didn't need me to tell you that, did you? If you would like to help make this - again - a simple, objective, upgradeable thread on the implementation of Obama's policies and how they relate to Bush, throw some things out there with a link, and I will happily add them.

[mactastic]

The only tongue lashing I've read in this thread is in Post No. 3 where you assailed this thread as having a "pathetically transparent political bias." Then again, because you didn't respond to Post No. 4, I still don't know whether that tongue-lashing was directed at me or 'Rat.
Taking that one personally, eh? I'll let you two fight it out to see who gets to claim to be the target. If the shoe fits, wear it.

You are "allowed" to say whatever you want, but you didn't need me to tell you that, did you? If you would like to help make this - again - a simple, objective, upgradeable thread on the implementation of Obama's policies and how they relate to Bush, throw some things out there with a link, and I will happily add them.
Where are the links to lesser personal responsibility as a policy position? What policy has been put in place regarding a national ID card, the military industrial complex, offshore drilling, the PATRIOT Act, border security, gay marriage, capital punishment, or many other of the supposed policy item you quoted to me that fivepoint supplied? This forum is often accused of having a liberal bias to it, but I'm seeing a pretty pronounced conservative bias these days.

Let's face it, these days there is a cottage industry that has sprung up among conservatives to tie Obama as closely as possible to Bush; since they don't want conservatism tied to Bush anymore. "Look liberals! Obama is just like Bush!" is the rallying cry that is supposed to make us all think that really we'd have been better off with McCain.

As for links, tell me which of the items on my list you consider policy positions worthy of inclusion in your thread, and I will provide you with the links for your list.