If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   George W. Bush -- who put two wars on the credit card, ill-equipped the troops for them, cut veterans benefits, turned a surplus into a deficit and encouraged Americans to spend more money -- says we aren't doing enough for the troops   (cnn.com) divider line 290
    More: Asinine, George W. Bush, Americans, Jill Biden, Paul Rieckhoff  
•       •       •

888 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2014 at 1:48 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



290 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-20 09:44:12 AM
Oh relax submitter, this is the kind of shiat that ex-Presidents do. Besides, he's not wrong.(also the VA medical benefits and hospitals have been a tragic joke for a long time)
 
2014-02-20 09:48:20 AM
He needs a nice long vacation.

At a war crimes tribunal.
 
2014-02-20 10:01:14 AM
I'm not a fan of his overall body of work, but he's correct on this one.
 
2014-02-20 10:05:44 AM
I'm all for helping vets, but there wouldn't be so many of them and they wouldn't have suffered the trauma they did if not for his decisions.

He's asking the rest of us to help clean up problems he needlessly created.

And this is not "he's eating crackers". This guy deserves our scorn.
 
2014-02-20 10:07:36 AM
Every war is put on the credit card, and then never paid off. We're still paying interest on the money we borrowed to fight WWs One and Two.
 
2014-02-20 10:09:05 AM

MrBallou: I'm all for helping vets, but there wouldn't be so many of them and they wouldn't have suffered the trauma they did if not for his decisions.

He's asking the rest of us to help clean up problems he needlessly created.

And this is not "he's eating crackers". This guy deserves our scorn.


So you want to cut veterans benefits more just to spite him? You're not necessarily wrong but you're also not helping.
 
2014-02-20 10:10:59 AM

Voiceofreason01: MrBallou: I'm all for helping vets, but there wouldn't be so many of them and they wouldn't have suffered the trauma they did if not for his decisions.

He's asking the rest of us to help clean up problems he needlessly created.

And this is not "he's eating crackers". This guy deserves our scorn.

So you want to cut veterans benefits more just to spite him? You're not necessarily wrong but you're also not helping.


How about this? How about we all agree that we need to increase veterans benefits- by quite a bit- and then we agree not to listen to this guy- the guy responsible for the need in the first place.

If someone gets drunk and crashes their car into your garage, and then criticizes the way you pick up the pieces, it makes you pretty angry.
 
2014-02-20 10:11:40 AM

MrBallou: I'm all for helping vets, but there wouldn't be so many of them and they wouldn't have suffered the trauma they did if not for his decisions.

He's asking the rest of us to help clean up problems he needlessly created.

And this is not "he's eating crackers". This guy deserves our scorn.


So, screw the veterans because Bush is bad? That's pretty vindictive.
 
2014-02-20 10:15:29 AM

DrPainMD: Every war is put on the credit card, and then never paid off. We're still paying interest on the money we borrowed to fight WWs One and Two.


I believe that GW has the honour of being the first president to both not include war spending on the books, and oversee a simultaneous massive tax cut.  It really is impressive in it's magnitude.
 
2014-02-20 10:28:14 AM

unyon: DrPainMD: Every war is put on the credit card, and then never paid off. We're still paying interest on the money we borrowed to fight WWs One and Two.

I believe that GW has the honour of being the first president to both not include war spending on the books, and oversee a simultaneous massive tax cut.  It really is impressive in it's magnitude.


I guess it depends on how you count Ronald Reagan. You still have tax cuts combined with a massive defense spending increases, an escalation of the Cold War, Grenada and Lebanon.

The whole war for the glory of the empire(and slip some money to defense contractors) and the cut taxes is the Reagan-GOP wet dream.
 
2014-02-20 10:41:12 AM

DrPainMD: Every war is put on the credit card, and then never paid off. We're still paying interest on the money we borrowed to fight WWs One and Two.


A nice trolley statement that has no basis in reality.
 
2014-02-20 10:41:51 AM
Trollish. Stupid autocorrect.
 
2014-02-20 10:44:06 AM
All presidents to some extent are divorced from reality, but Chimpy has taken lack of self awareness to a completely new level.
 
2014-02-20 10:45:43 AM

Speaker2Animals: DrPainMD: Every war is put on the credit card, and then never paid off. We're still paying interest on the money we borrowed to fight WWs One and Two.

A nice trolley statement that has no basis in reality.


No basis in reality? When did we pay off WW1 or 2? We haven't.

www.brillig.com
 
2014-02-20 10:53:07 AM

DrPainMD: When did we pay off WW1 or 2?


Europe still owes us.
 
2014-02-20 10:54:16 AM

DrPainMD: No basis in reality? When did we pay off WW1 or 2? We haven't


The National Debt is not just war debt and if you look at the chart that you posted, debt doesn't really take off until the 1980's(Reagan), almost 40 years after the end of WWII. Just because national debt never dropped to zero follow WWII does not mean that we still owe money from debt incurred during the war.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-20 10:55:59 AM
Of course, they wouldn't have all those problems if they hadn't been sent off to fight in Iraq for no good reason.

I can see why his conscience might be bothering him a bit.
 
2014-02-20 10:58:38 AM

vpb: Of course, they wouldn't have all those problems if they hadn't been sent off to fight in Iraq for no good reason.

I can see why his conscience might be bothering him a bit.


VA benefits have been a problem for a long time. The Iraq war made things much worse by creating a whole new generation of veterans with significant amounts of combat experience but the problem would have still existed.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-20 11:01:54 AM

Voiceofreason01: vpb: Of course, they wouldn't have all those problems if they hadn't been sent off to fight in Iraq for no good reason.

I can see why his conscience might be bothering him a bit.

VA benefits have been a problem for a long time. The Iraq war made things much worse by creating a whole new generation of veterans with significant amounts of combat experience but the problem would have still existed.


Sure, but it's a problem for a lot more people than it would have been otherwise.
 
2014-02-20 11:03:34 AM

Voiceofreason01: DrPainMD: No basis in reality? When did we pay off WW1 or 2? We haven't

The National Debt is not just war debt and if you look at the chart that you posted, debt doesn't really take off until the 1980's(Reagan), almost 40 years after the end of WWII. Just because national debt never dropped to zero follow WWII does not mean that we still owe money from debt incurred during the war.


*sigh*

See that jump from 1940 to 1945? That's the war debt.
See it drop back down to pre-war levels? No. The debt was never paid. We've been rolling it over for 70 years.
 
2014-02-20 11:06:04 AM
The least he can do is advocate for all the soldiers he caused to become injured and broken.
 
2014-02-20 11:07:26 AM

DrPainMD: Speaker2Animals: DrPainMD: Every war is put on the credit card, and then never paid off. We're still paying interest on the money we borrowed to fight WWs One and Two.

A nice trolley statement that has no basis in reality.

No basis in reality? When did we pay off WW1 or 2? We haven't.

[www.brillig.com image 474x471]


You know that chart is absolutely meaningless don't you?
 
2014-02-20 11:07:59 AM
DrPainMD:*sigh*

See that jump from 1940 to 1945? That's the war debt.
See it drop back down to pre-war levels? No. The debt was never paid. We've been rolling it over for 70 years.


Do you have a source for that(I'm legitimately interested)? Because just because National Debt never went back down to zero following the war does not mean the debt incurred from the war wasn't paid off.

It would be like if I bought a car and a house both with loans. I subsequently pay off the car loan but still owe on the house. My household debt isn't zero even though the car is paid off.
 
2014-02-20 11:10:29 AM

DrPainMD: Speaker2Animals: DrPainMD: Every war is put on the credit card, and then never paid off. We're still paying interest on the money we borrowed to fight WWs One and Two.

A nice trolley statement that has no basis in reality.

No basis in reality? When did we pay off WW1 or 2? We haven't.

[www.brillig.com image 474x471]


upload.wikimedia.org

You either show debt adjusted for inflation or better yet (above) as a percentage of GDP.  What you provided in meaningless.
 
2014-02-20 11:22:57 AM

Voiceofreason01: DrPainMD:*sigh*

See that jump from 1940 to 1945? That's the war debt.
See it drop back down to pre-war levels? No. The debt was never paid. We've been rolling it over for 70 years.

Do you have a source for that(I'm legitimately interested)? Because just because National Debt never went back down to zero following the war does not mean the debt incurred from the war wasn't paid off.

It would be like if I bought a car and a house both with loans. I subsequently pay off the car loan but still owe on the house. My household debt isn't zero even though the car is paid off.


Of course he has no source other than that chart, which as you and others have pointed out is meaningless for the point he's trying to make.
 
2014-02-20 11:27:23 AM
easy to say when you are an overpaid draft dodger
 
2014-02-20 11:53:27 AM
Subby, it is through the painful experience of making mistakes that one acquires the real-world wisdom that enables him or her to give advice. Now the question is whether a young, inexperienced, up-and-coming leader like Barack Obama has the courage to learn from one who's already walked his long, lonely road and learned the various pitfalls that exist on it, or whether petty ego and childish naivete will cause him to foolishly stumble through the same errors.
 
2014-02-20 12:15:43 PM

Nabb1: MrBallou: I'm all for helping vets, but there wouldn't be so many of them and they wouldn't have suffered the trauma they did if not for his decisions.

He's asking the rest of us to help clean up problems he needlessly created.

And this is not "he's eating crackers". This guy deserves our scorn.

So, screw the veterans because Bush is bad? That's pretty vindictive.


Voiceofreason01: So you want to cut veterans benefits more just to spite him? You're not necessarily wrong but you're also not helping.


How the hell did you two read the very first words he typed and gather from his post he wants to cut veterans benefits?  He's saying give the veterans benefits, and also fark that guy.  You might even say -- "GWB?  You're not necessarily wrong but you're also not helping."

This would be like Fred Phelps coming out in favor of gay marriage.
 
2014-02-20 12:21:34 PM

lennavan: Nabb1: MrBallou: I'm all for helping vets, but there wouldn't be so many of them and they wouldn't have suffered the trauma they did if not for his decisions.

He's asking the rest of us to help clean up problems he needlessly created.

And this is not "he's eating crackers". This guy deserves our scorn.

So, screw the veterans because Bush is bad? That's pretty vindictive.

Voiceofreason01: So you want to cut veterans benefits more just to spite him? You're not necessarily wrong but you're also not helping.

How the hell did you two read the very first words he typed and gather from his post he wants to cut veterans benefits?  He's saying give the veterans benefits, and also fark that guy.  You might even say -- "GWB?  You're not necessarily wrong but you're also not helping."

This would be like Fred Phelps coming out in favor of gay marriage.


My bad. I zoned in on the "He's asking the rest of us to clean up problems he needlessly created." If that wasn't the intent of the post, I apologize for misreading it.
 
2014-02-20 12:31:17 PM
What's really impressive about GWB is that there's honestly not a single major initiative of his presidency that wasn't a disaster. I mean, it's seriously impressive. That's really hard to do. The only thing I can even begin to think of was his aid to Africa, which was, in terms of political capital and how much money was spent, an incredibly tiny thing. Everything else was a major disaster.

I'm more and more convinced that he's just going to look worse to history as time goes on. There's simply nothing there to hold on to and point to as a success.
 
2014-02-20 12:32:30 PM

mrshowrules: DrPainMD: Speaker2Animals: DrPainMD: Every war is put on the credit card, and then never paid off. We're still paying interest on the money we borrowed to fight WWs One and Two.

A nice trolley statement that has no basis in reality.

No basis in reality? When did we pay off WW1 or 2? We haven't.

[www.brillig.com image 474x471]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x617]

You either show debt adjusted for inflation or better yet (above) as a percentage of GDP.  What you provided in meaningless.


Even more important than D vs R, the year the debt started going back up corresponds with the sudden emergence of supply side economics.
 
2014-02-20 12:34:14 PM

lennavan: How the hell did you two read the very first words he typed and gather from his post he wants to cut veterans benefits?  He's saying give the veterans benefits, and also fark that guy.  You might even say -- "GWB?  You're not necessarily wrong but you're also not helping."


It was farking stupid that we couldn't talk about the policies of GWB for the entire term of his presidency without: "WARCRIMINAL!!1!" or "herr durr dummy choked on a cracker" and it's twice as stupid now, especially when he's supporting something that we all agree with.
I disagree with a lot(most) of what Bush the younger did during is presidency too but the juvenile name calling has gotten sad, even for FARK.
 
2014-02-20 12:35:50 PM

Voiceofreason01: It was farking stupid that we couldn't talk about the policies of GWB for the entire term of his presidency without: "WARCRIMINAL!!1!" or "herr durr dummy choked on a cracker" and it's twice as stupid now, especially when he's supporting something that we all agree with.
I disagree with a lot(most) of what Bush the younger did during is presidency too but the juvenile name calling has gotten sad, even for FARK.


Yeah, how dare you mock the worst President of the last hundred years. I mean seriously!
 
2014-02-20 12:38:45 PM

DamnYankees: What's really impressive about GWB is that there's honestly not a single major initiative of his presidency that wasn't a disaster. I mean, it's seriously impressive. That's really hard to do. The only thing I can even begin to think of was his aid to Africa, which was, in terms of political capital and how much money was spent, an incredibly tiny thing. Everything else was a major disaster.

I'm more and more convinced that he's just going to look worse to history as time goes on. There's simply nothing there to hold on to and point to as a success.


What pisses me off is that people treat it like it was solely GWB's fault instead of an indictment of Reagan style economics and foreign policy and old school GOP politics. So instead of moving forward as a country after a rough few years we end up with the Tea Party when people double down on the BS.
 
2014-02-20 12:42:40 PM
I once had a customer come in with her huge dog and sit in the lobby.  She was a regular, a memorably annoying one at that, so I knew this wasn't a service dog, just her pet.  It's not specifically stated, but fairly well understood you don't bring your pets in here.  Anyways, the dog gets excited and farking pukes all over our carpet.  No apology from her, just "oh, look what she did!" in her rasping nasal voice.  So I go get what cleaning supplies we have on hand and get down on my hands and knees right in front of her and that dumbass dog and start scrubbing away.  I can't remember what it was I was using, but it wasn't like "Nature's Miracle" or "Resolve for Pets" or whatever because we don't keep pet-puke cleaning solutions on hand.  The biatch and her biatch just sit there and watch me toil to lift this vile shiat up out of the carpet, and then she has the audacity to say "you know, that's not really the best stuff to clean up with..."

This is just like that.  She wasn't wrong.  But she should have either just apologized or shut the fark up.
 
2014-02-20 12:43:33 PM

DamnYankees: What's really impressive about GWB is that there's honestly not a single major initiative of his presidency that wasn't a disaster.


He did a lot for HIV/AIDS.

Voiceofreason01: It was farking stupid that we couldn't talk about the policies of GWB for the entire term of his presidency without: "WARCRIMINAL!!1!"


Hah yeah,  You know what's really farking stupid?  I can't point out to you that you misread a guy's post and acted like a dick to him without you bringing up WARCRIMINAL and pretzels.
 
2014-02-20 12:44:27 PM

Voiceofreason01: What pisses me off is that people treat it like it was solely GWB's fault instead of an indictment of Reagan style economics and foreign policy and old school GOP politics. So instead of moving forward as a country after a rough few years we end up with the Tea Party when people double down on the BS.


I disagree with this. Bush's failure's were not entirely a product of ideology. So many of the horrible things which happened in that White House were not due to ideology, but just rank incompetence. Think about the non-ideological horrors

* The Justice Department was turned into a mockery where people were being culled from Liberty University.
* We had an office of legal counsel where torture was planned and justified.
* We had a state of the union warning about human-animal hybrids.
* Harriet Miers was nominated for the Supreme Court
* The entire war in Iraq, obviously

And so many more. The issue here is partly ideological, but its way more than that. Jonathan Bernstein has the best explanation I can think of - see here:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-07/question-day-why-was-george- w -bush-a-disaster-.html

Short summary - George Bush was a disaster because George Bush didn't have any interest in policy or politics. He didn't care He had a great interest in competing and winning, but almost no interest at in actual policies. Here's the way Bernstein puts it:

The structural part of it, I think, was largely in his nomination in the first place. I do think Bush was ill-equipped to be president. As I read him, he was smart enough, but unusually uninterested in government and public affairs -- outside of a competitive streak that served him well in elections but didn't do much for him in office. He was also unusually inexperienced for a presidential candidate. Yes, I know Barack Obama had two fewer years in statewide office, but Obama also had legislative experience and, more to the point, Obama had always been interested in the world of politics and government. There's very little evidence that Bush had such a passionate interest. (Besides, Obama's relative lack of experience is properly seen as a bad thing.) I've argued that ambition is a good thing in a president, and I don't think Bush had enough of it. Moreover, as much as Republicans like to make fun of the "community organizer" thing, at least it was real-world work experience. Bush hadn't really had the normal opportunities to learn from early career successes and failures; by all accounts, he mostly drank his way through them.

I think that's spot on.
 
2014-02-20 12:47:05 PM

lennavan: Nabb1: MrBallou: I'm all for helping vets, but there wouldn't be so many of them and they wouldn't have suffered the trauma they did if not for his decisions.

He's asking the rest of us to help clean up problems he needlessly created.

And this is not "he's eating crackers". This guy deserves our scorn.

So, screw the veterans because Bush is bad? That's pretty vindictive.

Voiceofreason01: So you want to cut veterans benefits more just to spite him? You're not necessarily wrong but you're also not helping.

How the hell did you two read the very first words he typed and gather from his post he wants to cut veterans benefits?  He's saying give the veterans benefits, and also fark that guy.  You might even say -- "GWB?  You're not necessarily wrong but you're also not helping."

This would be like Fred Phelps coming out in favor of gay marriage.


Thank you. You got my point exactly.

Huge gratitude, support, sympathy, and respect for the vets. Give them what they need. They deserve it.

Huge contempt for GWB. The sentiment in his statement is OK. He's right and he should say it, but he contributed so much to the problem and still doesn't realize that. The spineless idiot never should have put them in that position.
 
2014-02-20 12:50:07 PM

MrBallou: lennavan: Nabb1: MrBallou: I'm all for helping vets, but there wouldn't be so many of them and they wouldn't have suffered the trauma they did if not for his decisions.

He's asking the rest of us to help clean up problems he needlessly created.

And this is not "he's eating crackers". This guy deserves our scorn.

So, screw the veterans because Bush is bad? That's pretty vindictive.

Voiceofreason01: So you want to cut veterans benefits more just to spite him? You're not necessarily wrong but you're also not helping.

How the hell did you two read the very first words he typed and gather from his post he wants to cut veterans benefits?  He's saying give the veterans benefits, and also fark that guy.  You might even say -- "GWB?  You're not necessarily wrong but you're also not helping."

This would be like Fred Phelps coming out in favor of gay marriage.

Thank you. You got my point exactly.

Huge gratitude, support, sympathy, and respect for the vets. Give them what they need. They deserve it.

Huge contempt for GWB. The sentiment in his statement is OK. He's right and he should say it, but he contributed so much to the problem and still doesn't realize that. The spineless idiot never should have put them in that position.


He couldn't help it, rich people needed money.
 
2014-02-20 01:49:55 PM

DamnYankees: I disagree with this. Bush's failure's were not entirely a product of ideology


I agree with a lot of what you posted(thanks for the link btw). I just think that GWB was the inevitable result of the American political system as it exists today. And most people seem more interested in talking about the failures of a mediocre President than the failures of the system that got him elected.
 
2014-02-20 01:52:39 PM

Voiceofreason01: Oh relax submitter, this is the kind of shiat that ex-Presidents do. Besides, he's not wrong.(also the VA medical benefits and hospitals have been a tragic joke for a long time)


Maybe he should have thought of that back when our returning wounded servicemen were sent to Walter Reed (and the horrific state it was in when having to deal with our wounded soldiers).

I doubt he really gives a shiat, it's all about PR and looking good.
 
2014-02-20 01:53:17 PM
Broken clock, yadda yadda.  Yes, he is correct.  But I would have the decency to not comment on it if I were him.

And it could be worse.  We could have Rumsfeld chiming in with something like "You neglect the soldiers you have..."
 
2014-02-20 01:53:59 PM
Shut up and paint.
 
2014-02-20 01:54:12 PM
Voiceofreason01:
So you want to cut veterans benefits more just to spite him? You're not necessarily wrong but you're also not helping.

Nabb1:
So, screw the veterans because Bush is bad? That's pretty vindictive.


 Yeah, that's exactly what he meant. I don't like Bush means I hate Veterans. Jesus. Every American should be required to take a course in logic.
 
2014-02-20 01:54:42 PM
I feel most sorry for General Eric Shinseki.

He got dumped by Rummy (Rummy refused to attend the Shinseki's retirement party) for telling the truth about troops strength required in our 10 year oil war in Iraq.

Now he's going to get dumped by Obama for not doing enough to solve a problem Congress doesn't want to solve--poor care for veterans. I was sad to see him take the appointment to head of the VA. He was doomed from the start.

The guy lost half a foot in Vietnam to a landmine; he'll lose his heart to bureaucrats very soon.
 
2014-02-20 01:54:47 PM

Voiceofreason01: Oh relax submitter, this is the kind of shiat that ex-Presidents do. Besides, he's not wrong.(also the VA medical benefits and hospitals have been a tragic joke for a long time)


They have been a tragic joke for a long time in part, or mostly because they are swamped with wounded numbered in six figures due to those wars.
 
2014-02-20 01:55:36 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Voiceofreason01:
So you want to cut veterans benefits more just to spite him? You're not necessarily wrong but you're also not helping.

Nabb1:
So, screw the veterans because Bush is bad? That's pretty vindictive.


 Yeah, that's exactly what he meant. I don't like Bush means I hate Veterans. Jesus. Every American should be required to take a course in logic.


I apologized later for misreading the intent of his entire post. Shall I commit seppuku for you?
 
2014-02-20 01:58:12 PM

Nabb1: DROxINxTHExWIND: Voiceofreason01:
So you want to cut veterans benefits more just to spite him? You're not necessarily wrong but you're also not helping.

Nabb1:
So, screw the veterans because Bush is bad? That's pretty vindictive.


 Yeah, that's exactly what he meant. I don't like Bush means I hate Veterans. Jesus. Every American should be required to take a course in logic.

I apologized later for misreading the intent of his entire post. Shall I commit seppuku for you?



Then kudos. Either way, you have to admit it was a pretty ridiculous conclusion to come too, no matter how you initially read it. But apologies on Fark don't come often so I'll stand down.
 
2014-02-20 01:58:30 PM
The fact that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, in particular, aren't rotting in prison is a disgrace.
 
2014-02-20 01:58:35 PM

BMulligan: Shut up and paint.


Concur.

Nabb1:

So, screw the veterans because Bush is bad? That's pretty vindictive.

No, screw Bush because he and his ideology proved to be nationally toxic.
 
Displayed 50 of 290 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report