New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Bravo!

Barbella

Senator
My deepest conviction, the guiding principle of the administration, is that the United States of America must strive to expand the reach of freedom. I believe that freedom is a gift from God and the hope of every human heart. Freedom inspired our founders and preserved our union through civil war and secured the promise of civil rights.

Freedom sustains dissidents bound by chains, believers huddled in underground churches and voters who risk their lives to cast their ballots. Freedom unleashes creativity, rewards innovation and replaces poverty with prosperity. And ultimately, freedom lights the path to peace.

While I have never agree with EVERYTHING GW did, I agree with him 100% on this one.

On GW's rising approval numbers (the longer we have to put up with Obama's arrogance, apparently the more people realize they miss GW...LOL):

I suspect, however, that many Americans are warming to Bush because they genuinely miss his down to earth leadership style, in marked contrast to the largely aloof and imperial-style presidency in Washington today. I had the opportunity to hear George W. Bush speak on several occasions at the White House and other venues in Washington when he was president. His speeches and statements were usually focused on core principles, and lacking in the kind of arrogance and bitterness that infuses a lot of the current president’s remarks today.

Bush never urged his supporters to seek “revenge” against political adversaries, and did not use his White House pulpit as a permanent campaign podium, or as a platform to constantly bash his political opponents. In an age of cynical, and at times brutal, political divide, George W. Bush was a remarkably humble figure, who projected a warmth and optimism that is largely absent in the Washington of 2013. At the end of the day, President Bush will be remembered as an honorable man who dedicated much of his later life to serving his country, with no airs and graces, and a keen dedication to the principles of freedom. As Bush himself noted in his address today:

In democracy, the purpose of public office is not to fulfill personal ambition. Elected officials must serve a cause greater than themselves. The political winds blow left and right, polls rise and fall, supporters come and go. But in the end leaders are defined by the convictions that they hold.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...reedom/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 
Bush blundered at times, no doubt....but I'm convinced his HEART was ALWAYS in the right place. He's human, as opposed to....ahem....

and fer sure, their bush derangement is comical as hell!
 
Too bad Bush didn't practice what he is now preaching.

As for the Telegraph opinion piece, it is just that, an opinion and like [Unwelcome language removed], everyone has one, even Marvy.
 
Over the years, we've heard all manner of older, more "traditional" conservatives whine that Li'l George wasn't a real conservative. They were right, and George's babblizations around "spreading freedom", make that plain. "Freedom is good", is perhaps one of THE founding principles of LIBERALISM! Of course, that does NOT necessarily mean - as some might suggest - that conservatives are AGAINST spreading freedom. "Liberalism" and "conservatism" - contrary to popular "wisdom", aren't opposites of one another. They're actually different constructs altogether.

So..as we Americans are liberal (by definition), we're also conservative (per our history). Most all of us - whether we care to admit, are both liberal and conservative in some ways or the other. In any case though...our drive towards "freedom" comes from our liberal sides. It's our conservative side that councils us to proceed carefully and thoughtfully. Freedom for Iraq is good (and liberal). Invading the entire country per a mountain of lies, was decidely NON-conservative. The opposite of conservative isn't "liberal", it's "radical".

Li'l George was a liberal AND a radical. Li'l George was a radical liberal.
 
Here...another opinion piece, just for you....LOL

But perhaps Bush's name is not mud any more. The Washington Post/ABC poll asked respondents to rate Bush's performance for the first time since December 2008, when only 33 percent rated it positively and 66 percent rated it negatively.

What the pollster found is that today 47 percent approve and 50 percent disapprove of Bush's performance. That approval number is precisely the same as Barack Obama's in the most recent Post/ABC poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...sh_stays_silent_his_reputation_steadily_gains
 
While I have never agree with EVERYTHING GW did, I agree with him 100% on this one.

On GW's rising approval numbers (the longer we have to put up with Obama's arrogance, apparently the more people realize they miss GW...LOL):





http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...reedom/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Yes, some people let bygones be bygones and come together, especially in times of mutual respect. There is that do unto others as one would have others do unto them thing when it comes to presidents and presidents, of all people, know how tough the job is. Historians say it is hard to judge GWB just yet because they don't have full access to his presidential records.
 
Pres. Obama's speech is the perfect example of why I like him so. As compared with your average president - or elected politician in general, he's disinclined to smoke blowing. I'm sure some would disagree with me on this, but hey..I'm babbling about why I like the guy!

So anyway....Pres. Obama was tasked with saying something nice about Li'l George, as were all the speakers. I imagine that presented a bit of a challenge. But...no hyperbole/bullshit from Obama. He choose to go with the fact of Li'l George being a "nice guy" as his theme. I have no doubt that Pres. Obama thinks Li'l George IS a "nice guy".
 
I had plenty of complaints about GW, but Obama has made me appreciate Bush in a way that I never did while he was President.
 
While I have never agree with EVERYTHING GW did, I agree with him 100% on this one.

On GW's rising approval numbers (the longer we have to put up with Obama's arrogance, apparently the more people realize they miss GW...LOL):





http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...reedom/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Bush's approval levels remain obscenely low for an ex-president. They have risen a bit simply because they were at such incredibly low levels when he left office (the worst in generations) that there would be a strong tendency to regress to the mean.
 
Bush's approval levels remain obscenely low for an ex-president. They have risen a bit simply because they were at such incredibly low levels when he left office (the worst in generations) that there would be a strong tendency to regress to the mean.

History is going to grade Pres. Obama very favorably. Some of us think Pres. Obama is one damned-fine president by any standard. Others may be less generous, and say that hey...he had nowhere to go but UP, after Li'l George! Alas, neither of these angles is positive for Li'l George's legacy.

As history adjudges Obama, L'il George's "legacy" will shrink by comparison.
 
barb - stand by for those who will fearlessly defend the "rights" of other cultures to imprison, torture, sell women like livestock, hang gays, and put their nobel prize winners in mental insitutions and drug them.

they will assert that no one has a right to expect that freedom, dignity, and human rights are a natural expectation of man.
 
I had plenty of complaints about GW, but Obama has made me appreciate Bush in a way that I never did while he was President.

Exactly. A lot of people thought it had gotten pretty bad by the end of Bush's second term. If only we had known what was coming down the pike...:mad2:
 
no one has a right to expect that freedom, dignity, and human rights are a natural expectation of man. except for criminals, terrorists, and baby killers.

For THEIR freedom, dignity, and human rights they'll fight to the bitter end.
 
so you agree with Bush expanding freedom into Iraq based on a lie?

I would surmise that you also supported our expanding freedom in Libya...especially since it wasn't based on a lie.

and you're all gung ho for expanding freedom in Syria, no?

how about us expanding freedom in Iran and North Korea?
 
"Bravo" for what? Another rightwingnut op/ed full of baseless/unsupported BS, or that it was easy to swallow?

Bush believed in the freedom of Iraqis to die needlessy, which you and about all other rightwingers supported.

They miss what http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PainAtThePump/story?id=5197676&page=1 http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2005/08/30/1684/bush-blames/?mobile=nc
http://www.nysun.com/national/bush-democrat-win-is-terrorist-win/42560/
http://www.google.com/search?q=bush...ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_en

a lying sack of shit and unindicted war criminal?
 
Back
Top