The Democratic campaign used such statements to counter Republican assertions that Obama would raise taxes in a multitude of direct and indirect ways, recalled Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
"I think a reasonable person would have concluded that Senator Obama had made a 'no new taxes' pledge to every couple or family making less than $250,000," she said.
Jamieson noted GOP ads that claimed Obama would raise taxes on electricity and home heating oil. "They rebutted both with the $250,000 claim," she said of the Obama campaign, "so they did extend the rebuttal beyond income and payroll."
Now, your second part:
Second, this isn't really a tax increase at all since you're supposed to be paying taxes on online purchase as it is. It's called a Use Tax and just because you haven't been paying it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Besides, there is no reason why purchases made online should be tax free other than it is difficult to enforce. I would even say that it gives online vendors an unfair advantage over local stores.
If Obama said, "No New Taxes", you'd have a point. He didn't say that. He said that taxes would not go up for families making under $250,000/yr. Well, with this, my taxes will go up, and my family makes under $250,000/yr.
But, please, don't let the facts get in the way of the spin.
This isn't part of his plan. It's congress closing and loophole. This is a TAX THAT ALREADY EXISTS, DUMBASS.
And by closing that "loophole", taxes will go up. He didn't say "No NEW taxes." He said taxes will not be going up, not "one single dime!" Here it is again since you were unwilling to read it the first time.
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
"You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." -- Barack Obama
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
"You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." -- Barack Obama
well that's not terribly fair. Nuclear proliferation WAS a serious concern during the cold war, and still is to a degree. They weren't wrong about that, they just didn't have enough research yet suggesting that CO2 was going to be a problem. Hell, there are still a lot of self-deluded sociopaths who think we need to gather even more evidence before they'll believe we're actually harming our planet.
The difference is, the environmentalists have society's best interests in mind, while the others (anti-environmentalists?) are so self-absorbed that, when pressed, they can only offer half-thought-out superficial arguments to stymie their own cognitive dissonance.
Oh the irony! Nuclear proliferation deals with nuclear WEAPONS. We are talking about nuclear POWER. Two totally different things!
Congratulations environmentalists -- you ripped the heart out of the only energy source that could have weaned us off carbon in our lifetimes. Seems a bit shortsighted in retrospect, doesn't it?
Yes, it's the environmentalists that got us into this mess. Back then, they were saying that nuclear will kill us all. The debate was over.
Now they are making the same arguments about carbon while adding "but THIS time, we are right!"
Jumbo Shrimp Military Intelligence Civil Disobedience Evaporated Milk Fresh Cheese Political Science Reality TV White Chocolate Clean Coal
I suppose you are comparing all those items to the last one, "Clean Coal". Well, they all exist, even though their names seem to be oxymorons. Is that argument you are trying to make?
Do you think these guys are suddenly going to change their tune after arguing against freedom for years?
Its possible that some RIAA lawyers are ideologues, though I doubt many of them are. I suspect most of them are zealous advocates of the interests their paying clients communicate to them. So, yeah, their tune will change when their client changes if their new boss communicates a different set of interests from those that were communicated by their old boss.
Sure, it's possible that they could change their tune if, and I stress IF, their new client asks them to. However, we have to assume that they were hired because of their experience. What experience do you think caught the eye of their new employers? Let's see, we have five lawyers from the RIAA. What experience could they all have in common? What job skills is the DOJ looking for when screening new attorneys?
You think pulling an old lady who doesn't own a computer up on charges for sharing music over the Internet was bad... wait until they have the power of the NSA/CIA/FBI behind them.
Trust me, next time she will have a computer, and the files in question will be there!
The smart money is betting that she'll also be a NRA member and have a Rush Limbaugh newsletter subscription.
OJ was able to get off because he hired an incredibly talented set of lawyers.
It makes sense that those with a lot of money would hire the best lawyers. Now that Obama chooses the cream of the crop, suddenly these guys are somehow no good?
I'm sure these are excellent lawyers, but that won't make them "good".
Do you think these guys are suddenly going to change their tune after arguing against freedom for years? (Free as in information, not as in beer.)
Something else to note: These guys have been defending using extremely questionable methods to gather "evidence" for years. I'm sure that experience goes a long ways in the Justice dept. You think pulling an old lady who doesn't own a computer up on charges for sharing music over the Internet was bad... wait until they have the power of the NSA/CIA/FBI behind them.
Oh no, I got it. Obama has no control over state and local taxes. However, he should has specified that when he said "...not ANY of your taxes..." He could have said, "...not any of your FEDERAL taxes." or "not any of your INCOME taxes." He didn't. He said, "not ANY of your taxes".
This is a classic case of a straw man. Pretty much everyone understood the context this was in. Except you decide to remove context, ascribe intent to lack of context, and go on your merry flaming ways.
Nice try.
Strawman? Yeah, probably. I can see that. I would call it a nitpick as another poster did. When I read NO taxes, I expect NO taxes, but I live in a practically NO tax state.
So, I'll give you strawman. Not on the cigarette taxes though, although that is Off Topic.
I'm pretty sure anyone except for people who are trying to nitpick non-issues knew that Obama was only talking about Federal taxes. There are plenty of good reasons to bash Obama, this one is just flat out stupid.
Yes. I will gladly admit that it is a nitpick and a case of RTFA. The cigarette tax part was not a nitpick, but could be considered off topic.
Which part of STATE legislatures did you not understand?
Oh no, I got it. Obama has no control over state and local taxes. However, he should has specified that when he said "...not ANY of your taxes..." He could have said, "...not any of your FEDERAL taxes." or "not any of your INCOME taxes." He didn't. He said, "not ANY of your taxes". This is a classic case of a politician over promising something that he could not possibly deliver. Not that it matters as the FEDERAL cigarette tax kinda blew that promise out of the water anyway.
When will they eventually get to the point of taxing what comes out of my butt?
Unless you make more than $250,000, you have nothing to worry about. Obama said so:
"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Maybe you'll have to take your pay stub into the store to prove that you make less than a quarter mill' a year. I'm still waiting for my cigarette tax refund paper work to come in the mail I paid the extra $1.00 tax recently and I don't make more than $250,000/yr.
When I was in the digital imaging kiosk business, we had to repair about three flash drives a week. A customer would put it in one of our systems and pull it out while it was being read, or it was a cheap drive or whatever. Either way, the customer would blame our systems for killing their drives (rightly or wrongly). Of course, it would contain pictures of their dead grandfather or ex-girlfriend naked or whatever was completely priceless and irreplaceable.
The vast majority of the time, we would be able to run an application that would be able to recover whatever was on the drive. While I'm not certain of the original problem, the system acted as if the drive had no FAT (File Allocation Table... do I really need to say it?) on it or the FAT had become corrupted. This particular application would be able to go in and recover whatever was on the drive and most of the time repair the drive to its previous working state.
I say it ACTED like the FAT was corrupt, but I don't know or care if a flash drive has a FAT on it. Could have been a hardware thingie in there that hiccuped. The repair utility acted much like a scan-disk that would repair an MBR or FAT and/or act like an undelete utility would, restoring the files on the drive.
She wasn't on a USO tour, and she wasn't talking about troops. You must be one of those people who think its impossible to criticize the policies that our government decides to enact which result in armed conflicts without denigrating the military volunteers who are doing their sworn duty.
The reason they are fighting (in theory at least) is to that Maines CAN say what she wants to say about the President. How can you not understand that?
First, here entire quote was, "Just so you know, we're on the good side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence, & we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."
The "good side"? Is that the side that is opposed to the war? The people planting road side bombs in Iraq were against the war. Were they on the "good side" too?
Listen, she has the right to say whatever she wishes, wherever she wishes. That's what free speech is all about. However, it shows a true lack class to air your dirty laundry over seas. You don't go to another country and bad mouth your home country. It's in bad taste. Also, that same freedom of speech is what allows people like to me to call her out on it, and you to call me out on calling her out and so on.
Also, I never said she bad mouthed the troops. She bad mouthed their mission. When she says the war is wrong, she is also saying that those carrying out the war are wrong. Like it or not, you can not oppose the mission without opposing the troops who are risking their lives to carry out that mission. She could have criticized the war without actually criticizing the missions. She should have said something like, "We wish we could have found a peaceful resolution and we hope that this war is over as soon as possible so that the good people on both sides of this mess can get back to enjoying their lives."
And to end this, I think that Maines got a bum wrap. I do feel what she said was wrong, but when she said, "As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect... We are currently in Europe & witnessing a huge anti-American sentiment as a result of the perceived rush to war. While war may remain a viable option, as a mother, I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children & American soldiers' lives are lost. I love my country. I am a proud American." it should have been the end of it.
The US is not at war and hasn't been for quite a few decades now, so....
Tell that to the guys over there getting shot at. Do you think it's any less of a war to them? How many of those guys planting road side bombs received comfort from Natalie Maines' words?
at which case we can never criticize the government or its executive officers at any time,
Tell that to Orwell. I posted his quote, not mine. Then again, what would the author of 1984 and Animal Farm know about totalitarianism.
not to mention that Texans managed to elect him as governor in their supreme wisdom
Twice! He was one Hell of a governor. He truly united both Democrats and Republicans in this state. He compromised and received compromise from the Democrats. Unfortunately, that doesn't work on a federal level. Take vouchers for example. You know, that program that gives money to poor kids so they can have the same opportunity as the rich kids? Opposed by Democrats because it had Bush's name on it.
And, my favorite:
[Bush] who was, indeed, one of the worst presidents to ever occupy the office
You must be too young to remember Carter, Nixon, Ford or Johnson, and too ignorant to know about of the other truly failed Presidents in America's history (like the other Johnson).
Remember Greenspan? You know, the guy who is credited with one of the largest economic expansions in US history? What President was he under again? (actually, it was four presidents, but the largest economic expansion happened under the last one.... well until Democrats took over Congress again)
Finally, as to your rant against Texas. Have you ever been here? You do realize that Texas is doing better economically than most of the nation right now?
I think the AC you were responding to should have said:
What the Dixie Chicks experienced came from country and western fans, not the Bush administration. Big difference.
Most didn't have a problem with the Dixie Chick's stance towards the President. The problem was that they bashed the President of the United States in a foreign country during a time of war. My problem was with what they said. Maines said something along the lines of, "we are ashamed that the President is from Texas." I'm from Texas and very few Texans felt that way. I'm a little pissed that this EX-Texan is in Britain trying to speak for me.
Also, much of what the Bush administration said that you have a problem with was actually plagiarized.
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
--Orwell
(granted, he's talking about the Germans and Japanese of WWII, but the argument is the same.)
Bush's motorcade was pelted with snowballs on the way to his inauguration while Obama got a party.
Big deal, all presidents get some kind of protest - "thousands" really isn't much, more of a snowball than an avalanche. Bush got an inauguration party too - about as big as Obama's for his 2nd term even - `$42M for Bush and ~$41M for Obama.
No, you said that Bush had eight years to build up a reputation. His inauguration protests prove that the hatred toward him had nothing to do with anything he did in office as they started before his inauguration!
With the except of a couple of months after 9-11, Bush was pretty much relentlessly attacked by the media, Hollywood elites and blogosphere for all eight years.
And Obama has had no criticism at all, eh? Oh wait, it is some immeasurable way "less" than Bush. Right.
Seriously though, do you really, truly and HONESTLY believe that if Bush fired the CEO of a major PRIVATELY HELD corporation that the press would have let it slide? Do you really believe that if Bush had FORCED banks to take tax payer money in exchange for more government control that the press would have ignored it? Can you honestly tell me that if Bush had bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia that it would not have led the front page headlines of every newspaper and been the top story on every newscast for at least a month?
Yes, Obama has seen some criticism, but nothing compared to what the previous administration would have faced if Bush acted the same way. This wiretapping thing is another fine example. Little if anything is reported from the media, yet when Bush was in office, it made front page news more than once.
Still, I don't expect even the blogosphere to treat Obama like it treated Bush. Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler?
Bush had years to build up a reputation. Obama is still in the process of tearing down his original reputation. Give him two years and if he's done anything near what Bush did two years into his first term I think you will see plenty of people making such comparisons.
Bush's motorcade was pelted with snowballs on the way to his inauguration while Obama got a party. With the except of a couple of months after 9-11, Bush was pretty much relentlessly attacked by the media, Hollywood elites and blogosphere for all eight years.
It's gratifying to see this issue getting some exposure here. God knows this is not a story that the doting MSM would ever run on its own, without significant blogosphere activity forcing them to acknowledge it.
Still, I don't expect even the blogosphere to treat Obama like it treated Bush. Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler? Would Stalin be a better comparison? Not that I would agree with either comparison, but I sure read from a whole bunch of people here that would apply Godwin to Bush at the drop of a hat.
Slashdot Mirror
First, taken in context it's pretty clear that he was talking about taxes coming out of your paycheck. Even politifact agrees with that sentiment (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/515/no-family-making-less-250000-will-see-any-form-tax/)
From
The Democratic campaign used such statements to counter Republican assertions that Obama would raise taxes in a multitude of direct and indirect ways, recalled Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
"I think a reasonable person would have concluded that Senator Obama had made a 'no new taxes' pledge to every couple or family making less than $250,000," she said.
Jamieson noted GOP ads that claimed Obama would raise taxes on electricity and home heating oil. "They rebutted both with the $250,000 claim," she said of the Obama campaign, "so they did extend the rebuttal beyond income and payroll."
Now, your second part:
Second, this isn't really a tax increase at all since you're supposed to be paying taxes on online purchase as it is. It's called a Use Tax and just because you haven't been paying it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Besides, there is no reason why purchases made online should be tax free other than it is difficult to enforce. I would even say that it gives online vendors an unfair advantage over local stores.
If Obama said, "No New Taxes", you'd have a point. He didn't say that. He said that taxes would not go up for families making under $250,000/yr. Well, with this, my taxes will go up, and my family makes under $250,000/yr.
But, please, don't let the facts get in the way of the spin.
This isn't part of his plan. It's congress closing and loophole. This is a TAX THAT ALREADY EXISTS, DUMBASS.
And by closing that "loophole", taxes will go up. He didn't say "No NEW taxes." He said taxes will not be going up, not "one single dime!" Here it is again since you were unwilling to read it the first time.
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
"You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
-- Barack Obama
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
"You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
-- Barack Obama
well that's not terribly fair. Nuclear proliferation WAS a serious concern during the cold war, and still is to a degree. They weren't wrong about that, they just didn't have enough research yet suggesting that CO2 was going to be a problem. Hell, there are still a lot of self-deluded sociopaths who think we need to gather even more evidence before they'll believe we're actually harming our planet.
The difference is, the environmentalists have society's best interests in mind, while the others (anti-environmentalists?) are so self-absorbed that, when pressed, they can only offer half-thought-out superficial arguments to stymie their own cognitive dissonance.
Oh the irony! Nuclear proliferation deals with nuclear WEAPONS. We are talking about nuclear POWER. Two totally different things!
Congratulations environmentalists -- you ripped the heart out of the only energy source that could have weaned us off carbon in our lifetimes. Seems a bit shortsighted in retrospect, doesn't it?
Yes, it's the environmentalists that got us into this mess. Back then, they were saying that nuclear will kill us all. The debate was over.
Now they are making the same arguments about carbon while adding "but THIS time, we are right!"
Jumbo Shrimp
Military Intelligence
Civil Disobedience
Evaporated Milk
Fresh Cheese
Political Science
Reality TV
White Chocolate
Clean Coal
I suppose you are comparing all those items to the last one, "Clean Coal". Well, they all exist, even though their names seem to be oxymorons. Is that argument you are trying to make?
Hmm... I don't see anything about membership to the Sith or eating babies... maybe this is the condensed version?
Of course you don't. His RIAA experience is not listed there.
Very informative. Thanx.
Its possible that some RIAA lawyers are ideologues, though I doubt many of them are. I suspect most of them are zealous advocates of the interests their paying clients communicate to them. So, yeah, their tune will change when their client changes if their new boss communicates a different set of interests from those that were communicated by their old boss.
Sure, it's possible that they could change their tune if, and I stress IF, their new client asks them to. However, we have to assume that they were hired because of their experience. What experience do you think caught the eye of their new employers? Let's see, we have five lawyers from the RIAA. What experience could they all have in common? What job skills is the DOJ looking for when screening new attorneys?
You think pulling an old lady who doesn't own a computer up on charges for sharing music over the Internet was bad... wait until they have the power of the NSA/CIA/FBI behind them.
Trust me, next time she will have a computer, and the files in question will be there!
The smart money is betting that she'll also be a NRA member and have a Rush Limbaugh newsletter subscription.
OJ was able to get off because he hired an incredibly talented set of lawyers.
It makes sense that those with a lot of money would hire the best lawyers. Now that Obama chooses the cream of the crop, suddenly these guys are somehow no good?
I'm sure these are excellent lawyers, but that won't make them "good".
Do you think these guys are suddenly going to change their tune after arguing against freedom for years? (Free as in information, not as in beer.)
Something else to note: These guys have been defending using extremely questionable methods to gather "evidence" for years. I'm sure that experience goes a long ways in the Justice dept. You think pulling an old lady who doesn't own a computer up on charges for sharing music over the Internet was bad... wait until they have the power of the NSA/CIA/FBI behind them.
That was my first thought, too.
Just as the majority seem to have an appetite for garbage television, and garbage music, they also have an appetite for garbage Youtube videos.
Yes, I'm being pompous, condescending and arrogant. Got a problem with it?
Garbage television? You mean this?
Garbage Music? Like this?
If so, then Yes! I do have an appetite for Garbage.
They mentioned it in the first Robocop movie.
Oh no, I got it. Obama has no control over state and local taxes. However, he should has specified that when he said "...not ANY of your taxes..." He could have said, "...not any of your FEDERAL taxes." or "not any of your INCOME taxes." He didn't. He said, "not ANY of your taxes".
This is a classic case of a straw man. Pretty much everyone understood the context this was in. Except you decide to remove context, ascribe intent to lack of context, and go on your merry flaming ways.
Nice try.
Strawman? Yeah, probably. I can see that. I would call it a nitpick as another poster did. When I read NO taxes, I expect NO taxes, but I live in a practically NO tax state.
So, I'll give you strawman. Not on the cigarette taxes though, although that is Off Topic.
Ah, here we go. The scarecrow has come to life:
http://news.cnet.com/Video-games-in-Congress-crosshairs/2100-1028_3-6079654.html
While not exactly taxes yet, it is not something that is out of the question. You can bet that if legislative restrictions fail, expect taxes.
I'm pretty sure anyone except for people who are trying to nitpick non-issues knew that Obama was only talking about Federal taxes. There are plenty of good reasons to bash Obama, this one is just flat out stupid.
Yes. I will gladly admit that it is a nitpick and a case of RTFA. The cigarette tax part was not a nitpick, but could be considered off topic.
You win this time, Gravity!
Which part of STATE legislatures did you not understand?
Oh no, I got it. Obama has no control over state and local taxes. However, he should has specified that when he said "...not ANY of your taxes..." He could have said, "...not any of your FEDERAL taxes." or "not any of your INCOME taxes." He didn't. He said, "not ANY of your taxes". This is a classic case of a politician over promising something that he could not possibly deliver. Not that it matters as the FEDERAL cigarette tax kinda blew that promise out of the water anyway.
These are tax proposals by STATE legislatures.
learn2federalism.
Which part of "...not any of your taxes" did you not understand?
When will they eventually get to the point of taxing what comes out of my butt?
Unless you make more than $250,000, you have nothing to worry about. Obama said so:
"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Maybe you'll have to take your pay stub into the store to prove that you make less than a quarter mill' a year. I'm still waiting for my cigarette tax refund paper work to come in the mail I paid the extra $1.00 tax recently and I don't make more than $250,000/yr.
Didn't work for me. I'm running GIMP.
When I was in the digital imaging kiosk business, we had to repair about three flash drives a week. A customer would put it in one of our systems and pull it out while it was being read, or it was a cheap drive or whatever. Either way, the customer would blame our systems for killing their drives (rightly or wrongly). Of course, it would contain pictures of their dead grandfather or ex-girlfriend naked or whatever was completely priceless and irreplaceable.
The vast majority of the time, we would be able to run an application that would be able to recover whatever was on the drive. While I'm not certain of the original problem, the system acted as if the drive had no FAT (File Allocation Table... do I really need to say it?) on it or the FAT had become corrupted. This particular application would be able to go in and recover whatever was on the drive and most of the time repair the drive to its previous working state.
I say it ACTED like the FAT was corrupt, but I don't know or care if a flash drive has a FAT on it. Could have been a hardware thingie in there that hiccuped. The repair utility acted much like a scan-disk that would repair an MBR or FAT and/or act like an undelete utility would, restoring the files on the drive.
She wasn't on a USO tour, and she wasn't talking about troops. You must be one of those people who think its impossible to criticize the policies that our government decides to enact which result in armed conflicts without denigrating the military volunteers who are doing their sworn duty.
The reason they are fighting (in theory at least) is to that Maines CAN say what she wants to say about the President. How can you not understand that?
First, here entire quote was, "Just so you know, we're on the good side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence, & we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."
The "good side"? Is that the side that is opposed to the war? The people planting road side bombs in Iraq were against the war. Were they on the "good side" too?
Listen, she has the right to say whatever she wishes, wherever she wishes. That's what free speech is all about. However, it shows a true lack class to air your dirty laundry over seas. You don't go to another country and bad mouth your home country. It's in bad taste. Also, that same freedom of speech is what allows people like to me to call her out on it, and you to call me out on calling her out and so on.
Also, I never said she bad mouthed the troops. She bad mouthed their mission. When she says the war is wrong, she is also saying that those carrying out the war are wrong. Like it or not, you can not oppose the mission without opposing the troops who are risking their lives to carry out that mission. She could have criticized the war without actually criticizing the missions. She should have said something like, "We wish we could have found a peaceful resolution and we hope that this war is over as soon as possible so that the good people on both sides of this mess can get back to enjoying their lives."
And to end this, I think that Maines got a bum wrap. I do feel what she said was wrong, but when she said, "As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect... We are currently in Europe & witnessing a huge anti-American sentiment as a result of the perceived rush to war. While war may remain a viable option, as a mother, I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children & American soldiers' lives are lost. I love my country. I am a proud American." it should have been the end of it.
OMG there is so much wrong with your post.
The US is not at war and hasn't been for quite a few decades now, so....
Tell that to the guys over there getting shot at. Do you think it's any less of a war to them? How many of those guys planting road side bombs received comfort from Natalie Maines' words?
at which case we can never criticize the government or its executive officers at any time,
Tell that to Orwell. I posted his quote, not mine. Then again, what would the author of 1984 and Animal Farm know about totalitarianism.
not to mention that Texans managed to elect him as governor in their supreme wisdom
Twice! He was one Hell of a governor. He truly united both Democrats and Republicans in this state. He compromised and received compromise from the Democrats. Unfortunately, that doesn't work on a federal level. Take vouchers for example. You know, that program that gives money to poor kids so they can have the same opportunity as the rich kids? Opposed by Democrats because it had Bush's name on it.
And, my favorite:
[Bush] who was, indeed, one of the worst presidents to ever occupy the office
You must be too young to remember Carter, Nixon, Ford or Johnson, and too ignorant to know about of the other truly failed Presidents in America's history (like the other Johnson).
Remember Greenspan? You know, the guy who is credited with one of the largest economic expansions in US history? What President was he under again? (actually, it was four presidents, but the largest economic expansion happened under the last one.... well until Democrats took over Congress again)
Finally, as to your rant against Texas. Have you ever been here? You do realize that Texas is doing better economically than most of the nation right now?
I think the AC you were responding to should have said:
What the Dixie Chicks experienced came from country and western fans, not the Bush administration. Big difference.
Most didn't have a problem with the Dixie Chick's stance towards the President. The problem was that they bashed the President of the United States in a foreign country during a time of war. My problem was with what they said. Maines said something along the lines of, "we are ashamed that the President is from Texas." I'm from Texas and very few Texans felt that way. I'm a little pissed that this EX-Texan is in Britain trying to speak for me.
Also, much of what the Bush administration said that you have a problem with was actually plagiarized.
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
--Orwell
(granted, he's talking about the Germans and Japanese of WWII, but the argument is the same.)
Bush's motorcade was pelted with snowballs on the way to his inauguration while Obama got a party.
Big deal, all presidents get some kind of protest - "thousands" really isn't much, more of a snowball than an avalanche.
Bush got an inauguration party too - about as big as Obama's for his 2nd term even - `$42M for Bush and ~$41M for Obama.
No, you said that Bush had eight years to build up a reputation. His inauguration protests prove that the hatred toward him had nothing to do with anything he did in office as they started before his inauguration!
With the except of a couple of months after 9-11, Bush was pretty much relentlessly attacked by the media, Hollywood elites and blogosphere for all eight years.
And Obama has had no criticism at all, eh? Oh wait, it is some immeasurable way "less" than Bush. Right.
Seriously though, do you really, truly and HONESTLY believe that if Bush fired the CEO of a major PRIVATELY HELD corporation that the press would have let it slide? Do you really believe that if Bush had FORCED banks to take tax payer money in exchange for more government control that the press would have ignored it? Can you honestly tell me that if Bush had bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia that it would not have led the front page headlines of every newspaper and been the top story on every newscast for at least a month?
Yes, Obama has seen some criticism, but nothing compared to what the previous administration would have faced if Bush acted the same way. This wiretapping thing is another fine example. Little if anything is reported from the media, yet when Bush was in office, it made front page news more than once.
Still, I don't expect even the blogosphere to treat Obama like it treated Bush. Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler?
Bush had years to build up a reputation. Obama is still in the process of tearing down his original reputation. Give him two years and if he's done anything near what Bush did two years into his first term I think you will see plenty of people making such comparisons.
Bush's motorcade was pelted with snowballs on the way to his inauguration while Obama got a party. With the except of a couple of months after 9-11, Bush was pretty much relentlessly attacked by the media, Hollywood elites and blogosphere for all eight years.
It's gratifying to see this issue getting some exposure here. God knows this is not a story that the doting MSM would ever run on its own, without significant blogosphere activity forcing them to acknowledge it.
Still, I don't expect even the blogosphere to treat Obama like it treated Bush. Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler? Would Stalin be a better comparison? Not that I would agree with either comparison, but I sure read from a whole bunch of people here that would apply Godwin to Bush at the drop of a hat.