If Bush was the president right now, would support the TSA stuff?

[originalpckelly]

Poll question: If Bush was the president right now, would support the TSA stuff?

There better not be one vote saying yes. You know it's not true.

[ProSense]

1. Would the RW be up in arms?

Ron Paul?

[originalpckelly]

2. I think Ron Paul would be,

but I'm pretty sure that the freepers would be lining up to have their pictures taken. They would also volunteer for body cavity searches, and they'd provide the lube.

Ron Paul is very full of shit sometimes, but I think he'd be against this. He used to put up a fight for other shit during the Bush years, so I think he'd be against this. He'd probably be the only one though.

[rasputin1952]

3. Thing is, no will care what Ron Paul has to say...

and why should anyone...:shrug:

[originalpckelly]

6. Of course no one cares...

but the poster asked if the old fart would disagree with this even if it was Bush. I'd say yes, but we'll never know.

[rasputin1952]

9. Thank God we'll never know.!..

:D

:hi:

[originalpckelly]

10. Can you imagine if he'd become President?

:rofl:

That would have been horrible. It's bad enough his son is a doctor.

[rasputin1952]

12. I question Rand's MD status as well...

he's one seriously scary dude...:scared:

[Rhiannon12866]

14. It came out on some show (Bill Maher?) that the only board that certifies Rand Paul's

Eye doctor status, is one which he started himself. :scared:

[krabigirl]

19. Why should they? Why not?

[sabrina 1]

18. He has always opposed them along with the vast majority of Democrats.

The ACLU, Civil Liberties Union and Civil Rights groups across the Globe, and every Democrat I ever knew opposed them along with many Conservatives, (not the FR types), Independents and Libertarians and anyone who was concerned about the continuing loss of rights since 9/11.

What is stunning now is that a small number of Democrats appear to have developed amnesia about this issue and the battle that has been fought over it for six years, and who was the most vigilent about the protection of our constitutional rights, AND the most successful.

With all that opposition from the left, poor Chertoff and Giuliani were not able to cash in on their 'security' fear-based businesses. Not until one year ago when a Democratic administration was able to do what Bush could not. And suddenly I feel the silence from the Democrats on 'liberal' blogs, and worse, an attempt to diminish this very important issue by attempting to scare people from fighting now as they did under Bush, the ever-encroaching totalitarian tactics the government has been using since 9/11, by pretending that it is a tea-bagger 'astroturf' attempt to oppose this president. That is a lie. There is no other way to characterize it. This is and always was a Democratic issue, until now.

And why are Democrats abandoning this issue now? That is what is curious.

At least Ron Paul is consistent. But I am beginning to feel like I am on a see-saw and that nothing we fought for was ever really about principles, it was in the end all about party loyalty. What a depressing realization to have to come to. Eight years of thinking we were fighting for principles.

[Jakes Progress]

5. Not for the most part.

Mostly they would line up behind their leader, talk about how admirable he/she is, and crush any opposition by saying that if you oppose him/her, you must want Hillary for president and for the terrists to win.

[ProSense]

8. Hmmm?

"Mostly they would line up behind their leader, talk about how admirable he/she is, and crush any opposition by saying that if you oppose him/her, you must want Hillary for president and for the terrists to win. "

So when someone disagrees with you, it means they want to crush you?

Most of the comments I've seen acknowledge that there are issues to be resolved. It's just that not everyone agrees with distasteful nature of the outrage and the hypocrisy of the RW.

That's the problem with some people, believing the world is black or white.

[Jakes Progress]

15. Hmmmm?

So you read my description of how most RW hypocrites would act and took it as me describing myself? Strange reading.

I'll slow it down. I feel, given what went on during the bush years, that most republicans sold their soul for a win and a presidency. Though the gop mainstream historically backed fiscally sound, small government and eschewed nation building. But when their guy ran up debt and started wars all over the place to build new little RW democracies, they fell in line. When we on the left complained they hooted that we supported the Taliban. When moderates in their own party objected, the fanatics bellowed that the moderates must want Clinton back. Now when Obama carries out programs that are extensions of their former dreams, the republicans scream about how bad it is. That is hypocrisy.

That is also the issue of the OP. It is not whether the RW would protest. It is whether Democrats who defend the actions now would have defended them under bush. Too many Democrats share that "my side at all costs" hypocrisy with the majority of republicans. If you aren't practicing politics of personality, then you would support or attack issues based on your principle rather than on a person.

You are right about some people seeing all issues as black and white. Some issues deserve that. Bigotry is wrong. No way I can wring a gray area out of that. Wars and death for corporate profit. That's wrong too.

On the issue of seeing things in such a closed manner. Can you tell me what issues that Obama has supported that you don't support? Or is everything he says or does exactly the way you like it? Are there any things he has done or not done that you find unacceptable? You know. Just to make sure the problem you mention in your last line isn't one of yours.

[Forkboy]

17. Do you wait for them to decide before taking a position yourself?

[woo me with science]

26. No shit. nt

[Jakes Progress]

32. Some don't have a position until the WH decides what to do.

Then that becomes their position. It's just a lot easier that way. No thinking. No moral tussles. Just reprint the WH handout as your principle. (Subject to change at any moment or whim.)

[de novo]

30. Would you? That is the question.

[rasputin1952]

4. bush isn't president, you could say the same thing about...

Washington, Lincoln or McCain, but it's purely subjective.

Granted, bush was a walking, talking clown as a president, but the reality of the situation is that bush is gone, (thank heaven), and history will treat him like the dud he is.

[originalpckelly]

7. The point of it is, that some people are really supporting this.

I question their sincerity, and I, like a few others, doubt they'd be supporting this if it wasn't Obama in charge.

[rasputin1952]

11. We have to accept the fact that some people will be agaisnt PO if

the sky opened up and a voice from beyond condoned his every act, it's just part of politics. There are people out here who think PO should not be president because he's half black, others complain he's not "religious enough", I've seen some RW screeds saying he's too intelligent! No matter what D is there, the RW will always find a way to denigrate said D.

Naturally, when 2 morons, Reagan and bush were in, they were seen by the GOP as speakers for God himself...Clinton and PO are terrifying to the GOP, once someone puts intellect into the equation, the GOP breaks down...that's why they find their candidates in the veggie bin at a local store. I'm so thankful that bush is gone...and out touting his "book" and no longer a threat to the stability of the world. That is a great step forward.

[avaistheone1]

20. Radiation scanners and genital gropings would have driven us to the streets under Bush,

and it is just as unacceptable under Obama. Maybe even more unacceptable as Obama falsely sold himself as the candidate of change.

[Raine]

21. Yes, EXACTLY! nt

[woo me with science]

29. [phone]

I can just IMAGINE what this board would look like if this had happened under Bush.

[Raine]

13. No absolutely not ... that's why I won't accept

it from someone I supported and voted for. :mad:

[phasma ex machina]

16. +1 Fascism is fascism, it's that simple. nt.

[rcrush]

22. A democrat is in charge so no one cares

It's going to spread and people will cheer for it.

[MineralMan]

23. Flamebait, I think.

What's the point? Why not just post an OP that expresses your opinion?

[TheKentuckian]

24. There would be no bait or flames if folks weren't acting like lying hypocrites

either because of personal loyalty to the President or to the party.

If you think being called on out on inconsistent beliefs, values, and principles is flamebait perhaps you are being too sensitive because the accusation is too close to accurate for comfort.

[MineralMan]

25. This has nothing to do with my beliefs.

It has to do with the misuse of a DU poll to make a point. I'd react the same no matter what the subject was.

You know nothing about my beliefs. This is not about me.

[woo me with science]

27. [phone] nt

[woo me with science]

28. Because hypocrisy is an issue here.

And this hypocrisy is rank and in-your-face.

[de novo]

31. This OP very effectively expresses an opinion.

You didn't get it?

[originalpckelly]

33. Yeah, the poll part was a point.

I do that sometimes.

I've posted two options that are the same exact thing, just to make a point.

It's fun to fuck with the poll feature from time to time.