It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush says Obama 'deserves my silence'

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubergrasshopper

Originally posted by burntheships
Former President George W. Bush says Obama 'deserves my silence'.



The American people and the entire freakin' world deserve this a**h***s silence.

Where's the International Criminal Court (ICC) when you need 'em?





You can have his silence too.

If you see him on television don't watch, see a article about him don't read it or see his upcoming book on a shelf don't pick it up.

There, now you have his complete silence.

Enjoy.




posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by spinkyboo
 



See my last post.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


See my last post.



I think it might be nice to just have a bit of a break from the fellow.
Just a little break.

I'm a part of the world. I watch and read news - I talk to people.
So - your suggestion is not a very realistic one.

Frankly, I don't think Bush wanted
to do some of the things that he did.
I'm not sure that he had a grip on much actually.
And - I feel badly for him on some level.

Regardless - a little break would be nice.
People are still angry - people need to heal.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by spinkyboo
 



You want a break and yet you come to this thread knowing by the title what it is about and asking for a break from him.

Its like you know fire burns, but yet you can't stop holding a lit match to your arm.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
To many Bush haters, nothing he does will ever be right.
So if he had said Obama is doing a great job, would they finally have agreed with Bush?
Would they even admit it?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


You want a break and yet you come to this thread knowing by the title what it is about and asking for a break from him.

Its like you know fire burns, but yet you can't stop holding a lit match to your arm.



I wish him the best.
I really do.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by David9176
 


I think George made a smart move. He knows he can't criticize Obama, he messed things up far more than Obama has in the last couple of months.



It's been a protocol for previous presidents not to criticize the current president or each other - until the democrats broke it recently with Clinton and Carter criticizing Bush.

BTW, Carter shows himself to be the consummate hypocrite with his criticisms, since his own presidency was a disaster.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I agree. I think this is the most mature and sensible thing I have seen Bush do. lol

good for him.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 

There was a picture on Drudge this morning of Carter looking like he's sneaking out the back door of the Whitehouse.

news.yahoo.com...

I saw that and thought to myself, what in the world could this man offer our current sitting president? Advice on how to completely screw up an economy and demoralize an entire country?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
It's been a protocol for previous presidents not to criticize the current president or each other - until the democrats broke it recently with Clinton and Carter criticizing Bush.

BTW, Carter shows himself to be the consummate hypocrite with his criticisms, since his own presidency was a disaster.


Thank you for pointing that out.

I'm curious if the libs around here would have been satisfied if Bush had come out and criticized Obama?
I thought he showed a lot of class by his (non) remarks.

In other news did anyone see Robert Gibbs comparing Cheney to Rush Limbaugh then making a joke out of it during a White House press conference? If you want to see a lack of class, look no further than the current administration.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Anjin
 



Yea I made a thread about it a couple of days ago.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Ya know, I saw somewhere an expose' on how lucrative it is to be an ex-President.

Speaking engagements, book deals and the like....rake in lots and lots of moolah!!

ALSO, it is, quite simply, considered polite for an ex- to never criticsize a sitting President. Even GWB's own father begged off, publically.

We now have, what? Five exes floating around???

Of course, the statement by GWB was slightly disengenuous, given the recent statements by ex-VP Richard (Dick) Cheney. Let's not forget the revisionism displayed by Ari Fleischer......



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervigilant
 




No sir . A person that wanted to go after anyone outside of this country after watching those buildings being imploded were the ones that were ignorant. ... I've seen the elephant and smoke and mirror tricks. and it didn't look or feel right to me from the git go. I've been watching these Yankee transplants to Texas since the 1960s, and they are capable of doing whatever it takes, as the end justifies the means. I am not ignorant about September 11 Th.



Nor I, Mr H/V. I asked "Who and why" but the Bush43/Cheney/Rumsfeld triple threat to peace and democracy would have none of that! And their easily led and cheerfully deceived followers just jumped on board the Lunatic Express. Hello WMDs and so on. Rendition is our name and torture is our game! Crank up the Git-mo Express.

BUT back to the economy Bush43 left to us to fix. Home ownership. Prior to 1933, it was not “sound baking practice” to loan more than 50% on the purchase of a home. The Federal Housing Administration - FHA - was created and given the task of revitalizing the home building industry. This was accomplished by setting new standards for home ownership.

The down payment was lowered to 10% of the purchase price. The term of the mortgage was extended to 30 years up from the common 10 or 15 years. The interest rate was not set by the FHA, but to encourage lenders, home mortgages for qualifying houses were insured against loss to the lender in case of default by the buyer. A mortgage insurance fee of ½ of 1% was added to the lender’s finance charges and the lender forwarded this to the US Treasury.

To create competition, the very old but also very small neighborhood home ownership co-operatives were organized into a new industry, the Savings and Loan Associations around the country. Popularly referred to as the “S&Ls.” Depositor savings were encouraged by 2 steps. First, the new FDIC set bank interest rates on savings. A new and similar FSLIC was allowed to pay ½% more than banks. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. Second, the S&Ls were limited to financing homes in their neighborhood. Loans were approved by a committee made up of substantial people living in the neighborhood. This process assured nearly 100% payback, but as in the case of the FHA, the borrower had to pay an extra ½% into the same default fund.

This new approach to home financing had a very significant side effect we take for granted today. I used the term “qualifying house” above. That meant the house had to have certain basics. Primarily it meant full indoor plumbing. It meant an adequate electric service. It meant hot and cold running water. Two windows were required in every room for cross ventilation. An electric outlet was required on every outside wall. Minimum sizes for rooms were set. Insulation in the attic was required, 200 pound roofing and etc.

For the first time every new house in America was going to be alike in the ways important for modern living. It also meant a man working for a company in Providence would hot hesitate to take a better paying job in Denver or Portland, know he could obtain similar housing in his destination city at comparable costs. For you anti-social people, no law required any builder to meet those standards, but neither could the house have an FHA or FSLIC home loan either. Needless to say, there was 100% VOLUNTARY compliance!

The percent of home ownership prior to 1933 is often given at 20%. By 2005, the percentage had risen to 69%. In that same time frame the US population grew from 132,000,000 t0 227,000,000 in 1980. The number of houses increased by about 32,000,000 up from 43,000,000 to a new high of 75,000,000 private homes. About 49,500,000 of those houses were owned by the occupants. Note: the Census numbers refer to “housing units” and includes co-operative apartments and condominiums as well as stand alone private homes. See Note 1.

From 1933 until the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan followed by the two Bushes and Newt Gingrich, not one person holding a Federally insured home loan ever lost ONE penny! For 47 years - more than 2 generations - people began to take it for granted that owner occupied home mortgages were the PERFECT investment. It is no surprise then that when Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, CitiBank and AIG began to “hawk” their investment packages that contained owner occupied home mortgages that people around the world felt comfortable buying the package.

Whether that misrepresentation was done deceitfully or not, I do not know. But regardless of the motive, it had the tragic result we are now facing, when the REGULATIONS were removed or the REGULATOR staffs gutted or both, under the new Milton Friedman Neo Con Theory of FREE MARKET decides it all. We owe this to Ronald Reagan. I have never heard anyone say he was a brilliant or a thoughtful person. The best I have heard about him was he was the GREAT COMMUNICATOR. We are now learning his message was empty. And worse, it was dead wrong.
A $3 to $5 trillion mistake! A snake oil salesman. A shill man. I’m sorry folks but you must know why we are where we are today.


Note 1. The US population in millions, grew as follows: 1940, 132; 1950, 152; 1960, 180; 1970, 205; 1980, 227; 1990, 249; 2000, 276. 2005 Home ownership by race: White, 75.8%; Asian, 60.1%; Hispanic, 49.5%; and African, 48,2%. Home ownership, overall, 1960 to 2004. 1960, 62%; 1968, 64%; 1980, 65.9%; 1992, 64%; 2004, 69%.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 
I hate to bring up another transplant to Texas, but there were safe guards that protected the public from what happened, that were eliminated by a man from Georgia who was elected to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat by Texas voters in the 80s. .....He sold out to the financiers and fell from favor of those that elected him to office and demanded a special election so he could be elected again as a republican candidate for the office that he already held..... This was done after the district had been re mapped and at a cost of millions to the states..... The things that this guy pulled off is to much for me to cover, but he is the man that that pushed through all of the banking and loan deregulation that has brought us to where we are today...... Except for popping as McCain's campaign manager and bailing out when the press lightly touched on his past, he has withdrawn to count his money shunning the attention of inquiring minds..... This turd of a man that never held a job in the private sector and is living the lifestyle of an old money trust fund baby, due to his carrying out the plans of the old money Bush family and their ilk, did the biggest part of making this financial night mare occur.... All of these bastards are staying quiet.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
It's Bush family policy not to bad mouth the sitting president. Bush41 did it for Clinton. Bush43 said he'd do it for Obama. It's just the way the family does things. (saw that on TV)



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
It's Bush family policy not to bad mouth the sitting president. Bush41 did it for Clinton. Bush43 said he'd do it for Obama. It's just the way the family does things. (saw that on TV)


This protocol goes back a lot farther than the Bush family. Trying to recall, but I don't think I remember any president even criticizing Nixon, Johnson or any others going back.

I believe it comes from (most - not Carter or Clinton
) presidents realizing and remembering what it is like to actually be president and have to make tough and/or unpopular decisions.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
The Presidents club...not too many get to join! I would agree with the majority of posts that give President Bush applause for the class he showed in keeping his silence.

However...I wonder if he just shoots from the hip with the rest of his comments...maybe I read too much into it...but it sure seems to me that he would have been advised to leave off the comment about buying and paying for a house last year. That is just too much of a can of worms....



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by booggyman111
I dont see how people can put all the blame for how the economy is on Bush. One man didn't put the U.S. where it is today, its all of us, banks that got greedy or average americans who dug themselves into holes that they cant get out of. Sure Bush isnt the sharpest tool in the shed, but i dont think that we can put all the blame on him. Look back at yourself and see if you can be completely blameless for where we are.


i'm 28, i go to college and i work, i don't have a credit card, i live in an apartment, and i don't spend beyond my means. sorry, it isn't my fault.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervigilant
 




I hate to bring up another transplant to Texas, but there were safe guards that protected the public from what happened, that were eliminated by a man from Georgia who was elected to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat by Texas voters in the 80s. .....He sold out to the financiers and fell from favor of those that elected him to office and demanded a special election so he could be elected again as a republican candidate for the office that he already held..... This was done after the district had been re mapped and at a cost of millions to the states..... The things that this guy pulled off is to much for me to cover, but he is the man that that pushed through all of the banking and loan deregulation that has brought us to where we are today...... Except for popping as McCain's campaign manager and bailing out when the press lightly touched on his past . .



May I present, GRAMM, William Philip, a Representative and a Senator from Texas; born in Fort Benning, Muscogee County, Ga., July 8, 1942; elected in 1978 as a Democrat to the Ninety-sixth Congress; reelected as a Democrat to the two succeeding Congresses; resigned January 5, 1983, to run for election to the Ninety-eighth Congress as a Republican; reelected as a Republican, by special election, on February 12, 1983, and served January 3, 1979, to January 5, 1983, and February 12, 1983, to January 3, 1985; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate in 1984; reelected in 1990 and again in 1996 and served from January 3, 1985, to November 30, 2002, when he resigned . . .



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 

Excellent Post! What so many people are missing is that Bush is the first Bailout King...the first bailout was under Bush!

Proof here:
www.nytimes.com...



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join