US TERROR ATTEMPT!!! Bush read to kids. Obama vacations in Hawaii. Double standard?

by Dude,WTF? Posted December 26, 2009 12:23:41

Read all 105 opinions

So, here we are. Another attempt at a terrorsit attack on American soil. Some nut job muslim terrorist tries to blow up an airliner during Obamas watch. What does Obama do? Continues his taxpayer paid vacation in Hawaii. Bush kept calm in the few moments after 9/11 and continued reading to young school children and has never heard the end of it for maintaining his composure and not rushing out of a classrom filled with kids. Obama? When he gets the news of an attampted attack he raises the serurity for air travel but continues with his vacation. Is this a double standard? If Bush did this how many talking heads would be saying he's not taking this seriously? What a joke and embarrassment the media and this liar in charge are.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126178158688405369.html?mod=W...

Jackie December 27, 2009 03:13:17

+5
The MSM is downplaying this as an "attempted" attack on Americans, so it's not THAT big of a deal according to these loons. You're right...Bush got pummeled by the MSM for acting accordingly amongst young children when he got the news of 9/11...but yet OBama still vacationed in Hawaii after hearing the news on this current attack(which it was, it just failed this time) and he get's no flack from the MSM. Oh it must be because there were no deaths involved that OBama could go back to his vacation?? If McCain had won the election and he treated this the way OBama is now...it would be front page news and all over the MSM, and not about the "attempted" attack...but how McCain went right on enjoying his vacation in Hawaii while "our country was under attack..again under a Republican Administration". Oh man it's unbelievable how OBama constantly get's a 'free pass' for doing nothing when it come to being our Commander in Chief. A simple analogy...If any of you were on vacation in Hawaii and you heard that there was an "attempt" to kill someone in your family..but they lived...would you still stay in Hawaii and continue your vacation...or take the next flight home to make sure all was well??
>> See Replies

Isma'ila (God has heard)! December 30, 2009 06:48:39

Amen to that! I think that double standard is very unfair!

reply
Jackie December 27, 2009 03:13:17

+5
The MSM is downplaying this as an "attempted" attack on Americans, so it's not THAT big of a deal according to these loons. You're right...Bush got pummeled by the MSM for acting accordingly amongst young children when he got the news of 9/11...but yet OBama still vacationed in Hawaii after hearing the news on this current attack(which it was, it just failed this time) and he get's no flack from the MSM. Oh it must be because there were no deaths involved that OBama could go back to his vacation?? If McCain had won the election and he treated this the way OBama is now...it would be front page news and all over the MSM, and not about the "attempted" attack...but how McCain went right on enjoying his vacation in Hawaii while "our country was under attack..again under a Republican Administration". Oh man it's unbelievable how OBama constantly get's a 'free pass' for doing nothing when it come to being our Commander in Chief. A simple analogy...If any of you were on vacation in Hawaii and you heard that there was an "attempt" to kill someone in your family..but they lived...would you still stay in Hawaii and continue your vacation...or take the next flight home to make sure all was well??

reply
Zuggi December 26, 2009 17:34:48

You don't see the difference between a failed attempt and one that killed thousands of Americans?

reply
Dude,WTF? to Zuggi December 26, 2009 18:44:26

+3
If that was the issue I would have raised it. No, I do not, is the answer to your question. 9/11 was NOT a confirmed terrorist attack until after possibly the second plane hit the towers now was it?
Did you know it was an attackafter the first plane?
If so, why didnt you report it ahead of time because it seems you would have been the ONLY one to know we were under attack at that precise moment in time?
This current attempted massacre of innocent lives is nothing less than an attack on American soil. AGAIN, under this administration. Did Obama drop everything when the Fort Hood massacre happened? Did he drop eveything just now in Hawaii? NO, thats the reason for my question here.
Bush took all of what, 11 minutes after he was informed we were under attack?
Where is Obama today? Still vacationing? Double standard? The question remains.

reply
Zuggi to Dude,WTF? December 26, 2009 20:11:42

There was a giant difference in the immediate response needed by the executive branch. What would Obama's direct involvement change in this case?

reply
Jackie to Zuggi December 27, 2009 03:25:18

+1
So there should only be an immediate response if people die, not an immediate response to PREVENT Americans from dying...when obviously the crazy ass extremist still have it in for us.

reply
Zuggi to Jackie December 27, 2009 17:37:32

No, there should be an immediate response if the President is needed in the situation.

reply
Jackie to Zuggi December 28, 2009 07:07:26

+2
If OBama had a DIRECT response, it would have at least shown that the USA still means business when it comes to ANYONE trying to "attempt" to kill our fellow Americans. But nope, he still stayed in Hawaii. As you must know, there was another attempt on the same flight today. We are now considered weak and laughable to the terrorists. At least when GWB was in office they feared America's strength...now they laugh at us.

reply
Zuggi to Jackie December 28, 2009 07:11:32

You do realize that one of the stated objectives of Osama's was to try and get us drawn into even more wars in the Middle East, thinking that we would have another Vietnam/Russian Afghanistan until we washed our hands of the whole region?

They didn't fear GWB. They counted on him. He fell into their trap in Iraq,

reply
Jackie to Zuggi December 28, 2009 07:39:15

+2
Hey guy, they did IN FACT fear Bush, because he scared the shit out of them because he wasn't afraid to retaliate..unlike OBAMA. NO matter whose the POS the extremist will always fight against us "infidels"..it will never change. What will keep the "attempted" attacks at bay in our country....is a strong, take no prisoners leader...which we don't have right now.

reply
Zuggi to Jackie December 28, 2009 18:00:08

Simply incorrect. Did invading Iraq stop attacks? No, it just multiplied them by 100 times and put those attacks on our soldiers.

reply
Jackie to Zuggi December 29, 2009 08:21:59

+2
Your gone. Supposedly once OBama was elected and apologized for America the TERRORIST attacks would stop on America??? How come they still hate us?? Oh...it's STILL because of GWB?? America did not INVADE Iraq, we LIBERATED Iraq...look up the definition of INVADING asshole. Does this look like an INVASION to you?

reply
Zuggi to Jackie December 29, 2009 15:52:06

I'm gone? No one claimed Obama's election would stop all terrorist attacks. But it will reduce them.

reply
Jackie to Zuggi December 30, 2009 06:05:05

+2
Are you for real??? Do you even follow politics in depth? OBama ran on a ticket for the middle class, and being the ONE who could FINALLY get all nations to come together and love America..minus Bush...yeah how's OBamas policies working for ya? He's considered a joke to other countries and they love your stupidity. These rouge Nations will NEVER love America no matter whose the POTUS...what they do love is passive PC assholes like yourself who do more damage to America.

reply
Zuggi to Jackie December 30, 2009 15:30:06

How are the policies working for me? Reasonably well.

He's considered a joke? Only in your mind.

reply
Jackie to Zuggi January 01, 2010 06:42:01

I have a feeling that you don't even know what policies OBama has enacted or what other "bills" he want's to enact on America that will directly affect your life. What has he done that is positive for our country right now? Supposedly we had to pass the bail out program, so the unemployment rate wouldn't go up and beyond 8 percent??? Hmmm after the passage of that bill, the unemployment rate rose to 10 percent??

reply
Zuggi to Jackie January 01, 2010 09:07:04

Let's compare the person who's really treated like a messiah's (Reagan)'s success with unemployment with Obama's. It took Reagan much longer to get to the unemployment change (acceleration) to curve downward. It took him twice as long to get the unemployment rate to level out.

reply
Jackie to Zuggi January 03, 2010 05:08:04

Hey pal, look into our history of tax cuts. It was Regan's tax cuts that eventually "stimulated" the economy that he "inherited" from Carter. Yes it took time for the benefits of Regan's tax cuts and breaks to the wealthy that stimulated the economy during his administration....unlike the OBama TAX HIKES that will immediately RUIN our economy. What don't you get? Have you ever taken a course in economics?

reply
Zuggi to Jackie January 03, 2010 17:32:05

See, you're taking it as an article of faith instead of looking at the actual data. If you examine the data, you see that 1) tax cuts have a lower ROI than most spending and 2) Obama's economy has improved faster than Reagan's did.

reply
Jackie to Zuggi January 05, 2010 04:29:15

You really need to start caring more about your country than your party. Apparently back in February of 09' we HAD to pass the "stimulus package" immediately so as to not BANKRUPT America and to keep the unemployment rate to AT LEAST 8%??? Hmmmmm where is the unemployment rate now? Where are ALL those jobs?? How many jobs has the OBama Administration "created", while at the time same time people are being layed off in droves so that the jobs that would be have been eliminated are not, if not for the Stimulus Package??? Why is the unemployment rate up to 10%, when he promised that if he passed this bill it would not go beyond 8%, blah blah blah. Oh...I know....It all GWB's fault!!LOL The Liberal Dems were complaining when the unemployment rate went up to 5. something% under Bush..after 9/11...but now we should be applauding OBama for keeping it at a steady 10%??? WAKE UP.

reply
Zuggi to Jackie January 05, 2010 05:26:29

The economy is a fickle thing. If the stimulus package had not been passed, things would have been much worse. It's a bad thing that it's taken longer than Obama thought for the change in unemployment to level off, but remember that it took Reagan one more year to achieve the same thing and he cut taxes so low that he managed to triple the national debt over his eight years.

Yes, the economy is GWB's fault. The economy is a light switch; you can't turn it on and off. The bubble was both created and burst under GWB's tenure.

reply
Jackie to Zuggi January 05, 2010 05:43:47

A bad economy is only a "fickle thing" if your party is the majority party in office. If the Republican party is the majority in office..then it's THEIR FAULT. Oh man, you just don't get it and you never will. Your all about your party and not about what's in the best interest for ALL Americans.

reply
Zuggi to Jackie January 05, 2010 06:02:38

No, the economy is always fickle. But when it's been your economy for 8 years you have had the ability to change it far more than when it's been your economy for one year.

reply
Jackie to Zuggi January 06, 2010 04:18:53

It took Jimmy Carter 4 years to F up the economy after an 8 year Republican Administration...but only 2 years for Regan to clean up the 4 years of the Democrat mess....Hmmm, which party has the ability to turn the economy around?? I do believe Bush had that "horrendous" unemployment rate, between 4-5% while in office after 9/11 and the DOW at it's all time high. I guess OBama REALLY does know what's best for our economy with an unemployment rate of 10% and the DOW at 10,000 +. Yeah, Good Times are here again????

reply
Zuggi to Jackie January 06, 2010 04:26:09

You're making the mistake of looking at absolute values but ignoring future indicators. Unemployment happens to be the last thing in the economy to change, yet it's moving the right way now.

I hate to be a broken record, but remember that it took Reagan two years to stop unemployment increases while Obama's done it in one.

reply
Jackie to Zuggi January 06, 2010 05:13:01

What??? Our unemployment rate has skyrocketed under Obama since his "Bailout" plan, that was suppose to keep our unemployment rate under 8%, because if it went to 8 percent our country would go bankrupt??? BTW, I disagreed with Bush's bailout plan also.The way to stimulate the economy is NOT by more government spending(our money). The way to stimulate the economy is to cut taxes for all(so we can spend the extra money in our pockets), get rid of all the ridiculous entitlement programs, give tax breaks for the big and small companies in our country, you know the ones who hire Americans..., and to deregulate all these ridiculous green movement regulations that are forcing our American corporations to move their businesses oversees to countries who don't give a rats ass about "global warming" and don't have to abide by such stringent rules. Do you really think the Chinese or India care about "Global Warming"??? They're "waiting in the wings" to be the next super power, and we're following right into their trap because of you "earth saving" people. It's takes more than one country to "save the earth".

reply
Zuggi to Jackie January 06, 2010 05:16:35

Unemployment has gone up, but at a steadily decreasing rate. If the trend continues we should have unemployment going down in the next few months. And a year quicker than Reagan.

Tax cuts give an inferior ROI to most forms of spending. Simple fact.

reply
Jackie to Zuggi January 06, 2010 05:41:36

Hey, you sound just like a typical liberal..."unemployment has gone up, but at a
'steadily decreasing' rate"?? OMG, LOL. You sound like John Kerry when he said that he voted for the war before he voted against the war!!! You Dem's touted to the ill informed Americans that the economy was taking because it went up to 5% under Bush??? But yet now, they should be embracing that the 10% unemployment rate is going down??? Hey you should take a stand for what our country was founded on, and not your political party.

reply
Zuggi to Jackie January 06, 2010 07:15:08

It was actually 7.6% when Bush left office and the rate at which it was going up was climbing.

I'm taking a stand for understanding how the economy and mathematics work.

reply
Jackie to Zuggi January 07, 2010 06:51:06

Obviously your getting your "facts" from Wikkipedia...my daughter had to do a report on the Blizzard of 78 and she at first got her "facts" from Wikkipedia and they were all wrong, you do realize that people with the mindset of a 12 year old post can post their "truths" on that site. Ok, so your "taking a stand for how the economy and mathematics works". Pretty simple math pal, the more money you and I have in our pockets to spend... the more money we'll have to truly STIMULATE the economy, thus creating more jobs. The LESS money you and I have in our pockets to spend, due to higher taxes for entitlement programs for the lazy ass people who milk the system, will force the working people TO NOT SPEND THEIR EXTRA MONEY, thus people losing their jobs, because the working people aren't spending. The more my husbands paycheck goes down because of higher taxes....the less we spend. Now get this, it might seem crazy to you...but IF my husbands paycheck went up because of tax cuts...we would actually have more money to spend on things that would stimulate the economy AND at the same time create jobs. It's pretty simple math pal, have you ever taken a course in Economics?

reply
Zuggi to Jackie January 07, 2010 07:51:41

Right. I'm getting my facts from Wikipedia. Like the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2...

Yes, I have. I might even know more than you.

The simple fact is that the government gets a better ROI on most spending programs than you do on most tax cuts.

reply
Jackie to Zuggi January 08, 2010 05:08:50

Oh man, you're all about the government taking care of us huh? Is Amtrak profitable, is the US Post Office profitable, is Medicare profitable, is Medicaid profitable, is the DMV efficient??? they're all in the red(that means bad). Now, is FedEX profitable?, is UPS profitable? is Blue Cross Blue Shield profitable? Hmmm seems to me that when GOVERNMENT is not involved, companies tend to be profitable...thus creating more jobs.

reply
Zuggi to Jackie January 08, 2010 05:55:10

None of those are run with the intent of creating a profit.

Statistically speaking, government spending gets a higher ROI than tax cuts do. Simple fact.

reply
Jackie to Zuggi January 09, 2010 06:25:46

Hmmm, really...just like the stimulus package did??? You really believe that more government spending(higher taxes for the working people who spend, meaning less money in the consumers pockets to spend) gets a higher ROI??? Explain in detail how? How does my family having less money in our pockets to spend, produce a higher ROI??? Oh, by me in turn relying on the government for my ROI???

reply
Zuggi to Jackie January 09, 2010 06:59:41

Yes, the stimulus package helped.

Remember the economy is based off of money circulating. Money that the government spends building a road, for instance, gets paid to a contractor. That contractor pays the salaries of his employees and purchases materials. The employees spend their salaries and the materials supplier pays his employees.

If you want numbers, here's a Republican economist's (max donor to McCain) analysis of ROI.

http://www.economy.com/mark-z...

reply
Jackie to Zuggi January 09, 2010 07:51:02

Oh man you just don't get it. The money that the government spends to pay that union contractors employees to build that road, bridge, or government building is coming out of working people's paychecks to pay for all their union benefits, and my husband is in the Union, and I'm anti Union!! He's gotten in trouble for working too hard and making others look bad on the job because he works too hard?? I personally have no problem accepting his union benefits because he's one of those guys who BUSTS his ass off every day in any element at work for my family, he's from the old school of working hard for his money. It pisses me off that we now have "entitled" union workers, who don't even know what hard work means, but they get the same paycheck that my husband busts his ass for.

reply
Zuggi to Jackie January 10, 2010 00:05:16

Where did I discuss unions?

Nowhere.

reply
Jackie to Zuggi January 10, 2010 05:56:44

You didn't I did, I was explaining how these government funded jobs go....they go to Union companies...because the Unions are the ones who support the Democrats.... so in turn the government gives those contracts to the companies that hire Union. A private sector company doesn't have a shot at a government funded job no matter how low their bid is, and that's a fact pal. Do you know of any private contractor without Union members that has gotten a government(taxpayer) contract??? If you do, it must be from a Republican controlled state.

reply
Zuggi to Jackie January 10, 2010 21:13:39

Let's see... Blackwater.

Your incorrect statements are merely a dodge away from the actual argument.

reply
Jackie to Zuggi January 11, 2010 06:28:17

Oh man, your obviously clueless. I'm curious...are you in favor of our government prosecuting our Navy Seals who put their lives on the line to find and capture the TERRORIST who was responsible for the BURNING AND HANGING of our American citizens from a bridge... who were only trying to help build back Iraq from a DICTATOR, that our soldiers fought to defeat in the name of freedom??

reply