I never said Bush was reliably truthful.... I never defended him or his lies at all

That's wrong. You not only defended him and his lies, you tried to claim that he hadn't lied at all by claiming "Bush was no liar." Go back and read it yourself:

http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/09/21/obama/permalink/51db0daa9f96da9affe4bc435d6b1439.html

Simple example - when Bush said he was going to double down in Iraq, for better or worse, I knew he would. By contrast, Obama has spent the last 8 months braying about the Afghan "war of necessity," and how he would commit whatever resources necessary to win. Look now, and you'll see he is unreliable w/r/t the war.

This to me is one of Obama's main selling points. He's able to recognize a bad idea when he sees one, and change direction. This is what people with functioning brains do. Bush's inability to do this led to disaster.

nevertheless it is odd to me that so many Bush-haters are unable to focus on the fact that Bush is retired and the CURRENT president is doing basically exactly the same things that were anathama when Bush did them.

Obama is not doing exactly the same things as Bush did. Show me the wars of choice and the torture memos to prove that point. However, I would say that Obama is not doing things differently enough from Bush by a long shot. I'm fully able to focus on that, cast criticism (and support) where it's deserved.

However, here's why I personally focus on Bush when talking to Republicans (which I understand you're not): the republicans foisted the worst president in modern history on the country, countenanced rigged elections and unprecedented abuse of the constitution, and pissed away our budget surplus. Now after that, they want to criticize Obama for being 1/10th the disaster Bush was. Obama critics claim to have some principles (smaller government, smarter spending, etc), but anyone paying attention to the last 8 years knows republicans stand for none of these things. Knowing that their choice is to replace Obama with another Bush-type disaster, I call them out on this loudly.

Who are you talking to with this "you you you?" You've got some made-up culture war caricature in your head and you're talking to it, like the rabbit in Harvey.

Blaming every ill in the world on some completely nebulous "you" isn't going to help you understand what's going on, or make you feel more at ease. Quite the opposite.

Concern for the environment does not equal socialism. The notion of preserving the life-sustaining ecosystem and natural beauty of our planet is what conservatism used to be about. Teddy Roosevelt would shit if he could see how far you guys have moved on this issue.

With the title Burn This Book, you gave it as an example of the anti-intellectualism exhibited by the hippies. However, the title is Steal This Book which connotes something entirely different.

Fail.

Dance around it all you like. When the recession officially started, who was leading the government?

If your intention is to erase the tragedy of the past 8 years, I'd be inclined to join you.

I know honest comments are not really your bag, but I am a bit curious how you internally maintain this particular delusion:

In a way I am glad that Barry has destroyed our economy

The recession started under Bush. He destroyed our economy. Obama's policies have helped it improve. Those are facts, sure, and I know what place they have in your arguments (nowhere). However, if anyone with a brain is reading this thread, these facts are important to point out.

The other way we could cut carbon emissions would be by, well, building more carbon-free power plants. But achieving moral purity by enforcing a new stone age was what they wanted for us instead.

You're mixed up. Despite what you "think" the "greens" want, the fact is the recession is forcing carbon emissions down. It's not like the "greens" created the recession for the purpose of forcing emissions down. It's a silver lining to the otherwise bad news of a recession. Why are you bitching about it?

First, please let me say that you have surprised me with your fair mindedness and general spirit of intellectual honesty.

Cheers! Same back to you.

as far as " Bush's lies about torture and wiretapping." That's a pretty brave card for an Obama supporter to play, given the obvious bullshit he's peddled

I'm fully able to accept that Obama may well have lied to the electorate, though it's not yet clear precisely how. However, Obama's alleged lies have nothing to do with Bush's lies.

The truth is that the entire state is attempting (successfully, for now) to oppress the shit out of Americans for "our own good." This is perhaps the only true bi-partisan consensus.

You're not telling me two wrongs make a right, are you?

I don't think that it is a lie to say the US doesn't torture. If water boarding is torture....

Torture is defined fairly specifically in the Treaty Against Torture, and waterboarding is certainly included. Further, waterboarding wasn't the only kind of torture the US engaged in. Those other types (slicing a detainee's penis with a knife, stress positions, extreme cold, sleep deprivation, etc) are also included in the CAT's definition. While you may not have known that, it's inconceivable that the Bush Administration did not (and irrelevant anyway). For Bush to have uttered the words "America does not torture" is about the most straightforward lie one can find emanating from his mouth. That and "When I talk about surveillance, I mean we always get a search warrant." Both of those were known lies at the time they were spoken.

Don't defend Bush's lies. It's beneath you.