• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Democrats Legacy: DISRESPECT?

Carl said:
He caused Libya to abandon its nuclear aspirations, and turn over its nuclear materiele.

Ok....true to my word, I will give Bush credit for that one. It happened early into his administration and I had actually forgotten about it. So, I will concede that he is not a COMPLETE failure - (see I do see shades of gray).



However, I disagree with the other "accomplishments" you rattle off. Just because you have a Congress that rubber stamps your bad ideas, doesn't make them accomplishments, unless I guess you could argue that he has been a success in getting bad legislation passed. The result of the majority of the things that you rattled off have not resulted in good things for the country.

For example, you sight his education reform. Even most Republicans will tell you that "no child left behind" has been an utter disaster - leaving more and more children behind because they are developmentally disabled and left to struggle in a system that has taken away the educators tools to assist them.
 
disneydude said:
However, I disagree with the other "accomplishments" you rattle off. Just because you have a Congress that rubber stamps your bad ideas, doesn't make them accomplishments, unless I guess you could argue that he has been a success in getting bad legislation passed.

Well, now we're coming full circle to my earlier point. Policy disagreement, even if absolute, suggests nothing as to the competence and accomplishment of the one you disagree with.

That's why you are being called a blind critic. It appears that you may be conflating your policy positions with your analysis of competence.
 
Last edited:
Carl said:
Well, now we're coming full circle to my earlier point. Policy disagreement, even if absolute, suggests nothing as to the competence and accomplishment of the one you disagree with.

That's why you are being called a blind critic. It appears that you may be conflating your policy positions with your analysis of competence.
CHA CHING!!!
 
reaganburch said:
Justice Roberts, who has become a uniter of the court. I believe I read that there were significantly more unanimous decisions on his court this year than there were last year...


I am not debating the ability of John Roberts in this post, I won't make a judgement on him until he has more of a track record. But I am curious about your post. How are unanimous decisions a reflection of the progress of the Supreme Court? It seems to me that the Supreme Court ideally would consists of several different idealogies. A unanimous decision is not necessarily an accomplishment. Do you understand what I am saying? Agree/Disagree?
 
disneydude said:
I am not debating the ability of John Roberts in this post, I won't make a judgement on him until he has more of a track record. But I am curious about your post. How are unanimous decisions a reflection of the progress of the Supreme Court? It seems to me that the Supreme Court ideally would consists of several different idealogies. A unanimous decision is not necessarily an accomplishment. Do you understand what I am saying? Agree/Disagree?


I do hear what you're saying, but here's the thing that I've learned in the last year during the Roberts/Alito hearing.

Regardless of your beliefs and ideology, the law is the law. The Justice is an umpire, calling balls & strikes, not a player in the game. So, if he can go in there and make the unanimous decisions go up, that means, as Chief Justice, he's reining in the activism that we've read & heard so much about.

And if you compare unanimous decisions this year with the amount this time last year, then you have to compare his job, as Chief Justice, as a success.

I wouldn't give this type of credit to Alito as associate justice if he was on the court for an equal amount of time. But Roberts, as Chief Justice, on the other hand, does deserve credit.

And, if success means getting a brilliant, well-qualified, uniter on the court, then that has to be a success attributed to Bush.
 
Carl said:
Well, now we're coming full circle to my earlier point. Policy disagreement, even if absolute, suggests nothing as to the competence and accomplishment of the one you disagree with.

That's why you are being called a blind critic. It appears that you may be conflating your policy positions with your analysis of competence.


Again, I disagree. When you look at the RESULTS of any of these things you are not looking at the POLICY CONSIDERATION you are looking at the consequences.
Do the consequences of "No child left behind" show the program has been a success? No, just the opposite.
Do the consequences of Bushes Medicaid drug program show that Seniors are getting better access to their medication? Hardly - although its still a little early to tell, the earlly indicators are that it has resulted in a lot of confusion and frustration for the majority of the participants in the program?
Decimated Al-queda? I don't think so. Bush took his eyes off of Bin Laden and focused on a country that was not involved in 9-11 under lies of WMD which later changed to getting Hussein out which now has brought the country to the edge of civil war and has resulted in the loss of lives of untold numbers of our brave men and women to accomplish what? Its disgraceful that our children are dying to accomplish the man's agenda which is based on lies and was pre-planned way before 9-11. 9-11 was Rumsfield's means to his ends and it is immoral and unconscionable that our soldiers are dying to appease this warmonger. If you really support the troops, bring them home, don't send them out the slaughter for a fabricated cause.
 
disneydude said:
If you really support the troops, bring them home, don't send them out the slaughter for a fabricated cause.

You're analyzing the policies, not the competence of the President. Every single point you've provided is arguable, and is being argued, by those on the other side of the policy.

For instance, I consider the words cited above to indicate a woefully naive opinion, based on an inaccurate premise.

I have tried to show you the neccessary distinctions, and I have failed.
 
Captain America said:
Maybe if Clinton had us in an all out war we would have been easier on him?

Too late Bill. Hindsite is 20/20.

But I agree, this school influence against the president is uncalled for. Mock trial indeed. School is for readin' writin' and 'rithmetic. Not partisan politics. Those teachers should be spanked for allowing that.

Precisely! I got bitched at by my math teacher just because I wrote Bush/Cheney 2004 on my classwork. So if I can't support my president, then they can't bash him. What ever happened to equality???
 
disneydude said:
Do the consequences of "No child left behind" show the program has been a success? No, just the opposite.

Do the consequences of Bushes Medicaid drug program show that Seniors are getting better access to their medication? Hardly

Decimated Al-queda? I don't think so.

.... lies of WMD

Its disgraceful that our children are dying to accomplish the man's agenda which is based on lies .... fabricated cause.

Lots of partisan opinion. No evidence. That's why your credibility was shot soon after you arrived on this forum, disney. Because you regurgitate the trumped up scandals and the left wing rhetoric does not make it so. It doesn't mean anything until one of you proves it. Hey, how's that impeachment coming?
 
If the soldiers thought this war was a slaughter, then they would've given up and gone home already, despite what the president says. And it's not like Bush could send them ALL to jail for defying orders. So thus the troops fight because that's what they enlisted for, to fight! What the Hell do you think a military is for anyway?
 
KCConservative said:
Lots of partisan opinion. No evidence. That's why your credibility was shot soon after you arrived on this forum, disney. Because you regurgitate the trumped up scandals and the left wing rhetoric does not make it so. It doesn't mean anything until one of you proves it. Hey, how's that impeachment coming?


KCC:

I think I can say without a doubt I have more credibility than you will ever hope to have. I for one have supported a lot of what I have said with facts (Unlike you). I have admitted that I don't know everything (although you claim to be all knowing), I admit when I am shown to be wrong (an act you are incapable of).
I 'm sorry that I have lowered myself down to your level and I will make an honest effort to not do so in the future. But its kinda funny that you as one of the largest, if not the largest Bush apologist on this board, you would have any room to talk about credibility. I think the only people on this board that don't see you as a joke are your fellow right wing nuts.
 
disneydude said:
KCC:

I think I can say without a doubt I have more credibility than you will ever hope to have. I for one have supported a lot of what I have said with facts (Unlike you). I have admitted that I don't know everything (although you claim to be all knowing), I admit when I am shown to be wrong (an act you are incapable of).
I 'm sorry that I have lowered myself down to your level and I will make an honest effort to not do so in the future. But its kinda funny that you as one of the largest, if not the largest Bush apologist on this board, you would have any room to talk about credibility. I think the only people on this board that don't see you as a joke are your fellow right wing nuts.

Why don't YOU get off YOUR high horse. You bandit!
 
disneydude said:
I for one have supported a lot of what I have said with facts
Excellent, then you'll have no trouble supporting your lates post, right?
disneydude said:
Do the consequences of "No child left behind" show the program has been a success? No, just the opposite.

Do the consequences of Bushes Medicaid drug program show that Seniors are getting better access to their medication? Hardly

Decimated Al-queda? I don't think so.

.... lies of WMD

Its disgraceful that our children are dying to accomplish the man's agenda which is based on lies .... fabricated cause.
 
jfuh said:
Thank you for pointing out the flaming intention of your thread.

Thank you for avoiding the truth/debate!
 
easyt65 said:
"Never before, arguably to this extent, has there been the level of THIS much disrespect been given to a President and to the U.S. military during a time of war."

One U.S. Congressman has made this statement. Examples he cited include:

- The Democratic Party's continuous attack on a President during a time of war, equivalent to aiding and abetting the enemy.'

- Democratic Senators calling our troops terrorists and calling them the equivalent to Nazis and genocidal regemists.....

- Liberals in schools teaching our kids Bush is equal to Hitler....

- Liberal teachers holding Mock War Crimes Trials of the President in high schools, especially during a time of war...

- the democrats (including Presidential candidates) attending Hollywood fund raisers during which stars compare the Pres. to male genetalia, then those politicians declaring THAT is what the Democratic party is all about.....

I personally agree with him, that the level of disrespect has reached monumental heights. Customs and coutrtesies and long-held traditions of civility between parties has been abandoned, thrown under the bus, in exchange for all out disrespect and personal/political attack! we would NEVER have seen the kindo of attacks against our troops and against our commander in chief inyears past, especially ina time of war!

HAS IT GONE TOO FAR? WHEN IS ENOUGH/TOO FAR?

And we remember how respectful the Republicans were during the last time a Democrat was in the White House. :roll:
 
Iriemon said:
And we remember how respectful the Republicans were during the last time a Democrat was in the White House. :roll:

He ignored Americans dying around the world at the hands of terrorists (Kobar Towers/Cole/2African Embassy Bombins/Bin Laden declared war on the U.S.), illegally gathered FBI files against his opponents, his wife was busy raiding a dead man's office to steal files, he was sexually harrassing women, committing adultery in the White House, committing TREASON by selling missile technology to the chinese military that has finally allowed them to reach this country with its nukes, committed multiple felonies of perjury and witness tampering before a Federal Grand Jury in an attempt to deprive an American citizen of her constitutional right to a fair trial (as well as covering his own @$$), only one of the Constitutional Rights he swore an oath of office to protect, and made this country a laughing stock around the world through his scandals and Impeachment......and this is only a SMALL sample of the things/scandals he did while President!

WHAT part of this man's Presidency/legacy deserved respect?! :shock: (What he desrerves is to be sitting in a jail cell for the rest of his life, if only for the TREASON of selling missile technology to the chinese....but that would bring further embarrassment to this country!)

And don't call me a GOP/Bush-lover! I don't care WHO your @$$ is or what party you belong to, ANYONE who did what that man did deserved to be taken down/Impeached!
 
easyt65 said:
He ignored Americans dying around the world at the hands of terrorists (Kobar Towers/Cole/2African Embassy Bombins/Bin Laden declared war on the U.S.), illegally gathered FBI files against his opponents, his wife was busy raiding a dead man's office to steal files, he was sexually harrassing women, committing adultery in the White House, committing TREASON by selling missile technology to the chinese military that has finally allowed them to reach this country with its nukes, committed multiple felonies of perjury and witness tampering before a Federal Grand Jury in an attempt to deprive an American citizen of her constitutional right to a fair trial (as well as covering his own @$$), only one of the Constitutional Rights he swore an oath of office to protect, and made this country a laughing stock around the world through his scandals and Impeachment......and this is only a SMALL sample of the things/scandals he did while President!

WHAT part of this man's Presidency/legacy deserved respect?! :shock: (What he desrerves is to be sitting in a jail cell for the rest of his life, if only for the TREASON of selling missile technology to the chinese....but that would bring further embarrassment to this country!)

And don't call me a GOP/Bush-lover! I don't care WHO your @$$ is or what party you belong to, ANYONE who did what that man did deserved to be taken down/Impeached!

I see, so the disprect was OK with Clinton, but it is uncalled for with Bush. Kind of depends what color shades you put on, doesn't it?
 
Iriemon said:
I see, so the disprect was OK with Clinton, but it is uncalled for with Bush. Kind of depends what color shades you put on, doesn't it?

NO, it doesn't! Clinton betrayed this country, betrayed soldiers who were targeted and killed by terrorists - Clinton was delinquent in his leadership of this nation. He sexually preyed upon women, betrayed his oath of office, and demonstrated that he was no longer fit for the job as President! No one went hunting for his head, as the Democrats have done with Bush! No one had to do it with Clinton because he kept airing out his own dirty laundry/crimes and shooting himself, and this country, in the foot in public!

For gosh sakes, the Democrats (Feingold) tried to introduce legislation calling for the CENSURE of a President for executing a LEGAL program dsigned to protect us from the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11, killing many Americans, during a time of war! :shock:

That is past disrespect and into INSANE! It is a heck of a lot different also from demanding a President, who has been CONVICTED of numerous felonies and who has betrayed his oath of office, to step down! If Bush is being threatened with being CENSURED for doing something LEGAL, just think what you Libs would do to him if he was actually doing something illegal and was convicted of it! :doh You would call for his burning at the stake on the White house lawn, but you justify the HE!! out of the same situation with Clinton! Remarkable!
 
Iriemon said:
I see, so the disprect was OK with Clinton, but it is uncalled for with Bush. Kind of depends what color shades you put on, doesn't it?

It does. But as regards the probable legacy of the Democrats, I should think the idea of "reflexive disrespect" quite likely. Though Republicans may have been disrespectful to President Clinton, that disrespect is to some extent mitigated by the disrespectful nature of his acts.

Obtaining fellatio in the Oval Office, while in your sweaty jogging attire, stands in stark contrast to say, Ronald Reagan, who would never even enter the Oval Office unless he was in full dress attire.

It is when people are totally respectful and honorable, such as Reagan and Bush, yet are bombarded with venemous disrespect, that legacies are defined. The legacy of Bush, and by extension the Republican party, will be one of seriousness and a willingness to grapple with the difficult issues of the day.

The legacy of the Democrat party, for the period beginning with the lynching of one of the finest Constitutional minds of our time, will be other than that. And will most likely contain a large element of reflexive and unwarranted disrespectfulness.
 
easyt65 said:
NO, it doesn't! Clinton betrayed this country, betrayed soldiers who were targeted and killed by terrorists - Clinton was delinquent in his leadership of this nation. ...!

Carl said:
It does. But as regards the probable legacy of the Democrats, I should think the idea of "reflexive disrespect" quite likely. Though Republicans may have been disrespectful to President Clinton, that disrespect is to some extent mitigated by the disrespectful nature of his acts. ...

Is that how the world looks with those red lensed shades, guys? Looks a little different with these blue shades on.
 
Iriemon said:
Is that how the world looks with those red lensed shades, guys? Looks a little different with these blue shades on.


I'm not looking at either situation with any shades on. I prefer to take the blinders of both parties off to see the truth. I suggest you take yours off, too!

Feingold's actions tells the whole story - he asked the Senate to consider Censuring a President for doing something LEGAL to protect the country from terrorists with whom we are at war and who perpetrated 9/11. He is asking to punish a President for doing something that is legally within his power to do! If that ain't Partisn, I don't know what is. Obviously his fellow Democrats agree with me because they left him hanging in the wind by himself!

I still find it amazing how Democrats can justtify the actions of a man who betrayed the U.S. (like Clinton did by selling the abilityto hit the U.S. with nukes to the Chinese) and who was convicted of crimes yet demands Bush be punished for LEGAL actions/programs! :shock: :doh

I honestly believe, as I have said before, that if Bush would have done the things that Clinton did, not only would he have been Impeached but he would still be in jail!
 
KCConservative said:
Where's the evidence, jfuh? No forum rules were violated. If there had been, I am sure the moderator's would have issued a warning. But none have been issued. I have an idea. Inform the mods of what you consider to be "attacks". See what they tell you. But I wouldn't send them the quote by hipster. :rofl
Lame attempt at :spin: , point is your arguments are nothing but flame. Nothing concrete and never any sources.
 
easyt65 said:
I don't care WHO your @$$ is or what party you belong to, ANYONE who did what that man did deserved to be taken down/Impeached!

So I suppose that you support Bush being "taken down/impeached" as he has done far worse.


easyt65 said:
Clinton betrayed this country, betrayed soldiers who were targeted and killed by terrorists - Clinton was delinquent in his leadership of this nation. He sexually preyed upon women, betrayed his oath of office, and demonstrated that he was no longer fit for the job as President

As an example. Substitute the word BUSH for CLINTON in your post above (save for the sexual part) and you describe perfectly Bush's performance.

He betrayed the country (too many numerous times - taking his eye off Bin Laden, leading us into a war on lies of WMD, lying time and again the Iraq was involved in 9/11, etc etc.)

Betrayed soldiers (Sent our brave men and women off to die to support Rumsfield/Rove/Cheney agenda that was on the planning books long before 911)

Delinquent in his leadership ( on vacation for a large part of his first term, reading "My pet goat" to elementary children while the country was under attack, failing to protect our country from national disasters even though warned that the levees would break, etc etc etc).

Demonstrated that he is no onger fit for office (Look at the results of his agenda - he has financially and morally bankrupted this country).

Thank you easy for making the case against Bush EASY.
 
jfuh said:
Lame attempt at :spin: , point is your arguments are nothing but flame. Nothing concrete and never any sources.
Flaming is a forum violation. If what you are saying is true, why haven't I been warned for it? You can keep "asserting" that it is spin or you could answer the question. Your choice.
 
KCConservative said:
Flaming is a forum violation. If what you are saying is true, why haven't I been warned for it? You can keep "asserting" that it is spin or you could answer the question. Your choice.
Keep on trolling KC.
 
Back
Top Bottom