• 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!

How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

  • Total voters
    15
Redress said:
The difference here is Bush's deficits where with a good economy.
Click to expand...
How soon we forget the recession that the liberals claimed Bush caused once he took office.

Obama, with a bad economy, is going to run up a deficit, that is the nature of things.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely false. Every dollar that is spent is voluntarily spent.
Deficits are choice. You run them because you choose to run them.

Now, if Obama keeps running up deficits with no effort to reign them in as the economy improves, then we will have a very legitimate complaint...
Click to expand...
The Obama has done in 2 years what it took GWB 8 to do - and -no one- sees it changing.
The complaint is legitimate NOW.

...and I will be leading the people making it.
Click to expand...
Then, rather than make excuses for The Obama you need to get busy and sound that bugle.
 
Redress said:
Did you notice the world changed the last 60 years....
Click to expand...
Please, explain in specific terms how that makes any difference at all, especially as held by relevant US and international law.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
War Crimes Trials
Click to expand...
These are special cases, reserved for various leaders or others accused of committing specific war crims.

Normal POWs held for the duration of the war are not subject to trial, do not get a lawyer and have no right to habeus corpus.
 
Goobieman said:
How soon we forget the recession that the liberals claimed Bush caused once he took office.
Click to expand...

And that recession lasted how long during Bush's term? Sorry, but pointing out that The Bush(see what I did there?) is less than perfect is not particularly controversial.

This is absolutely false. Every dollar that is spent is voluntarily spent.
Deficits are choice. You run them because you choose to run them.
Click to expand...

Really? Obama came into office with a deficit of 1.2 trillion, if he did nothing new. So you are saying Obama could have cut the budget by 1.2 trillion the first year in office? And what impact would that have had on the economy?

The Obama has done in 2 years what it took GWB 8 to do - and -no one- sees it changing.
The complaint is legitimate NOW.
Click to expand...

So first you excuse The Bush's deficits, then bitch about Obama's, even though most of Obama's actually are The Bush's. There is a word for that. Hint: it begins with hypocrisy.

Then, rather than make excuses for The Obama you need to get busy and sound that bugle.
Click to expand...

I guess the phrase "as the economy improves" went over your head.
 
Redress said:
And that recession lasted how long during Bush's term? Sorry, but pointing out that The Bush(see what I did there?) is less than perfect is not particularly controversial.
Click to expand...
Doesnt change the fact that you deliberately mis-represnted the economy under GWB in order to make an excuse for The Obama. In fact, if we listen to people like John Kerry, and evryone that parroted his position - like, I'd guess, you - even as far along as 2004, the economy was still crappy.

In fact, until The Obama took office, there were few, if any, liberlas that thought the economy was EVER good under GWB. But, I guess that's what partisanship does for you.

Really? Obama came into office with a deficit of 1.2 trillion, if he did nothing new.
Click to expand...
You better check your numbers, or exaplin exactly how you reached this number.

So you are saying Obama could have cut the budget by 1.2 trillion the first year in office?
Click to expand...
Yep. Without question.

And what impact would that have had on the economy?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Less than the long-0term effects of Him running up the deficit 400% faster than GWB did.

So first you excuse The Bush's deficits....
Click to expand...
Fail. I excused nothing. YOU, on the other hand, complain about the 1, but find excuses for the 4.

then bitch about Obama's, even though most of Obama's actually are The Bush's.
Click to expand...
This is abolsutely false. GWB didnt force The Obama to do a thing -- The Obama -chose- to run up every dollar of those deficits.

There is a word for that. Hint: it begins with hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
yes... and it is properly prefaced with the word 'liberal'.

I guess the phrase "as the economy improves" went over your head.
Click to expand...
Oh... so now your tack is that the economy hasnlt gotten better, so its OK to run those huge deficits.
That leads to the obvious question: When do you start complaining about The Obama's perfomance on the economy, especially given the TRILLIONS of dollars he added to the debt in an attempt to save it.

It hard to see how you'd argue that He has been anything but a abject failure in that regard, but you'll find a way.
 
Redress said:
Geneva Conventions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia--Hey look, there is just one example of international law changing since WW2. I bet you can think of others too.
Click to expand...
Yeah? Did you actually READ anything in that link? Really? I'll bet not.

Here's how I collect:
Show me where any of that negates my argument - that POWs do not have a right to a lawyer, habeus corpus or a trial, and can be held w/o any such things for the duration.
 
megaprogman said:
In various threads, whenever the mistakes of Bush are brought up, some people always seem to want to bury the past and act like it never happened so they can blame everything on Obama instead.

So, in your opinion, how effective is this strategy?
Click to expand...

Its extremely effective.
What would be more effective is that every time a democrat brings up Blame Bush syndrome that someone calls them out on it for the foolish attempt of clinging to the problem that got them blindly elected in the first place.
 
The Uncola said:
Quite franky, the only people they are fooling, is each other. Obama is far from perfect, but the plate full of crapola he has been left, is a direct result of the failure of not just Bush the Jr, but of the entire "conservative" philosophy.
Click to expand...

Bush was not a conersvative. I do not know why you compare the two. He was a neoconservative. Very different.
 
Goobieman said:
Please, explain in specific terms how that makes any difference at all, especially as held by relevant US and international law.
Click to expand...

The way I understood it... since time has passed - and by the actual act of time passing, such a thing invalidates anything that came before it. :lol:
 
Ockham said:
The way I understood it... since time has passed - and by the actual act of time passing, such a thing invalidates anything that came before it. :lol:
Click to expand...
Yeah. The people of East Prussia are still wondering when it became against the rules to keep land you won in a war you didnt start.
 
Helvidius said:
Bush was not a conersvative. I do not know why you compare the two. He was a neoconservative. Very different.
Click to expand...

I don't disagreee. However, it seems tyo now have gone out of fashion to call oneself a "neocon," instead they seem to have morphed into the latest brand of wacko radicals, aka: Teabaggers.
 
The Uncola said:
I don't disagreee. However, it seems tyo now have gone out of fashion to call oneself a "neocon," instead they seem to have morphed into the latest brand of wacko radicals, aka: Teabaggers.
Click to expand...
If you pay attention, rather than parrot the popular rhetoric, you'll note that the "Neocons" and "teabaggers" are ideologically somwhat distant.
 
liblady said:
i think most people on the left acknowledge Obama mistakes. i also think reasonable people know 18 months is not nearly enough time to judge a presidency.
Click to expand...

The reasonable time is a lot closer to 18 years and more...
It took hundreds of years for our nation to be where it is today....rather than griping and complaining, people should be learning and studying.
 
The Uncola said:
I don't disagreee. However, it seems tyo now have gone out of fashion to call oneself a "neocon," instead they seem to have morphed into the latest brand of wacko radicals, aka: Teabaggers.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think the Tea Party movement is centered around lower taxes, reduced spending, and smaller government. Neocons support big government, loss of civil liberties, and an out of control foreign policy.
 
It is convincing to those who wish it to be convincing, and it is not convincing to those who do not desire it to be convincing. A great deal of the time, it is mere political hackery no matter what side of the fence you observe.
 
megaprogman said:
Will the right ever get tired of griping about Carter? Bad presidents are bad presidents.
Click to expand...

Sure we will, because we can gripe about Obama for decades. He makes Carter look like a genius.
 

But you're proving my point Redress, you're making excuses. The same can be done for Bush. While not immedietely facing one, he faced a recession himself during his 2nd/3rd year. He then again faced a recession in his 7th and 8th year. In between he faced two seperate wars that typically cause deficit issues. Its not hard to excuse why there's deficits, but you gotta keep it consistant. People on one side can't make it out as if its the greatest sin in the world and then turn around and go "no no no, its perfectly okay".

Now, before someone foolishly points me to the Cheney or Rummy quote (can't remember who said it), you can ask people around the forum rather I'm a giant Bush lover or if I was fond of Bush's spending.


There absolutely is when some of them, and I'm not saying you, are the same types of people who 4 years ago were going "The Deficit! The Deficit! Bush is stealing from our kids!"
 
Goobieman said:
If you pay attention, rather than parrot the popular rhetoric, you'll note that the "Neocons" and "teabaggers" are ideologically somwhat distant.
Click to expand...

I am "paying attention," hence, the same bunch of loons changing their label doesn't fool me. Same greed driven, antisocial, control freak, you are free to think exactly like we do mentality.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
There absolutely is when some of them, and I'm not saying you, are the same types of people who 4 years ago were going "The Deficit! The Deficit! Bush is stealing from our kids!"
Click to expand...

I think there are a lot of moderates and independents, not to mention conservative democrats, who have been saying this for 20+ years about EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT. The only one I remember being at all fiscally prudent was Clinton, and he was blessed with a booming economy that largely had nothing to do with him.

I didn't like overspending when Reagan did it, Bush did it, and I particularly don't like corporate welfare handouts targeted to specific companies which, IMO, is anti-free market.
 

Zyph, at least 4 of the 8 years under Bush where with a booming economy. The wars don't account for nearly all the deficits run up. Under Obama, there has bee no time of even a decent economy, and things are worse during his entire term in office so far than it was under Bush. And yet the right wing talking point is the Obama deficits.
 

"Booming" is rather arguable there. I remember numerous democrats and stories coming out in 2005 and 2006 telling us how horrible the economy was and downplaying the stock numbers because "Just becaus walstreet is healthy doesn't mean main street is".

And Obama's current recession is arguably no wores than the last 2 years of Bush's, or at least the last year, yet is raising the deficit far more than Bush did during that time with little better effect.

Sorry, not buying it Redress. You can't bitch about the deficit being important and then say how its absolutely positively not important and SPEND SPEND SPEND. Your defense of "why its okay for MY guy to do it" is no better than that which is given for Bush. Obama has had a bad economy for his year and a half, and has almost ran up more of a deficit than Bush did in all 8 years of his Presidency...that includes 4 years of recessions and 7 years of Wars.

Either gigantic deficits are bad, or gigantic deficits are acceptable. IF "Giant Deficits are bad, except when I think they're good" is your answer...fine, but don't expect anyone to take it seriously when your reasonings for why its okay for one and bad for another are not nearly different enough to account for the difference in deficits and difference in reaction.

Me personally, I think in general deficits are bad. Yes, they have a purpose at times and I would actually suggest there were legitimate reasosn for both Obama and Bush to run some deficits. I believe neither of them have reason enough to run the extremely large deficits they did or currently are running though. I don't think two recessions and a war justified Bush's historic running up of the deficit, and I definitely don't think one recession warrants Obama's complete and utter 2 year trumping of Bush's 8 year debacle.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Did you notice the world changed the last 60 years....
Click to expand...

Yes, Democrats send troops to war and then abandon them in their hour of need. Vietnam and Gulf War 2 come quickly to mind.

There used to be a time Democrats had tough wartime leadership and showed support when our troops were in harms way. Now they openly seek their defeat, and even declare it!

.
 

Everything you say here is fair.

However, when people look back upon Reagan's time, they forget that at this EXACT point in his first term, unemployment had gone UP to 9.7% and things were actually worse off than when he first got there. It wasn't really until into his second term that the ship was truly righting its self.

Again, disagree with what Obama is doing, but what he's facing is kinda disturbingly familiar to this time in 1983. Immigration, high unemployment, etc. Technically, if you compare GDP growth in this recovery, Obama's recovery has started about six months earlier than the recovery began under Reagan.

BUT - I need to thank you. It's pleasing to actually have a fair discussion instead of all the hyperbole that seems to drag most threads down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…