• 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!

Obama - Respect My Authoritah!!!

The Libbos aren't flocking in here like blackbirds going on and on about how, "Stewart nailed it!.

Hillarious!!!!

That was very fair of you to wait 15 minutes before making this statement.
 
Ah... the usual escuxe - "there's more to why I support Him other than those hated GWB policies that he said He would reverse and has either kept or expanded". Of -course- there is.
Tell mw what you think of The Obama's out of control spending and retention of GWB's tax cuts for millions and millions of people.

Cuz , you see, the biggest gripe the left had w/ GWB were his securty-related policies and his deficits.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you think taking the presidency as a whole is an excuse. :roll:

Right now I excuse the deficits (as I did for Bush) while we are in a recession. Once the economy picks back up, they need to be paid down.
 
Last edited:
The left has been complaining about Obama's national security stance for quite a while now. Stewart is not going over any new feelings in this regard.

Complaints lately are a far cry from where their stance was 3 years ago - when the national security stance was exactly the same. I'd say the same is probably true about international policy and the two wars we are continuing.
 
The left has been complaining about Obama's national security stance for quite a while now. Stewart is not going over any new feelings in this regard.



Really? I see some of you comlaining, but no more than I saw many including myself complaining about certain bush policies back in the day. :shrug:
 
Complaints lately are a far cry from where their stance was 3 years ago - when the national security stance was exactly the same. I'd say the same is probably true about international policy and the two wars we are continuing.

From my perspective, Bush was VERY conservative and did a lot of things to make me angry in general. Obama is more centrist and does things that are both liberal and conservative. I guess some of something is better than nothing of something. The fact that Obama does things I like on a more regular basis vs Bush doing exactly 3 things that I agreed with over his 8 years. (Invade Afghanistan, prohabition on stem cell research, and the bailout phase 1) means that I am simply going to like Obama more since he makes me angry about half the time instead of nearly all the time.

Look at the tea party as an example. Some of it is concern about policy, some of it is I hate Obama, some of it racism, some of it just plain loonacy. There are many people with many different motivations. The Liberal response to Bush was largely the same in terms of noticable protests. Some of it was disagreement, some of it was I hate Bush, loonacy, some of it was bigotry as well (less racism and more other forms). As people get their concerns in general molified than they are going to be less motivated to make a show of their disagreement since they are more satisfied. This is not hypocracy since disagreement with policy was only one motivation for protesting (and again, its the same with the tea party). Really, if you hold up a mirror to both sets of protests, they are really pretty much the same thing. The only real difference is the tea party is a bit more sophisticated in terms of organization and branding, likely thanks to the internet and its greater importance and functionality in 2010 than in 2004.

Ultimately, this means people who ask these kinds of questions leave themselves vulnerable to the same questions being pointed right back at them because their side is doing the same thing.
 
Last edited:
How was bush "very conservative"? :confused:

Seriously?
Strong right on national security issues (pro war, anti human rights, anti civil rights). Very strong right on religious social issues (anti abortion, anti stem cell, pro conservative christian). Very strong right on regulation (gutted regulations, very pro laissez faire business due to reducing regulations).

Pretty much the standard neocon faire.

And before you claim he is a liberal for his spending, no child left behind, etc. Conservatives do that stuff too. Libertarians are the ones that don't and those oppose conservatives on a lot of things as well. I am talking about standard modern conservative here, not some classical definition from days gone by. I have no interest in the whats a real conservative game. I will define it by what I see right here and right now.
 
Seriously?
Strong right on national security issues (pro war, anti human rights, anti civil rights). Very strong right on religious social issues (anti abortion, anti stem cell, pro conservative christian). Very strong right on regulation (gutted regulations, very pro laissez faire business due to reducing regulations).

Pretty much the standard neocon faire.

And before you claim he is a liberal for his spending, no child left behind, etc. Conservatives do that stuff too. Libertarians are the ones that don't and those oppose conservatives on a lot of things as well. I am talking about standard modern conservative here, not some classical definition from days gone by. I have no interest in the whats a real conservative game. I will define it by what I see right here and right now.

Actually Bush was pro-stem cell research, he was just much more in favor of adult stem cell research rather than embryonic stem cell research. He gave a ton of aid to Africa for HIV research, etc.

He wasn't some extremist right winger even by the modern definition.
 
Actually Bush was pro-stem cell research, he was just much more in favor of adult stem cell research rather than embryonic stem cell research. He gave a ton of aid to Africa for HIV research, etc.

He wasn't some extremist right winger even by the modern definition.

It could be argued that he was more conservative than Nixon. :lol:
 
Actually Bush was pro-stem cell research, he was just much more in favor of adult stem cell research rather than embryonic stem cell research. He gave a ton of aid to Africa for HIV research, etc.

He wasn't some extremist right winger even by the modern definition.

Sorry, I was thinking embryonic. Thanks.

I wasn't really calling him an extremist. Those guys tend to go beyond conservative in my view. Perhaps an issue is the fact that there is no objective measure for these things. But yeah, I guess if you put Palin or Navy Pride as the benchmark for 100% very conservative and put Nader at the other end, I would rate bush about an 85%. Thats pretty subjective too though, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I was thinking embryonic. Thanks.

I wasn't really calling him an extremist. Those guys tend to go beyond conservative in my view. Perhaps an issue is the fact that there is no objective measure for these things. But yeah, I guess if you put Palin or Navy Pride as the benchmark for 100% very conservative and put Nader at the other end, I would rate bush about an 85%. Thats pretty subjective too though, unfortunately.

If I was using the modern definition of "conservative" (which would be focused more on social conservativism), I'd put Bush at about 55-60%.

If I was going with a more classical definition, using someone like Goldwater as the far end of the rating, Bush would be about 50-55%.

I didn't see him as all that conservative. :shrug:
 
If I was using the modern definition of "conservative" (which would be focused more on social conservativism), I'd put Bush at about 55-60%.

If I was going with a more classical definition, using someone like Goldwater as the far end of the rating, Bush would be about 50-55%.

I didn't see him as all that conservative. :shrug:

To be honest, I will admit that I if bush is 55% or 60%, than I have trouble imagining what would make someone 80%, 90%, or 100%.
 
Really? I see some of you comlaining, but no more than I saw many including myself complaining about certain bush policies back in the day. :shrug:
Like Bush spending.....ugh. :doh
 
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you think taking the presidency as a whole is an excuse. :roll:
So, let me get this straight...
In your mind, The Obama's performance on 'rescuing' the economy and the enaction of "Healt Care reform" are enough of a positive to balance out the retention and expansion of those hated GWB policies and His tripling the rate of GWB's debt growth?

I'd -love- to see the calculus that leads to that conclusion.
(D)x/(D)y...
 
Last edited:
From my perspective, Bush was VERY conservative and did a lot of things to make me angry in general.
This speaks VOLUMES about your perspective.

GWB was moderate, at best, an easy 1130-1230 on the ideaological clock.
Neo-conservatives, after all, are social liberals w/ a pro-US foerign and domestic poit of view.
 
Last edited:
This speaks VOLUMES about your perspective.

My perspective is my perspective and as long as I can logically defend it, than there is nothing wrong with it. Using someone's perspective to try and discredit them is partisan hackery.

GWB was moderate, at best, an easy 1130-1230 on the ideaological clock.
Neo-conservatives, after all, are social liberals w/ a pro-US foerign and domestic poit of view.

Neo-cons are an interesting breed I guess. Conservatives want to disown them for the disasters of the Bush era, but they were elected by conservatives, they were supported by conservatives, but when something goes wrong, they turn into liberals. I would be nice if conservatives stayed consistant on this, but oh well.
 
My perspective is my perspective and as long as I can logically defend it, than there is nothing wrong with it. Using someone's perspective to try and discredit them is partisan hackery.
On the contrary -- you 'persepctive' discredits your argument in and of itself, as it exposes how far to the left you really are.
 
On the contrary -- you 'persepctive' discredits your argument in and of itself, as it exposes how far to the left you really are.

I disagree. I could easily reverse the argument back on you and discredit you for thinking bush was a moderate. I guess that shows how far right you are. See how stupid this game you are playing is?
 
I disagree.
No kidding.
But, like I said -- when you argue that GWB was 'conservative', for instance you cal him that because he is conservative compare to YOU. He was not ACTUALLY a conservative, but a moderate. So, your persepctive poisons your argument.

I could easily reverse the argument back on you and discredit you for thinking bush was a moderate
No, you cuuld TRY to do that. That Bush was a moderate isn't a position I take because I am so far to the right that I see him as a moderate, he is a moderate because that's where his policies and actions, overall, fall in the political spectrum.

So, you could try but you;d fal.
 
Last edited:
No kidding.
But, like I said -- when you argue that GWB was 'conservative', for instance you cal him that because he is conservative compare to YOU. He was not ACTUALLY a conservative, but a moderate. So, your persepctive poisons your argument.

No, you cuuld TRY to do that. That Bush was a moderate isn't a position I take because I am so far to the right that I see him as a moderate, he is a moderate because that's where his policies and actions, overall, fall in the political spectrum.

So, you fail.

This is great. Thanks for the laugh. :)

Anyway, thanks for proving my point about hackery. I am glad you are so secure in your opinions that you think they are facts. It makes for a more amusing debate.
 
Last edited:
This is great. Thanks for the laugh. :)
Meanwhile, your admittedly leftist perspective negates whatever argument you might care to make.
Enjoy.
 
Meanwhile, your admittedly leftist perspective negates whatever argument you might care to make.
Enjoy.

I am sure you do view it this way.
 
And I am sure you do not. Sigh.

You are absolutely correct that I do not because I do not believe that you are making a valid argument. From what I can tell, all you are doing is insisting that Bush has a certain stance and me disagreeing with you means that I am induly influenced by my own perspective. Its an interesting stance to take certainly, but I do see it being a valid one. Since it has no basis in anything beyond your opinion. However, as they say, there is no point in arguing with a true believer (and yes you will accuse me of the same thing, that is what makes this exchange so amusing) so, now I just wonder how strong your need to get the last word in is. I bet you will post again after this, asserting how correct you are and how wrong I am. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom