View Poll Results: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • Very Convincing

    1 5.26%
  • Somewhat Convincing

    1 5.26%
  • Neither

    2 10.53%
  • Somewhat Unconvincing

    1 5.26%
  • Very Unconvincing

    14 73.68%
Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 161

Thread: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

  1. #141
    Educator Jucon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    04-22-14 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    787

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    ^---- /sigh

    We're still in Iraq, and ramping up in Afghanistan, and while people will try to rewrite history Afghanistan was included in many of the later war protests. Happened to see war protests every week being followed on MSNBC or CNN since Obama took office? Seen any random protesters camping out outside of the White House or Chicago when Obama goes home? Remember the legions of Democrats complaining about spending and the deficits for 8 years and now are completely silent? Rememeber MoveOn.org labeling General Petraeus and General Betrayus while under Bush while remaining relatively silent about him when Obama's shifting him into command of Afghanistan? Remember great outrage at the notion of using the "nuclear option" by democrats and then turning around and defending the congresses hope to potentially pass something with "a simple up and down vote"?

    Or you know, you could step out of your political grand standing and view this realistically. Human nature suggests that individuals complain in a different fashion depending on the circumstances, specifically if its "their" guy or not and the benefit it'll get them.

    For the "their guy" mentality, look at sports. TO was on the 49'ers and generally viewed as a malcontent that is a jackass, but once the Eagles got him Eagles fans thought he was great and ignored it until he was gone. Then the cowboys got him and suddenly forgot about their hatred for him when he was on a division rival and spiked the ball on the Star and embraced him, till he was gone and then it was back to bashing. Hell, for my team, watching Washington Redskins fans suddenly talk about Donovan McNabb as a top 5 quarterback when all the way up to last year they would've argud he's overrated is a perfect example. Human nature is to be more defensive and forgiving for "your guys".

    Additionally, you tend to be more likely to keep complaints or issues "internal" rather than external. How many businesses, groups, or sports teams do you hear referencing that? Keep it "in house". If you have a problem with "your people" then you want to fix it to improve YOUR people. Highlighting said problem publicly would then be counter productive to that goal, as while it may fix the problem it creates a new one as people see disfunction, get the problem further pointed out to them, and allow them to exploit it.

    Which leads to the self interest and end goal issue. If you're upset with "your guys" but still think they're BETTER than the other guy, you try to fix the issue in such a way that will hopefully fix it while not helping the other guy win. Why? Because then you're cutting off your nose to spite your face, potentially making things WORSE rather than fixing anything.

    In politics this is why throughout history when people are upset with THEIR party or ideology the fervor is usually much quieter, much more restrained, much more spoken about in calm and more neutral tones publicly. This is because actions like loud protests, heated rhetoric, continual harping, and other such actions inspire the potential for change in a candidate by hopefully hurting the amount of funding and support they get by swaying public opinion. The problem with doing this against ones own party is that by hurting funding and support you hurt your chance of having your guys elected, and if you think your guys (Even with their problems) are BETTER than the other guys then you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. This is why both parties tend to go for a more subdued approach against their own side most times.

    And even then, at times it does ramp up though typically relative to the rest of the reaction to a party. For example go back and look at 2006 and much that was coming out of many conservatives at that time. Donations were crappy, turnout wasn't that great, many conservatives were stating they were staging protest non-votes due to Republicans failing to adhere to their beliefs, etc.

    Is that as loud as its now? Absolutely not. But wishing for that to occur is just unrealistic and is expecting conservatives to be held to a standard that not a single political group has done in modern times. To reserve your condemnation solely for them is hollow.
    Yes, I think I had read something similar by you or another member before. And it makes sense of course, though it does not excuse the silence... from either side... during any administration. Parties be damned! We are all a part of this country and are all fighting for our's and our children's futures. A balanced budget is something we all should be fighting for at all times. I thank the conservatives for finally speaking out loudly about the deficit... I just wish people would stop playing politics and remain consistent no matter who is in office.

    As for some of your other points, people protested entering and staying in Iraq and Afghanistan... Obama has made it clear that we are working toward getting out ASAP... so why would people protest the wars in mass when Obama didn't start these wars? We played a roll in the mess in those countries... and unfortunately we should feel obligated to clean it up before leaving. Any attempt to get us out of those countries before they are stable are illogical.

    As for the deficit, I personally feel Obama had little choice to the level of the deficit. The economy needed a boost, and tax cuts would have had the same immediate effect on the deficit. Not to mention he was left with this deficit. I do blame him for not reducing government more quickly, but I also realize that cutting government also cuts jobs. Money spent is money spent, and it all gets circulated around the economy. Yes, I think we should have a surplus most of the time... but when has that been the policy of our law makers? Not during the majority of the history of the U.S. And yet people still vote Dems and Repubs into office? I don't get it.

    As much as I want our government to have a surplus, I'm just not sure we can afford it right now with a shaky economy. If law makers can make it work right now without jeopardizing the economy, I'd support that. But I am very skeptical of the idea that more tax cuts will reduce our deficit when it didn't work for the past 10 years.

  2. #142
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:22 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,292
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Yes... but you dont really have a choice in that regard, so it is expected.

    Aside from that, your statement is a red herring, mine is an illustration of how you're just making excuses for The Obama.
    So when you do it, it is a brilliant strategy, but when some one else does it, it's just trying to dodge.

    Goobie, stop while you are behind.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #143
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    This is specifically stating that according to Dectactors of Bush, specifically ones like redress, that there were not 4 years of a booming Economy under Bush.
    Yes, it is. This is certainly true:
    -GWBs detractors NEVER allowed for the idea that there was anything resembling a booming economy while he was president;
    -Redress is a GWB detractor.
    What's the issue?

    If you were simply meaning dectractors in general didn't state that during that time, and you're simply referencing Redress in a GENERAL sense, then you'd need to show some kind of proof that all if not at least most of Bush's detractors uniformly suggested that.
    You really think I cannot? You were paying attention from 2001 to 2009, right?

    You made a pathetic and dishonest attack against a person by grouping them into something based on zero evidence, zero facts, and nothing but your baseless speculation due to your rabid partisanship that's being displayed on this issue.
    Hmm.
    Given the comments -I- have received, this qualifies as trolling and flaming and baiting.
    Its certainly an attack on me, personally.

  4. #144
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    05-06-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,800

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Not if it's the truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Given the comments -I- have received, this qualifies as trolling and flaming and baiting.
    Its certainly an attack on me, personally.

  5. #145
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So when you do it, it is a brilliant strategy...
    When I do what? Point out your partisanship?

    What you fail to understand is that -claiming- partisanship on my side doesnt defend you from the -illustration- of your own partisanship. It doesnt matter what you say about -me- the fact that remaisn thayt YOU are still just making excuses for The Obama.

  6. #146
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Quote Originally Posted by BDBoop View Post
    Not if it's the truth.
    Tell you what:

    -Insult me in the most debasing way you can imagine. Dont hold back. make sure ot mention my mom.
    -Claim that what you said is 'the truth' and therefore not a personal attack.
    -See if the mods accept that as a defense when you complain about the punishemnt thy lay out.

    G'head. Try it.

  7. #147
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,964

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    Yes, I think I had read something similar by you or another member before. And it makes sense of course, though it does not excuse the silence... from either side... during any administration. Parties be damned! We are all a part of this country and are all fighting for our's and our children's futures. A balanced budget is something we all should be fighting for at all times. I thank the conservatives for finally speaking out loudly about the deficit... I just wish people would stop playing politics and remain consistent no matter who is in office.
    I understand your sentiment here, I just can not find myself getting truly worked up over things that are human nature, found throughout the span of society and cultures. To complain about this is to complain about the very fabric of humanity that drives most people into a desire to form into groups which in and of itself leads into societies. To me, getting greatly upset over such stuff is the equivolent of pounding ones hand repeatedly against a brick wall. Perhaps there are pure principles you're adhering to by pounding ones head, but frankly I believe there comes a point where one must be rational about their principles as well.

    As for some of your other points, people protested entering and staying in Iraq and Afghanistan... Obama has made it clear that we are working toward getting out ASAP... so why would people protest the wars in mass when Obama didn't start these wars? We played a roll in the mess in those countries... and unfortunately we should feel obligated to clean it up before leaving. Any attempt to get us out of those countries before they are stable are illogical.
    Obama's Afghanistan plan is not truly much more different in regards to "getting out" of Afghanistan than what Bush's plan was with regard to the surge, yet we did not see protests stop. Indeed, we didn't see protests stop in 2007 or 2008 when Bush was in the process, and then actually did, sign onto an agreement that was going to set a generalized time table and follow through with his long term stated intention of transfering things over to the Iraqi's when they were ready while reducing our forces there. The same strategy that Obama is following through with, and yet magically between 2008 and 2009 the anti-war movement has become smaller, quieter, and less covered in the media. The illogical nature of getting us out of those countries before their stable is no less or more illogical under Obama than it was under Bush.

    One could argue "but they didn't actually trust Bush to do what he was stating he'd do!" or "They actually trust Obama to get the job done", but even that is pointing back towards that grouping of teams and the differences in how one can view similar situations based on WHO the situation involves.

    As for the deficit, I personally feel Obama had little choice to the level of the deficit. The economy needed a boost, and tax cuts would have had the same immediate effect on the deficit. Not to mention he was left with this deficit. I do blame him for not reducing government more quickly, but I also realize that cutting government also cuts jobs. Money spent is money spent, and it all gets circulated around the economy. Yes, I think we should have a surplus most of the time... but when has that been the policy of our law makers? Not during the majority of the history of the U.S. And yet people still vote Dems and Repubs into office? I don't get it.
    As already discussed, your sentiment regarding Obama having little choice is much the same argument and statement Republicans had previously made about Bush. He presided over 2 recessions, and in between that we had a constant stream of Media telling us that even though Wall Street is doing well don't let it fool you because main street is hurting. Within those things we had the most historic disaster this country has faced since Pearl Harbor and were engaged in two wars.

    Once again, you prove my point. Your guy is in power and thus you find reasons to rationalize and excuse similar actions as was done previously. I am not necessarily even saying that's WRONG. I'm not even saying its not okay for you to view it being "more" necessary for Obama to do it than Bush. What I'm saying is that what you're stating is your opinion, NOT a universal truth, and its an opinion partially cached within your political and ideological view and your group identification which causes you to consiously find a difference betwen Bush's justifications and Obama's and subconsiously seek to find a way to justify in your own mind why you are not being hypocritical. This is precisely what I was speaking of earlier and why you hear it louder from one side when the other side is in power.

  8. #148
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Tell you what:

    -Insult me in the most debasing way you can imagine. Dont hold back. make sure ot mention my mom.
    -Claim that what you said is 'the truth' and therefore not a personal attack.
    -See if the mods accept that as a defense when you complain about the punishemnt thy lay out.

    G'head. Try it.
    Don't tempt her. I do it to you about once a month, remember?

    It's because you deserve it.

  9. #149
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    05-06-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,800

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Sorry, that still won't change that somebody pointing out the truth is not making a personal attack.

    Funnily enough though, you reminded me of the Cowardly Lion when he was trying to pretend he was fearless.


    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Tell you what:

    -Insult me in the most debasing way you can imagine. Dont hold back. make sure ot mention my mom.
    -Claim that what you said is 'the truth' and therefore not a personal attack.
    -See if the mods accept that as a defense when you complain about the punishemnt thy lay out.

    G'head. Try it.

  10. #150
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Quote Originally Posted by BDBoop View Post
    Sorry, that still won't change that somebody pointing out the truth is not making a personal attack.


    Funnily enough though, you reminded me of the Cowardly Lion when he was trying to pretend he was fearless.
    Oh well - you were warned.

Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •