• 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
The difference here is Bush's deficits where with a good economy.
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.
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...
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.
Then, rather than make excuses for The Obama you need to get busy and sound that bugle.
 
Did you notice the world changed the last 60 years....
Please, explain in specific terms how that makes any difference at all, especially as held by relevant US and international law.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
How soon we forget the recession that the liberals claimed Bush caused once he took office.

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.

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.

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.

I guess the phrase "as the economy improves" went over your head.
 
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.
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.
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?
Yep. Without question.

And what impact would that have had on the economy?
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....
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.
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.
yes... and it is properly prefaced with the word 'liberal'.

I guess the phrase "as the economy improves" went over your head.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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?

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.
 
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.

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

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:
 
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:
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.
 
Bush was not a conersvative. I do not know why you compare the two. He was a neoconservative. Very different.

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.
 
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.
If you pay attention, rather than parrot the popular rhetoric, you'll note that the "Neocons" and "teabaggers" are ideologically somwhat distant.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
Will the right ever get tired of griping about Carter? Bad presidents are bad presidents.

Sure we will, because we can gripe about Obama for decades. He makes Carter look like a genius.
 
The difference here is Bush's deficits where with a good economy. Obama, with a bad economy, is going to run up a deficit, that is the nature of things. If previous presidents(not just Bush) had kept the deficit in line, then the deficit spending now would not be a big deal.

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.

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, and I will be leading the people making it. However, in the current climate, where some of our conservatives are doing the "OMG, the deficit, OMG, we need to cut taxes" tango, I think there is nothing wrong with pointing out that foolishness.

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!"
 
If you pay attention, rather than parrot the popular rhetoric, you'll note that the "Neocons" and "teabaggers" are ideologically somwhat distant.

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:
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!"

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.
 
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!"

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.
 
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:
Did you notice the world changed the last 60 years....

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!

.
 
Its indisputable that Obama inherited a load of messes.

However, this is the case in some way shape or form for most Presidents. Is it perhaps worse for Obama than many? Absolutely, I'd put it around on par with Reagan. The issue however is that is part of the job. No one said the Presidency was supposed to be easy, and ultimately by taking the position it becomes your responsability.

Say you apply for a job at a company with the knowledge before hand that you're going to be heading up a project that has had a load of issues and problems. They're bringing you in to hopefully fix it, and while they're going to give you some lattitude and be understanding that you didn't create these issues, its still now going to be YOURS. So if you get in there and the actions you're taking to fix it aren't really working, or that fix isn't coming as quickly or efficiently as your employers like, or you're "fixing" it in a similar way that it got broke in the first place you're employer is not going to go "Well, its okay, you didn't cause this."

No, you took the job knowing there were issues and you took the job with the promise and the notion that it was going to be on you to fix it. You have claimed responsability for the issue.

This is what Obama, and all Presidents, face.

We must keep it in proper context. Obama did inherent this. There are issues with this that are the fault of the Bush Administration and the congresses (both the Republican ones from 2000-2006 and the Democrat one from 2006-2008) that were presiding over it. That should definitely temper things, especially very early on and it should keep anyone from stating that Obama caused these or invented these issues.

However, while it WAS Bush's War...they are not Obama's wars. Why? Because he's President, he took up the mantle, he said he had a plan, he has the job, and its now his responsability. Was this Bush's recession? Yes. Now it's Obama's, because he took up that responsability. If he didn't want the repsonsability he shouldn't have ran. If you don't want him to have the responsability, you shouldn't have voted for him.

And while Bush may've helped to cause these things, one can not simply keep pointing to him as the cure for all ills that go wrong...especially now a year and a half out. If someone says "Obama's [x] isn't helping/is hurting the economy" an answer of "Well he didn't ask for it!" or "Its bad because of Bush!" is not legitimate. He DID ask for it, by choosing to run for the Presidency knowing these issues and telling us he'd fix it. It doesn't matter if its bad because of Bush, he's the President now and he's elected to try and fix it and if he's unable to HE gets the blame.

There is not a job in this country where if you are unable to do what you're hired to do, or if you do the opposite of it, that you're free from criticism or reprimand because "Well the guy that had this job a year and a half ago had it in a crappy position".

Republicans need to stop acting like all these problems materialized under Obama. However Democrats need to stop acting like pointing back to Bush somehow excuses Obama for any of the continued problems a year and a half into his Presidency.

These are his now, as much as they are Bush, because he's the President and he ran knowing full well these issues were here and with the statement to the American people that he was the man to fix them.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom