• 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
It happens in every government in the world people always blame the last guy.People even do it at work.However it depends on the situation or subject.
 
"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.

And you are missing what I am saying. If you have fiscal responsibility when times are relatively good, then spending heavily when times are bad to try and help boost the economy is not a big thing. Bush spent heavily, always. He did not show any fiscal responsibility. Obama has not yet had the good times to compare with. If he continues to spend like he is, then it's a problem. If he does do things to try and reign in spending(as it looks like he wants to do), then the couple years of spending are not a big deal. Bush's running up the debt was understandable and acceptable during the bad times, but the fault is when he did nothing to curb the deficit when times where relatively good.

It's not a Bush vs Obama thing. It's an every president during my lifetime(except possibly Clinton, and he lucked into alot of it). Mind the deficit in good times, spend when times are bad, and you can maintain a certain level of debt without harm basically forever. Growth reduces the problem. I am not saying Obama is doing it right, I am saying it is too early to judge, since we have yet to have a period of good economy.
 
I've always ignored Bush.

Now that he's out of office, it's even easier.

Needless to say, it's not hard to ignore Progressives. They're never right, ya just have to wait for them to shut up and move on.
 
you see, that's the problem right there.

Bush wasn't the cause of the problem.

If you want to address the causes of today's problems, you have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt, Woody Wilson, the other "Progressives" and "Liberals", you have to see the nonsense of Marx and the other socialists for what it really is, and then, if you want to fix things, you have to start reversing the damage all those people have done, and begin to restore the Constitution to it's rightful place as the law of the land.

The Messiah is a bad president not because he inherited a mess from the previous president. Reagan had that hand dealt to him, too.

Anyone here expect the Messiah to create 22,000,000 jobs in the next six years?

Seriously?

Then the issue isn't the circumstance of the presidency, but the ability of the executive to control the circumstance and make it swing his way.

As far as I can tell from watching the Messiah, he is controlling the circumstance of his presidency and making it do exactly what he wants it to do.

A room full of monkeys throwing darts will get half the answers right on a test. The only way the Messiah can be so persistently wrong about everything is to be deliberately wrong.
 
i think most people on the left acknowledge obama mistakes. i also think reasonable people know 18 months is not nearly enought time to judge a presidency.

No.

They do not.

Mistake #1: Refusal to cut taxes across the board.

Mistake #2: Eagerness to raise taxes.

Mistake #3: Quadrupling the Deficit in one year.

Mistake #4: Suing Arizona for attempting to enforce federal laws he's Constitutionally obligated to enforce but refuses to.

Mistake #5: Defining "openness" in politics as "plywood over windows".

Mistake #6: Focusing exclusively on ramming a health care plan not wanted by the majority with national official unemployment rates increase by 50% to nearly 10% overall. Ten-friggin'-percent.

Mistake #7: Accepting blatant racism in his Justice Deparment. Not wise at all for a president pretending to be "post-racial".

Mistake #8: Refusing to waive the laws forbidding non-US ships to operate in the Gulf of Mexico to clean up the spill, and related errors.

Mistake #9: His persistence in bowing and kowtowing to foreign leaders. He's yet to visit the city of Al Kuds. One of his staff referred to Jerusalem by it's muslim name, for some strange reason. In other words, he's demonstrated the most incompetent foreign policy in my lifetime.

Mistake #10: US dependency on foreign oil has not declined, US reliance on domestic fossil reserves has not expanded.

The question that will and should be asked is:

Is the nation better off than it was when he mispoke the Oath of Office that sad January day, 2009?

The truthful answer is "hell no".
 
No.

They do not.

Mistake #1: Refusal to cut taxes across the board.

Mistake #2: Eagerness to raise taxes.

Mistake #3: Quadrupling the Deficit in one year.

Mistake #4: Suing Arizona for attempting to enforce federal laws he's Constitutionally obligated to enforce but refuses to.

Mistake #5: Defining "openness" in politics as "plywood over windows".

Mistake #6: Focusing exclusively on ramming a health care plan not wanted by the majority with national official unemployment rates increase by 50% to nearly 10% overall. Ten-friggin'-percent.

Mistake #7: Accepting blatant racism in his Justice Deparment. Not wise at all for a president pretending to be "post-racial".

Mistake #8: Refusing to waive the laws forbidding non-US ships to operate in the Gulf of Mexico to clean up the spill, and related errors.

Mistake #9: His persistence in bowing and kowtowing to foreign leaders. He's yet to visit the city of Al Kuds. One of his staff referred to Jerusalem by it's muslim name, for some strange reason. In other words, he's demonstrated the most incompetent foreign policy in my lifetime.

Mistake #10: US dependency on foreign oil has not declined, US reliance on domestic fossil reserves has not expanded.

The question that will and should be asked is:

Is the nation better off than it was when he mispoke the Oath of Office that sad January day, 2009?

The truthful answer is "hell no".

I approve of most of those things because it gives the rabid right anuerisms.
 
The issue is that Obama inherited a **** ton of a mess, thanks to the invisible Bush.

Will the Left ever get tired of pushing this line? Yes, Bush was not the best President and he made mistakes, but attempting to justify Obama's mistakes by pointing to a Bush mistakes is idiotic in my opinion...

Perhaps it is some twisted logic that two mistakes make a right?
 
What I don't get is, where were these conservatives during the Bush administration? Where were the mass conservative protests during the Bush administration by an SEA Party (Spent Enough Already)? I mean have they seriously thought about how Bush turned a surplus into a MASSIVE deficit and increased our debt by more than any one administration? (well next to Obama... though Bush created a deficit all on his own, Obama had to deal with the cards he was dealt) Bush left behind this bloated government and failing economy for the successors to run. And the right thinks this current mess is Obama's fault? I mean who are they trying to fool here? Apparently only their base, because no one else is fooled.
 
Last edited:
^---- /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.
 
Zyph, at least 4 of the 8 years under Bush where with a booming economy.
Not according to his detractors, like you.
For most of them there was a recession for the entire time he was in office.

Your convenient revisionist views are nothing but a lame attempt to excuse The Obama.
 
Not according to his detractors, like you.
For most of them there was a recession for the entire time he was in office.

Your convenient revisionist views are nothing but a lame attempt to excuse The Obama.

You can feel free to show where I have said anything like what you claim. If you cannot(and you will not be able to), you can apologize for lying about me. We know you would never be less than honest...
 
You can feel free to show where I have said anything like what you claim. If you cannot(and you will not be able to)...
Only because your join date is May 2008. I have no reason to think you were anything but critical of the economy under GWB while GWB was in office.

And, in any event, there's no question that my referring to you as a GWB detractor is correct, just as there is no question that your convenient revisionist views are just a lame attempt to excuse The Obama.
 
Only because your join date is May 2008. I have no reason to think you were anything but critical of the economy under GWB while GWB was in office.

And, in any event, there's no question that my referring to you as a GWB detractor is correct, just as there is no question that your convenient revisionist views are just a lame attempt to excuse The Obama.

And there is no questioning your blind love for The Bush makes you incapable of judging other people's stances.

See, I can post retarded crap like that too.
 
Only because your join date is May 2008. I have no reason to think you were anything but critical of the economy under GWB while GWB was in office.

So what you're saying is you have no proof that Redress was critical of the economy under GWB all 8 years of his Presidency?

And, in any event, there's no question that my referring to you as a GWB detractor is correct, just as there is no question that your convenient revisionist views are just a lame attempt to excuse The Obama.

Ah, but you SPECIFICALLY referred to Redress as a GWB detractor that complained about the economy.

Redress said:
Zyph, at least 4 of the 8 years under Bush where with a booming economy.
Not according to his detractors, like you.

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.

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 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.
 
And there is no questioning your blind love for The Bush makes you incapable of judging other people's stances.

See, I can post retarded crap like that too.
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.
 
^---- /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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Not if it's the truth.

Given the comments -I- have received, this qualifies as trolling and flaming and baiting.
Its certainly an attack on me, personally.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.


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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom