• 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!

Dems: GOP rooting against America

Errr it was from 2000 to 2008.. what changed?

It wasn't from 2000 to 2008, even though some would like to have made that claim. Just as some would like to make that claim now. You can ask those whom believe it proper now while improper then "what changed". I opposed it in both circumstances.

The only thing that changed was the R went to a D and the obvious partisanship of many has been displayed. Those whom rallied against Bush now calling dissent against Obama as somehow unpatriotic or unAmerican are partisan hacks.
 
Hopining Obama fails does not equal America failing.





Putting the olympics over the troops in A-stan?


That's "hoping America fails"


Obama is not "America"

True that. But it seems just like yesterday when the left was wanting our troops out of Iraq the right was screaming, "The left wants our troops to fail," or, "The left wants America to lose the war!" Or some other rhetoric like that. Or the left whining about GWB reading the Little Goat Book as the towers blazed.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot.

Gawd, we need some NEW political writers. This political drama is getting so predictable and boring. I am coming to think that there are more whackos than intelligent people these days. (But I know better. ;))
 
I have to laugh at the efforts to re-define what Socialist or Communist means or the efforts to suggest that the "pure" form has never been attempted.

Unfortunately for the Communist apologizers, there is no such thing as a "pure" form of political ideologies because you cannot ignore the HUMAN factor when it comes to such centralized systems which are why they fail so miserably.

I have to laugh at the attempts of Socialists to continue to re-invent Socialism in an effort to suggest that it is a better form of political/economic ideology which still has not been tried in its "pure" form.

Fortunately most of us live in the REAL world and have a collective memory of the epoch failure of such "feel good" social systems and can watch them in their current forms throughout the world fail.

What amazes me is how anyone with an education and modicum of intelligence about human behavior can continue to argue for such systems or even suggest that they can work. :doh

Socialism and communism have indeed been redefined. They were redefined when "Communist states" (which is an oxy-moron) such as the USSR, China, etc. used them as a front to replace the capitalist elite with a coordinatorist elite. Real socialism has always been about giving control of the means of production to the working class and replacing capitalism. Communism is where a classless society is reached and the government has withered away.

Ideologies are well-defined. Did any of the usual suspects fit the definition of socialism or communism? Furthermore, there is nothing about socialism nor communism that suggests centralization. The implementation is not so clear, but I am not falling for the false definitions given by coordinatorists and capitalists that seems to pervade society when it comes to defining socialism and communism.
 
True that. But it seems just like yesterday when the left was wanting our troops out of Iraq the right was screaming, "The left wants our troops to fail," or, "The left wants America to lose the war!" Or some other rhetoric like that.

Well, don't forget about the prominent Dems who had actually declared defeat.
 
Yea, I bet you never tried to undermine the war in Iraq...not even once.

How the hell could I undermine the war in Iraq?:roll:

Yes, I was against the war in Iraq from day one....but I never hoped or wrote that I hoped that we would fail. That would be ridiculous.
 
Rev:

Were you as outraged at how many we lost in Iraq when GWB attended the Beijing Olympics?

How many posts did you post about that?

Link?




Irrellevant.

What decision were troops waiting on being shot at while he attended? FAIL

However, I thought bush made a huge mistake attending the chinese olympics, for numerous reasons.
 
True that. But it seems just like yesterday when the left was wanting our troops out of Iraq the right was screaming, "The left wants our troops to fail," or, "The left wants America to lose the war!" Or some other rhetoric like that. Or the left whining about GWB reading the Little Goat Book as the towers blazed.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot.

Gawd, we need some NEW political writers. This political drama is getting so predictable and boring. I am coming to think that there are more whackos than intelligent people these days. (But I know better. ;))





Maybe some, Not me. My only contention with the left stemmed from calling troops nazi's, murders, rapists, drug addicts, war criminals, and on and on and on...

I never had a problem with "I don't think we need to be there and should pull out"..... It's when the lie and the attacks that started, that I would take umberance to. ;)
 
Irrellevant.

What decision were troops waiting on being shot at while he attended? FAIL

However, I thought bush made a huge mistake attending the chinese olympics, for numerous reasons.

Irrelevant? Because it doesn't neatly fit within your selective outrage?

:doh
 
Just curious:
How far into The Obama's tenure will you contninue to blame Bush?
At what point do you lay the blame at The Obama's feet?

2 or 3 years. And retrospective analysis will reveal to what extent things were Obama's fault and to what extent they were Bush's fault. As it is, I don't feel bad about blaming Bush for the things Bush did and the things that are his fault. If it were a simple matter of being able to ask for the lost money, time, reputation, and lives that went into the War in Iraq, and if Obama was refusing to do that out of stubborness and pride, then I would place the lord's share of the blame on him instead of Bush -- but since Bush orientated the country in a certain direction for eight years, and because it is impossible to retract that motion or re-set the course without difficulty, it is Bush's destiny to get blamed for the fall out of his policies.

Just not by Republicans.
 
2 or 3 years.
Assume The Obama has 2 full terms and is then replaced by a Republican.
Does that mean the Republicans get to blame The Obama for 2 or three years for the mess He made?

...but since Bush orientated the country in a certain direction for eight years, and because it is impossible to retract that motion or re-set the course without difficulty, it is Bush's destiny to get blamed for the fall out of his policies.
Wait...
Bush messed thngs up SO bad... but you only expect The Obama to tackle the mess if it is "without difficulty"?

That's just a politically motivated cop-out, an excuse to continue the Bush policies while blaming Bush for them...
 
Assume The Obama has 2 full terms and is then replaced by a Republican.
Does that mean the Republicans get to blame The Obama for 2 or three years for the mess He made?

:confused: On what international/global scale has Obama "messed up" anything? Seems to me almost all of his efforts thus far have been to clean up the mess left by someone else.
 
:confused: On what international/global scale has Obama "messed up" anything? Seems to me almost all of his efforts thus far have been to clean up the mess left by someone else.
Dont dodge the question.
 
If and when President Obama effs things up the way Bush did, you'll have a point. Until then, the question is moot.
 
If and when President Obama effs things up the way Bush did, you'll have a point. Until then, the question is moot.
Given that "messes things up" is an entirely subjective standard, I'll then take you answer to agree that the Republicans get to blame The Obama for 2 or three years for the mess He made.
 
Given that "messes things up" is an entirely subjective standard, I'll then take you answer to agree that the Republicans get to blame The Obama for 2 or three years for the mess He made.

If and when President Obama effs things up the way Bush did, you'll have a point. Until then, the question is moot.

What part of If do you not understand? :roll:
 
Assume The Obama has 2 full terms and is then replaced by a Republican.
Does that mean the Republicans get to blame The Obama for 2 or three years for the mess He made?

Of course they can. What if on the other hand nothing is FUBAR will Republicans give credit where credit is due?
 
Last edited:
If and when President Obama effs things up the way Bush did, you'll have a point. Until then, the question is moot.

What part of If do you not understand? :roll:
What part of "Given that 'messes things up' is an entirely subjective standard" don't YOU get?
 
Of course they can. What if on the hand nothing is FUBAR will Republicans give credit where credit is due?
Things beng FUBAR is subjective, and is determined those leveling the criticism.
 
What part of "Given that 'messes things up' is an entirely subjective standard" don't YOU get?

Duh. It's YOUR subjective standard. I don't look at the world through wingnut glasses.

Tell you what... when Obama decides to invade another country, with FAR too few troops, for no freaking good reason, tells lies left and right about why he invaded, does not even consider any sort of end game, and fails to supply our troops with everything they need to do the ignorant stupid-assed invasion, and racks up billions in added military debt in the process, THEN we'll talk.

Until then:

diningroomtable.jpg
 
Duh. It's YOUR subjective standard.
Its no more or less subjective than yours, as you have so aptly demonstrated.

Thus:
Given that "messes things up" is an entirely subjective standard, I'll then take you answer to agree that the Republicans get to blame The Obama for 2 or three years for the mess He made.

Thanks!

:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Its no more or less subjective than yours, presently, as you have so aptly demonstrated.

Thus:
Given that "messes things up" is an entirely subjective standard, I'll then take you answer to agree that the Republicans get to blame The Obama for 2 or three years for the mess He made.

Your inability to comprehend English is duly noted.
 
Sometimes for levity. When you see the god complex, sometimes it needs to be pointed out. :shrug:

Is the purpose of this thread to compare Pres. Obama to Kim Il-Sung? Leave this kind of talk to radio and cable news commentators, you are better than that.

As for levity, even 'that's what she said' gets old pretty fast.
 
Last edited:
Your inability to comprehend English is duly noted.
On the contrary -- I understand perfectly well.
The part YOU refuse to uderstand that "messed up" is a subjective standard.

You argue that things are nessed up under GWB because of X Y and Z. That X Y and Z constitutite things that are "messed up" is your OPINION, and therefore subjective.

To meet your standard, Republicans need only then argue that things are nessed up under the Obama because of X Y and Z. That X Y and Z constitutite things that are "messed up" is their OPINION, and therefore equally as valid as yours.

Thus:
Given that "messes things up" is an entirely subjective standard, I'll then take you answer to agree that the Republicans get to blame The Obama for 2 or three years for the mess He made.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom