• 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 long will you "blame Bush"?

How long will you blame Bush

  • Less than one more year

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Until this term is over

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Forever.

    Votes: 23 71.9%

  • I'm done blaming Bush.

    Votes: 9 28.1%
  • Total voters
    32
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catawba said:
The majority of congressional Democrats voted against the war in Iraq. 247 voted nay, and 111 voted aye.
Click to expand...

Catawba, I think you might need to check your numbers. Below is what I have:

(Iraq War Resolution, 2002)

House
Republicans - 215 Y, 6 N
Democrats - 82 Y, 126 N
Totals - 297 Y, 133 N

Senate
Republicans - 48 Y, 1 N
Democrats - 29 Y, 21 N
Totals - 77 Y, 23 N

Majority of House Dems voted no, but you still have 82 voting yes. Majority of Democratic Senators vote yes.

= Shared responsibility

(like my nice colors?)
 
Last edited:
How long will you "blame Bush"?

I think the more appropriate question is: how long will you refuse to hold Bush responsible for anything?
 
Thrilla said:
so you are under the belief that making the rich poorer will make the poor/middle class richer?
Click to expand...

No, what I am suggesting is that if we eliminate the temporary tax breaks given to the richest, along with making cuts in wasteful spending to help reduce the deficit, which hurts us all.

but you are semi-correct that we have a demand problem.... government can't help with that though, so I'm not sure waiting on them to ride in and save the day is the wisest choice.
Click to expand...

By providing jobs when the private market isn't, the government will be stimulating the economy since more people will have money to buy the things that US companies want to sell. Infrastructure jobs will also create a demand for building materials. etc, which will also help stimulate the economy.

it wasn't lax regulation... it was regulatory capture.
it was a matter of allowing insurance instruments (CDOs, CDSs) not to fall under insurance regulations.
the regulations were on hand to combat what these ultra educated folks dreamed up...but as usual, people in positions of power ( both private an public) decided to redefine reality and ended up screwing a lot of people out of trillions of dollars.
Click to expand...

I see little difference except in semantics. I am aware that Bush appointed industry folks to head the agencies that were supposed to be regulating banking activities that had little interest in pursuing violations.
 
Fleshofthegods said:
He also put people using medical marijuana for debilitating disease in prison.
Click to expand...

blame FDR and his expansion of the commerce clause if you are mad you cannot do your doobie legally
 
Thrilla said:
if i'm wrong, the entire US government ( including prominent Democrats and the Clinton administration), from the gulf war until 9/11, was wrong.... and lying.
Click to expand...

I was with your right up to where you said "from the Gulf war until 9/11. Saddam was arguably a threat to his neighbors prior to the Gulf war as he invaded Kuwait. During the Gulf war, we destroyed that military threat and did not allow him to rebuild by enforcing the sanctions right up to our invasion.

lets see you castigate Clinton for his "lies" about Iraq.. which eventually led to war and death and destruction.
i'll sit here and say that Clinton didn't lie about Iraq .. and neither did Bush.... both were wrong, however.
Click to expand...

Clinton gets no pardon from me for his actions against Iraq, but at least he didn't take us to war with them under false pretenses.
 
David D. said:
Catawba, I think you might need to check your numbers. Below is what I have:

(Iraq War Resolution, 2002)

House
Republicans - 215 Y, 6 N
Democrats - 82 Y, 126 N
Totals - 297 Y, 133 N

Senate
Republicans - 48 Y, 1 N
Democrats - 29 Y, 21 N
Totals - 77 Y, 23 N

Majority of House Dems voted no, but you still have 82 voting yes. Majority of Democratic Senators vote yes.

= Shared responsibility

(like my nice colors?)
Click to expand...

Nice colors David! However, if you add up the blue numbers that voted nay in both houses, and then add up the blue numbers that voted yea in both houses, you will see that my statement is correct - the majority of Congressional Democrats voted against AOF in Iraq.


Edit: I just noticed I did carry the one incorrectly in my post above but it was still a majority of the Congressional Democrats that voted against the AOF. 147 nays to 111 yeas vs near unanimous votes by the GOP for AOF.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Nice colors David! However, if you add up the blue numbers that voted nay in both houses, and then add up the blue numbers that voted yea in both houses, you will see that my statement is correct - the majority of Congressional Democrats voted against AOF in Iraq.


Edit: I just noticed I did carry the one incorrectly in my post above but it was still a majority of the Congressional Democrats that voted against the AOF. 147 nays to 111 yeas vs near unanimous votes by the GOP for AOF.
Click to expand...

But! Without the yay votes of the Democrats, the Resolution would not have passed. Dems could have blocked it in the Senate... having control... but they did not.

Just getting across a point here that it was not just one man commanding the country, pointing and starting war by himself. There were hundreds of Senators and Representatives that voted and approved for this too - many being Democrats.

Not saying it was all or even mostly the fault of the Democrats, just saying they shared in the creation of this huge, wasteful, ill-advised, never-ending war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, directly or indirectly.

And as for Sangha's comment...

My analogy was about a dealer selling to adults, yours is a dealer selling to children; what's the point you're trying to get across here?
 
Last edited:
Democrats don't vote in lockstep like most GOPs do. The cooked intell Senate and House leaders was shown was pretty convincing - and no one believed at the time that US produced intell would ever be untrustworthy. That incident has forever done away with the notion that the US can always be trusted. Did GWB know the intell was bogus? We will never know for sure, but after it came out that he was talking about invading Iraq with advisers even before 9/11, I'm inclined to believe he did know.
 
David D. said:
But! Without the yay votes of the Democrats, the Resolution would not have passed. Dems could have blocked it in the Senate... having control... but they did not.

Just getting across a point here that it was not just one man commanding the country, pointing and starting war by himself. There were hundreds of Senators and Representatives that voted and approved for this too - many being Democrats.

Not saying it was all or even mostly the fault of the Democrats, just saying they shared in the creation of this huge, wasteful, ill-advised, never-ending war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, directly or indirectly.

And as for Sangha's comment...

My analogy was about a dealer selling to adults, yours is a dealer selling to children; what's the point you're trying to get across here?
Click to expand...

You are missing my point David. I am not saying it was Bush alone that took us to war, and I don't argue your point that a large number of Democrats are conservative and went along with the President. That is one of my beefs with that party.

However, you cannot deny that the majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the war vs a near unanimous majority of Congressional Republicans that voted for the war.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Democrats don't vote in lockstep like most GOPs do. The cooked intell Senate and House leaders was shown was pretty convincing - and no one believed at the time that US produced intell would ever be untrustworthy. That incident has forever done away with the notion that the US can always be trusted. Did GWB know the intell was bogus? We will never know for sure, but after it came out that he was talking about invading Iraq with advisers even before 9/11, I'm inclined to believe he did know.
Click to expand...

I agree it was some BS, and I think it's obvious too that the GOP served as the spearhead of this hairbrained scheme to spend as much taxpayer money as possible by attacking countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. So much for being fiscally responsible. What a crock.

Saddest thing of all were the lives lost.

But who cares about that when you can make $$$.
 
Last edited:
David D. said:
But! Without the yay votes of the Democrats, the Resolution would not have passed. Dems could have blocked it in the Senate... having control... but they did not.

Just getting across a point here that it was not just one man commanding the country, pointing and starting war by himself. There were hundreds of Senators and Representatives that voted and approved for this too - many being Democrats.

Not saying it was all or even mostly the fault of the Democrats, just saying they shared in the creation of this huge, wasteful, ill-advised, never-ending war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, directly or indirectly.

And as for Sangha's comment...

My analogy was about a dealer selling to adults, yours is a dealer selling to children; what's the point you're trying to get across here?
Click to expand...
It wasn't exactly the way you portray it. While going to war was certainly a possibility by passing that resolution, discretion to do so was left entirely up to Bush. Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, was the decider. Congress was the enabler.


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either

(A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.​
 
Catawba said:
You are missing my point David. I am not saying it was Bush alone that took us to war, and I don't argue your point that a large number of Democrats are conservative and went along with the President. That is one of my beefs with that party.

However, you cannot deny that the majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the war vs a near unanimous majority of Congressional Republicans that voted for the war.
Click to expand...

For sure, Catawba, for sure. Hopefully that's clear to most.
 
hazlnut said:
He was President for eight years.

Most economists would say about 4 years to undo all that damage.
Click to expand...

I like cheese!

27619-clip-art-graphic-of-a-swiss-cheese-wedge-mascot-character-with-welcoming-open-arms-by-toon.jpg
 
I never blamed him for anything.
 
atrasicarius said:
You know, if we're gonna have politicians lying about stuff, I think I'd rather have them lying about a blowjob than lying about the reasons for going to war.
Click to expand...
Translation:
Perjury should not be a felony when you think it is OK to lie.
 
Catawba said:
You are wrong, world intelligence confirmed Iraq was of no threat, and we knew that we completely destroyed Iraq's military threat in the Persian Gulf war, and we knew that we did not let them rebuild that threat in the ten years of sanctions we enforced between that time and our invasion.
Click to expand...

Also, the bush* admin claimed that they KNEW that Saddam had nukes and knew where they were. A blatant lie
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Once the tax cuts (that supply side guys claimed would lead to robust and sustainable economic growth) are done away with, you will hear less and less about the "**** up" named George W.
Click to expand...
So...you dont like the dem and Obama passed tax cuts either? See...the Bush tax cuts expired already. Then...congress passed and the president signed legislation extending them. Piece of **** democrats...its all their fault...
 
Antiderivative said:
I think after years of Democratic control and spending trillions of dollars, liberals need to accept more personal responsibility for our current situation. If they don't want the responsibility, then they should have never ran for the job. Unfortunately, modern day liberalism thrives off of scapegoating and victimization.

I have never seen a leader victimize himself as much as Barack Obama.
Click to expand...
Wait...are you implying the democrats actually controlled every piece of legislation set before a president, democrat or republican since the election of 2006 til January 2011??? Or that the democrats still hold a majority in the Senate and have to approve anything set before the current president? What the hell is wrong with you?
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
So...you dont like the dem and Obama passed tax cuts either? See...the Bush tax cuts expired already. Then...congress passed and the president signed legislation extending them. Piece of **** democrats...its all their fault...
Click to expand...
No doubt - The Obama forced the Dems to extend GWB's cuts -- and, in doing so, they cut taxes even more.
Why do tihe liberals never ask how much The Obama's tax cuts add to the deficit/debt?
 
sangha said:
Also, the bush* admin claimed that they KNEW that Saddam had nukes and knew where they were. A blatant lie
Click to expand...
Yes... your statement -is- a blatant lie, as the Bush administration made no such claim.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Once the tax cuts (that supply side guys claimed would lead to robust and sustainable economic growth) are done away with, you will hear less and less about the "**** up" named George W.
Click to expand...

Well that assure us that they'll be renewed indefinitely. :lol:
 
sangha said:
Also, the bush* admin claimed that they KNEW that Saddam had nukes and knew where they were. A blatant lie
Click to expand...
Really?

Sources?
 
PzKfW IVe said:
No doubt - The Obama forced the Dems to extend GWB's cuts -- and, in doing so, they cut taxes even more.
Why do tihe liberals never ask how much The Obama's tax cuts add to the deficit/debt?
Click to expand...
You dont REALLY expect them to take ownership for their own actions do you?

The reality is that the 'Blame Bush' tactic has run its course. I hate to keep saying this but its true...we talked about the dem strategy here months ago. "Blame Bush" worked to get elected in 2006 and 2008. 2010...not so much and today people are finally starting to tell Obama and the democrats "looki here bitch...you have had 5 years controlling both houses in congress and 3 years as president...no more excuses." So...instead of blame Bush, the blame now is shifted to "the Tea Party." When you can run on your economic record...create an enemy and use them as the new boogeyman.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom