• 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.
sangha said:
No, you keep dishonestly claiming that someone has excused or justified unemployment when all that has been done is to point out that bush* increased UE by more than Obama has.

When will you admit that bush* record of increasing unemployment (by 92%) is worse than Obamas' (16%) (Please note that by saying "worse than" I am in no way "excusing" or "justifying" it)
Click to expand...
When will I admit Obamas sustained 9+% unempoloyment is 'better' than ANYTHING? Never...its a stupid position you adopt.
 
OscarB63 said:
yeah "combat troops" too bad that 90% of the troops don't qualify as "combat troops". semantics to fool the ignorant masses....and it worked.
Click to expand...
It's not semantics, it's what he said. But then what can I expect from someone who calls some 30%, "90%"...


"Over the last 18 months, over 90,000 US troops have left Iraq," the president said in an emailed statement published by the Huffington Post.

"By the end of this month, 50,000 troops will be serving in Iraq. As Iraqi security forces take responsibility for securing their country, our troops will move to an advise-and-assist role.

Last US combat troops leave Iraq | World news | guardian.co.uk​


Seriously? 50,000 out of more than 140,000 is "90%?"

So which one of the ignorant masses was fooled?
 
sangha said:
The argument was made by a rightwinger who claimed that Obamas' record was far warse than bush*. If you have a problem with it, bring it up with the wingnut.
Click to expand...

but you are the one defending Obama. it doesn't matter how crappy Bush WAS, it does nothing to take away from how crappy Obama IS

that's like defending Jeff Dahmer by saying Ted Bundy killed more
 
VanceMack said:
You keep playing with percentages as excuse and justifcation...I'll stick with reality. Obama maintains 9% unemployment. Actually unemployment is consistently higher. He is a dismal failure. Of course...you ideologues want to keep claiming a 'winner.' Thats some Charlie Sheen tigers blood kinda winning there baby. On the plus side...Pete has you and Thunder on his side...so...set and match...
Click to expand...
Sorry, but there's just simply no way you can spin the numbers, in any fashion, to make Bush better than Obama. None. That's what that other posters said. That's the idiocy I put in the center ring.

And again, note that person hasn't even attempted to defend his own position.
 
OscarB63 said:
but you are the one defending Obama. it doesn't matter how crappy Bush WAS, it does nothing to take away from how crappy Obama IS

that's like defending Jeff Dahmer by saying Ted Bundy killed more
Click to expand...

Nope. Not "defending" Obama. Saying that Obamas' record is "not as bad" as bush*'s is not a "defense"....it's a "fact"

But funny how you object to my saying that bush* was worse than Obama, but have nothing to say about the wingnut who claimed the Obama was worse than bush*. In wingnut world, *that* is not a "defense" :roll:
 
OscarB63 said:
yeah "combat troops" too bad that 90% of the troops don't qualify as "combat troops". semantics to fool the ignorant masses....and it worked.
Click to expand...

Nope, I never expected him to wind down the wars. I expected him to proliferate them. And I wasn't disappointed. Mmmm...warmongering.
 
OscarB63 said:
but you are the one defending Obama. it doesn't matter how crappy Bush WAS, it does nothing to take away from how crappy Obama IS

that's like defending Jeff Dahmer by saying Ted Bundy killed more
Click to expand...

Obama and Bush are essentially the same. We got a failed healthcare program out of Obama we wouldn't have from Bush. But other than that, they like to expand government and continue interventionist wars we have no business being in.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Same then can be said regarding how so very much worse the current Dem president is than His predecessor.
Click to expand...

Just reposting the nonsense that was posted to point out the hypocrisy of those who think that saying that bush* was worse than Obama is a "defense" but have been completely silent about this posters cowardly claim
 
sangha said:
And under bush*, we got Medicare D.
Click to expand...

Certainly did. Nice little pay out to the pharmaceutical companies, I expected any form of "nationalized healthcare" to be a nice little pay out to the insurance companies. As I say, peas in a pod. Not much difference between the Republicans and Democrats.
 
Ikari said:
Certainly did. Nice little pay out to the pharmaceutical companies, I expected any form of "nationalized healthcare" to be a nice little pay out to the insurance companies. As I say, peas in a pod. Not much difference between the Republicans and Democrats.
Click to expand...

yep, Obama is Bushlite. what is sadly funny is that those who bashed Bush the hardest are the most rabid Obama supporters. their partisanship blinds them from the truth that Obama is Bubba to Bush's Forrest.
 
OscarB63 said:
yep, Obama is Bushlite. what is sadly funny is that those who bashed Bush the hardest are the most rabid Obama supporters. their partisanship blinds them from the truth that Obama is Bubba to Bush's Forrest.
Click to expand...

I've been saying that since essentially before he was elected. When people were running around like chickens with their heads cut off yelling "Hope and Change!!". I told many a person that what they're going to get is no different than what we have now. A Chicago politician first and foremost cannot be trusted. And Obama is part of the Republocrats, a member and supporter of the status quo. No hope or change, just business as usual.
 
VanceMack said:
Pete are the people here that are as predictable as pulling a string. There is no value in talking to them because they are mindless ideologues. You didnt used ta qualify...now? Yeah...Pete.
Click to expand...
This is fascinating ... someone posts how Bush was better than Obama -- I show (at least in terms of unemployment) that's not true ... other posters complain that Obama didn't keep his word and pull the troops out of Iraq -- I show that Obama did kleep his word ... you post how the national debt was 9 trillion when Obama became president and has increased 6.5 trillion since then -- I prove you were wrong on both accounts.

So right there are three examples where all I did was set the facts straight -- you claim there is "no value in talking to me" because I am posting facts. So what is there value in? People making fallacious claims that Bush was better than Obama? People making fallacious claims that Obama left 90% of the troop in Iraq? People making fallacious claims that the debt was 9 trillion when Obama became president and has risen 6.5 trillion since? Is that where you find value? Not in those who are actually setting the record straight when others post fallacious claims?

VanceMack said:
But clubbing like a baby seal? Sriously? You think you warrant so much as an increase in blood pressure?
Click to expand...
Well you claimed the national debt was 9 trillion at a time it was actually 10.6 trillion

You claimed the debt increased 6.5 trillion when it actually increased 4.1 trillion

You claimed the debt has risen faster since Obama became president when it's actually risen at about the same pace as it did during Bush's final 16 months in office.

To defend your claim that the debt increased 6.5 trillion under Obama you hysterically pointed to what the current debt ceiling is, not what the current debt is.

And I shot all of that down with links to U.S. Department of the Treasury which proved you wrong on every account; whereas you provided no links (which you couldn't since your numbers were simply made up) to bakcup your nonsense. Maybe you don't like to think of yourself as getting clubbed like a baby with the fact club, but really, what's wrong about that euphemism?
 
OscarB63 said:
but you are the one defending Obama. it doesn't matter how crappy Bush WAS, it does nothing to take away from how crappy Obama IS

that's like defending Jeff Dahmer by saying Ted Bundy killed more
Click to expand...
No, it's actually like supporters of Ted Bundy crying that Jeffrey Dahmer was a killer.
 
OscarB63 said:
yep, Obama is Bushlite. what is sadly funny is that those who bashed Bush the hardest are the most rabid Obama supporters. their partisanship blinds them from the truth that Obama is Bubba to Bush's Forrest.
Click to expand...

That's an odd thing to say given that most of the bush* critics in this thread are not pleased (to say the least) with Obama
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
This is fascinating ... someone posts how Bush was better than Obama -- I show (at least in terms of unemployment) that's not true ... other posters complain that Obama didn't keep his word and pull the troops out of Iraq -- I show that Obama did kleep his word ... you post how the national debt was 9 trillion when Obama became president and has increased 6.5 trillion since then -- I prove you were wrong on both accounts.

So right there are three examples where all I did was set the facts straight -- you claim there is "no value in talking to me" because I am posting facts. So what is there value in? People making fallacious claims that Bush was better than Obama? People making fallacious claims that Obama left 90% of the troop in Iraq? People making fallacious claims that the debt was 9 trillion when Obama became president and has risen 6.5 trillion since? Is that where you find value? Not in those who are actually setting the record straight when others post fallacious claims?


Well you claimed the national debt was 9 trillion at a time it was actually 10.6 trillion

You claimed the debt increased 6.5 trillion when it actually increased 4.1 trillion

You claimed the debt has risen faster since Obama became president when it's actually risen at about the same pace as it did during Bush's final 16 months in office.

To defend your claim that the debt increased 6.5 trillion under Obama you hysterically pointed to what the current debt ceiling is, not what the current debt is.

And I shot all of that down with links to U.S. Department of the Treasury which proved you wrong on every account; whereas you provided no links (which you couldn't since your numbers were simply made up) to bakcup your nonsense. Maybe you don't like to think of yourself as getting clubbed like a baby with the fact club, but really, what's wrong about that euphemism?
Click to expand...

In wingnut world, posting the facts is a case of "defending and excusing Obama" while posting nonsense about bush* is non-partisan :cuckoo:
 
sangha said:
That's an odd thing to say given that most of the bush* critics in this thread are not pleased (to say the least) with Obama
Click to expand...

I think it's true on both sides and an indicator as to how blindly partisan our political circus has become. People will reverse their arguments depending on whether someone has a D or an R next to their name. There's no honesty or consistency left; just blind party allegiance. Bush was great when he did it; Obama sucks when he does the same thing. And vice versa. It's the dumbing down of our political arena, the loss of intelligence isn't a good thing.
 
OscarB63 said:
yep, Obama is Bushlite. what is sadly funny is that those who bashed Bush the hardest are the most rabid Obama supporters. their partisanship blinds them from the truth that Obama is Bubba to Bush's Forrest.
Click to expand...
Hey, at least they're not claiming that leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq out of more than 140,000 who were there when Obama became president is "90%" and then calling others ignorant for not knowing that."


:golf
 
Ikari said:
I think it's true on both sides and an indicator as to how blindly partisan our political circus has become. People will reverse their arguments depending on whether someone has a D or an R next to their name. There's no honesty or consistency left; just blind party allegiance. Bush was great when he did it; Obama sucks when he does the same thing. And vice versa. It's the dumbing down of our political arena, the loss of intelligence isn't a good thing.
Click to expand...

But I don't see any bush* critics saying that Obama is doing a good job on the economy, so I don't see the equivalency between the left and the right. Instead, I see large portions of the left complaining that Obama is a lot like bush* on a # of fronts (ex war, economy, govt secrecy, PATRIOT Act, SSM, etc)
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
No, it's actually like supporters of Ted Bundy crying that Jeffrey Dahmer was a killer.
Click to expand...

still doesn't change the fact that Dahmer was a killer.


equivocate and quibble all you want, fact is Obama is a ****e POTUS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom