• 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
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;

Proof that all detractors of GWB NEVER, meaning not once, allowed for the idea that the economy was "booming" or doing well?

-Redress is a GWB detractor.

True, depending on your definition of a Bush Detractor.

Based on what you've done in this thread, which is equate that since Redress has been a detractor of Bush on some issues then they must be a detractor of Bush on ALL issues, that would mean that:

Reverend Hellhound
Myself
Sean Hannity
Mr. V
Rush Limbaugh
Glenn beck
Jamesrage

and numerous others on this board must be "bush detractors" and must have specifically talked down the economy from 2001 to 2009 having NEVER said it was booming or giving any indication there for, because every one of those listed have made statements detracting against Bush and since you seem to be equating a standard to Redress that ANY detraction means they agree with ALL the detractions then to be consistant I guess you must apply that to everyone, yes?

So, tell us, how much do you hate the evil Bush Detractors that talk down the government and hate our troops like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and fellow posters here like Reverend Hellhound?

You really think I cannot? You were paying attention from 2001 to 2009, right?

Yeah, I was.

MANY people who did not like Bush did present the economy as if it was not good throughout all of those years.

Others that disliked him primarily depicted it like that save for when it as advantageous.

While others still acknowledged that it was legitimate.

While still others didn't really speak much on the economy at all.

And while still there were people who WEREN'T detractors of Bush that ALSO felt the economy was bad all 8 years as well.

Unlike you, whose suggesting all Bush detractors never indicated in any way that the Economy was "booming" or going very well during any of his time in office.

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

No, its attack on your argument in this thread, which is rabidly hyper partisan in your broad and dishonest genrealization of Redress.
 
Don't tempt her. I do it to you about once a month, remember?
It's because you deserve it.
Ah.... a 28-day cycle.
That explains it.
 
Proof that all detractors of GWB NEVER, meaning not once, allowed for the idea that the economy was "booming" or doing well?
Oh wait... your issue here is that I used the terms 'all' and 'never'.
Well pish-posh. I thought you were really arguing about something substantive.

True, depending on your definition of a Bush Detractor.
So... what's your problem?

Amd NONE of this does anything to change the fact that resress is just making excuses.

No, its attack on your argument in this thread, which is rabidly hyper partisan in your broad and dishonest genrealization of Redress.
Uh-huh. Well then I'll just chalk your pre-pubesscent response up to your hyper-extended and grossly unwarranted sense of self-importance, and we'll call it even.
 
Uh-huh. Well then I'll just chalk your pre-pubesscent response up to your hyper-extended and grossly unwarranted sense of self-importance, and we'll call it even.

Not exactly something I would say to a moderator dude...
 
Well YOU wouldn't, but if I say any more than that, I'll be accused of personal attacks again. :)

Not exactly something I would say to a moderator dude...
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's discuss the topic, not each other. No more baiting or personal attacks. Ye be warned.
 
Last edited:
LOL............. That is all.
 
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?

Please provide a list of members who are ignoring Bush's mistakes. They may be ignoring you, and the other dunces who use the blame Bush strategy to ignore the pinheaded idiot named Obama.
 
Please provide a list of members who are ignoring Bush's mistakes. They may be ignoring you, and the other dunces who use the blame Bush strategy to ignore the pinheaded idiot named Obama.
As I originally posted in this thread...

Attemptng to defend the actions of TheObama with "well, when Bush was President..." you do nothing to negate the argument put againt The Obama, you simply try to change the subject.

Its a red herring, and it never works.
 
Back
Top Bottom