• 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
Really? how is that 'truly frightening'? How do you hope to extend constitutional rights and trials to someone who cannot be mirandized, with no mechanism for evidence collection, for any of the constitutional conditions on which you would base a trial? Or do you have some other vision of what that would actually look like? Again...Obama doesnt...thats why Bagram is expanding.

Uncola got to my answer before I did.
 
ef that we can just pass the debt onto future generations. However Obama' first year was greater than the two largest of Bush's. His projected out second year with that first year is more than Bush's entire Presidency.

It still seems to me that conservatives are being unrealistic with what they want for the national debt and spending and taxes.

Before Obama was even inaugurated the CBO figured the deficit for 2009 would be 1.2 trillion.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf#page=19

From what I gather, from the more unrealistic conservatives I've met (not trying to lump all together or say that Zyphlin is an unrealistic conservative, just wanted to comment on this one thing) I've gathered that what they wanted from Obama was for him to come into a crappy economy, a huge deficit with a large debt piled behind it and somehow reduce taxes and reduce the estimated government spending by about 800,000,000,000 (actually more than that to counter whatever tax cuts he would also enact) to reduce the deficit to about what bush ran his last year. One could only imagine how the economy would be right now with no stimulus dollars at work and government spending slashed from every direction.

It's not a good situation to be in but I think he's handling it as good as someone could have. The fed needed to and probably still needs to invest in jobs and when the economy is on a solid uptick they should be more strict on government spending than ever before.
 
Indeed. I concede that you cannot present your views in a logical, coherent fashion. Thus, debating with you is an exercise in pointlessness.




I asked you to explain your partisanship, if you want to be snotty to me that's your choice. But lets review. I asked you an on topic question, you resorted to ad homs....


How do you think this will play out?
 
Roughtdraft, regardless of the attempted justifications for why its okay...one can not sit there and go "Deficits are bad!" with Bush and then go "Its okay!" for Obama. For every "Its a bad economy, we must spend spend spend!" you have a "9/11 happened" on the other side. Regardless of the reasons, one can not say that George Bush was horrible about deficits and then turn around and act like Obama is a god send or is not doing equally as poorly about it. Because he's in a tough spot doesn't magically change that.

Not to mention the benefit of his "stimulous" to the economies woes is questionable in and of itself, with the long term potential damage of it making the question of efficiency for the supposed short term gain something to consider.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Jets need to be cooled and personal posts reigned in, or people are going to be escorted out of the thread
 
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?

Obama has been in office 18-months and has nothing much to show for it except contempt for America. He made big claims and has failed to deliver... because the destiny of his ideas and solutions is failure. They have a zero percent success rate.

Few outside his core of D's, many seeing Carter-like failure in Obama, are with him or his party.

The voting booth will reveal the level of discontent.
He is a known quantity now, and that was always his Achilles Heel; being an empty ideological sack.

.
 
Last edited:
This is the exact mentality used by despots and genocidal tyrants through the ages:

"They don't deserve the rights and privileges we demand for ourselves, as They are not like us. We are the only ones that deserve humane treatment, as They are somehow "less than human."

Disgusting.

Walk through some of the **** that I have in the aftermath of the terror acts...then talk to me about disgusting.

But I'll relent. Obama is disgusting and personally repulsive to you for recognizing who these people are, what they do, and deciding that bagram is a good place for them.
 
Roughtdraft, regardless of the attempted justifications for why its okay...one can not sit there and go "Deficits are bad!" with Bush and then go "Its okay!" for Obama. For every "Its a bad economy, we must spend spend spend!" you have a "9/11 happened" on the other side. Regardless of the reasons, one can not say that George Bush was horrible about deficits and then turn around and act like Obama is a god send or is not doing equally as poorly about it. Because he's in a tough spot doesn't magically change that.

Not to mention the benefit of his "stimulous" to the economies woes is questionable in and of itself, with the long term potential damage of it making the question of efficiency for the supposed short term gain something to consider.
I'm not saying it's ok, what I'm trying to argue is that the immediate and more sever threat right now is the economy going down the drain and the debt is second to that. You can blame him for running up the debt, but the way I see it is that right now he has a choice of frying the economy by sucking all government money out of it, thus decreasing revenues more and for much longer, or running up the debt for now while trying to build a stable economy to rest on while reducing the debt later. There is no way to do both, that's the point I'm trying to make. You can not reduce the deficit by any significant amount, strengthen the economy and cut taxes and thus cut revenue at the same time.
 
I get what you're saying Roughdraft, but Catz comments was about how Obama was significantly better than Bush which is where I was coming from.

A common complaint about Bush was "OMG The deficits".

In regards to that, there is no reasonable way to say that Obama is "significantly" better than him on that imho. Not when you look at the numbers.

Now you can try to excuse it as being "necessary" for a variety of reasons, but similar reasons and similar excuses can be made for Bush.

So, I don't necessarily disagree with you. And in your case if you didn't say deficits under Bush was a problem then I'd say there's really nothing to discuss, because you weren't saying its a problem under Bush and thus aren't suggesting that Obama is significantly better than him. However I was going off the notion that many people DID consider that a problem of Bush.
 
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?

In all seriousness, it depends on the issue with which Bush would of had an effect.
 
Walk through some of the **** that I have in the aftermath of the terror acts...then talk to me about disgusting.

But I'll relent. Obama is disgusting and personally repulsive to you for recognizing who these people are, what they do, and deciding that bagram is a good place for them.

The problem is in the precedent we set by holding people without access to an attorney, and without a trial. That's not the sort of conduct that a nation that respects essential human liberties engages in.

The reason that we maintain our civil liberties---even in the face of horror---is that we are America. If their acts, as you express, are so foul, and this can be proven, it can be done publicly, IN COURT.
 
The problem is in the precedent we set by holding people without access to an attorney, and without a trial. That's not the sort of conduct that a nation that respects the essential humanity of mankind engages in.

The reason that we maintain our civil liberties---even in the face of horror---is that we are America. If their acts, as you express, are so foul, and this can be proven, it can be done publicly, IN COURT.

You figure out how to charge them, mirandize them, and try them in US courts and Im all on your side.

I DID point point out I thought Obama was doing a good job fighting terrorism, right?
 
You figure out how to charge them, mirandize them, and try them in US courts and Im all on your side.

I DID point point out I thought Obama was doing a good job fighting terrorism, right?

The Constitution empowers the Congress to define and punish violations of international law8 as well as to
establish courts with exclusive jurisdiction over military offenses.9 United States law
recognizes the legality of creating military commissions to deal with “offenders or offenses
designated by statute or the law of war.”10 Under the former Articles of War and subsequent
statute,11 the President has authority to convene military commissions to try offenses against
the law of war.12 Military commissions could be convened to try such offenses whether
committed by U.S. servicemembers, civilian citizens, or enemy aliens.13 A declared state of
war need not exist.14

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21056.pdf
 
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.
Mentioning GWB's 'mistakes' creates a hed herring, rather than a defense of The Obama's actions.

As such, there's absolutely no need to respond to such statements, as said statements are intended to do nothing other than misdirect the conversation.
 
The problem is in the precedent we set by holding people without access to an attorney, and without a trial. That's not the sort of conduct that a nation that respects essential human liberties engages in.
And yet, the government has the perfectly legitimate power to do just that.
Not EVERYONE held by the US government has a right to an attorney, a right to habeus corpus, or the right to trial.
 
And yet, the government has the perfectly legitimate power to do just that.
Not EVERYONE held by the US government has a right to an attorney, a right to habeus corpus, or the right to trial.

I'm sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
 
I'm sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
And you'll be wrong.

Disagree?

Did the hundreds of thousands of Germans, Italians and Japanese captured during WW2 have a right to an attorney, habeus corpus or trial?

Of course not. Thanks.
 
I get what you're saying Roughdraft, but Catz comments was about how Obama was significantly better than Bush which is where I was coming from.

A common complaint about Bush was "OMG The deficits".

In regards to that, there is no reasonable way to say that Obama is "significantly" better than him on that imho. Not when you look at the numbers.

Now you can try to excuse it as being "necessary" for a variety of reasons, but similar reasons and similar excuses can be made for Bush.

So, I don't necessarily disagree with you. And in your case if you didn't say deficits under Bush was a problem then I'd say there's really nothing to discuss, because you weren't saying its a problem under Bush and thus aren't suggesting that Obama is significantly better than him. However I was going off the notion that many people DID consider that a problem of Bush.

The difference here is Bush's deficits where with a good economy. Obama, with a bad economy, is going to run up a deficit, that is the nature of things. If previous presidents(not just Bush) had kept the deficit in line, then the deficit spending now would not be a big deal.

Now, if Obama keeps running up deficits with no effort to reign them in as the economy improves, then we will have a very legitimate complaint, and I will be leading the people making it. However, in the current climate, where some of our conservatives are doing the "OMG, the deficit, OMG, we need to cut taxes" tango, I think there is nothing wrong with pointing out that foolishness.
 
And you'll be wrong.

Disagree?

Did the hundreds of thousands of Germans, Italians and Japanese captured during WW2 have a right to an attorney, habeus corpus or trial?

Of course not. Thanks.

Did you notice the world changed the last 60 years....
 
Back
Top Bottom