Stop Talking about Bush

[cherrydarlin999]

*cherry*

OK, this has just been bothering me for a while. When we are debating about Obama or any of his policies, one person always goes back to what Bush did. "Bush did this-" or "Bush didn't do that-"...i don't care. Bush isn't President anymore, he isn't in Washington D.C, he's over. He's gone. Stop talking about him. I don't care what kind of laws Bush did or did not pass, that Obama "supposably" will pass. It's Obama's turn as President, not Bush. So, stop turning back to Bush. Whatever he did from 2000 to 2008, means nothing anymore. Just focus on what Obama's doing, he's the President now.  

[XSean HirukiX]

I agree completely.  

[Pumona]

cherrydarlin999

*cherry*

OK, this has just been bothering me for a while. When we are debating about Obama or any of his policies, one person always goes back to what Bush did. "Bush did this-" or "Bush didn't do that-"...i don't care. Bush isn't President anymore, he isn't in Washington D.C, he's over. He's gone. Stop talking about him. I don't care what kind of laws Bush did or did not pass, that Obama "supposably" will pass. It's Obama's turn as President, not Bush. So, stop turning back to Bush. Whatever he did from 2000 to 2008, means nothing anymore. Just focus on what Obama's doing, he's the President now.

Only problem with this, are leaders in the Obama Administration are still blaming everything on Bush. I agree it is time to move on and anything that happens now is Obama's fate and no one elses.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

I disagree, because some people keep blaming things on Obama, that Bush did himself as president. This isn't "blaming" as you say, this is merely showing you faults in your argument, blaming the current president on issues, while supporting his predecessor for the same things are merely hypocritical.  

[Lord Bitememan]

It's a bit more complicated than just saying "Bush isn't president." If you were for TARP when Bush was in office, but against it when Obama got into it, you're a hypocrite. That said, many principled individuals did oppose things Bush did that they now rail against Obama about. And it's happening on both sides of the ideological spectrum.  

[XSean HirukiX]

Well if that is the case, than let's blame Taft for the s**t he did.
It's only fair, right?
....right?  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

I don't think you're getting the point. The point is there is always going to be blaming politicians (Democrat or Republican,) as I stated on the front page before I updated it, the rules has been don't just say:
"I hate Obama" or "Obama is stupid"
Without having facts. There needs to be reason to do such. Cherry has done this a ton, and when I correct her, this is what I get... nothing! I merely stated in another thread (Palin Power <3) That Bush has taken vacations, just as Obama has, and there is no need to hate Obama for it, when Bush did the same thing.

If you want to blame Taft, be my guest. But before you blame him, you might as well blame McKinley.  

[Lord Bitememan]

XSean HirukiX

Well if that is the case, than let's blame Taft for the s**t he did.
It's only fair, right?
....right?

No, because Taft was from a generation ago. Pointing to policies and positions of a party in the immediate past is far different. For example, they are now thinking of changing the law in Massachusetts to allow the governor to appoint a replacement for Ted Kennedy. Of course, they changed it in 2004 so that a Republican governor couldn't appoint a Republican replacement for John Kerry if he had won the presidency. Pointing out the past conduct of Democrats, in this case changing the law to suit their needs at the time, serves a great interest in the current case. It paints the Democrats as creating a "Democrat-only" seat, which is what they're doing.

On the flip side, it requires some consistency on our part to. And, like it or not, simply because the other guy won doesn't mean we can't have a president for the next 4 years.  

[Pumona]

Rainbowfied Mouse

I disagree, because some people keep blaming things on Obama, that Bush did himself as president. This isn't "blaming" as you say, this is merely showing you faults in your argument, blaming the current president on issues, while supporting his predecessor for the same things are merely hypocritical.

What you are saying is exactly true on being a hypocrite. One of the situations I was thinking about is: I have been on a lot of websites (please do not ask what ones for I do not know at this moment) that are still saying that Bush has spent more money in office than Obama. Now we know this is not correct at all. Obama has spent more money then all presidents in a very short time. So you tell me why people still can blame a past president when the present one has been worse in this situation?  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Pumona

Rainbowfied Mouse

I disagree, because some people keep blaming things on Obama, that Bush did himself as president. This isn't "blaming" as you say, this is merely showing you faults in your argument, blaming the current president on issues, while supporting his predecessor for the same things are merely hypocritical.

What you are saying is exactly true on being a hypocrite. One of the situations I was thinking about is: I have been on a lot of websites (please do not ask what ones for I do not know at this moment) that are still saying that Bush has spent more money in office than Obama. Now we know this is not correct at all. Obama has spent more money then all presidents in a very short time. So you tell me why people still can blame a past president when the present one has been worse in this situation?

But, that would be an argument different over vacation. This would be debt, and I would agree with you, he may very well have spent more money (The 787billion dollar "stimulus" package. When these facts are presented, it is verifiable that Obama is making a worse present by opinion. However just saying
"Obama is stupid"
As some have done, but not stating why, this is not an argument. This is a statement without any facts, and therefore not good for a debate. This is why when I talk about Bush, I bring in facts that state the faults in the arguments. The summary of the conversation

"Obama is stupid."
"Political Affiliation does not reflect intelligence"
"Obama is on vacation while our economy is going to a shithole"
"The economy problems were before Obama, and Bush took vacations as well (in fact more than most other presidents.)"

The first sentence is not a debate. It is faulty logic.
The second is an examination of the fault.
The third sentence is a debate.
The fourth is a rebuttle.

I'd treat it the same if someone said

"Bush is a moron."
"Political Affiliation does not reflect intelligence."

That and you must remember that during the Clinton Administration we got out of all debt, and Bush sent us back into it with China's loans. Just stating this, even though this should be argued in the Palin Power <3 Thread.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

The first sentence is not a debate. It is faulty logic.

No, it's name-calling.

Quote:

That and you must remember that during the Clinton Administration we got out of all debt

No, we got out of deficit (the amount more we spend than what we take in as revenue, which adds to the debt). We made some SMALL debt payments, but the debt was very much there when Bush assumed office.  

[Latopazora]

A lot of the disrespect towards Obama I believe is reaction to the disrespect showed towards Bush.
But the point is Obama is putting a lot of the blame for the continueing failing economy on Bush. In the last years of the Bush administration, the economy started its down fall, but it continued and sped up under Obama. People are starting to catch on. But if Obama's actions are truly fixing the economy, we should've seen some pick up by now.
If Obama were truly a leader, he would stop blaming Bush.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

A lot of the disrespect towards Obama I believe is reaction to the disrespect showed towards Bush.

That's probably a big part of it, yes.

Quote:

But the point is Obama is putting a lot of the blame for the continueing failing economy on Bush. In the last years of the Bush administration, the economy started its down fall, but it continued and sped up under Obama.

And in all fairness, Bush inherited a similar situation from Clinton and behaved in much the same way Obama has. Much of the blame for economic faltering fell on the shoulders of Clinton, and for a year Bush pointed at his predecessor while using slowing GDP decline numbers as proof that his policies were fixing the problem. Obama has done the same. If there's anything Obama is guilty of, rhetorically, it's claiming to be an agent of "change" and behaving EXACTLY as every other administration prior to him has.  

[Raidoactive Kitty]

XSean HirukiX

Well if that is the case, than let's blame Taft for the s**t he did.
It's only fair, right?
....right?

It's not about fair. It's about the issues. If at anypoint he becomes relevant to the tpoic then sure bring him up. But other wise you are jsut being stupid.  

[Latopazora]

Lord Bitememan

Quote:

But the point is Obama is putting a lot of the blame for the continueing failing economy on Bush. In the last years of the Bush administration, the economy started its down fall, but it continued and sped up under Obama.

And in all fairness, Bush inherited a similar situation from Clinton and behaved in much the same way Obama has. Much of the blame for economic faltering fell on the shoulders of Clinton, and for a year Bush pointed at his predecessor while using slowing GDP decline numbers as proof that his policies were fixing the problem. Obama has done the same. If there's anything Obama is guilty of, rhetorically, it's claiming to be an agent of "change" and behaving EXACTLY as every other administration prior to him has.

that's true… I really didn't much attention at the time since I was listening to FM radio and no interests in news. It wasn't until I start going to college I started tuning in, so I didn't catch the blame Bush was throwing at Clinton.