Why the "But Bush" defense is irrelevant in most cases..

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by FlyingGatorII, Aug 7, 2014.

  1. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,957
    Likes Received:
    486
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,562
    you've very confused on this. the decision not to press criminal charges took place before Holder took office. (Are we allowed to say that happened under Bush?) Instead, a civil complaint was filed.
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2014
  2. 92gator
    Online

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,678
    Likes Received:
    502
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,735
    'Fanatical support for Bush?' No. Never. Bush was no Ronald Reagan, not by a long shot. He was simply never that popular. Never won by a landslide, never achieved the level of emotional attachment, never had people look at him like he was a superhero.....

    But yes, many of us did support Bush, and defended many of his policies, and actions, and such.

    But here's the part that neo-libbies always seem to ignore/neglect/pretend never happened:

    WE WERE VICSIOUSLY ATTACKED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.


    3,200 Americans, slaughtered in a single day. The ICONIC Twin Towers, toppled. THE PENTAGON, directly attacked. Another plane hi-jacked over Am. skies, and crashed into Am. soil. On One. Single. Day.

    That rocked us as a country, to our core.

    The reaction to back the POTUS/CIC was pretty damn compelling and natural, as a matter of national unity, national security, patriotism, cultural identity, and environmental stability--and the peace of mind we so often take for granted, that goes with it--that was threatened on that day, and in its wake.

    After 9/11, the budget took a back seat national security. Most everything did. Those effects lingered for years.

    However, to the dems, their "9/11", that lingered for years, wasn't the attack on Am. soil, nor the death of 3,200+ American citizens, nor the loss of the iconic Twin Towers, nor the attack on the Pentagon...

    It was Bush > Gore, 2000.

    The dust of the toppled twin towers had scarcely settled in the streets of NYC, before the neo-libbies took up the Butt-hurt flag of the Bush/Gore devastation, and sought to get past 9/11, and back to what really mattered:

    Returning the White House to its rightful owner--the Dummy Rat party.

    So again, I gladly remind y'all, that what you call hypocrisy, especially wrt to spending, is taking things out of context.

    No, in the wake of 9/11, spending wasn't high on our priority list.

    But after the crash of '08, the economy (which is related to spending)--overtook the post 9/11 concerns, on that priority list--for those who don't vote dem. down the line aynway.

    For the die hard neo-libby dems, control is always the thing.

    The bottom line is that yes, Bush wasn't held to the same standards as Barry--but there was a compelling reason for that.

    In contrast, Barry does not have a 9/11 type event to justify his spending--and yet....

    ....he has outspent Bush!!!!!!!!!

    In less time!

    With no end in sight!

    "but Bush" expired a long ass time ago. It's high time for Barry to "show us the money".
    • Winner Winner x 2
  3. LittleBlueLW
    Offline

    LittleBlueLW Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,379
    Likes Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,239
    there was a time in here where links were useful to distinguish between conjecture, bullcrap and facts.
    Not questioning everything in this post but.....
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. renaldo
    Offline

    renaldo New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings Received:
    +0
    Oh, yes. We get it now - Republicans lamented 9/11 and love America, but Democrats didn't care about it. They only care about politics. And they hate America. Because they are just......"Dummy Rats."

    Thanks for clearing that up - the intellectual heft of your post is most compelling.



    The rest of your posting is just a giant snoozer; you vote for a guy that turns a budget at surplus into a $1.2 trillion deficit, then whine about someone who isn't fast enough at cutting the deficit left to him by the guy you voted for. To say nothing of the fact that your guy also left the economy in a state of near-Great Depression.....and immediately slashing spending would have destroyed all chances at turning the economy around.



    And you wonder why people invoke Bush when they want to point out the hypocrisy of so many posters here ? ;)



    Hey, by the way - have you EVER voted for a President that has reduced the federal deficit ? I have twice. You - NEVER, right ? Do please tell us some more about your great commitment to fiscal responsibility. :D
  5. cjgator76
    Online

    cjgator76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    17,537
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +656
    That's a fair approach. "Bush caused it" is not the same as Bushdidittoo.
    Of course "Bush caused it" doesn't add much to a discussion on whether Obama is making "it" better or worse in 2014, but I know you're not saying otherwise.
  6. renaldo
    Offline

    renaldo New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings Received:
    +0
    Oh, and just as a minor point of reference; while working on a financial trading desk and having brokers employed by Cantor Fitzgerald......over the broker voice-lines, quite a few of my colleagues and I heard some of what were probably the last words ever spoken by people we had business relationships with before they died in the twin towers. To say nothing of other people lost by the uncaring "Dummy Rats."

    Your posting is reprehensible. But that's all on you.
  7. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    Did you read my post? I'm specifically not talking about that logic.
  8. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,361
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +537
    The "but Bush" defense has gotten to the point where it violates community organizer Saul Allinsky's 7th Rule for Radicals:

    RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
    The problem for the left is that by going away from Saul Allinsky's 7th Rule they break Saul Allinsky's 2nd Rule for Radicals:

    RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
    • Like Like x 1
  9. FlyingGatorII
    Online

    FlyingGatorII Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,946
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +794
    I'm making sense river, just not the sense you like. If you think Obama not being different when it comes to being President after he said he would, that he's just another politician who breaks campaign promises he promises to keep, then that's cool with me. If that's the case though, and you and other supporters here can't defend Obama's behavior with facts then simply admit he had no idea what he was talking about as a candidate when he said he would never do things like he has done and admit that enough people fell for it to elect him twice. Yes, you presented some facts abut the Africa Summit, which was just one example, and I give you credit for it. How about all the other stuff Obama swore he would never do as President and has now done many of those things, starting with using XO's to unconstitutionally go around Congress? For goodness sake, HW Bush was run out of town on a rail by the Dems and media just for breaking his "Read my lips, no new taxes" promise just a year after having a 90% approval rating. Where is the outrage over all Obama's broken promises that make that promise pale in comparison? Anyway, the whole point of this thread is that Obama promised he would never do the things others have done and he has done them anyway. I'm asking that when legitimate criticism is raised that it be addressed with a fact based explanation or an admission that Obama either never had any intention of fulfilling his promise or had idea what he was talking about when he made it. He promised he would be different. When he isn't different and he does the things he said he would never do, saying he's the same as others he promised to be different from is more an admission of failure then a defense IMO.
  10. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,411
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,767
    It's just frankly not true that pubs 'always had a problem with Bush.'

    If you're going to start any diatribe with that lie, the rest deserves no attention.
  11. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,957
    Likes Received:
    486
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,562
    Look, you started off claiming we don't defend Obama's behavior, just excuse it by bringing up Bush. But as I've pointed out over and over, I did defend his behavior with the African summit. I think it's a good idea to meet with African leaders in order to encourage trade between the U.S. and Africa. Yet you keep going back to the same silliness about not defending his actions.

    The rest of your rant is just more of the same. Yes, we know you don't like Obama. But not, Bush wasn't run out of town by the Democrats. He was voted out of office by the American people.
  12. LittleBlueLW
    Offline

    LittleBlueLW Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,379
    Likes Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,239
    Actually,
    He was out because of term limits.
  13. dangolegators
    Online

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    8,007
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +991
    Yes, it's absolutely not true. Pubs loved Bush through the first 5 years. The approval ratings for Bush amongst Republicans were consistently higher than the approval ratings of Obama amongst Democrats have been.

    Here's a look at the Gallup poll approval ratings:

    End of first year in office:
    Bush 98% approval from Republicans
    Obama 82% approval from Democrats

    End of second year in office:
    Bush 90% approval from Republicans
    Obama 84% approval from Democrats

    End of third year in office:
    Bush 88% approval from Republicans
    Obama 81% approval from Democrats

    End of fourth year in office:
    Bush 90% approval from Republicans
    Obama 88% approval from Democrats

    End of fifth year in office:
    Bush 86% approval from Republicans
    Obama 75% approval from Democrats

    So Bush's approval ratings were higher than Obama's amongst their own parties every year through the first 5 years.
  14. FlyingGatorII
    Online

    FlyingGatorII Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,946
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +794
    river,

    It's not all about you, but I actually did give you credit for providing some factual data in responding to the African Summit thread even though you have ignored that. You have also ignored the fact that I have said the African Summit thread was but a small example of the times Obama supporters have used the "But Bush" instead of having a rational explanation for his actions. You have also conveniently ignored the other example I brought up about the use of XO's but since it doesn't fit your narrative that doesn't shock me. So far you have said I don't make sense and said I am ranting. Anyway, as usual I find myself having to respond to your diverts away from the real point of the OP. The more you try and do that, the more I know I have hit a nerve, so I guess I owe you some thanks for that. The fact is that Obama specifically promised to be a distinctly different kind of president than George Bush was, so isn't nearly every use of the "But Bush" defense (by anyone on this board and not just you) amount to a tacit admission that he failed to deliver on that promise? It's not about whether I like Obama or not. It's about people who helped put him in office explaining his actions when they are totally contrary to his words. That's what the OP was about.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 9, 2014
  15. LittleBlueLW
    Offline

    LittleBlueLW Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,379
    Likes Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,239
    Bush III must really be pissing yall off. Hilarious!
    The only difference between them is III is half black and a Dem. otherwise, one and the same.
  16. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,957
    Likes Received:
    486
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,562
    i was hardly the only one giving reasons why the summit was a good idea. And if you don't think the summit discussion was a good example of your point, maybe you shouldn't have started the thread with it.
    • Creative Creative x 1
  17. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,957
    Likes Received:
    486
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,562
    As I've pointed out before, it wasn't until it was clear Bush's presidency was going to be considered a failure that Republican jumped and said "Well, after all, he wasn't a conservative ... Nope, I never liked him ..."
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  18. Cruzer84
    Offline

    Cruzer84 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    921
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +163
    Where one stands perhaps depends on what you were doing on September 11, 2001. If you watched in horror as the towers tumbled then called your wife to gather the children, meet at home and figure what to do next you prolly have one opinion. However if you were sucking a your momma's teat or a beer you prolly have a different opinion.
  19. FlyingGatorII
    Online

    FlyingGatorII Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,946
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +794
    Your response here is so false and easily disproved it is almost laughable. Since I know your true intent here is to deflect though I suppose you consider it a success. Remember, this thread is about how those that support Obama can explain his being the very President he promised us all he would not be( including one you couldn't stand), and, in most cases. their inability to explain his actions with anything other than "But Bush". Please feel free to start your own thread where you post all the links and examples trying to proving your false statement above.
  20. jimgata
    Online

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,247
    Likes Received:
    281
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,510
    Bush voted out of office? Did Biden take over you body?
    That comment is a lot worse than anything the left accused Palin of saying.

Share This Page