So, recently I've encountered a tremendous number of people espousing the Glories of GWB and his administration in comparison to the current administration. And offering no evidence to support their statements. I'm not saying that the current administration is not flawed by any means. But... If you are going to engage in a debate over what was or wasn't done wrong then IMO you need to actually offer an argument for your view as opposed to simply saying something like "Wow you must be drinking a whole fountain of the obama kool aid" and leave it at that. In other words DEBATE the issue, do not resort to personal insults.
Now lets define the word Debate:
de·bate
/dɪˈbeɪt/ Show Spelled [dih-beyt] Show IPA noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
–noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.
4. Archaic . strife; contention.
–verb (used without object)
5. to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.
6. to participate in a formal debate.
7. to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.
8. Obsolete . to fight; quarrel.
–verb (used with object)
9. to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.
10. to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.
11. to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.
12. to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.
13. Archaic . to contend for or over.
The following is a conversation between myself and an extreme right republican - NOTE: I do not throw ALL republicans into the category in this note I am referring to those that are fabricating alternate histories and perpetuating lies to promote divisiveness a la Glenn beck, Rush Limbaugh and the tea party.
Background: conversation between a few liberal Obama supporters discussing whats actually wrong with everything happening. And yes we were placing blame on the Bush Administration for many things... Things it was actually at fault for mind you but things nonetheless and then this is dropped into the middle of it all: "Yet another "Blame Bush" scenario. Exactly when does this tired excuse run its course? He's been out of office for 2 years, plus don't forget that the Dems were in control of both the House and Senate for the past 4 years, thus canceling out Bush's last two years in office."
to which I respond:
can you give me one good reason why we shouldn't blame Bush? Bush got us into an illegal war with lies and fabrications. Bush put us more than a TRILLION dollars into debt with said war. Bush is the one that signed the bail out fo...r wall street. And now the Obama Haters ALL say that Obama is responsible for the economy crisis. Funny thing is those very same people SCREAMED "No, it isn't the president's fault" when it was Bush in office. No, Barack Obama is not the Messiah, but he did NOT get this country into the situation it is in. He is merely the first one to have to deal with The Clean Up from the Bush Administration. So when you say how its yet another "blame Bush" scenario yeah sure you may be right but BUSH HIMSELF is the one that PUT US in that scenario. I'll stop holding Bush Responsible when he starts owning his failures. I'll stop holding him responsible when we are no longer trillions in debt because if HIS actions.
The answer I get back:
Wow, I must commend you on having the wacko left's talking points down pat. NPR must be on all your presets. By all means, continue with your delusionary thoughts and continue to bow at the alter of Obama. Sadly, one day you'll have to wake up and realize that Barack is not a deity and cannot answer your prayers.
It is answers and "arguments" like this that I am referring to. This isnt' an argument at all, this is an attempt at insult. I present verifiable points that can easily be responded to with counterpoints. But these people, the people I'm referring to (and yes Liberals are guilty of it too)
My response to him again - verifiable points...
You have just proven to me that Timothy Egan is absolutely right in his OpEd piece http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/building-a-nation-of-know-nothings/ . You obviously fall into that 47%.
So, I asked you questions and as usual for the sheep that take Beck and Fox's word as god - you did not answer, you simply insulted me for presenting you with actual facts because they do not fit your twisted picture of the last administrations "accomplishments"
I will restate my disputes and give you the answers since you seem to lack the facts.
Was Bush's war legal? No, the action was not authorized or supported by the UNSC. The Security Council may only authorise the use of force against an "aggressor" in the interests of preserving peace, the invasion of Iraq was not provoked by any aggressive military action. The invasion was not in accordance wiht the UNSC charter and was therefore illegal.
Were we as a public lied to about the reasons for the invasion? Yes, we were... Remember NO WMD's were found. Hussein was also NOT the person responsible for 9/11 - an additional reason that was cited as supporting the action that was a lie
When Bush left office were we or were we not trillions in debt and didn't he in fact add nearly 5 trillion to that debt? Was that debt magnified considerably due to the Illegal war? Yes and Yes. When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion. When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When he ended his term, he left a $1.3 trillion deficit. The cost of the invasion is upwards of 12 BILLION per month
If Bush didn't sign the bailout then who did? according to every news source onm the planet on October 1, 2008 President George W. Bush signed the bill into law that created a $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to purchase failing bank assets.
Re: "It's not Bush's Fault" well actually yes, it is....
just for starters...
Bush Administration Fails to Jumpstart Economy
As of May, 2005, there have been 893,000 jobs created over the first 52 months of the Bush presidency - a gain that is due solely to the 917,000 jobs created in the government sector that offset the 24,000 jobs lost in the private sector. Since the Great Depression, no other president who served at least 52 months has overseen a net loss in private sector jobs through this point. In addition to lack of job growth, real weekly and hourly wages have declined since the start of the recession. At a time when middle-class Americans are experiencing stagnant wages and vanishing benefits, CEO pay continues to rise.
Source: Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Weekly, Jenna Churchman, June 6, 2005
Bush Budget Slashes Education, Veterans' Health Care, Law Enforcement, and Environmental Protections
The Bush administration's budget for the 2006 fiscal year will cut non-defense discretionary spending, including education, veteran's health care, law enforcement, and environmental protections. In all, President Bush's fiscal 2006 budget plan calls for elimination of or drastic cuts from 154 programs. Funding for the Iraq war, however, was recently increased. A House subcommittee approved an initial $45 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, two weeks after Congress approved $82 billion for this year's costs of the conflicts. Although President Bush argues that it is too early to request money for the wars during the 2006 budget year, which starts Oct. 1, with no timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, war costs are certain and many lawmakers are reluctant to wait for his request.
Source: Washington Post, "Bush's '06 Budget Would Scrap or Reduce 154 Programs," Judy Sarasohn, February 22, 2005; Washington Post, "House Bill Would Provide $45B More for War," Liz Sidoti, May 24, 2005
Bush Attempts to Paint Rosy Picture of Struggling Economy
When speaking with a group of women small business owners on Jan. 9, Bush said that "unemployment dropped today to 5.7 percent," claiming that this "is a positive sign that the economy is getting better." Unfortunately, according to the Baltimore Sun, that is not the case. The Sun reported that underlying that positive number was "grim economic news—only a handful of new jobs were created and hundreds of thousands of discouraged people dropped out of the workforce." Although unemployment fell from 5.9 percent to 5.7 percent in December, only 1,000 new jobs were created. Furthermore, the work force typically grows when the economy advances, but in this instance it shrank due to the 309,000 people who stopped looking for work. The withdrawal of these workers from the work force, not new jobs, pushed the unemployment rate down, as no significant number of jobs were created in December. The Sun went on to say that "the December numbers are a continuation of a long period of inadequate job creation." The economy has lost more than 2 million jobs since employment peaked in Feb. 2001, and gains in recent months have been "miniscule."
Sources: White House Office of the Press Secretary, "President Speaks with Women Small Business Owners on the Economy," Jan. 9, 2004; Baltimore Sun, "Falling Jobless Figure Deceptive," Jan. 9, 2004.
Bush Attempts to Give Tax Breaks Worth Hundreds of Millions to Corporations
Bush tried to repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Had he been successful in repealing the AMT, corporations would have received the following retroactive tax breaks:
$1.4 billion to IBM
$371 million to United Airlines
$1 billion to Ford
$254 million to Enron
$833 million to General Motors
$241 million to Phillips Petroleum
$671 million to General Electric
$184 million to American Airlines
$608 million to Texas Utilities
$155 million to IMC Global
$600 million to Daimler Chrysler
$144 million to Comdisco
$572 million to Chevron Texaco
$136 million to CMS Energy
$102 million to Kmart
Source: Democratic Policy Committee: DPC and Citizens For Tax Justice, Corporate Annual Reports
So again.... What did I say that is untrue? As for Talking points (which I presume you meant as an insult) a Talking point is simply a brief phrase used by speakers, especially in politics.
See, like so many of the bushbeickimbaughs you provide no validation of your point, in fact you dont' make any point at all, you simply throw insults. Typical.
What's more is that his retort was nothing more than another personal insult.
My point here is not in slamming those that are republican, supported Bush, or simply Conservative. My point is simple really. Support the cause you beleive in but if you are going to engage in a debate you need to actually DEBATE the issue instead of regurgitating what the talking heads have spewed and or actually state your case and cite sources that are verifiable.
I have NO problem debating an issue with someone even with COMPLETLY opposite ideas and ideals provided they debate it and don't simply hurl insults. THIS is what I'm fed up with. This is what I'm sick to death of hearing and seeing everywhere. One need only look at the yahoo news page to see it splayed there full of nothing more than insults and mis/disinformation instead of facts.
