Take The No (GW) Bush Challenge

[zeke]

Which liberal dares to go a year without turning political threads into a George W Bush bashing thread and to actually stick to the OP?

Come on. Who has the guts? I f'ing dare you to actually have to regard OPs and not devolve everything to GWB jack-off sessions.

Who's signing up for a year?

That means you don't change the subject to GWB. It means you don't even regard GWB when someone else brings it up (unless that's part of the OP). Who has the guts? What hardcore USMB propogandist, I mean liberal has the guts to give up his diet of GWB butter?

In other words, you want the opportunity to cheap shot Obama on any topic, regardless of context, and don't want Bush mentioned. Even if relevant.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

 

[LoneLaugher]

As I have never deflected a discussion by bringing up W, I have no problem with the dopey challenge. Other than the fact that it is an attempt by the OP to get liberals to admit that they have a problem as far as this is concerned. We don't.

I think I have seen more cases of nutters predicting that libs will come to a thread and blame Booooooosh.......than I have of libs actually doing that. It is a common defense mechanism that nutters use to avoid getting their asses handed to them in a USMB "debate". You have been assigning this action to libs for 5 years now......just as you are in this thread.

Now...will the OP stop using the word "regard" in such an odd fashion? Thanks.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Which liberal dares to go a year without turning political threads into a George W Bush bashing thread and to actually stick to the OP?

Come on. Who has the guts? I f'ing dare you to actually have to regard OPs and not devolve everything to GWB jack-off sessions.

Who's signing up for a year?

That means you don't change the subject to GWB. It means you don't even regard GWB when someone else brings it up (unless that's part of the OP). Who has the guts? What hardcore USMB propogandist, I mean liberal has the guts to give up his diet of GWB butter?

In other words, you want the opportunity to cheap shot Obama on any topic, regardless of context, and don't want Bush mentioned. Even if relevant.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

You demonstrate first hand how f'ing retarded you are, and how you have absolutely no thought process that doesn't include canned counter points about the other side. If I were to take 'a cheap shot' against Obama, you could defend it outright without having to refer to Bush. As it is you want the GWB BS in your backpocket to derail any thread.

I'll give you an example. 'The debt is out of control. Obama spends too much.' You either justify the debt/spending or you don't. Wtf the point of telling us that Bush did not control the debt/spending either? That Obama is no worse than Bush? Wtf does that do for anyone? That's just mud slinging. Get a f'ing backbone and f'ing believe something dude that goes beyond tearing down jackasses who are no longer in power.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

As I have never deflected a discussion by bringing up W, I have no problem with the dopey challenge. Other than the fact that it is an attempt by the OP to get liberals to admit that they have a problem as far as this is concerned. We don't.

I think I have seen more cases of nutters predicting that libs will come to a thread and blame Booooooosh.......than I have of libs actually doing that. It is a common defense mechanism that nutters use to avoid getting their asses handed to them in a USMB "debate". You have been assigning this action to libs for 5 years now......just as you are in this thread.

Now...will the OP stop using the word "regard" in such an odd fashion? Thanks.

Oh, it's a huge problem. You'd be hard pressed to find a thread about Obama that doesn't have a liberal crying about W as a counter. These mindless deflections take away from real conversation, and this is hardly a dopey challenge given that reality.

And the result of bringing up W is hardly 'debate.' It inevitably draws the attention away from the matters at hand. If you have a policy or belief that you support, you can support it outright. The W shiz really is often an admission of a lack of substance by liberals. I'm frankly doing you a favor by asking you to think outside your W hating box.

And for the millionth time....you're one to ever speak about "nutters."

 

[Rozman]

It's never Obama's fault...
And if you say anything critical of him you are labled a racist.
So who is left to blame....

BooooooooSH .

 

[occupied]

Idiotic challenge, could any conservative not bring up Obama under any circumstances except when mentioned in the OP? Not hardly. Past as well as present presidents and their policies are intertwined into so many issues that such would be impossible. I know many of you would very much like us to forget that many of you supported Bushco with an almost religious zeal but it aint gonna happen, these three letters, GWB, are going to hound conservatives to the grave, I guarantee it.

It's idiotic to challenge you puppets to stay on topic? What's the matter; you might be forced to take on the virtues (or lack thereof of) of Obama's actions? Too scared to give up your mindless deflections?

And nobody is saying that you can't regard GWB in specific GWB threads. I'm seeing if any of you propagandists have the guts to give up one of your main derailment subjects for a year. I reckon you're too much the coward to do that.

Oh I get it, you think that being reminded of your own blind following behavior is off topic when you accuse people of blindly following Obama, that's not off topic at all, it's the hard truth. When you show yourself to be a hypocrite expect flames.

Most of you seem to have forgotten that you were alright with all this 'socialism' and 'fascism' when he was serving as unitary executive, we are going to remind you for the rest of your life that you scared people opened the door and wedged it open accusing liberals of siding with terrorists the whole way.

 

[LoneLaugher]

As I have never deflected a discussion by bringing up W, I have no problem with the dopey challenge. Other than the fact that it is an attempt by the OP to get liberals to admit that they have a problem as far as this is concerned. We don't.

I think I have seen more cases of nutters predicting that libs will come to a thread and blame Booooooosh.......than I have of libs actually doing that. It is a common defense mechanism that nutters use to avoid getting their asses handed to them in a USMB "debate". You have been assigning this action to libs for 5 years now......just as you are in this thread.

Now...will the OP stop using the word "regard" in such an odd fashion? Thanks.

Oh, it's a huge problem. You'd be hard pressed to find a thread about Obama that doesn't have a liberal crying about W as a counter. These mindless deflections take away from real conversation, and this is hardly a dopey challenge given that reality.

And the result of bringing up W is hardly 'debate.' It inevitably draws the attention away from the matters at hand. If you have a policy or belief that you support, you can support it outright. The W shiz really is often an admission of a lack of substance by liberals. I'm frankly doing you a favor by asking you to think outside your W hating box.

And for the millionth time....you're one to ever speak about "nutters."

Nope. It is a strawmen. There are a few who routinely deflect to Bush. And they are the people that nutters like to engage.....because they don't challenge you.

Why not name some names, GG? Name the people who are the worst offenders when it comes to deflecting to Bush. It should be easy since "all libs do it and need to take your challenge".

I will look forward to the list.

 

[zeke]

Which liberal dares to go a year without turning political threads into a George W Bush bashing thread and to actually stick to the OP?

Come on. Who has the guts? I f'ing dare you to actually have to regard OPs and not devolve everything to GWB jack-off sessions.

Who's signing up for a year?

That means you don't change the subject to GWB. It means you don't even regard GWB when someone else brings it up (unless that's part of the OP). Who has the guts? What hardcore USMB propogandist, I mean liberal has the guts to give up his diet of GWB butter?

In other words, you want the opportunity to cheap shot Obama on any topic, regardless of context, and don't want Bush mentioned. Even if relevant.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

You demonstrate first hand how f'ing retarded you are, and how you have absolutely no thought process that doesn't include canned counter points about the other side. If I were to take 'a cheap shot' against Obama, you could defend it outright without having to refer to Bush. As it is you want the GWB BS in your backpocket to derail any thread.

I'll give you an example. 'The debt is out of control. Obama spends too much.' You either justify the debt/spending or you don't. Wtf the point of telling us that Bush did not control the debt/spending either? That Obama is no worse than Bush? Wtf does that do for anyone? That's just mud slinging. Get a f'ing backbone and f'ing believe something dude that goes beyond tearing down jackasses who are no longer in power.

Because nothing exist in a vacuum you stupid shit. There is cause and effect no matter how much assholes like you want to deny that truth.

I read on this thread earlier where some asshole that you like was back to blaming Clinton for the things gone wrong when Bush became President.

And you didn't say a fucking thing. So shut the fuk up about not wanting to mention Bush when ever appropriate. Ain't happening with me.

About the only thing I can say about this stupid thread is that YOU at least recognize that the Presidency of George Bush was a complete fucking disaster.

If it wasn't, you sure as hell would be talking about his accomplishments every damn day.
Especially if you could contrast them with the failures of the Obama presidency.

But there were no "accomplishments" worth talking about under George Bush was there?
So lets not mention him at all. Is that the plan? LMAO. Ain't happening dude.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which liberal dares to go a year without turning political threads into a George W Bush bashing thread and to actually stick to the OP?

Come on. Who has the guts? I f'ing dare you to actually have to regard OPs and not devolve everything to GWB jack-off sessions.

Who's signing up for a year?

That means you don't change the subject to GWB. It means you don't even regard GWB when someone else brings it up (unless that's part of the OP). Who has the guts? What hardcore USMB propogandist, I mean liberal has the guts to give up his diet of GWB butter?

It's impossible. Libs excuse every act of Obama by saying Bush did it. But somehow Bush is bad and Obama is good even though they did the same thing.
Never mind all of it is nonsense. There is no equivalence. Bush was an experienced competent leader. Obama is a bumbling clusterfuck.

 

[bripat9643]

We'll stop talking about Bush and his cabinet when they die broke in prison for crimes against humanity.

And when we finally pay off the debt the anti-American bastards left us with.

There's no way we can ever pay off the debt of dead and maimed Americans they caused. No way the countries they trashed can ever come back from their "wars".

So should Obama rot in prison until his debt is paid off?

 

[oldfart]

Which liberal dares to go a year without turning political threads into a George W Bush bashing thread and to actually stick to the OP?

Come on. Who has the guts? I f'ing dare you to actually have to regard OPs and not devolve everything to GWB jack-off sessions.

Who's signing up for a year?

That means you don't change the subject to GWB. It means you don't even regard GWB when someone else brings it up (unless that's part of the OP). Who has the guts? What hardcore USMB propogandist, I mean liberal has the guts to give up his diet of GWB butter?

I have no problem with your proposal. I won't even ask you to provide the same level of restraint for any living figure on the left (I'm realistic about these things; you can't help yourself when you get into a bluster).

I also invite you to review all of my posts and bring to my attention any negative comments I may have made about ol' GW that are are not directly related to his policies. Take your time, you have a whole year to scrape something up.

I'll even give you a free pass on the ad hominems in your post. Make it last as long as you can. I give you about three days before you can contain your bile no longer.

1. Congratulations on taking the challenge. You'll make the board a better place IMO if you stay true to it.

2. Do you really think that a reverse situation of not talking about Obama is necessary? Particularly in my case? You clearly have me confused with some sort of apologist if so. You needn't read beyond my posts in this very thread to know that's not the case.

Come on, this is theatre of your own choosing. We have to hype the fight. But if you want the discussion on a more elevated level, I will be happy to cooperate. If so, I suggest you review your own posts ON THIS THREAD for invective. I'm happy to let you set the tone, but it goes both ways.

The point is that it is an epidemic among liberal posters to devolve threads back to Bush rather than discuss the actual merits of the current president's actions. And besides the fact that that is just of no constructive value, it's just downright dopey belligerence usually.

The same can be said of Hillary and Obama. I thought that USMB was supposed to be tiered: anything goes in "Politics", topic for a such as "The Economy" are intended to stay on topic and have a modicum of collegiality, and CDZ was to be a safe harbor from mean spiritedness. It didn't turn out that way. When I joined USMB several years ago, the kind of behavior you are deploring was ubiquitous, but 95% was coming from the Right. I used to get regularly negged (like four times in a day) for perfectly innocuous posts for defending ideas, much less public figures.

Now I agree that personal attacks on posters and public figures is detrimental to having good discussions and are way too common. Without triggering an exchange about who did it first, I am happy to agree to try to elevate the discussion.

3. Why would I want to search your year's posts? Do you think I want to engage in an exercise in tedium? I don't even post on political issues on a daily basis anymore. And part of the reason is that it's all the same cheerleader crap that includes the mindless GWB dumbing down of threads.

If you read my posts you would not be making this comment. You tarred the entire left with a broad brush. Some of us have been having the kind of discussions you are asking for, and you should make an effort to discern the target of your ire more finely. Not all of us are Bush bashers. Your OP implied that you were not aware of that fact, hence the reason for my comment. I rarely post on "Politics"; most of my posts are in CDZ, "The Economy". "History", and "Religion".

4.You should learn what an ad hominem attack is. And then you won't come off foolish when you erroneously accuse people of making them. See, what I just did is not an ad hominem attack. You think that all insults are ad hominem attacks when they indeed are not. Ad hominem attacks are the act of making insulting remarks while ignoring the crux of an argument.

I debated in college (I married my debate partner!) and have taught logic classes. I know what an ad hominem is. I enjoy well written insults and the give-and-take of robust debate. If you were familiar with my writing, you would know that. Stop making this too easy for me by playing to your base with ill considered, imprecise, rash statements base on supposition rather than fact and which commit the exact fallacies you are accusing others of. There is little sport in debating an unskillful opponent.

 

[rdean]

Clinton left an economy without a true surplus, and it was on the downslide. Clinton's poor performance set up 9-11 and the Iraq War. Why don't you dumbass liberals admit those truths? You will feel better by fessing up!

Overall, Bush was a good president, although he made mistakes mostly to appease the dimocrats.

Starting at 4:15 he pretty much answers your questions which I suspect you won't watch. There is also part 2 and part 3. He also talks about what he left Bush.

I believed Bush when he said Saddam was a threat. I also believed him when he said Saddam had no WMD's. I believed he lied the first time and not the second. With all the sanctions placed on Iraq, they were no threat. If Bush Jr. wanted to know about Iraq, he should have asked his father, a man who was a WWII hero, had been head of the CIA, vice president and was a REAL president. The apple flew FAR from the tree.

 

[rdean]

We'll stop talking about Bush and his cabinet when they die broke in prison for crimes against humanity.

And when we finally pay off the debt the anti-American bastards left us with.

There's no way we can ever pay off the debt of dead and maimed Americans they caused. No way the countries they trashed can ever come back from their "wars".

So should Obama rot in prison until his debt is paid off?

Debt from what? Fixing GOP fuck-ups? To some, Obama fixing that mess, is a GOOD thing. To the "let him die" crowd, not so much.

 

[freedombecki]

Idiotic challenge, could any conservative not bring up Obama under any circumstances except when mentioned in the OP? Not hardly. Past as well as present presidents and their policies are intertwined into so many issues that such would be impossible. I know many of you would very much like us to forget that many of you supported Bushco with an almost religious zeal but it aint gonna happen, these three letters, GWB, are going to hound conservatives to the grave, I guarantee it.

Oh, I don't think it's too difficult of a challenge. If I make a negative comment about GWB I just have to have a credible explanation for how his policies and actions are proximate to the discussion, and avoid name-calling and personal invective.

Invectives for spreading manure from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli. Whatever is this world coming to!

 

[velvtacheeze]

Clinton left an economy without a true surplus, and it was on the downslide. Clinton's poor performance set up 9-11 and the Iraq War. Why don't you dumbass liberals admit those truths? You will feel better by fessing up!

Overall, Bush was a good president, although he made mistakes mostly to appease the dimocrats.

Bush's Presidency was fraudulent. He then made mistakes that led to 9-11, and then attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9-11. The economy faltered, the war was mismanaged, embassies attacked constantly, leading the Dems to take back Congress as early as the 2006 election.

Think about that. For decades and decades, the GOP never had unified power in DC. Finally they get it, and it's such a mega-clusterf___ that it only lasts a whopping six excruciating years. The GOP's policies just don't work.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Sheesh good luck with this. Republicans are still bringing up Jimmy Carter

 

[healthmyths]

We'll stop talking about Bush and his cabinet when they die broke in prison for crimes against humanity.

And when we finally pay off the debt the anti-American bastards left us with.

There's no way we can ever pay off the debt of dead and maimed Americans they caused. No way the countries they trashed can ever come back from their "wars".

So you would have preferred the 28 million Iraqis continued to live like this?:

Ahmad was Uday's chief executioner. Last week, as Iraqis celebrated the death of his former boss and his equally savage younger brother Qusay, he nervously revealed a hideous story. His instructions that day in 1999 were to arrest the two 19-year-olds on the campus of Baghdad's Academy of Fine Arts and deliver them at Radwaniyah. On arrival at the sprawling compound, he was directed to a farm where he found a large cage. Inside, two lions waited. They belonged to Uday. Guards took the two young men from the car and opened the cage door. One of the victims collapsed in terror as they were dragged, screaming and shouting, to meet their fate. Ahmad watched as the students frantically looked for a way of escape. There was none. The lions pounced. 'I saw the head of the first student literally come off his body with the first bite and then had to stand and watch the animals devour the two young men. By the time they were finished there was little left but for the bones and bits and pieces of unwanted flesh,' he recalled last week."
-- Sunday Times, London, July 27, 2003

"Ali would then draw out a pair of pliers and a sharp knife. Gripping the tongue with pliers, he would slice it up with the knife, tossing severed pieces into the street. "'Those punished were too terrified to move, even though they knew I was about to chop off their tongue,' said Ali in his matter-of-fact voice. 'They would just stand there, often praying and calling out for Saddam and Allah to spare them. By then it was too late.

"'I would read them out the verdict and cut off their tongue without any form of anaesthetic. There was always a lot of blood. Some offenders passed out. Others screamed in pain. They would then be given basic medical assistance in an ambulance which would always come with us on such punishment runs. Then they would be thrown in jail.'"

-- Fedayeen Saddam member interviewed in The Sunday Times (London), April 20, 2003
Saddam has reduced his people to abject poverty.
He wiped out families, villages, cities and cultures, and drove four million people into exile.
He killed between 100,000 and 200,000 Kurds. He killed as many as 300,000 Shiites in the uprising after the Persian Gulf war.
He killed or displaced 200,000 of the 250,000 marsh Arabs who had created a unique, centuries-old culture in the south. He drained the marshes, an environmental treasure, and turned them into a desert.

In a recent Frontline documentary, a woman who fled Iraq recounted how she and others had been forced
to witness the public beheadings of 15 women who had been rounded up for prostitution and other crimes against the state. One of the women was a doctor who had been misreported as speaking against the regime.
"They put her head in a trash can," she said.

It was a blunder to keep 2,649,000 children from starvation??
In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com
Using 115,000 children starved a year because Saddam refused to certify WMD destruction -- From 1995 to 2013 is 18 years!
If Saddam was still in power i.e. Bush's Liberation of Iraq NEVER OCCURRED,
from 1990 to 2013 OVER 2,649,000 children would have STARVED because of Saddam!

3) "So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam, How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War? - J.J. Gould - The Atlantic


So you would like to see all the above today???

 

[bripat9643]

And when we finally pay off the debt the anti-American bastards left us with.

There's no way we can ever pay off the debt of dead and maimed Americans they caused. No way the countries they trashed can ever come back from their "wars".

So should Obama rot in prison until his debt is paid off?

Debt from what? Fixing GOP fuck-ups? To some, Obama fixing that mess, is a GOOD thing. To the "let him die" crowd, not so much.

I knew you would blame Booooosssshhhh. How quaint. Perhaps someday you may have an original thought of your own.

 

[Indeependent]

So should Obama rot in prison until his debt is paid off?

Debt from what? Fixing GOP fuck-ups? To some, Obama fixing that mess, is a GOOD thing. To the "let him die" crowd, not so much.

I knew you would blame Booooosssshhhh. How quaint. Perhaps someday you may have an original thought of your own.

Do you blame Bush at all?

 

[g5000]

Which liberal dares to go a year without turning political threads into a George W Bush bashing thread and to actually stick to the OP?

Come on. Who has the guts? I f'ing dare you to actually have to regard OPs and not devolve everything to GWB jack-off sessions.

Who's signing up for a year?

That means you don't change the subject to GWB. It means you don't even regard GWB when someone else brings it up (unless that's part of the OP). Who has the guts? What hardcore USMB propogandist, I mean liberal has the guts to give up his diet of GWB butter?

Trying to poision the well, eh? Faux righties like yourself swallowed yards of Bush's cock for eight years and now you hate to have your hypocrisy thrown up in your face.



President Bush is an excellent measuring stick for hypocrisy. A lot of hypocrites put up with Bush's totalitarian ways. Not only put up with them, they actually defended them.

Bush signed HUNDREDS of Executive Orders. No complaints from the likes of you.

When Bush was spying on tens of millions of Americans, the faux Right yawned or defended his actions. "We haven't had a terrorist attack on US soil since he started doing all this stuff!"

When Bush was detaining US citizens indefinitely without trial, the faux Right stood by him.

When Republicans were spending like drunken sailors in a whorehouse, the faux Right cheered them on.

When Bush created a massive new cabinet level police state Department, the crowd cheered.

When the Feds were abusing National Security Letters by the thousands, you didn't give a shit.

When Bush was attaching signing statements to laws passed by Congress saying he was not going to obey those laws, and when his Administration actually did violate those laws, YOU DID NOT GIVE A SHIT!

When Bush created a TRILLION DOLLAR medical entitlement program, without even trying to pay for it, just to get the senior vote in 2004, where were the universal and ubiquitous screams of outrage at such prolific costs from the Right?

Who lost guns in Mexico? Oh yeah. Bush did.

Who had TEN diplomatic missions attacked? Oh yeah. Bush did. And yet none of you clowns can tell us what he was doing before, during, or after any of those attacks. You can't even tell us how many Americans were killed. BECAUSE YOU DID NOT GIVE A SHIT!



That all magically changed on January 20, 2009. They hypocrites suddenly discovered the Constitution that was there all along! Hmmmmm...

And then the dumbasses promptly demonstrated their ignorance of it, and still do to this day.


And now you don't want to be REMINDED of your astounding hypocrisy any more? BWA-HAA-HAA-HAAAAAAAAAAA!