- Thread starter
- #21
Predictably, and sadly, many of you seem to have missed the point and continued right on to the step 3 I outlined.
Right now, Republicans and conservatives are far more guilty of this because a Democrat is in office and because Obama is continuing many of Bush's policies.
There were less similarities between Bush and Clinton, but if for instance you opposed NAFTA under Clinton and didn't trot it out to criticize Bush, your opinion on the subject is worthless. If Bush had an extramarital affair come to light and the Democrats who stood behind Clinton hammered him on it, they'd be full of it.
On the other side of things, there are now lots of Democrats who blindly support Obama policies that are indistinguishable from Bush policies simply because it's "their guy." But while those people are common, I don't see them on these boards like I do their conservative counterparts, which is they're not who I highlighted even though I made it clear this happens on both sides among the "team players" who lack any real political convictions.
No. See, IF it were the case that saying "Bush did that too or did it even more!" was an excuse used to justify an Obama action or policy, then what you're saying would be true. It would be an "Appeal to Mom" defense with all the logical fallacies that includes. My point was that that's NOT the case. It's not saying Obama's behavior is okay because Bush did it, but instead one doesn't have the right to criticize it if they were mum when Bush did the same. It's an argument against hypocritical, disingenuous individuals playing the partisan game, not for hypocritical actions by politicians.
It's not infantile for the reasons outlined above, but it is an argument against Obama. Any honest or self-respecting liberal who criticizes Bush on detention policy or the wars or state secrets, on and on, would criticize Obama just as severely if not moreso. I'm pro or anti-policies based on their effects, I could give a shit who implements them.
But I do. I've followed politics closely for many years and was well-aware during the Bush years of the lockstep support he enjoyed among the vast, vast majority of conservatives during much of his presidency and especially his first term even when he enacted decidedly unconservative policies. The significant majority of Republicans who bash nearly every move Obama makes defended nearly every thing Bush did for years, even where the two take the same approach. The history we're talking about is too recent to now pretend there was ample conservative criticism of Bush from 2001-2006. There just wasn't.
I'm not sure where you get the impression I think this is a strikingly original or revelatory thought. It's certainly not regurgitated from anything coming from a White House I disdain. Pretty please, with sugar on top, try to support that claim by providing evidence of any White House entity promoting this argument.
Rather, it's my observation of a common logical fallacy and poor debate tactic, that when one's hypocrisy is pointed out, they respond by calling their accuser a cry baby or willfully pretend the other guy is justifying bad policy by making it clear they're just in no position to attack such a policy and maintain integrity.
Right now, Republicans and conservatives are far more guilty of this because a Democrat is in office and because Obama is continuing many of Bush's policies.
There were less similarities between Bush and Clinton, but if for instance you opposed NAFTA under Clinton and didn't trot it out to criticize Bush, your opinion on the subject is worthless. If Bush had an extramarital affair come to light and the Democrats who stood behind Clinton hammered him on it, they'd be full of it.
On the other side of things, there are now lots of Democrats who blindly support Obama policies that are indistinguishable from Bush policies simply because it's "their guy." But while those people are common, I don't see them on these boards like I do their conservative counterparts, which is they're not who I highlighted even though I made it clear this happens on both sides among the "team players" who lack any real political convictions.
This is "Appeal to Mom" which is a logical fallacy. It's basically "Mom, the other kid did it too" and it's never worked, even on Mom. It's in the "bandwagon" category of logical fallacies, and most mature people stop using it around age eight, when Mom raps them in the mouth for trying it.2.) A liberal or Democrat points out that Bush did the same thing
No. See, IF it were the case that saying "Bush did that too or did it even more!" was an excuse used to justify an Obama action or policy, then what you're saying would be true. It would be an "Appeal to Mom" defense with all the logical fallacies that includes. My point was that that's NOT the case. It's not saying Obama's behavior is okay because Bush did it, but instead one doesn't have the right to criticize it if they were mum when Bush did the same. It's an argument against hypocritical, disingenuous individuals playing the partisan game, not for hypocritical actions by politicians.
This infantile defensive/deflection tactic is actually an argument against Obama, since there was supposed to be change there should be no comparisons in existence to anything Booooosh did or said. If there is, where's the change we voted for?
It's not infantile for the reasons outlined above, but it is an argument against Obama. Any honest or self-respecting liberal who criticizes Bush on detention policy or the wars or state secrets, on and on, would criticize Obama just as severely if not moreso. I'm pro or anti-policies based on their effects, I could give a shit who implements them.
You're also making assumptions of facts not in evidence for your "hypocrisy" case, with the broad brush "cons never had a problem with Boooosh doing that" when in fact, you don't know what they had a problem with. This is unless you have a massive database of all "cons" positively self-identified, and ALL on record as not having ANY gripes about things Boooosh said/did.
The fact is, you do not know, therefore you assume. Another weak debate tactic.
But I do. I've followed politics closely for many years and was well-aware during the Bush years of the lockstep support he enjoyed among the vast, vast majority of conservatives during much of his presidency and especially his first term even when he enacted decidedly unconservative policies. The significant majority of Republicans who bash nearly every move Obama makes defended nearly every thing Bush did for years, even where the two take the same approach. The history we're talking about is too recent to now pretend there was ample conservative criticism of Bush from 2001-2006. There just wasn't.
You also seem to think your OP here represents some kind of revelation, or light-bulb moment, something representing original thought, when in fact it's old regurgitated WH kool-aid which has been indiscriminately imbibed and bazooka barfed for almost eight months, at least.
In a word, fail. Or flail. Or both.
I'm not sure where you get the impression I think this is a strikingly original or revelatory thought. It's certainly not regurgitated from anything coming from a White House I disdain. Pretty please, with sugar on top, try to support that claim by providing evidence of any White House entity promoting this argument.
Rather, it's my observation of a common logical fallacy and poor debate tactic, that when one's hypocrisy is pointed out, they respond by calling their accuser a cry baby or willfully pretend the other guy is justifying bad policy by making it clear they're just in no position to attack such a policy and maintain integrity.
Last edited: