Bush Did It, Reagan Did It, What Does it Matter?

[The Rabbi]

About half the posts by libs in response to any criticism of Obama consist of "BUt Bush did it!" Or "But Reagan" Or, But Abraham Lincoln!
Naturally all of those comparisons are false equivalents and there are always significant differences between whatever Bush etc did and what Obama did.
But since liberals consistently rate Bush as the worst president ever, what kind of defense of Obama is it to say he is acting just like Bush?
Further, something is either right or wrong on the merits. If Bush robbed banks, would that make robbing banks OK? So why this constant moral equivalence game?

 

[dilloduck]

About half the posts by libs in response to any criticism of Obama consist of "BUt Bush did it!" Or "But Reagan" Or, But Abraham Lincoln!
Naturally all of those comparisons are false equivalents and there are always significant differences between whatever Bush etc did and what Obama did.
But since liberals consistently rate Bush as the worst president ever, what kind of defense of Obama is it to say he is acting just like Bush?
Further, something is either right or wrong on the merits. If Bush robbed banks, would that make robbing banks OK? So why this constant moral equivalence game?

It's all they have besides lying and name calling.

 

[PredFan]

About half the posts by libs in response to any criticism of Obama consist of "BUt Bush did it!" Or "But Reagan" Or, But Abraham Lincoln!
Naturally all of those comparisons are false equivalents and there are always significant differences between whatever Bush etc did and what Obama did.
But since liberals consistently rate Bush as the worst president ever, what kind of defense of Obama is it to say he is acting just like Bush?
Further, something is either right or wrong on the merits. If Bush robbed banks, would that make robbing banks OK? So why this constant moral equivalence game?

It's all they have besides lying and name calling.

This.

 

[NoNukes]

About half the posts by libs in response to any criticism of Obama consist of "BUt Bush did it!" Or "But Reagan" Or, But Abraham Lincoln!
Naturally all of those comparisons are false equivalents and there are always significant differences between whatever Bush etc did and what Obama did.
But since liberals consistently rate Bush as the worst president ever, what kind of defense of Obama is it to say he is acting just like Bush?
Further, something is either right or wrong on the merits. If Bush robbed banks, would that make robbing banks OK? So why this constant moral equivalence game?

People who live in glass houses..,

It is OK if your people did it, just do not let a Democrat do it or we will crucify him.

 

[occupied]

It matters because it's a clear illustration of the narrow political motives behind the republican response and their disinterest in any conclusion that does not result in willful criminal negligence and impeachment hearings, you understand now? It's the political motive coupled with the foregone conclusion of guilt by all involved that makes this thing a dirty political circus rather than anything honorable or righteous.

 

[eagle1462010]

Obama.

Leads by Excuses and Lies........................

Real Leader..............

In a Liberal World.

 

[eagle1462010]

21 Lies Obama has Told you Directly to your FaceEndAllDisease.com

Obama Lie #21

Oath of Office (January 20th, 2009)
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

 

[Indeependent]

Republicans claim to use logic, have Godly morals and are honest.
What happens when one discovers neither party can make those claims?
It is disheartening.

 

[eagle1462010]

Republicans claim to use logic, have Godly morals and are honest.
What happens when one discovers neither party can make those claims?
It is disheartening.

It is a tactic used on a daily basis by libs..............Every day.

Obama is a failure because of they did it too...............

 

[The T]

21 Lies Obama has Told you Directly to your FaceEndAllDisease.com

Obama Lie #21

Oath of Office (January 20th, 2009)
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

 

[The T]

Republicans claim to use logic, have Godly morals and are honest.
What happens when one discovers neither party can make those claims?
It is disheartening.

It is a tactic used on a daily basis by libs..............Every day.

Obama is a failure because of they did it too...............

It's a tactic usually reserved for use by petulant children.

 

[The Rabbi]

It matters because it's a clear illustration of the narrow political motives behind the republican response and their disinterest in any conclusion that does not result in willful criminal negligence and impeachment hearings, you understand now? It's the political motive coupled with the foregone conclusion of guilt by all involved that makes this thing a dirty political circus rather than anything honorable or righteous.

How does that even answer my questions?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It matters because it's a clear illustration of the narrow political motives behind the republican response and their disinterest in any conclusion that does not result in willful criminal negligence and impeachment hearings, you understand now? It's the political motive coupled with the foregone conclusion of guilt by all involved that makes this thing a dirty political circus rather than anything honorable or righteous.

How does that even answer my questions?

It won't matter when all the people like you stop making posts trying to portray Obama supporters as hypocritical because of some other stance they took.

 

[occupied]

It matters because it's a clear illustration of the narrow political motives behind the republican response and their disinterest in any conclusion that does not result in willful criminal negligence and impeachment hearings, you understand now? It's the political motive coupled with the foregone conclusion of guilt by all involved that makes this thing a dirty political circus rather than anything honorable or righteous.

How does that even answer my questions?

It's all the answer you need to understand any part of anyone's opinion on this matter. The republican witch hunt/fishing expedition on this matter should be embarrassing to anyone who values truth and justice but instead we are dealing with people who think the ends justify the means. If conservatives think this is such an awesome thing to pursue towards their foregone conclusion of guilt then it is their place to defend it against charges of being a purely political stunt in light of the free pass they have afforded their own presidents in similar circumstances. You want this whole thing to be about Obama but it is going to end up being about shitty republican tactics whether you like it or not.

 

[The Rabbi]

It matters because it's a clear illustration of the narrow political motives behind the republican response and their disinterest in any conclusion that does not result in willful criminal negligence and impeachment hearings, you understand now? It's the political motive coupled with the foregone conclusion of guilt by all involved that makes this thing a dirty political circus rather than anything honorable or righteous.

How does that even answer my questions?

It won't matter when all the people like you stop making posts trying to portray Obama supporters as hypocritical because of some other stance they took.

I'm not doing that. They arent hypocrites (OK, they're that too, but not my point here). They're clueless. What difference does it make if Obama screws up that somene else screwed up too?

 

[NYcarbineer]

About half the posts by libs in response to any criticism of Obama consist of "BUt Bush did it!" Or "But Reagan" Or, But Abraham Lincoln!
Naturally all of those comparisons are false equivalents and there are always significant differences between whatever Bush etc did and what Obama did.
But since liberals consistently rate Bush as the worst president ever, what kind of defense of Obama is it to say he is acting just like Bush?
Further, something is either right or wrong on the merits. If Bush robbed banks, would that make robbing banks OK? So why this constant moral equivalence game?

You mean this sort of thing?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/9066945-post8.html

 

[The T]

How does that even answer my questions?

It won't matter when all the people like you stop making posts trying to portray Obama supporters as hypocritical because of some other stance they took.

I'm not doing that. They arent hypocrites (OK, they're that too, but not my point here). They're clueless. What difference does it make if Obama screws up that somene else screwed up too?

Wrong is wrong regardless who does it.

 

[The Rabbi]

It matters because it's a clear illustration of the narrow political motives behind the republican response and their disinterest in any conclusion that does not result in willful criminal negligence and impeachment hearings, you understand now? It's the political motive coupled with the foregone conclusion of guilt by all involved that makes this thing a dirty political circus rather than anything honorable or righteous.

How does that even answer my questions?

It's all the answer you need to understand any part of anyone's opinion on this matter. The republican witch hunt/fishing expedition on this matter should be embarrassing to anyone who values truth and justice but instead we are dealing with people who think the ends justify the means. If conservatives think this is such an awesome thing to pursue towards their foregone conclusion of guilt then it is their place to defend it against charges of being a purely political stunt in light of the free pass they have afforded their own presidents in similar circumstances. You want this whole thing to be about Obama but it is going to end up being about shitty republican tactics whether you like it or not.

You have this confused with one of the many Benghazi threads. This isn't really about that.

You didnt answer my question. How does pointing out that Bush or Reagan or whatever did what Obama did make Obama's mistakes any better?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How does that even answer my questions?

It won't matter when all the people like you stop making posts trying to portray Obama supporters as hypocritical because of some other stance they took.

I'm not doing that. They arent hypocrites (OK, they're that too, but not my point here). They're clueless. What difference does it make if Obama screws up that somene else screwed up too?

Your premise is false because it implies that no other arguments are being made.

 

[Zoom-boing]

About half the posts by libs in response to any criticism of Obama consist of "BUt Bush did it!" Or "But Reagan" Or, But Abraham Lincoln!
Naturally all of those comparisons are false equivalents and there are always significant differences between whatever Bush etc did and what Obama did.
But since liberals consistently rate Bush as the worst president ever, what kind of defense of Obama is it to say he is acting just like Bush?
Further, something is either right or wrong on the merits. If Bush robbed banks, would that make robbing banks OK? So why this constant moral equivalence game?

If Bush robbed a bank he would be tarred and feathered, raked over the coals via the Ds and media.

If obama robbed a bank he would be doing it in the name of social justice and would therefore be a hailed by the Ds and media as a great guy, o-bam-a!, free pass.

If either robbed a bank they should be tossed and thrown in jail.