Dubya's 47 Czars.

Huh? Bush was getting hammered by the democrats ever since he stole the first election, not to mention getting really hammered by the democrats after he stole the second election.

Hammered? Revisionist history much?

The Democrats in Congress voted with Bush constantly. If they were objecting to it, they really weren't showing it.

Now if you say Democrats as in the people, some of them. However, those are the same people who were laughed at for the first four years. Then once 2005 rolled around, those crazies suddenly didn't seem so crazy. :eusa_eh:

Yeah hammered...I didn't studder in my typing. Just because they voted with him doesn't mean they weren't hammering at the same time.....get real The dems were talking him down every step of the way.
Always in denial...much?
 
If there was anything wrong with the Bush's Czars picks...I'm sure the democrats would have been on that like white on Rice (No it's not a reference about Condoleezza). From what you and I know, there were no undesirables at that level.

Right, the same Democrats who voted with Bush until the majority finally had enough of his antics? The same Democrats who voted for the Patriot Act and Iraq War? The same Democrats who basically stood by and did nothing for six years while Bush ran rampant throughout Washington. Those Democrats? :lol:

Those Democrats are like Alan Colmes when he was paired with Hannity. Those Democrats are the same people who if they did actually try to help you fix your car for example, would probably end up setting it on fire. As opposed to the Republicans who slow down, laugh at you, flip you off, and then drive off while getting you covered with mud.

Huh? Bush was getting hammered by the democrats ever since he stole the first election, not to mention getting really hammered by the democrats after he stole the second election.

Yes, they would have griped and moaned but nothing but silence on bushs czars from the lefties. Seems they were not objecting to bushs czars...until now. Bushie had no commies, no eugenicists, no other assorted racists or half wits who want lawyers for cockroaches. Hell, the leftoids have not even mentioned anything about the bloating of government, oh wait, they want that bloated weight of government on the backs of the people in their medival passion to be peasants.
 
Whenever a democratic President is popular the extremest right rises up and stomps and cries about everything. And if he is half black, well that makes it worse.Past Presidents would
never have been scrutinized like Obama has. Name one?
WoW! Impressive! You played the intellectually bereft and sloppy, lazy "right wing extremist" card and the race card all in one paragraph! You parrot/sock puppets are tryna get CREATIVE!!!:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:
 
3. "You didnt argue when Bush did it" is both a good and bad argument

It's a terrible argument if you're addressing the validity of what Obama's doing.
Its a GREAT argument if you're exposing the hypocrisy of the person you're arguing against.
saying Bush did it too is only good for exposing hypocrisy
Wrong again. There can BE no hypocrisy exposed where none exists. It's an invention, a boogieman, a strawman. He says there is hypocrisy therefore it exists? No. Without backing that assertion, he has NO case, and NO argument.

"Mom the other kid did it too" isn't a valid argument for anything. Not for defending Obama, and not for exposing hypocrisy. It's intellectually bereft, sloppy and lazy. It works only on an emotional level, and only for those who don't use their noggin.
 
Yeah hammered...I didn't studder in my typing. Just because they voted with him doesn't mean they weren't hammering at the same time.....get real The dems were talking him down every step of the way.
Always in denial...much?

Because their faux outrage in those situations similar to this situation with Joe Wilson really matters? What really matters is ACTION, and when rubber hit the road they voted with Bush. THAT is what matters. So if you're honestly going to sit there and for once say that the Democrats speaking out something actually meant anything then I call bullshit.
 
3. "You didnt argue when Bush did it" is both a good and bad argument

It's a terrible argument if you're addressing the validity of what Obama's doing.
Its a GREAT argument if you're exposing the hypocrisy of the person you're arguing against.
saying Bush did it too is only good for exposing hypocrisy
Wrong again. There can BE no hypocrisy exposed where none exists. It's an invention, a boogieman, a strawman. He says there is hypocrisy therefore it exists? No. Without backing that assertion, he has NO case, and NO argument.

"Mom the other kid did it too" isn't a valid argument for anything. Not for defending Obama, and not for exposing hypocrisy. It's intellectually bereft, sloppy and lazy. It works only on an emotional level, and only for those who don't use their noggin.

Huh i didn't think of it like that.

Darn it can i still edit my last post :lol:
 
Yeah hammered...I didn't studder in my typing. Just because they voted with him doesn't mean they weren't hammering at the same time.....get real The dems were talking him down every step of the way.
Always in denial...much?

Because their faux outrage in those situations similar to this situation with Joe Wilson really matters? What really matters is ACTION, and when rubber hit the road they voted with Bush. THAT is what matters. So if you're honestly going to sit there and for once say that the Democrats speaking out something actually meant anything then I call bullshit.

Call it what you want....call it a tomato, for all I care.
My original post on this subject was that if there had been any skeletons in the closet with Bush's picks as czar's, the dems would have vetted that in a heartbeat. Anything else you want to bring to me on this subject will be bullshit.
 

Forum List

Back
Top