Take The No (GW) Bush Challenge

[occupied]

Pretty good troll gasbag but I am not going to voluntarily submit to any limits on my speech any more than you would, and neither is anyone else for that matter. If it pisses you off to hear the name of your former messiah then all is well, maybe next time you will think before putting your faith in a terribly flawed, tough talking asshole trying to channel the ghost of Reagan.

 

[Indeependent]

By comparison

SO people don't have a right to speak their minds or to defend themselves.

I bet your hero is that kid that knocks people out. FOR NO REASON.

This thread is not about getting into Bush vs. Obama (Or any other political issue). It is a thread for liberal to accept the challenge or discuss the practical merits of taking the challenge without political preaching.

So just like FoxNews and CTR you want to "discuss" sound-bites in a void.
Of course life has no context...
How Conservative of you.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Pretty good troll gasbag but I am not going to voluntarily submit to any limits on my speech any more than you would, and neither is anyone else for that matter. If it pisses you off to hear the name of your former messiah then all is well, maybe next time you will think before putting your faith in a terribly flawed, tough talking asshole trying to channel the ghost of Reagan.

Nobody says you have to sacrifice anything, deuche-bag. But if your against the challenge and want nothing to do with it, then you're the one 'trolling' at this point. Especially, since I have ******* SAID MULTIPLE ******* TIMES IN THIS ******* THREAD ALONE THAT GWB IS NOT MY HERO AND THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS ABOUT. SO **** OFF AND EAT MY ASS TOO.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

SO people don't have a right to speak their minds or to defend themselves.

I bet your hero is that kid that knocks people out. FOR NO REASON.

This thread is not about getting into Bush vs. Obama (Or any other political issue). It is a thread for liberal to accept the challenge or discuss the practical merits of taking the challenge without political preaching.

So just like FoxNews and CTR you want to "discuss" sound-bites in a void.
Of course life has no context...
How Conservative of you.

I don't give two shits what stupid spin you want to put on it. Liberal/Conservative. I've said from the outset that this thread is about the challenge and the merits of the challenge, not about any political posturing. If you don't like that, you're free to leave. And you'll still have your free speech, asshole.

 

[francoHFW]

The challege is idiotic....don't hater dupes ever learn...and nothing in the GOP has changed, except the volume of the dupes....a disaster...

 

[Indeependent]

This thread is not about getting into Bush vs. Obama (Or any other political issue). It is a thread for liberal to accept the challenge or discuss the practical merits of taking the challenge without political preaching.

So just like FoxNews and CTR you want to "discuss" sound-bites in a void.
Of course life has no context...
How Conservative of you.

I don't give two shits what stupid spin you want to put on it. Liberal/Conservative. I've said from the outset that this thread is about the challenge and the merits of the challenge, not about any political posturing. If you don't like that, you're free to leave. And you'll still have your free speech, asshole.

No! I've been insulted by an IP Address! Whatever shall I do?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

So just like FoxNews and CTR you want to "discuss" sound-bites in a void.
Of course life has no context...
How Conservative of you.

I don't give two shits what stupid spin you want to put on it. Liberal/Conservative. I've said from the outset that this thread is about the challenge and the merits of the challenge, not about any political posturing. If you don't like that, you're free to leave. And you'll still have your free speech, asshole.

No! I've been insulted by an IP Address! Whatever shall I do?

Your point might make sense if you hadn't of hurled the first insult.

 

[zeke]

Pretty good troll gasbag but I am not going to voluntarily submit to any limits on my speech any more than you would, and neither is anyone else for that matter. If it pisses you off to hear the name of your former messiah then all is well, maybe next time you will think before putting your faith in a terribly flawed, tough talking asshole trying to channel the ghost of Reagan.

Nobody says you have to sacrifice anything, deuche-bag. But if your against the challenge and want nothing to do with it, then you're the one 'trolling' at this point. Especially, since I have ******* SAID MULTIPLE ******* TIMES IN THIS ******* THREAD ALONE THAT GWB IS NOT MY HERO AND THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS ABOUT. SO **** OFF AND EAT MY ASS TOO.

This is what passes as a "successful" right wingers thread.

Hey asshole, other than Obamacare, of which I am no longer a fan, EVERY ******* decision Obama had to make in the beginning of his Presidency was the direct result of the actions of the previous administration. You can't get past that. And the beginning decisions set the tone for his terms. The "off budget" wars that exploded the debt, the drug program that exploded the debt, the housing collapse the tax breaks, the economy failing in general. All that happened DURING the Bush period.

And Obama has been addressing those issues since elected. And trying to deal with a group of politicians bent on his destruction.

The two Presidents will forever be linked.

One by the mess he created.

One by the mess he created trying to fix the others mess.

Just the way it is.

So quit trash talking and think of a better thread topic. This one sucks.

 

[Indeependent]

I don't give two shits what stupid spin you want to put on it. Liberal/Conservative. I've said from the outset that this thread is about the challenge and the merits of the challenge, not about any political posturing. If you don't like that, you're free to leave. And you'll still have your free speech, asshole.

No! I've been insulted by an IP Address! Whatever shall I do?

Your point might make sense if you hadn't of hurled the first insult.

I always consider the request to have "no context" conversations an insult.

 

[oldfart]

I haven't said anything about personal attacks. That has nothing to do with this challenge. This challenge isn't about being so high minded or classy. It's just one change to get away from the same derailment tactics; and not even forever; just for a year. My hope is that posters will start to actually think about their arguments more, rather than just heading for the lowest common denominator of argument they can find. If nothing else, USMB will be just a little bit nicer, imo.

My point was that attacks on individuals rather than ideas is a "derailment tactic" which also deters others from joining a discussion and is detrimental to the purpose of open debate. This includes name-calling that is not related to the subject at hand. That's why I suggested you review your own posts; you do a lot of it, including in this thread. You have been called on this by other posters and your response has been to tell critics to...

**** OFF AND EAT MY ASS TOO.

I am speechless in the face of such eloquence.

By the way, this thread doesn't seem to be working out for you. Perhaps you never expected an answer and therefore were at a loss of how to respond. Maybe it has something to do with you trying to the thread narrowly focused on your complaint and not engaging people like me in the fora we post in. Exactly how do you propose to determine if I am abiding by the conditions of your challenge when you ignore my posting history? Do I need to start posting threads on economic policy in Politics? Will you start reading threads in The Economy? How did you think mechanically this would work out; I frankly don't have a clue. It seems this project was a one-off and not thought out.

There's exceptions to everything, but the left has pretty well tarred themselves with their constant propaganda on USMB. I don't see you ever condemning Rdean or Sallows propaganda either. So, you shouldn't think you're so far above the fray.

I do not comment in most cases about other posters unless I am involved in the discussion. You would be wise to do the same. A pissing contest about who on the left I have denounced versus who on the right you have denounced would be not only incredibly boring, but totally devoid of meaning. This is a polite way of saying your comment is a rather rancid example of a "red herring", a term which I assume you can look up if you do not know.

As for your last sentence, you are making yourself look infantile and ridiculous by commenting on my posting behavior ("above the fray") which you took such pride in explaining earlier you were unaware of and would not look up. The implication that anyone willing to debate you must by definition have "tarred themselves with their constant propaganda" and cannot acquit themselves honourably in a debate is a rather striking example of hubris, which I also believe you have the resources to look up. What you have done in the above section is an excellent example of an ad hominem by any proper definition and what I am doing is using sarcasm to expose the illogic and weakness of your position, which is not an ad hominem. Thank you for providing such an excellent example to demonstrate my case. Class dismissed.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Pretty good troll gasbag but I am not going to voluntarily submit to any limits on my speech any more than you would, and neither is anyone else for that matter. If it pisses you off to hear the name of your former messiah then all is well, maybe next time you will think before putting your faith in a terribly flawed, tough talking asshole trying to channel the ghost of Reagan.

Nobody says you have to sacrifice anything, deuche-bag. But if your against the challenge and want nothing to do with it, then you're the one 'trolling' at this point. Especially, since I have ******* SAID MULTIPLE ******* TIMES IN THIS ******* THREAD ALONE THAT GWB IS NOT MY HERO AND THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS ABOUT. SO **** OFF AND EAT MY ASS TOO.

This is what passes as a "successful" right wingers thread.

Hey asshole, other than Obamacare, of which I am no longer a fan, EVERY ******* decision Obama had to make in the beginning of his Presidency was the direct result of the actions of the previous administration. You can't get past that. And the beginning decisions set the tone for his terms. The "off budget" wars that exploded the debt, the drug program that exploded the debt, the housing collapse the tax breaks, the economy failing in general. All that happened DURING the Bush period.

And Obama has been addressing those issues since elected. And trying to deal with a group of politicians bent on his destruction.

The two Presidents will forever be linked.

One by the mess he created.

One by the mess he created trying to fix the others mess.

Just the way it is.

So quit trash talking and think of a better thread topic. This one sucks.

That's pure and utter bull shit. Not that there's not carry-over. But to pretend that Obama was so hamstrung by GWB is nonsense. Both admins are virtually the same with a few notable differences. It's been business as usual. But again, my point is not to get into this. My point is that it is very doable to debate the merits or lack of merits of Obama's actions without digging into stuff that is five years old or more now. You have to turn a page at some point. Looking for the same tired excuses is lame.

But again, if you think you can't do that. Fine, I can respect that. This is a challenge for those who think they can debate non-direct-GWB political matters without regarding GWB and thereby possibly take a more honest look at the issue(s).

And if you don't like the thread, then gtfo. It has nothing to do with trash talking. Some of us are simply trying to do something and we don't need the BS from the peanut gallery to do so.

 

[oldfart]

This is a challenge for those who think they can debate non-direct-GWB political matters without regarding GWB and thereby possibly take a more honest look at the issue(s).

Where have my manners gone? It occurs to me that I have not invited you to join one of our threads to determine if it is indeed Bush-free. Consider this your invitation.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...terest-rates-should-be-near-zero-forever.html

And if you don't like the thread, then gtfo. It has nothing to do with trash talking. Some of us are simply trying to do something and we don't need the BS from the peanut gallery to do so.

Again, eloquent. And a fine example of raising the level of discussion.

 

[Indeependent]

Nobody says you have to sacrifice anything, deuche-bag. But if your against the challenge and want nothing to do with it, then you're the one 'trolling' at this point. Especially, since I have ******* SAID MULTIPLE ******* TIMES IN THIS ******* THREAD ALONE THAT GWB IS NOT MY HERO AND THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS ABOUT. SO **** OFF AND EAT MY ASS TOO.

This is what passes as a "successful" right wingers thread.

Hey asshole, other than Obamacare, of which I am no longer a fan, EVERY ******* decision Obama had to make in the beginning of his Presidency was the direct result of the actions of the previous administration. You can't get past that. And the beginning decisions set the tone for his terms. The "off budget" wars that exploded the debt, the drug program that exploded the debt, the housing collapse the tax breaks, the economy failing in general. All that happened DURING the Bush period.

And Obama has been addressing those issues since elected. And trying to deal with a group of politicians bent on his destruction.

The two Presidents will forever be linked.

One by the mess he created.

One by the mess he created trying to fix the others mess.

Just the way it is.

So quit trash talking and think of a better thread topic. This one sucks.

But again, if you think you can't do that. Fine, I can respect that. This is a challenge for those who think they can debate non-direct-GWB political matters without regarding GWB and thereby possibly take a more honest look at the issue(s).

Then the discussion should actually be about the fools who vote for the same clowns time and again.
Obama is SAME 'OL, but that is the current pattern due to our adherence to rules set down by the WTO and our large business sell-out to the global economy.

 

[rdean]

A lot of the Bush policies that the far left railed against were up held by their messiah, Obama.

So not sure what policies the far left are against (from the Bush years) that Obama has not continued.

Again; this thread is not about comparing Obama and GWB or even discussing GWB at all for that matter.

It's just a place for liberals to sign-up for a challenge and see if they can regard the issues without devolving threads to GWB crap. Most of them don't have the guts to do it. But a few seemingly do. And I applaud them if they live up to it.

Why so one sided?

 

[Mojo2]

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 like the idea but who cares that much to police those Libs?

And the worst offenders (whoever they may be, I have no idea of their identities) would never sign up for such a challenge.

 

[rdean]

By comparison

Wow, those are some "heroes"

 

[Indeependent]

A lot of the Bush policies that the far left railed against were up held by their messiah, Obama.

So not sure what policies the far left are against (from the Bush years) that Obama has not continued.

Again; this thread is not about comparing Obama and GWB or even discussing GWB at all for that matter.

It's just a place for liberals to sign-up for a challenge and see if they can regard the issues without devolving threads to GWB crap. Most of them don't have the guts to do it. But a few seemingly do. And I applaud them if they live up to it.

Why so one sided?

What has Obama done to even out our lop sided, anti-US worker foreign trade policies?
He talks like he "cares" and makes even more anti-US worker foreign trade policies.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Again; this thread is not about comparing Obama and GWB or even discussing GWB at all for that matter.

It's just a place for liberals to sign-up for a challenge and see if they can regard the issues without devolving threads to GWB crap. Most of them don't have the guts to do it. But a few seemingly do. And I applaud them if they live up to it.

Why so one sided?

What has Obama done to even out our lop sided, anti-US worker foreign trade policies?
He talks like he "cares" and makes even more anti-US worker foreign trade policies.

Dude, there's thousands of GWB vs. Obama threads. I can't make this any clearer. This thread is not about that. I don't care how 'independent' you think you are, jackass. This thread is not about political debate. It is about the ******* challenge. It's for liberals to accept/reject and for the rest of us to discuss the merits of the challenge.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I haven't said anything about personal attacks. That has nothing to do with this challenge. This challenge isn't about being so high minded or classy. It's just one change to get away from the same derailment tactics; and not even forever; just for a year. My hope is that posters will start to actually think about their arguments more, rather than just heading for the lowest common denominator of argument they can find. If nothing else, USMB will be just a little bit nicer, imo.

My point was that attacks on individuals rather than ideas is a "derailment tactic" which also deters others from joining a discussion and is detrimental to the purpose of open debate. This includes name-calling that is not related to the subject at hand. That's why I suggested you review your own posts; you do a lot of it, including in this thread. You have been called on this by other posters and your response has been to tell critics to...

**** OFF AND EAT MY ASS TOO.

I am speechless in the face of such eloquence.

By the way, this thread doesn't seem to be working out for you. Perhaps you never expected an answer and therefore were at a loss of how to respond. Maybe it has something to do with you trying to the thread narrowly focused on your complaint and not engaging people like me in the fora we post in. Exactly how do you propose to determine if I am abiding by the conditions of your challenge when you ignore my posting history? Do I need to start posting threads on economic policy in Politics? Will you start reading threads in The Economy? How did you think mechanically this would work out; I frankly don't have a clue. It seems this project was a one-off and not thought out.

There's exceptions to everything, but the left has pretty well tarred themselves with their constant propaganda on USMB. I don't see you ever condemning Rdean or Sallows propaganda either. So, you shouldn't think you're so far above the fray.

I do not comment in most cases about other posters unless I am involved in the discussion. You would be wise to do the same. A pissing contest about who on the left I have denounced versus who on the right you have denounced would be not only incredibly boring, but totally devoid of meaning. This is a polite way of saying your comment is a rather rancid example of a "red herring", a term which I assume you can look up if you do not know.

As for your last sentence, you are making yourself look infantile and ridiculous by commenting on my posting behavior ("above the fray") which you took such pride in explaining earlier you were unaware of and would not look up. The implication that anyone willing to debate you must by definition have "tarred themselves with their constant propaganda" and cannot acquit themselves honourably in a debate is a rather striking example of hubris, which I also believe you have the resources to look up. What you have done in the above section is an excellent example of an ad hominem by any proper definition and what I am doing is using sarcasm to expose the illogic and weakness of your position, which is not an ad hominem. Thank you for providing such an excellent example to demonstrate my case. Class dismissed.

Okay. Perhaps insults are a derailment devic in that it's just a clear message of BS heard, not taking it. I've never said otherwise. I personally would prefer to not suffer fools too much.

I did tell the guy to eat my ass and to **** off, and I have no problem with that. He came at me with an outright lie about Bush being my messiah, even though in this thread (and tons of threads), I've talked about what a poser Bush is. I have no interest in regarding jackasses' canned bologna. You shouldn't either, frankly. Nobody should. I'm not remotely interested in great debate protocols at such point, because I'm not interested in that phony debate at that point.

Is there something to be said for taking the higher road? Yes, but I didn't take it, and I don't need to be condemned or otherwise preached to for not taking it. Though, I thank you for your consideration.

I think mistakes have been made in this thread. But it has by no means been a failure either. People have taken the challenge, and we've seen first hand how people have a blame Bush for everything mentality and how it has dulled their abilities (assuming they ever had such abilities) to legitimately argue the real matters of the day. I mean, how convenient is that for an administration to be able to blame a previous administration for everything, even five years into it? It's nonsense. They're either doing good or bad, and that's where the debate needs to be; not upon what is effectively ancient history.

Ad Hominem: a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

You continue to pretend that I have used ad hominem when this is just simply not the case. I have taken on your points and countered them in a proper means of argumentation. And when I say proper, I'm not meaning formally proper in a social sense that discourages direct insults. I say proper in the true sense that I have effectively argued the points at hand and not relied upon insults to dismiss said points as it regards to our interactions.

Furthermore, just because I say **** off to someone who deserves it; that's no less of an insult than your condescension than your muck about my 'infantile' actions. It's simply cruder. And it is not infantile to point out that you effectively post on an us vs. them basis, given the fact that you don't call out the propagandists on your side. That's a ******* reality check, dude.

And you're one to talk about hubris. You're swimming in it.

 

[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?

I like the idea but who cares that much to police those Libs?

And the worst offenders (whoever they may be, I have no idea of their identities) would never sign up for such a challenge.

It's not about policing libs. It's a challenge for the select few to take. Those who take it and abide by it will be better for it, imo; as will those whom they encounter. For the merits of the issues will be better refined, and we'll have less Obama-GWB muck.

And yes, the serial propagandists will have no interest in the challenge. If you're like me, you have them on your ignore list and never or rarely even look at their posts. If not, then my condolences. You shouldn't waste time on meandering fools, imo.