Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

Most historians are already comfortable claiming Bush is the worst president yet and nearly those who say it's too early to make that sort of claim agree he is among the worst.

You have a link for that?

Yup.

Last edited by Tallgeese (2008-08-29 10:47 am)

everlong205 wrote:

Not all of Bush's polices are in fact bad policies.

That's up to the american people, I guess?

And many in fact have been voted for by democrats. Again, you're not actually suggesting which policies that were voted on are good or bad (or whether someone like Biden also voted on said policies for example) or should have been voted for. Its a smear of generalizations. Bush bad, democrats good.

Oh come on, you're not even trying.

Is it also unfair to point out that John McCain is a Republican given the toxic nature of the brand these days?  You voted the man into office, don't blame me for his contagious unpopularity.

bratboy wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

Not all of Bush's polices are in fact bad policies.

That's up to the american people, I guess?

And many in fact have been voted for by democrats. Again, you're not actually suggesting which policies that were voted on are good or bad (or whether someone like Biden also voted on said policies for example) or should have been voted for. Its a smear of generalizations. Bush bad, democrats good.

Oh come on, you're not even trying.

Is it also unfair to point out that John McCain is a Republican given the toxic nature of the brand these days?  You voted the man into office, don't blame me for his contagious unpopularity.

And yet he's even in the polls with Obama, despite such a toxic reputation. And congress itself has an approval rating lower than the president.

everlong, seriously…

Put down the crack pipe.

.tsooJ

bratboy wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

And yet he's even in the polls with Obama, despite such a toxic reputation. And congress itself has an approval rating lower than the president.

OK, now you want it both ways.  Are you trying to make the case that it's fair to associate McCain with Bush, or unfair?

I'm not arguing that its unfair to do so. That's politics and I expect scurrilous attacks in politics. I'm just saying lets at least call it what it is and not pretend that somehow Obama is not engaging in it and is acting as if he is above the fray. What a crock.

So does everlong represent mainstream Republican thinking, which is to say that comparing someone to Bush is a "scurrilous attack"? If so,

Saying Obama doesn't have "experience" is a personal attack because being 'inexperienced' is bad and suggesting he doesn't have enough experience is guilt by association!

Farmerkev wrote:

Since Bush has reversed position on many of the most controversial items to what the other side has been clamoring for Obama will also be extending a 3rd Bush term.
Kind of a kick in the ass isn't it.

What is with you guys today....

I would love to hear the GOP adopt that line of argument.  I think it would prove highly effective. 

bratboy wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

I'm not arguing that its unfair to do so. That's politics and I expect scurrilous attacks in politics. I'm just saying lets at least call it what it is and not pretend that somehow Obama is not engaging in it and is acting as if he is above the fray. What a crock.

I see no problem with pointing out that McCain supports the President and most of policies.  That you're attempting to call such a charge a "personal attack" is frickin' hilarious.

Pointing out that he supports many of bush's positions is accurate. (though he also doesn't support many of his positions). Saying its a third term of George Bush is a personal attack, as its disingeous based on a smear. Bush is not running a third term nor is he serving in Mccains administration in any way, nor does Mccain have the name Bush. One could just as easily say, and why not I will, Obama is trying to have a second Carter term.
That is a character attack. Its not literally true, but I'm trying to smear obama by suggesting that in fact he is just like Carter and thus his term would be a repeat of the malaise of Carters admin. It doesn't mean that I can't make the argument or that its not an accurate comparison (in my view). Only that it is a character attack.

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Actually, I read it in Newsweek and it made more sense than I cared to admit.
On the other hand, you guys are so far out in left field at the moment it seems prudent to attempt to try to get you to see home plate again.

Oh please, attempt to persuade me.  Electing Obama (the last time I checked rated one of the most "liberal" senators in Washington) would be an extension of the Bush administration.

Go.  Make an argument.



(Perhaps you should consider putting down the Newsweek!)

Perhaps you should lay off the troll and start thinking again.

Farmerkev wrote:

Perhaps you should lay off the troll and start thinking again.

I'm a "TROLL" now?

everlong205 wrote:

bratboy wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

I'm not arguing that its unfair to do so. That's politics and I expect scurrilous attacks in politics. I'm just saying lets at least call it what it is and not pretend that somehow Obama is not engaging in it and is acting as if he is above the fray. What a crock.

I see no problem with pointing out that McCain supports the President and most of policies.  That you're attempting to call such a charge a "personal attack" is frickin' hilarious.

Pointing out that he supports many of bush's positions is accurate. (though he also doesn't support many of his positions). Saying its a third term of George Bush is a personal attack, as its disingeous based on a smear. Bush is not running a third term nor is he serving in Mccains administration in any way, nor does Mccain have the name Bush. One could just as easily say, and why not I will, Obama is trying to have a second Carter term.
That is a character attack. Its not literally true, but I'm trying to smear obama by suggesting that in fact he is just like Carter and thus his term would be a repeat of the malaise of Carters admin. It doesn't mean that I can't make the argument or that its not an accurate comparison (in my view). Only that it is a character attack.

If you were to provide some evidence that Obama has supported Carter 90% of the time it is most certainly not a character attack to claim that Obama would be like a 2nd Carter term.

Saying "a third Bush term" is shorthand for "Their policies are very similar, they've agreed alot in the past, there is every reason to believe that a McCain presidency will look alot like the Bush presidency has".  You can disagree with the conclusion, but drawing that conclusion from the verifiable premises isn't a character attack, it's just making a statement about McCain's policies and history.

It's not disingenuous or based on a smear, it's not a literal statement. It's a simile.