Bush had more Czars than Obama

[idahogie]

Originally Posted by ecvMatt

So you agree with Bush appointing Czars then?

I agree with Bush appointing advisory positions. "Czar" is just a term applied by the media and others as a short-hand term for people with fairly long formal titles.

Are you going to explain what you were thinking when you wrote "Therefore, what Bush did was sucky, right? So if 0bama does it, he must be just as sucky." Were you actually trying to say that since Bush sucked, that everything he did sucked? Was that your "logic?"

Your logic leads to this:

Bush sat in the Oval Office. Therefore, if Obama sits in the Oval Office, he's just as sucky as Bush.

Before you continue your little game of "gotcha" any further, perhaps you'd explain that little bit of supidity.

[ecvMatt]

Originally Posted by idahogie

I agree with Bush appointing advisory positions. "Czar" is just a term applied by the media and others as a short-hand term for people with fairly long formal titles.

Are you going to explain what you were thinking when you wrote "Therefore, what Bush did was sucky, right? So if 0bama does it, he must be just as sucky." Were you actually trying to say that since Bush sucked, that everything he did sucked? Was that your "logic?"

Your logic leads to this:


Before you continue your little game of "gotcha" any further, perhaps you'd explain that little bit of supidity.

My meaning is this:

Many Obama lovers say Bush was an awful President, one of, if not, the worst. Bush screwed up our nation, badly.

Many Obama lovers respond to criticism with "Bush did it too."

Why do these people justify something by saying precedent was set by such an awful person? Do they really want the claim of "walking in Bushs' shoes?"


Just my observation of many of the arguments here on CD

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by ecvMatt

I don't understand the "Bush was bad, so it's OK for 0bama to do it too!" argument.

The opposite, or a close approximation, is used by the RWs here constantly, e.g. well, the Dems did the same thing, blah, blah. I try not to do that myself, it's childish.

[idahogie]

Originally Posted by ecvMatt

My meaning is this:

Many Obama lovers say Bush was an awful President, one of, if not, the worst. Bush screwed up our nation, badly.

Many Obama lovers respond to criticism with "Bush did it too."

Why do these people justify something by saying precedent was set by such an awful person? Do they really want the claim of "walking in Bushs' shoes?"


Just my observation of many of the arguments here on CD

And this "logic" is completely faulty. Using it, you could say my example:

"Bush sat in the Oval Office. Therefore, if Obama sits in the Oval Office, he's just as sucky as Bush."

That makes no sense whatsoever.

So if we agree that Bush sucked, and that Bush had appointed advisors, some known as "czars," it doesn't follow that if Obama has them too, that Obama sucks (or that Bush wasn't so bad).

Understand? Your logic is something like what Bush would employ, it seems.