• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN Poll: Was Bush better president than Obama?

randel said:
personally attack you? nah ....just clarifying your posistions for you, and those who follow the thread...actually doing you a favor, you don't have to explain yourself to anyone...reality is, things are improving, just not quick enough for some.
Click to expand...

You need to clarify your own position before trying to clarify someone else's. Suggest you start with facts instead of personal opinions and feelings. Reality is Obama rhetoric is trumped by the actual facts and there is a reason his poll numbers are dropping. the cost of what he has done has to be paid for and he has done nothing to promote the private sector. It cost hundreds of billions of dollars to create higher unemployment each month of 2010 vs. 2009 but to the true believer that is making things better. We have an unsustainable debt that you ignore just like you ignore the actual results generated.
 
pbrauer said:
The point is that you were being disingenuous when you posted the figures from the bls and the WSJ report is correct. And the Bush tax cuts are not the panacea you think they are, which are still in effect btw.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The following seasonally adjusted numbers match yours.

http://institute.ourfuture.org/files/documents/Labor_force_statistics_2001-2008.pdf
Click to expand...

The point you ignore is that the calculation of unemployment this year was the same as last year, seasonally adjusted and that unemployment is higher than it was last year. You also ignore that Bush is no longer in office although for some reason you cannot get over it as you ignore the 52 straight months of job creation and a GDP that grew over 4.5 trillion dollars. Bush inherited a recession and left during a recession so those numbers are included in his results yet today we are just back to 2000 employment numbers which to you is a good thing.
 
Conservative said:
You need to clarify your own position before trying to clarify someone else's. Suggest you start with facts instead of personal opinions and feelings. Reality is Obama rhetoric is trumped by the actual facts and there is a reason his poll numbers are dropping. the cost of what he has done has to be paid for and he has done nothing to promote the private sector. It cost hundreds of billions of dollars to create higher unemployment each month of 2010 vs. 2009 but to the true believer that is making things better. We have an unsustainable debt that you ignore just like you ignore the actual results generated.
Click to expand...
poll numbers at this point for president mean little, witness what dubya did...i seem to remember him supposedly going to lose to Kerry , at least according to the polls. dubya's numbers were in the crapper, yet, he WON! so spare me further 'polls' please.
 
randel said:
poll numbers at this point for president mean little, witness what dubya did...i seem to remember him supposedly going to lose to Kerry , at least according to the polls. dubya's numbers were in the crapper, yet, he WON! so spare me further 'polls' please.
Click to expand...

The difference is people always vote their pocket books and that will be the case this election. Obama's agenda is far left and a disaster as the results show. Focus on the results and stop listening to the rhetoric. By the way wasn't there an Ohio poll commissioned by Democrats that Bush more popular than Obama? Seems that the majority get what you are having a hard time understanding.
 
Conservative said:
The point you ignore is that the calculation of unemployment this year was the same as last year, seasonally adjusted and that unemployment is higher than it was last year. You also ignore that Bush is no longer in office although for some reason you cannot get over it as you ignore the 52 straight months of job creation and a GDP that grew over 4.5 trillion dollars. Bush inherited a recession and left during a recession so those numbers are included in his results yet today we are just back to 2000 employment numbers which to you is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like a typical spin of data that ignores the actual numbers that the BLS shows which are as follows:

Year Dec
1980 99634
1981 99645
1982 99032
1983 102996
1984 106223
1985 108216
1986 110728
1987 113793
1988 116104
1989 117830
1990 118241
1991 117466
1992 118997
1993 121464
1994 124721
1995 125088
1996 127860
1997 130679
1998 132602
1999 134523
2000 137614
2001 136047
2002 136426
2003 138411
2004 140125
2005 142752
2006 145914
2007 146173
2008 143188
2009 137792
2010


Looks to me like there were 119 million people working in December 1992 and 137.6 million working in December 2000 and shouldn't that be the number used to show employment? 17.4 million more people working at the end of the Clinton term vs. when he started. Compare that to Obama where there are 4 million less working today than when he started. Hardly stellar performance but doesn't escape the liberal spin. Notice Bush job creation from December 2000 until the recession started in December 2007. Interesting how those numbers escape you.

Now you can keep playing those liberal games of diversion from the disaster that is in the WH now but it won't do any good. People vote their pocket books and this upcoming an election will be a referendum on the leftwing Obama agenda, not GW Bush
 
Conservative said:
Looks to me like a typical spin of data that ignores the actual numbers that the BLS shows which are as follows:

Year Dec
1980 99634
1981 99645
1982 99032
1983 102996
1984 106223
1985 108216
1986 110728
1987 113793
1988 116104
1989 117830
1990 118241
1991 117466
1992 118997
1993 121464
1994 124721
1995 125088
1996 127860
1997 130679
1998 132602
1999 134523
2000 137614
2001 136047
2002 136426
2003 138411
2004 140125
2005 142752
2006 145914
2007 146173
2008 143188
2009 137792
2010


Looks to me like there were 119 million people working in December 1992 and 137.6 million working in December 2000 and shouldn't that be the number used to show employment? 17.4 million more people working at the end of the Clinton term vs. when he started. Compare that to Obama where there are 4 million less working today than when he started. Hardly stellar performance but doesn't escape the liberal spin. Notice Bush job creation from December 2000 until the recession started in December 2007. Interesting how those numbers escape you.

Now you can keep playing those liberal games of diversion from the disaster that is in the WH now but it won't do any good. People vote their pocket books and this upcoming an election will be a referendum on the leftwing Obama agenda, not GW Bush
Click to expand...

It looks to me those numbers are seasonally adjusted as well.

Bureau of Labor Statistics - Data from the Payroll and Household Surveys
 
pbrauer said:
It looks to me those numbers are seasonally adjusted as well.

Bureau of Labor Statistics - Data from the Payroll and Household Surveys
Click to expand...

Does it matter, they are apples and apples unless seasonally adjusted numbers only occurred at specific times? Fact is you continue to ignore the record of this President and want to divert to the past. The past doesn't matter as there are 16 million(actually more) today and over 4 million more than when Obama took office. You want to divert from that record and I don't blame you.
 
pbrauer said:
There are of course two better questions:

  1. Under which president did the Savings & Loans need to be bailed out? And-
  2. Under which president did the commercial banks need to be bailed out?
Click to expand...
Thsi isnt a better question, this is a red herring.
 
randel said:
you seem to ignore the rest of that poll, which shows kasich's support flattening out, and strickland's on the rise....also, the contest is rated a tossup, not the sure thing you are making it out to be...kasich's ties to lehman may very well be his undoing, as the last thing ohio needs is someone so closely tied to the meltdown.
Click to expand...
This is because of Strickland getting an A+ rating from and the endorsement of the NRA.
:mrgreen:
 
QUOTE Conservative

The country turned this govt. over to those that helped create it and did nothing to prevent it, the Democrats.
Click to expand...

HELPED is the key word, considering that “HISTORY” tells us that for first six years of the bush administration, both houses and the Presidency were in republican hands.

Unlike the party of NO, the dems occasionally crossed party lines when it came to “perceived” :roll: national security.

The "Gipper" understood free enterprise and capitalism and implemented a pro growth economic agenda cutting taxes 25% over three years.
Click to expand...

I have pointed this out to you in other threads (plural is no typo), so there is no need to rehash this fallacy yet again. All anyone has to do is use their friend goggle+ “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act”.

Your hero, in 1982 signed The “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act”, he called it that so he could pretend that it wasn’t a tax increase but at that time it was the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. According to a Treasury Department study TEFRA was a 1% of GDP tax increase. Kinda like he did when he was Governor of Calyfornia, which I also pointed out to you in a previous thread.Again goggle is your friend.

The "Gipper" believed in the American people and entreprenuerial spirit. The "Gipper" turned the American spirit loose. Obama believes in the Govt. and wealth redistribution. Obama is no "Gipper.
Click to expand...

The "Gipper" was a grade B actor, that should have won an Academy Award for his portrayal of a President for eight years.:2wave:
 
donc;1059061014]HELPED is the key word, considering that “HISTORY” tells us that for first six years of the bush administration, both houses and the Presidency were in republican hands.
Click to expand...

Actually that isn't true, it was a 50-50 Senate the first two years and totally Democrat the last 2 years. What exactly did the Democrats do to stop Bush from creating the mess you claim he created? Seems to me they were more interested in regaining the WH than they were doing the country's business. Fact remains from 2003 to 2007 the economy was booming, massive job creation and strong economic growth, BEA.gov and BLS.gov

Unlike the party of NO, the dems occasionally crossed party lines when it came to “perceived” :roll: national security.
Click to expand...

Got to love the party of "n" which seems to be liberal talking points. There was total control of the Congress from 2009-2010 and look at the results. Now I understand why you want to divert from them but the truth is you cannot run from the actual facts.


I have pointed this out to you in other threads (plural is no typo), so there is no need to rehash this fallacy yet again. All anyone has to do is use their friend goggle+ “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act”.

Your hero, in 1982 signed The “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act”, he called it that so he could pretend that it wasn’t a tax increase but at that time it was the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. According to a Treasury Department study TEFRA was a 1% of GDP tax increase. Kinda like he did when he was Governor of Calyfornia, which I also pointed out to you in a previous thread.Again goggle is your friend.
Click to expand...

My hero isn't on the ballot this year but the Obama agenda is. The facts are for all to see but you choose to ignore them. Fact, over 16 million unemployed Americans today up 4 million from when he took office, over 3 trillion added to the debt, and 1.6% economic growth. You ought to worry more about what is going on now vs. what you think went on back in the 80's. The actual facts aren't friendly to you.

The "Gipper" was a grade B actor, that should have won an Academy Award for his portrayal of a President for eight years.:2wave:
Click to expand...


At this point that award for impersonating a leader would go to Barack Obama, a man with zero leadership skills and results that match those skills.
 
donc said:
HELPED is the key word, considering that “HISTORY” tells us that for first six years of the bush administration, both houses and the Presidency were in republican hands.
Click to expand...
This is either a lie, or abject ignorance
The Dems held the senate until the 2002 election.
 
Goobieman said:
This is either a lie, or abject ignorance
The Dems held the senate until the 2002 election.
Click to expand...

Conveniently Donc ignores the power sharing agreement that was in place 2001-2002 and who caucused with the Democrats to give them the 50-50 split. It is more convenient to buy the lies than do the research to disprove them.
 
Boo Radley said:
That would be McCain. In order to have a do over, it would be between Obama and McCain. Just saying . . . . ;)
Click to expand...

McCain is precisely why Obama is in office. I recall well the sentiment in my area where conservatives were entirely fed-up with having to hold their noses and vote for the lesser of two evils. McCain is undeniably no conservative and I view him every bit as much a Benedict Arnold as is Obama. In my view, Samuel Adams makes the best case for casting your vote:

Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.
-- Boston Gazette, April 16, 1781
Click to expand...

There is hardly an ounce of difference between the Republican Establishment vs. the Democratic Establishment in my opinion. Professor Carroll Quigley in his Magnus Opus, Tragedy and Hope, 1966 lays it our clearly:
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.
Click to expand...

Professor Quigley was discussing the agenda laid out by the Council of Foreign Relations. On page 950, he stated this: "I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records."

This makes perfect since. The Democrats agenda during the Bush Administration was a slamfest against the Afghany & Iraqi wars. Obama stated during his campaign that ending the wars in the Middle East would be his first priority, yet we now have $1.6 trillion budget deficits compared to Bush's $460 billion and the Afghan war is now the longest American war in our history -- though it was never declared a war as our Constitution mandates. In fact WWII was the last time in which a Declaration for war was made. Ever since, America has been in a state of perpetual war, cold war or foreign intervention regardless of who's been in office.

The CFR was founded by Colonel Edward Mandell House in 1921 (Advisor to Woodrow Wilson) who stated he was "working for Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." The CFR claims it is merely a think tank for foreign policy, so why is it that every administration's cabinet since the days of FDR have been filled with them? Both the Bush and Obama Administration were/are no different, therefore we have unelected members making the decisions for elected members -- so let's just call it what it is -- an oligarchy. This video should open some eyes as to the real role the CFR plays. A slip of the tongue by the NWO queen herself last year:
 
pbrauer said:
It's not at all a red herring, a single four-letter word can be tied to both events - B U S H
Click to expand...

You really have a bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. What did GW Bush ever do to you personally? I really suggest you seek help.
 
Conservative said:
You really have a bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. What did GW Bush ever do to you personally? I really suggest you seek help.
Click to expand...
Are insults all you have, conservative?
 
pbrauer said:
It's not at all a red herring...
Click to expand...
Absolutely it is.

The challenge presented in the post you responded to:
Name for me any President in U.S. History that had worse unemployment numbers one year AFTER a recession ended.
Name for me one President in U.S. History who one year after the recession had higher unemployment each month than when the recession ended so Obama is the issue
Click to expand...
Your response:
1.Under which president did the Savings & Loans need to be bailed out?
2.Under which president did the commercial banks need to be bailed out?
Click to expand...
Neither of your questions address the challenge put forth in that post; both of your questions do nothing but avoid the issue and try to divert the conversation away from that issue.
Thus, Red Herring.
 
pbrauer said:
Are insults all you have, conservative?
Click to expand...

What insult? I call it like I see it, almost every post from you blames Bush and ignores the present. I call it an obsession which indicates there is something there thus the question, what has GW Bush done to hurt you or your family?
 
Goobieman said:
Absolutely it is.

The challenge presented in the post you responded to:

Your response:

Neither of your questions address the challenge put forth in that post; both of your questions do nothing but avoid the issue and try to divert the conversation away from that issue.
Thus, Red Herring.
Click to expand...
That wasn't a challenge, it was a diversion from the fact that this great recession was the result of years of Bush. Actually the Great Depression was the result of a Republican president.
 
pbrauer said:
That wasn't a challenge, it was a diversion from the fact that this great recession was the result of years of Bush. Actually the Great Depression was the result of a Republican president.
Click to expand...

What exactly did GW Bush do to cause the recession that you blame him for and in your world what do you believe the role of Congress is? The recession started in December 2007 and weren't the Democrats in charge of Congress? How could those brilliant Democrats allow Bush who many called a dumb cowboy to create this mess unless......................?
 
Conservative said:
LOL, what amendment rights did Bush take away from you, that is total BS. If you mean the Patriot Act, Obama reauthorized it and made it tougher. Looks like Obama wants to take away more of your privacy than Bush ever did. Name for me any AMERICAN prosecuted under the Patriot Act?

Obama Admin Wants to Allow Web Wiretapping
7:50 PM - September 30, 2010 - By Jane McEntegart -

The Obama administration is preparing to submit a bill to lawmakers that would make it possible for law enforcement officials to 'wiretap the internet' if they need to
Click to expand...

First off it is not BS. Under the patriot act the government can come into my house. Arrest me without telling me why. Detain me for an undisclosed amount of time. Here is what kills me. For all the talk I hear about "the government takes my money", "the government has no right to tax this or that", "the government cant force me to have healthcare" you fail to realized how little that matters if your bill of rights are taken away. Wait. . .they have been. Only the second remains.

Yes I understand that President Obama reauthrized the Patrio Act. Do you see Liberal next to my lean. NO. Just because I critisize President Bush does not mean I approve of President Obama.

Yes, this Fisa Bill is wrong. That takes away my first amendment rights. Its not that its coming. Its already here. It was voted on back in 2008.

I am NOT a Democrat. I am a Libertarian and vote Libertarian.

That being said. President Bush took away two of my Amendment rights. No matter what he did, he is a bad president if he takes away my rights.
 
ender1 said:
First off it is not BS. Under the patriot act the government can come into my house. Arrest me without telling me why. Detain me for an undisclosed amount of time. Here is what kills me. For all the talk I hear about "the government takes my money", "the government has no right to tax this or that", "the government cant force me to have healthcare" you fail to realized how little that matters if your bill of rights are taken away. Wait. . .they have been. Only the second remains.

Yes I understand that President Obama reauthrized the Patrio Act. Do you see Liberal next to my lean. NO. Just because I critisize President Bush does not mean I approve of President Obama.

Yes, this Fisa Bill is wrong. That takes away my first amendment rights. Its not that its coming. Its already here. It was voted on back in 2008.

I am NOT a Democrat. I am a Libertarian and vote Libertarian.

That being said. President Bush took away two of my Amendment rights. No matter what he did, he is a bad president if he takes away my rights.
Click to expand...

There is no provision of the Patriot Act that gives the govt. the right to enter your house without proper just cause so not sure where you are getting your information. Congress authorized the Patriot Act and reauthorized it under Obama so no I don't see a D after your name but I see you making allegations like someone with a D after their name. I am still waiting for you to name for me one American that has been prosecuted under the Patriot Act under the conditions you described. Until someone is you haven't lost anything.
 
ender1 said:
I am NOT a Democrat. I am a Libertarian and vote Libertarian.

That being said. President Bush took away two of my Amendment rights. No matter what he did, he is a bad president if he takes away my rights.
Click to expand...

Well said, ender. I wish there were more thoughtful libertarians around here. All these Republicans in libertarian clothing make me sick. They'll freak out about an individual mandate but not a peep out of them when the government trammels habeas corpus.

You're right about the second amendment being protected, but it's a worthless right without the rest of the bill of rights to go with it. What's really pathetic is how some libertarians cling to second amendment rights like that's all they need. But what they fail to realize is their stockpile of assault rifles won't do them any good when the government throws them in a hole indefinitely with no charges and no trial because they are suspected of being an enemy combatant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom