• 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?

This doesnt exit. Try a link.


Yes...This is The Obama describing how/why GWB was a "poor" President.


Actually, he pointed out how The Obma was doing the same thing or expanding the things that made GWB a poor President.

So... If you agree that those things made GWB a poor president, you cannot help but agree that The Obama, who has continued or expanded those things, is worse.
Nothing you have posted here does anything but AGREE with the argument.


This was "left out" because it it completely irrelevant to my point, and is noithing but a red herring offered up by you to try to avoid that point.



Yes...This is The Obama describing how/why GWB was a "poor" President.
He then pointed out how The Obma was doing the same thing or expanding the things that made GWB a poor President.
So... If you agree that those things made GWB a poor president, you cannot help but agree that The Obama, who has continued or expanded those things, is worse.
Nothing you have posted here does anything but AGREE with the argument.


To directly address my premise, and either show how it is unsounrd or admit that you cannot.
You have done nothing other than restate my premise and agred that the supporting arguments are true.
If GWB pwas a poor president because he did XWZ then The Obama -must- be a more poor President because the did >WYZ

So now you admit that I adressed your point right.

Second, I need to educate you on a small point of edicate. By referring to the President of the United States as "The Obama" shows great disrespect. You may not agree with his policy but you should respect the office. It shows great inmaturity on your part. The proper way to adress the office of the President is rank followed by the last name. I do not agree with most of what President Bush did in office but I still give him the respect he deserves.
 
So now you admit that I adressed your point right.
You restated it and, apparently, agreed with it.
Given that, you apparently believe that The Obama is a worse President than GWB.

Second, I need to educate you on a small point of edicate. By referring to the President of the United States as "The Obama" shows great disrespect.
I need to educate you on a point of the English language: edicate isn't a word.
Cry me a river. When I see you making the same comment regarding any number of disrespectful terms used to address/describe GWB, I'll consider granting you a shred of credibility.
 
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.

Im confused. Do you or do you not understand what the Patriot act is. What you challenge me to find is EXACTLY what the patriot act did. It allows the government to detain you without cause. It allows them to wire tap your phone without a warrent.

There are hundreds of documented accounts of people who have been arrested under the patriot act.
 
Im confused. Do you or do you not understand what the Patriot act is. What you challenge me to find is EXACTLY what the patriot act did. It allows the government to detain you without cause.
Under certain cirumstances. The government already had that power.

It allows them to wire tap your phone without a warrent.
Under certain cirumstances. The government already had that power.

The only thing the PA did was take power that the government already had - most notably, those used to fight organized crime - and extended them to terroriam.
 
Given that, you apparently believe that The Obama is a worse President than GWB.
Personally, I'd call it a tie. I blame Bush for starting the human rights infringments, and I blame Obama for keeping them going. But given that Bush set the precedent, I think there is a fair argument that he's worse. But that still doesn't excuse Obama for keeping Gitmo prison open.

I need to educate you on a point of the English language: edicate isn't a word.

Come off it, Goob, we all spell things wrong sometimes.
 
You restated it and, apparently, agreed with it.
Given that, you apparently believe that The Obama is a worse President than GWB.


I need to educate you on a point of the English language: edicate isn't a word.
Cry me a river. When I see you making the same comment regarding any number of disrespectful terms used to address/describe GWB, I'll consider granting you a shred of credibility.

Indeed. Etiquette. My bad spelling haunts me to this day. Whats your excuse for being a spelling Bully.

No, as a citizen of this country you should pay respect to the office. How can you expect anyone else in the world to respect the United States if its citizens cant even respect it. I have not been disrespectful of President Bush. I just disagree with his policy. I have always been factual and respectul of his title.
 
Under certain cirumstances. The government already had that power.


Under certain cirumstances. The government already had that power.

The only thing the PA did was take power that the government already had - most notably, those used to fight organized crime - and extended them to terroriam.

The difference is due recourse.
 
Im confused. Do you or do you not understand what the Patriot act is. What you challenge me to find is EXACTLY what the patriot act did. It allows the government to detain you without cause. It allows them to wire tap your phone without a warrent.

There are hundreds of documented accounts of people who have been arrested under the patriot act.

i totally understand what the Patriot Act is but apparently you don't. Tell me when the first American has their rights taken away as you described so until that happens you have lost nothing. It does not allow the detaining of ANY AMERICAN without cause and you should know that. So if there are hundreds of documented accounts of Americans who have been arrested under Patriot Act it shouldn't be a problem to name a few.

You and people like you give the Libertarian title a bad rap.
 
The difference is due recourse.
You mean due process?
Its exactly the same in both regards. The only thnt the PA did was took existing powers and extend them to a new subject area.
 
Just so we're clear -- you agree that GWB was a better President that Tbe Obama. Thank you.

Indeed. Etiquette. My bad spelling haunts me to this day. Whats your excuse for being a spelling Bully.
You decided it was necessary to educate me, I returned the favor.

No, as a citizen of this country you should pay respect to the office.
When I see you making the same comment regarding any number of disrespectful terms used to address/describe GWB, I'll consider granting you a shred of credibility
 
i totally understand what the Patriot Act is but apparently you don't. Tell me when the first American has their rights taken away as you described so until that happens you have lost nothing. It does not allow the detaining of ANY AMERICAN without cause and you should know that. So if there are hundreds of documented accounts of Americans who have been arrested under Patriot Act it shouldn't be a problem to name a few.

You and people like you give the Libertarian title a bad rap.

Wait, I have to prove that it has been used before you will agree that it has happened. That until it is carried out it is no threat. I have lost nothing. Are you kidding.

Why the insult at the end. Why take it there. Why the personal attack. You want to tell "Your mama" jokes next.
 
Wait, I have to prove that it has been used before you will agree that it has happened. That until it is carried out it is no threat. I have lost nothing. Are you kidding.

Why the insult at the end. Why take it there. Why the personal attack. You want to tell "Your mama" jokes next.

Libertarians want to be left alone, so be it.
 
Just so we're clear -- you agree that GWB was a better President that Tbe Obama. Thank you.


You decided it was necessary to educate me, I returned the favor.


When I see you making the same comment regarding any number of disrespectful terms used to address/describe GWB, I'll consider granting you a shred of credibility

Exactly what disrespectful terms did I use. Please link.
 
QUOTE Conservative

Actually that isn't true, it was a 50-50 Senate the first two years and totally Democrat the last 2 years.

Which leaves four years, of an eight year presidency of solid republican majority to wreck an economy. almost successfully, I might add.


Fact remains from 2003 to 2007 the economy was booming, massive job creation and strong economic growth, BEA.gov and BLS.gov

Nothing like cherry-picking stats, in the fall of a mid-term year eh? The fall air is fresh with the pungent smell of elephant ****. Why do you ignore not only the fact that from “Feb 2001”to”Aug 2003” , “1017000” jobs were lost under Bush? "1017000" JOBS LOST!!!…worse than Hoover!!

According to what I have read, the Gov. uses two different methods to measure employment. The payroll survey, which has the official figures, that are reported on, or near the first, of the month, and the household survey, which surveys 60,000 households per month.

Which survey are touting? Bear in mind that Bureau of Labor Statistics, CBO and the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, all agree that the larger survey gives a better measure of employment.



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.

What facts have you presented? You can hardly compare a Presidency of less than two years to one of eight years.



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.

One big fact you have overlooked, is the bush and the republican party’s legacy is UNFUNDED tax cuts for the rich and two wars=Near economic collapse. :2wave:
 
Exactly what disrespectful terms did I use. Please link.
I said:
When I see you making the same comment regarding any number of disrespectful terms used to address/describe GWB, I'll consider granting you a shred of credibility
I meant comments by others, not you.

But, glad to see you agree that GWB was a better President than The Obama.
 
One big fact you have overlooked, is the bush and the republican party’s legacy is UNFUNDED tax cuts for the rich and two wars=Near economic collapse
This is either sheer ignorancr or an outright lie.
The increase in entitlement speniding under The Obama is, alone, greater than the cost of the wars.
And, by defintion, tax cuts cannot be funded.
 
I said:

I meant comments by others, not you.

But, glad to see you agree that GWB was a better President than The Obama.

Did you have any other arguements or was the one all you had?
 
donc;1059061842]Which leaves four years, of an eight year presidency of solid republican majority to wreck an economy. almost successfully, I might add.

Is this what you call wrecking the economy? No wonder some here have zero credibility

Employment Data

Year Dec
2000 137614
2001 136047
2002 136426
2003 138411
2004 140125
2005 142752
2006 145914
2007 146173
2008 143188
2009 137792

Recession 2001 and 2008

GDP By year

Line 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
1 GDP 9,951.50 10,286.20 10,642.30 11,142.10 11,867.80 12,638.40 13,398.90 14,077.6014,441.40 14,256.30



GDP Chg
Reagan 2312.3
GHWB 1264.6
Clinton 3609.20
GWB 4306.00

GDP increased by 4.3 trillion dollars during the 8 years of Bush and that includes two recessions.

Nothing like cherry-picking stats, in the fall of a mid-term year eh? The fall air is fresh with the pungent smell of elephant ****. Why do you ignore not only the fact that from “Feb 2001”to”Aug 2003” , “1017000” jobs were lost under Bush? "1017000" JOBS LOST!!!…worse than Hoover!!

Jobs were lost in 2001 due to the recession and 9/11. Maybe you missed the largest attack on the United States mainland in history. Talk about distortion and cherry picking. I posted the employment data above. Democrats controlled the Senate in 2001-2002 and then again 2007-2008 so better check out the results then. Seems that Bush with a GOP Congress did quite well.

According to what I have read, the Gov. uses two different methods to measure employment. The payroll survey, which has the official figures, that are reported on, or near the first, of the month, and the household survey, which surveys 60,000 households per month.

It is called the Establishment and Household surveys and they are kept by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They are non partisan and have been doing this for decades.

Which survey are touting? Bear in mind that Bureau of Labor Statistics, CBO and the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, all agree that the larger survey gives a better measure of employment.

Both surveys are combined to generate the numbers that are reported on the first Friday of the new month. They show that there are 16 million unemployed Americans today vs. 12 million when Obama took office and they show that every month of 2010 unemployment is higher than the same month in 2009. Since the recession ended in June 2009 name for me any other President in U.S. History that had those kind of unemployment numbers over 1 year after the recession ended.

What facts have you presented? You can hardly compare a Presidency of less than two years to one of eight years.

I have presented actual results and have pointed out the Obama lies. It seems that the results are something that you want to ignore.


One big fact you have overlooked, is the bush and the republican party’s legacy is UNFUNDED tax cuts for the rich and two wars=Near economic collapse. :2wave
:

Seems to me that you need an education of the facts which I posted above. GDP growth of 4.3 trillion dollars with two recessions and 9/11 is hardly an economic collapse. Bush never had trillion dollar deficits and never had 16 million unemployed Americans. My question to you is one that everyone wants to ignore, why did the Democrats in Congress not stop Bush in 2007-2008 from creating the economic collapse you claim? Interesting that the economic results of 2001-2002 and 2007-2008 are very similar and that the real economic growth was 2003-2007. Notice the difference in Congress during that period of time?
 
Did you have any other arguements or was the one all you had?
As if that argument doesnt cover a great number of few things.

And then, of course, there's The Obama grwoing the deficit 275% as fast as GWB did.
If GWB was bad because of his deficit spending, then The Obama must be that much worse.

The Obama ran on change - where is it?
 
As if that argument doesnt cover a great number of few things.

And then, of course, there's The Obama grwoing the deficit 275% as fast as GWB did.
If GWB was bad because of his deficit spending, then The Obama must be that much worse.

The Obama ran on change - where is it?

Which is worse, causing the crisis we are currently in or failing to get us out of it?
 
Which is worse, causing the crisis we are currently in or failing to get us out of it?
Your question assumes facts not in evidence. You may try again.
 
Which is worse, causing the crisis we are currently in or failing to get us out of it?

How exactly did President Bush create the crisis we are in and exactly what did the Democrat controlled Congress do when they took over in January 2007?
 
Your question assumes facts not in evidence. You may try again.

So if the country was doing great when President Obama because president it would all have been because of President Bush right.
 
So if the country was doing great when President Obama because president it would all have been because of President Bush right.
Non sequitur, red herring. Try again.
 
Back
Top Bottom