• 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!

Who Do You Think Has Done More Damage to the Country, Bush or Obama?

Who's worse Bush or Obama?

  • Bush

    Votes: 72 64.3%

  • Obama

    Votes: 40 35.7%
  • Total voters
    112
TurtleDude said:
I call bs on that. it sounds good but is not supportable with verifiable evidence

Bush put two brilliant experienced jurists on the USSC

obama pandered to voting groups and put someone who had no business on the court

what was his tough reality--losing the lesbian jewish vote if he didn't pick Kagan?
Click to expand...

Whoa, what? The only thing that matters about his appointments is that Bush chose two judges he could depend on to promote his point of view in years to come. Obama did the same.

Legal scholars are valid Supreme Court selections.

The "verifiable evidence" is that Iraq did not pose a credible threat to the U.S. and had no plausible connection to 9/11. Compare that with the resources invested into occupying and rebuilding it and the final product and it is pretty indisputable Bush's adventure didn't serve the national interest.

Other than the Iraq War, every other aspect of both Administrations has been a matter of course.
 
Last edited:
You don't understand. He wasn't writing about Legal scholars being valid Supreme Court selections.
He was writing that Kagen's only credentials were that she satisified the lesbian jewish vote.
I don't know how he could be more clear than that. Very revealing.


Morality Games said:
Whoa, what? The only thing that matters about his appointments is that Bush chose two judges he could depend on to promote his point of view in years to come. Obama did the same.

Legal scholars are valid Supreme Court selections.

The "verifiable evidence" is that Iraq did not pose a credible threat to the U.S. and had no plausible connection to 9/11. Compare that with the resources invested into occupying and rebuilding it and the final product and it is pretty indisputable Bush's adventure didn't serve the national interest.

Other than the Iraq War, every other aspect of both Administrations has been a matter of course.
Click to expand...
 
OhIsee.Then said:
You were quoting the following:
What should have happened is to let those big corporations fail and collapse. Yes that would have meant harder times. But I think it would have been better in the long run.

If we didn't rescue GM then Ford, US Honda, US Toyota, Crysler would have also failed.
That is because they all use the same suppliers (e.g. a door panel supplier was next door to where my wife worked and a trim vendor around the corner) and they were about to fail as it was. Do you need more details? That might have been all we needed to fall further to depression.
Click to expand...

I think it was necessary for them to fail! It would force people to revamp the system to where it would work more efficiently. There is always a demand for car's so it would definitely bounce back in no time. This is what Capitalism is. Just bailing them makes it so they don't get punished for bad financial decisions. This applies in EVERY case except if a monopoly is thrown into the mix; which i think should be against the law and regulated, which it is.
 
Oh good, an anonymous poll pitting a Republican against a Democrat. Nobody on this site would even think to spam that kind of poll.
 
celticwar17 wrote:
"There is always a demand for car's so it would definitely bounce back in no time."

Let me explain a bit about why they don't bounce back in no time.

In Grand Rapids MI there are many auto industry suppliers.
There are also many vacant industrial buildings many have been vacant for years.
Many previously occupied by auto industry suppliers.

When auto industry suppliers and manufactures are up and running the cost of moving is high.The ROI for a few quarters would be hit. If it stops running then ROI is already toast, so consider moving.

1st,
With the start of the recovery you would think that these building would return to use. That is not what happens. Rather new building need to be built, not that the vacant buildings are not up to date etc., but the vacant buildings are tied up in legal limbo and have book values that are high. So a new start up auto supplier or other business is better off going to a 'build to suit'.

So, with the bankruptsy of an existing supplier a new auto supplier can't take over the old building in any reasonable amount of time.

2nd,
Tooling: Often the tooling a vendor uses is owned by the customer. At bankruptsy it is stuck in the wrong location and can't be dispositioned until the legal issues are cleared up. It may be quicker and more cost effective to build new tooling especially if you are going to use it in a new location. There are many complicating issues like this.

3rd,
The few workers with valuable expertize move out of state.

4th,
It is very much quicker and less costly to expand a running supplier than to restart a bankrupt one. And now most of those are off shore.

5th,
If you are going to start a new one you will consider all possible locations. Things like labor costs, labor skill sets, worker rights, taxes, bribes, legal system, etc.

6th,
Grand Rapids, or the US, is not the place I'd choose if I had to re-establish capasity quickly I were the CEO
of Toyota, Honda etc.

The way the auto business is split up into may pieces, most supported by cash flow,
when you stop a significant piece of it you can break the whole thing.

celticwar17 said:
I think it was necessary for them to fail! It would force people to revamp the system to where it would work more efficiently. There is always a demand for car's so it would definitely bounce back in no time. This is what Capitalism is. Just bailing them makes it so they don't get punished for bad financial decisions. This applies in EVERY case except if a monopoly is thrown into the mix; which i think should be against the law and regulated, which it is.
Click to expand...
 
Neither, of course.
Our enemy is our greed,fear, and ignorance, but the wealthy conservatives do not help.
We do need a better people.
 
Another silly poll contaminated by right wing extremists/spammers.
This now belongs in the basement.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
You don't understand. He wasn't writing about Legal scholars being valid Supreme Court selections.
He was writing that Kagen's only credentials were that she satisified the lesbian jewish vote.
I don't know how he could be more clear than that. Very revealing.
Click to expand...
Too much illiteracy and racism, ignorance, here, this belongs in the sewer.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
You were quoting the following:
What should have happened is to let those big corporations fail and collapse. Yes that would have meant harder times. But I think it would have been better in the long run.

If we didn't rescue GM then Ford, US Honda, US Toyota, Crysler would have also failed.
That is because they all use the same suppliers (e.g. a door panel supplier was next door to where my wife worked and a trim vendor around the corner) and they were about to fail as it was. Do you need more details? That might have been all we needed to fall further to depression.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you say if we would have let certain corporations fail and colapse it would have meant hard times but in the long run it would have been better for America and it's people.

Who's to say the ones we bailed out might think they have leverage over America now, and who's to say they won't do the same thing they did before?

Business like cards is at best a gamble.
Perhaps it would not hurt to change the cards from time to time.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
celticwar17 wrote:
"There is always a demand for car's so it would definitely bounce back in no time."

Let me explain a bit about why they don't bounce back in no time.

In Grand Rapids MI there are many auto industry suppliers.
There are also many vacant industrial buildings many have been vacant for years.
Many previously occupied by auto industry suppliers.

When auto industry suppliers and manufactures are up and running the cost of moving is high.The ROI for a few quarters would be hit. If it stops running then ROI is already toast, so consider moving.

1st,
With the start of the recovery you would think that these building would return to use. That is not what happens. Rather new building need to be built, not that the vacant buildings are not up to date etc., but the vacant buildings are tied up in legal limbo and have book values that are high. So a new start up auto supplier or other business is better off going to a 'build to suit'.

So, with the bankruptsy of an existing supplier a new auto supplier can't take over the old building in any reasonable amount of time.

2nd,
Tooling: Often the tooling a vendor uses is owned by the customer. At bankruptsy it is stuck in the wrong location and can't be dispositioned until the legal issues are cleared up. It may be quicker and more cost effective to build new tooling especially if you are going to use it in a new location. There are many complicating issues like this.

3rd,
The few workers with valuable expertize move out of state.

4th,
It is very much quicker and less costly to expand a running supplier than to restart a bankrupt one. And now most of those are off shore.

5th,
If you are going to start a new one you will consider all possible locations. Things like labor costs, labor skill sets, worker rights, taxes, bribes, legal system, etc.

6th,
Grand Rapids, or the US, is not the place I'd choose if I had to re-establish capasity quickly I were the CEO
of Toyota, Honda etc.

The way the auto business is split up into may pieces, most supported by cash flow,
when you stop a significant piece of it you can break the whole thing.
Click to expand...

A couple things: I have worked in a couple of those now vacant buildings in Grand Rapids. Note however that the auto suppliers there have learned the lesson from this recession and are doing something different...they are diversifying. Why just supply the auto industry when there are many other industries out there? Since MI gives huge tax breaks for green businesses, why not supply some of them and get tax breaks?

In the auto industry, the customer almost always owns the tooling. The customer in the auto industry has all the power, and the suppliers just have to hope.

There are still many workers with expertise in MI.

There are literally hundreds of still active auto suppliers in MI.

GM, Toyota etc don't much care where suppliers have set up shop. They are simply looking for the lowest bid that can provide the work.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
The way the auto business is split up into may pieces, most supported by cash flow,
when you stop a significant piece of it you can break the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Regardless to what you think is a "reasonable" amount of time this is how we should approach big business. Just stating why the failing of the companies would be really bad doesn't justify bailing them out. If the system in which they organize their product is flawed, it needs to fail. And IF you do choose to bail them out you would at least need to instill a plan to slowly run the company out of business with a downsizing plan in order to dampen the shock on the economy. In the end, the company needs to be revamped or fail, not just given money so they can just go on about their business without any repercussions.
 
Arcadius said:
I'm going to keep my opinion out of the first post. I think the title pretty much sizes things up. George W. Bush vs. Barack Hussein Obama
Click to expand...

I don't see it reasonable to throw blame onto presidents alone. I think theres a large gray area that is missed by blaming them alone. It's easier to blame one person then a group though.
 
LimeLight said:
I don't see it reasonable to throw blame onto presidents alone. I think theres a large gray area that is missed by blaming them alone. It's easier to blame one person then a group though.
Click to expand...
i mean you are right, but it is the presents burden to take the blame in a way. He is the face, the executive, representative of political discussion, and has more power then any other single individual in the entire government. If the presidents views are proven to not be in the best interest of the country, then he is responsible.
 
Ill put it in college terms. If the fraternity Alpha-Alpha-PI threw a huge party one night and three underage girls got completely wasted and two of them walked home alone and got hit by a car. Who is responsible? Who is in trouble? -The president of the fraternity. Because he is liable for everything that goes on in fraternity affairs.
 
Presluc let me quote you:
"I agree with what you say if we would have let certain corporations fail and colapse it would have meant hard times but in the long run it would have been better for America and it's people."

Yup, long hard times, many deaths, deprived children, etc., and for what reason? To teach us the same lesson again?

"Who's to say the ones we bailed out might think they have leverage over America now, and who's to say they won't do the same thing they did before?"

Oh, they did before, do now; and they'll screw up and do it again. And, bty they do have leverage over America.

"Business like cards is at best a gamble.
Perhaps it would not hurt to change the cards from time to time."

The cards are the people. Business leaders are of the same ilk. The faces might change but the type doesn't change. A king is a king
 
It has been a team effort so; we need a lot of presidents added to this poll.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Presluc let me quote you:
"I agree with what you say if we would have let certain corporations fail and colapse it would have meant hard times but in the long run it would have been better for America and it's people."

Yup, long hard times, many deaths, deprived children, etc., and for what reason? To teach us the same lesson again?

"Who's to say the ones we bailed out might think they have leverage over America now, and who's to say they won't do the same thing they did before?"

Oh, they did before, do now; and they'll screw up and do it again. And, bty they do have leverage over America.

"Business like cards is at best a gamble.
Perhaps it would not hurt to change the cards from time to time."

The cards are the people. Business leaders are of the same ilk. The faces might change but the type doesn't change. A king is a king
Click to expand...

Kings have been dethroned before.

Without people there are no customers without customers no profit.
Sooner or later if corporations keep screwing up they will fall .

Example; Edsel, 8 track tapes vcrs, MCI, ECT ECT.

Remember at one time Cotton was King and slaves picked it.
NO MORE.
 
presluc said:
Kings have been dethroned before.

Without people there are no customers without customers no profit.
Sooner or later if corporations keep screwing up they will fall .

Example; Edsel, 8 track tapes vcrs, MCI, ECT ECT.

Remember at one time Cotton was King and slaves picked it.
NO MORE.
Click to expand...

YES Kings have been dethroned before, BUT they are replaced with Kings, only the face of the king changes. I guess I wasn’t clear.

YES Without people there are no customers without customers no profit.

Sooner or later if corporations keep screwing up they will fall. Corporations screw up all the time, but a few screw ups don’t cause failure. It takes many or a very large screw up to cause a corporation to fail. However, some types of failures are caused by outside influences that corporations can’t foresee or can’t do anything about. For this reason corporations want influence in government.

Example; Edsel, 8 track tapes vcrs, MCI, ECT ECT.
Edsel was a famous mistake, but on the small side. Ford sailed right through it, no big problem.
8tracks, VCR’s etc. were leading edge technologies, made a lot of money and played a lot of music etc. The only thing that would have been an error was to not build and sell them.

Remember at one time Cotton was King and slaves picked it.
NO MORE. No, just not in the US. Yes things change. They will always change. You can’t wait for things to become stable then design your product and corporation.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
YES Kings have been dethroned before, BUT they are replaced with Kings, only the face of the king changes. I guess I wasn’t clear.

YES Without people there are no customers without customers no profit.

Sooner or later if corporations keep screwing up they will fall. Corporations screw up all the time, but a few screw ups don’t cause failure. It takes many or a very large screw up to cause a corporation to fail. However, some types of failures are caused by outside influences that corporations can’t foresee or can’t do anything about. For this reason corporations want influence in government.

Example; Edsel, 8 track tapes vcrs, MCI, ECT ECT.
Edsel was a famous mistake, but on the small side. Ford sailed right through it, no big problem.
8tracks, VCR’s etc. were leading edge technologies, made a lot of money and played a lot of music etc. The only thing that would have been an error was to not build and sell them.

Remember at one time Cotton was King and slaves picked it.
NO MORE. No, just not in the US. Yes things change. They will always change. You can’t wait for things to become stable then design your product and corporation.
Click to expand...

My mistake I thought you were talking American corporations.
If you are talking global ,well that's a differant story.

1ST Most global corporations don't have a golden parachute to bail them out when profits drop.

2ND, Most global countries have more exports than imports.
America has more imports than exports.
Also, most countries have a fair trade agreement.
 
celticwar17 said:
i mean you are right, but it is the presents burden to take the blame in a way. He is the face, the executive, representative of political discussion, and has more power then any other single individual in the entire government. If the presidents views are proven to not be in the best interest of the country, then he is responsible.
Click to expand...

That's a fallacy. The President is 1/3 the government with no more power than Congress
 
presluc said:
My mistake I thought you were talking American corporations.
If you are talking global ,well that's a differant story.

1ST Most global corporations don't have a golden parachute to bail them out when profits drop.

2ND, Most global countries have more exports than imports.
America has more imports than exports.
Also, most countries have a fair trade agreement.
Click to expand...

Global corporations have had bailouts in each country that has crashed since the republican recession

Fair trade agreements are to benefit global corporations alone. Not the country with the agreement who finds poorer workers and health killing pollution of air, land and water from the global corporations.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Global corporations have had bailouts in each country that has crashed since the republican recession

Fair trade agreements are to benefit global corporations alone. Not the country with the agreement who finds poorer workers and health killing pollution of air, land and water from the global corporations.
Click to expand...

Who bailed out these so called global corporations.?

Cheap labor in the Philipines?
Cheap labor in China?
Maybe the cheap labor in Japan?

Fair trade agreements are simple to observe if you have 75% imports coming in and 25% exports going out something is wrong.

Globalization is supposed to be a competitive market not I'll ship you buy.

America has workers with no jobs, healt killing polution of air, land, and water

Example; air smog alwerts are in more than one city in America
Example; you ever see the land in Eastern Kentucky or West Virginia after it's stripped mine of coal?
Example how much bottled water is sold in the U.S. per day?
 
Why no "this is like asking who was the worse mass murderer: Hitler or Stalin?" They have BOTH been horrible for the country, though in very different ways. I won't vote in this poll because I can't choose both.
 
ludahai said:
Hopefully he will be 23 months from now...
Click to expand...

Well, I look at it this way.

When America was attacked we the American people looked to Bush for leadership, Bush unfortunatly looked to power.

When America was in debt and in a bad economy and facing many budget cuts we looked to Obama for change, Obama looked to be popular.

Bush wanted too much power, passing new laws cuting certain rights, and good friend to the oil companies and big business while the American labor force and average American waited.

Obama seems to want a low profile going to parties and making speeches while the American labor force and the average American waits and waits.

Are all politicians so afraid of big business, big corporations and oil companies????:cool:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom