• 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?

So - the 'blame game' has two faces.

#1: understanding cause/effect - wanting to find the reason and relation to action to AVOID them in the future.
#2: just to make your opponent look bad so you look good.

I prefer us to encourage #1 - and avoid #2.

Don't know how valid #2 is, but #1 is important, and will lead to someone being blamed. I don't see any real way around that.
 
You sure as hell can judge the first two years and this country has gone to hell in a handbasket since Hussein Obama became president.........When are you lefties going to realize we don't want a socialist country.............

But you cannot see the eight years of disaster that we had with your "Great and inspired world leader"?
 
We haven't been attacked in a major way by terrorists since Obama took office. We are at war. We shouldn't be changing leadership during war. We should stay the course until peacetime.

God bless America.
 
But, again, the President can't write any laws with regards to lobbying reform either. He can only sign a bill that Congress writes. And Congressmen and Senators aren't going to write a bill that limits how much money lobbyists can give them. It's not in their interests to do so.

This is why we need popular initiatives at the federal level.

President Clinton wanted to get rid of the Glass-Steagal Act. It was a Republican wish since President Reagan. With the entire Republican Party's support (with Gramm as lead), President Clinton managed to convince all but 8 of the Senate to pass it's abolition. They did and he signed us into a world of economical corporate ****. President Obama has done nothing to insist that "change" occur. It starts with a leader or at least a spokeperson. He is the President and has every right and duty to insist on what is best for this nation. It's why he is elected. He certainly can't change law on his own, which is what we agree on, but he can certainly open his mouth.
 
We haven't been attacked in a major way by terrorists since Obama took office. We are at war. We shouldn't be changing leadership during war. We should stay the course until peacetime.

God bless America.

I think if our politicians stay out of military affairs, we can drop a new President in the White House every four years without harming our missions abroad. That's one hell of a "if" though.
 
I think if our politicians stay out of military affairs, we can drop a new President in the White House every four years without harming our missions abroad. That's one hell of a "if" though.

Actually, I wouldn't want the military to function without civilaian leadership.
 
We haven't been attacked in a major way by terrorists since Obama took office. We are at war. We shouldn't be changing leadership during war. We should stay the course until peacetime.

God bless America.

using that logic, we should've ammended the rules and allowed Bush to remain president, since we were in a war. just saying... :shrug:
 
using that logic, we should've ammended the rules and allowed Bush to remain president, since we were in a war. just saying... :shrug:

Why do you hate the constitution?

:D
 
Why do you hate the constitution?

:D

why do you get butthurt when one of your lib buddies has his/her own words used against them? :shrug:
 
why do you get butthurt when one of your lib buddies has his/her own words used against them? :shrug:

The smiley face indicates satire. For ****'s sake.
 
The smiley face indicates satire. For ****'s sake.

beg pardon then...given your natural proclivity to attack me whenever I post, I assumed that this was status quo. :lamo
 
Compare that to almost a trillion by Obama and Bush seems very minimal.

What about the five trillion plus that President Bush added. I do beleive he also was the one to established the first bail out on Oct 3rd <hushed tone> because that was 3 days after when it counted on the 2008 debt totals. The fiscal year starts on Sept 30th. That made the 700billion bailout appear as though President Obama spent it in 2009. <end of hushed tones> That brings President Bush's total to over SIX TRILLION.

All of the debt the country incured between President George Washington and the end of President Clinton added up to around 5.5 Trillion. President Bush Spent over 6 Trillion. I just dont get this. I dont want President Obama to spend it either so where were you during the last presidency. The country really could have used your help :(
 
Since we are only two years in to President Obamas term I dont feel its fair to judge. There are SOOO many things that can go wrong.

I can say that I was not happy with the direction the country was going after eight years under President Bush. It was hard to listen to the news because everything was crisis this or disaster that. Our economy, security and freedom all took a serious toll under him. Not to mention our credibility. Most countries had unquestioned faith in us since world war II. We no longer can say that.
 
You guys keep coming up with the same numbers that Reagan had at the same point and you think it means something.

I hope they don't think that. That would be stupid. Just saying. . . . ;)
 
I hope they don't think that. That would be stupid. Just saying. . . . ;)

It means they stick their hand in the oven and see if the soufflé is done every 2 minutes. At every turn, they have to bash Obama. And they'll create any combination of irrelevant and meaningless numbers to make themselves feel better.

Bottom line - Reagan was tanking at this point, but he ended up being one of our most popular presidents.

Bush was at on all time high at this point, but he finished up having the lowest approval in history. The worst President in modern history.

So, the numbers, the polls at this point, don't really mean that much. A CNN poll, a Fox poll, any poll asking people how they feel in the middle of this recovery period where business won't hire because they were all overextended and need to pay down their own debt... of course you're going to get negative answers. Duh.

But when businesses start hiring... we'll see.
 
Last edited:
Most countries had unquestioned faith in us since world war II. We no longer can say that.

This is good! So typical of the broken Liberal thought machine, LOL! Most countries.....say......except for, France, The Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Libya, Venezuela, Columbia, Panama, Grenada, Cambodia, Laos, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, India, Pakistan, Nicaragua, Mexico.............shall we go on and on and on? Yes, we were so well-loved and fully trusted before that tyrant, George W. Bush took over. :2rofll:
 
Actually, I wouldn't want the military to function without civilaian leadership.

You missed the point. Civilian oversight is a must. This is not the point. There comes a time when civilians should get out of the way. Civilian wannabes have too often proven to have a great ability to extend and stumble through wars.

It is civilian failure that leads us into war. And after they have elected to toss the military into what they screwed up, these same failures announce to the public that they will find a way out. In the mean time, the military they rode into war on, is just trying to win their wars. But our politicians want their undue and unearned credit don't they? So they gum up the works, make the military second guess itself in the middle of combat maneuvers, and seek ways to escape the war instead of win it. A lot of blood in Iraq was because politicians way back in the U.S. of A. decided that they knew better than men who spend their lives at their military craft. Fallujah II, Al Sadr, open borders.....all civilian "leadership."

Just....get....the...hell....out.....of....the.....way.
 
Last edited:
Most countries had unquestioned faith in us since world war II. We no longer can say that.

Of course we can. Don't be dramatic. This is a myth spread around for the sake of those who need to self flaggelate.

Most countries bear us no ill will and could care less about a dictator that had lived well beyond his expiration date. In the end, they still leach off the table we provide. Would it suprise you to know that the countries that rallied for the dictator's life (namely France and Germany) have a history of seeking to undermine American foreign policy at every turn? Nothing's changed. Taking out Saddam Hussein merely gave people their latest excuse to act the fool against America. But what did France do trwo years after we toppled Hussein? They dropped in a consulate building to grab a piece of the pie. And European leaders have groveled enough over Obama to ensure that they still can pull up a chair. And as their Islamic problems in the European region worsen, they will seek American support above all else. We are the sure bet. And the world knows it.
 
Last edited:
This is good! So typical of the broken Liberal thought machine, LOL! Most countries.....say......except for, France, The Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Libya, Venezuela, Columbia, Panama, Grenada, Cambodia, Laos, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, India, Pakistan, Nicaragua, Mexico.............shall we go on and on and on? Yes, we were so well-loved and fully trusted before that tyrant, George W. Bush took over. :2rofll:

I am speaking from my experience and from what my grandfather/father have told me of theirs. Im my life time I have experienced this myself. France, Italy and Spain for a start. I also have may friends who travel and say the same. Its not some Liberal machine its my experience.
 
Of course we can. Don't be dramatic.

If anyone else said this I would question them. But I feel that a Master Sergent has more experience than most ever will.
 
You missed the point. Civilian oversight is a must. This is not the point. There comes a time when civilians should get out of the way. Civilian wannabes have too often proven to have a great ability to extend and stumble through wars.

It is civilian failure that leads us into war. And after they have elected to toss the military into what they screwed up, these same failures announce to the public that they will find a way out. In the mean time, the military they rode into war on, is just trying to win their wars. But our politicians want their undue and unearned credit don't they? So they gum up the works, make the military second guess itself in the middle of combat maneuvers, and seek ways to escape the war instead of win it. A lot of blood in Iraq was because politicians way back in the U.S. of A. decided that they knew better than men who spend their lives at their military craft. Fallujah II, Al Sadr, open borders.....all civilian "leadership."

Just....get....the...hell....out.....of....the.....way.

It's a popular sentiment. And certainly, I would agree civilian leadership did in fact involve us in a couple of wars today that we did not need to be in. But I still wouldn't leave everything to the military. Sometimes you can win the war, and lose the aftermath, the future. If it were a football game, merely winning would be enough. But there has to be some consideration for after the fighting stops, and that has to be considered before it stops and not just after. Sure, civilian leaders can and have messed this up. But the responsibility is theres and not the militaries.
 
Peter, I'm not sure if you're trying to be humorous or not, so I'll assume you're not.

The only reason to down a president such as Barack Obama, is out of fear and racism. Bush and his colleagues ruined our country by GOING TO WAR ON LIES.
Well.. that's pure BS, and in fact Democrats in the Senate asked for and got a second vote to authorize the pres to go to war. Our allies, and quasi allies all stated Saddam was a threat and had WMD. The Un stated it. HANS BLIX stated it.

The only lie is the lie the left tried to propagate that Bush went to war on lies. In Britian top BBC execs lost their jobs for trying to make that "sexed up" claim.


If you can not see that our current president is a promising intellectual...
UPDATE: Promise was squandered. He's at best an economic illiterate, foreign relations joke, and all-around left wing hack.

...and that he is doing his best to fix the state of the nation
We realize that, and that's why the electorate is active in stopping him. (See economic illiterate above).

, than you are closing your eyes to the truth as you all have been doing for years.
The biggest eye closing were the Journolists during the last election. Blind leading blind.

To think that Obama is "trying to ruin our country" is a ridiculous slander
Not really. Look at what he is trying to accomplish. Hence what many expect as a historic midterm election. Dems aren't going to the slaughter house because people see they are trying to ruin the country.

and by no means does any evidence support this.
2-years in office have proven otherwise.

For the rest of eternity may president George W. Bush be remembered as the worst president to ever have weaseled his way into office.
ROTFLOL... Bush was fortunate (country not) having such an incompetent, ideologue boob following him. Going to war is never an easy decision, and the Dems proved what traitors they are by voting to send troops to war and then sticking a knife in their back; in both instances... their vote to send troops to war, and then backstabbing them was due to... political expediency.

Bush is polling on par with Obama; and Obama ain't done yet.

.
 
Another deranged, loaded poll from Conservative News Network. These people know no end of silliness.
 
Back
Top Bottom