• 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
So was Bush, unless you have issue with the constitution.

Or are you interjecting some conspiracy BS that Florida rigged the election? Shall we started discussing Bush Certificates too if you want to bring it to such tinfoil hat levels? :roll:
 
So was Bush, unless you have issue with the constitution.

Or are you interjecting some conspiracy BS that Florida rigged the election? Shall we started discussing Bush Certificates too if you want to bring it to such tinfoil hat levels? :roll:

He was a land-man . . . he doesn't count, he bought his way in :D

(actually - I've read his autobiography. I think he's a squared away guy in comparison to others who have also been president)
 
It amazes me that people think that Bush did not run deficits like crazy and was basically even with Obama. The difference is that Bush took the wars off the books. That way his spending looked much less. Obama has the wars on the books as well as the stimulus that he and Bush both promoted. If you figure in war spending, especially to the Bachman chart, they are virtually even on spending.
 
It amazes me that people think that Bush did not run deficits like crazy and was basically even with Obama. The difference is that Bush took the wars off the books. That way his spending looked much less. Obama has the wars on the books as well as the stimulus that he and Bush both promoted. If you figure in war spending, especially to the Bachman chart, they are virtually even on spending.

Damn straight he did, there's lots of tools they use to monkey with numbers to make them look this way or that way. It's pretty pathetic. But Bush is a big government, big war, big brother, big spending, big deficit sort of guy. He expanded so much in government, so many more laws came up, some questionable tactics, etc. He has done well more to damage the Republic at this point than Obama has. Though Obama is trying hard to finish the job Bush started. I really think Bush marked the end of the old conservative ideology and paved the way for the new neo-con ideology which only at best pays lip service to small, restrained government. In actuality they push for imperial movements of military and gross expansion of government against the rights and liberties of the individual. That is in part why thus far it is Bush who has done more to destroy the Republic.

I think it's pretty horrible in this day and age to look back and honestly say "you know, Clinton wasn't that bad". How is it that in two tries, we haven't done better than some sleaze ball liar who should have been impeached? Instead we have two more sleaze ball liar and I'm sure that if we knew exactly what the two have done, we'd be saying they should have been impeached as well. Can we increase our standards for President instead of decreasing them to rock bottom standards?
 
Last edited:
I voted Bush, but I shouldn't have. Unfortunately, neither wasn't a choice. The only way you could possibly vote "Obama" is if you believe the health care bill was more damaging to this country than the Iraq war. I am sure some do believe that, and of course, they will vote "Obama" - which is fine.

However, those talking about debt are failing to realize that it was all incurred from something he inherited - which was the financial meltdown. So really, this question is about one thing:

Do you disagree with the health care bill vs do you agree with the health care bill

I agree with it, so I voted Bush, though I really hesitate to say that he damaged the country. Also, a President only has so much effect. What about the legislature?
 
So was Bush, unless you have issue with the constitution.

Or are you interjecting some conspiracy BS that Florida rigged the election? Shall we started discussing Bush Certificates too if you want to bring it to such tinfoil hat levels? :roll:

The constitution has issues with the constitution. Prominent legal scholars have put down on paper that Bush V. Gore is quite possibly one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS. It's right up there with Dred Scott.

Judicial Mistakes, Bad Judgment, Supreme Court, Worst Decisions

Akhil Amar
There are other qualities that elevate this decision to the anticanon. Would the Court itself follow its own precepts in the next case? The Court, in fact, announces in advance that it will not.

Lazarus
Or, in their words: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances because the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
 
Started 2 wars, high oil prices as a result of those two wars, Patriot Act, faith based initiatives, associating political opponents with terrorism(which has been used by the Republican party well after they left), demonstrated nepotism, completely denied the concept of waterboarding as a torturing method(even though the US had convicted Japanese soldiers of doing the same), "Brownie"...

The list of crap that the Bush administration has tied its name to is simply too long to remember.

This is why I voted for Bush being the more destructive of the two thus far. But I might say that, while I hate the things he's done, I feel for the man on a personal level. It wasn't his fault the world has changed, and a new era is upon us -- he came into his job believing the 21st century would be just a long 20th century, and he was wrong. America's decline wasn't so much started by him, as it was hastened. And so I feel for him -- history will label him as the man who made the American powerbase crumble, but I think he was just one of many players in that.
 
I would definitely agree with at least "one" unwinnable war. But two? Last I knew Iraq was considered as a win?

Not by me. We never should have invaded that country. It was an illegal, preemptive invasion of a country that had absolutely no ability to harm us. And we knew it! Now Iraq is in ruins, it's infrastructure demolished, a corrupt government that refuses to even meet in the same room with each other, bombs are going off killing civilians every week, you've got Shia, Sunni and now (thanks to us) Al Qaeda running around all trying to kill each other off while we watch. 35,000 of us watch. That's how many soldiers that will be based there, probably forever. Win??? Nobody won in that war. Nobody... except Iran, which now sees its dream of a Greater Persia one step closer to fruition.
 
Obama
He is on pace to rack up a ton of more debt than Bush did.
 
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

Same coin different sides.....both are progressives.
 
I would definitely agree with at least "one" unwinnable war. But two? Last I knew Iraq was considered as a win?

Where are you from that you think 6,000 dead soldiers, hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, mass destruction, a nine year occupation, and lack of significant governmental change constitute a win?
 
I don't think you can really judge how much damage either has done for some years yet.

Thank you. While I don't care for the policies of either President, it's impossible to judge the full impact of those policies right now. We need to see how things are going to play out. It's possible (though I don't think very likely) that Iraq and Afghanistan will be viewed as stunning successes in nation building and Bush could then be hailed as a visionary. It's also possible (though again unlikely in my book) the economy will turn around and grow leaps and bounds under Obama's policy. His deficit stimulous spending might be viewed as thing that saved us from the brink of economic disaster.

You need at least 10 or 15 years to judge the long term impact of a Presidential administration. People who claim to rate Bush or Obama as one of the worst Presidents are doing so based solely on their own political biases. We don't yet have enough information to judge who good or bad either of them are or were as President.
 
AS of right now...I think Obama is worse. I don't want to hear that Obama had to print more money to get out of the recession. Is that what you do when you have to pay off a credit card? Get another one and pay it off with that....Just keeps digging us deeper in an existing hole. Makes no sense whats SO ever to (this is just example) pay 1 trillion dollars off in 10 yrs and spent over that in one. Please tell me how the MATH adds up. For 2, Passing that ridiculous heath bill without letting the senate or the public have time to even read it. Pelosi says just pass the bill, read it later....um..no. And just those examples..are within 2 1/2 years...God help us if he gets re-elected.
 
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

In the deepest sense, neither. In democracies "the people" are responsible for everything.

In a shallower sense, Bush is worse just because of the Iraq War. He exploited 9/11 to advance an outdated political agenda that has weakened the United States on every front. Everything Obama has tried to solve is a problem that was identified during the Bush Administration, often by the Administration itself. Instead of devoting itself to solving those problems, the Bush Administration invented a new one.

Furthermore, since the executive branch is collaborative, it is fairer blame entire Administrations than singular Presidents.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you can really judge how much damage either has done for some years yet.

Really? I rather think Obama would have to set up a meteor attractor and destroy the earth to do more damage than W.
 
Really? I rather think Obama would have to set up a meteor attractor and destroy the earth to do more damage than W.

I'm not say that Obama and Bush aren't complicit in important developments, but their contributions are exaggerated. Both administrations are mostly proxies for the weaknesses of the American people. That's true of governments everywhere, even in autocratic societies. Neither politician would have gotten beyond the peripheral of the American consciousness unless they spoke to something within the soul of America. Ultimately it is that soul which gives them power and informs their actions.
 
Last edited:
Bush did more damage to this country.
However Obama is doing little for it.

The question was who has done more damage to this country right?

George W. Bush has done more damage.
 
Bush did more damage to this country.
However Obama is doing little for it.

The question was who has done more damage to this country right?

George W. Bush has done more damage.

I agree. Obama isnt so hot but Bush really screwed up on multiple levels.
 
I agree. Obama isnt so hot but Bush really screwed up on multiple levels.

Hey hey hey.... let's give Obama a chance! It's only been 2 years and he's off to a very good start. He may pass Bush's damage of 8 years in only 4... after all, Obama's much more intelligent than chimp boy.
 
Hey hey hey.... let's give Obama a chance! It's only been 2 years and he's off to a very good start. He may pass Bush's damage of 8 years in only 4... after all, Obama's much more intelligent than chimp boy.

The difference between Obama and Bush is that most of what Bush did was a consequence of being trapped between tough realities and everything Obama does is a consequence of being trapped between tough realities. That gives Obama slight moral superiority.
 
The difference between Obama and Bush is that most of what Bush did was a consequence of being trapped between tough realities and everything Obama does is a consequence of being trapped between tough realities. That gives Obama slight moral superiority.

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?
 
I agree that it might have taken longer to get out of the recession...(though I still think that we are in the recession) However all that has happened is at best a bandaid affect. 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.

Big corporations have a tendency to stomp out the little guys. Half the time without even realizing it. This leads to monopolies, which in turn leads to stagnation because theres no real competition to make the corporation try to stay on top. By letting those corporations fall it would have allowed more competition to surface. Which is good for the common consumer. Competition means lower prices, which in turn means more spending because people can afford <X item here>.

This post is of course just a small part of why I think Gov spending in the middle of a recession is bad. I won't get into more of it as this is neither the thread, nor do I really feel like getting into such a debate.

This is win... so i had to quote it
 
Bush has done more damage. He has gotten us into expensive poorly planned wars, he has contributed to the destruction of the economy. He contributed to the national debt and raised the deficit. Obama isn't much better. However Bush had 8 years, Obama so far has had almost 3.
 
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?

Thankyou. You are clearly the best representative of those folks that share your POV.
I don't think anyone make a more salient point than you did.
However, I expect some will try to push you out your top of the heap position.
 
This is win... so i had to quote it

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom