man-bear-pig said:
Kasz216 said:
man-bear-pig said:
Kasz216 said:
man-bear-pig said:
spurgeonryan said:
Well Obama is a tad bit better than The Bush, so if we keep getting a tad bit better every four years we should have a president on par with a Roosevelt in 20 years! |
Yeah, Obama is a whole lot better than bush, but Romney and santorum looks like a backwards step. One step forwards and 2 steps back.
Oh, and I just realised that I cited iTunes as the source in that last article. *facepalm* Damn synopsis' in my brain!
|
In what way is Obama a whole lot better then Bush?
I mean, he's been MORE agressive on the war on terror... violating more countries soverinity more often then bush.
Kept in place all of the "abuses of freedom" people see, while stealthly adding a bit to them....
and kept on with the same ruinous economic policies... while deciding to implement an extremly costly healthcare plan that causes uncertantity and companies to keep cash on hand because nobody knows the compliance costs.
The only positive things I can think of that have happened during his administration were things that already followed the Bush Timetable (Iraq withdrawl) or things that he had nothing to do with. (GoProud's removal of don't ask don't tell.... which he fought against.)
|
I'm on my iPod so I can't really type a long reply. But Bush was the guy who got involved in the war in the first place, and ruined Americas standing in the world. On top of that he was an idiot.
|
I'm still not seeing much of a difference.
Obama's been starting his own wars... it's just the nations he's picking on aren't willing to fight back.
He's killed hundreds of innocent civilians in Pakistan in drone attacks along with something like 160 children. GREATLY increasing the intensity of what Bush did. While setting a precendent that it's ok for the US government to intentionally kill a US citizen, without a trial, just by suspecting said person may be a terrorist. You don't even get the luxuary of a trial in absentia.
He's really shown himself if anything to be more beligerant then Bush.
Obama's been MORE agressive on the war on terror then bush ever was, violating more peoples rights more often. He hasn't used ground forces anywhere, but we're already in the middle of two ground wars. Switch their presidencies orders, and I'd wager we were in both Afghanistan and Pakistan right now.
Heck, combine that with the bombings in Libya... and really eveyrthing else....
I hate to say it, but you just come off woefully uninformed.
|
Why shouldn't Obama try to seek out and kill terror threats to the USA? The drone bombings are a cheaper and more effective method than sending in the army, like bush did. Are you saying that less than 160 children were killed during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Ground wars cost the most money and the most damage to international relations, and are a main component of why the USA has $15tn debt.
|
How would you feel if a bomb went off in New York City, killing 30 innocent people and 2 children, set by say Russia, who was targetting suspected Checniyan terrorists?
That's your answer.
Aside from which, if you believe Obama, the whole thing only cost 1 Trillion. Making at worst 1/15th of the problem... if for some reason you want to count the ENTIRE thing as part of government debt out of laziness/bias... versus counting it as a percentage of the budget during that time... which, the budgets have been huge.
