Why was GW Bush (Jr Bush) better than Obama?

[richardhutnik]

Zappykins said:

You are comparing things that can't be compared (like Katrina and BP Oil?), but I'm not convinced you are not trolling. One could easily point out declaring an unnecessary war by accusing a country of hiding 'weapons of mass destruction' that were sold by his Daddy's administration, by the vary same guy who was serving as the Secretary of Deference (Donald Rumsfeld) and used against our then enemy in their own war (with Iran.)

Just lost at the cost of the war, first in human lives, then add economic cost (which was kept out of the Federal Budget to make his numbers look better), then throw in the damage to Iraq, human rights violations, etc.

Or, one could hate him for blocking medical research with the stem cell ban? My friend with diabetes (type 1) would love a new pancreas they are growing with stem cells overseas. He may not get completely off insulin, but he would have less of a chance of going blind.

Still, he was such a bad president (including Cheney) that I think you must be trolling, at least a little bit.

I was trying to end up comparing the two, trying to see if there is ANY case that can be made by anyone that GW Bush was better than Obama in any way, and can argue that Obama has been worse of a president.  I tried to compare apples to apples, as much as possible.  I addressed issues that might be brought up.  So, the idea was overall, and individual areas.  Apparently the only are really anyone can debate would be over the deficit, and that is debated because there debate centers on the 2009's budget and who is responsible for it.  If you put it under GW Bush, then Obama hasn't run up the deficit more than Bush.  If you place it under Obama, then Obama has created a larger debt.

Go back, and you will see threads on here, and people have actually said Obama is THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER.