By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Why was GW Bush (Jr Bush) better than Obama?

Top 5 reasons no one in my lifetime was worse than Bush ( Still don't like Obama, but yeah lol).

 

1. Obama is a pussy when it comes to congress and the senate, George Bush wasn't (Cont.). He has zero backbone, he's too nice. Congress feared Bushes next word he always found a way to force his will.

2. (Cont.) Because of this Bush had no fear in saying fuck the world, Americans included. He proved it in his speech after he left which he spelled out as "I fucked up, too bad to whoever wins the next election, I'm going home lolz". (Just saying, if Bush was president for three terms there would've been a World War 3.If you're a Christian, where I live people had fears that the end-times were coming)

3. George Bush apparently had no idea that we had a national debt clock.

4. George Bush made the Chinese hate us with a passion even so much they would side with the Venezuelans on oil deals if thats what it took.

5. The housing bubble was set to explode by the end of his terms. As a republican he should've put some federal oversight on the community reinvestment act within what...his first year in office? 

Bonus

6. I thought he was the Anti-christ in school


::Walks away::



Around the Network
richardhutnik said:

* Invasions of countries: GW Bush invaded two, and both of which had occupations for years, one of which goes down under the ranks of Vietnam.  Obama was involved with the invasion of Libya, which ended fairly quickly and U.S isn't in there.

Last time I checked there was no 'invsion of Libya'. The US participated in enforcing a no-fly zone that was authorised by the UN Security Council. At no point did they actually invade the country.



Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
chocoloco said:

G.W. is the best President at being a war monger. I can hardly think of one thing he did I liked. I payed attention to politics more during that time because every thing he did I disagreed with and his veiws on thinking god worked through him sickend me. Romney seems almost as scary.


Nah.  As Govonor Romney was more liberal then Obama is as president.


Yes but unless he rapidly backpedals on the positions he took in the Republican "race to be the most insane rightwing fundamentalist nutbug" primary, he'll be a far more conservative president.

Remember Rath, this is American politics.

Look at all the rapid backpedalling Obama did from his caopaign promises.

 

I mean, Bush wasn't better then Obama, but reverse their presidencies and I think you'd find not much changed.

Obama hasn't actually backpedaled as much as you make out - a lot of the promises he broke were not out of backpedaling but simply because congress didn't want to pass it. For Romney to become more liberal than Obama would require massive massive shifts.

In the general line of the Bush/Obama presidency (and especially on handling the economic disaster) - they're pretty similar. However in terms of the defining events of their presidencies they're quite different. 

Iraq was a bit more disasterous than Libya for example, and Obama hasn't handled a domestic disaster as badly as Bush cocked up Katrina. In the end those will be some of the major things Bush will be remembered for.


That's not true at all... Obama did most of his backpedalling in the first two years of his presidency when he had a democratic majority.  Ever since the Republican party took over congress he's moved back towards the "left" as he knew none of those policies would pass.   If you look at legislative history you'll note that a few hot button issues are only pushed when they know they won't pass.

Gay rights is one of those.

The healthcare law I'd bet would be another.  If the Republicans actually thought they could pass a repeal of healthcare, I doubt they would, because it's too much of a political risk.

 

As for their handling of things... Iraq was more disasterous then Libya, but those were two very different wars.  There wasn't a strong unified arm resistance to support in Iraq.

 

While Bush's handling of Katrina... Obama's handling of the BP oil spill wasn't exactly great either.  Although really neither of those are either of their faults.

In general the problem is that FEMA is a giant mess of an orginzation that ends up getting in local groups way in it's need to overly control everything.

Well that and stupid enviromental laws prevented quicker cleanup of the BP oil because it  banned the use of most cleaning boats because the cleaning boats would be counted as "polluting" the water by putting in water because the water that would run through it's ships wouldn't be "clean enough".  (You know, despite the fact that it'd be cleaner.)



Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
chocoloco said:

G.W. is the best President at being a war monger. I can hardly think of one thing he did I liked. I payed attention to politics more during that time because every thing he did I disagreed with and his veiws on thinking god worked through him sickend me. Romney seems almost as scary.


Nah.  As Govonor Romney was more liberal then Obama is as president.


Yes but unless he rapidly backpedals on the positions he took in the Republican "race to be the most insane rightwing fundamentalist nutbug" primary, he'll be a far more conservative president.

Remember Rath, this is American politics.

Look at all the rapid backpedalling Obama did from his caopaign promises.

 

I mean, Bush wasn't better then Obama, but reverse their presidencies and I think you'd find not much changed.

Obama hasn't actually backpedaled as much as you make out - a lot of the promises he broke were not out of backpedaling but simply because congress didn't want to pass it. For Romney to become more liberal than Obama would require massive massive shifts.

In the general line of the Bush/Obama presidency (and especially on handling the economic disaster) - they're pretty similar. However in terms of the defining events of their presidencies they're quite different. 

Iraq was a bit more disasterous than Libya for example, and Obama hasn't handled a domestic disaster as badly as Bush cocked up Katrina. In the end those will be some of the major things Bush will be remembered for.


That's not true at all... Obama did most of his backpedalling in the first two years of his presidency when he had a democratic majority.  Ever since the Republican party took over congress he's moved back towards the "left" as he knew none of those policies would pass.   If you look at legislative history you'll note that a few hot button issues are only pushed when they know they won't pass.

Gay rights is one of those.

The healthcare law I'd bet would be another.  If the Republicans actually thought they could pass a repeal of healthcare, I doubt they would, because it's too much of a political risk.

 

As for their handling of things... Iraq was more disasterous then Libya, but those were two very different wars.  There wasn't a strong unified arm resistance to support in Iraq.

 

While Bush's handling of Katrina... Obama's handling of the BP oil spill wasn't exactly great either.  Although really neither of those are either of their faults.

In general the problem is that FEMA is a giant mess of an orginzation that ends up getting in local groups way in it's need to overly control everything.

Well that and stupid enviromental laws prevented quicker cleanup of the BP oil because it  banned the use of most cleaning boats because the cleaning boats would be counted as "polluting" the water by putting in water because the water that would run through it's ships wouldn't be "clean enough".  (You know, despite the fact that it'd be cleaner.)

His major gay rights promise was Don't Ask Don't Tell - he pushed that through. Some of his promises he couldn't even get through a democratic congress (Freedom of Choice Act anyone?) and some of his promises were never going to happen (He was never going to get somewhere to put Guantanamo prisoners).

 

The fact that there was no strong unified front in Iraq was part of what was wrong with the war. Libya was an intervention because a budding revolution was about to be crushed and its supporters almost certainly massacred, Iraq didn't have any real national emergency (or any real threat internationally). It was a war for the sake of a war - though I'll admit that if democracy sticks it will have had a net positive outcome.

As for BP - didn't know there had been such criticism of Obama for it. Katrina was a mess though - although you're right that it's probably not fair to lay it all at George's feet.



Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
 


That's not true at all... Obama did most of his backpedalling in the first two years of his presidency when he had a democratic majority.  Ever since the Republican party took over congress he's moved back towards the "left" as he knew none of those policies would pass.   If you look at legislative history you'll note that a few hot button issues are only pushed when they know they won't pass.

Gay rights is one of those.

The healthcare law I'd bet would be another.  If the Republicans actually thought they could pass a repeal of healthcare, I doubt they would, because it's too much of a political risk.

 

As for their handling of things... Iraq was more disasterous then Libya, but those were two very different wars.  There wasn't a strong unified arm resistance to support in Iraq.

 

While Bush's handling of Katrina... Obama's handling of the BP oil spill wasn't exactly great either.  Although really neither of those are either of their faults.

In general the problem is that FEMA is a giant mess of an orginzation that ends up getting in local groups way in it's need to overly control everything.

Well that and stupid enviromental laws prevented quicker cleanup of the BP oil because it  banned the use of most cleaning boats because the cleaning boats would be counted as "polluting" the water by putting in water because the water that would run through it's ships wouldn't be "clean enough".  (You know, despite the fact that it'd be cleaner.)

His major gay rights promise was Don't Ask Don't Tell - he pushed that through. Some of his promises he couldn't even get through a democratic congress (Freedom of Choice Act anyone?) and some of his promises were never going to happen (He was never going to get somewhere to put Guantanamo prisoners).

 

The fact that there was no strong unified front in Iraq was part of what was wrong with the war. Libya was an intervention because a budding revolution was about to be crushed and its supporters almost certainly massacred, Iraq didn't have any real national emergency (or any real threat internationally). It was a war for the sake of a war - though I'll admit that if democracy sticks it will have had a net positive outcome.

As for BP - didn't know there had been such criticism of Obama for it. Katrina was a mess though - although you're right that it's probably not fair to lay it all at George's feet.


He didn't "Push through" Don't ask Don't tell.  

Don't ask Don't tell was defeated in court by the "Log Cabin Republicans" and was about to set a precedent that treating someone differeintly because of their sexual prefrence... that even the  more bigoted states and areas would be forced to respect and probaly would of set things up to finally get gay marriage legalized via the court system.

He put an injunction on the court order to end don't ask don't tell, filed an appeal and ordered the DA to stall, to give the Democrats enough time to quickly repeal it so they could claim credit for it.

End result was, on appeal by the government, the ruling was overturned because it was a moot point with Don't ask, Don't tell being repealed.  Destroying the precedent.

Obama actually ended up dealing gay rights a blow in a craven rush for credit.  Had he just let the decision stand I bet we'd have gay marriage by 2014.

Log Cabin Republicans vs US Government + Loving vs Virginia would of been unavoidable even for the most conservative SC justices.

 

(Log Cabin Republicans being Repubiclan gay rights group who use Abe Lincoln as their symbol because there is some evidence that can be read as Abe Lincoln being gay.)



Around the Network

Although im not very 'into' the subject. The biggest difference that stands out to me is that Obama at least pretends (i think he actually does) to care about people, rich or poor, no matter the color.
Is Obamacare an improvement to the standard of living for all americans, or does it hurt any who can't take a hit?

G.W. on the other hand only cared about G.W., the insane believe that America is the best, the greatest, all that and even more.

Like i said, not really 'into' this stuff since being a European means most of what i know is what the media tells me. And the media tells a lot of crap at times.



I don't see Bush or Obama being good Presidents up to this point. You know who actually was better than both of them? Bush's dad. Politically, he was very experienced. He was very diplomatic, yet never let others walk all over him. When he decided to go to war, he had a clear, justifiable objective that most could understand and got the hell out when that objective was completed. His only major downfall was the economic recession that hit right before it was time to run for President again.



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

Jon-Erich said:
I don't see Bush or Obama being good Presidents up to this point. You know who actually was better than both of them? Bush's dad. Politically, he was very experienced. He was very diplomatic, yet never let others walk all over him. When he decided to go to war, he had a clear, justifiable objective that most could understand and got the hell out when that objective was completed. His only major downfall was the economic recession that hit right before it was time to run for President again.

It is funny... everything that Bush was hated for is the opposite of what the other bush was hated for.

 

Inavaded Iraq vs Didn't Overthrow Iraq.

Cut taxes and ran up the deficit vs Raised taxes

etc

 



Bush didn't inherit a surplus and shrinking debt and leave office with a deficit and balooning debt, Republicans are fiscally responsible and just would never do that...oh wait.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

PDF said:
Not sure what Obama really has done in Africa but I know Bush did quite a bit.

Not much, but they haven't cut the bush programs.  They froze spending for a while, so that's sorta a "cut" but maybe they've done somethin more recent.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69587.html