Be a Supporter!

The facts. Bush vs. Obama.

  • 3,613 Views
  • 70 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
BigLundi
BigLundi
  • Member since: Jan. 5, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 19th, 2010 @ 09:19 PM Reply

Ok. So I officially got pissed today when one of my co workers informed me that George Bush was FAR better in his presidency than Obama is. I asked how this was, and they said that he accomplished far more in his first term than Obama currently is.

Here are facts. Non biased facts about George vs. Obama.

Concerning Health Care

George Bush promised to make health insurance more affordable for hard working low income families.
The fact is that within the first half of his term, 4 million more people became uninsured, and health insurance premiums went up by 12.5% per year, and according to a major study, Bush's health care plan drove up health care deductibles paid by workers. He also promised he will establish the 'Healthy Communities Innovation Fund', to provide $500 million in grants over five years to fund innovative projects addressing targeted health risks, such as childhood diabetes." Fact is he never created this fund.

Barack Obama promised to create a National Health Insurance exchange. He instead created a State LEgislated Health Insurance exchange. He did not completely fulfill his promise, instead he compromised, another thing he promised to do. He also promised to reimburse employers for a portion of catastrophic health care plan costs. He also compromised on this, creating a chunk of money to be set aside per year to aid employers in this subject. Not reimbursing them fully, bu garaunteeing help.

I think that's enough about Health Care, that's about an equal amount of stuff. Obama's done WAY more than that, but I'll leave it at the little things, so he doesn't seem so much better in that regard.

Concerning the Enviornment

President Bush promised that the federal government, the country's largest polluter, complies with all enviornemntal laws. The fact is that within the first three years, the Department of Defense asked that they be exempt from enviornmental regulations and laws such as the Clean Air Act of 1970, despite the fact that military buildings in question are already exempt in the first place.

President Obama promised more specific things. One of them being to enact some sort of wildfire prevention plan. His legislation accomplished this. They are setting aside 75 million dollars a year towards fighting wildfires, and funding existing wildfire prevention programs. He also promised to establish a program to convert manufacturing centers into clean technology leaders. Again, his legislations delivered. His stimulus bill delivered on this by promising and delivering billions of dollars to achieve this goal, including setting aside millions towards creating clean energy sources, and 3.1 billion set aside from state alternative energy programs.

I'm not going to go any furthur, because this takes forever to type, and I'm just not that zealous of a guy.

However, I WILL say that I have over 122 kept promises, over 40 kept through compromise, 22 broken ones, and 236 that he's currently working on.

I have, however, not near as much for anything on George Bush. This keeps me from posting much, because I don't wantto overwhelm George Bush' failures with Obama's successes, I really don't. Please find some GOOD things Bush accomplished in his legislation for me. IF anyone has any competitive stats saying that Bush is somewhere on this level, please let me know.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 19th, 2010 @ 09:44 PM Reply

At 10/19/10 09:19 PM, BigLundi wrote: Please find some GOOD things Bush accomplished in his legislation for me. IF anyone has any competitive stats saying that Bush is somewhere on this level, please let me know.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.
html


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
BigLundi
BigLundi
  • Member since: Jan. 5, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 19th, 2010 @ 09:48 PM Reply

Fantastic. Now we can balance out questionable reasons for invasion with the 9 billion he's spent to make Africa a better place. Feed the Children yo.

SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 06:50 AM Reply

They are BOTH contenders for worst presidents ever, and the only reason I would say Bushbeats Obama out is because he hasn't completed one term yet. However, given the state of the economy, Obama is certainly in a position to make himself the worst ever.


At 8/16/14 11:58 PM, Feoric wrote:
Remember: he was shot in the back 35 feet away from the police cruiser. That's not up for debate.

BBS Signature
BezFriend
BezFriend
  • Member since: Sep. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 10:09 AM Reply

I remember a movie about an ocean life guard who was considered the BEST person on the job. He also was tasked in training new recruits. One time, he came across a trainee who cared so much about statistics - how fast he swims, how many he saves, how efficient everything is etc. And so the trainer one day set up the training so that the student knew what statistics to break. He broke every record that the trainer hold - from swim speed, etc.

Now, there was only one record left to break. And that is - how many person his teacher has saved. When he asked how many, he was surprised to get the answer of 432. But that number was not how many the BEST saved, that number was how many he had LOST while on the job.

What I'm saying is that a person is considered better than the rest IF he has fucked up less than the other person. This is also the reason why we consider Warren Buffett the BEST in investment - because even though his rivals have created much better returns than he does (i.e. long term capital investment corporation, etc.) Warren Buffett lost less aggregate money in his whole 50 years in the job.

Thus, I believe that the success of a President is not determined by how many times he have done something - but how little he has fucked up. Thus, if we are to compare - we have to count the number of times the government fucked up under their administration:

What better way than the factual number of serious scandals under their watch:
Fuck Ups

Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 11:11 AM Reply

When was the last time Obama lead us into a war with no evidence the people there were a threat to us, or for that matter, any war at all? He certainly did more to end the Iraq War than Bush ever did. Granted, there are still many non-combat troops there and I would criticize him for not wanting to end the Afghanistan war, but still much better than Bush. Obama at least isn't a total moron and he's done things the Bush administration never could, like lift the ban on stem cell research.

Oddly enough, while he seems to be opposed to gay marriage, no other adminstration has seen more states legalize it. I guess his lack of power in that area is good.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

animehater
animehater
  • Member since: Feb. 28, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 25
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 11:25 AM Reply

At 10/19/10 09:48 PM, BigLundi wrote: Fantastic. Now we can balance out questionable reasons for invasion with the 9 billion he's spent to make Africa a better place. Feed the Children yo.

Mark my words the liberation of Iraq will one day go down as a positive.


"Communism is the very definition of failure." - Liberty Prime.

BBS Signature
BezFriend
BezFriend
  • Member since: Sep. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 12:07 PM Reply

At 10/20/10 11:25 AM, animehater wrote:
At 10/19/10 09:48 PM, BigLundi wrote: Fantastic. Now we can balance out questionable reasons for invasion with the 9 billion he's spent to make Africa a better place. Feed the Children yo.
Mark my words the liberation of Iraq will one day go down as a positive.

"Liberation"? Yes, I believe that it is positive that Iraq is liberated from the occupation of the United States.

mayeram
mayeram
  • Member since: Aug. 4, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Movie Buff
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 01:56 PM Reply

At 10/20/10 06:50 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: They are BOTH contenders for worst presidents ever, and the only reason I would say Bushbeats Obama out is because he hasn't completed one term yet. However, given the state of the economy, Obama is certainly in a position to make himself the worst ever.

Neither are anywhere near the worst president ever. If you want worst president ever you have to read about James Buchanan. He pretty much caused the American civil war through incompetence.

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 03:58 PM Reply

How is it that when Obama does the same failed things as Bush, you call it a "failure" under Bush and a "success" under Obama?

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 04:02 PM Reply

At 10/20/10 11:11 AM, Ericho wrote: When was the last time Obama lead us into a war with no evidence the people there were a threat to us, or for that matter, any war at all? He certainly did more to end the Iraq War than Bush ever did.

He transferred soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan while hiring more Military Contractors to replace the soldiers who left Iraq.

Hence: There are now more soldiers fighting in the Middle East than under Bush.

So much congrats on "ending" it.

Granted, there are still many non-combat troops there and I would criticize him for not wanting to end the Afghanistan war, but still much better than Bush. Obama at least isn't a total moron and he's

done things the Bush administration never could, like lift the ban on stem cell research.

Right.

Because according to people like you, it's "immoral" to clone people, but at the same time "morality" shouldn't get in the way of science for stem cell research.

So it's "moral" to kill the cells, but "immoral" to grow them.

Once again, congrats on consistency.

Oddly enough, while he seems to be opposed to gay marriage, no other adminstration has seen more states legalize it. I guess his lack of power in that area is good.

Moron.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 04:05 PM Reply

At 10/20/10 03:52 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Oh, yes, the evil corporate American occupation that brought democracy, humanitarian aid, international sympathy, social stability, human rights, and fair rulers is such a horrible thing.

Nevermind it actually brought Al Qaieda to Iraq or caused a massive civil war that many people still think is just lulling till we pull out. That to me is the real test. What happens with these factions that still hate each other when we're not there with the weaponry to threaten them into playing nice.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 05:02 PM Reply

At 10/20/10 04:12 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: We just need to make sure Iraq has the weaponry to defend itself against "these factions" the same way we did.

I highly doubt that's what we'll be doing. It seems more likely we'll leave a residual "peace keeping force" behind. That's what we do in any combat situation in which we were not defeated.

TBH, I don't even consider it a war anymore.

I haven't either. Wars tend to be fought between governments or factions that can be considered as a government (even if only de facto). We aren't "at war" in Iraq because the government of Iraq is the government we installed. Right now we're just trying to clean up the mess we created and make sure the people support the system we installed. So nice of us to go in and tell them how to govern themselves.

The war part ended after we got Saddam. However, we are saving lives by staying, you must understand this.

We've also ended quite a few as well. That's all I'd like to point out. Lives have been saved, tremendous amounts of lives have been lost, and lost over an invasion that needn't have happened. That's my issue.

Maybe going in wasn't the best idea, but it doesn't matter because the people there are living so much better lives than they were under Saddam.

Ends justify the means...nice. Nevermind there's still massive violence and we've allowed terrorists to get a foothold. Saddam was scum, but he kept things mostly orderly...unless you were a Kurd of course.

And if we leave too early, we are dooming the people to the same massacre that happened when we pulled out of Vietnam.

I thought we pulled out of Vietnam because we were beaten out? We didn't get beat here...at least not yet. We'll see what happens when troop numbers withdrawal down to the aforementioned residual force.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
ImaSmartass2
ImaSmartass2
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 05:15 PM Reply

At 10/20/10 04:02 PM, Memorize wrote:
At 10/20/10 11:11 AM, Ericho wrote: When was the last time Obama lead us into a war with no evidence the people there were a threat to us, or for that matter, any war at all? He certainly did more to end the Iraq War than Bush ever did.

Right.

Because according to people like you, it's "immoral" to clone people, but at the same time "morality" shouldn't get in the way of science for stem cell research.

So it's "moral" to kill the cells, but "immoral" to grow them.

Once again, congrats on consistency.

AHEM. I would like to clear the issue on stem cell research, especially since an abortion isn't required-research using stem cells aren't from abortion clinics. Period. In fact, most stem cells are from in vitro fertility clinics. Stem cells from the fertility clinics are BEING THROWN AWAY, which in my opinion is a terrible waste.

Source, if you'd like to read up on the subject.

Patton3
Patton3
  • Member since: Sep. 8, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 05:52 PM Reply

I think I speak for most everyone when I say that how much either have accomplished means jack shit. Whether or not they've accomplished anything worthwhile is the question at hand.


If life gives you lemons, read the fine print; chances are, there's a monthly fee attached.

BBS Signature
TDwizBang
TDwizBang
  • Member since: Jul. 4, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 06:09 PM Reply

dont let the 75 million to help prevent wildfires cloud the truth of how wildfires are prevented in America...

what the government does is they sell tracts of land that they "bought" from the people in national forests then they take in contract bids to logging companies to selective cut the trees... which basically means they cant take all the trees in a tract so they just take the best/biggest ones... leaving behind a big mudhole and a few trees that usually end up sick or dying...

the best way to prevent wildfires is to undercut the tract of land which is basically thinning out the dead plant matter on the ground under the forest canopy... but since the government dosnt turn a profit from selling off our dwindling supply of natural forests, since you cant sell dead shrubs and decaying logs, they choose to lie to us all and say selective cutting is the best method...

the only really good wildfire prevention that the government takes on is the smokey the bear campaigns and funding boyscout to set up campsites... but i am not sure how much funding the boyscouts will get after this

long story short, you cant say the government is doing a good job preventing wildfires but they are doing some kind of a job albeit shitty...

ImaSmartass2
ImaSmartass2
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 06:13 PM Reply

At 10/20/10 05:21 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
At 10/20/10 05:02 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
At 10/20/10 04:12 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
Entirely possible. We need SOME kind of presence there.

Agreed. Although it'll probably end up like South Korea.

TBH, I don't even consider it a war anymore.
Iraq has been shit since Saddam got in. Had we not gone in, he would have kept slaughtering people. So yes, in this case we SHOULD tell them how to govern themselves. Besides, the people seem to be appreciative.

You have to remember that Saddam was trained by the CIA. We put him into power, so the people that are appreciative simply do not know that the United States government helped prop him up. It would be a stretch to say that it is completely our fault, but we did have major involvement.

The war part ended after we got Saddam. However, we are saving lives by staying, you must understand this.
We've also ended quite a few as well. That's all I'd like to point out. Lives have been saved, tremendous amounts of lives have been lost, and lost over an invasion that needn't have happened. That's my issue.
Whether or not the invasion was the smart thing to do, you need to admit 2 things:

1. most people ARE living better lives under us than they did under Saddam.

2. if we leave, Al-Qaeda will start a massacre.

In regards to your second point; I really don't think that Al-Qaeda has much power in Iraq anymore, considering that 80% of their leaders are captured or dead, in addition to the fact that the are cut off from support from the Pakistani Al-Qaeda. Not to say that they aren't still a threat, but to say that they will cause a massacre is a gross overestimation of their power and influence.

Maybe going in wasn't the best idea, but it doesn't matter because the people there are living so much better lives than they were under Saddam.
Ends justify the means...nice. Nevermind there's still massive violence and we've allowed terrorists to get a foothold. Saddam was scum, but he kept things mostly orderly...unless you were a Kurd of course.
Al-Qaeda wouldn't even be in Iraq if it didn't interest them in some way. Maybe they had tied to Saddam, maybe they wanted oil (JK), maybe they want middle eastern dominance, I don't know, but why are they fighting us in Iraq if they are (supposedly) only interested in Afghanistan?

And if we leave too early, we are dooming the people to the same massacre that happened when we pulled out of Vietnam.
I thought we pulled out of Vietnam because we were beaten out?
Beaten? Far from it, we were kicking ass! The problem is that the so-called "doves" were sympathizing with the enemy and forces us to pull out. And in doing so, they sealed the fate of all the people we were protecting.

What the fuck are you talking about? We were "kicking ass" in the sense that we were killing more troops than we were losing, it doesn't mean we were making any progress, moreover there was no real good reason that we had to be there in the first place. It was a proxy war with the Soviet Union in addition to our obligations to France, if we had stayed, who knows what might have been escalated. Even it wasn't escalated by the Soviets, the fact of the matter is that we would never be able to pull out of Vietnam, we would have had to beat back the Communists for God knows how long. We'd still probably be in Vietnam if we decided to stay.

We didn't get beat here...at least not yet. We'll see what happens when troop numbers withdrawal down to the aforementioned residual force.
Iraq is pretty much a done deal. But you must agree that we need some form of residual force.

Sure.

All-American-Badass
All-American-Badass
  • Member since: Jul. 16, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 06:41 PM Reply

At 10/20/10 11:11 AM, Ericho wrote:
Oddly enough, while he seems to be opposed to gay marriage, no other adminstration has seen more states legalize it. I guess his lack of power in that area is good.

Let's see here
Under Bush: Massachusetts and California, and Vermont, i believe, legalized gay marriage.
Under Obama: Iowa legalized it.

ImaSmartass2
ImaSmartass2
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 06:49 PM Reply

At 10/20/10 06:41 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:
At 10/20/10 11:11 AM, Ericho wrote:
Oddly enough, while he seems to be opposed to gay marriage, no other adminstration has seen more states legalize it. I guess his lack of power in that area is good.
Let's see here
Under Bush: Massachusetts and California, and Vermont, i believe, legalized gay marriage.
Under Obama: Iowa legalized it.

By inductive reasoning one could say that three other states could legalize gay marriage. Also, to Ericho: What does States issues have to do with Obama?

ImaSmartass2
ImaSmartass2
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 08:43 PM Reply

At 10/20/10 08:23 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
At 10/20/10 06:13 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:
At 10/20/10 05:21 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
At 10/20/10 05:02 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
At 10/20/10 04:12 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
Entirely possible. We need SOME kind of presence there.
Agreed. Although it'll probably end up like South Korea.
Nothing wrong with South Korea. It's NORTH Korea you gotta worry about.

So what's wrong with cleaning up our mess? The US made ALOT of proxy war related mistakes during the cold war. I say we should clean it up.


If they don't have power, then why are we fighting them there? Besides, the VC was nothing compared to al-qaeda, but look what THEY did when we left them alone in 'nam.

The Vietcong was a much larger group than Al-Qaeda. I'll be damned if there are more than 20,000 Al-Qaeda members worldwide, whereas there were the Vietcong had a fighting force of +80,000 (and that's in a single attack raid) and a support basis of more than 300,000.
Source.

Beaten? Far from it, we were kicking ass! The problem is that the so-called "doves" were sympathizing with the enemy and forces us to pull out. And in doing so, they sealed the fate of all the people we were protecting.
We were making plenty. Granted, nowhere near as much as we are in Iraq, but plenty nonetheless.

Do tell.

Yes, the Russians WERE using Proxy Warfare, but that's all the more reason to stop them. As horrible as Russia is, their proxy lackeys are ten times worse. The same goes for OUR proxy wars. The VC needed to be stopped, but we couldn't. As a result of our failure, millions of civilians died needlessly.

Or, we could have just let them go about their business, ignored them and averted the thousands of of our own soldiers that were killed.

if we had stayed, who knows what might have been escalated. Even it wasn't escalated by the Soviets, the fact of the matter is that we would never be able to pull out of Vietnam,
You mean the same way we aren't able to pull out of Iraq?

No. I think you fail to understand that a proxy war between to First World Countries will either escalate or withdraw, sometimes both. We would never have been able to get out of Vietnam because the North Vietnamese had the support of Mother Russia, they armed enemy combatants and ensured that they would be able to combat a developed nation.

we would have had to beat back the Communists for God knows how long. We'd still probably be in Vietnam if we decided to stay.
You mean as a residual force, right?

Maybe if the Soviets gave up. If the Soviets stopped funded the Vietcong, then we could have easily crushed them.

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 09:09 PM Reply

At 10/20/10 05:15 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:
AHEM. I would like to clear the issue on stem cell research, especially since an abortion isn't required-research using stem cells aren't from abortion clinics. Period. In fact, most stem cells are from in vitro fertility clinics. Stem cells from the fertility clinics are BEING THROWN AWAY, which in my opinion is a terrible waste.

No shit, Sherlock.

I already know that, though I do love how your counter argument is "Well, MOST..." ie. I support it anyway despite the inconsistency.

I was specifically referring to how creating is somehow unethical and "has no place in any society" (as Obama claims), but destroying it is "embarking to great progress!";

But even still, why would you want the Government to fund it? Oh, so it's not "ok" for the Government to tax people to spend on such a huge military, but it's ok for the Government to fund stem cell research?

And how's that worked out after all this money spent? Much of it lost or wasted (typical).

It reminds me of the huge push to corn based ethanol... until everyone found it resulted in cutting down more forest, polluted just as much, and lead to increase in food prices which disproportionately affected the poor while resulting in millions of more deaths in poorer 3rd world countries.

Congrats!

Dawnslayer
Dawnslayer
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 09:16 PM Reply

At 10/20/10 03:58 PM, Memorize wrote: How is it that when Obama does the same failed things as Bush, you call it a "failure" under Bush and a "success" under Obama?

The same way mandatory health insurance was a great idea under Mitt Romney and socialist under Obama. It doesn't matter what the idea is; what matters is whether it was your guys or the other guys who suggested it.

SmilezRoyale
SmilezRoyale
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 09:37 PM Reply

At 10/20/10 03:58 PM, Memorize wrote: How is it that when Obama does the same failed things as Bush, you call it a "failure" under Bush and a "success" under Obama?

Because not enough time has passed to establish The government program as a failure. But you're absolutely right.

The federal government has already admitted that they lied about the Health Care Bill, and that many Americans will lose their health insurance programs. This might be a sucess for the Feds, but not for joeregular.


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.

All-American-Badass
All-American-Badass
  • Member since: Jul. 16, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 11:13 PM Reply

At 10/20/10 06:49 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:
At 10/20/10 06:41 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:
At 10/20/10 11:11 AM, Ericho wrote:
Oddly enough, while he seems to be opposed to gay marriage, no other adminstration has seen more states legalize it. I guess his lack of power in that area is good.
Let's see here
Under Bush: Massachusetts and California, and Vermont, i believe, legalized gay marriage.
Under Obama: Iowa legalized it.
By inductive reasoning one could say that three other states could legalize gay marriage. Also, to Ericho: What does States issues have to do with Obama?

Well since Obama is likely going to be a one term president, i find it 99% unlikely that 3 other states will legalize it under his administration. But if he somehow get's two terms which will happen if the republicans are idiots and have Palin as their presidential nominee, then maybe 3 more states will legalize it. Of course i don't think there's 3 other states who are even considering or discussing the legalizing of gay marriage yet.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 20th, 2010 @ 11:33 PM Reply

At 10/20/10 05:21 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Entirely possible. We need SOME kind of presence there.

I believe that was actually announced by Obama. I probably should have been more clear that this was more that I was under the impression this was already a stated plan vs. a personal belief on my part.

Iraq has been shit since Saddam got in. Had we not gone in, he would have kept slaughtering people. So yes, in this case we SHOULD tell them how to govern themselves. Besides, the people seem to be appreciative.

Wasn't Saddam a dictator? See, this is my problem. Nobody is arguing Saddam was good. Saddam was shit. But there are many other dictators in the world and shitty rulers, but we DO NOTHING about them. We plan and intend to do nothing about them. This war was launched because the Bush administration saw some benefit to them in it politically, strategically, or whatever. The welfare of the Iraqi people was far far down the list if it was even on the list at all. Let's not act like idiots here and pretend that really mattered all that much.

Also my point was where do we have the right to be telling Iraq that they MUST be a Democracy, other then from the, again, set up of we want a friendly government in there. We didn't fight that war to give that country back to it's people, we fought it to get an ally so again. The whole "it's for the people" argument is nonsense on the face of it.

1. most people ARE living better lives under us than they did under Saddam.

For now.

2. if we leave, Al-Qaeda will start a massacre.

And if they did, it will be because we destabilized the region in the FIRST place and let them in. They were not there when Saddam was there. Hell, they've done a decent job of it with us there anyway.

Al-Qaeda wouldn't even be in Iraq if it didn't interest them in some way.

And if we hadn't give them the in.

Maybe they had tied to Saddam, maybe they wanted oil (JK), maybe they want middle eastern dominance, I don't know, but why are they fighting us in Iraq if they are (supposedly) only interested in Afghanistan?

Who assumed they were only interested in Afghanistan? They're interested in spreading their influence wherever they can. They'll spread it right here in the west if they can. Also it's been pretty demonstrably proven they weren't in Iraq until we invaded, destabilized the region, and they snuck in with the rest of the insurgency.

Hitler was scum, but he kept things mostly orderly...unless you were a Jew of course.

And we go to the oldest trick in the book..."compare it to Hitler" it's even it's own logical fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_
ad_Hitlerum

The point: you can say the same about pretty much any evil dictator.

You can...and since we don't go after every evil dictator, the whole "look at the benefit" does nothing to mitigate the fact that it was an unnecessary invasion and purely a political and personal war waged by the Bush Administration. I do hope it leads to a better life for all Iraqi's. But history in when it comes to the US and these sorts of things isn't on their side.

Beaten? Far from it, we were kicking ass! The problem is that the so-called "doves" were sympathizing with the enemy and forces us to pull out. And in doing so, they sealed the fate of all the people we were protecting.

I'd say the capture of Saigon had a lot to do with it actually....

Also this idea of "protecting" them from the horror of Communism was really purely based on the overall American strategy of "anything is better then Communism" which led to some pretty shitty democracies that were actually overthrown in POPULAR Communist revolutions (see China for instance)

Iraq is pretty much a done deal. But you must agree that we need some form of residual force.

If we don't want it to be like Afghanistan when we bungled that? Yeah. There's still a ton of forces that are liable to attack the new government if they smell weakness. Hell they may do that when most of our forces pull out (as it seems stabilization has directly correlated to troop levels in the region). We'll see. I do hope for the best, while bracing for the worst.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 21st, 2010 @ 12:11 AM Reply

At 10/20/10 06:50 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: They are BOTH contenders for worst presidents ever, and the only reason I would say Bushbeats Obama out is because he hasn't completed one term yet. However, given the state of the economy, Obama is certainly in a position to make himself the worst ever.

Oh. So there must've been something both have done that was worse then forcefully deporting native americans, declared war on Britain and invaded Canada etc.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 21st, 2010 @ 08:57 AM Reply

At 10/20/10 04:02 PM, Memorize wrote: He transferred soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan while hiring more Military Contractors to replace the soldiers who left Iraq.

Okay, I guess I worded that poorly. What I meant to say was when was the last time he started a war like that. Yes, I know he has done poorly with Afghanistan, but he withdrew the combat troops from Iraq which is infinitley better than anything Bush could ever dream of.

Because according to people like you, it's "immoral" to clone people, but at the same time "morality" shouldn't get in the way of science for stem cell research.

Um, you didn't even quote the part of my post where I talked about stem cell research.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

animehater
animehater
  • Member since: Feb. 28, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 25
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 21st, 2010 @ 08:58 AM Reply

At 10/20/10 12:07 PM, BezFriend wrote: "Liberation"? Yes, I believe that it is positive that Iraq is liberated from the occupation of the United States.

I can tell from that post that that mind of yours just doesn't have enough activity going on in it to see reason.


"Communism is the very definition of failure." - Liberty Prime.

BBS Signature
AlexMac
AlexMac
  • Member since: Oct. 5, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 21st, 2010 @ 06:29 PM Reply

lets be honest they are both puppets for the illuminati ;D

ImaSmartass2
ImaSmartass2
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Blank Slate
Response to The facts. Bush vs. Obama. Oct. 21st, 2010 @ 07:48 PM Reply

At 10/20/10 11:01 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
If they don't have power, then why are we fighting them there? Besides, the VC was nothing compared to al-qaeda, but look what THEY did when we left them alone in 'nam.
The Vietcong was a much larger group than Al-Qaeda.
Did the VC do 9/11?

Shut the fuck up.

I'll be damned if there are more than 20,000 Al-Qaeda members worldwide,
But Al-Qaeda has more allies. Allies that actually fight and don't just send money.

I'm sure that Afghanistan, part of Pakistan, possibly Iran, and some people in Iraq outweigh Mother Russia and her legion of countries.


I'm not denying that the VC was strong, but Al-Qaeda is far more devious.

How so?

Do tell.
Vietnamization.

That's kind of funny. Because it notably failed horrendously. Also, Vietnamization was an effort to prop up the South Vietnamese forces so we could get the fuck out of there.


Or, we could have just let them go about their business, ignored them and averted the thousands of of our own soldiers that were killed.
Hmm, save millions of lives, save thousands of lives, thousands, millions, thousands, millions, thousands, millions, thousands, millions, thousands, millions, thousands, millions, thousands, millions, thousands, millions, thousands, millions, thousands, millions, thousands, millions, I'm gonna go with millions.

...You do know less world have been killed if we had just stayed out of it right?

if we had stayed, who knows what might have been escalated. Even it wasn't escalated by the Soviets, the fact of the matter is that we would never be able to pull out of Vietnam,
You mean the same way we aren't able to pull out of Iraq?
No. I think you fail to understand that a proxy war between to First World Countries will either escalate or withdraw, sometimes both.
how can it be both?

Escalation then withdrawal.

So why grant Russia this victory?

We were going to have to withdraw anyways.