- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,718
- Reaction score
- 35,494
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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:
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.
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:
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.
I would definitely agree with at least "one" unwinnable war. But two? Last I knew Iraq was considered as a win?
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
I would definitely agree with at least "one" unwinnable war. But two? Last I knew Iraq was considered as a win?
I don't think you can really judge how much damage either has done for some years yet.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
This is win... so i had to quote it
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?