Who do you think will go down as the better President, Obama or George W Bush?

The government spending too much does not drive an economy into the ground. After the recession, interest rates will have to go up to combat inflation and, yes, taxes will have to be raised, but the levels they were at pre-Obama were unsustainable in the first place. The government will never be able to consistently post surpluses with taxes as low as they were during the Bush Administration. In general, your post is overly-simplistic and assumes much about when and how Obama will pay off the deficits he is posting.

(as a side-note, it's amazing how the deficit hawks come out of the woodwork during Obama Administration, but never said a peep about the record deficits every president since Reagan (besides Clinton, he got lucky and was president during a big bubble) has been posting).

HomicidalCherry

Everyone criticized Bush on spending too much. I would much rather a trillion dollars be spent on national defense than healthcare change.

I never stated that Bush didn't spend too much. I do realize that these tax cuts did a lot of harm. Unfortunately, it's not one person's fault. Spending needs to stop in order for our economy to recover. Taxing will not make it better when people are already strapped for cash. Simplistic, yes. False? No.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]The success of those attacks is irrelevant to this discussion. You claimed that nobody wanted to mess with us when Bush was president...obviously that is not the case when there were attempted attacks against Americans both domestically and abroad. airshocker

Bad choice of words on my part. No one successfully attacked America under Bush's leadership after 9/11. Not on the scale of of it, at least.

I don't see how appointing a director of Homeland Security, who had no idea that kidnapping by Mexican cartels was so prevalent in Phoenix, AZ, can be a good thing for the defense of this country.

I also don't see how publicizing the methods the CIA uses to torture suspects can be a good thing, but I digress.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]In another thread you had the gall to laugh at someone for linking to the Huffington post, and here you're using the Heritage Foundation as a source?airshocker

The Huffington Post is not a world-renowned think-tank like The Heritage Foundation.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]The success of those attacks is irrelevant to this discussion. You claimed that nobody wanted to mess with us when Bush was president...obviously that is not the case when there were attempted attacks against Americans both domestically and abroad. hamstergeddon

Bad choice of words on my part. No one successfully attacked America under Bush's leadership after 9/11. Not on the scale of of it, at least.

I don't see how appointing a director of Homeland Security, who had no idea that kidnapping by Mexican cartels was so prevalent in Phoenix, AZ, can be a good thing for the defense of this country.

I /also don't see how publicizing the methods the CIA uses to torture suspects can be a good thing, but I digress.

i think that they will both go down for terrible reasons..obama for the obvious one..bcuz he was the first black president and bush becuase of all the wars and fighting he has cuased. They both have someone telling them what to say so there is nothing really good to talk about them

[QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

The government spending too much does not drive an economy into the ground. After the recession, interest rates will have to go up to combat inflation and, yes, taxes will have to be raised, but the levels they were at pre-Obama were unsustainable in the first place. The government will never be able to consistently post surpluses with taxes as low as they were during the Bush Administration. In general, your post is overly-simplistic and assumes much about when and how Obama will pay off the deficits he is posting.

(as a side-note, it's amazing how the deficit hawks come out of the woodwork during Obama Administration, but never said a peep about the record deficits every president since Reagan (besides Clinton, he got lucky and was president during a big bubble) has been posting).

airshocker

Everyone criticized Bush on spending too much. I would much rather a trillion dollars be spent on national defense than healthcare change.

I never stated that Bush didn't spend too much. I do realize that these tax cuts did a lot of harm. Unfortunately, it's not one person's fault. Spending needs to stop in order for our economy to recover. Taxing will not make it better when people are already strapped for cash. Simplistic, yes. False? No.

and now you know why 911 happened seriously.

Wow do you even read your own posts? Your argument of "Well after 9/11 Bush didnt let any attacks to the scale of 9/11 happen ever again". Well DUH. I mean, first of all he did let 9/11 happen and should be held accountable for it and secondly, why is not letting another 9/11 happen a merit? The fact that he let it happen even once is enough! hamstergeddon

If you're going to blame Bush for 9/11, you have to blame Clinton for it as well. But that's a whole different argument, one of which you will obviously say, "Clinton had nothing to do with it."

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]How about getting into a pointless war? How about a shoddy foreign policy that didn't help us accomplish any goals? How about making America a laughingstock in the world?links136

You can think it's pointless. I think bringing democracy to the middle-east and removing a sadistic dictator was very worth fighting for. Not to mention killing off al-Qaeda by any means necessary.

Elaborate more on this 'shoddy' foreign policy. I didn't know we had any goals.

We're the laughingstock because we're spending trillions of dollars on a health care change that has been proven not to work. No one wanted to mess with us when G-Dubbya was president. Notice how we didn't get attacked again until Obama took office?

It pains me that people think no one attacked america during bush(911, anthrax etc) but the failed(noticed that there was no actual attack) underwear attack from a plane from amsterdam automatically makes obama the antichrist and bush god.

Even worse that someone is extremely happy for an illegal trillion dollar war based on nothing but fixing healthcare for the citizens OH NOEZ TEH HORROR HOW COULD YOU DO SUCH A THING!?!?!?!?!

There has not been an attack comparable in death toll to 9/11 during the Obama administration either. -Sun_Tzu-

I didn't say there was. When you care more about healthcare change as opposed to national defense. You have something wrong with you.

I hope we don't suffer another attack like 9/11 again.

But I think something on the scale of it has a better chance of happening during the Obama administration than it did post-9/11 during the Bush administration.

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

Bad choice of words on my part. No one successfully attacked America under Bush's leadership after 9/11. Not on the scale of of it, at least.

I don't see how appointing a director of Homeland Security, who had no idea that kidnapping by Mexican cartels was so prevalent in Phoenix, AZ, can be a good thing for the defense of this country.

I /also don't see how publicizing the methods the CIA uses to torture suspects can be a good thing, but I digress.

mephie25

theres alot of proof that bush ignored evidence of an attack such as this

No, the reason is that Huffington Post is liberal, which means it's automatically wrong, and the Heritage Foundation is conservative, which means that it's A-OK!PannicAtack

I find a lot more nutjobs in the Huffington Post then I do from some of the researchers for The Heritage Foundation.

But in essence, you are right. I firmly believe liberalism has something, at it's core, wrong with it. I never claimed to be unbiased and despite my defense of G.W., I do think he did a very many things wrong in his administration. I was willing to give Obama a chance, but so far he hasn't been doing very well.

Just look at my sig

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]Wow do you even read your own posts? Your argument of "Well after 9/11 Bush didnt let any attacks to the scale of 9/11 happen ever again". Well DUH. I mean, first of all he did let 9/11 happen and should be held accountable for it and secondly, why is not letting another 9/11 happen a merit? The fact that he let it happen even once is enough! airshocker

If you're going to blame Bush for 9/11, you have to blame Clinton for it as well. But that's a whole different argument, one of which you will obviously say, "Clinton had nothing to do with it."

[QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

The government spending too much does not drive an economy into the ground. After the recession, interest rates will have to go up to combat inflation and, yes, taxes will have to be raised, but the levels they were at pre-Obama were unsustainable in the first place. The government will never be able to consistently post surpluses with taxes as low as they were during the Bush Administration. In general, your post is overly-simplistic and assumes much about when and how Obama will pay off the deficits he is posting.

(as a side-note, it's amazing how the deficit hawks come out of the woodwork during Obama Administration, but never said a peep about the record deficits every president since Reagan (besides Clinton, he got lucky and was president during a big bubble) has been posting).

airshocker

Spending needs to stop in order for our economy to recover.

Unless it causes hyper-inflation or tax hikes in the middle of a recession, spending will have no immediate negative affect on our economy. A large contraction in government spending would actually hurt the economy, if anything as it is just one less entity that is actually buying and spending money and encouraging growth. Government spending can actually be a very powerful catalyst for economic growth or (in this case) recovery. The Great Depression itself was ended by the massive government spending that followed our entry into WWII.

I firmly believe liberalism has something, at it's core, wrong with it.airshocker

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]There has not been an attack comparable in death toll to 9/11 during the Obama administration either. airshocker

I didn't say there was. When you care more about healthcare change as opposed to national defense. You have something wrong with you.

I hope we don't suffer another attack like 9/11 again.

But I think something on the scale of it has a better chance of happening during the Obama administration than it did post-9/11 during the Bush administration.

In his Farewell Address Clinton actually warned Bush of Muslim extremists such as the Taliban and Al-Quaeda... and you always cite that Bush had greater national security but, I mean.... he let 9/11 happen, and had an inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina. National Threats take form in more shapes than Muslim Extremists, you know. hamstergeddon

How can someone let Katrina happen? The man isn't god.

You keep citing things for which you have nothing to back-up your claims. Katrina was a FEMA and a government blunder, no doubt. I believe that Bush actually advocated giving FEMA more resources. But to lay it all to blame on him? I think that's unfair.

Who says that he cares more about health care than national defense? -Sun_Tzu-

Actions speak louder than words.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Who says that he cares more about health care than national defense? airshocker

Actions speak louder than words.

Yes. There's something wrong with believing in freedom and compassion. I'll go follow Ayn Rand instead.

PannicAtack

I believe in freedom and compassion as well. I also believe you have to work hard. Liberals tend to advocate giving other people's hard-earned money away to people who don't deserve it.

Well, then what actions show that he cares more about health care than national defense?-Sun_Tzu-

Focussing more on healthcare change that is quite obviously detrimental to the country rather than listening to the generals in Iraq and Afghanistan and giving them all the tools they need to succeed.

For all I know he could care a great deal about National defense. But that's not what I see when I turn on the news and listen to him speak.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]I firmly believe liberalism has something, at it's core, wrong with it.PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

Yes. There's something wrong with believing in freedom and compassion. I'll go follow Ayn Rand instead.

airshocker

I believe in freedom and compassion as well. I also believe you have to work hard. Liberals tend to advocate giving other people's hard-earned money away to people who don't deserve it.

While thats true the other option is to be like mexico. I mean they do have some of the richest people in the world, and it sure is working out well for them right?

right?!?!?

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"] In his Farewell Address Clinton actually warned Bush of Muslim extremists such as the Taliban and Al-Quaeda... and you always cite that Bush had greater national security but, I mean.... he let 9/11 happen, and had an inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina. National Threats take form in more shapes than Muslim Extremists, you know. airshocker

How can someone let Katrina happen? The man isn't god.

You keep citing things for which you have nothing to back-up your claims. Katrina was a FEMA and a government blunder, no doubt. I believe that Bush actually advocated giving FEMA more resources. But to lay it all to blame on him? I think that's unfair.

"You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie."

While thats true the other option is to be like mexico. I mean they do have some of the richest people in the world, and it sure is working out well for them right?

right?!?!?

links136

I have no idea what you are talking about. Go donate your pay-checks to someone on welfare.

I'll keep mine and take care of my family.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Well, then what actions show that he cares more about health care than national defense?airshocker

Focussing more on healthcare change that is quite obviously detrimental to the country rather than listening to the generals in Iraq and Afghanistan and giving them all the tools they need to succeed.

For all I know he could care a great deal about National defense. But that's not what I see when I turn on the news and listen to him speak.

[QUOTE="links136"]

While thats true the other option is to be like mexico. I mean they do have some of the richest people in the world, and it sure is working out well for them right?

right?!?!?

airshocker

I have no idea what you are talking about. Go donate your pay-checks to someone on welfare.

I'll keep mine and take care of my family.

simple, mexico lacks any socialism and thus have an extreme parity between rich and poor. Mexico has some of the richest people in the world, but they have a way way bigger problem with poverty that America doesn't have thanks to socialism, which keeps the middle class strong. Its that simple. No socialism America = mexico. Do you want to be like Mexico? Its no surprise the highest HDI countries in the world are also the most socialist.

simple, mexico lacks any socialism and thus have an extreme parity between rich and poor. Mexico has some of the richest people in the world, but they have a way way bigger problem with poverty that America doesn't have thanks to socialism, which keeps the middle class strong. Its that simple. No socialism America = mexico. Do you want to be like Mexico? Its no surprise the highest HDI countries in the world are also the most socialist.

links136

How is he not listening to his generals? What general is saying that we should be taking a different course in either Iraq or Afghanistan?-Sun_Tzu-

When you take weeks upon weeks to approve a plan set-forth by Petraeus' successor, McChrystal, there is something wrong with the way you are governing.

Petraeus visited my base and asked me what was going on at home. I told him my wife was pregnant and that I was hoping to get some satellite time to see her and my boy. The guy sent an e-mail to my wife and I'm not even Army! He told her he was going to get me some satellite time so I could see my newborn son. I would follow somebody like that for the rest of my life.

He proposed McChrystal taking over Afghanistan. And Obama still waited weeks to decide. It's not a light decision, but if you have no military experience, who are you to argue against a General? The surge worked in Iraq, it's probably going to work in Afghanistan.

I have no respect for a President who doesn't whole-heartedly follow the words of his Generals in all matters military. Granted this was only one time. It doesn't leave a good impression.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="links136"]

While thats true the other option is to be like mexico. I mean they do have some of the richest people in the world, and it sure is working out well for them right?

right?!?!?

links136

I have no idea what you are talking about. Go donate your pay-checks to someone on welfare.

I'll keep mine and take care of my family.

simple, mexico lacks any socialism and thus have an extreme parity between rich and poor. Mexico has some of the richest people in the world, but they have a way way bigger problem with poverty that America doesn't have thanks to socialism, which keeps the middle class strong. Its that simple. No socialism America = mexico. Do you want to be like Mexico? Its no surprise the highest HDI countries in the world are also the most socialist.

I have no respect for a President who doesn't whole-heartedly follow the words of his Generals in all matters military. Granted this was only one time. It doesn't leave a good impression.

airshocker

Ask me again in twenty years and I'll have an answer for you. Right now, though, is too soon to be asking who was/is the better president.

hmm yes Obama was just twiddling his thumbs for three weeks, not consulting with other people.Hewkii

What other people do you need to consult when you get the recommendation straight from boots on the ground?

What other people do you need to consult when you get the recommendation straight from boots on the ground?

airshocker

Well, Bush obviously wasn't a good president, and he really set the Republican party back, but I have a feeling with the way Obama keeps spending and pushing expansion of government control, that he will do the same to the Democrats what bush did to the Republicans

mm, perhaps other military officials who may concur that this indeed the best and not just a disorganized mess (read: like last time!).Hewkii

Obviously you didn't read that the last surge in Iraq won the war. It's now officially a peace-keeping/training mission.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]How is he not listening to his generals? What general is saying that we should be taking a different course in either Iraq or Afghanistan?airshocker

When you take weeks upon weeks to approve a plan set-forth by Petraeus' successor, McChrystal, there is something wrong with the way you are governing.

I served under Petraeus. The guy sent an e-mail to my wife when I was in Buca, and I'm not even Army! He told her he was going to get me some satellite time so I could see my newborn son. I would follow somebody like that for the rest of my life.

He proposed McChrystal taking over Afghanistan. And Obama still waited weeks to decide. It's not a light decision, but if you have no military experience, who are you to argue against a General? The surge worked in Iraq, it's probably going to work in Afghanistan.

I have no respect for a President who doesn't whole-heartedly follow the words of his Generals in all matters military. Granted this was only one time. It doesn't leave a good impression.

Obviously you didn't read that the last surge in Iraq won the war. It's now officially a peace-keeping/training mission.

airshocker

[QUOTE="Hewkii"]hmm yes Obama was just twiddling his thumbs for three weeks, not consulting with other people.airshocker

What other people do you need to consult when you get the recommendation straight from boots on the ground?

The generals who are running the show. The privates, corporals, and sergeants may be good at telling you their individual piece of the conflict but that's only because they aren't charged with running an entire military operation. Ask only the sergeants and you get fifty different stories about where different squads and platoons are stationed and their individual missions. Ask batallion commanders and field generals and you gain an understanding of the battlefield as a whole. In both cases you can gain the same information but by asking overall commanders you gain it a hell of a lot quicker than it would be to track down every sergeant or corporal in the field and get a sitrep from them.

no lie. my mom knows a friend that works for the CIA and he said that in a decade, we americans will finally know the real meaning of the war on terror, which will make Bush a hero. i don't know the info but he said it will blow us away.

maybe that is why Obama sent 50,000 more troops to Afghanistan because he read the report:shock:

It depends on how the Congressional elections turn out in 2010, and how the economy fares by 2012. If Republicans win big time in 2010 and the economy has not recovered by 2012, Obama will be remembered as a complete failure, and George W. Bush will be remembered as a much better president.

That's all I can say for sure now.

Well the U.S. military is a civilian-run military. It's always been that way, and for a reason. Furthermore, the war in Afghanistan is much more than a purely military matter, and there are a number of people in the Administration, some with a great deal of military experience, who disagree with McChrystal's strategy. And besides, Bush dedicated months to debating what eventually became known as the "surge", and during that period Iraq was in much worse shape than Afghanistan is in now. -Sun_Tzu-

I have much more faith in a four-stal general with 34-years of service than I do a pencil pusher in D.C.

The surge worked in Iraq. If McChrystal gets all the troops he's asking for, I think it can work in Afghanistan. Time will tell.

Christ, you guys talk as if you have were former commander-in-chiefs of a military and know how everything works :|F1_2004