It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who's the Better President ? Obama vs. Bush

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Skyfloating
The "both suck" thing is typical ATS, but its not quite that simple. They both suck in different ways. Each one is "better" for another group of people and other agendas.

Take Crimea for example: Bush would have been in there in no-time, whereas Obama predictably won't intervene. Now which one is "better"? That's very difficult to tell. TIME will tell. If Putin leaves it at that, then non-intervention was good. If Putin does not leave it at that, then non-intervention was bad. But no President can possibly predict it with certainty. The whole expectation that the President is some kind of super-human that can fix things for them and if he doesnt then he "sucks" is childish and much less sophisticated and enlightened as ATSers claim to be.


I may agree with you on some of your perspectives regarding the dynamics playing out in Crimea, but this thread is on the topic of an honest evaluation of Obama vs. Bush based on Economic data and facts.

Historically, most Americans vote based upon the state of the U.S. Economy, either good or bad...
What do you think ? Do Facts matter ? Is one President better than the other ? Why or Why Not ?
edit on 17-4-2014 by rickynews because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Skyfloating
The "both suck" thing is typical ATS, but its not quite that simple. They both suck in different ways. Each one is "better" for another group of people and other agendas.

Take Crimea for example: Bush would have been in there in no-time, whereas Obama predictably won't intervene. Now which one is "better"? That's very difficult to tell. TIME will tell. If Putin leaves it at that, then non-intervention was good. If Putin does not leave it at that, then non-intervention was bad. But no President can possibly predict it with certainty. The whole expectation that the President is some kind of super-human that can fix things for them and if he doesnt then he "sucks" is childish and much less sophisticated and enlightened as ATSers claim to be.


This is very true, provided a person subscribes to one of the two agendas (facts, truths, realities, pick your description), but fails when a person doesn't. For those of us who don't agree with either party, yes, they both "suck" equally. There are many of us and we are looking for an alternative to "The Big Two".



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Montana

Skyfloating
The "both suck" thing is typical ATS, but its not quite that simple. They both suck in different ways. Each one is "better" for another group of people and other agendas.

Take Crimea for example: Bush would have been in there in no-time, whereas Obama predictably won't intervene. Now which one is "better"? That's very difficult to tell. TIME will tell. If Putin leaves it at that, then non-intervention was good. If Putin does not leave it at that, then non-intervention was bad. But no President can possibly predict it with certainty. The whole expectation that the President is some kind of super-human that can fix things for them and if he doesnt then he "sucks" is childish and much less sophisticated and enlightened as ATSers claim to be.


This is very true, provided a person subscribes to one of the two agendas (facts, truths, realities, pick your description), but fails when a person doesn't. For those of us who don't agree with either party, yes, they both "suck" equally. There are many of us and we are looking for an alternative to "The Big Two".


I would agree, or at least my sixth sense tells me, that there is a strong trend within the American public that seeks another viable political party aside from Republicans and Democrats. Short of that happening anytime soon, if you are a voter, you have to pick one of the big two,or sit out an election. That's just the reality as we stand today.
edit on 17-4-2014 by rickynews because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Obama is nothing more than Bush the third. All we need to do now to finish this country off is to get Jeb in the white house. I hear he is planning to run.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

rickynews

I would agree, or at least my sixth sense tells me, that there is a strong trend within the American public that seeks another viable political party aside from Republicans and Democrats. Short of that happening anytime soon, if you are a voter, you have to pick one of the big two,or sit out an election. That's just the reality as we stand today.
edit on 17-4-2014 by rickynews because: (no reason given)


Reality? Perhaps, but it doesn't have to stay that way. It WILL be that until enough of us decide we will no longer subscribe to EITHER agenda. As long as we are willing to settle for the least evil, we will only receive evil. I am done settling, and if that means I have "thrown away my vote", at least I understand my vote wouldn't have mattered in the first place since the election won't result in a change anyway.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Hi, Cuervo.
You and Skyfloating made me want to amend my previous response to the OP.

I voted for Obama, based on his campaign platform. I honestly believed him. Then Congress gave him no end of hard times, behaving like middle-school mean-girls, spreading rumors and ripping the poor guy apart from before day one.

I honestly believe he meant to do the things he promised. I am a Progressive Green-party person. I couldn't stand Bush.

But then I read Dirty Wars and realized how much he (Obama) has been complicit in the "War on Terror" Horror Show. And by that time I had voted for him TWICE. First time around I thought he was just getting his legs under himself and learning the ropes, that the haters would eventually deal with it.

But now? I feel like he either totally sold out, or his hands are completely tied. I don't think he ever got a fair shake, but what has been uncovered since his takeover is - well - less than laudatory. And to be honest, I feel betrayed, gypped and disappointed. Cheated on. Disenfranchised, actually.

edit on 4/17/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Although I don't care for Obama, I would have to say Obama.

The criminality surrounding 9/11, the Iraq war and occupation, Halliburton contracts, his partners in crime, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice. His recommendation for bailing out the banks at the end of his term while Obama finished his dirty work, making fun of not finding WMD's when close to 5,000 American men and women lost their lives, not to mention half a million Iraqis. The denial and use of torture which was clearly a violation of the Geneva Convention.

I'm sure conservatives will say Bush where the liberals would say Obama, but when you look at how the Bush administration used 9/11 to take away Americans rights, and trampled on the constitution, he was the one who laid the ground work.

Obama has continued on the same course, but by far I consider Bush's administration criminal and they should have been charged with war crimes.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


With that said, I feel for the person that is President after 0bama.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by BuzzyWigs
 


When you come to terms that 0bama is a lying POS, you will have embraced the total truth.

The only thing he truly meant that was stated, was that he would push for a fundamental transformation of the US.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

rickynews


Historically, most Americans vote based upon the state of the U.S. Economy, either good or bad...
What do you think ? Do Facts matter ? Is one President better than the other ? Why or Why Not ?
edit on 17-4-2014 by rickynews because: (no reason given)


Are you implying that a leftist could do good on the economy? What a ridiculous notion. Math is not what leftists are there for. They're there for civil rights, peace, diplomacy, academia...that kind of stuff.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Cuervo
reply to post by rickynews
 


In Obama's defense, Bush never had to be president after Bush.


Wow. There are people still blaming Bush? Really?



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ScientiaFortisDefendit
 



Wow. There are people still blaming Bush? Really?

You bet your @$$, pal. Hell yes.
War criminal. Should be hanged. Obama, as the 'successor of the policies' should be impeached and stripped of his assets.

EDIT: I got confused between this thread and the one by xuenchen about Eric Holder, so I clipped the irrelevant part.
Sorry. But what I said above is true and for this thread.




edit on 4/17/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I vote for neither they are both horrible!



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
LOL!

That's like asking, which would you rather have Measles or Chicken pox?

I prefer neither!

Cheers!



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

ScientiaFortisDefendit

Cuervo
reply to post by rickynews
 


In Obama's defense, Bush never had to be president after Bush.


Wow. There are people still blaming Bush? Really?


When the truth, facts and reality on not on your side....blame somebody else.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by rickynews
 


Yep..lots of diversion on here....

My answer is undoubtly President Bush. Wish we could vote him back in office.

In my responses, I tried to get posters on here to realize that one side usually is better than the other side. They kept saying both "suck", which shows political ignorance.

President Obama supporters may still be im denial, so instead of admitting that he has failed our country, they retort by saying "both suck".



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

QueenofSpades
reply to post by rickynews
 


Yep..lots of diversion on here....

My answer is undoubtly President Bush. Wish we could vote him back in office.

In my responses, I tried to get posters on here to realize that one side usually is better than the other side. They kept saying both "suck", which shows political ignorance.

President Obama supporters may still be im denial, so instead of admitting that he has failed our country, they retort by saying "both suck".


Inside the Matrix..."Ignorance is Bliss"...



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I'd vote for GW Bush again without hesitation. Simple fact, America was more prosperous and had more international clout with him at the helm and the GOP majority in the House and Senate. Under the current failure we're a floundering mess that resembles a dying empire more and more each day.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

My point was the same as Carlin's. In an oligarchy government, unless you belong to the billionaires club, our vote does not matter. Bush/Obama, they are owned by the same billionaires. They just take turns in power for self preservation.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Black_Fox
LOL!

That's like asking, which would you rather have Measles or Chicken pox?

I prefer neither!

Cheers!


Ha! I was thinking along the lines of "How do you want to be executed, electric chair or firing squad?"



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join