It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Why do we argue about who was a worse President?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:04 PM
Why do we argue about who was a worse president? Bush or Obama when they are both bad?

Trying to look at both sides here, but lets be objective.

I don't have a link to the document handy, however there is one out there called phase iii. Phase 3.

This document was released prior to 9/11 but included all the (il) legal mumbo jumbo for creating the dhs. If you just do a search for us roadmap phase three you should find it.

See in my opinion dhs was unconstitutional from the get go. But as we were reeling nationally from a tragedy they slipped this one past us.

Anyways this document doesn't prove that 9/11 was an inside job. But it does show that the dhs was already thought up and there was an action to take place in which it could be estblished.

Yeah, bush was bad and we were led to believe that the Clinton's and the bush's weren't in cahoots. Well they are sadly and the United States in that respect resembles a monarchy. Yeah Obama blames bush for everything as do his supporters, but he only intensifies the policies that took place under him.

Then we are polarized as a nation and divided into camps based on our opinions on gay marriage, climate change, capitalism, wealth redistribution etc.

Where were you on 9/11? How did you feel on 9/12?

As a message to America that should resonate with everyone.....

United we stand, divided we fall.

How did this message get lost on everybody? Are we too stupid too see the man behind the curtain? Are we really so polarized by fabricated events that we are willing to take out our hostility on our neighbors rather then the perpetrators?

We must stand together, that saying is a proverb and like it or not you already deal with people of the complete opposite spectrum daily.

God when are you people going to get it through your heads that everybody should be critical of the president on any given moment on any given day?

The first president never wanted to play such a role. It was only by popular opinion that he decided to do so for the sake of this country.

Now days people squabble and squabble about being re-elected etc etc.

This isn't right.

People should be elected based on their moral convictions and forthrightedness.

As a nation we have lost our way and lost our freedoms and liberty.

I have no qualms with fighting for it tooth and nail. Because a life without liberty and freedom just isn't worth living.

What's your problem America, have you lost your way or are you just lost in life?

Quit you're squabbling and come together for the love of god.

God bless.

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:26 PM
reply to post by txinfidel

The problem is there are to many citizens to come to a general agreement about anything. As such we have dissenting ideas on everything and personal ego gets in the way of rational debate on a lot of topics.

Due to the individual minds of the citizens of the US of A I do not think we can reach a consensus as was had some almost 250 years ago.

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:32 PM
reply to post by randomtangentsrme

I don't think most Americans agree on anything.

Maybe in California they do.

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:58 PM
reply to post by txinfidel

The people of California don't agree on much anything.
When you have a state that has one of the largest industry (movies) and some of the larger cities, but also a ton of rural communities, and small towns. . .
(that link dosn't include a town I've spent a fair amount of time in with a population of less that 160)

The people of California have very different views than what the state is known for. The population centers have the numbers to make Cali what it has become.

posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:02 AM
It's very simple to answer. They work together.

Bush started it and Obama will end it.

The plan was always to have an idiot lay out the groundwork, have a more intelligent man contest his platform and then continue, strengthen, enhance and increase what the little idiot put in play while looking like the good guy.

Obama is a plant and nothing else. Bush was simply the seed.


posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:11 AM
just like the rulers of egypt it would not be a lie to say all the presidents have been xankers

they are shadow puppets nothing more scared by and sometimes murdered by what they have seen and said .

yes men who promise much and only fail is america better now than 10 or 20 years ago ?? .

no did not think so that dream died long ago

posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:47 AM
Good question. Why argue about the worst?
Why not which was the better? Or even the best?
It's been a long, long time since that discussion was ever on the table.

posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:57 AM
reply to post by Phage

Awesome question! I would say anyone who never wanted the job but as it was not during my lifetime I can not speak of it.

The only one during my lifetime was Ronald Reagan. I nominate him!

posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Phage
Good question. Why argue about the worst?
Why not which was the better? Or even the best?
It's been a long, long time since that discussion was ever on the table.

That's how it got to this point.

Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is what happens when the only option labelled the "Best" is who did the lest harm.


posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 11:07 AM
reply to post by txinfidel

Bush and Obama are prime examples however. That big-government, establishment progressives are certainly not the way to go. These two jerks have MASSIVELY expanded the size and power of government and put us into a fiscal nightmare that is impossible to recover from without osterity.

posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 11:24 AM
reply to post by txinfidel

Who, in their right mind, would want the job?
The ego has to be gigantic.
If you knew that you held little chance of accomplishing any-more than you were allowed...what's the point?
I even have to question Ron Paul on that count.
Did he honestly believe he could "turn it around"? Or did he KNOW the PTB would issue the "Go Directly To Jail & Do Not Pass Go" card?
Was his "bid" a calculated lay some ground-work for future "bids" of likeminded persons?
Or - was he just as ego-driven as the other "runners"?

posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 11:43 AM
Clan behavior.

Our group is always better than their group.

It's juvenile, absurd and self-destructive but it has always been a part of life.

It's no different from cliques in schoolyards, gangs on the street or police covering each others abuses.

Me and mine can do no evil. You and yours however....

It's a sickness. A common and pervasive one but a sickness nonetheless.

The very act of identifying with any group at all is a sickness.
edit on 28-6-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 11:59 AM
I guess it makes people feel good. Honestly, the level of impact, whether good or bad, of any President is really not known until years after his time in office has ended. One term Presidents rarely have much influence on the future as four years simply isn't enough time to accomplish much.

We can discuss Clinton in these terms now, as enough time has passed to know what kind of impact he had. It's still too early to bash or praise the efforts of W. Bush.

new topics

top topics


log in