Was the US better off before or after George W Bush?

[cyclohexane]

this poll doesn't make any sense. What the hell is 2008, 2009? The option for BEFORE GWB should be 2000.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: shira
No way would Al Gore have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.

Tweaked

Former Vice President Al Gore Iraq and the War on Terrorism Commonwealth Club of California San Francisco, California September 23, 2002

Oh look... it's Al Gore armchair quarterbacking with impunity.

FWIW, I realize I am too.

He wrote this BEFORE we invaded Iraq.

He said armchair quarterbacking, not Monday morning quarterbacking.

So what do ypou call what bourneidentiybs77 is doing by claiming that Gore wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan? Of course Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, to suggest otherwise is just.... stupid.

Ahh... so you admittedly don't understand the point, yet you see fit to ridicule it and its scribe.

Excellent :thumbsup:

Please explain what it is you think I don't understand?

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: shira
No way would Al Gore have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.

Tweaked

Former Vice President Al Gore Iraq and the War on Terrorism Commonwealth Club of California San Francisco, California September 23, 2002

Oh look... it's Al Gore armchair quarterbacking with impunity.

FWIW, I realize I am too.

He wrote this BEFORE we invaded Iraq.

He said armchair quarterbacking, not Monday morning quarterbacking.

So what do ypou call what bourneidentiybs77 is doing by claiming that Gore wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan? Of course Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, to suggest otherwise is just.... stupid.

Ahh... so you admittedly don't understand the point, yet you see fit to ridicule it and its scribe.

Excellent :thumbsup:

Please explain what it is you think I don't understand?

Read the thread. I don't explain myself to trolls.

 

[Stuxnet]

*sigh*

Here it is:

If we had stayed the hell out of Iraq, and focused on just Afghanistan, our geopolitical situation would be 10 times better: Iraq would be stable, with Saddam still in control, and we'd have have pursued Al Qaeda and the Taliban all through the border region to the point of their annihilation.

Shira then said that Gore would not have invaded Iraq. I was implying with my "tweaked" comment that he wouldn't have needed to focus on Afghanistan because I don't believe he would have taken us there, thus implying that, not only would we still be looking for Bin Laden, but we'd also have the Taliban running Afghanistan.

 

[theeedude]

Republicans and those who voted for them did a lot of damage to this country 2000-2008, no doubt about it.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: ccbadd

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: ccbadd
Under Obama, we are definitely not better off. All of these far left leaning pin heads are a waste of oxygen, try to be a little objective why don't you. As far as national security, if we elected a decent president to follow up after GWB, we would be better off. The economy is another story, it is much worse now and the leftie's boy BHO is running with that bull. It is obvious the left does not care about the country, just power and all you zealots are so focused on Bush you can't seem to get your head out of your ass and try to fix things. You listen to BHO tell you something in a speech and never check to see what he really did, which is usually just the opposite of what he claimed he would do. Then you resort to calling honest working people at the Tea Parties redneck racist without paying attention to the fact that what they want is beneficial to all the people of this country, not just your left-wing jackass ideals.

Lemme guess...you're one of the few idiots in this country who actually agrees with Hannity.

Let me guess, you are one of the idiots who don't read the whole response before making your own stupid response. I will make it easy for you, I don't give a shit about Hannity and the better or worse arguments has two sides, national security and the economy. Bush made us safer and BHO is undoing that. Bush started the bailouts and thus made us worse off. Obama is continuing the same crap, just at a much faster pace and for more money and this makes us far worse off. All of the "worse off" happened under the Pelosi/Reid congress by the way!
Any questions?

Actually I did somehow manage to make it through your moronic piece of partisan drivel, and didn't see a thing but Obama and dem bashing. This despite the fact that Republicans had full control of the country for 6 of the last 8 years and veto power for the rest of that. There's a reason people think you Teabaggers are fringe loons - you are completely and utterly out of touch with reality.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: ccbadd

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: ccbadd
Under Obama, we are definitely not better off. All of these far left leaning pin heads are a waste of oxygen, try to be a little objective why don't you. As far as national security, if we elected a decent president to follow up after GWB, we would be better off. The economy is another story, it is much worse now and the leftie's boy BHO is running with that bull. It is obvious the left does not care about the country, just power and all you zealots are so focused on Bush you can't seem to get your head out of your ass and try to fix things. You listen to BHO tell you something in a speech and never check to see what he really did, which is usually just the opposite of what he claimed he would do. Then you resort to calling honest working people at the Tea Parties redneck racist without paying attention to the fact that what they want is beneficial to all the people of this country, not just your left-wing jackass ideals.

Lemme guess...you're one of the few idiots in this country who actually agrees with Hannity.

Let me guess, you are one of the idiots who don't read the whole response before making your own stupid response. I will make it easy for you, I don't give a shit about Hannity and the better or worse arguments has two sides, national security and the economy. Bush made us safer and BHO is undoing that. Bush started the bailouts and thus made us worse off. Obama is continuing the same crap, just at a much faster pace and for more money and this makes us far worse off. All of the "worse off" happened under the Pelosi/Reid congress by the way!
Any questions?

Quoted and bolded for truth. Bush bashers conveniently neglect this fact. Bush can only sign or veto the laws that the legislature puts on his desk.

Disclaimer: I am NOT claiming that Bush did not make mistakes. He made many. However, somehow, the Democrat controlled Congress is getting a free-pass in everything that's gone wrong the last few years.

I guess we should credit the dem congress for the "Reagan" economy and the end of the cold war then? Somehow I doubt you guys are willing to concede that though.

 

[Harvey]

The correct question is whether the U.S. would have been better off if George W. Bush had never existed, and the answer is a resounding YES!

 

[PrinceofWands]

Before by 10,000%.

Worst. President. Ever.

He, and his administration, are responsible for more bad things than any 3 previous administrations I can come up with.

He is/was the devil.

8 years with almost nothing positive to show for it.

Nearly every action and stance the complete opposite of mine.

Can't say enough bad about them.

I could go on all day, but I think that mostly covers it.

*Oh, and just a reminder that I said all that as Bush first started running for President (and LONG before he actually did anything). Nice to be proved right once in a while.

 

[jonks]

Let's see, using every available metric from the economy, home values, value of the dollar, unemployment, debt, deficit, job growth, dow jones (2000 points higher back then!) our reputation in the world, consumer mood/direction of the country.... this is not a close question.

Anyone who mentions Obama is diverting. If McCain had won the answer would be the same. It doesn't matter who won, 2008-2009 is destined to be a fucked period in our history. Anyone who thinks the country is in better shape now than we were in 2000 needs to call the pharmacist because their prescription needs refilling.

What say you, Keyboard Cat?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

The US was better before dumbya, and after, but suffers deeply for that time in between

 

[ccbadd]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: ccbadd

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: ccbadd
Under Obama, we are definitely not better off. All of these far left leaning pin heads are a waste of oxygen, try to be a little objective why don't you. As far as national security, if we elected a decent president to follow up after GWB, we would be better off. The economy is another story, it is much worse now and the leftie's boy BHO is running with that bull. It is obvious the left does not care about the country, just power and all you zealots are so focused on Bush you can't seem to get your head out of your ass and try to fix things. You listen to BHO tell you something in a speech and never check to see what he really did, which is usually just the opposite of what he claimed he would do. Then you resort to calling honest working people at the Tea Parties redneck racist without paying attention to the fact that what they want is beneficial to all the people of this country, not just your left-wing jackass ideals.

Lemme guess...you're one of the few idiots in this country who actually agrees with Hannity.

Let me guess, you are one of the idiots who don't read the whole response before making your own stupid response. I will make it easy for you, I don't give a shit about Hannity and the better or worse arguments has two sides, national security and the economy. Bush made us safer and BHO is undoing that. Bush started the bailouts and thus made us worse off. Obama is continuing the same crap, just at a much faster pace and for more money and this makes us far worse off. All of the "worse off" happened under the Pelosi/Reid congress by the way!
Any questions?

Quoted and bolded for truth. Bush bashers conveniently neglect this fact. Bush can only sign or veto the laws that the legislature puts on his desk.

Disclaimer: I am NOT claiming that Bush did not make mistakes. He made many. However, somehow, the Democrat controlled Congress is getting a free-pass in everything that's gone wrong the last few years.

I guess we should credit the dem congress for the "Reagan" economy and the end of the cold war then? Somehow I doubt you guys are willing to concede that though.

You might not be the sharpest tack in the box, but you are somewhat correct on this statement. This country always does better when one party has congress and the other has the white house so that congress was indeed partly responsible for the Reagan economy. The congress under Clinton was equally responsible for the prosperity during his tenure. Glad you could stumble on to that one. To bad you get lost in the mindless "you republican/conservative/whatever else you can think of" BS to notice it through thought and understanding.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Do you think the US was in better shape before or after George W Bush's presidency?

We are not better off today merely due to the housing bubble. Of which he had no direct impact or relevance in the matter.

 

[juiio]

Iraq, the budget deficit, and the erosion civil liberties were all terrible.

Originally posted by: jonks
Let's see, using every available metric from the economy, home values, value of the dollar, unemployment, debt, deficit, job growth, dow jones (2000 points higher back then!) our reputation in the world, consumer mood/direction of the country.... this is not a close question.

The housing bubble, tech bubble, and credit bubble would have burst, even without Bush.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: juiio
The housing bubble, tech bubble, and credit bubble would have burst, even without Bush.

Is the country in a better state in 2000 or 2009. Finger pointing aside.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Harvey
The correct question is whether the U.S. would have been better off if George W. Bush had never existed, and the answer is a resounding YES!

The circle jerk has begun.. hahahahah "B-b-b-b-b Bush!!!""

sing with me:

They see me rollin
They hatin
Patrolling they tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
My music so loud
I'm swangin
They hopin that they gon catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Harvey
The correct question is whether the U.S. would have been better off if George W. Bush had never existed, and the answer is a resounding YES!

The circle jerk has begun.. hahahahah "B-b-b-b-b Bush!!!""

sing with me:

They see me rollin
They hatin
Patrolling they tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
My music so loud
I'm swangin
They hopin that they gon catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty

Why do you find it necessary to be defensive about Mr Bush's presidency?

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Harvey
The correct question is whether the U.S. would have been better off if George W. Bush had never existed, and the answer is a resounding YES!

The circle jerk has begun.. hahahahah "B-b-b-b-b Bush!!!""

sing with me:

They see me rollin
They hatin
Patrolling they tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
My music so loud
I'm swangin
They hopin that they gon catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty

Why do you find it necessary to be defensive about Mr Bush's presidency?

Why do you post a question: "Was the US better off before or after George W Bush?" and expect people not to discuss Obama? You faulted me for doing this. However, Obama is after Bush. How do you expect to have a fair discussion when you try to limit it to "only Bush"? Are you naive or are you just posting this question as a platform so the left can get their "jollies off"?

The mere fact that you are posting such a...huhm... "trollish" question in a forum dominated by lefties is like throwing blood into the sea and causing a feeding, frenzy and then standing on the sidelines saying "Oops, did I do that?" What did you expect? An open and fair discussion? yea, right...

 

[nakedfrog]

How could anyone think we're better off now than we were in 2000?

Originally posted by: ccbadd
Under Obama, we are definitely not better off. All of these far left leaning pin heads are a waste of oxygen, try to be a little objective why don't you. As far as national security, if we elected a decent president to follow up after GWB, we would be better off. The economy is another story, it is much worse now and the leftie's boy BHO is running with that bull. It is obvious the left does not care about the country, just power and all you zealots are so focused on Bush you can't seem to get your head out of your ass and try to fix things. You listen to BHO tell you something in a speech and never check to see what he really did, which is usually just the opposite of what he claimed he would do. Then you resort to calling honest working people at the Tea Parties redneck racist without paying attention to the fact that what they want is beneficial to all the people of this country, not just your left-wing jackass ideals.

:laugh:
Yeah, YOU sure sound objective!

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: ccbadd

You might not be the sharpest tack in the box, but you are somewhat correct on this statement. This country always does better when one party has congress and the other has the white house so that congress was indeed partly responsible for the Reagan economy. The congress under Clinton was equally responsible for the prosperity during his tenure. Glad you could stumble on to that one. To bad you get lost in the mindless "you republican/conservative/whatever else you can think of" BS to notice it through thought and understanding.

Why do I get such a strong sense of irony from this post? Oh, yeah - it's because a mindless partisan mental midget is accusing me of being a mindless partisan mental midget. It's downright funny to hear you talking about thought and understanding when your first post could place you in the mindless troll hall of fame. Even better that you claim the economy does better when different parties control the presidency and congress, right after you blamed the "worse off" part of Bush's term on democratic control of congress. Seriously, just stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Harvey
The correct question is whether the U.S. would have been better off if George W. Bush had never existed, and the answer is a resounding YES!

The circle jerk has begun.. hahahahah "B-b-b-b-b Bush!!!""

sing with me:

They see me rollin
They hatin
Patrolling they tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
My music so loud
I'm swangin
They hopin that they gon catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty

Why do you find it necessary to be defensive about Mr Bush's presidency?

Why do you post a question: "Was the US better off before or after George W Bush?" and expect people not to discuss Obama? You faulted me for doing this. However, Obama is after Bush. How do you expect to have a fair discussion when you try to limit it to "only Bush"? Are you naive or are you just posting this question as a platform so the left can get their "jollies off"?

The mere fact that you are posting such a...huhm... "trollish" question in a forum dominated by lefties is like throwing blood into the sea and causing a feeding, frenzy and then standing on the sidelines saying "Oops, did I do that?" What did you expect? An open and fair discussion? yea, right...

I started the thread because I was surprised that Mr Hannity, when asked the same question by Mr Ventura, said that the country was better off after Mr Bush's presidency. I am not that familar with Mr Hannity's show or his politics. Is he one of the people who defended the outing of Ms Plame or could I be missing something?

My memory of the US pre-Bush was by any criteria a better place to live than what we had on 1/20/2009.

I wanted to get the opinions of a larger population, this forum.

I would rather read what you have to say on the topic which is why I started the thread in the first place. If you have a problem with this thread, please do not click it. Otherwise please do not crap here.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
My memory of the US pre-Bush was by any criteria a better place to live than what we had on 12/20/2009.

Well, we have netbooks now, those are pretty cool.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Harvey
The correct question is whether the U.S. would have been better off if George W. Bush had never existed, and the answer is a resounding YES!

The circle jerk has begun.. hahahahah "B-b-b-b-b Bush!!!""

sing with me:

They see me rollin
They hatin
Patrolling they tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
My music so loud
I'm swangin
They hopin that they gon catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty

Why do you find it necessary to be defensive about Mr Bush's presidency?

Why do you post a question: "Was the US better off before or after George W Bush?" and expect people not to discuss Obama? You faulted me for doing this. However, Obama is after Bush. How do you expect to have a fair discussion when you try to limit it to "only Bush"? Are you naive or are you just posting this question as a platform so the left can get their "jollies off"?

The mere fact that you are posting such a...huhm... "trollish" question in a forum dominated by lefties is like throwing blood into the sea and causing a feeding, frenzy and then standing on the sidelines saying "Oops, did I do that?" What did you expect? An open and fair discussion? yea, right...

I started the thread because I was surprised that Mr Hannity, when asked the same question by Mr Ventura, said that the country was better off after Mr Bush's presidency. I am not that familar with Mr Hannity's show or his politics. Is he one of the people who defended the outing of Ms Plame or could I be missing something?

My memory of the US pre-Bush was by any criteria a better place to live than what we had on 12/20/2009.

I wanted to get the opinions of a larger population, this forum.

I would rather read what you have to say on the topic which is why I started the thread in the first place. If you have a problem with this thread, please do not click it. Otherwise please do not crap here.

Yea, when there's a circle jerk going around -- especially a "bush circle jerk"; I try to avoid it. These types of thread with their attitudes of "if you don't like it.. if you don't agree with me, get the f' out".... They're really not my type of threads (not fair or honest discussions)... its entertaining every now and than, and well, I'm at work so I was kinda bored in all honesty; in any case, flap away. As you probably would like some privacy, I'll try not to reply to this thread anymore :thumbsup:

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Harvey
The correct question is whether the U.S. would have been better off if George W. Bush had never existed, and the answer is a resounding YES!

The circle jerk has begun.. hahahahah "B-b-b-b-b Bush!!!""

sing with me:

They see me rollin
They hatin
Patrolling they tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
My music so loud
I'm swangin
They hopin that they gon catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty

Why do you find it necessary to be defensive about Mr Bush's presidency?

Why do you post a question: "Was the US better off before or after George W Bush?" and expect people not to discuss Obama? You faulted me for doing this. However, Obama is after Bush. How do you expect to have a fair discussion when you try to limit it to "only Bush"? Are you naive or are you just posting this question as a platform so the left can get their "jollies off"?

The mere fact that you are posting such a...huhm... "trollish" question in a forum dominated by lefties is like throwing blood into the sea and causing a feeding, frenzy and then standing on the sidelines saying "Oops, did I do that?" What did you expect? An open and fair discussion? yea, right...

I started the thread because I was surprised that Mr Hannity, when asked the same question by Mr Ventura, said that the country was better off after Mr Bush's presidency. I am not that familar with Mr Hannity's show or his politics. Is he one of the people who defended the outing of Ms Plame or could I be missing something?

My memory of the US pre-Bush was by any criteria a better place to live than what we had on 12/20/2009.

I wanted to get the opinions of a larger population, this forum.

I would rather read what you have to say on the topic which is why I started the thread in the first place. If you have a problem with this thread, please do not click it. Otherwise please do not crap here.

Yea, when there's a circle jerk going around -- especially a "bush circle jerk"; I try to avoid it. These types of thread with their attitudes of "if you don't like it.. if you don't agree with me, get the f' out".... They're really not my type of threads (not fair or honest discussions)... its entertaining every now and than, and well, I'm at work so I was kinda bored in all honesty; in any case, flap away. As you probably would like some privacy, I'll try not to reply to this thread anymore :thumbsup:

I wrote that I preferred that you stayed and contributed to the thread by talking about the subject.

Do you think that US was in better shape on 12/20/2000 or 12/20/2009?

 

[jonks]

Would anyone care to articulate by what metric, indicator, measurement, statistic, poll, or other, how the US is better off in 2009 than it was in 2000?