POLL TIME

1. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 10 years ago

   
   Which American President do YOU consider to be the worse of the two evils in terms of socioeconomic policies and reformations in addition to the current general state of the country, George W. Bush or Barack Obama?  Why?  Why not?

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I have to ask. Why does it matter? We had what we had with "W". And as a result we have what we have with Obama. The important thing is what's next? Are the republicans going to offer something new or are they going to go back to the same old rhetoric that has lost them two elections in a row? Better yet are the democrats going to progress beyond selling the same old song and dance that has not worked in hopes that we will forget that it hasn't? I guess it depends as always upon the sheeple to sleep or decide to wake up and become a responsible voter practitioner.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Lybrahposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Bush was worse.  Clinton eliminated the national debt and then Bush plunged us back into debt again with the war on terrorism.

      replyreport
2. 77

   junkoposted 10 years ago

   George W. Bush is the worse of the two. Neither is evil. If W. didn't fail so bad as President, Barack wouldn't have had to save the economy and state of the country inspite of obstruction his first term and the first year of his second term. If Obama was treated like he was The Commander and Chief and given the respect of The Office, the employment problem would have been solved his first term.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Junko, you are a genius, that is a big 10-4 in my opinion!!

      replyreport
   2. 83

      GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      What about the first half of his first term, could he have solved the employment problem then - when he/his party had legislative control? Was his own party obstructing him then?
      
      And which of his jobs plans, (that would have solved the employment problem in his first term), were obstructed to the point of impotence in the second half of his first term?
      
      ps. I agree, we should give respect to the office - but its occupant, (any of them), must earn it.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 84

         gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!

         replyreport
         1. 77

            junkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Hogwash, as expected. Thats my answer to the question. You don't have to agree with me nor I with you. You have an answer,  I'd like to read it, I doubt if your answer would surprise me because of the question. My answer is the truth,the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, no Hogwash.

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Shanna11posted 10 years agoin reply to this

               "If Obama was treated like he was The Commander and Chief and given the respect of The Office, the employment problem would have been solved his first term."
               
               That is not verifiable fact at all. That's just speculation. Sure, there might be some estimation and reasoning in there, but it's not a fact, and by extension of that, it's not truth.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  junkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  When a person swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help them God. they tell the truth as they know it. There is one truth and many lies and hogwash. My truth is my honest testimony and no hogwash or attempts to lie or deceive. If I lie its unintentional. What I wrote is the truth and nothing but the truth unless you can show or prove I lied. Verifiable facts is what happened. The truth can be what could happen or could have happened.

                  replyreport
                  1. 91

                     wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Seems to me you said the most important thing when you added "as they know it". 
                     
                     You may very well be telling the truth "as you known it" but that does not make it truth at all.  Just your opinion.

                     replyreport
                  2. 72

                     Shanna11posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     What.....? That is not a valid definition of truth, or a logical argument for labeling speculation as truth. Speculation is not reality- those events  have not occurred (even if the potential for them to occur was there at one point, they NEVER occurred and became reality--EVER) and by definition, truth is "the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality."
                     
                     It doesn't matter what good intentions you had, or that you didn't wish to deceive. Just because what you're saying brushes the limits of your knowledge doesn't make it true.

                     replyreport
            2. 83

               GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               If I may assume your "hogwash" response to GMWILLIAMS was a second-hand reply to my post, then...
               
               First to help you avoid an incorrect assumption, Bush was/is not involved in my response.
               
               So...
               
               I know it is a very tired reply; "Complete control first two years, etc..." and that is why I posed the questions instead of just repeating it.
               
               But does that make the circumstances less true? Pres. Obama/Democrats did control the legislature for two years. And you did opine that without Republican obstructionism he could have solved the employment problem in his first term. So, what, in your opinion, happened? Were the employment solutions queued up waiting their turn? Or were the first two years dedicated to other efforts, ie. health care reform?
               
               Of course I disagree with you, but I did not just say you are wrong and I am right - I asked you to expound on your declarations.
               
               You claim to know the truth and the whole truth - which ones? Yes, he has had an obstructionist House since 2010, but what about before 2010?
               
               I seem to recall the most strident Republican obstructionism, (yes, it was real), was related to Obamacare, so I asked what jobs programs you know of that were obstructed - and your reply was simply, "Hogwash, I know the truth?"
               
               I will not just repeat the Republican talking points because I am not a Republican, but I also will not swallow the Democrat "obstructionist" excuse mantra just because they did not get the job done.
               
               A leader doesn't just lead in easy times - anyone can do that. A leader finds a way to lead in difficult times too - to get the job done. Has your leader done that? Or did your leader and the Democrats spend four years blaming Bush for their perceived lack of progress?
               
               It is true that Pres. Obama inherited a full plate of problems, probably more than most recent presidents. But for you to claim he could have solved the employment problems if only everyone would just let him..., is just screaming for some sort of validation - which is why I asked the questions I did.
               
               And your reply, "Hogwash, I know the truth..." is far less than I expected. I never attempted or expected to change your mind - I just challenged you to back-up such an emotional but unsubstantiated claim.
               
               If you are stuck for a non-hogwash reply, allow me to recommend one of those famous 20-minute Google searches, which I am sure will help you find the facts you are looking for.
               
               Maybe an "Obama jobs plan" search string? Or, "Republicans block Obama jobs programs"
               
               Good luck.
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  junkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Anderson: The first two years of the Obama Presidency was used to get some stimulas money to prop- up the economy after the big Wall Street giveaway by the Bush Presidency. He also pushed to pass healthcare and some financial regulations and consumer protections. He was able to save the US auto industry with loans with interest, not a giveaway as was given Wall Street after they defrauded the US government and American people. Democrat nor Republicann ever in American history voted in lock-step all most 100% against an American President before the 2010 midterm elections and the arrival of The TEAPARTY. President Obama had to deal with Blue and Yellow Dog Democrats (Undercover Dixiecrats) and Republicans in the House before the Teaparty came to rule the House. You assume right Anderson Hogwash was a reply to your post. My answer isn't hogwash, its the truth as I and you know it,but you would never speak or write this truth. You speak and talk hogwash to confuse those who don't know the truth. I know you know what I know so I won't waste time telling you the truth and nothing but the truth. P.S. The WPA ,Government Jobs was used bring the nation out of the Great Depression. Hogwash was used to freeze Goverment hiring. The use of Austerity and the fear of taxes was used to drive up unempolyment during this Greay Recession. You know what I say is true. Enough Hogwash. Thats all I got to say about that.

                  replyreport
                  1. 55

                     Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     In other words, he didn't prioritize job creation in his first two years as president.  Job creation should have been his biggest priority at the time but it wasn't; he spent his political capital on Obamacare.

                     replyreport
      2. 55

         Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Well said.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            junkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Education Answer, I don't need you to put words in my answer. I can't and won't argue with your or anymore Republican-teaparty hogwash. Because President Obama did what he could do in a crissis that threaten to wreck the US economy. As The President did manage to stop the bleeding and turn lemons into lemonade it took both hand in feet. All that time the country was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a months. After the 2010 mid-term The Speaker of the House while smiling publicly spouted the hogwash at The President "Wheres the Jobs". The hogwash was that he was Jesus but, he wasn't and couldn't do all thing at the same time. Now YOU say his priority should have been job creation instead of Nation building. That hogwash don't make sense, fighting to unfreeze Federal hiring and creating a WPA type job program as the economy implodes would be a stupid move at that time and space. Its a good idea now but, the hogwash is that the cost of a job program would have to be offset by cuts in Obamacare or social programs. Education Answer you high five yourself here for the hogwash you spouted. Thats some deep do do and shows your inability understand or admit what I say about the truth. You should stand down and let Anderson and I dialog. Thank you in advance

            replyreport
            1. 83

               GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Oh my! I am not sure it is safe to jump in between you and EA, but it only seems fair that since I disagreed with your original post, (and still do), I should also give you a nod when there are points we appear to agree on.
               
               Such as Pres. Obama's first priority being to stop the implosion, (as you put it), of our economy.
               I do believe jobs programs should have been secondary to dealing with the financial collapse - regardless of who was at fault for it.
               
               But I think they should have been next in line, before healthcare reform. I think the Democrats let the American people down by putting the politics of passing a Democrat dream. (national healthcare), while they had the power and control of the Presidency and the legislature to get it done - when they could have used that same power and control to initiate the type of jobs programs that you think would have solved the problem in his first term.
               
               Bluntly stated, I think that after stopping the lethal economic bleeding, (and no, I do not agree with how he did it), the President and his party decided politics, (healthcare reform),  were more important than the immediate needs of his nation's citizens.
               
               As for the Speaker, and others, asking where the jobs were - I think they were right. Jobs should have been his highest priority after the financial collapse. But it wasn't, and that is apparently a truth you don't believe.
               
               ps. I also do not believe the Federal hiring freeze was a bad thing. Nor do I think a WPA-type jobs program would have been a good thing. Both would have been just more short-term government fixes that our economy could not afford. The jobs solutions must be private sector efforts that function within our economy, not as an external add-on.
               
               GA

               replyreport
            2. 55

               Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Wow.  Why do you hold so much animosity towards people who disagree?  Seriously, you won't talk to people who have diverging views?  Why are you in a political forum then?
               
               
               I am not a member of the Tea Party.
               
               President Obama spent his political capital on Obamacare.  President Obama never has made jobs a priority.
               
               Best wishes.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  junkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Education Answer: I have no animosity toward you,what so ever. However I don't have patience with parroting people that talk at me and not to me. I heard your post about political capital on Fox News many time Your Handle makes me think about ALEC and the closing of public school nationwide and the opening of charter schools with public school funding. I don't think that is a good education answer.  What do you think?

                  replyreport
                  1. 55

                     Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     You heard my post about political capital?  This isn't a Fox News talking point; many people believe that President Obama spent his political capital on Obamacare.  Then, you mention something about closing public schools nationwide.  Do you know that I work at a public school?  I'm baffled by what you are saying, and frankly, I get most of my news from the Internet. 
                     
                     Again, best wishes.

                     replyreport
3. 0

   Motown2Chitownposted 10 years ago

   This thread is a drinking game, isn't it? 
   
   You guys are clever.  We each take a drink every time someone says "hogwash!"
   
   Genius.
   

   replyreport
4. 77

   junkoposted 10 years ago

   Thanks for the honorable nod my fellow American. The President's second most important move is debateable. However,  in America we have a Constitutional right to be wrong. I don't believe that the emergency brakes on government tax revenue, spending, and hiring should have been pulled during the great recession. Many of those who supported Austerity in our government also supported American intervention in problems in the middle and far east. I think its time to spend money on rebuilding our nation and not blowing up and rebuilding other nations. I could be wrong but I also have a right to be wrong The House of Representives control the money and the President can't and couldn't create jobs with a do nothing Congress. With all do respect...by your leave . Later

   replyreport
   1. 83

      GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      OK, what did you do with the real Junko that I first responded to?
      
      I am suspicious because this is another perspective that I agree with. (except for the government hiring point)
      
      I also think the push for slashing government spending during the financial crisis was wrong, and would have made things much worse instead of helping. But, after the initial struggles and the beginnings of progress - it was time to curb government spending - drastically, but slowly. This did not happen.
      
      That I do not believe tax cuts were the answer does not mean that I think tax increases were.
      
      To bring Middle and Far East intervention into the topic is like talking apples and oranges. Different reasons and different priorities.
      
      As for the House controlling the purse, you are correct. But other presidents have dealt successfully with cantankerous House opposition - so why couldn't Pres. Obama? Could it be a leadership issue? A "my way or the highway" attitude issue? Could he, (Obama), have have used a play or two from Clinton's playbook? (I do!) Or do you solely assign to the Tea Party the power to stop the President?
      
      ps. I looked everywhere, but darned if I could find that [i]Constitutional right to be wrong. Was it before or after the Right to Free Speech?
      
      I am grateful this has turned into an enjoyable conversation, thanks.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 77

         junkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Anderson: This is he, the real junko. Our dialog train went off the track with my second hand reply to your post. Because I felt GMWilliams question was devisive and an appeal and opportunity for Republican-teaparty haters to say that Bush and Obama are both failed Presidents. GM lit the match and stood back to see if the fire would be friendly. I call your post hogwash because I heard your post in those and other words on Fox News. GM's response to my post was intentionally vague numbers. It became ovious through dialog that you weren't a Republican- teaparty Obama hater. Your independence showed in the fact that you could publicly agree with me on any points and disagree without being disagreeable. The facts is there are no !00% pure Republicans, Democrats, or independents. There are no 100% liberals or conservatives. We are Americans and have all the personality traits in the American experience. You and I are alot alike but look very different. We agree more than we know and the more we talk and listen the more we know we know. The problem on Capitol Hill is too little talking and too little listening.

         replyreport