Obama, the other Bush!

1. 65

   maxoxam41posted 10 years ago

   Here we go again, war is at our doorstep. Another false accusation against a minor country. Your opinion on this new Iraq plot! We are refusing that children being gassed and we propose as a solution to bomb them. Is it what I understood?

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If you become president, once you get into office its not about the power, the people or the money... it is about your very life.  Thats my opinion. The world is a dangerous place due to shady characters..those who have the money and the true power..
      no doubt about it.

      replyreport
   2. 56

      Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      He's not the other Bush.  At least Bush had the ability to convince other nations to join our cause and help.  We're on our own with President Obama "leading" us.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

         It is not a matter of who is the stronger to argue a case. Now the world knows what we are about and don't accept it. Iraq was the lesson. Until the last minute England was by our side and when it came to action, it disappeared. The international community doesn't see us as a liberator but as an invader. It is time for us to get wiser. By we, I mean the people, the government only responds to private interests. We shall speak out and protest. Let's solve OUR problems.

         replyreport
         1. 56

            Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I agree.  We have enough issues to keep ourselves busy.

            replyreport
      2. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Actually, respect for our country has increased greatly under Obama compared to the abysmal level under George W. Bush. Why do you continually report unsupported B.S.?
         
         http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/07/18/ame … an-chinas/
         
         http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … ove-obama/
         
         http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/06/obama-u- … than-bush/
         
         "In analyzing Pew's international polls forthe president and America, it hard to ignore the tremendous affect Obama has had in terms of projecting a positive and progressive vision of America. Obama's image has overwhelmingly resonated with our neighbors in Europe, South America and Asia (with the exception of China).
         
         "The vast majority of European countries have sizable margins of approval when it comes to the way that Obama has worked with other nations on economic problems. More people like America’s ways of doing business now than four years ago. Polls even show that more people like “American views of democracy” now compared to four years ago.
         
         '(It is also worth noting that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has a very favorably image across all of Europe, except Greece, Japan, India and Brazil.) The Obama administration and America as a whole are especially popular in the 18-29 age bracket. The image of Obama and the image he projects of America represents a positive direction for our country to continue moving in the next four years...."
         
         http://www.policymic.com/articles/17982 … econd-term

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly what color is the sky in your little world Ralph?

            replyreport
         2. 56

            Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Aren't you the same person who opposes the use of polls when they don't support your views?  Now you use them to support yourself? 
            
            Just how many countries were willing to follow America into Syria?  How many nations supported George Bush in Iraq?  If President Obama is so popular, why is he unable to get countries to support his policies?  Is it a lack of leadership?
            
            No matter though, because Putin was able to do what Obama couldn't handle.  Now, we have to rely on Russia for leadership?

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               "Aren't you the same person who opposes the use of polls when they don't support your views?  Now you use them to support yourself? "
               
               How would you measure U.S. approval ratings around the world?

               replyreport
               1. 56

                  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I already answered that.
                  
                  How would you measure support for Obamacare?

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, he was elected last year by a big margin over Romney.

                     replyreport
                     1. 56

                        Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        Big margin?  Yeah right. 
                        
                        He was elected, and that still doesn't mean that the majority of people support Obamacare.

                        replyreport
                        1. 65

                           Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Well, if a majority don't like Obamacare, why did they vote for Obama? It may be too early to pronounce a verdict about Obamacare. It's better than what we have now, but I'm sure it can be improved based on experience. There has been a huge anti-Obamacare publicity campaign which has not been very accurate which no doubt has influenced people who haven't taken care to inform themselves about it.

                           replyreport
                           1. 56

                              Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              Many voted for the POTUS, because they support his policies, including Obamacare.  Many voted for him, because they considered him to be the lesser of two evils.  Many voted for him, because he was more likely to continue making sure they would have government assistance. 
                              
                              There is always a campaign against the opponent.  Democrats did the same thing against Bush.  Both sides do this all the time and have since well before you or I were alive.  It's called politics, and both sides play the same game. 
                              
                              He won, but he doesn't have a mandate.  To see what a mandate looks like, check out the 1984 election.

                              replyreport
         3. 0

            HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Your links are outdated, Ralph. You might try looking up China's call for a de-americanized world. 
            
            Obama's getting us into hot water very quickly.

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Are you suggesting China's position is more important than that of our European allies and other democratic countries around the world? President Obama has ended one of Bush's foolish, costly wars and is winding down the other. And without any cooperation from the GOP he is bringing the country and the world back out of Bush's deep economic hole. Now radical extremists are threatening default which would have severe results here and in other countries.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Obama has a horrible track record on foreign policy, culminating with the loss of respect that just took place when Putin swept the floor with him over Syria. Obama backed the wrong party in Egypt, which has now turned into a disaster, violated the War Powers Resolution when he bombed Libya and then he made it clear he wanted to invade Syria - to great world disapproval.
                  
                  You mention Bush's wars, and, yes, Obama finally pulled most of our troops out of Iraq, but he tripled the size of the Afghanistan operation, and three times as many Americans have lost their lives as compared to when Bush was in office.
                  
                  Liberals are fond of saying that Bush spent a trillion dollars in Iraq and that's true, but every year Obama's been in office, he's added another trillion dollars to the debt.
                  
                  Now, he's acting like a little baby, refusing to discuss, debate or compromise even a little on his ACA bill, which is going to be a disaster any way you cut it.
                  
                  The world community is talking about how the US is slipping out of first place as a world power. And, how china is stepping up.
                  
                  You appear to ignore that which does not please you.

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     The fact is Obama has greatly improved the standing of the U.S. among most nations around the world compared to our country's nadir under Bush. Putin deserves credit for what may turn out to be a peaceful resolution of poison gas issue in Syria, but so do Obama and Kerry. Also, we may see a satisfactory peaceful resolution of the nuclear issues with Iran thanks to Obama's determination to do so without starting another war. As I recall candidate McCain's refrain was "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." Also, he would have gotten us into premature military involvement in Syria. Moreover, Netanyahu is on the way to being neutered and isolated.  Second, the increase in debt under Obama primarily is due to decreased tax revenues and increased expenditures due to the Bush recession.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        Nobody is defending McCain but Obama has definitely grown comfortable with his own bomb, bomb, bomb scenario. I can't think of one nation, friend or foe, that thinks highly of the US under Obama. And Kerry deserves no credit for Syria. That was all Putin, Kerry was running interference until he and Obama had no choice but to back down because Putin had them against a wall. Hillary Clinton admitted a few months ago that the risk of terrorism had grown in the Middle East in the past three years.

                        replyreport
                        1. 65

                           Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           "I can't think of one nation, friend or foe, that thinks highly of the US under Obama." Just curious, what do you base that on?  Obama is not in a position to control what happens in the Middle East. He was not in a hurry to get involved in Syria and he's been patiently putting the squeeze on Iran via sanctions. Can you think of one thing that Obama has done that you agree with? Seems to me your judgments are extreme. I wonder why?

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              Then why does he keep sticking his nose in there? He demanded that Mubarak step down, and before that, he demanded that the Muslim Brotherhood have a place in Egypt's govt. He demanded Gaddafi step down and then he helped bomb him to the promised land. Now, he's been talking about bombing Syria too, yet you say he is "not in a position control what happens in the Middle East."
                              
                              Unfortunately, you're wrong about that. He's had great influence and his influence has destabilized the region. My judgements are not extreme - I voted for Obama the first time, thinking he wanted peace. I made a mistake and I won't make it twice. Do you realize that they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize? They ought to take it back.
                              
                              I never thought I'd see the day when a Russian leader had to tell an American leader to cool his jets. (literally)
                              
                              He was actually in a big hurry to get into Syria. He claimed he would go alone when the Brits told their leader to stay put and he was planning within weeks to start operations.

                              replyreport
                              1. 65

                                 Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 "He was actually in a big hurry to get into Syria. He claimed he would go alone when the Brits told their leader to stay put and he was planning within weeks to start operations."
                                 
                                 Don't you think it's fair to say that Obama's threats to take military action to put a stop to the use of poison gas helped to bring Assad to the table and/or to get support for this from Putin? I don't think it's accurate to say that Obama was in a big hurry to take military action in Syria any more than take action against Iran. It's more than a bit inconsistent to blame him for not doing anything and at the same time criticize him for being too eager to intervene. His approach has been carefully balanced.

                                 replyreport
2. 65

   maxoxam41posted 10 years ago

   The Kennedys' death is the perfect example. As soon as you stepped into the oval office, I believe that they become a puppet. If they go against the mainstream you are simply eliminated. So much for the democracy!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I think you might have a point with the "puppet" theory.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Indeed.

         replyreport
3. 73

   Reality Bytesposted 10 years ago

   

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Indeed.
      And yet they use every excuse in the book to try to say it's not his fault,  that he's just a "puppet".    hmmm.
      Although.....if he's partly puppet and the string-puller is Hillary Clinton, I can see how he'd be scared;  Hillary is  just scaaarrry incarnate.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         lone77starposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, Hillary is scary, but she's as much a puppet as Bush, Obama, Clinton, Bush Sr, Carter, Ford, Reagan, Nixon and Johnson.
         
         The last non-puppet president was taken out by the psychopathic elite -- the real puppet masters -- the ones who own the Central Banks of nearly every nation, except Syria... and until recently, Libya. E. Howard Hunt (of Watergate infamy) confessed on his deathbed to have worked for those psychopaths in taking out JFK.
         
         Here's an exiled Syrian girl who speaks out against American and NWO hegemony:
         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP3mXVRd89Y
         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEPadG0pQk
         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynH_BbqC4Zo

         replyreport
4. 58

   woodstonenuposted 10 years ago

   Obama, the other Bush!
   
   That is a nice post
   
   Thanks

   replyreport
5. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 10 years ago

   Obama indicated that when he became president, he would not be involved in any wars.  He stopped the war in Iraq but continued the war in Afghanistan.  He then instigated in the war in Syria.   Obama is NOT the other Bush.  He is the beyond Bush.    What Bush has done regarding his presidential policies is pale in comparison to what Obama in doing.   Obama is making Bush look like an innocent choir boy. 
   
   Obama asserted that he would discontinue many of George Bush's policies.  Wrong.  He extended the Patriot Act in which America citizens can be arrested and detained indefinitely if the latter are perceived to be security risks.  He had IRS spy on people who disagreed with his policies.  Dr. Ben Carson indicated that after he gave a speech at the presidential breakfast, IRS "visited" him because his views were different from that of the president.  Now, he invaded Syria; something he said that he would NEVER do.  Bush-4, Obama-25.  Obama is MUCH WORSE than Bush pertaining to his strong arm tactics. 
   
   To make an analogy-Bush was Alaric but Obama is Attila!
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Paul Wingertposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You know there's other things on TV besides FOX News BS.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Please enlighten us as to how GMWilliams is mistaken.

         replyreport
         1. 65

            Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            "Obama indicated that when he became president, he would not be involved in any wars.  He stopped the war in Iraq but continued the war in Afghanistan.  He then instigated in the war in Syria.  Now, he invaded Syria; something he said that he would NEVER do."
            
            Obama didn't say or "indicate he wouldn't be involved in any wars." He was already involved in Bush's wars when he took office.
            He is winding down the war in Afghanistan. He didn't "instigate the war in Syria. And he hasn't invaded Syria."
            
            As usual, GM Williams has trouble keeping her facts straight.

            replyreport
            1. 56

               Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Total Deaths in Afghanistan:
               
               President Bush:
               2001: 5
               
               2002: 30
               
               2003: 31
               
               2004: 49
               
               2005: 94
               
               2006: 87
               
               2007: 111
               
               2008: 151
               
               
               President Obama:
               2009: 303
               
               2010: 497
               
               2011: 494
               
               2012: 294
               
               2013: 91 (From Jan. 1, 2013 to Sept. 10, 2013)
               
               Did you notice when most Americans were killed?  Almost seventy-five percent of all American deaths occurred under President Obama.  President Obama is employing Nixon's strategy in Vietnam, an insurgency followed by withdrawal.  How'd that work for Nixon?

               replyreport
               1. 65

                  Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Bush started a needless war after letting bin Laden get away. Obama followed his generals' advice and sent more troops. Now he's winding down the war. I don't agree with every thing  Obama does, but I don't disagree with everything he does as you appear to do. Just can't stand having a black guy in the White House??

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Uhuh, sure: there is no other rational reason anybody could ever come up with to oppose Barack Obama's presidency. Fudging an answer and then playing the race card is a fair and scholarly method of argumentation - as it has revealed our so obvious prejudices. Who could oppose this otherwise great guy if not for his blackness? Asides from the expansion of the military and police states, the war on drugs, his economic illiteracy and flagrant disregard for the constitution, what exactly is there to complain about?

                     replyreport
                     1. 65

                        Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        A large percentage of ignorant, mouth breathing Tea Partiers have opposed Obama because of his race from the time he announced his first candidacy. Birthers are still claiming he's a Muslim born in Kenya and not eligible for the Presidency.
                        
                        The war on drugs started long before Obama. However, I agree he's not winding it down as fast as he should. There are plenty of other things he's done that I disagree with, but I'll leave that up to you and Educationanswer and EWWilliams. On balance, he's a tremendous improvement over Bush and far preferable to Mitt Romney.

                        replyreport
                        1. 65

                           innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           "Mouth-breathing" is a perfectly acceptable thing to call someone. We should always ignore the rational arguments and focus on the irrational ones. We should focus on non-sequiters like the birth certificate more than things like the economy, foreign policy and the police state.

                           replyreport
                        2. 65

                           innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Ahh you posted more of your answer afterwards, sneaky.
                           
                           Winding it down as fast as he should? He's not winding it down at all. Although, to his credit, he elected against enforcing the federal ban on cannabis in Colorado where they had legalised it. I put that down in one of my previous threads as the one thing we can praise Obama for. Another thing he's done since then that has been half-decent is that he has not been so eager to rush into an all-out war with Syria as Bush or Romney probably would have. But on all other accounts he has to be worse than Bush: more wars, more spending and debt and expansion of the police state. On balance he probably is better than Romney would be but, jeez, that's like saying walking over a bed of broken glass is better than having your ears burned off.

                           replyreport
                  2. 56

                     Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     First off, you don't even know the color of my skin, so please don't presume.  You play the race card every time you're losing a debate.  It becomes tiresome.
                     
                     The majority of people of color didn't vote for George Bush.  According to you, they must be racist?  I don't buy it.  I have more faith in Americans.  I believe that the majority of people vote based on ideology.  I have voted for many people, people of every color.  I vote for the best person and don't need to answer to you or your ilk, the kind who can't stand it when somebody disagrees with President Obama.  Contrary to your belief, there are many of us who just simply dislike his politics.

                     replyreport
                     1. 65

                        Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        Okay. I accept your objection to my comment on your reaction to Obama's race. Apologies. Also, I have reflected on our discussion on the U.S. reputation around the world. It is true that it has suffered recently over the NSA spying issue, especially in Brazil and some other countries as well. However, although it's fair to criticize Obama over privacy/spying issues these policies were begun before he was elected. I have mixed feelings about what's been going on and about the effects of Obama's increased use of drone strikes.

                        replyreport
                        1. 56

                           Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Thank you.  I can appreciate what you said.
                           
                           I, too, am increasingly alarmed by President Obama's use of drones, a kill list with Americans on it, and domestic spying.  Yes, much of this was started under George Bush, but that doesn't make it moral for President Obama to continue and expand the program. 
                           
                           It is fair to criticize President Obama for these actions if one also criticizes George Bush when appropriate.  I criticize both men for the Patriot Act but increasingly become alarmed by President Obama's expansion of invasive, rights-infringing policy.

                           replyreport
                           1. 65

                              Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              We aren't too far apart on that.

                              replyreport
      2. 56

         Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         There's always CNBC.  It's totally unbiased.  You could watch CNN.  I recommend Piers Morgan; he's totally unbiased too.  (This is sarcasm.)
         
         Democrats have many liberal news choices.  Republicans have one place, Fox News.

         replyreport