Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on January 17, 2012, 12:11:43 PM
-
Someone asked me this question. I had a hard time answering. For example, there are things that I liked about Bush, Clinton, etc. and things I didn't like. I think Clinton actually did a decent job, but his moral failures really tarnished his presidency. Who was it?
-
Clinton.
-
I'd say Clinton. He was smart enough to leave well enough alone in many cases. He spoke to the far-left on a lot of issues to get elected, but did virtually nothing for them. Smart guy.
Obama.....had a chance to do some monumental things, but lacks the ability, or willingness to adjust on the fly. He should have abandoned the healthcare stuff and focused on getting something accomplished in the middle east and helping the economy.
Bush.....had a chance to be a solid president, but he got so sidetracked with the middle east. I think it consumed him.
-
I'd say Clinton. He was smart enough to leave well enough alone in many cases. He spoke to the far-left on a lot of issues to get elected, but did virtually nothing for them. Smart guy.
Obama.....had a chance to do some monumental things, but lacks the ability, or willingness to adjust on the fly. He should have abandoned the healthcare stuff and focused on getting something accomplished in the middle east and helping the economy.
Bush.....had a chance to be a solid president, but he got so sidetracked with the middle east. I think it consumed him.
Excellent reply.
-
Bush Jr. and Clinton were both good presidents. Strange that they both were also two of the most hated presidents. Bush Sr. is a mixed bag. In foreign policy he had one of the most successful military operations in the history of the US (Gulf War 1). And that was a big deal after the failure of Vietnam. But his domestic policy was a failure. Reagan was the best of the 20th century. Obama is the worst since Herbert Hoover.
-
Bush Jr. and Clinton were both good presidents. Strange that they both were also two of the most hated presidents. Bush Sr. is a mixed bag. In foreign policy he had one of the most successful military operations in the history of the US (Gulf War 1). And that was a big deal after the failure of Vietnam. But his domestic policy was a failure. Reagan was the best of the 20th century. Obama is the worst since Herbert Hoover.
what did Bush Jr. do that qualifies his as a good POTUS
-
Clinton was great.
JFK was the last GREAT president, last one with integrity, and you saw what that got him.
Sometimes I wonder if when a new president that has any glint of integrity takes office, some shadowey guys sit him down and plays a video of JFK and says "You dont want to wind up like JFK do you? Youre going to go along with us, right?"
-
Reagan was great.
GHWB - good president bad pr and political machine.
Clintoon was smart enough to let things be economically.
Jorge El Boooosh was a mess.
Obama is off the charts horrible,
-
what did Bush Jr. do that qualifies his as a good POTUS
Same thing that Obama is doing now that you applaud, keep Guantanamo open, extend the Bush tax cuts, Patriot Act, endless wars, stick to Bush's Iraq troop pullout schedule, overspending, privatizing corporate gains while socializing corporate loses, etc.
-
Reagan was great.
GHWB - good president bad pr and political machine.
Clintoon was smart enough to let things be economically.
Jorge El Boooosh was a mess.
Obama is off the charts horrible,
Reagan = teh uber win.
Clinton = Great, knew when to leave be, which is as important if not more so then knowing when to act.
Bush Jr = Epic fail, even though his intentions were pure IMHO
Obama = worst president since Carter, maybe worst ever. Bush had all the faults of Bush, with the added fact that he potrayed himself as the anti-bush when he is exactly the same, except worse. At least Bush made no 2 bones about what he was - he was straight up about it. I feel like Obama actually BELIEVES his own bullshit, and actually BELIEVES hes somehow better than Bush was.
-
Reagan was great.
GHWB - good president bad pr and political machine.
Clintoon was smart enough to let things be economically.
Jorge El Boooosh was a mess.
Obama is off the charts horrible,
reagan tripled the debt, raised taxes how many times (11 I think), needed to raise the debt ceiling how many times (17 I think), illegally sold weapons to Iran, put his tail between his legs and ran out of Lebanon after the marin barraks bombing and was likely suffeing from dementia during the last part of his second term
I'm sure I've forgotten something
-
Same thing that Obama is doing now that you applaud, keep Guantanamo open, extend the Bush tax cuts, Patriot Act, endless wars, stick to Bush's Iraq troop pullout schedule, overspending, privatizing corporate gains while socializing corporate loses, etc.
keeping Gitmo open is not something I applaud Obama for
Bush tax cuts did nothing but increase our deficit because Repubs still believed that tax cuts pay for themselves
Patriot Act sucks
Can't figure out if you're favor of socialized losses but I think they suck
anything else?
-
keeping Gitmo open is not something I applaud Obama for
Bush tax cuts did nothing but increase our deficit because Repubs still believed that tax cuts pay for themselves
Patriot Act sucks
Can't figure out if you're favor of socialized losses but I think they suck
anything else?
You are missing the point. You like Obama? Then you like Bush. You dislike Bush? Then you dislike Obama.
Obama = Bush = Obama = Bush
-
You are missing the point. You like Obama? Then you like Bush. You dislike Bush? Then you dislike Obama.
Obama = Bush = Obama = Bush
Truth.
Unfortunatley, people who support one side and blame the other will never be objective enough to see this.
-
You are missing the point. You like Obama? Then you like Bush. You dislike Bush? Then you dislike Obama.
Obama = Bush = Obama = Bush
that's your premise (I assume) and not mine
-
that's your premise (I assume) and not mine
How can you argue? Theyve both done the exact same thing - take liberties from people, engage in conflicts, fund their private buddies businesses with tax payer funds.... if there is a difference somewhere, Im all ears..
-
You are missing the point. You like Obama? Then you like Bush. You dislike Bush? Then you dislike Obama.
Obama = Bush = Obama = Bush
100% truth...
Clinton for sure.
-
How can you argue? Theyve both done the exact same thing - take liberties from people, engage in conflicts, fund their private buddies businesses with tax payer funds.... if there is a difference somewhere, Im all ears..
no doubt he has continued some of Bush policies but that doesn't mean he an analog of Bush
if you listen to the right Obama is a communist, sociallist, marxist and an out of control "Lib"
Fact is he's similar in many ways to our past 2 POTUS's but he's not the same as either one
btw - I don't agree with everything you've attributed to Obama above but I don't have time to address them right now and get into a drawn out discussion about it
Suffice to say I simply don't agree with your premise that they are identical
-
Washington.
-
A better question is which one of the "great" Presidents did everyone on here vote for.
-
no doubt he has continued some of Bush policies but that doesn't mean he an analog of Bush
if you listen to the right Obama is a communist, sociallist, marxist and an out of control "Lib"
Fact is he's similar in many ways to our past 2 POTUS's but he's not the same as either one
btw - I don't agree with everything you've attributed to Obama above but I don't have time to address them right now and get into a drawn out discussion about it
Suffice to say I simply don't agree with your premise that they are identical
I look at the end result.
The end result of his presidency - Nothing has changed for the better, or hell, even broken even.... everything has become worse. And the end result is exactly the same as the end result of Bush. But at least Bush didnt pretend to be something he wasnt. Obama actually believes he's somehow different and better.
-
Washington.
lol...down hill ever since, eh?
-
Someone asked me this question. I had a hard time answering. For example, there are things that I liked about Bush, Clinton, etc. and things I didn't like. I think Clinton actually did a decent job, but his moral failures really tarnished his presidency. Who was it?
Moral failures? Im assuming youre reffering to his whole BJ scandal.
Why in the hell does who he decides to get head from tarnish his reputation? And why is it any of our business? Its not anyones business but his, his wifes, and whoever he's screwing.
I remember wondering why the hell so many people were freaking out, and why the hell did so many people care what the man did with his personal life?
-
Moral failures? Im assuming youre reffering to his whole BJ scandal.
Why in the hell does who he decides to get head from tarnish his reputation? And why is it any of our business? Its not anyones business but his, his wifes, and whoever he's screwing.
I remember wondering why the hell so many people were freaking out, and why the hell did so many people care what the man did with his personal life?
Because he was the Commander in Chief and adultery is a crime in the military. Senior officers get fired all the time for screwing around. He lost his moral authority to be CIC.
If you don't think he disgraced his public office by having an intern give him a blow job in the White House, while he was married, then lied to the world about it, then we just have different standards.
-
Because he was the Commander in Chief and adultery is a crime in the military. Senior officers get fired all the time for screwing around. He lost his moral authority to be CIC.
If you don't think he disgraced his public office by having an intern give him a blow job in the White House, while he was married, then lied to the world about it, then we just have different standards.
Yes, but he's not in the military. He's not subject to the UCMJ. He doesnt have to have "moral authority" to lead, as his personal life is between him and his wife. You dont know, could be him and his wife dont sleep together and have an understanding, many people do that, and yes, many in the military do that for benefits.
The ONLY thing I disagree with was that he did it in office - but then again, hell if I had the chance to eff my wife in the oval office I probably would.
His relationships are his business and his alone IMHO. What he does sexually and with who is none of our business and IN NO WAY has anything to do with his ability to lead or the decisions he made for the country.
-
that's your premise (I assume) and not mine
You know it's true, or maybe you are in denial.
Ron Paul called it in 2008: Obama = Bush = McCain = Establishment
-
JFK was last real president. The rest have been NWO puppets.
-
Because he was the Commander in Chief and adultery is a crime in the military. Senior officers get fired all the time for screwing around. He lost his moral authority to be CIC.
What about Eisenhower and his Wren chauffeur, Kay Summersby?
-
Yes, but he's not in the military. He's not subject to the UCMJ. He doesnt have to have "moral authority" to lead, as his personal life is between him and his wife. You dont know, could be him and his wife dont sleep together and have an understanding, many people do that, and yes, many in the military do that for benefits.
The ONLY thing I disagree with was that he did it in office - but then again, hell if I had the chance to eff my wife in the oval office I probably would.
His relationships are his business and his alone IMHO. What he does sexually and with who is none of our business and IN NO WAY has anything to do with his ability to lead or the decisions he made for the country.
Like I said, we have different standards. I believe the leader of an organization should abide by the rules set for his subordinates. You don't believe the CIC should have to follow the basic rules he enforces over his subordinates. I do. The fact he wasn't subject to the UCMJ misses the point. He can't expect his subordinates to respect him if he is violating rules the subordinates have to follow.
When a person becomes a public figure then whatever he or she does is open to public scrutiny, particularly if he is engaging in conduct that most Americans would find objectionable.
I don't believe in public vs. private ethics/integrity. You either have it or your don't. If you lie in private you will lie in public. If you're dishonest in your private life you will be dishonest in business (or government).
-
Clinton committed perjury in a civil case remember?
-
You know it's true, or maybe you are in denial.
Ron Paul called it in 2008: Obama = Bush = McCain = Establishment
maybe you're in denial because you seem to assume that your belief is a fact rather than an opinion
-
maybe you're in denial because you seem to assume that your belief is a fact rather than an opinion
LOL...all a sane person has to do is look at the facts, look at what Bush did, then look at what Obama has done and is doing.
-
LOL...all a sane person has to do is look at the facts, look at what Bush did, then look at what Obama has done and is doing.
Bush wanted to privatize social security
is Obama pushing that
Was Bush in favor of the health care legislatin (probably biggest piece of legislation in Obama's first term)
Was Bush in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military
Would Bush have vetoed the Keystone pipeline
-
Bush wanted to privatize social security
is Obama pushing that
Was Bush in favor of the health care legislatin (probably biggest piece of legislation in Obama's first term)
Was Bush in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military
Would Bush have vetoed the Keystone pipeline
All things fucking up the country.
End result = same.
-
Bush wanted to privatize social security
is Obama pushing that
Was Bush in favor of the health care legislatin (probably biggest piece of legislation in Obama's first term)
Was Bush in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military
Would Bush have vetoed the Keystone pipeline
???
Are you trying to persuade everyone here that Obama is much worse than Bush?
-
???
Are you trying to persuade everyone here that Obama is much worse than Bush?
I thought your argument was that they were exactly the same ?
-
I thought your argument was that they were exactly the same ?
Yes, and I was going easy on Obama by that argument. But you have pointed out that Obama is a much worse version of Bush.
-
Yes, and I was going easy on Obama by that argument. But you have pointed out that Obama is a much worse version of Bush.
so like I said all along
Obama is not the same as Bush
right?
-
so like I said all along
Obama is not the same as Bush
right?
Yes, you are right, and I am wrong. You are smart, and I am dumb. You are handsome, and I am not very good looking.
As you have pointed out, Obama is a much worse version of Bush.
-
Yes, you are right, and I am wrong. You are smart, and I am dumb. You are handsome, and I am not very good looking.
As you have pointed out, Obama is a much worse version of Bush.
you could have stopped with admitting that Obama is not Bush
that was obviously my only point and you clearly seem to agree after vehemently arguing the opposite
-
you could have stopped with admitting that Obama is not Bush
that was obviously my only point and you clearly seem to agree after vehemently arguing the opposite
I am aware of what your only point was, and I agree now only after you opened my eyes.
As you have pointed out, Obama has done everything that Bush did plus many, much worse screw ups of his own.
Obama = A much worse version of Bush. Thank you, Straw Man!
-
I am aware of what your only point was, and I agree now only after you opened my eyes.
As you have pointed out, Obama has done everything that Bush did plus many, much worse screw ups of his own.
Obama = A much worse version of Bush. Thank you, Straw Man!
I didn't agree with your first premise and I don't agree with your second
Obama is not a version of Bush and therefore not a much worse version (just in case you're confused this is my opinion)
I'll take Obama over Bush or any other Repub, Tea Bagger of the current field
-
I didn't agree with your first premise and I don't agree with your second
Obama is not a version of Bush and therefore not a much worse version (just in case you're confused this is my opinion)
I'll take Obama over Bush or any other Repub, Tea Bagger of the current field
Saudi Arabia agrees with you.
-
Saudi Arabia agrees with you.
I'm sure they do
-
I'm sure they do
Really Straw? Chalk this up to another hit and a miss for you.
-
Really Straw? Chalk this up to another hit and a miss for you.
I guess Bush must have been a better c.o.cksucker
-
I liked the world when Clinton was president. what we have now is mind fucking bullshit.
even if this is the case ...
The Mena Connection: Bush, Clinton, and CIA drug smuggling part 1/6
-
Because he was the Commander in Chief and adultery is a crime in the military. Senior officers get fired all the time for screwing around. He lost his moral authority to be CIC.
If you don't think he disgraced his public office by having an intern give him a blow job in the White House, while he was married, then lied to the world about it, then we just have different standards.
Clinton wasn't perfect for sure. He did disgrace the office. But for whatever reason or what ever set of circum stances he was our last good president.
-
You are missing the point. You like Obama? Then you like Bush. You dislike Bush? Then you dislike Obama.
Obama = Bush = Obama = Bush
Post of the week!
-
Moral failures? Im assuming youre reffering to his whole BJ scandal.
Why in the hell does who he decides to get head from tarnish his reputation? And why is it any of our business? Its not anyones business but his, his wifes, and whoever he's screwing.
I remember wondering why the hell so many people were freaking out, and why the hell did so many people care what the man did with his personal life?
I find it very interesting that Clinton's "Moral Failures" are referenced, while the fact that the Bush administrations Moral Failure that is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians isn't mentioned.
-
Clinton wasn't perfect for sure. He did disgrace the office. But for whatever reason or what ever set of circum stances he was our last good president.
He was definitely better than the man we're stuck with right now.