Author Topic: Question for Bush voters... (Read 2840 times)

Hedgehog · « **on:** March 25, 2009, 08:04:41 AM »

If Bush would have been up for re-election this fall...

And Obama would still have been the Democratic presidential candidate...

Would you have voted for Bush or Obama?

pumphard · « **Reply #1 on:** March 25, 2009, 08:06:23 AM »

Dan-O · « **Reply #2 on:** March 25, 2009, 09:58:17 AM »

Honestly? I would've voted for the third-party candidate, assuming he/she wasn't a complete doofus.

But if it came down to Bush vs. Obama and there were no other choice, I'd take Bush over this guy. Although I might just consider abstaining from voting altogether if that were the only choice.

shootfighter1 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 25, 2009, 10:00:44 AM »

What an aweful question. I'd be voting 3rd party. If you asked me prior to January, I may have said Obama. After seeing the unprecidented spending and seeing clear left wing agendas being pushed the past 65 days, I would say Bush.

Deicide · « **Reply #4 on:** March 25, 2009, 10:01:16 AM »

Ron Paul.

shootfighter1 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 25, 2009, 10:02:23 AM »

Yes, Ron Paul! That was my pick in the primaries. Though its more about the ideas than the man himself.

240 is Back · « **Reply #6 on:** March 25, 2009, 10:11:05 AM »

RP.

It's funny how many of us who debate topics all agreed with Ron paul.

Too bad fox smeared him to their audience. With a little enthusiasm - or no emotion at all from them - he might have had a chance. on the online polls, he usually won or tied. Viewers liked him best. hannity didn't, and unfortunately too many FOX viewers let hannity do their thinking for them.

I think I honestly would have sent the full 2300 to Ron paul's presidential run. I think I might have.

Hedgehog · « **Reply #7 on:** March 25, 2009, 10:11:42 AM »

Ok.

I was proably not clear in the original question:

Bush or Obama.

No "3rd party candidate" option.

Thanks.

loco · « **Reply #8 on:** March 25, 2009, 10:14:05 AM »

Quote from: Hedgehog on March 25, 2009, 10:11:42 AM

Ok.

I was proably not clear in the original question:

Bush or Obama.

No "3rd party candidate" option.

Thanks.

I would still pencil in Ron Paul.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #9 on:** March 25, 2009, 10:15:25 AM »

Quote from: Hedgehog on March 25, 2009, 10:11:42 AM

Ok.

I was proably not clear in the original question:

Bush or Obama.

No "3rd party candidate" option.

Thanks.

The only reason I say Bush is as follows:

1. He at least would be a check on the congress and they on him.

2. Supreme Court Judges

Those are the only two I can think of since as far as spending and bailouts go, there is no difference between Obama and Bush

Deicide · « **Reply #10 on:** March 25, 2009, 10:16:51 AM »

Quote from: shootfighter1 on March 25, 2009, 10:02:23 AM

Yes, Ron Paul! That was my pick in the primaries. Though its more about the ideas than the man himself.

Sure, same. His ideas.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #11 on:** March 25, 2009, 10:26:07 AM »

BUSH...are u kidding me...mickeymouse...a dead body...our own Hugo, anybody but Barry.

tu_holmes · « **Reply #12 on:** March 25, 2009, 10:54:15 AM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on March 25, 2009, 10:26:07 AM

BUSH...are u kidding me...mickeymouse...a dead body...our own Hugo, anybody but Barry.

So all of the shit that the administration caused and you would STILL have voted for Bush?

I see...

240 is Back · « **Reply #13 on:** March 25, 2009, 10:57:06 AM »

9.11 happened on Bush's watch, despite very clear warnings 6 weeks out. Maybe he wanted it to happen (fulfilling cheney's war desires), maybe it was jut gross ignorance of job duties, who knows.

All the borrowing happened on Bush's watch.

Obama's spending like crazy, but only because he inherited a 1.1 trillion annual deficit and a falling dollar. bush inherited a good situation with an ANNUAL BUDGET SURPLUS in 2000. He squadered it for wars - at least one of which was voluntary and elective.

a_joker10 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 25, 2009, 11:03:56 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on March 25, 2009, 10:57:06 AM

9.11 happened on Bush's watch, despite very clear warnings 6 weeks out. Maybe he wanted it to happen (fulfilling cheney's war desires), maybe it was jut gross ignorance of job duties, who knows.

All the borrowing happened on Bush's watch.

Obama's spending like crazy, but only because he inherited a 1.1 trillion annual deficit and a falling dollar. bush inherited a good situation with an ANNUAL BUDGET SURPLUS in 2000. He squadered it for wars - at least one of which was voluntary and elective.

Obama is responsible for the dollar falling.

Printing a trillion dollars a month, is all his fault.

Maybe try to reign in some spending and not talk about a global currency.

You might want to check out the fact that any increase in the DOW is being offset by a falling dollar.
China is still pegged to it so American companies can't compete and Obama is not doing anything about it.

This whole global currency is great for china because the US T-Bills will be 20% less then they are now which means China will be making 20% more on the backs of America because of their large holding of Us debt.

Hedgehog · « **Reply #15 on:** March 25, 2009, 11:04:27 AM »

Those who didn't vote for Bush could stay off this thread.

Butterbean · « **Reply #16 on:** March 25, 2009, 11:09:43 AM »

Quote from: Dan-O on March 25, 2009, 09:58:17 AM

But if it came down to Bush vs. Obama and there were no other choice, I'd take Bush over this guy.

x2

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #17 on:** March 25, 2009, 11:09:54 AM »

Quote from: Hedgehog on March 25, 2009, 11:04:27 AM

Those who didn't vote for Bush could stay off this thread.

Look, Bush completely frustrated the hell out of me as far as spending, immigration, and big govt goes.

However, what Obama is doing completely dwarfs anything Bush ever could even dream of.

240 is Back · « **Reply #18 on:** March 25, 2009, 11:17:46 AM »

Quote from: a_joker10 on March 25, 2009, 11:03:56 AM

Obama is responsible for the dollar falling.

What kinda shape do you think the country would be in today had mccain won?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #19 on:** March 25, 2009, 11:18:41 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on March 25, 2009, 11:17:46 AM

What kinda shape do you think the country would be in today had mccain won?

We dont know. All we know is that Geithner and and the Budget guy came out today and said they are open to a global currency replacing the dollar.

shootfighter1 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 25, 2009, 11:24:29 AM »

240, I don't agree that all of Obama's spending is due to the deficit Bush left, thats what the administration keeps repeating to justify its actions. I honestly believe some of the plans are clearly liberal wish list items that are being pushed through quickly under the guise of stimulus to help the economy long term. Not saying Obama doesn't believe some of these programs could help in the long run, but they are not all a specific reaction to the recession. He is using the recession to justify major changes that he feels are good for the country.

tu_holmes · « **Reply #21 on:** March 25, 2009, 11:25:14 AM »

Quote from: a_joker10 on March 25, 2009, 11:03:56 AM

Obama is responsible for the dollar falling.

Are you insane? The dollar dropped 40% under the Bush administration.

How the hell did Obama do that?

shootfighter1 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 25, 2009, 11:25:37 AM »

With McCain, I am not sure. We wouldn't see this degree of spending and wouldn't see some of the overtly liberal policies that have been pushed through. I think McCain would have certainly been better than Bush, but he was not a real strong candidate.

tu_holmes · « **Reply #23 on:** March 25, 2009, 11:28:43 AM »

Quote from: shootfighter1 on March 25, 2009, 11:25:37 AM

With McCain, I am not sure. We wouldn't see this degree of spending and wouldn't see some of the overtly liberal policies that have been pushed through. I think McCain would have certainly been better than Bush, but he was not a real strong candidate.

Maybe not some of the policies... but the spending? Yes... You'd still see that.

McCain was all for the bailout last October and he'd be spending this money now... Over 60% of the economists in this country believe the spending is required... It sucks, but it's required.

McCain would be spending just the same, it would probably just be going to the corporations.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #24 on:** March 25, 2009, 11:37:34 AM »

Quote from: tu_holmes on March 25, 2009, 11:28:43 AM

Maybe not some of the policies... but the spending? Yes... You'd still see that.

McCain was all for the bailout last October and he'd be spending this money now... Over 60% of the economists in this country believe the spending is required... It sucks, but it's required.

McCain would be spending just the same, it would probably just be going to the corporations.

I have been sold on the Schiff idea of what is going on and the cure for this problem.