U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-19-2012, 04:00 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,034,362 times
Reputation: 7701

Advertisements

Did you like the presidency of George Bush? Why, or why not.

Premise: The policies advocated by Team Romney are the same policies implemented by Bush. Do you want to return to that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-19-2012, 04:03 PM
 
12,607 posts, read 14,613,304 times
Reputation: 14101
Yes, I liked Bush and I agreed with his policies. Much better than what Obama has done - put us deeper in debt than we have ever been and bailed out Wall Street, increased entitlement programs, ignored illegal immigration, eliminated our space program, and cut defense spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2012, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,034,362 times
Reputation: 7701
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
Yes, I liked Bush and I agreed with his policies. Much better than what Obama has done - put us deeper in debt than we have ever been and bailed out Wall Street, increased entitlement programs, ignored illegal immigration, eliminated our space program, and cut defense spending.

Even though the recession began under his administration and was at least partly attributable to his policies? Even though he got us involved in two wars which cost us the lives of thousands of our young men and women and over a trillion dollars, wars for which he never could even decide what constituted victory, yet did not make us safe from al Queda attack? Even though he brought us our first trillion dollar deficit? Even though he implemented indefinite detention without charge, "enhanced interrogation," created secret prisons abroad and pushed through warrantless wiretappings? And, all of this available for use on AMERICAN citizens? Even though his administration did not care about killing Osama bin Laden? Even though his Secretary of the Treasurey, Hank Paulson, told our Congress that what happened to those billions of TARP dollars was "none of their business?"

I could go on and on. I can't help but wonder how anyone who remained informed during those days, and were not swayed by emotional propaganda, would WANT to go back to that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2012, 04:24 PM
 
3,624 posts, read 2,963,661 times
Reputation: 1499
bush brought us more big government with homeland security, and signed the patriot act.

no wonder republicans love him. big government and more rights taken away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2012, 04:26 PM
 
12,607 posts, read 14,613,304 times
Reputation: 14101
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
Even though the recession began under his administration and was at least partly attributable to his policies? Even though he got us involved in two wars which cost us the lives of thousands of our young men and women and over a trillion dollars, wars for which he never could even decide what constituted victory, yet did not make us safe from al Queda attack? Even though he brought us our first trillion dollar deficit? Even though he implemented indefinite detention without charge, "enhanced interrogation," created secret prisons abroad and pushed through warrantless wiretappings? And, all of this available for use on AMERICAN citizens? Even though his administration did not care about killing Osama bin Laden? Even though his Secretary of the Treasurey, Hank Paulson, told our Congress that what happened to those billions of TARP dollars was "none of their business?"

I could go on and on. I can't help but wonder how anyone who remained informed during those days, and were not swayed by emotional propaganda, would WANT to go back to that!
Did you forget about 09/11? Did you want wars on our own turf instead of in another country? What we had under Bush was SO much better than what we have under Obama. I'd go back to Bush in a heartbeat. Obama needs to go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2012, 04:32 PM
 
3,624 posts, read 2,963,661 times
Reputation: 1499
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
Did you forget about 09/11? Did you want wars on our own turf instead of in another country? What we had under Bush was SO much better than what we have under Obama. I'd go back to Bush in a heartbeat. Obama needs to go.
9/11 was under bush's watch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2012, 04:41 PM
 
3,326 posts, read 7,523,352 times
Reputation: 1957
"Team Obama" has extended so much of the Bush era it's not even funny.... then they have the nerve to blame Bush for everything.......................... but they're not fixing one single problem or even making any kind of serious attempt to do so.
Oh well. We'll give Obama a pass for reasons no one can fully explain. The guy really does get away with everything from bad policy to repetitive gafs that in a non-bizzaro world could keep SNL stocked up with skits for years to come. They won't hardly touch him.
I tolerated Bush as president, but wish he hadn't tried so hard to play nice with democrats all the time. All it did was make them hate him more.

Last edited by northbound74; 09-19-2012 at 04:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2012, 04:43 PM
 
12,607 posts, read 14,613,304 times
Reputation: 14101
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtc08 View Post
9/11 was under bush's watch.
Right. He had been in office EIGHT MONTHS as opposed to Clinton's EIGHT YEARS and Clinton having an opportunity to get bin Laden and not doing so.

But obviously the point I was making, since I DID say would you rather fight a war on our own soil, was that part of the reason for the two wars under Bush was 09/11 and the continued threat of terrorism. National defense is something we SHOULD be spending money on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2012, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Lincoln, NE (via SW Virginia)
1,644 posts, read 1,710,894 times
Reputation: 1053
I didn't like Bush at all and I'm very much an ardent Republican.

Bush worked his tail off to put us further in debt. I agree with the tax cuts but the interventionist foreign policy and the expansion of medicare of big government are not traditionally conservative traits. Bush and the rest of the Neoconservatives operate under a broad right wing religious populism that I don't agree with. If you want to look at true conservatives look at people like Barry Goldwater and Calvin Coolidge. These people genuinely believed the government should basically leave us alone and let us manage ourselves which is the core of conservatism. Aside from roads, schools, and a basic safety net the scope of the government shouldn't extend much further IMO.

So in that capacity...no I didn't really like Bush a lot. However the economic problems we are seeing today are not all his fault. Not even close.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2012, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Guangzhou, China
9,620 posts, read 12,789,119 times
Reputation: 11167
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
Right. He had been in office EIGHT MONTHS as opposed to Clinton's EIGHT YEARS and Clinton having an opportunity to get bin Laden and not doing so.
Clinton did try to get Bin Laden. We launched Tomahawk missiles at a camp where our intel had him as a response to the Nairobi embassy bombing in '98; it was called "Operation Infinite Reach."

However, Republicans invoked the movie "Wag The Dog" and said that it was "warmongering" for the sake of diverting peoples' attention from the Lewinsky scandal, which evidently was much, MUCH more important than going after terrorists who attacked us...

Quote:
But obviously the point I was making, since I DID say would you rather fight a war on our own soil, was that part of the reason for the two wars under Bush was 09/11 and the continued threat of terrorism. National defense is something we SHOULD be spending money on.
I didn't have a problem with us attacking Afghanistan and going after the guys who attacked us at all.

I did have a problem with going after Iraq, which had absolutely nothing at all to do with 9/11. The Bush administration played off the ignorance and fear of people who didn't realize that there's a difference between a group of religious zealots in Central Asia and a Soviet-era secular totalitarian dictatorship in the Arab peninsula, and slipped that little war in during the mad rush to get revenge that swept up the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top