Disgusted with obama administration - Part II

• jmog

  pmoney25;1652954 wrote:Question. On his own. Not compared to Obama. Do you consider Bush a good president? Because any conservative I know with half a brain does not.

  Economically no, he was bad and Obama is worse.
  
  Leadership wise and even foreign policy (except for invading Iraq) yes.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  jmog;1653023 wrote:Economically no, he was bad and Obama is worse.
  
  Leadership wise and even foreign policy (except for invading Iraq) yes.

  I would agree with that, but add that Bush pre-2005, awful foreign policy, and post 2005, really 2006, he was pretty solid.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Heretic;1652972 wrote:I love how the same people who constantly complain whenever anyone mentions Bush's suckitude in reference to Obama are super-quick to point out that Clinton benefited from Reagan. I mean, at least with Bush-Obama, there's a direct succession. With Reagan-Clinton, there were four years of lies and failure in between their 8-year reigns.

  
  That made about as much sense as Chris Berman's Ray Rice rant. Clinton benefitted from two points:
  
  Point 1: After being vilified from a terrible economy and the disastrous 1994 election season, he actually tried to work with the GOP.
  
  Point 2: The dot-com bubble - a completely ridiculous run up on internet stocks in the late 90's.
  
  Will we see point 2 again?
• Classyposter58

  

  QuakerOats;1652729 wrote:It worked just fine; we used to have a juggernaut of an economy. Today, under the marxists, we have no growth, no wage growth, record numbers out of the work force, record food stamp roles, and regulators and bureaucrats out the wahzooo. Better wake up.

  I hope that's a joke. Here's a little history tidbit for ya, things were so bad that from 1870-1920 more Americans died in factories than in the Civil War
• QuakerOats

  pmoney25;1652954 wrote:Question. On his own. Not compared to Obama. Do you consider Bush a good president? Because any conservative I know with half a brain does not.

  
  I think you look at him within the context. Despite having to deal with a recession from the outset and then 9/11, our unemployment rate over his terms was a little over 5% and we had significant job growth. Economically, my real issue would be not holding a tougher stance on spending. Beyond that, he was obviously pro-growth, pro-investment, pro-capitalism etc.... which translates into putting people in positions of power in the various departments who will make policy that generally aligns therewith. His leadership following 9/11 was good; he took his position very seriously; you knew he was doing the right thing although you didn't know all that he was doing. He put the Axis of Evil on notice, and he followed up. He warned, explicitly, of completely abandoning Iraq; he was right. He was a good, genuine, decent person; and you could trust him. I would take him in a heartbeat right now.
• Belly35

  

  Classyposter58;1653229 wrote:I hope that's a joke. Here's a little history tidbit for ya, things were so bad that from 1870-1920 more Americans died in factories than in the Civil War

  "What diffences does it make"
• QuakerOats

  Belly35;1653383 wrote:"What diffences does it make"

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Boom
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Classyposter58;1653229 wrote:I hope that's a joke. Here's a little history tidbit for ya, things were so bad that from 1870-1920 more Americans died in factories than in the Civil War

  
  Cite?
• believer

  

  Classyposter58;1653229 wrote:I hope that's a joke. Here's a little history tidbit for ya, things were so bad that from 1870-1920 more Americans died in factories than in the Civil War

  lmao You sound like a candidate for Big Labor Poster Boy of the Year.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  believer;1653733 wrote:lmao You sound like a candidate for Big Labor Poster Boy of the Year.

  There is no way that can be remotely accurate. What factories were even around for most of that period?
• HelloAgain

  Manhattan Buckeye;1653734 wrote:There is no way that can be remotely accurate. What factories were even around for most of that period?

  The 2nd Industrial Revolution is commonly considered to have taken place between 1870 and 1914....
• Manhattan Buckeye

  HelloAgain;1653999 wrote:The 2nd Industrial Revolution is commonly considered to have taken place between 1870 and 1914....

  And over 500,000 people died? Doing what?
• HelloAgain

  Manhattan Buckeye;1654070 wrote:And over 500,000 people died? Doing what?

  idk, you'd have to ask Classy. But there were definitely factories around during the industrial revolution
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1654070 wrote:And over 500,000 people died? Doing what?

  It was Great Industrial Holocaust of the late 19th century.
  
  Eeeeevil Mericun white guys with names like Rockefeller, Morgan, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, etc. led men, women, and children to their capitalist death camps. It was horrible.....
• Manhattan Buckeye

  To your point it is just another lying statistic, this one likely sponsored by the AFL-CIO. Its in the same vein as the horseshit stat that 1/5 of college women are raped that has been debunked, and if not debunked why would anyone send their daughter to college?
  
  Are liberals this stupid that they believe everything they read? Healthy skepticism is well, healthy.
• QuakerOats

  Manhattan Buckeye;1654171 wrote: Are liberals this stupid that they believe everything they read? Healthy skepticism is well, healthy.

  
  
  As intelligent as they are, or think they are; they are incredibly naive, yet somehow superior.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  QuakerOats;1654219 wrote:As intelligent as they are, or think they are; they are incredibly naive, yet somehow superior.

  They are dumber than bags of hammers. And people are waking up to it. You can't just make up statistics, particularly those that are so ridiculous on its face.
• Classyposter58

  

  believer;1654147 wrote:It was Great Industrial Holocaust of the late 19th century.
  
  Eeeeevil Mericun white guys with names like Rockefeller, Morgan, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, etc. led men, women, and children to their capitalist death camps. It was horrible.....

  I'm just saying reform was good and regulation isn't all bad. And I saw it in a powerpoint in one of my history classes last year taught by a guy from West Point so it's not exactly a slanted liberal class.
  
  By 1900 the average was 35,000 deaths per year and 500,000 employees maimed compared to 2012 which OSHA reported had 4,383 deaths on the job
• Manhattan Buckeye

  You were taught by an idiot. That was like 2% of the population.
  
  No, 500,000+ people weren't killed in factories. In the US, or western civilization in general.
  
  - edit, the majority of deaths on the job involve falling in construction projects, not working in a "factory".
• HelloAgain

  believer;1654147 wrote:It was Great Industrial Holocaust of the late 19th century.
  
  Eeeeevil Mericun white guys with names like Rockefeller, Morgan, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, etc. led men, women, and children to their capitalist death camps. It was horrible.....

  idk that anyone says any of that, but many of those men were guilty of some bad things. The Johnstown Flood and Homestead Strike comes to mind.
• Classyposter58

  

  HelloAgain;1654332 wrote:idk that anyone says any of that, but many of those men were guilty of some bad things. The Johnstown Flood and Homestead Strike comes to mind.

  Along with numerous economic depressions in 1893, 1896 and 1907 that wouldn't be seen again until immediately following WWI and then of course in the Great Depression
• believer

  

  Yes, yes, yes all of these white guys set out to kill men, women, and children in factories, depressions, and floods in the name of eeeeeevil profits.
  
  Look, I won't deny that some of their profit-motivated decisions led to tragic results. Nothing built by humans is ever perfect.
  
  But I will say this over and over again...Capitalism, despite its obvious flaws, has provided far more economic mobility and improved standard of living for far, far more people than socialism ever hopes to achieve.
• Classyposter58

  

  believer;1654458 wrote:Yes, yes, yes all of these white guys set out to kill men, women, and children in factories, depressions, and floods in the name of eeeeeevil profits.
  
  Look, I won't deny that some of their profit-motivated decisions led to tragic results. Nothing built by humans is ever perfect.
  
  But I will say this over and over again...Capitalism, despite its obvious flaws, has provided far more economic mobility and improved standard of living for far, far more people than socialism ever hopes to achieve.

  I think your Fox News polarized conservatism is a little over the top here, nobody is saying they wanted to kill or that profits are evil buddy. However some regulation is needed, like Belly saying to get rid of the EPA despite the fact he's old enough to remember a certain river catching fire in an Ohio city
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Watching the press conference, if this was a Republican that person would be impeached.
• HelloAgain

  believer;1654458 wrote:Yes, yes, yes all of these white guys set out to kill men, women, and children in factories, depressions, and floods in the name of eeeeeevil profits.

  Not at all what myself or anyone else here has said.
  

  profit-motivated decisions led to tragic results.

  Is "profit-motivated decision" the new branding for greed? If so, that's damn clever.