Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
AROCES

Poll: Obama Seen as Greater Failure than Bush

333 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Pseudo Intellectual
We spent eight years waiting for Bush to do something right.

So you oppose the war on terror (including the war on Afghanistan in retaliation to 9/11), his efforts to fight AIDS/HIV in Africa, his support for Colombia against the narco-terrorist group FARC - to name a few?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
So you oppose the war on terror (including the war on Afghanistan in retaliation to 9/11), his efforts to fight AIDS/HIV in Africa, his support for Colombia against the narco-terrorist group FARC - to name a few?

We would have liked him to do it RIGHT instead of screwing it up.

The eight Bush years can be resumed as having a single screw-up, eight years long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dade Murphy
We would have liked him to do it RIGHT instead of screwing it up.

The eight Bush years can be resumed as having a single screw-up, eight years long.

Have you seen the latest?

http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/JamesAHaught/...amp;build=cache

Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible's satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
So you oppose the war on terror (including the war on Afghanistan in retaliation to 9/11), his efforts to fight AIDS/HIV in Africa, his support for Colombia against the narco-terrorist group FARC - to name a few?

You mean his pseudo war on terror wherein he attacked a nation unrelated to terrorism and failed to capture bin Laden? . . . . You mean his intense search for WMDs that he guaranteed Americans existed? . . . . Or was it his famous "Mission Accomplished" that ended strong engagements in Iraq (about 3,000 Americans died after that) . . . . Or was it his "I don't think much about him (bin Laden) anymore" comment . . . . Or was it his promise to track down and punish the terrorists involved in 9/11 . . . .

Oh, his war in Afghanistan where democracy has failed just as did Bush's promise to bring law and order? You mean how he bravely eliminated the Taliban? . . . . Afghanistan where the hunt was on for bin Laden, the favorite kid of the CIA in recent years . . . . but we must also forget that the U.S. supported Pakastani dictator General Zia-ul Haq who later helped form the Taliban.

And his effort to fight FARC? How . . . . by claiming that Hugo Chavez supported them thus attacking an old enemy? But we have to forget that the Bush family helped finance the attempt to overthrow Chavez and have him taken into the mountains as a hostage before the people of Venezuela demanded his return to power. Bush against FARC? When . . . . how . . . . the only help was Plan Colombia a program largely centered against drug lords, not solely FARC.

His fight against AIDS in Africa? While he denied the benefits of stem cell research because of his PERSONAL religious beliefs? The same religious fanatic formed a plan to promote abstinence and fidelity in Africa. Ignorant of local cultures and regional mores, he once again spent your money to promote his faith-based ideals. Then he went to Africa to do what he declared, "God's work." Teodoro Obiang, dictator of Equatorial Guinea who has been accused of killing and eating his rivals, was called "a good friend" by Condi Rice. Randall Tobias, who was in charge of the Africa program, resigned after his name came up on a Washington, D.C. madam's customer list.

In the end, the proven results of Bush's anti-AIDS program in Africa were so poor that Congress considered cutting the budget in half until a better program could be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual
We would have liked him to do it RIGHT instead of screwing it up.

The eight Bush years can be resumed as having a single screw-up, eight years long.

Please explain how helping Colombia economically and in fighting FARC, and helping fight the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa were screw-ups.

Regarding the HIV/AIDS point:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/georgebush.usa

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/1...ush-aids-africa

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/01/world.aids.day/index.html

http://allafrica.com/stories/200901130041.html

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/11/bushs-record-in.html

Regarding the Colombia point:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6439701.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual
You mean his pseudo war on terror wherein he attacked a nation unrelated to terrorism and failed to capture bin Laden? . . . . You mean his intense search for WMDs that he guaranteed Americans existed? . . . . Or was it his famous "Mission Accomplished" that ended strong engagements in Iraq (about 3,000 Americans died after that) . . . . Or was it his "I don't think much about him (bin Laden) anymore" comment . . . . Or was it his promise to track down and punish the terrorists involved in 9/11 . . . .

Oh, his war in Afghanistan where democracy has failed just as did Bush's promise to bring law and order? You mean how he bravely eliminated the Taliban? . . . . Afghanistan where the hunt was on for bin Laden, the favorite kid of the CIA in recent years . . . . but we must also forget that the U.S. supported Pakastani dictator General Zia-ul Haq who later helped form the Taliban.

And his effort to fight FARC? How . . . . by claiming that Hugo Chavez supported them thus attacking an old enemy? But we have to forget that the Bush family helped finance the attempt to overthrow Chavez and have him taken into the mountains as a hostage before the people of Venezuela demanded his return to power. Bush against FARC? When . . . . how . . . . the only help was Plan Colombia a program largely centered against drug lords, not solely FARC.

His fight against AIDS in Africa? While he denied the benefits of stem cell research because of his PERSONAL religious beliefs? The same religious fanatic formed a plan to promote abstinence and fidelity in Africa. Ignorant of local cultures and regional mores, he once again spent your money to promote his faith-based ideals. Then he went to Africa to do what he declared, "God's work." Teodoro Obiang, dictator of Equatorial Guinea who has been accused of killing and eating his rivals, was called "a good friend" by Condi Rice. Randall Tobias, who was in charge of the Africa program, resigned after his name came up on a Washington, D.C. madam's customer list.

In the end, the proven results of Bush's anti-AIDS program in Africa were so poor that Congress considered cutting the budget in half until a better program could be found.

Please stop flame-baiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
:rolleyes:6 months compared to 8 years......this is just getting stupid now Aroces :no:

your right it is stupid to say that obama isn't going to put us even further into the ground financilly based on only 6 months of being in office. when it take bush 8 years to spend what obama has spent in 6 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Please stop flame-baiting.

I answered specific questions . . . .

Please stop pretending to be the moderator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead

... who's winning?....... The White Sox or the Red Sox?

...my Daddy can beat up your Daddy.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude
... who's winning?....... The White Sox or the Red Sox?

Obviously the Chicago White Sox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
... who's winning?....... The White Sox or the Red Sox?

...my Daddy can beat up your Daddy.....

Don't be silly . . . . your daddy is my daddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual
I answered specific questions . . . .

Please stop pretending to be the moderator.

You mean his pseudo war on terror wherein he attacked a nation unrelated to terrorism and failed to capture bin Laden? . . . . You mean his intense search for WMDs that he guaranteed Americans existed? . . . . Or was it his famous "Mission Accomplished" that ended strong engagements in Iraq (about 3,000 Americans died after that) . . . . Or was it his "I don't think much about him (bin Laden) anymore" comment . . . . Or was it his promise to track down and punish the terrorists involved in 9/11 . . . .

What does that have to do with anything? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, as you Bush-haters never cease to remind us. The "Mission Accomplished" thing was when the US defeated Saddam. The insurgency that followed was because of al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization, not Saddam's regime, the target of the war. As for the last two "points" (if you can call them that), I can only laugh at such idiocy.

Oh, his war in Afghanistan where democracy has failed just as did Bush's promise to bring law and order? You mean how he bravely eliminated the Taliban? . . . . Afghanistan where the hunt was on for bin Laden, the favorite kid of the CIA in recent years . . . . but we must also forget that the U.S. supported Pakastani dictator General Zia-ul Haq who later helped form the Taliban.

To honor that with a response would be an insult to everything I believe in. Take it to the Conspiracy section.

And his effort to fight FARC? How . . . . by claiming that Hugo Chavez supported them thus attacking an old enemy?

It is a fact that Chavez supports and funds FARC. If you refuse to admit that, then continuing this discussion would be like discussing the Iraq war with someone who thinks the surge was a failure.

But we have to forget that the Bush family helped finance the attempt to overthrow Chavez and have him taken into the mountains as a hostage before the people of Venezuela demanded his return to power.

*Facepalm*

Again, take it to the Conspiracy forum.

Bush against FARC? When . . . . how . . . . the only help was Plan Colombia a program largely centered against drug lords, not solely FARC.

Read the BBC article. It explains Bush's efforts to fight FARC very nicely.

His fight against AIDS in Africa? While he denied the benefits of stem cell research because of his PERSONAL religious beliefs? The same religious fanatic formed a plan to promote abstinence and fidelity in Africa. Ignorant of local cultures and regional mores, he once again spent your money to promote his faith-based ideals. Then he went to Africa to do what he declared, "God's work." Teodoro Obiang, dictator of Equatorial Guinea who has been accused of killing and eating his rivals, was called "a good friend" by Condi Rice. Randall Tobias, who was in charge of the Africa program, resigned after his name came up on a Washington, D.C. madam's customer list.

What the hell does that have to do with fighting AIDS/HIV?!

In the end, the proven results of Bush's anti-AIDS program in Africa were so poor that Congress considered cutting the budget in half until a better program could be found.

Please re-read my post; I cited a dozen sources that show his anti-AIDS program was a complete success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar
... who's winning?....... The White Sox or the Red Sox?

...my Daddy can beat up your Daddy.....

The Red Sox are playing the Yankees, they are up 3 games with tonight they could get the sweep :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

What does that have to do with anything? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, as you Bush-haters never cease to remind us. The "Mission Accomplished" thing was when the US defeated Saddam. The insurgency that followed was because of al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization, not Saddam's regime, the target of the war. As for the last two "points" (if you can call them that), I can only laugh at such idiocy.

Speaking of idiocy, Bush made his Mission Accomplished statement in June of 2003 and Saddam was not captured until December so how could his statement have been when the U.S. defeated Saddam? Never was the capture or defeat of Saddam Likewise, how do you even suggest that the invasion of Iraq was related to al-Qaeda? In his speech announcing the beginning of the war, Bush said that the war was to, " . . . .disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." He stated," . . . . coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war." Not once did he mention al-Queda.

As for the other two questions that you can't answer, forgive me . . . . I forgot that Bush kept his promise to America to catch those involved in 9/11 and that he captured and punished bin Laden. How could I have overlooked those points but to a conservative they are unimportant and even idiotic because they further demonstrate the ineptitude of America's worst president in national history.

To honor that with a response would be an insult to everything I believe in. Take it to the Conspiracy section.

Okay, then how about dishonoring my statements with denials and evidence that they are wrong?

It is a fact that Chavez supports and funds FARC. If you refuse to admit that, then continuing this discussion would be like discussing the Iraq war with someone who thinks the surge was a failure.

I love your "facts." What are they based on besides an inherent prejudice? The president of a Latin American nation supported a rebel organization? How terrible! It might even be as bad as the United States funding the Contras or sending drugs to El Salvador so that the income could be used to buy arms. It might be comparable to the U.S. putting Pinochet . . . . one of the most vicious dictators in the history of Latin America . . . . into power. It might be compared to the interference of the United States in the affairs and elections of Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador and more.

No, I don't think the Surge was a failure . . . . I think the war was a failure.

Again, take it to the Conspiracy forum.

Again, I'll take it wherever I want it. And I have a greater confidence in the words of Department of State Latin American analyst, Wayne Madsen, who publicly stated that the CIA actively organized the coup. “The CIA provided Special Operations Group personnel, headed by a lieutenant colonel on loan from the U.S. Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to help organize the coup against Chavez,” he said.

Archivos OAL 3/2007, pagina 37.

Read the BBC article. It explains Bush's efforts to fight FARC very nicely.

Read the BBC report with special interest. Especially this part . . . . "Some of the Aids cash is dependent on deals with US pharmaceutical companies, while others saw America's thirst for oil as the key motivation behind the trip - 25% of the country's imports will come from Africa in 10 years' time."

Damn, what a humanitarian!

What the hell does that have to do with fighting AIDS/HIV?!

Only everything. Spending millions to promote programs not only naive but totally ignorant of the causes of their built-in failures. And obviously one African understood the point better than you when he stated, "If Bush delivers on his pledge to help against Aids he will be remembered as the first Western leader to do something of substance for Africans. However, if his idea of support for Africa is to prop up notorious dictators, then he will be just another westerner financing grave digging for a dying continent. Lets hope that his visit has at least given him some working knowledge of Africa."

In the end, he spent more time stroking dictators than helping and if that is doubted, please produce any positive medical report indicating that the Bush AIDS project in Africa had any success.

Please re-read my post; I cited a dozen sources that show his anti-AIDS program was a complete success.

Most of the articles were only reporting what was said in the annual report to Congress on the program. I hardly expected anyone in the Administration to report that it was a failure. Interestingly, however, there was no medical evidence reported . . . . that is, an indication that Africa was finding any relief from the problem via this program. In reality, the situation was that they were telling natives to use abstinence when the culture proclaimed through its system of superstitions that a man infected with AIDS would be cured if he had sex with a virgin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler
Obviously the Chicago White Sox.

Beaten by my Indians today. Snap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Aroces, I am confused, was it not you who said a year ago that poll are unreliable crap and not to be trusted? Or is it only those polls that don't agree with you? Or is it: Who cares about the stuff I said yesterday?

I am merely posting polls that you poll worshippers seem to overlooked. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
All the neocons are sitting around waiting for Obama to do something wrong.

We spent eight years waiting for Bush to do something right.

Nope, Obama already said most of the things he willl do wrong during the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual
Speaking of idiocy, Bush made his Mission Accomplished statement in June of 2003 and Saddam was not captured until December so how could his statement have been when the U.S. defeated Saddam?

It was after the US toppled Saddam's regime. That's when the US won the war. You don't have to catch the leader of the country in order to win the war; you just have to topple his regime.

"On May 1, 2003, Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, in a Lockheed S-3 Viking, where he gave a speech announcing the end of major combat operations in the Iraq war. Bush's landing was criticized by opponents as an overly theatrical and expensive stunt. Clearly visible in the background was a banner stating "Mission Accomplished." The banner, made by White House staff and supplied by request of the United States Navy,[132] was criticized as premature. The White House subsequently released a statement that the sign and Bush's visit referred to the initial invasion of Iraq"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

how do you even suggest that the invasion of Iraq was related to al-Qaeda?

When did I say that? I clearly said that the Iraq war had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. You're the one who claimed that Iraq was part of the war on terror and al-Qaeda.

As for the other two questions that you can't answer, forgive me . . . . I forgot that Bush kept his promise to America to catch those involved in 9/11 and that he captured and punished bin Laden.

"Promise"? What're you, a child? Contrary to popular belief, Bush was not an alien who could see the future and predict the capture of Bin Laden. Bush did his best, but alas, it wasn't enough.

And are you saying that the failure to capture Bin Laden made the war on terror a "screw-up? Sorry to break it to ya, but the war on terror was a global campaign to fight terrorism; it was not solely about al-Qaeda or Bin Laden.

America's worst president in national history

I'm inclined to call you an idiot, but I won't. If you continue to make such idiotic comments, then this discussion is over.

Okay, then how about dishonoring my statements with denials and evidence that they are wrong?

Are you kidding me? Why would I waste even a minute of my time replying to such remarks as, "bin Laden, the favorite kid of the CIA"?

I love your "facts." What are they based on besides an inherent prejudice?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/world/am...venez.html?_r=1

Despite repeated denials by President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan officials have continued to assist commanders of Colombia’s largest rebel group, helping them arrange weapons deals in Venezuela and even obtain identity cards to move with ease on Venezuelan soil, according to computer material captured from the rebels in recent months and under review by Western intelligence agencies.

The materials point to detailed collaborations between the guerrillas and high-ranking military and intelligence officials in Mr. Chávez’s government as recently as several weeks ago, countering the president’s frequent statements that his administration does not assist the rebels. “We do not protect them,” he said in late July.

The new evidence — drawn from computer material captured from the rebels, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC — comes at a low point for ties between Venezuela and Colombia. Mr. Chávez froze diplomatic relations in late July, chafing at assertions by Colombia’s government that Swedish rocket launchers sold to Venezuela ended up in the hands of the FARC. Venezuela’s reaction was also fueled by Colombia’s plans to increase American troop levels there.

...

The newest communications, circulated among the seven members of the FARC’s secretariat, suggest that little has changed with Venezuela’s assistance since the raid. The New York Times obtained a copy of the computer material from an intelligence agency that is analyzing it.

One message from Iván Márquez, a rebel commander thought to operate largely from Venezuelan territory, describes FARC’s plan to buy surface-to-air missiles, sniper rifles and radios in Venezuela last year.

It is not clear whether the arms Mr. Márquez refers to ended up in FARC hands. But he wrote that the effort was facilitated by Gen. Henry Rangel Silva, the director of Venezuela’s police intelligence agency until his removal last month, and by Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, a former Venezuelan interior minister who served as Mr. Chávez’s official emissary to the FARC in negotiations to free hostages last year.

...

The latest evidence, suggesting that FARC operates easily in Venezuela, may put the Obama administration in a tough spot. President Obama has recently tried to repair Washington’s relations with Venezuela, adopting a nonconfrontational approach to Mr. Chávez that stands in contrast to the Bush administration’s often aggressive response to Mr. Chávez’s taunts and insults.

But the United States and the European Union still classify the FARC as a terrorist organization. The Treasury Department last year accused Mr. Rangel Silva and Mr. Rodríguez Chacín of assisting the FARC’s drug trafficking activities, opening the officials to freezes on their assets, fines and prison terms of up to 30 years in the United States. Venezuela has said the men are not guilty of those charges.

...

The computer records from the raid in Ecuador last year also seem to match some of the information in the new communications under review by Western intelligence officials.

More sources:

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/05/mo...vez_connect.php

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articl...25/194257.shtml

The president of a Latin American nation supported a rebel organization? How terrible! It might even be as bad as the United States funding the Contras or sending drugs to El Salvador so that the income could be used to buy arms. It might be comparable to the U.S. putting Pinochet . . . . one of the most vicious dictators in the history of Latin America . . . . into power. It might be compared to the interference of the United States in the affairs and elections of Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador and more.

Irrelevant. Don't try to change the subject. We are not discussing American history here; we are discussing Chavez' relationship with FARC.

No, I don't think the Surge was a failure . . . . I think the war was a failure.

You have the right to your opinion. I can't say I agree with it.

Again, I'll take it wherever I want it. And I have a greater confidence in the words of Department of State Latin American analyst, Wayne Madsen, who publicly stated that the CIA actively organized the coup. “The CIA provided Special Operations Group personnel, headed by a lieutenant colonel on loan from the U.S. Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to help organize the coup against Chavez,” he said.

Archivos OAL 3/2007, pagina 37.

Whilst I see nothing wrong with the coup, there is no evidence of the US' involvement.

Read the BBC report with special interest. Especially this part . . . . "Some of the Aids cash is dependent on deals with US pharmaceutical companies, while others saw America's thirst for oil as the key motivation behind the trip - 25% of the country's imports will come from Africa in 10 years' time."

Damn, what a humanitarian!

Oh my! Africa has oil! That must be the reason Bush helped them!

In the end, he spent more time stroking dictators than helping and if that is doubted, please produce any positive medical report indicating that the Bush AIDS project in Africa had any success.

Are you kidding me? I provided a dozen sources that prove Bush's anti-AIDS program was a success.

Most of the articles were only reporting what was said in the annual report to Congress on the program. I hardly expected anyone in the Administration to report that it was a failure. Interestingly, however, there was no medical evidence reported . . . . that is, an indication that Africa was finding any relief from the problem via this program.

You clearly didn't read the articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wgolly
That is CNN poll. I be worried if I am one of them lefty poll lover since CNN is lefty. :yes:

I be thinkin that they mean the first six months, amirite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kimi81

[quote name=AROCES' post='3030583' date='Aug 9 2009, 09:53 PM'

But you said the Iraqis hates us? Umm, for the most part they do Aroces, we invaded they're Country without just cause and killed countless innocent civillians

You said partiot act is evil? He never said that :blink:

You said we killed millions of Iraqis? I don't recall him saying millions, but hundreds of thousands have been killed along with thousands of US Soldiers for no real reason.

Edited by Kim81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
But you said the Iraqis hates us?

You said partiot act is evil?

You said we killed millions of Iraqis?

Now you concern about image?????????????? :blink:

The Patriot act is evil. In my opinion, it was the greatest blunder of Bush and Congress.

Ben Franklin said that whoever gives up some liberty for some security deserves neither. The Patriot act was a terrible idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
The Patriot act is evil. In my opinion, it was the greatest blunder of Bush and Congress.

Ben Franklin said that whoever gives up some liberty for some security deserves neither. The Patriot act was a terrible idea.

Ever heard of liberty is not a suicide pact?

Besides I really dont hear of anyone who actually had his/her phone tapped while chit chatting on the phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Ever heard of liberty is not a suicide pact?

Besides I really dont hear of anyone who actually had his/her phone tapped while chit chatting on the phone.

Our individual liberties are the most sacred rights we have. The Patriot Act, whether well intended or not, violated those sacred rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr  Honeybadger

They both stink.

Bush lost his conservative ways and Obama found his socialist ways.

The one thing that I want is a small non-intrusive government that stays out of my affairs, keeps taxes low, and leaves me the heck alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Ever heard of liberty is not a suicide pact?

Besides I really dont hear of anyone who actually had his/her phone tapped while chit chatting on the phone.

How would they know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.