Any facts or reasons I've listed for you about Bush fell on deaf ears ( like my long quote from this: http://www.historycommons.org/index.jsp website which uses only researched facts not opinion you called it " An anti war site " as I recall ).
Historycommons. I mean, really. How do you expect to be taken seriously? All one has to do is see what that site IS, and read a few headlines to know what it's point of view is.
In other words, it's Facebook for conspiracy theorists, posting in their pajamas--in their mother's basements.
So if Obama patterned himself after Dubbya he'd be better?
Straw man. But in some ways, yes. In some ways no.
Hey! Dubbya promised he'd smoke out OSBL!
Instead he made sure Saddam was hung out to dry. Not a great subsitute if you ask me.
To be be fair he didn't "promise." He didn't get him though. Then again, neither has Obama. Have you even heard Obama mention his name?
And how the hell did Clinton get into this again?
Because I made a historical comparison. I take it that mentioning Clinton's name is no longer allowed? Do you deny that the former President benefited from some excellent timing on the economy?
So in other words if things get better you've already mapped out your escape route. I see.
Nice try. What I'm saying is that the government is not instituting policies that anyone with a brain thinks will help the economy. If it recovers it will absolutely be in spite of those policies. Massive debt, high spending and rising tax rates do not help economies. Neither do government takeovers and inflationary monetary policy.
Sorry but it sounds like you're judging him to me. So All I have to say is wait until he's out of office ( by your own logic ) to judge him.
It'll probably only be another 7 years.
Man..you really don't read. I'm judging him, yes. I'm judging him SO FAR. I'm not judging his entire Presidency.
Another quote from the past on that same page :
Well at what point would be ok? It sounds like you're damning Obama after only one year. When you made your statement about Bush he'd been in office for 7!
Please...READ. I am judging his policies to date. What is wrong with that? I don't support increased government size and scope, more debt, apology tours, the lack of American exceptionalism, closing gitmo, trials for terrorists, porkulus bills, takeovers of banks and auto companies and a trillion dollar health care program. If you do, that's fine. I just don't.
Sorry you were using this logic before to deflect criticism of Bush so what's good for one has to be good for another.
If you find fault with this or disagree then you still need to answer the question.
OK, one more time, jimmac: People like you judged Bush to be the "worst President in history" and said that his presidency did damage that would take a generation to undo. That, of course, is absurd. One can't judge a President like this when he's in office. Moreover, there was little merit to the argument when it was made.
Now, by comparison, Obama has instituted policies that VERY WELL may harm this country for a generation. Simply take a look at the government's entitlements and unfunded liabilities. They will LITERALLY take generations to fix.
Healthcare is something that will never go away once passed. It is the framework for single payer, not matter what the final bill says.
Despite this, I am not saying that he will be the worst President in history. I have no idea where he'll end up. He could even turn it around. If he comes to the center and economy gets back on the growth cycle, he may be viewed much differently.