Okay, so basically TW's position is, if you consider a president to be bad he should be voted out of office without ever considering if the opponent is worse, and if you don't do that you are a moron. I'm capable of a little more analysis and judgment than that.

robertknyc wrote:

About the only thing you need to know about Romney is that he is not Barack Obama. I truly believe anyone who supports Obama at this point is ignorant, an idiot, or a communist.

robertknyc wrote:

Bloody, I'm not arguing that Bush was fantastic or the like, that's not my point. I'm saying that he brought the country back from the recession he inherited from Clinton and helped to prevent any further attacks after 9/11. Therefore it can hardly be argued that voting to reelect a president like that is moronic. Beat up on Bush all you want, but unless someone makes a good case that John Kerry would have made a better president, then calling someone a moron for voting for Bush is just an expression of your hatred, or whatever, for Bush, nothing more.

robertknyc wrote:

Okay, so basically TW's position is, if you consider a president to be bad he should be voted out of office without ever considering if the opponent is worse, and if you don't do that you are a moron. I'm capable of a little more analysis and judgment than that.


Bloody, I'm not arguing that Bush was fantastic or the like, that's not my point. I'm saying that he brought the country back from the recession he inherited from Clinton and helped to prevent any further attacks after 9/11. Therefore it can hardly be argued that voting to reelect a president like that is moronic. Beat up on Bush all you want, but unless someone makes a good case that John Kerry would have made a better president, then calling someone a moron for voting for Bush is just an expression of your hatred, or whatever, for Bush, nothing more.

robertknyc wrote:

Obama is equally as bad (although he didn't start any fresh wars just didn't end one).

teedubbya wrote:

Factcheck: New war - Libya. (although he was just following France and the UK's lead)

HockeyDad wrote:

No, IMHO, the economy under Bush was an abject disaster to most unless you were a Defense contractor.

bloody spaniard wrote:

Factcheck: It wasn't too bad for energy, banking & finance, and medical/big pharma either.
(Weird......they're all still under the Obama Cone of Protection as well)

HockeyDad wrote:

Factcheck: It wasn't too bad for energy, banking & finance, and medical/big pharma either.

(Weird......they're all still under the Obama Cone of Protection as well)

HockeyDad wrote:

Obama IS Bush. that is the point.

teedubbya wrote:

....and so is Romney!

Scoreboard.....globalists.

HockeyDad wrote:

I do think Clinton inherited an economic swing from the actions taken by daddy bush during a recession. I've never given Clinton much credit for the economic boom.... but I didn't see GWB doing **** for the economy. He owns TARP for godsake.

teedubbya wrote:

LOL


Yet our conversation started with this




You are applying that logic this time (against obama.....read...all you need to know about romney is he is not Obama) but not when it is your bucket of kool aid in the WH.

you are something else. I parroted you (purposely) and you can't see it.

teedubbya wrote:

About the only thing you need to know about Romney is that he is not Barack Obama. I truly believe anyone who supports Obama at this point is ignorant, an idiot, or a communist.

robertknyc wrote: