Economically no, he was bad and Obama is worse.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 would agree with that, but add that Bush pre-2005, awful foreign policy, and post 2005, really 2006, he was pretty solid.jmog;1653023 wrote:Economically no, he was bad and Obama is worse.
Leadership wise and even foreign policy (except for invading Iraq) yes.
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.
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 WarQuakerOats;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.
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.
"What diffences does it make"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
Belly35;1653383 wrote:"What diffences does it make"
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.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
There is no way that can be remotely accurate. What factories were even around for most of that period?believer;1653733 wrote:lmao You sound like a candidate for Big Labor Poster Boy of the Year.
The 2nd Industrial Revolution is commonly considered to have taken place between 1870 and 1914....Manhattan Buckeye;1653734 wrote:There is no way that can be remotely accurate. What factories were even around for most of that period?
And over 500,000 people died? Doing what?HelloAgain;1653999 wrote:The 2nd Industrial Revolution is commonly considered to have taken place between 1870 and 1914....
idk, you'd have to ask Classy. But there were definitely factories around during the industrial revolutionManhattan Buckeye;1654070 wrote:And over 500,000 people died? Doing what?
It was Great Industrial Holocaust of the late 19th century.Manhattan Buckeye;1654070 wrote:And over 500,000 people died? Doing what?
Manhattan Buckeye;1654171 wrote: Are liberals this stupid that they believe everything they read? Healthy skepticism is well, healthy.
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.QuakerOats;1654219 wrote:As intelligent as they are, or think they are; they are incredibly naive, yet somehow superior.
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.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.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.....
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 DepressionHelloAgain;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.
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 citybeliever;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.
Not at all what myself or anyone else here has said.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.
Is "profit-motivated decision" the new branding for greed? If so, that's damn clever.profit-motivated decisions led to tragic results.
