George bush may have spent a lot of money but I felt like what he was spending it on made sense and would be doing something good for America.We never had these huge job losses,record high foreclosures,and a general sense of hopeless and depression.I think although George bush may have not been popular I felt like the general public did not think he was a man that was interested in destroying America from the ground up like Obama has been doing.

13 months is a long time to get something done.I follow politics pretty close and I am scratching my head to figure out what Obama has done in that time.I know he has spent a tremendous amount of time on this health care bill which the general population largely ignores and could care less about.I know he spent a lot of time and money to give terrorist the same rights Americans have.

I honestly believe if George bush had a third term this county would not be in the mess it is now.

What Obama has accomplished so far is as easy to research as what Bush did, Its not really that complicated. Too many people just REFUSE to want to give politicians/presidents credit for ANYHING the moment they disagree with ANY of their policy.

Even I can concded, as embarassing a president as Bush was to me personally, that he did have his accomplishments. ANY man would certainly have some accomplishments in such a position of power.

I have posted my take on several in a list of things he has been a part of that I consider positive as well as my interpretation of how he is certainly no WORSE a president than our predecessor,,but since that post most have continued the ad hominem attacks on him without much to back it up.

I agree..............

What 'The ONE' has done in the 13 months since his 'immaculation' is use all of the techniques he learned in the Alinsky playbook and the 'Communist Manifesto' to destroy this country from the inside. He has appointed (how many now?) unconstitutional 'czars' (anyone remember that word from Mother Russia?), is attempting to destroy the best health care system anywhere in the world, seeking to subvert our military by doing away with 'DADT', cut funds for everything EXCEPT 'entitlement' spending, allowed a budget featuring 9,000+ 'earmarks' to pass (although he COULD have vetoed it - and didn't) ... need I go on ... ? The rank hypocrisy does not stand up to examination or any 'explanation' this 'administration' has deigned to make to the 'little people' whose money it steals to advance its own petty and self-serving 'goals'.

The "Czars" started under Nixon(a)...and the term was used under Reagan(b), and Bush(c).

"That's right Fox News Channel wants you to think that Obama is hiring communists, socialists, Stalinists and all the other "ists" to work for him as a “Czar“."

Wurds....I had NO idea that Nixon was a Communists...WOW!

HC, according to the WHO the US ranks 37th in HC(a)...sure if one is rich they get the best but here's the truth about the US's rank worldwide.

(a)http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,908276,00.html
(b)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_czar
(c)http://www.yodasworld.org/id472.html
(d)http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

I am curious as to what AREAS of the job Bush would be better in and some past history of his presidential success in that area?

I saw Bush's terms as a downward spiral after 2001,

for the economy- from Time.com
'George Bush is leaving the White House with a dismal economic record. By almost every measure — GDP growth, jobs, median incomes, financial-market performance — he stacks up as probably the least-successful President on the economic front since Herbert Hoover.'

for education, college costs soared while the quality of public education remained unchanged

for the deficit(previously a surplus),

for the environment(opposing the kyoto protocol),

and for international relations-from LA Times Opinion of U.S. from abroad plummets under President Bush

,,,,I would honestly be SHOCKED if OBama doesnt do better in at least some if not all of those areas.


Yes, this current situation is occurring under OBama but, in a little over a year I dont think there was a way to stop the huge snowball that had already been pushed down the hill gaining enormouse size and momentum. I think it will take AT least half a term to even slow that snowball down, let alone start pushing it back up the hill.

'thomas',

You write: «... I follow politics pretty close and I am scratching my head to figure out what Obama has done in that time...».

Well, maybe you should take a step back!!!
It might allow you to put things in focus, and notice that what you have been imagining as the 'Bush'-light at the end of the tunnel, was nothing other than an out of control 'mad train' destroying everything in its tracks!!!

Let me try and provide FACT BASED perspective, and help you see the real nature of that 'BUSH-light' you have been imagining!!!



The backfiring HIGH SPENDING ILLEGAL Iraq war:
The Bush Admin. basically set off an Economic Neutron Bomb. I would say their highest priority task was to STEAL trillions of dollars from the American People :
Iraq war,
War profiteers,
No-bid contracts,



FAILED (on purpose) government programs:
Census bureau hand held computers,
IRS failed programs, etc,
The Oil Monopoly price gouging.



Presiding over and refusing to regulate ILLEGAL FINANCIAL PRACTICES
The purposeful economic treason of failing to regulate and stop the unbelievable illegal practices of...
Private Mortgage Bankers,
Investment Bankers,
Insurance Companies, and
Investment Rating Companies.



Under Bush’s admin. MILLIONS of Americans have been tossed into the streets (foreclosures).



Under Bush’s admin., the stock market was TANKED, ripping off TRILLIONS from AMERICANS’ Retirement Funds and Safety Nets.



Under Bush’s admin., Not only the US economy, but the WORLD’s economy CAME TO A HALT. The Bush admin. has left America and a large number of western world countries with ‘roof-blasting’ RECORD DEBT LOADS, and a GALLOPPING JOB DECLINE.



The Bush years, with the collusion of …
… The GOP,
… A good number of corporate tyrants,
… Wall Street,
… Bankers,
… Oil companies,
purposefully set into place policies, procedures, and acts that STOLE almost every last drop of American people's wealth, ALL at the expense of DESTROYING the US of A.



The DOW:
On Jan 20, 2001 the DOW was 10,587.59
On Jan 16, 2009 the DOW was 8,281.22
Net Gain/loss -2,306.37
In 8 years, the DOW LOST .78%



The NATIONAL DEBT NEARLY DOUBLED UNDER BUSH:
The National Debt basically Doubled under GW Bush. I am not sure if the Cost of the Iraq War and TART is included in the National Debt (remains a mystery of the Bush legacy). If it was not, then you can add in $1.4 trillion (+/-).

On Jan 22, 2001 the National Debt was 5,727,776,738,304
On Jan 16, 2009 the National Debt was 10,628,881,485,510
Net Gain +4,901,104,747,206



The USA was in RECESSION as early as Dec. 2007, UNDER THE BUSH ADMIN.
The National Bureau of Economic Research has stated that America has been in Recession since December 2007. This is backed up be US Department of Commerce figures.


Real GDP:
'07, II, -0.1
'07, III, -4,8
'07, IV, -4,8
'08, I, -0.2
'08, II, -0,9
'08, III, -0,5
'08 IV, -6,2

Since President Obama took over, WE'RE ARE OFFICIALLY OUT OF THE RECESSION HANDED BY THE BUSH ADMIN., and have AVOIDED A FULL DEPRESSION as warned by a large number of analysts.



UNEMPLOYMENT ROSE UNDER BUSH, DECLINES UNDER OBAMA
http://www.bls.gov/http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000 (if someone could post the actual graphs - that would be great)

I posted 12 months for both 2007 and 2008, and January of 2009 (end of the Bush era). It clearly dispels the lies and dishonest blame laid on President Obama for the unemployment nightmare.
While stable between ’07 and ’08 of the Bush era, the rate of decline (jobloss) was clearly running full steam during the last year of the Bush mandate, a full 3 points increase YTY.

2007
4.6, 4.5, 4.4, 4.5, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.7, 4.7, 4.8, 4.7, 4.9

2008
4.9, 4.8, 5.1, 5.0, 5.5, 5.6, 5.8, 6.2, 6.2, 6.6, 6.8, 7.2

2009
7.6

Facts and numbers of the first 13 months of President Obama’s taking charge, as opposed to lies and unfounded calumnious charges from disingenuous foes, clearly show a STABILIZATION and a REVERSAL of the unemployment loss rates.

(if someone can post unemployment and recession graphs of past 15 months or so, it will clearly back-up the 2 paragraphs above).
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-rate.aspx?Symbol=USD


As though that weren’t enough, the first 13 month of President Obama’s mandate, MARKS AN EARLY END OF THE SEVERE RECESSION HANDED OVER FROM THE BUSH ADMIN.

The Bush admin. FAILED on all counts that can be measured, thus backed-up by numbers and facts.

Again 'thomas' and friends, facts and reality are steadfastly obstinate in DISAGREEING with your 'creative' view of things.

Regardless of your delusional interpretation, ALL THE ECONOMIC INDICATORS ARE SCREAMING THAT THE OBAMA ADMIN IS DOING AN OUTSTANDING JOB!!!

As far as I am concerned, I'll take facts, over delusional and dogmatic fiction, EVERYTIME!!!

kudos for the research V, as I posted before, the information is there for all of us to use depending on which side of the coin we obsess over

i guarantee four things,,,,,

Anyone could pull up information about the 'failings' of Bush Jr by the end of his term

Anyone could pull up information about the 'failings' of OBama in his first thirteen months

Anyone could pull up information about the 'presidential accomplishments' of Bush Jr

and ANyone could pull up information about 'the presidential accomplishments' of OBama


but the thing is , people will always align these lists and either tear them down or build them up, either give them full credit or discredit them,,,based upon their own personal feelings towards how a candidate appeared to handle what was important to THEM


its an endless 'debate' really, and I appreciate your due diligence in backing your opinion with some research but for the 'OBama is a communist/anti-christ' crowd,, all the research in the world isn't going to open their eyes to the blind and illogical one sidedness of their convictions.

Oh dear ... such intentionally misleading 'information' from one who is as 'trustworthy' as your own 'estimable' self ... ? it is to laff ... HERE's the actual origin (I doubt seriously if it means anything to you); you're more interested in publishing a spurious and misleading political screed than you are in either etymology or facts - but, here it is anyway ... it'll serve as an antidote to your fallacious post ...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/czar

czar [zahr, tsahr] – noun

1. an emperor or king.

2. (often initial capital letter) the former emperor of Russia.

3. an autocratic ruler or leader.

4. any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field: a czar of industry. Also, tsar, tzar.

Origin:

1545–55; < Russ tsar', ORuss tsĭsarĭ emperor, king (akin to OCS tsěsarĭ) < Goth kaisar emperor (< Gk or L); Gk kaîsar < L Caesar caesar
Dictionary.com Unabridged

czar

1555, from Rus. tsar, from Old Slavic tsesari, from Gothic kaisar, from Gk. kaisar, from L. Caesar. First adopted by Russian emperor Ivan IV, 1547.

The spelling with cz- is against the usage of all Slavonic languages; the word was so spelt by Herberstein, Rerum Moscovit. Commentarii, 1549, the chief early source of knowledge as to Russia in Western Europe, whence it passed into the Western Languages generally; in some of these it is now old-fashioned; the usual Ger. form is now zar; French adopted tsar during the 19th c. This also became frequent in English towards the end of that century, having been adopted by the Times newspaper as the most suitable English spelling. [OED]

The Gmc. form of the word also is the source of Finnish keisari, Estonian keisar. The transferred sense of "person with dictatorial powers" is first recorded 1866, Amer.Eng., initially in ref. to President Andrew Johnson. The fem. czarina is 1717, from It. czarina, from Ger. Zarin, fem. of Zar "czar." The Rus. fem. is tsaritsa. His son is tsarevitch, his daughter is tsarevna.

czar (zär, tsär) - n.

Also tsar or tzar (zär, tsär) A male monarch or emperor, especially one of the emperors who ruled Russia until the revolution of 1917.

A person having great power; an autocrat: "the square-jawed, ruddy complacency of Jack Farrell, the czar of the Fifteenth Street police station" (Ernest Hemingway).

Informal: An appointed official having special powers to regulate or supervise an activity: a racetrack czar; an energy czar.

[Russian tsar', from Old Russian tsĭsarĭ, emperor, king, from Old Church Slavonic tsěsarĭ, from Gothic kaisar, from Greek, from Latin Caesar, emperor; see caesar.]

czar'dom - n.

Usage Note: The word czar can also be spelled tsar. Czar is the most common form in American usage and the one nearly always employed in the extended senses "any tyrant" or informally, "one in authority." But tsar is preferred by most scholars of Slavic studies as a more accurate transliteration of the Russian and is often found in scholarly writing with reference to one of the Russian emperors.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


czar [(zahr, tsahr)]

The title of rulers or emperors of Russia from the sixteenth century until the Russian Revolution. The czars ruled as absolute monarchs (see absolute monarchy) until the early twentieth century, when a parliament was established in Russia. Czar can also be spelled tsar.

Note: The term czar is sometimes applied generally to a powerful leader or to a government administrator with wide-ranging powers.

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

"O'Reilly called for appointment of "immigration czar" in 2002. From the March 13, 2002, edition of The O'Reilly Factor"

"O'Reilly called for "charity czar" in 2001. From the October 21, 2001, edition of The O'Reilly Factor "

"In 2001, O'Reilly also called for "disaster relief victims family czar" to oversee disbursement of charity funds to disaster victims. From the October 4, 2001"

"O'Reilly repeated call for "charity czar" in 2002. From the June 11, 2002"

http://mediamatters.org/research/200909080038

You guys need to fire that Commie pinko Bill O'really...

Facts really DO bother you, don't they ... ?

MY PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS, WHICH I AM ENTITLED TO....THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR ACKNOWLEDGING MY ENTITLEMENT (ENTITLEMENT GIVEN ACCORDING TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE USA CONSTITUTION REGARDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, RELIGION, ETC.) ...........

The true facts, reliable sources, bother them all ......... LOL ...... and, it is amazing that they still want to blame President George W. Bush and his supporters for everything imaginable.

Does it not make one wonder when they shall come about to living in reality?

Does it not make one wonder how they can manipulate the facts to their own liking?

Does not everything about them and their agenda make you wonder?

AGAIN, THANKING YOU ALL IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR AGREEMENT THAT I AM ENTITLED TO MY OBSERVATIONS......

People tend to conform their factual beliefs to ones that are consistent with their cultural outlook, their world view,’ [says] social scientist Don Braman told National Public Radio. Braman is a scholar at George Washington University and part of The Cultural Cognition Project, which has been conducting experiments about how individuals interpret facts differently."

"For instance, people labeled in the ’individualistic’ group [a study group that embraced technology, authority, and free enterprise] tended to favor nuclear power as a viable solution to the energy crisis. When they were given a report which offered nuclear power as a solution to the climate crisis, they were more likely to consider global warming a serious problem. On the other hand, since ’communitarians’ [the study group that was suspicious of technology, authority, and free enterprise] distrusted nuclear power, they were less likely to see global warming as a concern when nuclear power was the only proposed solution. In other words, both groups evaluated the issue of global warming differently depending on previously held beliefs."

read more at http://www.divebuddy.com/blog.aspx?BlogID=6482&MemID=9628


I am of the strong belief that personal perception plays a large part in each persons TRUTH, regardless what facts are presented.

We are all entitled to our truth, but lets be aware of how much our biases, prejudices,and perceptions manipulate our interpretation of the FACTS as they pertain to our truth.

Yes, YOU should be aware of how much YOUR ..."biases, prejudices,and perceptions manipulate our interpretation of the FACTS as they pertain to our truth."

touche, we all should. Everyone can stand some balance in their world and personal views...

'Balance' is irrelevant. 'Rationality' is relevant. I consider a person 'rational' when they can describe those circumstances in which they are willing to change their belief system.

Congratulations on having 'voiced' your opinion Lady 'lindyy' !!!
'... ENTITLEMENT GIVEN ACCORDING TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE USA CONSTITUTION REGARDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, RELIGION, ETC...'

Now, my turn!!!

You wrote of '... the true facts and reliable sources',
... and yet, you have only posted erroneous and false statements throughout this thread, without any sources, ... never mind reliable ones!!!

Yet, you swing back with more general statements, all of them false, based on nothing, as your basis to counter argue facts and figures, diligently posted to rectify your false statements and errors.

Of course you have '... ENTITLEMENT GIVEN ACCORDING TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE USA CONSTITUTION REGARDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, RELIGION, ETC...' to voice all generalities you wish, but 'generalities' will allows lose when confronted to facts.

Instead of doing some research and counter arguing with facts, your next move inexplicably fell on posting these priceless 3 lines of personal 'observations':

« Does it not make one wonder when they shall come about to living in reality? »

« Does it not make one wonder how they can manipulate the facts to their own liking? »

« Does not everything about them and their agenda make you wonder? »

My observation on those observations is:

PURE PROJECTION!!! Mirrors right back at your series of general observations, false statements, and persistence in providing no supporting sources for your 'observations'

Look 'projection' up!!! I feel confident we will both agree on this observation at the very least.

Alrighty then 'kings_knight'.

You go first!!!

Oh dear ... you're gonna be SO disappointed when I don't rise to your bait ... I always defer to those more self-important than I ...

MY BAIT ?!?!?!


You truly are a funny guy 'kings_knight'.