Obama Vs Bush: Who would you rather?

As far as I can tell, most Americans were not very happy with the leadership of J.W.Bush; here in Australia, it is a very similar situation (except the names change).
You see, George Bush= John Howard,
Barak Obama= Kevin Rudd!
In Australia we were all hungry for the longest time for a political breath of fresh air.
1 year on, we are starting to realize our fears; that being: there is no difference!
So I ask you all (Americans ) who would you rather; Bush or Obama?
Ps: this is not a racial debate!!!

they're just mostly just figure heads so who cares, it's the people around them that really run things.
and they have been the same people for some time now.

And the public is the real problem. They let themselves be duped into believing that they are getting something new. The 2 parties only have subtle differences, abortion, gun rights, stem cells etc. Odds are none of these things will effect the average person during the course of their lives, but people still think it's important enough to keep voting in someone new for. When behind the scenes the same agendas keep rolling. People just pay attention to the simplistic superficial differences between the 2 parties because unfortunately....people are dumb.

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
As far as I can tell, most Americans were not very happy with the leadership of J.W.Bush; here in Australia, it is a very similar situation (except the names change).
You see, George Bush= John Howard,
Barak Obama= Kevin Rudd!
In Australia we were all hungry for the longest time for a political breath of fresh air.
1 year on, we are starting to realize our fears; that being: there is no difference!
So I ask you all (Americans ) who would you rather; Bush or Obama?
Ps: this is not a racial debate!!!

Although many people are nervous about obama's spending, I'd rather have obama then bush. Bush systematically dismantled our Constitution. Almost everyone I know, who care nothing about conspiracies, had started talking about their fears bush might try to seize power and declare martial law. One of my friends in particular, who thinks all us on ATS are conspiracy nuts, said, "we made it" when obama took office.
Obama isn't perfect and I'm sure he's going to make some very controversial decisions but, at least to this point, he's never said "It's just a god dam piece of paper", when referring to the US Constitution like bush did.

Bush anyday. Obama is so far to the left he would have been better off ruling some Marxist African nation in the 1970s.

cancer or a heart attack...what would you rather have?.there appears to be little difference, the end result is the same...death

no brainer...

Obama all the way because Obama may be making the wrong decisions but atleast he has good intentions. Bush was selfish and evil and all he wanted was to be CALLED president. He wasn't interested in taking the responsibility that comes with that position.

Originally posted by bizpo
Obama all the way because Obama may be making the wrong decisions but atleast he has good intentions.

Isn't the road to Hell paved with good intentions???

Just askin'.

reply to post by glevel

cancer or a heart attack...what would you rather have?.there appears to be little difference, the end result is the same...death

I see your point, I think I'd rather go with the heart attack (if it would kill me quickly).
Yeah, I've been thinking that I'd go so far to say that democratic canditates are pre-selected by the real rulers to keep things running to their tune.
Kevin Rudd (in Aus.) whom is 'supposed' to be the "working mans champion", did something that I would only have expected of John Howard (one of Bush's boyfriends)- He exclaimed that he'd be sending more australian "cannon fodder" to Afganistan; becaue he cant get the images of the world trade centre out of his head!!! WHAT.

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by bizpo
Obama all the way because Obama may be making the wrong decisions but atleast he has good intentions.

Isn't the road to Hell paved with good intentions???

Just askin'.

Ya we were all around between 2000-2008

just tellin

reply to post by mental modulator

Ya we were all around between 2000-2008 just tellin

Can you please expand on this?

I'll go with Regan.. at least he is a dead president..

and yes, I said that.

reply to post by blind.face


Is Obama doing anything majorly different than bush?
As far as I can tell, he's a better public speaker, is more carissmatic, smarter, yet does he do anything that is radically different other than provide a new face in office?
As a matter of fact he makes G.w look alittle like a corpse, robot etc- maybe he was one of those reptilian ET chaps

reply to post by KRISKALI777


neither one of them got my approval.. or vote
2nd

reply to post by blind.face


Its the same here man!
they present crap candidates, you throw your hands up in the air with frustration; and eventually vote.....so you dont cop a $50 fine; yep we have that here!
Normally I just write G.F. on the ballet paper, if any of the candidates dont take my fancy. Very sad.

reply to post by KRISKALI777


May I choose neither?

For me, there really isn't much of a difference between either of the two major political parties. They are both guilty of walking all over the little guy.

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by blind.face

 

Is Obama doing anything majorly different than bush?
As far as I can tell, he's a better public speaker, is more carissmatic, smarter, yet does he do anything that is radically different other than provide a new face in office?
As a matter of fact he makes G.w look alittle like a corpse, robot etc- maybe he was one of those reptilian ET chaps

The better public speaker thing may just be the fact that he can read the teleprompter easier than dubya could.

reply to post by sugarmonkey

lol, yeah. I don't know why everyone even thinks that he is that great of a speaker to be honest.. and I'm not just saying that because I dislike him.. I'm just not impressed at all.

reply to post by blind.face


I agree with you there.

He doesn't even write his own speeches right? Don't most of the presidents have speech writers? So basically, he's good at smoothly reading what others write off a telepromter so he won't have to look down every so often...

He tends to drag words out.

or..

talk. like. this.

reply to post by KRISKALI777


I would still rather see Obama than Bush. Simply because at least Obama can speak like a diplomat.

I agree that he's done little to change anything, and I am extremely disappointed in him. But Bush was an ignorant, warmongering little monster, surrounded by equally despicable monsters.
This was the government that made torture legal, implemented the patriot act, swept the facts of 911 under the carpet and allowed a lie to continue...

All I've seen Obama do is little to change things.

He hasn't (that I am aware of) implemented anything new that significantly damages the American people or the global community.

I'm sure he will though, because I am cynical when it comes to the U.S. leadership.
But at the moment, the worst he's done is fail to live up to his promises of undoing the damage done over the last eight years.