The Instigator
Con (against)
10 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
25 Points

Barack Obama is overall, a worst President than George W. Bush

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,581 times Debate No: 18771
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (7)




I have just joined Debate and hope that I follow the rules as well as etiquette. I have looked at some of your positions and man we can debate a lot. I looked at your statements in the same as this debate title and you are the kind of person I learn from debating. Your statements are based for the most part on facts, you do not throw barbs and seem to be willing to stay on task. There are a couple of things that appear not on point for me. 1. There are not many people voting and I question if much can be derived from the results. 2. Not one for the con? Is that an indication of the leanings of the members of this site? Only four voted, all for you and one was you. Is this a who is going to win debate and the voting is stacked. Since this is my firs attempt, I would still like to give a whirl and see how influential the discussion can be on opinions. I do not care who "wins", I care if learning occurs and each is understood by the other - not agree or disagree. For this reason I have stated that I am con, my intentions and what I want to accomplish. If you choose to accept, I will make my opening statement. Thank you


Welcome to DDO. I'm looking forward to a good debate.

We have no perspective history to judge the two presidents, we'll do the best we can with the data available. A Chinese historian was asked, not long ago, what he thought of the American Revolution. He said, "It's too soon to tell."

You said you wanted to open, so I'll let you go first. That will give us each an equal number of arguments in the debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I agree with you that we will only really know who is better after the total term of Obama. At this point I would like to open showing the situation and its change when Bush first took office.
1993: Bill Clinton passes economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans.
1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. Debt clock is unplugged.
2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget.
2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade.
2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt.
2002: Dick Cheney declares, "Deficits don't matter."
(I copied this info and I am not introducing nor supporting the suggestion presented about the participation of the political parties).

When Obama takes office he inherits the following:
2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama's fiscal irresponsibility.
2009: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives -- including health care reform, cap and trade,
DREAM Act -- which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them, while continuing to push for deficit reduction.
September 2010: In Obama's first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion.

In his first year:
#Continued to draw down the misbegotten war in Iraq
#Thoughtfully and decisively picked the best of several bad choices regarding the war in Afghanistan
#Gave a major precedent-setting speech supporting gay rights
#Restored America 's image around the globe
#Banned torture of American prisoners
#Stopped the free fall of the American economy
#Put the USA squarely back in the bilateral international community
#Put the USA squarely into the middle of the international effort to halt global warming
#Stood up for educational reform
#Won a Nobel peace prize
#Moved the trial of terrorists back into the American judicial system of checks and balances
#Did what had to be done to start the slow, torturous and almost impossible process of health care reform that 7 presidents had failed to even begin
#Responded to hatred from the right and left with measured good humor and patience
#Stopped the free fall of job losses
#Showed immense personal courage in the face of an armed and dangerous far right opposition that included the sort of disgusting people that show up at public meetings carrying loaded weapons and carrying Timothy McVeigh-inspired signs about the "blood of tyrants" needing to "water the tree of liberty".

I am opening my con side by presenting positive sides of President Obama. I do not like to present opinions by putting down the other side. Sometimes it becomes necessary but hopefully positive facts prevail. What I am suggesting here is that although there are questionable advances the stats indicated that the downfall is being arrested. The U.S. systems have been severely damaged since Clinton left office. There are many complaints that Obama has not corrected or improved things. It always takes longer to repair than to dismantle. It takes longer to repair than to damage. It takes longer to rebuild than to tear down. What hinders the "fixing" is what is called "The Messiah Complex", (written by Margaret Rioch) . Briefly explaining it: When an answer is introduced, it is in the form of a person, an idea, a statement, a plan, et al, that is the Messiah. Of course everyone does not agree that it is the Messiah and will not allow it to be tried out. Their resistance and opposition by many different methods "kills the Messiah". Therefore the Messiah never is allowed to exist or be successful.


Fundamental Failure

President Obama is the worst president of modern times because he is endangering the economic viability of the nation. His failure relates to a fundamental challenge to democracy. In 1754 Edmund Burke, a British parliamentarian, explained it:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

Burke's solution was to limit democracy with Constitutional strictures. We don't have those, so the problem has developed to the point where we are within about a decade of financial collapse. Voter polls demonstrate that people want more benefits and are not willing to cut anything now granted. However, polls also show that most voters believe the rich can pay for everything, so they don't have to. President Obama is leading this mentality, which is certain to end in disaster.

Budget projections show deficits of around $1 trillion out twenty years. Those projections assume a rapid return to sustained substantial economic growth, but sustained growth is impossible in an environment of severe government control of business. Revenue into the government is around $2.1 trillion, and deficits $1.4, $1.3, and $1.3 trillion in fiscal years 2009-11. 2009 was Bush's responsibility and included the massive TARP bailout. However, much of TARP has been repaid, so the 2009 deficit was not as bad as it seems and 2010 and 2011, which received the repayments from TARP, are worse. Deficits of well over a trillion dollars will continue.

Taxing the rich cannot solve the problem. If the optimistic Obama projections were true, taxing the rich would yield $0.3 trillion, still nowhere near what is required. However, Obama projections assume that the rich will do nothing to avoid taxes. One way to avoid taxes is to move investment out of the US. The U.S. cannot tax other countries, so there is no way to stop the outflow short of outright government seizure of assets. Canada has half the corporate tax rates of the US and has benefited greatly. The CEO of Coca Cola recently said that it is easier to do business in China than the United States.

Since taxing the rich offers no solution, why does Obama talk of nothing else? He is a dedicated ideologue that knows no other approach.

Economic History

My opponent opened with a recounting of economic policy under President Clinton. Clinton's 1993 economic initiative was textbook Leftist, passed without Republican support, and failed. The attempt at “Hillarycare” failed and alienated voters. It raised taxes and brought about the “Republican Revolution” of the 1994 elections. Republicans took both Houses of Congress and kept control through Clinton's time in office. What made Clinton's economic policy a success was his ability to abandon rigid ideology and work with Republicans. Republicans wrote all the balanced budgets and Speaker Gingrich got them through Congress. President Clinton signed free trade agreements, a very successful welfare reform bill that include work requirements for welfare recipients, and lowered taxes on capital gains. Republicans cooperated in dismantling much of the military, cutting 600,000 soldiers in one stroke to cash in on the peace dividend after the end of the Cold War. (Not all bipartisan agreements pan out.)

Democrats took over Congress in 2006, but did nothing to stem overspending. They maintained control through the last election.

Obama's claimed achievements

My opponent cites a list, to which I respond:

  1. Obama continued Bush policies in Iraq. Good or bad, they are substantially the same.

  2. Obama continued Bush policies in Afghanistan. Good or bad, they are substantially the same.

  3. Bush was the first President to recruit Administration appointees in gay-oriented publications. Bush appointed the first openly gay ambassador. Obama gave a speech.

  4. The way for the US to win friends around the globe is to do all the dirty work and pay all the bills. That's what Obama promised. Libya is a problem for Europe, not the U.S. America needs respect, not image.

  5. Three terrorists were water boarded under Bush, with the information obtained saving American lives. Most terrorists talk without water boarding. No terrorists have been captured under Obama because he doesn't know what to do with them. Instead they are killed in the field, which is actually not more humane, and we lose the intelligence gather by questioning them.

  6. TARP, at least the half that was relevant, stopped the fall of the economy. That was passed under Bush with bipartisan support. In the past, the economy bounced back sharply. Under Obama, the economy has remained stalled.

  7. Attempts to negotiate with Iran and North Korea are total failures. Nothing has been done to slow nuclear proliferation. Obama refused to support regime change in Iran, a serious error.

  8. After a decade with no global warming, the credibility of global warming crisis is dead, and energy from wind and solar has proved an economic disaster. Obama hasn't gotten the message.

  9. Bush initiated educational reforms on a bipartisan basis, working with Senator Kennedy. Obama never works with Republicans, and education in the US is worse than ever.

  10. Obama won a Nobel peace prize based upon accomplishing absolutely nothing.

  11. The one attempt under Obama to prosecute a major international terrorist under civilian rules secured one conviction out of more than one hundred charges. Evidence collected through ordinary intelligence techniques was thrown out by the Courts.

  12. Obama promised to provide free unlimited health care to 40 million people at no cost, an outright lie that is now unraveling.

  13. “Kill Bush” signs were common in anti-Bush demonstrations. The mainstream press never covered it. Tea Party demonstration again Obama have been remarkably civil by comparison.

  14. Obama has established a new normal of sustained high unemployment and deficits. Praising a poor economy permanent on the grounds it isn't getting worse is a desperate rationalization. North Korea is not getting worse either. That's what government control does.

  15. The Tea Party rallies have been orderly, civil, and non-violent compared to anti-Bush demonstrations. Obama refused to talk to Republican Senators about health care, despite monthly requests for many months. He refuses to talk to Ryan and House Republicans over the budget, again despite continuing requests. That's not courage or leadership.

The Bush Presidency

The Bush presidency was dominated by the war on terror. Bush had to craft policies and build institutions to thwart major terrorist attacks. That was in two parts, taking the offense in Iraq and Afghanistan that kept terrorists preoccupied with their survival rather than planning attacks from safe havens, and by building the Department of Homeland Security to prevent attacks. The policies worked, and Obama has continued them. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been costing around $150-200 billion a year, a tolerable expenditure in a $12-14 trillion economy, and unavoidable in view of the alternative of granting safe havens to terrorists.

The Messiah

My opponent appears to claim that Obama must be allowed to fulfill his role as Messiah. He must run over and dominate his opposition and be granted dictatorial powers to bring goodness to the world. Nonsense! Clinton succeeded for precisely opposite reasons. Clinton abandoned ideological purity in favor of policies that worked. Obama stays ideological pure, despite failure.

A shot of penicillin can cure a long festering disease. We need free market capitalism to restore hope.

Debate Round No. 2


I did not realize that I was going to waste time and space correcting inaccuracies and untruths. First I started the last round by listing the situation when Clinton left office. This debate is concerning Bush and Obama, not Clinton. I clearly said "(I copied this info and I am not introducing nor supporting the suggestion presented about the participation of the political parties)." It has been widely reported (60 Minutes and other media) that the turn around and excess in the budget was created by Clinton involving, having an open door policy for and consulting Alan Greenspan. The President develops, prepares and submits the budget, not Congress. Congress approves or disapproves the budget. I am beginning to believe that the entity (Legislative Branch or Executive Branch) that is Republican is going to get the credit for all positives. Over 50 years ago when I was a preteen, my mother told me that the Democrats save money and the Republicans spend it. I am not suggesting that my mother is an expert but that sure has been the case since then. I am not here to debate parties but since that card has been played I will state this: As far as the two majors are concerned, I believe the Republicans are oblivious to individual human needs and rights and Democrats are a do nothing party.

Second, I quoted Dr. Rioch of NIMH and her concept called the Messiah Complex to describe a potential reason for a situation. At no time did I call Obama a Messiah. If I describe a situation with a person as the Helsinki syndrome, I am certainly not saying that the person is from Helsinki. The twists that "my opponent" puts on my statements mirror a political ploy that I could describe but I certain will not label him a "Spin Doctor".

Democracy is a form of government. Capitalism is a type of economy. The interpretation of the Constitution by many seems to be that our government is an Econocracy. What does it take to become elected to an office? What does it take to get the most competent representation in the Justice System? What does it take to get adequate health care? What does it take to have food, shelter and clothing? Not equality. I in no manner suggest these things be provided for free or at the total cost of just some people. Capitalism creates a class structure. Yes anyone can become rich but not everyone. Capitalism within itself defines which class is which by the level of capital owned. The more money the more influence,

When governments fear people there is liberty. When people fear governments there is tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson, The Federalist Papers.
In 1913 a group of bankers including J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller persuaded Congress to pass the Internal Revenue Law. Yet U.S. Judicial Court Judge James C. Fox in 2003 said, "If you… examined [the 16th amendment] carefully you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment."
In 1914 the same bankers manipulated Congress while they were on break and attendance was light] to pass the Federal Reserve Act which gave the bankers control. Give me control of a nations money supply and I care not who makes its laws. Mayer Rothschild, private banker. Freedom to Fascism – a documentary by Aaron Russo.
This documentary shows there is no law that people have to pay Federal Income Tax. There are many people who do not, including several former IRS employees who were fired for asking where is the law. The heads of IRS refuse to answer. The banks control the money and we pay them for using it. Goods and profits are supposed to be taxed not services or labor. When a person gets paid for using their body and energy they are taxed. This is one of the products of capitalism.
Jim Taylor of the Harrison Group says it tells us that the affluent support higher taxes on the wealthy. He says there are two reasons: First, they can afford it, since their wealth has rebounded with the stock market. And second, "the dollar value of a tax increase pales in comparison to the dollar value of assets placed in jeopardy by our government's inability to collect taxes and finance debt. In effect, a substantial investor has more to lose in the market than in their tax return." - The Wall Street Journal
I will introduce more evidence later.

In response to "Obamas claimed achievements":
1.Obama removed almost all of the troops. No longer is there a person from the U.S. heading their government. The strategy changed when General Petraeus took over and went personally into the towns and mixed with the people.
2.Again General Petraeus used a different strategy.
3.You are right Bush did not make a speech, Obama was very public, stopped the government from opposing same sex marriage (in fact supports it), and killed the don't ask don't tell military policy. So Bush appointed a "token" person. Those discriminated against are use to that and to people who use the token numbers to claim progress. To date, the Obama-Biden Administration has appointed more than 210 openly LGBT professionals to full-time and advisory positions in the executive branch; more than all known LGBT appointments of other presidential administrations combined. For names and positions go to:
4.I seem to remember Obama in other countries with hundreds of thousands of people much less security showing; no flags burning; no negative signs held up; no booing; a lot of clapping and cheering and overwhelming clapping. The sight in Germany still is embedded. Today there are still videos of people in Libya with signs saying thank you Obama. That is respect. He represents the new American glory.
5.Only three water boarded? If you know that for a fact I think you are violating security. As a person who had a clearance in the military I know you would be told loose lips sink ships. Who is trying to be humane with terrorist? So was it better for Bush not to be able to find Ben Laden, allow him to continue to rule until he could be found and questioned, or find him and eliminate him. Obama did not hit him with a drone, he sent people to capture him. In order to insure their own safety they killed him. Oh maybe they should have ignored the possibility that he may have had a bomb under his clothes and blown everyone up. According to the round up of the latest news that is their main weapon.
6.The TARP borrowers were running wild with the money until Obama stepped in and changed the rules. For the first time in history the government made a profit under Obama. The entire collapse was under Bush. Deregulation assisted the collapse and it is hurting recovery. Halliburton and others were given no bid contracts. They charged $7.95 for a six pack of Pepsi. Enormous amounts for gas and food. When a vehicle broke down they left it and bought a new one. Soldiers were court marshaled if they washed their own clothes instead of paying the private companies. These companies said they did not have to disclose their budgets. There is no oversight. A trillion dollars came up lost in Iraq. A trillion dollars disappeared in the Pentagon. Another trillion was unaccounted for in the Department of Defense. It takes oversight and regulations to bounce back and protect.
7.Nuclear proliferation? Is that like the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq had? First tell me you have proof of the proliferation. Second, tell me that the U.S. has the right to decide who can have weapons and who cannot. The only bomb ever dropped in the continental United States was dropped by the United States on its own people.
8.The hole in the ozone is still there, glaciers are still rapidly melting, Dallas and Texas broke the record for the number of heat records broken in any year and global warming crises is dead. According to Bush it never was even during the ten years you mention. In two years Obama is supposed to repair the changes. He should have caused the Polar Bears to have


Fundamental Failure

President Obama is not a classic socialist, but neither does he believe in free market capitalism. Socialists want to directly take over the means of production, and Obama does not want to do that. The new style of Leftist ideology is to build giant a giant bureaucratic apparatus that controls even detail of business through massive regulation. The Obama Administration issues ten new regulations a day and has 4000 regulations in the pipeline. The EPA passed regulations that will cost $7 trillion and, it's claimed, prevent 0.00375 degree of global warming. That avoids Congress passing $7 trillion in taxes for such nonsense, which in fact could not be done. The tax code has 72,000 pages of incentives through which activities favored by government are given financial rewards.

Economic History

My opponent claims that the President writes the budget and congress approves it, and moreover that Republicans characteristically want to spend more than Democrats. That is certainly not the history of the 1990s during the Clinton Administration. President Clinton did write the budget proposals, and in 1993 his budget raising taxes passed without a single Republican vote. However, the Republican takeover of congress in 1994 brought major budget battles in which the Republicans wanted to cut and Democrats under Clinton wanted to spend. CNN has a rundown of the budget battles showing clearly that Republicans produced budgets with cuts. Clinton worked with Gingrich to achieve budget agreements. “Kasich says “there’s just no substitute for leadership from the president of the United States,” citing his experience working with President Clinton in the 1990s as chairman of the House Budget Committee.

President Obama submitted budget proposals for 2010 and 2011, but neither passed Congress, not even when the Democrats controlled Congress. Obama would not negotiate budget deals. Clinton and Bush consistently reached deals, including all the years when the opposition controlled Congress. Obama's 2012 budget proposal has been submitted, “Republicans said that the package of proposals doesn't do enough to bring down spending and the federal deficit, which is projected to hit a record $1.65 trillion in 2011.” There is little chance a budget will be passed. Obama's failure of budget leadership is unprecedented.

The economic crisis at the end of the Bush Administration was set up by Freddie and Fannie, run throughout the Bush years by Democrats and who provided a deep market for bad loans. Karl Rove noted, “we moved aggressively in 2004 to regulate Fannie and Freddie, actually got a bill through the Senate Banking and Finance Committee only to have it filibustered by [Sen.] Chris Dodd.”

I don't see much relevance in my opponent's comments on the IRS. Capital gains are a result of corporations making profits upon which they pay taxes. Raising income taxes on the rich doesn't produce much revenue, because they retreat to using the 72,000 pages of government-approved loopholes. Ultimately, investment money is just moved out of the US. Canada, with 16% corporate tax rate, is currently attractive.

Obama's claimed achievements

1. Until recently Obama troop withdrawals were in keeping with what Bush planned. Recently, a major diplomatic failure has resulted in withdrawing the last 40,000 troops from Iraq. This may hand Iraq to the Iranians.

2. Bush put Patraeus in charge of Iraq, a brilliant appointment. Obama put him in charge of Afghanistan. That's consistent.

3. Bush made a major breakthrough both in appointing the first gay ambassador and in openly recruiting and hiring gay Americans for posts in the Administration. Clinton didn't do that. Obama has continued in that vein. Now, it's all about the economy.

4. Obama was cheered for his promises, but it hasn't worked out. “Great powers wield influence in the world as a result of being admired, respected or feared. The U.S. is now suffering from an unprecedented loss of influence in this important region because all three indicators are at an all-time low.”

5. Congressional investigations verified that only three terrorists were waterboarded. Under Bush, more than a thousand terrorists were captured, imprisoned, and questioned. All except three talked without waterboarding. Obama deserves credit for killing bin Laden, but the overall policy is to kill rather than capture. That's a bad policy.

6. TARP remained a bipartisan program, good or bad. It is not true that Halliburton was awarded “no bid” contracts. They had to be sole-sourced to conceal war plans. However, Halliburton underestimated insurance costs and lost money. They sold off the government support division as low profit.

7. Democrats, including President Clinton believed Iraq had WMDs, as did the intelligence agencies of the U.K., France, Germany, and Russia. Saddam had deliberately planted misinformation to scare Iran, believing the U.S. Would do nothing. Saddam was planning to resume WMD development as soon as the heat was off. Obama claimed that his eagerness to negotiate would be greeted enthusiastically by Iran and North Korea, with resulting resolution of their nuclear weapons threats. That policy has been a total failure.

8. My opponent claims that Bush denied global warming. That's wrong, although it's fair to say was lukewarm about the issue. Bush didn't do anything like the $7 trillion for 0.00375 degree regulation forced by Obama. The hole in the ozone layer is unrelated to global warming. Polar bear populations have declines about 10% from the very cold 1970s, and are currently not threatened.

9. - 15. My arguments stand unanswered.

The Messiah

My opponent cited “messiah theory” to explain why Obama's most radical ideas have rejected. He says that doesn't mean he thinks Obama is a Messiah, only that the theory explains why he has not been able to make revolutionary changes. But he also claims that if all Obama's changes were accepted, the world would be fine. That's a fine semantic difference between being a Messiah and being as good as a Messiah. Either way, the notion fails. If it tastes bad, don't swallow the whole thing.

My opponent says "Democracy is a form of government. Capitalism is a type of economy." Capitalism is not entirely a type of economy, it is also a set of laws of economic. For example, it is a law of nature that money has time value. Pretending that investment should not e rewarded does not change the fundamental fact. Overall, the evidence very strong that the greatest market freedom produces the most prosperity. India had famines under democratic socialism, just as China had famines under communism. In both economies, increasing market freedom brought great increases in prosperity.

Government control by extreme regulation has lost the hope for future prosperity. We've been on that road for some time, but now it's a crisis because fiscal insolvency is less than a decade away. Bush had to face the problem of terrorism as the dominant issue, and Bush met the challenge. Obama is facing economic collapse due to government regulation and deficit spending. Obama has failed.

Debate Round No. 3


Since I am being kept busy with the same old things, saving the big finish for Roy, I have to take shortcuts and save space. First, the end of previous comments:

8.The hole in the ozone is still there, glaciers are still rapidly melting, Dallas and Texas broke the record for the number of heat records broken in any year and global warming crises is dead. According to Bush it never was even during the ten years you mention. In two years Obama is supposed to repair the changes. He should have caused the Polar Bears to have the ice they no longer have. You must also be in favor of legalizing drugs (or at least one).

9.I wonder what the monies Obama is allocating for schools to establish models like the current successful ones. Read the news.

10.Let’s start an effort to dismantle the Nobel committee since they must not know what they are doing by going through a long difficult process to decide who did nothing and give an award.

11.Obama is head of the Executive Branch not the Judicial Branch. He cannot determine court decisions.

12.Hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, medical suppliers, and the other capitalists make free impossible. It is free in other countries. In Cuba, education is free through college and beyond and the illiteracy rate is 0%. So let the man I saw on TV yesterday who worked all of his life and had an accident and can not pay for one million dollar operation (nor will his uncontrolled insurance company) die. At least many children now can get health care. (Oops, I did not mean to use the word care).

13. How many open guns at others rallies? A little more dangerous than a sign.

14.Three thousand jobs returning from China. Ford hiring 12,000. New program creating 25,000 by 2013. Unemployment dipped for Sept.

15. Republicans: "Let’s break and go home. Let’s campaign. No negotiations, No way will I vote for that. It will never pass here." The main thing is to limit him to one turn. Obama had meeting after meeting after meeting at the White House. Congress invited him to nothing. Obama has given up several items. What did the Republicans give up? I hope you will drop the party thing and let us deal with the debate.

I have more new items but I have to deal with reality on a normal 84 degree day in late October. I am glad there is no global warming.

Response to last posting:

  1. Congress passed a bill for withdrawal and Bush vetoed it.
  2. Patraeus resigned from Iraq in September 2008. He carried out the administrations plans and did nothing about withdrawal. Obama had not been elected.
  3. Appointing more than all other Presidents combined is not continuing anything it is setting new levels. I am more interested in how many people, not the first one. If you look at the link you will find a lot of first!
  4. . There were less security, no anti American signs, no flag burning before he started to speak.
  5. Wikileaks has documents that confirm more than three. Recently released prisoners confirm more than three. Chaney just confirmed it was a major tactic and he would do it again.
  6. They did not have to be sole sourced. They were to provide services that we did ourselves when I was in the service and it cost almost nothing (supplies only). Halliburton did what? You really believe that spin. They never showed books. You have a “Capital” idea there.
  7. The U.S. destroyed Iraqi planes and most of their heavy armament during the first enforcement of a no fly zone and the Kuwait defense. Germany, France and the CIA told the U.S. that the only informant was questionable and should not be believed. The U.S. pulled out their investigator, would not wait for the UN investigation which was nearly complete and ignored the UN request to wait for the report. The informant identified a place that trucks loaded the WMDs and transported them. A surveillance video (60 Minutes) that a military satellite (from that time) showed it was impossible for trucks to enter the solid walled property or the small doors building. Colin Powell is ticked that they had him lie.

Unqualified: Foreign Affairs - Thought Africa was a country - Economy: Bankrupted his company - Commander-in-Chief: - Walked away from his unit (AWOL), never returned; serve out his term or get a discharge (Deserter) - Communicate: - Held book upside down while reading to kids; held up his right hand, called it his left and vice versus.




Opposes ban on logging in road less areas of national forests; supports Tropical Forest Conservation Act

Air Pollution

Lobbied to weaken Clean Air Act enforcement

Water Pollution

Bush’s position papers contain no mention of clean water

Brownfield Cleanup

Supports “more flexibility” in cleanup regulations; supports liability protection for re-developers

Boston Globe Nov 2000

Bush refused to sign or participate in the Kyoto Protocol to stem global warming that 141 nations signed.

“A certain amount or arsenic in drinking water is healthy”. – Bush

The Messiah Complex – Since the name is quoted wrong, it follows that the concept is not understood. Obama is neither a Messiah nor does he behave like one. Forget the point that you don’t get. Dictatorial! Were you talking about Obama or Bush. Cheney said Bush does not have to answer to Congress. (I also will respond no longer to Clinton comments –Bush v Obama)

Capitalism is just what it says: Those in control of the capital are the ruling class. “He who has the gold makes the rule?” People make up the companies; companies do not make up the people.

The eight years of Bush devastated the economy worst than any period since 1929. If Obama made the first profit in history, there must be some worthy to look at.


Shortly after 9/11, President Bush authorised the warrant less wiretapping of certain telephone calls for the sake of national security. Eavesdropping would often top most Presidents' list of reprehensible acts but Mr Bush, supported by Congress, contended that it helped keep America safe.


The War in Iraq


Credit Crisis


Violation of human rights


Hurricane Katrina


Global warming


Foreign Affairs




Enron and California Power crisis


Valerie Plame - Scooter Libby Spy affair


Steering the US automotive industry into bankruptcy

We have asked 217 political bloggers, journalists and commentators both republicans and democrats to give their opinions on which mistakes and screw-ups they consider as the worst from president Bush and his administration. Not surprisingly almost all top entries were related to the Iraq war, which we have just grouped into one entry.

One hundred mistakes Bush made as of 2005.


  • Obama has overhauled the food safety system
  • Advanced women’s rights in the work place
  • Ended Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) in our military
  • Stopped defending DOMA in court.
  • Passed the Hate Crimes bill.
  • Appointed two pro-choice women to the Supreme Court.
  • Expanded access to medical care and provided subsidies for people who can’t afford it.
  • Expanded the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
  • Fixed the pre existing conditions travesty [and rescission's] in health insurance.
  • Invested in clean energy.
  • Overhauled the credit card industry, making it much more consumer-friendly.
  • While Dodd-Frank bill was weak in many respects, it was still an extremely worthwhile start at re-regulating the financial sector.
  • He created a Elizabeth Warren’s dream agency: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  • He’s done a lot for veterans
  • He got help for people whose health was injured during the clean-up after the 9/11 attacks.

100 accomplishments as of Jan 2010:


October 8, 2011: So says new TIME poll:

More Americans, 48% to 37%, say 44 doing a better job than 43.

Plus: Obama leads the GOP field in head-to-head match-ups.

Obama 46 - Romney 43
Obama 50 - Perry 38
Obama 49 - Cain 37

Read more:



President Bush's job was to fight terrorists. Attacks on the terrorists put them on the defensive as the Department of Homeland Security was built. President Bush attempted to reign in the bad loan policies of Fannie and Freddie that led to the melt down of the economy, but was blocked by filibustering Democrats. Bush achieved eight bipartisan budget agreements. President Obama's job is rebuilding the economy. He promised do so with transparency and bipartisanship. He has failed to fix the economy and has brought an unprecedented level of secret deals. Obama has never completed a successful budget negotiation.

New arguments cannot be made in the final round, as my opponent has done. I will respond to Con's new arguments anyway, insofar as they are specific.
He adds lists of vague accusations without argument or valid support. Those I merely deny, which suffices.

Economic History

Con claimed, citing his mother, that Republicans always want to spend. I gave reference showing multiple occasions when Republicans want to cut. Con claimed that the president is unilaterally responsible for the budget. I gave references showing that both Bush and Clinton negotiated budget deals with Congress. Moreover, Obama published proposals, but did no negotiate the budget with Republicans, and there has been no approved budget for 2010 and 2011, and none expected for 2012. Con claimed the budget is the President's responsibility, so this establishes a failure of leadership unprecedented in modern times.

I showed that Bush attempted to regulate Fannie and Freddie to stop their practice of issuing bad loans and buying bad loans on the secondary market. Democrats filibustered to block the regulations. This was the principal cause of the financial meltdown. Con offered no rebuttal.

Claimed Obama Achievements

Con gives very few references to support his arguments. It's not my job to research Con's case and guess what arguments he is trying to make. If I can make a guess at what he's talking about, I have responded.

1. Con did not deny that the troop withdrawal schedules are the same as what Bush proposed. Secretary Clinton publicly affirmed that this week.

2. Yes, General Patreaus was given high positions by both Bush and Obama.

3. My opponent des not deny that Bush made the first appointments of openly gay people and was the first to openly recruit them.

4. I granted that Obama's overseas "apology tour" was warmly received. Con did not deny the polls showing that the US is now held in lower regard on all three measures. The policies failed.

5. Con gives no link to a source claiming that more than three terrorists were waterboarded. Past claims by critics were shown to be false. Con doesn't even claim a total. Was it four? five? GITMO had about 1200 detainees, and nearly all talked without waterboarding.

6. Con grants the evidence that Halliburton made little profit. Con claims that support services could have been provided without contracting. A CBO study showed that doing so would require 190,000 additional troops and would have cost the Government substantially more. Contractors rely on local labor for 80% of the support tasks. The National Guard was called up, so getting 190,000 additional troops was impractical.

7. Chief UN inspector Hans Blix published a book revealing that at the time he thought Saddam had WMDs, but could not prove it. Other world intelligence agencies confirmed the assessment. There were bad sources of intel, but the main reason for the error was "Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture."

8. Con grants that Bush acknowledged global warming. The hole in the ozone layer is unrelated to global warming, as even the left-leaning Union of Concerned Scientists acknowledged. The past decade had hot and cold years, but the trend was for no temperature rise. The New York Times acknowledged "... Global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years."

9. I cannot understand my opponents claim about schools.

10. Con proposes that the Nobel Committee that selects the Peace Prize recipients be disbanded. I concur. Their track record is poor.

11. My point is that rules of evidence will free terrorists tried in civilian courts. Con says that can't be prevented by Obama, so they'll have to be let go. However, the military tribunal system set up by Bush was passed by Congress and approved by the Supreme court, and it works successfully. Obama is now using it, with a few exceptions.

12. There is no such thing as free health care. Governments like Cuba set a budget for health spending and then ration care to fit the budget. Budget estimates for Obamacare are now up to about $2.3 trillion, and major pieces have been dropped by the Administration as unsustainable. Official "childhood" has been raised to age 26. That's ridiculous.

13. Con obliquely references a Tea Party rely in Montana where participants were asked to bring unloaded weapons to show support for second amendment rights. It was a minor event, no laws were broken, and there was far from any threat of violence. My opponent claims it's more threatening than the frequent "Kill Bush" signs, ad the actual physical assaults on Tea Party protesters carried out by union thugs. An unloaded weapon. though perhaps unnecessarily provocative, is not a threat, and no threat was implied. A call to actually kill President Bush is a real threat.

14. Con's sentence lacking a verb is incomprehensible.

15. Obama began with nearly 70% approval rating. He immediately broke his campaign promise by crafting secret backroom deals on health care and refusing to meet with Republicans. Republicans worked in the Senate Baucus Committee to reach compromises, all of which were trashed by Majority Leader Reid. It is absolutely false that Obama had "meeting after meeting" in the White House on health care. There was a total of one highly publicized half-day event in which all Republican proposals were rejected.

Republicans do not compromise much on big spending. Obama had two years with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, which passed failed programs. Republicans have supported Obama's military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the tax cutting aspect of stimulus, and, with some reservations, recent actions in Libya.

New Bush Criticisms

Is it really unreasonable to support building roads for forestry? The National Forests are multi-use resources that include forestry and cattle grazing. It was wise of Bush to promote use of renewable resources.

Con provided no evidence that curbing the regulatory appetite of the EPA was unwise. "The [Obama FDA] said that ... Organic arsenic ... passes through the body quickly and isn’t harmful. It’s inorganic arsenic that can be toxic and cause cancer."

Neither Bush nor Obama ere perfect Presidents, but Bush did his job and Obama has not. Obama's unrelenting vision of government control has destroyed hope of recovery.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by polticialwiz 6 years ago
I am a proud supporter of Barack H. Obama because Obama has help this country on serveral issues. Its because of Obama that our Troops will finally be home for the holidays after 8 years of being in Iraq.
Posted by b4real 6 years ago
I have just posted my last comment. Although this is my third debate, it is my first complete one. It was not only a pleasure debating RoyLatham but I do not think I could have chosen a better veteran to learn from. Without hesitation he guided me with helpful suggestions and information. I have two new debates that I am posting. I hope I am accepted by more fair and competent debaters.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
I welcome b4real to DDO and respect his opinions.

Broad topics like "overall the worst" are difficult because so much ground has to be covered with only 8000 characters. It requires tight focus on the issues and short arguments supported by references. It's tough.

The debate challenge was posted directly to me by b4real. I get challenges from time to time by new members, and I accept them if I'm offered the side of the resolution I agree with. New members should feel free to challenge anyone on topics they care about. We all learn the most from good debates.
Posted by b4real 6 years ago
I am becoming a little frustrated as to how some people are twisting my statements to insinuate my presentations. No where in my statement did I say I believe in, recommend or promote socialism. I made reference to some others governments that practice socialism. Those statements were about practices they have. By no stretch of the imagination do I put down free market. I believe in it and will fight it. The replies are as if there are components of Capitalism that can not be changed and it still be Capitalism. Free health care, free education, social security and other services can exist under a free market. Capitalism does not mean everything must be paid for by the user. Do not think that I believe in creating a system that allows freeloaders. NEVER! What allows an equality to exist are free thinkers that do not take a position of what is written is the gospel. Capitalism can exist if every ones' needs and situations are included in a system that places no hardships on others. If your response is impossible then I know not to suggest progress, innovation, ignoring impossible, creativeness are the main processes I am talking about in looking at reality. I know you will not see that a label need not define the actuality. Free market - Yes - Socialism - No - Capitalism - A modified form. It is possible to have Capitalism with items people call Socialism, and items that protect all people and place burden on none (except philosophically). If the United States could not be improved, there would not be a need for amendments to the Constitution. I do not want to discourage your input into my opinions and interpretations.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
you against free markets i can give you many reasons that we need free markets not socialism: Capitalism means freedom. It means you get to decide what to do with what you earn and own. If you want to go into business and produce wine and sell them to consumers, you're free to do so under capitalism. Under socialism, the government tells you what you will produce, and what not to, Under capitalism, your neighbor is also free to make wine and compete with you. As a consumer, I am free to buy from you or from your neighbor. You must compete with your neighbor to get my business. If your alcohol are the highest quality and lowest price, you'll get my business. If your widgets are not as good as those made by your competitor, or cost more, you won't get my business. Under socialism, consumers have to buy everything from the government. And also capitalism is proven o work, whereas socialism fails. Oh by the way this is from i added a few words to it but it has similar things. Hey Infindel we should debate more about this later.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 6 years ago
"We need free market capitalism to restore hope."

Free market capitalism is the last thing we need. Do you honestly think Obama is a socialist? News splah: Obama is no socialist!
Posted by b4real 6 years ago
The newbie is still learning. Since I had to take so much space countering (with evidence) misinformation I went over the allowed words, Now I will have to wait to round 3 to finish round 2. I had comments for items through 15. I am learning how to use this vehicle and hope to get better. It may cost me but not a win as my purpose it information not to feed my ego. I am glad I negotiated 4 rounds and should have done 5. I am very interested in hearing suggestions to improve my communication. Thank you.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
A newbie getting Roy as his opponent, GG man.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 6 years ago
Excellent round, Roy!
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
Now the debate period is set to three days. Please go to between one and three months.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Willoweed's VB is countered. Pro clearly won this debate
Vote Placed by Willoweed 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I was appalled by the massive amounts of lies used by Pro
Vote Placed by jat93 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Same as Ore_Ele. Pro had sources. It's really as simple as that with a topic that is bound to result in such political pandering. Without real sources that's exactly what it is. So pro's arguments held more weight.
Vote Placed by Spritle 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Ore_Ele's RFD. Pro was the only one with real sources.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides lacked sources in their opening round of arguments which made it seem more like political pandering, than an actual discussion. No real sources where used to back up the shear amount of claims until Pro R3, so that wins him the sources points, and since Con never really got his sources going, his arguments cannot stand, so arguments go to Pro as well.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering imabench. His RFD is ridiculous.
Vote Placed by imabench 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This entire debate was just both sides going back and forth over the same issues. But when the pro stated, "Obama's unrelenting vision of government control has destroyed hope of recovery." is total bullsh-t, so arguments go to con