The Instigator
Phil
Pro (for)
Winning
84 Points
The Contender
Cristy
Con (against)
Losing
77 Points

George W. Bush is a great President

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,222 times Debate No: 3
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (38)

 

Phil

Pro

George W. Bush is a great President, and has served the U.S. honorably. While there appears to be significant outrage by a majority of Americans, I believe it is in fact a minority whose voices are being hyped by the leftist media. The far left never recovered from Al Gore losing in the 2002 election, and as time has gone on, the leftists in this country have done everything possible to find fault with President Bush. Despite the fake outrage portrayed by the media, President Bush in fact a great leader for several important reasons.

1. The President has kept his promises when he was elected. He is guided by principles, and is kept in check by his belief in God almighty.

2. Despite the perceived outrage of some of his policies, he stays his course. This is the sign of a true leader, not one seeking power or wealth. Past presidents often look to the poles in the media (which are unreliable as proven in the '02 presidential exit polls(1)) for direction. President Bush has proven his greatness by in fact doing what he thinks is right and just, not what is popular or perceived the be popular.

3. Despite the constant attacks personal against him, his administration, and family, he has never retaliated. Most people would be publicly outraged if they were accused of such things, however President Bush has held his ground and his course. He recognizes that bending to the will of his counterparts in Washington or the liberal press, would be contrary to his promises to the people whom elected him twice. This makes President Bush a very honest man. (2)

To sum up my opening argument I would add that the harder road to walk is more often the right road to walk. In the case of President Bush, he could have taken the easy path, but then those who would murder our neighbors for the sake of their religious beliefs would not be kept at bay.

(1) http://www.gop.com...

(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Cristy

Con

Phil,

President Bush ran on a non-interventionist foreign policy. That alone is enough for me. Also, does Scooter Libby mean anything and if that doesn't do it for you then the fact the any president would abuse the office of the President by using line-item vetos and Presidential Orders would put me over the edge, not to mention the postal act where the President wrote at the bottom of the bill that because of the "war on terror" the U.S. Government could now open our mail, but no one seemed to pay attention to that one.

Let's talk about the "War on Terror"......you can't have a war on an idea! You will never win a war against and idea.....think about this for a minute. It's the perfect tool to make people scared to keep them in a perpetual war so you can usurp power. Your arguements sound a little too Hannity for me, but hey, "You're a GREAT AMERICAN!"

Check out Ron Paul and you'll see what a real leader with REAL principles is all about. Also, you might want to watch Aaron Russo's movie America: Freedom to Fascism. If you would like to e-mail me privately I can mail you a copy. Good luck searching for true governmental principles, some good reading is John Locke, Montesquieu, Bastiat and there's always Orwell to mention a few.

I sincerely hope that you check some of these things out.....you just might change your mind.

All the best,
Cristy
Debate Round No. 1
Phil

Pro

Hello Cristy,

Thank you very much for accepting my challenge to debate this topic. I'd like to take your points one at a time...

I don't recall anything that defined Bush's foreign policy as non-interventionist during his candidacy. If you have something to the contrary, please provide it in your next argument. To be honest, I don't agree your premise that President Bush is intervening. The Commander in Chief's numero uno (forgive the irony here) is to protect and defend the Constitution and the citizens of our great nation. The President is clearly doing what he believes is necessary to protect the people. What makes him such a phenomenal leader is that despite the absolutely hatred of the man by the liberal dominated press, and the constant bombardment of personal assaults, he is steadfast in his resolve to defeat our enemy.

I don't think you really understand the facts of Scooter Libby, but that's another debate. More to the point, how exactly does his indictment affect President Bush's legacy? I'm failing to see the connection. Let's assume for the sake of our argument that Scooter Libby was a member of the cabinet, and during his term he committed some egregious felony of his own accord. I would understand how this would reflect poorly on the President if Mr. Libby wasn't fired immediately. However, that was not the case here. Even with the power to pardon, President Bush only commuted his sentence, leaving his friend with huge legal bills and a $250,000 fine. I do find some fault with the president here however. I believe where President Bush has let most of his supporters down, is in his total refusal to defend himself, his policies, and his friends from his political adversaries and their attacks.

Regarding the line item veto, I'm curious to know, were you opposed to President Clinton when he first used the veto "11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget" in 1996 to control "pork barrel spending"? (1) The issue at hand here isn't the fact that President Bush used a power granted to him by our Constitution, but rather the such a power was needed because congress loads so many unrelated items in the laws they try and pass. Also, if you honestly believe the president is going through your personal mail then the conspiracy theorists are getting to you. According to Tony Snow, "All this is saying is that there are provisions at law for – in exigent circumstances – for such inspections. It has been thus. This is not a change in law, this is not new." (2) Just like the wire tapping issue, the left is trying to create a false image of the President and his motives. If you are receiving packages from suspected terrorists in other countries, and/or if you are receiving phone calls from suspected terrorists in other countries, then I expect my government to investigate. I don't believe that our Constitutional or Miranda rights apply to non-citizens.

Unless you weren't watching television on 9/11, I'm sorry to be the first to inform you that the War on Terror is not a "war on ideas". There is a very real enemy out there, one who's strongly held belief it is that the lives of non-muslims are worthless, and that muslim law should rule the day. I have thought greatly about this war, and have had many conversations with friends who at this moment are on the front lines fighting these would-be murderers. We are not fighting an idea, we are fighting every person, group, and country who would murder our citizens because they don't subscribe to their muslim ideology. What's sad here, is you actually believe President Bush is power hungry. That is such an absurd statement. Hillary Clinton is power hungry, John Kerry is power hungry, most of the life-time politicians in Washington are power hungry. In case you have forgotten, President Bush is a faithful believer in Jesus Christ. Just to clarify, Christians believe strongly that they will be held accountable for their actions at the end of their lives. What scares me are politicians who in fact don't believe in a supreme being, who don't believe that their actions will be held to account. President Bush is an honest and honorable man. Despite the many differences I have with him and his policies, he is clearly not power hungry nor does he attack his political enemies with vitriol. Can the same be said about the politicians you support?

I'm not interested in discussing Ron Paul in this debate. The topic is what it is.

Also, I think there's this notion on the left that if someone listens to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, that doing so automatically discredits our arguments. I'm assuming you're a liberal (or progessive), so aren't you supposed to be a little more open minded than us closed minded conservatives?

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://www.signonsandiego.com...
Cristy

Con

Testing. I submitted my argument this morning and it hasn't posted. If I lost it that will really stink because it was pretty good and I don't have time to rewrite it.

Cristy
Debate Round No. 2
Phil

Pro

Hey Cristy,

That's too bad. Well, this is a new website still in beta testing. I'll leave this round empty so we've both posted the same number of arguments.
Cristy

Con

Phil,

Thank you. I hope I can remember most of it.

Let me first say that I am extremely conservative. I am a registered Republican, but if there were any action in the Constitution Party that's were my allegiance would be. I am a stay-at-home Mom even though I made significantly more money than my husband before we had our first child. I think it is preferable for women to stay at home whenever it is possible.

My reference to the Scooter Libby incident was regarding the pardon that President Bush gave him. If President Bush didn't know about it and condoned it then why would he pardon him?

My main point that I hope to convey is that the "war on terror" is a perfect tool to get people to give up more freedom. When people are scared they want someone to protect them. The federal government says they will protect us with the Patriot Act. Just give up the fourth amendment; and we did. Do I think they are reading my mail? No, but I think it's a little unnerving that now they can if they want to.

Jefferson and Franklin both warned that, "Those willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both." I believe this. If you really think that government will only use these things in the name of "finding terrorist" you are incorrect. The Patriot Act has already been used in more petty drug cases than anywhere else. It was also recently been found to be unconstitutional in two states.

So this "war on terror" that is so justified with the battle cry of September 11th........is a war that has no name, no country, and will have no end. If September 11th were still our focus we'd still be concerned with Afghanistan and Bush would still care about Bin Laden.

This war will be used as the justification for every usurpation of power and we'll all eat it up and say, "Yep, whatever it takes to protect me because I'm scared and we're in a war and we need to function under different rules." Have you been to the airport lately? In D.C. the intercom comes on every couple of minutes and says, "In the war on terror the level threat is now (orange), please act accordingly. What does act accordingly mean? Have you read 1984? It sounds eerily like newspeak to me.

It's the perfect war. We've all been duped. Not to mention the terrorists have told us why they hate us. It's not because of our freedom. It's because we occupy other lands. Have we not become the British that we hated so much for occupying our land? Why is it ok for us? Because we're the "good guys" spreading democracy? Have you read the Iraqi Constitution? It read like the Communist Manifesto. It says things like.....you can live where you want, unless the government says so......you can work where you want, unless the government says so. My question to you is tell me the correct government principle that makes it o.k. for us to occupy foreign lands because it ain't democracy. And if it's ridding the world of bad men like Saddam then wouldn't Africa be a great place to start?

In Washington's Farewell Address he gives us two main cautions: to not become a two-party system and not to create entangling alliances. To build our relationships with countries based on trade.

As far as Clinton's line-item vetos they are just as unconstitutional as when Bush does it and Bush Sr. before him and all the others that take an oath of office to uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States of America, so help them God. So, because he's not the first to do it makes it ok?

Christians are for peace. Wouldn't humanitarian aid been worth trying if we wanted to make a difference in that part of the world? Then at least we wouldn't be giving the terrorists justification for hating us. The founders warned that you can't give a people freedom. You can't nation build. It doesn't work. All you can do is assist them in getting it for themselves. If that's what we are trying to do we are really bad at it.

In closing I'd like to say that I apologize for the disorganization of my reply. It's round two and it's late and I have an eight week old baby, so I'm a little off my game. I realize it's more like a tirade or a harangue than anything. But please tell me the correct governmental principles that Bush operates under. I find governmental principles in the Constitution, the Declaration, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, The Bible, John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, Montesquieu' s The Spirit of the Laws, The Cato Letters and other documents that the founders read.

And lastly, isn't unwavering bullheadedness regardless of changing information and circumstances considered a mental illness?

Cristy

http://uspolitics.about.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.yale.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
Phil

Pro

Hello Cristy,

Technically Scooter Libby was commuted, not pardoned by President Bush. Although in my opinion he should have been defended and pardoned long before he was commuted. Scooter Libby was subjected to a witch hunt, one that was an absolute injustice, and an abuse of power by the federal prosecutor. The prosecutor knew that Scooter Libby had nothing to do with Plame, and instead got a weak indictment after a few insignificant statements contradicted each other after hundreds upon hundreds of hours of testimony and depositions.

Back to the point however, this debate is about whether or not George W. Bush is a great president. You keep bringing up this underlying premise that President Bush took us to war in order to take away our freedoms. You have to walk me through this because it makes no sense whatsoever. Which freedoms have we lost? None! Is Bush out of office in less than 2-years? Yes! Your theory here doesn't hold any water. There is no reason to take freedom away from the people, unless it was his intention to stay in office…which we all know will not happen. You obviously didn't read my earlier statement regarding the reading of our mail. The government IS NOT reading your mail, unless you are a "suspected terrorist" in which case, I want my government to read your mail and listen to your phone calls.

Let me make something very clear about Iraq; I don't care if they ever form a solid government or not. What I care about are my fellow Americans. And as long as there are terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else in the world, I want our Special Forces, and brute military force to be over there killing them, until every last one is dead. These terrorists murder innocent men, women, and children just because they don't subscribe to their twisted muslim beliefs. You need to wake and understand that if we were to pack up and leave the middle east, these murders would first grow in number, and second, they would attack us, our allies, and assets. The fact that you take them at their word is incomprehensible. They are liars and murderers. Their words and promises mean nothing. It's clear to me that we're not in Iraq for land expansion as you claim in your previous arguments. We are there to kill the bad guys. It's as simple as that.

Regarding the line-item veto, I'm in favor of it as a means to get rid of the pork. It's a constitutional privilege, one that was put in place by constitutional means (the Congress). What amazes me is how you claim to be a constitutionalist, but only for the constitutional provisions you like.

According to your rationale, we should never have taken on Hitler either. We should have just allowed Europe to be annihilated along with the Jews. Christians are for peace. There is however a misconception in the world that peace is only obtainable by not firing any bullets. Let me correct this fallacy…peace is ONLY obtainable and sustainable when one side has victory. I would prefer that winning side to be America.

Your suggestion that we just be nice to everyone like in the Clinton years is absurd, and you're ignoring the hard learned lessons of history. To our enemies kindness is directly translated as weakness, and that is why we suffered so many terrorist attacks up until 911. I'm sorry you don't like war, I don't know of anyone that does like it. Just because you want to ignore that facts and create your own, doesn't mean we're all going to subscribe to your way of thinking. Just because the 90% liberal press beats their anti-Bush drums, doesn't mean I'm going to ignore history and the facts. You shouldn't ignore them either.
Cristy

Con

Dear Phil,

You said, "There is however a misconception in the world that peace is only obtainable by not firing any bullets. Let me correct this fallacy…peace is ONLY obtainable and sustainable when one side has victory. I would prefer that winning side to be America."

Is that the advice you'd give your child for dealing with the kid he has issues with at school? Do you say, "The only way you two are going to get along is if you kick his butt son." Seriously?!

You are making my point for me. In the "war on terror" WHERE does this victory occur? And how will you ever know you have won? Are you sure you got them all???????????? Hello! You can't get them all because you keep creating them! It is a war that will never end. The enemy has changing faces. You can't win fighting a new kind of war with old tactics. That's how the British lost the American Revolution.

Regarding Signing Statements, Line-Item-Vetos, Presidential Orders and the Patriot Act it's just a bummer now for those "suspected" terrorists. Innocent until proven guilty is just a crazy idea from a couple of old dead guys from England anyway. I hope YOU never get suspected, but of course you wouldn't, because when the color is orange you "act accordingly". But I guess we need to do all this to keep us safe and secure, right? I'm so glad Big Brother has everything under control.

In honor of your opinions of WWII, Churchill said, "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

Here's a little for you.......The left and the RIGHT media spin it equally! You've been duped as equally as all the liberals you don't like. That's why I know my opinion is slightly more objectionable because I don't belong to either side. It is hilariously terrifying to watch.

One last piece of truth for you.
http://www.lewrockwell.com...

Peace,
Cristy
Debate Round No. 4
Phil

Pro

Here it is, my closing argument...

Your analogy leaves out a scenario where the bully is attempting to behead other children. A fair analogy would be, "If your neighbor is loading up on ammunition and telling everyone he's going to cut off your head in the middle of the night, you take action before he delivers on his word."

The fact that you think our actions are creating terrorists is absurd and unfounded. These talking points come straight out of the leftist's think tanks. To answer your question, I'll quote an experienced Navy SEAL Chief from whom I had the honor of listening to several weeks ago during a SEAL graduation. He said, "this war will not be won by you (addressing the new SEALs), but by your sons, for this war will wage on for forty of fifty years." We must stay over there (the sandbox) until the Islamic Jihadists are no more. If we don't, then they will make their way over here again, and murder more of our brothers and sisters. It's as simple as that, and your "let's just be nice" ideology is putting us all at risk.

It's ironic that you would quote Churchill. He spent many years warning his fellow countrymen of the threat of the growing Nazi regime. Just like now, the people then were apathetic to the warning signs. The world is a very dangerous place, and when a group threatens us, we need to take them out.

Because of George W. Bush's commitment to go after the terrorists, despite the misguided opinions of the public and the leftist-agenda of the media, he will ultimately be remembered as a great president. It is clear to me that President Bush gets no joy out of sending our troops into harm's way. His tears are genuine when he meets with the family members of fallen heroes. It's often said that doing the right thing, and the harder thing, are often the same thing. I cannot subscribe to the belief that changing the direction of our foreign policy should occur every time a poll say's the American people don't like the direction. We elect our Presidents based on the hope that their principles will guide them when action is necessary. If President Bush changed his direction every time there was media pressure, he wouldn't be a leader at all, he'd be a pushover.

Thank you for the lively debate...that was a lot of fun. It will be interesting to see where the votes come in.

Best of luck. You can pick the next topic of debate.

~ Phil
Cristy

Con

Cristy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
George Bush is a piece of trash. He is no real leader and should be regarded as a coward and war mongering prick. Then again. most American presidents and world wide leaders are. A real leader does not send his people off to war and then sits back at home waiting for news of what happens. Real leaders ride into battle with their troops, like they apparently did in the older days. That enough makes or breaks a would be leader. That doesn't even go into the realm of Bush just a puppet for the banks.
Posted by rajun 3 years ago
rajun
This is a debate having vote bombs. not fair..I give fair votes now...
Posted by QuantumBios 9 years ago
QuantumBios
This reminds me of the fact that some people vote based on who they think will win, so they can say they voted for them, and pretend like their on the winning team.
Posted by schoolglutton 9 years ago
schoolglutton
I thought all Cristy would have to do is set up a bunch of clear examples where Bush obviously screwed up big time. She didn't and the arguments Phil proposed weren't attacked by Cristy very well. Have to give this one to Phil.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

George Walker Bush
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

George Walker Bush
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
"I'm going to try to see if I can remember as much to make it sound like I'm smart on the subject."

-George walker Bush
Posted by wryan 9 years ago
wryan
Phil, Excellent way to back up your claims with facts. Although there are many issues and policies I don't see eye to eye with President Bush, I do not think that anyone looking at the real facts can argue with the fact that he is an honorable man governing by his principles. It is great to know that there really are Americans who can see the real facts through the garbage that the drive by media calls news.

That has nothing to do with whether or not he is a good president. He is a bad one. His approval ratings are miniscule, and he has turned nearly the whole world against the US. Really the list goes on. Even if George bush is a nice guy, that doesnt mean he is a good president.
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
I'm going to have to agree with Cristy on this one. He put the country in an even deeper hole since he decided to fight fire with fire. I hate that theres a war with Iraq. Personally I don't think he should be President anymore but oh well there'll be a new one soon anyway. All for now.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
George Bush does not represent the opinions of America. This is proven by his current approval rating. A good president would know that representing the people ot the united states should be his primary goal. Otherwise, he is more like a king. I am happy that we will have a new ppresident. The only reason this president has not been impeached so far is because, chenney would be even worse!
38 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
PhilCristyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
PhilCristyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Bob13 1 year ago
Bob13
PhilCristyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used mostly fallacies to prove her point, while Pro shows the many good things that Bush has done. Conduct goes to Pro because Con forfeited round 5.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
PhilCristyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF the round, but gave better sources. Sorry Pro, but GOP.com is a highly biased source.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
PhilCristyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited the round, so conduct to Pro. Con used more reliable and neutral sources.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
PhilCristyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:42 
Vote Placed by Buddahcall 2 years ago
Buddahcall
PhilCristyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Aithlin 2 years ago
Aithlin
PhilCristyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture by CON.
Vote Placed by SocialistAtheistNutjob 2 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
PhilCristyTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
PhilCristyTied
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: ff