The legacy of 'W'?

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by Sammy Baugh Fan

Yet another liberal warpath bash the President thread.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Are you trying to turn a civil/insightful/well thought out thread into yet another pissing match?
You've added nothing to the thread with this post just because you ASSUME that it's going to turn into a Bush bashing session. Good work.

[MTK]

I'm liberal and damn proud of it, so it's hardly an insult to be called liberal. Nice try though SBF. If you haven't learned by now this is a message board where we engage in discussion, but maybe taking a page from your book I should cry and stomp my feet and tell you to get off MY THREAD if you don't agree with me. But I won't, because I am indeed an open minded liberal who is willing to at least listen to opposing view points and discuss them in a mature and civil manner.

Bush is in my opinion a joke of a president, but I think most people know my opinion on that. As I said I wasn't looking to bash here, that's far too easy and has been done many times over. I'm actually interested in hearing some views on what he's done well and how he might go down in history.

Thank you and good night.

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

Are you trying to turn a civil/insightful/well thought out thread into yet another pissing match?
You've added nothing to the thread with this post just because you ASSUME that it's going to turn into a Bush bashing session. Good work.

Yeah dewd it's all about me. Make it so if you wish. My comment was just like others but I see you quoted me. That's ok.

~same as it ever was, same as it ever was

Don't like the message shoot the messanger.

[MTK]

And don't forget when you point fingers your thumb is pointed right back at ya. Same as it ever was indeed.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I will comment on these together since they are so closely related.
If you use those as a negative against the presidency, then they have to be a positive if they do a good job. Fact is, Bush has policies in place to help stimulate the economy and the interest rates. Sure it's not him 100%, but you can't deny he has helped the situation.

Use what? Huh? All I said was Presidents don't have much of an impact on the economy. End of story. Anyone who would have you believe otherwise is uninformed or just playing politics. The vast majority of Aemricans do not understand this, which is why administrations take as much cerdit as they can when it is good. But in the end our economy is a free market economy which is by defintion free of influence as much as possible. To say he helped is to give an opinion on the effectiveness of tax cuts as a economic stimulus. This is a highly debateable subject and by no means a fact. I tend to think tax cuts at any level do spur economic growth but that is simply a position. At the end of it there simply isn't any evidence past or present to suggest otherwise.

Considering India and Pakistan have been arch rivals since 1947 and no one has done anything about it, and had nuclear capabilities that were ignored by previous presidents (especially clinton), and India tested their first Thermonuclear weapon in May of 98 to no comments, I'm going to say yes. Sure he didn't act alone in this, but he made it a priority and put a stop to a 50 year problem. I'm sure those ill feelings are still there between the countries, but Bush and Bush alone made it a priority, and I for one and glad he did or Pakistan would have been wiped off the planet by now.

won't argue

Ummm what? Under Bush's term he has wiped out over 90% of the top terrorists, and a lot of them were members of Al Queda. If you think it's gettign stronger, it's likely because you had no idea how big this orginization was, which is all the more reason to thank Mr. President Bush. While you provide valuable counterpoints to most of my comments, this one was off base. Al Queda is weaker than it ever has been and will continue to weaken as long as we don't give up on the war on terror.

Here you are clearly misinformed. Numerous recent reports show that Al Qaeda is still very strong.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by Sammy Baugh Fan

Yeah dewd it's all about me. Make it so if you wish. My comment was just like others but I see you quoted me. That's ok.

~same as it ever was, same as it ever was

Don't like the message shoot the messanger.

When you say "others" do you mean jsarno? Because he was the only one that said anything even remotely close to "liberal blah blah blah," but then he got the idea of the thread and posted some well thought out arguments. On the other hand, you just guessed that this thread would be a bashing session, as opposed to a real debate, and you posted accordingly. I feel like you do that all the time and I just wanted to know if you wanted to turn it into another pissing match because you couldn't actually think of a good answer to the question about Bush's legacy. Frankly, I think you lied when you said that you read through the entire thread before posting your initial useless comment.

As far as shooting the messenger: what is that even supposed to mean in this context? What are you the messenger for? Do you even know what that phrase means?

Ok, I'm going out for the night, so feel free to respond and I guess I will read it later. I just hope the people that actually have real opinions that will add to this thread will continue to debate because while I tend to not post in political threads I do enjoy reading them.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Ummm what? Under Bush's term he has wiped out over 90% of the top terrorists, and a lot of them were members of Al Queda. If you think it's gettign stronger, it's likely because you had no idea how big this orginization was, which is all the more reason to thank Mr. President Bush. While you provide valuable counterpoints to most of my comments, this one was off base. Al Queda is weaker than it ever has been and will continue to weaken as long as we don't give up on the war on terror.

Government report: Al Qaeda strongest since September 11, 2001 - CNN.com

^^^This sort of thing has been the top political news story all week long.

This new report backs up warnings by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and other officials that /topics/al_qaeda" class="cnnInlineTopic">al Qaeda remains a serious threat and that the United States is vulnerable despite the numerous security changes made since September 11, 2001. Watch Chertoff explain his "gut feeling" »

Chertoff said Wednesday, however, that there is no "specific, credible information" that terrorist attacks on the United States are imminent.

In a House Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday, several senior intelligence officials talked about how the terrorist group has found refuge in parts of Pakistan.

"We actually see the al Qaeda central being resurgent in their role in planning operations," John Kringen, head of the CIA's intelligence directorate, testified at the hearing Wednesday. "They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan there. We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications."

Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence, told lawmakers that al Qaeda leaders hiding in Pakistan are able to maintain relationships "with affiliates throughout the Middle East, North and East Africa and Europe."

The interesting thing is that we're not actually going into Pakistan to get Al Qaeda (which I'd probably be for); I wonder if it's because they have nukes and it might piss them off if we stormed in there, guns blazing. I really can't say, but I think something more needs to be done about there presence there.

Ok, now I really have to go.

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

And don't forget when you point fingers your thumb is pointed right back at ya. Same as it ever was indeed.

The Thumb is pointing upwards and the fingers pointing left is the Talking Heads hand movements. Yes, you again stand corrected.

~same as it ever was, same as it ever was

peace

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Historians will view him negatively, but they're all Liberals. He doesn't care and neither do I because he has only done what was necessary and proper.

As for the "mountain of controversy" in 2000, it exists only in the minds of the losers. Close, yes. Controversial? Only to the extent that Al Gore tried to steal the election by doing a selective recount and excluding military votes and making sure their fellow Dems on the Florida Supreme Court (Barbara Pariente must be the dumbest woman I've ever seen on television) didn't allow the vote to be certified until they had pulled off the theft.

If I take a dump in the middle of the Christmas Parade, it wouild be somewhat misleading for me to then describe that parade as having been "controversial" in the passive voice.

As I understand it, the election was a statistical stalemate. The difference in votes for each candidate was not big enough to cover the margin of error. What do you do if Gore gets 49% and Bush gets 51%, but the margin of error is 2%?

Please correct me, if I am wrong.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

As I understand it, the election was a statistical stalemate. The difference in votes for each candidate was not big enough to cover the margin of error. What do you do if Gore gets 49% and Bush gets 51%, but the margin of error is 2%?

Please correct me, if I am wrong.

Margin of error applies to polls not elections. You only have to win an election by one vote.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by saden1

In the words of the venerable Rick James "I'm rich, bitch!" At least I'd like to be. I'm a bit concerned about inflation and U.S. economy tanking as it is the core engine that drives the world economy.

Enough about me and on to the real issue. The issue is whether we should concern ourselves with the future of the generations that will follow and whether we want to leave them in a financial hole.

Well, I do understand where you're coming from, however, this has been something our great greandparents gave to us and we have yet to be truely hit with it. We always hear about the deficit, but no one knows how it affects us.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Here you are clearly misinformed. Numerous recent reports show that Al Qaeda is still very strong.

Woh, I didn't say it wasn't strong. I said it's getting weaker, and since Bush has gone after terrorism, there is generally no debate that Al Qaeda has gotten weaker. How can it not with all the terrorists that the Bush administration has aprehended?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by jsarno

On the flipside what do you think he's done poorly?

Well, I am supposed to be the pro side, you're supposed to be the con side. There are enough people here to give the negatives that I don't need to...but since someone is going to bring it up anyway, I will say this one thing:
I am not thrilled with his lack of support for alternative fuels. In fact, if I remember correctly he took away 50% of the funding to research. I firmly feel that oil is America's downfall, and if we rely on corn for our fuel, we'd have the market cornered. We are the #1 producer of corn in the world, and we could have the other countries by the balls, but Bush has too much loyalty to the oil companies.

OK, Since I gave a con of Bush in good faith, Matty, what do you think Bush has done correctly.

OK Matty, still waiting for you here. I was good enough to post 10 things Bush has done right by your asking, you made no comment about them...then you asked for the bad things...which I did in good faith and asked you what you think Bush has done correctly and I still have not seen any response. I thought we were having good banter, but you didn't respond to my comments.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Margin of error applies to polls not elections. You only have to win an election by one vote.

It is true that one vote can win an election, in theory. However, in practice I do not believe that every vote is counted. Usually the margins are wide enough for a solid statistical conclusion to be made about the outcome -- at which time, the loser usually concedes.

Many votes are not accepted for a variety of reasons, and this is usually not a problem. In the case of 2000, with such a close election, these votes could have changed the outcome. So, you have unambiguous votes for one candidate, that were not accepted because they were cast in the incorrect precinct. Or, you have votes from overseas which arrived late. Should the outcome of the Presidential election come down to a technicality? I think this is why they went to court.

[dblanch66]

Well..just to play devil's advocate:
Bush owes all of his success to his daddy, his daddy's friends, trust funds, legacy admissions, the National Guard, the Supreme Court, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and AA. He takes pride that he doesn't read the newspaper, clears a lot of brush, drives a big ole truck, dresses like one of the village people when "off duty", is a huge country fan...unfortunately that country is Saudi Arabia, supports laws against gay marriage and then holds hands with Saudi men (Cmon, George... being in bed with the Saudi's is just an expression), refuses to accept any responsibility for anything that's been fucked up, has said that Osama "can run but he can't hide" but ..boy can he hide..We can't find him with missles, satellites, million dollar bribes..hey..since you can't find Bin Laden, at least you could finish ONE thing you started..reading "My Pet Goat" - which will be the one book in YOUR presidential library.
Ok. NOW it has turned into a Bush Bash.