Total Posts:133|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Bush Legacy

BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 1:28:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I mean George W Bush. What will his legacy be?

I know those on the left despise him. I also know that a lot of people on the right aren't too fond either.

But, what was it exactly that made people dislike him so much?

On foreign policy, there were no doubt some blunders. In hindsight, the Iraq War was a huge mistake. But, if you look at the information we had available at the time, the Iraq War doesn't look nearly as misguided. In hindsight, it was a mistake, but we know a lot now that we did not then.

Other than that, his reaction to the 2001 tragedy wasn't awful. Whether or not you like the Afghanistan War, it is undeniably true that Al Gore would have done the same thing (and perhaps Iraq as well).

The best critique of Bush's foreign policy was that it was a bad attempt to copy Reagan's (successful in my opinion) foreign policy. Reagan advocated US leadership through military power and an active assault on ideas counter to the American experiment (namely communism). Bush tried to extend this philosophy to fighting radical Islam. I think that is fairly sound. However, Bush lacked the charisma that Reagan had. Instead of appearing strong, as Reagan did, Bush's foreign policy appeared arrogant. However, I think this is more perception than reality.

On domestic policy, no reasonable person can blame the 2008 financial crisis on Bush. Bush did make real attempts to reform social security and immigration. Both were met with opposition from Democrats. His fiscal policy may have been irresponsible, but Obama's fiscal decisions have made Bush seem quite responsible by comparison.

In the end, Bush does not deserve the label of a good president. However, one must also realize that he was a pretty unlucky president..

I would say Bush was clearly a superior president to Obama, when all is considered.
YYW
Posts: 36,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 1:43:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 1:28:16 AM, BigRat wrote:
I mean George W Bush. What will his legacy be?

I know those on the left despise him. I also know that a lot of people on the right aren't too fond either.

But, what was it exactly that made people dislike him so much?

On foreign policy, there were no doubt some blunders. In hindsight, the Iraq War was a huge mistake. But, if you look at the information we had available at the time, the Iraq War doesn't look nearly as misguided. In hindsight, it was a mistake, but we know a lot now that we did not then.

Other than that, his reaction to the 2001 tragedy wasn't awful. Whether or not you like the Afghanistan War, it is undeniably true that Al Gore would have done the same thing (and perhaps Iraq as well).

The best critique of Bush's foreign policy was that it was a bad attempt to copy Reagan's (successful in my opinion) foreign policy. Reagan advocated US leadership through military power and an active assault on ideas counter to the American experiment (namely communism). Bush tried to extend this philosophy to fighting radical Islam. I think that is fairly sound. However, Bush lacked the charisma that Reagan had. Instead of appearing strong, as Reagan did, Bush's foreign policy appeared arrogant. However, I think this is more perception than reality.

On domestic policy, no reasonable person can blame the 2008 financial crisis on Bush. Bush did make real attempts to reform social security and immigration. Both were met with opposition from Democrats. His fiscal policy may have been irresponsible, but Obama's fiscal decisions have made Bush seem quite responsible by comparison.

In the end, Bush does not deserve the label of a good president. However, one must also realize that he was a pretty unlucky president..

I would say Bush was clearly a superior president to Obama, when all is considered.

I take no issue with Bush's foreign policy. His economic policy had some shortfalls, but those were more to do with Clinton-era deregulations of the mortgage and banking industries -not to mention the recalcitrance of congressional republicans and democrats in both administrations. My only substantive problems with his presidency were (1) his educational policy and (2) his unforgivable social conservatism.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 2:26:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 2:00:47 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Borrow and spend.

Out of curiosity, does basically everyone other than me hate Bush?
Tsar of DDO
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 5:27:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 2:26:08 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 2:00:47 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Borrow and spend.

Out of curiosity, does basically everyone other than me hate Bush?

In a way, I admired him as a politician; he seemed to believe what he said, a trait not seen often. Also, I liked the idea of No Child Left Behind (holding schools accountable), but it was an impracticle approach ("defunding" underperforming schools).

What I didn't like about Bush 43 was the fact that he never found a spending bill he didn't like, and as a result, racked up the debt.
My work here is, finally, done.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 5:39:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 1:43:19 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 1:28:16 AM, BigRat wrote:
I mean George W Bush. What will his legacy be?

I know those on the left despise him. I also know that a lot of people on the right aren't too fond either.

But, what was it exactly that made people dislike him so much?

On foreign policy, there were no doubt some blunders. In hindsight, the Iraq War was a huge mistake. But, if you look at the information we had available at the time, the Iraq War doesn't look nearly as misguided. In hindsight, it was a mistake, but we know a lot now that we did not then.

Other than that, his reaction to the 2001 tragedy wasn't awful. Whether or not you like the Afghanistan War, it is undeniably true that Al Gore would have done the same thing (and perhaps Iraq as well).

The best critique of Bush's foreign policy was that it was a bad attempt to copy Reagan's (successful in my opinion) foreign policy. Reagan advocated US leadership through military power and an active assault on ideas counter to the American experiment (namely communism). Bush tried to extend this philosophy to fighting radical Islam. I think that is fairly sound. However, Bush lacked the charisma that Reagan had. Instead of appearing strong, as Reagan did, Bush's foreign policy appeared arrogant. However, I think this is more perception than reality.

On domestic policy, no reasonable person can blame the 2008 financial crisis on Bush. Bush did make real attempts to reform social security and immigration. Both were met with opposition from Democrats. His fiscal policy may have been irresponsible, but Obama's fiscal decisions have made Bush seem quite responsible by comparison.

In the end, Bush does not deserve the label of a good president. However, one must also realize that he was a pretty unlucky president..

I would say Bush was clearly a superior president to Obama, when all is considered.

I take no issue with Bush's foreign policy. His economic policy had some shortfalls, but those were more to do with Clinton-era deregulations of the mortgage and banking industries -not to mention the recalcitrance of congressional republicans and democrats in both administrations. My only substantive problems with his presidency were (1) his educational policy and (2) his unforgivable social conservatism.
I have to agree
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 5:40:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:27:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/27/2013 2:26:08 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 2:00:47 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Borrow and spend.

Out of curiosity, does basically everyone other than me hate Bush?

In a way, I admired him as a politician; he seemed to believe what he said, a trait not seen often. Also, I liked the idea of No Child Left Behind (holding schools accountable), but it was an impracticle approach ("defunding" underperforming schools).

What I didn't like about Bush 43 was the fact that he never found a spending bill he didn't like, and as a result, racked up the debt.

Just like Obama 44
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 5:53:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:40:09 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:27:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/27/2013 2:26:08 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 2:00:47 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Borrow and spend.

Out of curiosity, does basically everyone other than me hate Bush?

In a way, I admired him as a politician; he seemed to believe what he said, a trait not seen often. Also, I liked the idea of No Child Left Behind (holding schools accountable), but it was an impracticle approach ("defunding" underperforming schools).

What I didn't like about Bush 43 was the fact that he never found a spending bill he didn't like, and as a result, racked up the debt.

Just like Obama 44

Bush often spoke off the cuff; this is when he often sounded like an idiot, but also believeable.
Obama hesitates before he answers, which makes him seem insincere.

But, yes, they both spent a bunch. However, Obama's spending was stimulus related, and possibly wouldn't have occurred otherwise.

For the record, I am not a huge fan of the stimulus spending, but spending for stimulus is better than simply running a defecit for no other reason.
My work here is, finally, done.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 6:07:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:53:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:40:09 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:27:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/27/2013 2:26:08 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 2:00:47 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Borrow and spend.

Out of curiosity, does basically everyone other than me hate Bush?

In a way, I admired him as a politician; he seemed to believe what he said, a trait not seen often. Also, I liked the idea of No Child Left Behind (holding schools accountable), but it was an impracticle approach ("defunding" underperforming schools).

What I didn't like about Bush 43 was the fact that he never found a spending bill he didn't like, and as a result, racked up the debt.

Just like Obama 44

Bush often spoke off the cuff; this is when he often sounded like an idiot, but also believeable.
Obama hesitates before he answers, which makes him seem insincere.

But, yes, they both spent a bunch. However, Obama's spending was stimulus related, and possibly wouldn't have occurred otherwise.

For the record, I am not a huge fan of the stimulus spending, but spending for stimulus is better than simply running a defecit for no other reason.
The stimulus was not needed. I am against it, but I was hoping he would do it in the fashion of public works, not straight handouts.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 4:02:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 1:28:16 AM, BigRat wrote:
I mean George W Bush. What will his legacy be?

Iraq.

I know those on the left despise him. I also know that a lot of people on the right aren't too fond either.

But, what was it exactly that made people dislike him so much?

Iraq.

On foreign policy, there were no doubt some blunders. In hindsight, the Iraq War was a huge mistake. But, if you look at the information we had available at the time, the Iraq War doesn't look nearly as misguided. In hindsight, it was a mistake, but we know a lot now that we did not then.

No, it wasn't (video). It was a purposeful attempt by the Bush Administration to promote a war that had no basis. The vote by Congress was manipulated by the White House to coincide right before an election.

Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, part of the Military Industrial Complex. Most, if not all, of the White House decision-making regarding the Iraq War came from Bush's naive cowboy mentality, and Cheney's motivation.

Other than that, his reaction to the 2001 tragedy wasn't awful. Whether or not you like the Afghanistan War, it is undeniably true that Al Gore would have done the same thing (and perhaps Iraq as well).

Highly doubtful.

The best critique of Bush's foreign policy was that it was a bad attempt to copy Reagan's (successful in my opinion) foreign policy. Reagan advocated US leadership through military power and an active assault on ideas counter to the American experiment (namely communism). Bush tried to extend this philosophy to fighting radical Islam. I think that is fairly sound. However, Bush lacked the charisma that Reagan had. Instead of appearing strong, as Reagan did, Bush's foreign policy appeared arrogant. However, I think this is more perception than reality.

Reagan did not believe in a pre-emptive war that had no military, political, or economical justification. We didn't have one in 2003, and we now know we never had one.

On domestic policy, no reasonable person can blame the 2008 financial crisis on Bush. Bush did make real attempts to reform social security and immigration. Both were met with opposition from Democrats. His fiscal policy may have been irresponsible, but Obama's fiscal decisions have made Bush seem quite responsible by comparison.

Hank Paulson was the former Goldman Sachs CEO, who went into government to defer taxes on $500 million of stock & options he garnered while at Goldman. Paulson was Bush's Treasury Secretary for years before and during the 2008 meltdown. Goldman is responsible for not only devising the MBSs that destroyed our economy, but also actively dumped them on their clients, which is why Goldman was the ONLY major Wall Street institution to have come out of 2008 stronger.

Paulson was on John Ehrlichman's staff. Ehrlichman was part of the inner circle of President Nixon and was disgraced by Watergate.

In the end, Bush does not deserve the label of a good president. However, one must also realize that he was a pretty unlucky president..

I would say Bush was clearly a superior president to Obama, when all is considered.

Absolutely false. That's like saying that a janitor is doing a terrible job keeping the floor clean when a baby throws up on it.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
LatentDebater
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 4:04:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com...
I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.

People who think they know everything are extremely irritating to those of us who do.

"If you believe in a god, just tell me why you don't believe in all the other gods. The reasons you give will be why I don't believe in yours." - Ricky THEGENIUS Gervais
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 4:07:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 4:02:33 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/27/2013 1:28:16 AM, BigRat wrote:
On foreign policy, there were no doubt some blunders. In hindsight, the Iraq War was a huge mistake. But, if you look at the information we had available at the time, the Iraq War doesn't look nearly as misguided. In hindsight, it was a mistake, but we know a lot now that we did not then.



No, it wasn't (video). It was a purposeful attempt by the Bush Administration to promote a war that had no basis. The vote by Congress was manipulated by the White House to coincide right before an election.

Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, part of the Military Industrial Complex. Most, if not all, of the White House decision-making regarding the Iraq War came from Bush's naive cowboy mentality, and Cheney's motivation.

By the bolded, I meant "no it was not only seriously misguided, but put American in jeopardy in ways that go far beyond foreign policy".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 4:10:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 4:02:33 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/27/2013 1:28:16 AM, BigRat wrote:

Other than that, his reaction to the 2001 tragedy wasn't awful. Whether or not you like the Afghanistan War, it is undeniably true that Al Gore would have done the same thing (and perhaps Iraq as well).

Highly doubtful.

You need to understand that Bush went AGAINST military guidance when he went into Iraq. The military strongly warned him that he needed a MUCH LARGER FORCE in order to effectively occupy the country. Rumsfeld threw the army Chief of Staff under a bus for such a suggestion. Everyone...EVERYONE, in both the military, in the Democratic camp, and in the Republican camp, in hindsight, agreed with this Chief of Staff's assertion. This army Chief of Staff now sits on Obama's cabinet.

Generals came out of retirement to criticize Bush on Iraq. Some even went so far as to float an impeachment proposal through senators.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 4:31:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This video speaks for itself.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 4:35:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:53:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:40:09 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:27:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/27/2013 2:26:08 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 2:00:47 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Borrow and spend.

Out of curiosity, does basically everyone other than me hate Bush?

In a way, I admired him as a politician; he seemed to believe what he said, a trait not seen often. Also, I liked the idea of No Child Left Behind (holding schools accountable), but it was an impracticle approach ("defunding" underperforming schools).

What I didn't like about Bush 43 was the fact that he never found a spending bill he didn't like, and as a result, racked up the debt.

Just like Obama 44

Bush often spoke off the cuff; this is when he often sounded like an idiot, but also believeable.
Obama hesitates before he answers, which makes him seem insincere.

But, yes, they both spent a bunch. However, Obama's spending was stimulus related, and possibly wouldn't have occurred otherwise.

For the record, I am not a huge fan of the stimulus spending, but spending for stimulus is better than simply running a defecit for no other reason.

The only difference between Bush's spending and Obama's is that Obama has been spending ALOT more.

They both had excuses to try to justify this, but that does not change the reality.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 4:38:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would say Bush was clearly a superior president to Obama, when all is considered.

Absolutely false. That's like saying that a janitor is doing a terrible job keeping the floor clean when a baby throws up on it.

How is Obama a janitor?

What are the things that Bush did wrong?

Overspending, running large deficits, not having a lot of respect for civil liberties, and expanding the state too much.

Obama has been as bad if not worse on all of these counts.

This situation is like a baby throwing up on a floor, and then a much larger janitor throwing up on top of that and then blaming the baby for his actions.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 4:42:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:53:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:40:09 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:27:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/27/2013 2:26:08 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 2:00:47 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Borrow and spend.

Out of curiosity, does basically everyone other than me hate Bush?

In a way, I admired him as a politician; he seemed to believe what he said, a trait not seen often. Also, I liked the idea of No Child Left Behind (holding schools accountable), but it was an impracticle approach ("defunding" underperforming schools).

What I didn't like about Bush 43 was the fact that he never found a spending bill he didn't like, and as a result, racked up the debt.

Just like Obama 44

Bush often spoke off the cuff; this is when he often sounded like an idiot, but also believeable.
Obama hesitates before he answers, which makes him seem insincere.

But, yes, they both spent a bunch. However, Obama's spending was stimulus related, and possibly wouldn't have occurred otherwise.

For the record, I am not a huge fan of the stimulus spending, but spending for stimulus is better than simply running a defecit for no other reason.

^

Iraq itself was unreasonable spending.

Iraq caused world oil prices to spike. Iraq is responsible for why we know who Hugo Chaves is.

Iraq emboldened and strengthened Russia.

Iraq caused us to ignore China, WHO FUNDED THE IRAQ WAR THROUGH TREASURIES.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 4:47:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 4:38:58 PM, BigRat wrote:
I would say Bush was clearly a superior president to Obama, when all is considered.

Absolutely false. That's like saying that a janitor is doing a terrible job keeping the floor clean when a baby throws up on it.


How is Obama a janitor?

2008 happened on Bush's watch. Regardless of the reason for 2008, this is not questioned. Someone had to clean it up, and it wasn't going to be Bush.

What are the things that Bush did wrong?

Iraq. That is the only reason I need. It was the only real policy decision in America for nearly 10 years. It was a longer war than Vietnam, and has had more dire consequences.

Overspending, running large deficits, not having a lot of respect for civil liberties, and expanding the state too much.

Yes, you have just described George W. Bush in a nutshell.

Obama has been as bad if not worse on all of these counts.

Obama has continued Bush's policies. In this sense, it's difficult to say that Obama represents change. But, he STOPPED IRAQ. We are exiting Afghanistan. 2008 stimulus programs have largely wound down.

This situation is like a baby throwing up on a floor, and then a much larger janitor throwing up on top of that and then blaming the baby for his actions.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 4:52:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 4:47:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
*fap fap fap* OOOBAAMMMAAA! *fap fap fap*

That's what's got out of your posts. Just admit he's doing horrible job already.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 5:03:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 4:52:25 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/27/2013 4:47:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
*fap fap fap* OOOBAAMMMAAA! *fap fap fap*

That's what's got out of your posts. Just admit he's doing horrible job already.

I'm not a fan of Obama either. But anything is an improvement over Bush, except Palin.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 5:09:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's easy to say Obama is better than Bush. Obama didn't have to make a difficult decision in terms of interpreting intelligence evidence for WMD's, nor how to target and combat terrorists overseas. Obama just had to put an end to all that. His daughters could do it as well.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 5:12:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:09:53 PM, Mirza wrote:
It's easy to say Obama is better than Bush. Obama didn't have to make a difficult decision in terms of interpreting intelligence evidence for WMD's, nor how to target and combat terrorists overseas. Obama just had to put an end to all that. His daughters could do it as well.

I agree that a trained rhino could do a better job than Bush.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 5:13:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:12:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:09:53 PM, Mirza wrote:
It's easy to say Obama is better than Bush. Obama didn't have to make a difficult decision in terms of interpreting intelligence evidence for WMD's, nor how to target and combat terrorists overseas. Obama just had to put an end to all that. His daughters could do it as well.

I agree that a trained rhino could do a better job than Bush.

At least you did not use monkey and Obama in the same sentence.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 5:14:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:12:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:09:53 PM, Mirza wrote:
It's easy to say Obama is better than Bush. Obama didn't have to make a difficult decision in terms of interpreting intelligence evidence for WMD's, nor how to target and combat terrorists overseas. Obama just had to put an end to all that. His daughters could do it as well.

I agree that a trained rhino could do a better job than Bush.
Eh, stop being biased toward your own kind Ma'am!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 5:19:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:13:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:12:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:09:53 PM, Mirza wrote:
It's easy to say Obama is better than Bush. Obama didn't have to make a difficult decision in terms of interpreting intelligence evidence for WMD's, nor how to target and combat terrorists overseas. Obama just had to put an end to all that. His daughters could do it as well.

I agree that a trained rhino could do a better job than Bush.

At least you did not use monkey and Obama in the same sentence.

Yup. :)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 5:21:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:14:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:12:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:09:53 PM, Mirza wrote:
It's easy to say Obama is better than Bush. Obama didn't have to make a difficult decision in terms of interpreting intelligence evidence for WMD's, nor how to target and combat terrorists overseas. Obama just had to put an end to all that. His daughters could do it as well.

I agree that a trained rhino could do a better job than Bush.
Eh, stop being biased toward your own kind Ma'am!

I would have voted for McCain/Romney in 2008. However, I was robbed of this by the religious right.

Obama is not great, but IMHO he's done nothing overtly and catastrophically wrong, like what Bush did. That the GOP robbed me of a legitimate ticket in 2008 made me very suspicious of them in 2012. I didn't vote for anyone in 2012.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 6:04:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 5:21:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:14:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:12:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:09:53 PM, Mirza wrote:
It's easy to say Obama is better than Bush. Obama didn't have to make a difficult decision in terms of interpreting intelligence evidence for WMD's, nor how to target and combat terrorists overseas. Obama just had to put an end to all that. His daughters could do it as well.

I agree that a trained rhino could do a better job than Bush.
Eh, stop being biased toward your own kind Ma'am!

I would have voted for McCain/Romney in 2008. However, I was robbed of this by the religious right.

John McCain is among the worst of the GOP. Romney was a fantastic governor of MA, but betrayed himself when he ran for president. And the religious right is not the real problem. They vote, but the problem was the number of choices they were offered in the primary. The problem is the way the GOP structured their primary in 2012. It gave rise to internal derision within the party and legitimized a branch of the party once considered to be on the fringe, making way for an Obama re-election. Romney tried to appeal to that fringe, but did not realize that doing so would cost him the majority of the American public. This is the lesson os 2012, and that factionalism -I predict- will keep the party out of power for the next few elections, which is actually probably a good thing. I think it will regroup because the Rubios and the Jindals of the party will eventually sound more and more like Chris Christie's, who will lead the future of the party. Ryan seems to have moderated too since the election. But the Santorums, the Bachmans, the McCains, and the rest of the loons will fade into insignifigance as time continues. Fortunately, that same rule will continue to apply to the Real Housewife of Wacilla.

Obama is not great, but IMHO he's done nothing overtly and catastrophically wrong, like what Bush did. That the GOP robbed me of a legitimate ticket in 2008 made me very suspicious of them in 2012. I didn't vote for anyone in 2012.

I like Obama, and I really liked Bush. They are both good men who were doing the best they could with the cards they had been dealt. We often forget that Bush was not elected to be a wartime president, but when confronted with insurmountable challenges, he rose to the occasion. Obama, who was elected during wartime, hasn't sacrificed the good of the American people either.

It's understandable that most people don't like politicians, but the reasons that most people have stem from moral judgements they have made of political leaders who were forced to choose between bad and worse options. I believe it is unreasonable to condemn a political leader for acting of necessity when he is obliged to do so, simply because to take the alternative would have led to even worse consequences. But people -outside the world of politics- have no idea what really is going on, most of the time, and because they are beginning with a bias towards distrust, assume the worst which (while surely in accordance with human nature), is no more than the manifestation of individual recalcitrance translated into judgement and condemnation from a position of ignorance. But hey, when has that ever stopped anyone from voicing a stupid opinion? Never. Indeed, it is so much easier to sit back and critique than to do.
Tsar of DDO
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 6:18:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 1:28:16 AM, BigRat wrote:
I mean George W Bush. What will his legacy be?

I know those on the left despise him. I also know that a lot of people on the right aren't too fond either.

But, what was it exactly that made people dislike him so much?

On foreign policy, there were no doubt some blunders. In hindsight, the Iraq War was a huge mistake. But, if you look at the information we had available at the time, the Iraq War doesn't look nearly as misguided. In hindsight, it was a mistake, but we know a lot now that we did not then.

Go look up what stovepiping means in the foreign intelligence community. The information was better than we were lead to believe.


Other than that, his reaction to the 2001 tragedy wasn't awful. Whether or not you like the Afghanistan War, it is undeniably true that Al Gore would have done the same thing (and perhaps Iraq as well).

He took a tragedy and used it to attack two countries that had absolutely nothing to do with the tragedy, and this was well known by the CIA at the time. Why he did it is the product of speculation, so I will just say that he did.


The best critique of Bush's foreign policy was that it was a bad attempt to copy Reagan's (successful in my opinion) foreign policy. Reagan advocated US leadership through military power and an active assault on ideas counter to the American experiment (namely communism). Bush tried to extend this philosophy to fighting radical Islam. I think that is fairly sound. However, Bush lacked the charisma that Reagan had. Instead of appearing strong, as Reagan did, Bush's foreign policy appeared arrogant. However, I think this is more perception than reality.

Um, ever hear of The Bush Doctrine (now the Bush/Obama Doctrine) of Foreign Policy?

It's "shoot first, ask questions later" on a global scale.


On domestic policy, no reasonable person can blame the 2008 financial crisis on Bush. Bush did make real attempts to reform social security and immigration. Both were met with opposition from Democrats. His fiscal policy may have been irresponsible, but Obama's fiscal decisions have made Bush seem quite responsible by comparison.

I can. His ridiculous economic and tax policies were a direct cause. he's one of the 1st presidents in history to have such a direct, sudden effect on an economy via his bungles.

You don't like the fiscal cliff? That's also Bush's legacy


In the end, Bush does not deserve the label of a good president. However, one must also realize that he was a pretty unlucky president..

Katrina and the handling of the aftermath was luck?


I would say Bush was clearly a superior president to Obama, when all is considered.

I think Obama is pretty bad, but he's slightly, incrementally better than Bush. Bush is the 2nd worse president in US history after James Buchanan.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 6:28:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 6:04:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:21:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:14:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:12:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:09:53 PM, Mirza wrote:
It's easy to say Obama is better than Bush. Obama didn't have to make a difficult decision in terms of interpreting intelligence evidence for WMD's, nor how to target and combat terrorists overseas. Obama just had to put an end to all that. His daughters could do it as well.

I agree that a trained rhino could do a better job than Bush.
Eh, stop being biased toward your own kind Ma'am!

I would have voted for McCain/Romney in 2008. However, I was robbed of this by the religious right.

John McCain is among the worst of the GOP. Romney was a fantastic governor of MA, but betrayed himself when he ran for president. And the religious right is not the real problem. They vote, but the problem was the number of choices they were offered in the primary. The problem is the way the GOP structured their primary in 2012. It gave rise to internal derision within the party and legitimized a branch of the party once considered to be on the fringe, making way for an Obama re-election. Romney tried to appeal to that fringe, but did not realize that doing so would cost him the majority of the American public. This is the lesson os 2012, and that factionalism -I predict- will keep the party out of power for the next few elections, which is actually probably a good thing. I think it will regroup because the Rubios and the Jindals of the party will eventually sound more and more like Chris Christie's, who will lead the future of the party. Ryan seems to have moderated too since the election. But the Santorums, the Bachmans, the McCains, and the rest of the loons will fade into insignifigance as time continues. Fortunately, that same rule will continue to apply to the Real Housewife of Wacilla.

I know yours is a common viewpoint but I somewhat disagree with it. I think Obama has successfully courted the center and being a popular President, has incumbent's advantage. There's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with what Obama's done, so even though he is not spectacular, there's not much compelling reason to kick him out.

I agree that factionalism does have a role to play - Palin hurt the party quite a bit by exposing this faction. However, I think it was less responsible for Romney's loss than just the fact that Obama is a popular incumbent.

I have to admit I have lingering suspicions of the far right. Still, if not for Bush and Iraq, I would probably still be voting Republican today.

Obama is not great, but IMHO he's done nothing overtly and catastrophically wrong, like what Bush did. That the GOP robbed me of a legitimate ticket in 2008 made me very suspicious of them in 2012. I didn't vote for anyone in 2012.

I like Obama, and I really liked Bush. They are both good men who were doing the best they could with the cards they had been dealt. We often forget that Bush was not elected to be a wartime president, but when confronted with insurmountable challenges, he rose to the occasion. Obama, who was elected during wartime, hasn't sacrificed the good of the American people either.

On the bold, just wow. I think Bush is a great guy but the worst President we've ever had. I wholly disagree that Bush "rose to the occasion". Yes, he prosecuted wars that were ostensibly based on justice, but the way in which he executed on those wars was so bad as to taint the GOP permanently with his stain, IMHO.

It's understandable that most people don't like politicians, but the reasons that most people have stem from moral judgements they have made of political leaders who were forced to choose between bad and worse options. I believe it is unreasonable to condemn a political leader for acting of necessity when he is obliged to do so, simply because to take the alternative would have led to even worse consequences. But people -outside the world of politics- have no idea what really is going on, most of the time, and because they are beginning with a bias towards distrust, assume the worst which (while surely in accordance with human nature), is no more than the manifestation of individual recalcitrance translated into judgement and condemnation from a position of ignorance. But hey, when has that ever stopped anyone from voicing a stupid opinion? Never. Indeed, it is so much easier to sit back and critique than to do.

I agree with this statement, except for the underlined. Bush went against "acting out of necessity". The military told him what was necessary for Iraq, and he ignored it. By doing so, he extended the war well beyond any reasonable duration, without any real tangible gain. Because it dragged out, the war was expensive, CHINA PAID FOR IT. He damaged our credibility by going in unilaterally, and wholly ignored what has always been traditional threats, Russia, China, OPEC. Indeed, his actions are directly responsible for strengthening all three vis a vis the US. He is responsible for the worst foreign policy disaster in the past 100 years.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 6:39:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 6:28:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/27/2013 6:04:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:21:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:14:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:12:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/27/2013 5:09:53 PM, Mirza wrote:
It's easy to say Obama is better than Bush. Obama didn't have to make a difficult decision in terms of interpreting intelligence evidence for WMD's, nor how to target and combat terrorists overseas. Obama just had to put an end to all that. His daughters could do it as well.

I agree that a trained rhino could do a better job than Bush.
Eh, stop being biased toward your own kind Ma'am!

I would have voted for McCain/Romney in 2008. However, I was robbed of this by the religious right.

John McCain is among the worst of the GOP. Romney was a fantastic governor of MA, but betrayed himself when he ran for president. And the religious right is not the real problem. They vote, but the problem was the number of choices they were offered in the primary. The problem is the way the GOP structured their primary in 2012. It gave rise to internal derision within the party and legitimized a branch of the party once considered to be on the fringe, making way for an Obama re-election. Romney tried to appeal to that fringe, but did not realize that doing so would cost him the majority of the American public. This is the lesson os 2012, and that factionalism -I predict- will keep the party out of power for the next few elections, which is actually probably a good thing. I think it will regroup because the Rubios and the Jindals of the party will eventually sound more and more like Chris Christie's, who will lead the future of the party. Ryan seems to have moderated too since the election. But the Santorums, the Bachmans, the McCains, and the rest of the loons will fade into insignifigance as time continues. Fortunately, that same rule will continue to apply to the Real Housewife of Wacilla.

I know yours is a common viewpoint but I somewhat disagree with it. I think Obama has successfully courted the center and being a popular President, has incumbent's advantage. There's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with what Obama's done, so even though he is not spectacular, there's not much compelling reason to kick him out.

That's the other half of the story, indeed. I didn't mean to phrase it as a choice between one narrative or the other. Both contributed, although I like most of what Obama has done.

I agree that factionalism does have a role to play - Palin hurt the party quite a bit by exposing this faction.

McCain/Palin in 08 gave rise to it, then it festered for four years, and came to fruition in the GOP primary in 2012.

I have to admit I have lingering suspicions of the far right. Still, if not for Bush and Iraq, I would probably still be voting Republican today.

I used to be an ardent Republican and I still agree with the Bush-era GOP platform on most things that are not social issues or educational policy. I liked Romney too, until he picked Paul Ryan and started courting an electorate of white trash.

Obama is not great, but IMHO he's done nothing overtly and catastrophically wrong, like what Bush did. That the GOP robbed me of a legitimate ticket in 2008 made me very suspicious of them in 2012. I didn't vote for anyone in 2012.

I like Obama, and I really liked Bush. They are both good men who were doing the best they could with the cards they had been dealt. We often forget that Bush was not elected to be a wartime president, but when confronted with insurmountable challenges, he rose to the occasion. Obama, who was elected during wartime, hasn't sacrificed the good of the American people either.

On the bold, just wow. I think Bush is a great guy but the worst President we've ever had. I wholly disagree that Bush "rose to the occasion". Yes, he prosecuted wars that were ostensibly based on justice, but the way in which he executed on those wars was so bad as to taint the GOP permanently with his stain, IMHO.

Is your issue that it was a preemptive war?

It's understandable that most people don't like politicians, but the reasons that most people have stem from moral judgements they have made of political leaders who were forced to choose between bad and worse options. I believe it is unreasonable to condemn a political leader for acting of necessity when he is obliged to do so, simply because to take the alternative would have led to even worse consequences. But people -outside the world of politics- have no idea what really is going on, most of the time, and because they are beginning with a bias towards distrust, assume the worst which (while surely in accordance with human nature), is no more than the manifestation of individual recalcitrance translated into judgement and condemnation from a position of ignorance. But hey, when has that ever stopped anyone from voicing a stupid opinion? Never. Indeed, it is so much easier to sit back and critique than to do.

I agree with this statement, except for the underlined. Bush went against "acting out of necessity".

Not really, and it was not as if Bush unilaterally stood against all advice from his armed forces.

The military told him what was necessary for Iraq, and he ignored it. By doing so, he extended the war well beyond any reasonable duration, without any real tangible gain. Because it dragged out, the war was expensive, CHINA PAID FOR IT.

That's not really true either. We borrow from China, but the idea that it was Chinese money which financed our Iraqi and Afghani efforts is a myth.

He damaged our credibility by going in unilaterally, and wholly ignored what has always been traditional threats, Russia, China, OPEC. Indeed, his actions are directly responsible for strengthening all three vis a vis the US. He is responsible for the worst foreign policy disaster in the past 100 years.

That's not true either. Russia and China both agreed to assist the US in various ways in response of 9/11. The world was on the side of the US until 2003. We often forget that. The invasion of Iraq was a different situation though, though still necessary.

And really, Vietnam was the worst foreign policy disaster in the past 100 years, and that I blame on Nixon.
Tsar of DDO