Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on October 14, 2004, 09:38:08 PM
-
Bush is going to win this next election big, then will go down in history as one of our best Presidents.
It might be hard for some people to recognize it now, but I see very clearly. I cannot remember a President in recent history, other than Reagan, who has had such solid and clear convictions right down to the core of his being. He is willing and able to make tough and correct choices for America regardless of the "polling data" he recieves.
I believe most Americans like the leadership and character seen in Bush and that's why Bush will defeat Kerry easily.
And the bigger picture is more important than the petty issues of gay marriage, income tax, stem cells, deficit and on and on. History will judge Bush on his leadership and action following 911 and that's a fact.
And Iraq will be a HUGE feather in his cap in the future. 30 years from now, when Iraq has been free and prosperous for decades, people will look at Bush as the leader who made it happen.
And people will view the bigger picture then. I see Bush as going down as someone who was right regarding almost every big issue we face today. The Iraq war was a correct decision and he will be regarded as someone with the courage to pull it off.
Bush is a more important a President than people realise.
-
Historians, a decade from now and decades from now, will characterize Bush's Presidency as the worst.
So bad in fact, that it will be a benchmark unbeaten centuries from now.
-
Nash, how so? Examples?
-
Examples? Come on...
-
Nash, yeah ...examples. Give me YOUR reasons for saying that.
I gave you MY reasons.
It's easy to make a flippant, extraordinary satement like you have made and then walk away.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Historians, a decade from now and decades from now, will characterize Bush's Presidency as the worst.
So bad in fact, that it will be a benchmark unbeaten centuries from now.
so he'll be americas king john: he may have built roads, caused the root of all western constitution, and got beaten by a fictional longbowman. but he was the worst king ever, and the name john is delegated to the ****ter.
excuse me sir, could you spare some george? my nose is running.
-
Lookit Nuke... I have been giving examples for his entire Presidency.
They obviously didn't register to you, or you wouldn't be asking me for them again.
So why bother?
-
He's got you there, Mr. Nash. Put up or walk away.
-
I have not seen it Nash. Be nice and take a second to write a small paragraph explaining why you feel Bush will be regarded as the worst President ever for centuries.
It only would take you a few seconds to list something.
-
Oh, Dear, now Mr. Nash has resorted to the, "haven't you bean paying attention?" ploy. The fact is, Mr. Nash, you made a specific statement, now back it up.
-
http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html
-
Oh Liz? You were one of the guys who were trying to convince me of Bush's alter reptilian side. Why don't you put up there in that thread, Freud.
If you wanna see what I think of Bush and why, there is the search button. The reasons won't be hard to find.
And I have summarized them repeatedly... in direct and repeated questions identical to this one.
But they STILL they keep asking.
"Put up or shut up?"
shreck that... Open yer ears.
-
Yeah Nash lets hear it, put up or shutup. :aok
-
Originally posted by Nash
And I have summarized them repeatedly... in direct and repeated questions identical to this one.
But they STILL they keep asking.
"Put up or shut up?"
shreck that... Open yer ears.
Nash, you replied to my thread with an amazing claim; that Bush would be regarded as the worst President for centuries. If you had made your points before, why reply to this thread? And, this thread was not a question posed to YOU, it was a statement made by ME.
You come here and make a statement, I expect you to back it up with your words.
-
OK, mr. Nash. You are very good at spouting opinons, but a bit loose on the factual side. Carry on.
-
WOW, this might be a first, someone has been called out on the boards and didnt even come up with a response. Nash at least make something up or bull**** something real good. In all the posts ive read whenever someone is called out at least they come back with something, your response about posting in previous threads sounds like something I would have heard in a presidential debate this year. Just a whole lot of yappin with nothing to back it up.
-
"
And I have summarized them repeatedly... in direct and repeated questions identical to this one. "
therefore it shouldent be to hard for you to dig them back up and repost them, will save a lot of unneeded hastle anyway.
-
Hey Liz....
I aint shying away from the so-called "factual side". Yeah, I spout opinions, we all got 'em.
But I am far from "LANDSLIDE LOL"...
Like I said, if you have a prollem with anything I've said - say so. Point me at it. But so far... you want me to repeat myself for the gazillionth time. About.... who knows what? I am not your mom.
I'm left trying to figure out just what the hell you're trying to say here.
-
Ok lets see.
Fact Iraq is a small nation is a large arabic world that has most dictatorships that will not stand the values of america.
Fact you have european countries that have proven that they are war machines choose to not help. Maybe a sign of hatred?
Now for Mr. Kerry.
Can't throw a football.
That is all i needed.
If i were to voted id vote independent.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hey Liz....
I aint shying away from the so-called "factual side". Yeah, I spout opinions, we all got 'em.
But I am far from "LANDSLIDE LOL"...
Like I said, if you have a prollem with anything I've said - say so. Point me at it. But so far... you want me to repeat myself for the gazillionth time. I am not your mom.
I'm left trying to figure out just what the hell you're trying to say here.
Nash, in all honesty, you are just looking silly and making dumb excuses.
How hard would it be for you to type a few sentences of your thoughts in order to back up your statements? Let it all hang out brother!
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, in all honesty, you are just looking silly and making dumb excuses.
How hard would it be for you to type a few sentences of your thoughts in order to back up your statements? Let it all hang out brother!
OH SNAP, whatcha gonna do when they come for you.
-
RTSuka, you remind me of one of those frail kids who used to stand on the edge of a ring during a fight, shouting "blood!", and flinching every time the bodies landed anywhere near ya.
-
Originally posted by Nash
RTSuka, you remind me of one of those frail kids who used to stand on the edge of a ring during a fight, shouting "blood!", and flinching every time the bodies landed anywhere near ya.
HAHA oh thats good, first of all I never make a statement with out backing it up, if I ever get called I at least defend my position. I dont just stand there and try to say "oh oh oh look I said it before, its your fault that I dont have anything to say right now".
But besides all that I come too these boards for some good convo and fun, I dont take things seriously, so when this topic started to get off topic I decided to just post some comments that might make someone smile after a long hard day, I mean jesus you would think this if a life or death matter to some people on here.
P.S.- I never flinch :aok
-
Historians, a decade from now and decades from now, will characterize Bush's Presidency as the worst.
Big words, explain them in depth, or preface it with "In my opinion".
-
Originally posted by RTStuka
HAHA oh thats good, first of all I never make a statement with out backing it up, if I ever get called I at least defend my position. I dont just stand there and try to say "oh oh oh look I said it before, its your fault that I dont have anything to say right now".
But besides all that I come too these boards for some good convo and fun, I dont take things seriously, so when this topic started to get off topic I decided to just post some comments that might make someone smile after a long hard day, I mean jesus you would think this if a life or death matter to some people on here.
P.S.- I never flinch :aok
EDIT: Oh and dont try to jump on me just because your looking like an bellybutton in this thread right now.
-
Nash, if you are honest you will admit that you cannot list anything that would back up your idea that Bush is the worst President we have had and will be regarded as such for centuries.
I'm not trying to slam you, just want a reasonable statement to back up your claim.
-
Okay Liz... I sure will, again....
After you join my thread (hopefully with Holden) and discuss how you could have been so completely wrong about what you led me to believe wrt how Bush would perform during the debates.
Ya see... You aren't exempt from having "an opinion". Yet you want to be exempt from backing your opinion up. And while you avoid that one, you come here demanding that I don't avoid this one. Why I think history will regard Bush as a tool. You could fill a book with the variety of ways I've expressed Bush's toolness over the years. It's there.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Okay Liz... I sure will, again....
After you join my thread (hopefully with Holden) and discuss how you could have been so completely wrong about what you led me to believe wrt how Bush would perform during the debates.
Nash, what about THIS thread and MY asking you to back it up? What does Liz have to do with your participation and statements in this thread?
It's really simple...just back up your claim and be honest.....it will cleanse your soul.
-
Nuke, do people like you and Grun even realize how many times you have asked me to repeat myself?
Even after I have been asked and then went on to repeat myself?
Then get asked again?
It's become a bit of a joke.... sorry to say.
I'm totally down with the fact that after I repeat myself here once again, you will ask for it in another three weeks. Sorry for not taking this as seriously as you. But you need to get over your amnesia.
-
Nash, I never asked you to repeat yourself. I didn't ask you to enter this thread either, but when you did, you made a statement that you are not able to back up.
All I ask is that you explain your statements in this thread.
I would NEVER be hesitant to offer my ideas behind any statements I have made.
Let's here it Nash.
-
Nash, to me your generalization is just that. Also, it again reminds me that you don't appear to know as much about US history as you think you do.
We've had some totally bad Presidents. IMO, it's unlikely that Bush will ever be perceived as the worst, given some of his predecessors.
Beyond that, he had some pretty fine moments after 9/11 that are going to mitigate against "worst".
Further, it's WAY to early to really see Iraq in what will become it's true perspective. If it really does jumpstart democracy in the Middle East, Bush will certainly not fit the "worst" category. Au contraire, he'll probably get the "visionary" label like Nixon got for "opening up China".
To sum up....... I don't think it's wise of you to try to write history before it happens. At least don't chisel out the text in stone yet.
-
Okay... lemme think...
In four years, Bush has created the worst economy there has been in the 70 years.
In 4 years, Bush has created an entirely unneccessary war that will last for 70 years.
Uhm... yeah.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Historians, a decade from now and decades from now, will characterize Bush's Presidency as the worst.
So bad in fact, that it will be a benchmark unbeaten centuries from now.
i dont know if historians will. they tend to be better analyst and take as many fact into account as possible. like most historian will say that nixon was stupid to get involved in watergate which is true but they will also mention he very good with foreign relations and use him breaking the ice with china as example. im sure there are groups that will forever curse bush as a disaster. just like some still see regan in "the light of their own little reality". also things known only to a few dozen people will be common knolwedge thirty years or more from now. things that will almost certainly cause historians to see things differently than your average political creature living in the moment.
-
Two assumptions......... by you......... that certainly aren't proven.
First of all, there is evidence that Bush inherited an economy in recession. There is evidence that it turned around quicker than usual. Further there is always continual disagreement over whether any President really controls the economy given the wide range of influences and factors beyond his control.
Second, there you go again writing the future history of Iraq. It's pretty ludicrous to see you do it because I know you're smarter than that.
However, I'm used to it; it's been your way of debate/argument since your return.
In short, those two things are just unproven BS assumptions on your part.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Okay... lemme think...
In four years, Bush has created the worst economy there has been in the 70 years.
In 4 years, Bush has created an entirely unneccessary war that will last for 70 years.
Uhm... yeah.
were do you get a seventy year war from? what makes you think it will be seventy years? surely when us is gone from iraq and they are sovereign nation recognized by un in less than ten years with un overseeing some election if other country attack iraq for no reason the un will step in before fifty years has gone by.
-
War in the middle east has been going on for much longer than a mere 70 years Nash. Hey, Bush may finally win "The Crusade".
-
Originally posted by Toad
Two assumptions......... by you......... that certainly aren't proven.
First of all, there is evidence that Bush inherited an economy in recession. There is evidence that it turned around quicker than usual. Further there is always continual disagreement over whether Presidents really control the economy given the wide range of influences and factors beyond his control.
Second, there you go again writing the future history of Iraq. It's pretty ludicrous to see you do it because I know you're smarter than that.
However, I'm used to it; it's been your way of debate/argument since your return.
In short, those two things are just unproven BS assumptions on your part.
he just plays fast and loose with serious terms. he says "war" he either dont understand that almost no nation in existence today could afford to wage war for fifty years straight. if he meant the insurgency i think hes wrong and doesnt understand how important local support is to staying power of insurgency.
-
It's just Nash trying to get you to agree to his definition of the argument. It makes debate a whole lot easier if your opponent falls into the trap and swallows your fallacies whole.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
War in the middle east has been going on for much longer than a mere 70 years Nash. Hey, Bush may finally win "The Crusade".
id say there hasnt been long period of total peace in middle east for longer than seventy years. but no two nations have been at war for seventy years consistently.
-
Nash is a good guy and he has some interesting insights imo. I just wish he would use a little more logic and a little less emotion when trying to argue a point.
-
Nuke - I win this debate and you lose.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash is a good guy and he has some interesting insights imo. I just wish he would use a little more logic and a little less emotion when trying to argue a point.
whos arguing? discussion not argument and emotion means zilch in discussion. arguing is bad term. its not long anyone is going to lose sleep at night because nash thinks current cic is a failure. just like no guy from france is going to actually be upset because they see some american say he doesnt like frances stance on iraq.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nuke - I win this debate and you lose.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nuke - I win this debate and you lose.
thats a bold statement considering the extent to which you may have to answer for a poor prediction typed here twenty years from now. :rolleyes:
-
I think Nash is just bored. He hasn't gone on his Friday Night Fishing trip in quite a while.
-
Well, I kinda agree with Nash here. I dont know if he will be remembered as one of the worst , but I think NUKE is way off base, and was obviousy trying to get a reaction. As was Nash :)
For now I'll just throw out that he has managed to significantly alienate the US in a time when we should be coming together to face the global threat of terrorism. Perhaps its just me, but I cant seem to remember a time when so many countries seem to be anti-US. I see a lot of it here in Canada which I think is stupid, as we are so similar. Now you may be thinking, well *&^% those other countries, we dont care what they think of us, but I dont think that type of thinking will get you far. You can be on an island for only so long. Unfortunately, it seems to be the attitude of the current president. Perhaps he will change his ways if he wins, but I dont see it. Try to refrain from comments like "tough times call for tough decisions" etc. as I think he has gone much farther than was necessary.
There are many other things on the list of things George has not done well, but I'd be happy to stick with his record on world opinion for now. Nash, I've never seen you back away from a good discussion.
PS- Kerry dosent look great either.
-
:)
Seriously though...
Y'all act as if I'm the only one who types at this board with an opinion. And your typing is fact.
I have made a complete arse of myself multitudes of times saying why I think Bush is a joke. And when I use the word "joke" when referring to a President whose role I respect highly, you gotta know it's bad.
I have expressed in every way imaginable, but not nearly at every opportunity, why I think the guy is a joke. Why I think he will be perceived as such.
I'm just not inspired atm to regurgitate it all.
-
Nash, email my dumb arse on the photo thing ....salamander! :)
-
I win!
goodnight everyone
-
Originally posted by Nash
Okay... lemme think...
In four years, Bush has created the worst economy there has been in the 70 years.
You dont let something small like the facts deter you from giving a good line of BS now do you?
Your listening to entirely too much rhetoric from the democratic party
-
Yeah, Bush is one of the greatest economics I've ever seen :)
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/us_nat_debt.gif)
-
bush is gey
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
Now for Mr. Kerry.
Can't throw a football.
That is all i needed.
Can't catch either :)
<------------look left - 3rd picture :)
-
What a wonderfull little world we live in...
-
LANDSLIDE BUSH!!!!
LOL LOL LOL :)
(http://www.usatoday.com/gallery/debate/17bush.jpg)
-
:D
-
Originally posted by Nash
Historians, a decade from now and decades from now, will characterize Bush's Presidency as the worst.
So bad in fact, that it will be a benchmark unbeaten centuries from now.
I think you should change your handle to bash. That would go a long way toward explaing your views on just about any topic. One would read your opinion, then read your name and come to the conclusion that you suffered catastophic head trauma at some point in your past. Was it with a blunt object? :D
-
Originally posted by Nash
Historians, a decade from now and decades from now, will characterize Bush's Presidency as the worst.
So bad in fact, that it will be a benchmark unbeaten centuries from now.
The same was said about Reagan, what did that get the naysayers, other then looking like fools. :aok
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
great avatar.:aok
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
Can't catch either :)
<------------look left - 3rd picture :)
How do you define the 3rd picture of an endless cycle of picture ?
:p
-
Originally posted by Staga
Yeah, Bush is one of the greatest economics I've ever seen :)
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/us_nat_debt.gif)
looks like it's right were clintons was when he got re-elected. Along with 5.4% un-employment.
Why to go Bush, did all that and fought a war, and sufferd the worst ecnomic hit in 50 years, and terroist attacks.
Thanks for pointing that out.
LANDSLIDE BUSH.:aok
-
Okay Nash, you wanted me in here, so here goes.
Unemployment Rate 5.4% Sept 2004
Inflation 1.9% per Annum, ‘03
Industrial Production Growth 2.3% per Annum, ‘03
Manufacturing Growth 2.6% per Annum, ‘03
Retail Sales and Food Growth 6.4% per Annum, ‘03
Interesting thing about the unemployment number, it does not count a realtor as ‘employed’ as they are commission salesmen, not on a payroll. The self-employed are similarly dismissed if they are not on a payroll. If you are a profit taker instead of a clock puncher, you don’t count.
Unemployment in 1934 was on the order of 25%. Industrial production was shrinking. Banks failed. There have been several recessions since that have seen unemployment reaching 10%, and inflation near 10%. (Remember Carter’s misery index? Added inflation and unemployment rates hovered near 20% in ’75)
Worst economy in 70 years may be a fun thing to say, but it is wrong.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Okay Nash, you wanted me in here, so here goes.
Unemployment Rate 5.4% Sept 2004
Inflation 1.9% per Annum, ‘03
Industrial Production Growth 2.3% per Annum, ‘03
Manufacturing Growth 2.6% per Annum, ‘03
Retail Sales and Food Growth 6.4% per Annum, ‘03
Interesting thing about the unemployment number, it does not count a realtor as ‘employed’ as they are commission salesmen, not on a payroll. The self-employed are similarly dismissed if they are not on a payroll. If you are a profit taker instead of a clock puncher, you don’t count.
Unemployment in 1934 was on the order of 25%. Industrial production was shrinking. Banks failed. There have been several recessions since that have seen unemployment reaching 10%, and inflation near 10%. (Remember Carter’s misery index? Added inflation and unemployment rates hovered near 20% in ’75)
Worst economy in 70 years may be a fun thing to say, but it is wrong.
thank you.
this whole the economyis bad is nothing more then the media controling our perception by the way they report the
news
Here is a study on the issue I posted in another thread .
Free market Project (http://www.freemarketproject.org/specialreports/2004/jobs_study/sr20041014exec_sum.asp)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Okay Nash, you wanted me in here, so here goes.
Unemployment Rate 5.4% Sept 2004
Inflation 1.9% per Annum, ‘03
Industrial Production Growth 2.3% per Annum, ‘03
Manufacturing Growth 2.6% per Annum, ‘03
Retail Sales and Food Growth 6.4% per Annum, ‘03
Nice numbers; Now compare those to the other countries and suddenly they won't look that nice :)
If you search from this UBB you can find a thread where the comparison is done :)
-
he has managed to significantly alienate the US
I totally agree. If Bush had just stayed the course in Afganistan, we would be a hell of a lot better off and Bush would probably be receiving my praise(did I say that?). In a way I hope you're right and democracy does take hold in Iraq and possibly spread to others in that region. Somehow, though, I don't think you're going to be right.
On another note, snce everyone is predicting the future, how about giving me the winning lottery numbers. I'll share the winnings with you, but you'll have to pay the taxes(lol).
;)
-
Originally posted by Staga
Nice numbers; Now compare those to the other countries and suddenly they won't look that nice :)
If you search from this UBB you can find a thread where the comparison is done :)
Cept our economic growth rates are higher then any of the major industirialised nations
Looks nice enough to me
-
I see you guys are equating national debt with the economy again.
How many of you were adults trying to raise kids and trying to buy a house under Carter?
The economy was worse under Carter then anytime in my life, 19% interest rates and all.
You all must be to young to remember the "man in the street economy" under Carter.
Me, I have never made as much as I have under Bush, I build homes and home sales are an all time high, new home ownership is at an all time record.
With all things considered, I think some of you tech bubble losers are sore at the loss of high paying jobs for doing nothing.
I have a hard time getting workers for 20+ an hour and that is for high-school dropouts.
There is no unemployment IMO only folks who what high pay for doing nothing, and whining when they don't get it or people who are unemployable by just about anyone.
About 45% of the people who want a job with my company are unemployable, the drug test gets them or they don’t want to work unless its behind a computer in the AC.
-
OK did any of you click on Torque's link?
nuff said for this argument anyway.
A recent informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion by George Mason University’s History News Network found that eight in ten historians responding rate the current presidency an overall failure. (http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html)
I can't wait till Nov 3rd that is for sure.
-
Originally posted by Scootter
I see you guys are equating national debt with the economy again.
How many of you were adults trying to raise kids and trying to buy a house under Carter?
The economy was worse under Carter then anytime in my life, 19% interest rates and all.
You all must be to young to remember the "man in the street economy" under Carter.
Me, I have never made as much as I have under Bush, I build homes and home sales are an all time high, new home ownership is at an all time record.
With all things considered, I think some of you tech bubble losers are sore at the loss of high paying jobs for doing nothing.
I have a hard time getting workers for 20+ an hour and that is for high-school dropouts.
There is no unemployment IMO only folks who what high pay for doing nothing, and whining when they don't get it or people who are unemployable by just about anyone.
About 45% of the people who want a job with my company are unemployable, the drug test gets them or they don’t want to work unless its behind a computer in the AC.
ding! ding! ding!
Winner!!!!
there is only unemployment for those who want to stay unemployed and that is because the penalty for being unemployed in America is not near as bad as it could be, maybe should be in many cases or is in most other countries
-
Originally posted by Staga
Nice numbers; Now compare those to the other countries and suddenly they won't look that nice :)
If you search from this UBB you can find a thread where the comparison is done :)
I prefer to get my information first hand.
From Eurostat, the EU statistical agency:
Euro-zone1 GDP grew by 0.5% and EU25 GDP by 0.6% in the second quarter of 2004 according to revised estimates out today from Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Communities. In the first quarter of 2004, growth rates were +0.7% for both zones.
In comparison with the same quarter of the previous year, GDP grew by 2.0% in the euro-zone and by 2.4% in the EU25, after +1.4% and +1.7% respectively in the previous quarter.
In the second quarter of 2004 and among the Member States for which data are available, Lithuania recorded the highest growth rate (+2.1%), followed by Poland (+1.5%), the Czech Republic and Portugal (+1.2% each). The lowest growth rates were recorded in Greece (-0.6%) and the Netherlands (-0.1%).
Euro-zone1 seasonally -adjusted unemployment stood at 9.0% in August 2004, unchanged compared to July3, Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Communities, reports today. It was 8.9% in August 2003. The EU25 unemployment rate was also 9.0% in August 2004, unchanged compared to July. It was 9.1% in August 2003.
Fourteen Member States recorded an increase in their unemployment rate over a year and eleven a decrease. The Netherlands (3.8% in July 2003 to 4.8% in July 2004), Luxembourg (3.8% to 4.3%), Sweden (5.7% to 6.2%) and the Czech Republic (8.0% to 8.5%) registered the most important relative increases, while the largest relative decreases were observed in Estonia (10.1% to 8.7%), Lithuania (12.5% to 11.0%) and Slovenia (6.7% to 6.2%).
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Okay Nash, you wanted me in here, so here goes.
Actually, I wanted you in the debates 2004 thread.
Wasn't it with you and Liz that we had a pretty good discussion one night about Bush and his, erhm, hidden but soon to be unshrouded ability to walk into the debates and blow everyone away?
Not a big deal... I'm pretty certain about things, but I'm so often wrong. Doesn't mean much. It'd just be interesting to hear, after the debates finally took place, your perspective on why what happened, happened.
-
"Historians, a decade from now and decades from now, will characterize Bush's Presidency as the worst. "
I dunno about that. Given his achievments, I'd put him on par with McKinley--pretty average, and not especially memorable. McKinley was known for being extremely friendly to big corporations. McKinley also involved the US in a war of aggression against a lesser power under questionable circumstances, which resulted in the US gaining territory in strategic locations. Sound familiar? McKinley is best remebered not for his achievements, but for being assassinated by a man with a strange name.
J_A_B
-
I don't know if anyone remembers Bush's first 8 month's... but, they were notable for their unremarkableness.
Front page news was Bush making a big stink about trying to give money to "faith based" something... And Time Magazine had Powell on its cover saying something along the lines of "The Incredible Shrinking Secretary of State."
I seriously don't think anyone remembers it.
When you come off of an election win, yer supposed to have a mandate. watermelon is supposed to happen.
Bush et al were flailing like fish caught in a net and dumped on the deck of the boat called 'Now what?'
Drifting.... Then, BOOM! Overnight, Bush became a "War President."
But he was the same loser. Only now in the midst of a crisis. Transformed overnight into a loser in the midst of a crisis.
Thrust into something bigger than his brain could comprehend.
And he got used, much like a two-bit dimestore slut... by the members of his own staff.
The staff Bush built with the reasoning that "I don't have to be smart. I can be a dumb shreck. I just have to surround myself with smart people."
Jeeze.... Geedub... if only you could tell the difference.
-
When it comes to the worst president, I think of president Buchanan as the absolute worst. Why?
When confronted with the worst disaster ever to confront the US--then or now--what did he do? He did nothing at all and instead let his successor deal with it. This disaster is, of course, the fracturing of the Union when southern states seceded. The nation literally fell apart under his watch and he just stood idly by. Indeed, in some ways, his actions in the previous years made the problem worse.
What a Loser. Yes, with a capital L.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Nash
I don't know if anyone remembers Bush's first 8 month's... but, they were notable for their unremarkableness.
I think the larger question would be how do those first 8 months compare to other presidents.
I may be wrong on this one but I seem to remember at the time just after 9/11 a discussion on one of the networks examining that exact issue and them coming to the conclusion that despite the way the media was reporting it. Other then the economy which really isnt a fair comparison inasmuch as Clinton enherited an economy that was already on the rise and Bush inherited an economy that was already on the decline.(something neiither has any control over)
It really wasn't a whole lot different then the previous administration.
Other then the way the media reported it