Bush's Place in History.

[Belgarold]

An investigation of Bush, Cheney, and Rove would take the pressure historically off B. Clayton, JFK, and the rest of the the over sexed politicians but it would do nothing to promote the country. Demonstrates have 4 years to save the country from the Bush influence. They need all the support they can muster up so why don't you do the responsible thing and forget about revenge. The Democrats did lose to Bush in 1990 and 1994. did they not? It is over. Democrats need to get over it too.

It is far from over, there is a lot to get the country back to the true America. Habeas Corpus needs to be reinstated. Bush instituted a lot of Executive Orders and signing statements that took away much needed regulation and civil rights of real Americans. It is NOT over. The Republicans of course want Americans to forget. But they want one party rule, to take away the separation between Church and State and other marks of an UnAmerican way of governing.

And Bush was given the presidency by the Supreme COurt in 2000 NOT 1990.

[wmrs2]

It is far from over, there is a lot to get the country back to the true America. Habeas Corpus needs to be reinstated. Bush instituted a lot of Executive Orders and signing statements that took away much needed regulation and civil rights of real Americans. It is NOT over. The Republicans of course want Americans to forget. But they want one party rule, to take away the separation between Church and State and other marks of an UnAmerican way of governing.

And Bush was given the presidency by the Supreme COurt in 2000 NOT 1990.

In the future people will lough at the effort to reinstate the mythical loss of Habeas Corpus and other American freedoms when not one person has been prosecuted or mistreated by the added protection given to the country by the actions Pres. Bush has taken to protect the country during a time of war. What did you expect Bush to do? You can not open the door wide for terrorist to walk right in. They have shown us what they will do. Be specific, what freedoms do you want reinstated?

[Belgarold]

In the future people will lough at the effort to reinstate the mythical loss of Habeas Corpus and other American freedoms when not one person has been prosecuted or mistreated by the added protection given to the country by the actions Pres. Bush has taken to protect the country during a time of war. What did you expect Bush to do? You can not open the door wide for terrorist to walk right in. They have shown us what they will do. Be specific, what freedoms do you want reinstated?

Just want it stated that the above is simply your opinion as well. It does not bear up to the facts that are still coming out. So just be aware, the info you posted to Thorne bear true for you as well. Just an opinion.

And I would like privacy rules reinstated, It has been proven that the collection of data from phone calls was NOT just for Terrorist phone calls, it was EVERYBODY's phone calls.

And I don't know, we could start by reinstating Habeas Corpus, your Opinion does not bear up to scrutiny. And we could start by re-instating the Bill of Rights. You remember the Bill of Rights don't you. It is for ALL Americans, the right to a speedy trial, to face your accusers, etc. etc.

[DuncanONeil]

Habeas Corpus was never eliminated!
Please to show me where the separation of Church and State resides?

[MMI]

If you want to know what the Establishment in Britain thinks about anything, you won't do much better than to consult The Times.

But that paper is representative of no other significant group, although it is the Establishment that has the power and the influence, so what it thinks is obviously important when considering Anglo-American matters.

Otherwise, I'm surprised Americans could give tuppence for what we thought.

(The rest of Britain probably holds a harsher opinion about Bush, btw.)

[Thorne]

Otherwise, I'm surprised Americans could give tuppence for what we thought.

Maybe a ha'penny!

But we should be interested in what you think. As the saying goes, keep your friends close.

And your enemies closer!

[DuncanONeil]

If you want to know what the Establishment in Britain thinks about anything, you won't do much better than to consult The Times.

But that paper is representative of no other significant group, although it is the Establishment that has the power and the influence, so what it thinks is obviously important when considering Anglo-American matters.

Otherwise, I'm surprised Americans could give tuppence for what we thought.

(The rest of Britain probably holds a harsher opinion about Bush, btw.)

Keep the discussion on topic.

Diablo

[DuncanONeil]

Keep the discussion on topic.

Diablo

Why is this attributed to me?

[denuseri]

I am also not going to delve into Clinton (the president who popularized being crooked and not just over a blowjob eaither btw far worse things went on and IMHO is not all that different from GW Bush two sides of the same dirty coin at any rate).

I would deffinetly suggest another thread for him too. lol

IMHO if a "Bush" was to be in the White House other than Bush Senior (who was very cualified administrativly speaking for the position in many ways that none of the men who have followed after him ever were) it should have been Jeb Bush. My father called me at work and honestly confessed to doing a WTF kind of double take and threw the F bomb around the house a few times when he heard GW was running instead of Jeb.

Later when I studdied things more closely (becuase honestly I was not all that much into politics back then unless its was somthing big deal like `despite my daddy wishing me to be) I could never understand why GW was chosen over his much more competant brother eaither.

When I voted for the first time in a presidential election (I was registered democrat back then just to spite my parents) I voted for Bush. Not to fault Gore all that much but he was boreing and wodden and I didnt like his economics, eaither way sometimes I think the patrician powers decide how its going to be before hand depite whatever we plebs decide in an election.

By the time the second presidential bid came up I was much more knowledgable about such things and I voted for Kerry as an informed desicion and not just another cog in the party wheel (despite my having changed to the republican party lol damm I am contrary). Informed in so much as I just wanted allmost anyone else to replace GW, even if I didnt like some things about the new person.

I really believe GW Bush let things slide with the economy too much as well as giving in to the masications of Chenney. I think he was manipulated to a certian degree by opportunistic advisors, elitist entitlment and his own pride. He didnt make the same kind of sacrifice his father did to obtain his office by hard work and comitment. Spoiled and petulent like most offspring of the upper crust he made many many mistakes.

The attitude prevelant in administrations such as his and Clintons before him (similar backgrounds in many ways coming from pampered elitest society) has allways been one of "I can do what ever I want becuase I am the big cheese and therefore not to be questioned" .Typical of many an Anthenian tyrant during the heydays of that fledgling democracy summed up very well in a paraphrased quote from Xenophon:

" Kill one man and you are tried as a murderer, kill a thousand and you are hailed as a victor."

In other words, I don't believe GW, his imediate predessesor, nor his replacement ever has really had anyone but his own best intrests in mind.

[DuncanONeil]

I am also not going to delve into Clinton (the president who popularized being crooked and not just over a blowjob eaither btw far worse things went on and IMHO is not all that different from GW Bush two sides of the same dirty coin at any rate).

I would deffinetly suggest another thread for him too. lol

IMHO if a "Bush" was to be in the White House other than Bush Senior (who was very cualified administrativly speaking for the position in many ways that none of the men who have followed after him ever were) it should have been Jeb Bush. My father called me at work and honestly confessed to doing a WTF kind of double take and threw the F bomb around the house a few times when he heard GW was running instead of Jeb.

Later when I studdied things more closely (becuase honestly I was not all that much into politics back then unless its was somthing big deal like `despite my daddy wishing me to be) I could never understand why GW was chosen over his much more competant brother eaither.

When I voted for the first time in a presidential election (I was registered democrat back then just to spite my parents) I voted for Bush. Not to fault Gore all that much but he was boreing and wodden and I didnt like his economics, eaither way sometimes I think the patrician powers decide how its going to be before hand depite whatever we plebs decide in an election.

By the time the second presidential bid came up I was much more knowledgable about such things and I voted for Kerry as an informed desicion and not just another cog in the party wheel (despite my having changed to the republican party lol damm I am contrary). Informed in so much as I just wanted allmost anyone else to replace GW, even if I didnt like some things about the new person.

I really believe GW Bush let things slide with the economy too much as well as giving in to the masications of Chenney. I think he was manipulated to a certian degree by opportunistic advisors, elitist entitlment and his own pride. He didnt make the same kind of sacrifice his father did to obtain his office by hard work and comitment. Spoiled and petulent like most offspring of the upper crust he made many many mistakes.

The attitude prevelant in administrations such as his and Clintons before him (similar backgrounds in many ways coming from pampered elitest society) has allways been one of "I can do what ever I want becuase I am the big cheese and therefore not to be questioned" .Typical of many an Anthenian tyrant during the heydays of that fledgling democracy summed up very well in a paraphrased quote from Xenophon:

" Kill one man and you are tried as a murderer, kill a thousand and you are hailed as a victor."

In other words, I don't believe GW, his imediate predessesor, nor his replacement ever has really had anyone but his own best intrests in mind.

Not to knock your decision to vote for Kerry, it is your choice after all. But the available data, provided by Kerry himself, proved quite clearly that he was not qualified for the job.

[Diablo]

Keep the discussion civil or it will be closed.

[mkemse]

The easiest way to take Al Quaida out, and most ( Tee Leader Of Pakastan ect) feel Bib Laden is hiding in the Tora Bora Mountains is send in bombers and Flatten that whole region, distroy the mountains and surrounding area and as far as those who say "We can't there will be too much Colleteral Damage" yes there will be, but there tremous collateral Dameage on 911
In any war their will be civilian deaths no way to avoid that, if you level that mountain area it won't take Al Quaida out 100% but it will certain severly hamper theirr efforts

[mkemse]

I do not recall which one it was right off hand, but one of our Presidents back in the 180''s wasrankedas the worst ever, I believei t was Harding not sure
You are coorect, Buah was a puppet to Cheney and Rove, cheeny made decisons not Bush
But I still feel Bush's legacy will be genenrations down the road and will be based on his Foriegn Policy Failures
And remember, Bush was NOT elected to but 1 term his first trerm was gievn to him by the Supremem Court not by voters, and to the best of my knowledged and feel free to correct me ifi am wrong, he won hissecond term becuase no President I recall in History was ever voted out while we were at War
Interstingly enough someone asked me the other Day how I now compare Obama to Bush, simple "Bush was in office for 8 years, Obama just barely 1 month, way, way to early to judge Obama

[DuncanONeil]

"Bush was NOT elected to but 1 term his first trerm was gievn to him by the Supremem Court not by voters"

Does that not really count as just an opinion? The election went to Bush and the Dems demanded a recount. They had several, all recounts had the same outcome -- Bush. The Supremes became involved because the Dems could not accept to inevitable.

Add to that the fact that the recount was a restricted effort, in traditional Dem counties. And a number of absentees were probibited from being counted.

Sorry can not agree that the election was not the will of the people.

[mkemse]

Question, if Bush's Legacy was Great and is Considered by Some to have been a Great Prsident, and John McCain was going to follow in his footsteps Policy wise on most, not all but most issues, then why was McCain trounced last November in the elction? the elction was not even close

[wmrs2]

Question, if Bush's Legacy was Great and is Considered by Some to have been a Great Prsident, and John McCain was going to follow in his footsteps Policy wise on most, not all but most issues, then why was McCain trounced last November in the elction? the elction was not even close

The answer is simple. But, it will not make you feel better. The liberal press elected Obama and the bad economy hurt the Republicans too. These facts do not make either candidate better but the liberals are now on the scales of judgment. Let's see if they can deliver better than their last representatives have delivered. Don't forget Congress is Democratic and has a historically low approval rating. Tell me, how are you fellers going to improve this image and legacy?

[mkemse]

The answer is simple. But, it will not make you feel better. The liberal press elected Obama and the bad economy hurt the Republicans too. These facts do not make either candidate better but the liberals are now on the scales of judgment. Let's see if they can deliver better than their last representatives have delivered. Don't forget Congress is Democratic and has a historically low approval rating. Tell me, how are you fellers going to improve this image and legacy?

!st Welcome back 2nd who Legacy & Image??

Interestingly enough I read a CBS Interview with William F Buckely Jr shortly before his death and he was asked what George Bush's Legacy would be, his reply "He won't have one, he didn't do anything worth having a Legacy For, intresting comment from an conservative lke Buckely, I was even shocked t read it
I might also add, his Son an ultra Conservative, more to the right of his Father said "I am voting For Obama, 8 years of Bush Policies is enough, even for me
So much for some well know Ulra Conservartives voting Republcan in 2008

Th Liberal Press did not elect him the voters of America elected him, voters vote based on what a Candidate stands for not on what the media says, i have a bunch of very conservative Repubublican friends who would never, ever vote Democratic but they all said "8 years of Bush Politics is enough, no I will not vote for McCain"

Lets see, remember Obama has only been in office 4 weeks can't do a whole lot in that time, NO President regardless of Party Afflitations can
The reality is upon reading many, many articles online is most political insiders and pundent say his real legacy won't be know for years to come

But as I said welcome back despte our differences plus we areway off the topic, sorry about that

[Thorne]

voters vote based on what a Candidate stands for not on what the media says

What world does this happen in? Certainly not this one!

Edit: I should point out that I am not impugning all voters. Certainly many people, perhaps even most, will vote their conscience and base their decisions on issues. But many voters, far too many in my opinion, will base their decisions on party lines and/or media bias, whether liberal or conservative. It's easier to believe that a celebrity/talkshow host/columnist is always right than it is to research the issues and come to your own decision.

[DuncanONeil]

"But many voters, far too many in my opinion, will base their decisions on party lines and/or media bias, whether liberal or conservative."

That is why those voters are referred to as the base. All campaigning is directed at those that are in the camp of undecided.

[Belgarold]

The answer is simple. But, it will not make you feel better. The liberal press elected Obama and the bad economy hurt the Republicans too. These facts do not make either candidate better but the liberals are now on the scales of judgment. Let's see if they can deliver better than their last representatives have delivered. Don't forget Congress is Democratic and has a historically low approval rating. Tell me, how are you fellers going to improve this image and legacy?

I think it is amazingly hypocritical that Republicans tend to forget they ahd the Congress for six of Bush's administration and the Democratic Party was not in major control of either the House or Senate. It is amusing that the GOP has such little faith in the intelligence of the American Public that they think we don't notice that it was Republicans that took the budget surplus and built a bigger government than Clinton had.

It was a Republican Congress that built in so much Pork and earmarks and let corporations write legislation of their own companies.

But the polls should show these corrupt politicians that they can't get away with their lies anymore. The public is behind the President. And Congress, Democratic AND Republican is at an all-time low. You can't fool all the people all the time as the GOP believes.

[DuncanONeil]

I do believe that the Dems had enough votes to prevent closure. Which power they used regularly and repeatedly to obstruct. Precisely because they did not have the power.

[DuncanONeil]

McCains opponent was a better speechifier!

[mkemse]

McCains opponent was a better speechifier!

There are wsome who say that his choice of sara palin, not as a women bur who she s and what she represents cost him the lection, as well as 8 years of Bush, after his failures peole apparently decided enough waenough h was going to conitnu on Bush's path, Obama won the elctroal count which pt him into office no matte how old that system is by almost a 3-1 margin, that has to mean something
The Media does not elect Presidents, voters do an duing th campaign and debates people got to see who each candidate was,what they stood for and obvioulsy decide that 8 years of Republican Rule was enough

Also most Republicans who ran for ant ofice, be it the House, or Senate were non to eager to have Bush Appear with him, and i didnot see Bush activly campagining for McCain, yes he endorsed him with McCain at the White House, but one would excpet a same party Prsident to endorse the Candate of his Party for President, i never saw Bush on the trail with McCain if he was it was very lmited appaerances

whatthis Country needs to do, whether it happens or not is another question is abolish the electral college and elect the Prsident based soely on Popular vote, as i said the electroal college is old, outdated ect, byt the current realuity is that you need thos votes to win the White House what you get Popular vote wise means nothing right now,

[DuncanONeil]

Obama won the elctroal count which pt him into office no matte how old that system is by almost a 3-1 margin, that has to mean something

Actually there is not much store one can put in the margin in the College. You do realize that the college exists because the founders did not think the people would be able to decide on their own?

The Media does not elect Presidents, voters do

True the people cast the ballots but that cast is, in my opinion, unduly influenced by the choices the media makes.

whatthis Country needs to do, whether it happens or not is another question is abolish the electral college and elect the Prsident based soely on Popular vote,

As much as I think the reason for the College is a poor one I am not sure that relying solely on the popular vote would be much better. The last three major elections were all essentially dead heats with one of them ending in court and another nearly so. Do you really think that is a better solution?

as i said the electroal college is old, outdated ect, byt the current realuity is that you need thos votes to win the White House what you get Popular vote wise means nothing right now,

Do you understand how the College works? Delegates to the College are selected from the states. They are pledged to vote in the College to mirror the election outcome in the State. All votes in the College go to the winner of the State even if that margin of win was one vote

[mkemse]

just for the records James Buckanan is viewed as the worst President ever followed very closley by Warren G Harding and as many have said it is too early to pass real judgement og Bush
But Bush was able to take the $365 Billion Dollar Surplus let by Bill Clinton and turn it into a defect faster then any President in History,, and least we forget he had by far and away took more vacation time at camp David ect then any President ever has

[wmrs2]

just for the records James Buckanan is viewed as the worst President ever followed very closley by Warren G Harding and as many have said it is too early to pass real judgement og Bush
But Bush was able to take the $365 Billion Dollar Surplus let by Bill Clinton and turn it into a defect faster then any President in History,, and least we forget he had by far and away took more vacation time at camp David ect then any President ever has

Was not the so called surplus a projection only? It never accumulated did it?

[Belgarold]

Was not the so called surplus a projection only? It never accumulated did it?

There WAS a surplus.

[DuncanONeil]

Figures in the 2008 Federal Budget report that at the end of 2001 there was a surplus of $128.2 million. Followed by a deficit of $157.8 million in 2002.
The same study projects a surplus of $61 million by 2012. Now were I cynical does that not mean that President Obama's pledge to cut the deficit to $500 million mean that he will be taking a projected surplus of $61 million down to a deficit of $500 million, an increase of $561 million?

[DuncanONeil]

Various studies agree that Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson, were the worst. Only three studies include G. W. Bush. The rank him from a high of 18 and a low of 36, far from the worst.

One can not speak to surplus and deficit as a measure of Presidential effectiveness as it is a one year figure. People seem to want to discount that the country has been on a war footing since 2003.

[Belgarold]

The whole liberal media bias myth has been debunked as well. One of the many citations for this is:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

And I propose that for the last eight years there has been a decidedly CONSERVATIVE and BUSHIAN bias to the news. And Bush had his affect on free speech as well. Another of the Bill of Rights issues that needs to be looked into.