Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Not to give the far left a platform for more anti-administration posts, but lets consider this.  I am hardly a left-winger, and I have in fact supported Bush against many attacks that I feel are just not fair.  One could make a case that he has been as bad as Jimmy Carter was, if not worse.  Here is a list of things that I can think of off the top of my head:

-Wrong in Iraq; he has completely botched the war.  His inability to defend the war has hurt our efforts tremendously

-complete inability to sell his policies or his positions to the public

-completely botched Katrina (I know Nagin and and the Governor were (are) completely incompetent, but Bush was horrible as well). 

-we have a complete fiscal mess (outside of Iraq and the Hurricanes).  He has not vetoed one bill in office; hardly fiscally conservative to any measure.

-made the most offensive, idiotic pick for the Supreme Court we have seen in our lifetime.  The worst part about it being the fact that he was ridiculed for his cronyism only three weeks ago for picking an unqualified person to head FEMA

-refuses to do anything about the border.  The biggest terror threat we have.  He sends young men to war to fight for a war that he says will protect this country, he asks for billions for airport and homeland security, yet he refuses to lift a finger, or even acknowledge, the border.


I know there are many others, and maybe others will think of more.  But those that defend Bush, I would like to see you defend these things.  I am not going to say that he went to war for oil, or that he went to war to get revenge for his father.  I am not going to say that Katrina was all his fault.  And I certainly am not going to say that he has done nothing right.  However, it does seem that he has botched many of the most important things that we have seen recently, outside of the nomination of Roberts, which I praised the President heavily for.


I am not sure if the guy is just flat out incompetent, or if he is just so arrogant that he doesn't care.  You know what the worst part about it is?  I would probably still vote for him over his two previous opponents if I had the choice again.

I liked Jimmy Carter, good man.

Yes, as the comic book guy from the Simpsons would say..."worst President ever."

(CBS News) Poll: Bush Ratings Hit New Low (37%)

(CBS) This CBS News Poll finds an American public increasingly pessimistic about the economy, the war in Iraq, the overall direction of the country, and the President. Americans' outlook for the economy is the worst it has been in four years. Most expect the price of gas to rise even further in the next few months.

A growing number of Americans want U.S. troops to leave Iraq as soon as possible, rather than stay the course, and the highest percentage ever thinks the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq. When given a set of options for paying for rebuilding the hurricane-racked Gulf Coast, only one ? taking money from the Iraq War ? gets majority support.

President George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has reached the lowest ever measured in this poll, and evaluations of his handling of Iraq, the economy and even his signature issue, terrorism, are also at all-time lows. More Americans than at any time since he took office think he does not share their priorities.

The public's concerns affect their view of the state of the country. 69 percent of Americans say things in the U.S. are pretty seriously off on the wrong track ? the highest number since CBS News started asking the question in 1983. Today, just 26 percent say things are going in the right direction.

He is spending money like a drunken sailor and we have a huge deficit now.

The Medicare bill that was a winner for the pharmaceutical companies not the seniors.

The "Clear skies" initiative actually had no regulation of carbon dioxide emission.

Lack of proper armor for the troops.

He is trying to do away with social security.

At what point can you defend him any longer?

The big thing is money. Once people take a hit financially, that is when they start looking for answers. With gas prices causing families to have financial problems, they are starting to ask more questions and want accountability.

Worse.

U should see the price of that stuff over here :nervous:

You have to compare the deficit with the long term growth associated with the spending. This is why Reagan's deficit is relatively small. Don't just look at the absolute value.


The best drugs are expensive. Get over it.


Why should it? C02 is harmless. It's not like sulfur or mercury. It's what we breathe out. Regulating C02 is a waste of time.


Armor gives a false sense of security. It didn't prevent the terrorists from blowing up that amphibious vehicle. Our soldiers did fine without fancy armor back in WWII. If anything, they were more careful without it!


As well as the social security tax. This would be the best thing for our country in a long time.


What's to defend him from? Most Americans approve of Bush. Those polls can be made to say anything. They were probably taken in a liberal slum or somethig.


We have oil in Iraq for the long term future. Accountability usually leads to bureaucracy anyway. It's better just to axe the entire government program in question, like Social Security.

Lol - lets hope his gamble pays off eh?


Especially with a 600% markup.....


You &@*% moron. U have just got no clue. I just can't think of a response for such a stupid point.


Soldiers did fine without it? U mean the 400,000 US soldiers killed?


Yeah long live the dream of the self made man - the poor are just lazy! :nervous:


All of them?

Liberal slum?

 ::)


 :nervous:

Izzy,
   You gotta understand.  Walk talks to hear himself talk.  Walk's a classic "troll", in the sense that Walk says the absolute most "sensational", extreme thing that can be said just to pompt a reaction.  Walk doesn't, it seems, believe 1/2 of what his posts say...and the other 1/2 is usually dripping with sarcasm.

 ;D

IMHO, Bush is the worst president in the modern era....for all the reasons cited above and many, many more.

If a CEO had the kind of record Bush has put together, he'd have been fired by the Board or the company would be in bankruptcy.

Carter is a great man, but was a lousy president. 

Oh i know, i know

I am curious though, where are all of the Bush suppporters?  Tell me where I am wrong.

I voted for Bush the first time around as well as the second time.? I always considered my seld a "Conservative" not a "Republican."? My Father used to tell me that a Republican has never helped the middle class.? Looking back on it now, my Father is right.?

Bush has his own agenda and does not care what anyone thinks.? Bush made the quote at a fundraiser a couple of years ago to a bunch of white collar CEOs and stated "Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."? How can a guy like me in the regular middle class appreciate that statement?

Bu$h is not a conservative.? The spending under his administration is higher than any President proceeding him.? Of course the war in Iraq is bullshit.? We have kids dying everyday.? Look at the regular citizens in Iraq losing their lives and the lives of their children.? Put yourself in their shoes.? I imagine taking my Kid to a restuarant only to lose her in a roadside bomb.

Look at what President Reagan, who was a Republican, said when he was running for election in 1980.? He asked the question "Are you better of now than you were 4 years ago?".? Now ask yourself "Are we better off now than we were 6 years ago?"? I can honestly say that most people would respond no.? I can also can honestly say that I believe that Bu$h is the worst President ever and I believe it will take at least a generation to repair the bridges that were burned with the other countries.

Keep the faith. Tax cuts are always helpful. We're already, right now, having better growth than Europe. When you think of gas prices now, our economy is booming, given the circumstances.


I've worked in a biolab before. The stuff they do is expensive. Every instrument seems to cost a few thousand dollars. It's worth every penny.


Breathe in sulfur dioxide or chlorine and your lungs will burn and melt. C02 only causes climate change over centuries, and man and nature can adapt. Big deal.


Out of 10,000,000+? Aganst the German and Japanese Empires? Our losses were very small compared to the enemy. We knew how to get the job done.


Well, they're more likely to be obese, so it's possible that that's a factor. Most new millionaires are immigrants because they work hard, you know. Self made men built this country.


Polls said Kerry would win. He didn't. They're not worth much these days, if they ever were.


Don't be nervous, unless you live in Europe. The oil peak is going to hit them a lot harder than it's going to hit us. There's always nuclear power, of course, but environmentalists might just get in the way of that. Hopefully not.

You have to compare the deficit with the long term growth associated with the spending. This is why Reagan's deficit is relatively small. Don't just look at the absolute value.

Reagan had a horrible defecit too. I think you are confused this is long term DEBT. We owe China BILLIONS. They own our ass. We had a surplus and growth with Clinton.....


The best drugs are expensive. Get over it.

You don't understand what happened. He passed a bill that didn't allow a cap on the drugs. Thus the companies could charge whatever they want with no price cap. Not really a bill for the people huh?

Why should it? C02 is harmless. It's not like sulfur or mercury. It's what we breathe out. Regulating C02 is a waste of time.

Uh...ok

Armor gives a false sense of security. It didn't prevent the terrorists from blowing up that amphibious vehicle. Our soldiers did fine without fancy armor back in WWII. If anything, they were more careful without it!

No parent should have to buy their child bullet proof vests on ebay because our government doesn't have the money to buy them. I guess it's all that "growth" that doesn't allow them the money.

As well as the social security tax. This would be the best thing for our country in a long time.

We had a million people pay their taxes with their credit cards this year. We have one of the highest rates of bankruptcy under this president. You think Americans have any idea od how to invest money? The average American? No, they don't. We need social security. Pushing people into the private sector to be eaten up by wall street fat cats is not taking care of your people.

What's to defend him from? Most Americans approve of Bush. Those polls can be made to say anything. They were probably taken in a liberal slum or somethig.

His approval ratings are 37 percent now. The LOWEST THEY HAVE EVER BEEN. Your comments only prove how stupid they people are (who are left) defending him.

We have oil in Iraq for the long term future. Accountability usually leads to bureaucracy anyway. It's better just to axe the entire government program in question, like Social Security.


It's about time you guys admitted that.....

I agree. Lets axe Bush!!

Looks like Delay has some insider that is gonna turn on him.

And it looks like Rove is about to be exposed for the TRAITOR that he is too. I can't wait to see the deck of cards fall when these liars, traitors, and dickheads go to jail.

Well said SLCPunk.

Walk, I hope you do not take your posts seriously.

George W. Bush needs to fuck off the Cabinet completely

Reagan's deficit is only high in absolute value, not relative. Our debt to China isn't as big of an issue as the trade deficit. People need to learn to buy American again.


Price ceilings never work. They lead to shortages. This is basic economics.


Yep.


Did you know the kevlar helmets our soldiers use now aren't even as good as the old steel helmets they used to wear? However, the kevlar helmets are heavier. This weight makes the soldiers feel safer. When the enemy is using AK-47s and roadside bombs, armor has more of a psychological effect than anything else. Our Greatest Generation fought so fearlessly because they knew it was game over if they were hit. They were much more serious and aggressive.


They can learn. We get 12 years of free schooling in the US. They're either lazy or Darwin award winners if they can't save their money. They would actually be better off leaving the money in a hole than social security, since social security pays negative interest over time due to inflation! So, people who save are fat cats? You need to learn to be more responsible.


Popularity means nothing, even if those statistics were accurate. The word democracy once had a negative connotation. People don't understand the situation America is in now, and they blame the president out of ignorance.


No one's going to jail.

no, not in recent time. more like in forever.

This is true, obvious, and I wonder why a troll would not be swept aside by the powers that be? Since, really, his posts are not really adding anything to the conversation and meant only to inflame others.

According to scientific research, climate change could melt the ice caps and eventually lead to another Ice Age in the next couple of hundred years. You really think we are gonna adapt by then? You're only fooling yourself at this point, it's about time people realise that Bush is an utter fuck-up. The guy that started this thread has at least come forward and said that he is a right wing supporter and questioned Bush, you should lead by his example and just admit Bush is a poor leader, and an incompitent fool.

maybe trump had a good idea back in '01 when he was going to run..... 1 time tax to the richest and pay off the defficiet..... lol.... would ahve been intresting

He could start by auctioning off the hairpiece on ebay...

Forbes had a good idea too with the 15% flat tax for all Americans. ?As you can imagine, the wealthy didn't like that too much.

As for Bush, yes, he has to be the worst since Taft. ?He makes Carter look good and that's not an easy feat. ?His record on virtually every notable topic has been a disaster. ?I knew in 2000 things would get bad but I had no idea it would get this bad. ?Look how divided we are as a country and if bush has his way i.e. Roe v Wade overturned, think about how much more this country will divide. ?The economy is shit. ?Another big storm or earthquake and this country is seriously fucked. ?Thank God for the term limit!!

there is another choice available...assassination...alternatively...enjoy the next 3 years  :hihi:

Where's good ol' Lee Harvery when you need him......

Better watch out, somebody will report this post to the secret service......and I'm not kidding.

ill just have to suffer the next three years...in a different country...enjoy :P

and of course we all know you never do that  :P

Are you trying to start shit? I mean where's that from?

I'm weary of your name calling. You're acting more like a troll than anyone else. I've never thrown in personal insults, only hard facts about reality.

For someone who thinks CO2 is not a threat to the environment, saying you only speak about fact is pretty ridiculous.

Read up on natural selection. The species killed off by global warming will be replaced by the fitter ones. This is nature, and these extinctions have happened throughout history, and Earth is still fine. Do you realize that the C02 was once part of the atmosphere? Some of it went back to the air when plants died, but some of it turned into coal, gas, etc. We have less C02 in the air now than in the past. The increase has only been in the last 2 centuries. We've just been putting back what used to be there.

Bullseye!

(http://tinypic.com/eb61pu.gif)

I don't have to read much to know that somebody pissed in your gene pool.

Don't you realize, global warming is going to do a lot worse than kill us off, judging by what scientists are telling us, if it continues at the rate it is going, it will bring on another ice age, nothing will survive! Oh and by the way CO2 has always been in the atmosphere, without CO2 there would be no trees, trees 'breathe' in CO2 and 'breathe' out oxygen. And it's not about less or more, than was there before, life depends on (among other things obvioulsy) a delicate balance of natural gas, either not enough or too much CO2 will kill us. And also, the CO2 we are "putting back" contains other gases that do not belong in the atmosphere, burning CO2 back into the atmosphere by industrial means, in no way does anyone any good.

Besides being a troll, he is latching onto one thing (incorrectly of course) in the clear skies agenda. I can post an entire chapter on this crappy plan.

Gotta give it to Bush though, he's got some balls on him. He'd appoint the captain of the Exxon Valdez to head the EPA if he had the guys number.....

BerkeleyRiot, I agree with every one of your points. I still think it's too early to tell whether he's the worst president in recent history. Mainly because Bush, like you said, has been terrible at defending his policy. This really rides on whether Iraq is a long-term success or not. Right now it seems like the sky is falling in Iraq, but to some extent that perception is the creation of a rabidly anti-Bush media. A lot of those people would rather see Iraq fail so that Bush will be embarrassed. So it's difficult, if not impossible, to tell at this point in time. However, if Iraq does develop into a stable democracy, he will be looked at by history as one of the most successful presidents.

As you can see, they are coming turning by the ones to defend this IDIOT in the White House. :hihi:

that was hardly a 'defense'

To be honest, Iraq is not looking to be a long term success, they are on the verge of Civil war, the reported minimum body count for Iraqi civilians is 26323, the maximum being 29653. The US troop body count is reported to be 1950 in total since the war began with an official figure of 14755 injured. And as time goes by, these figures can only increase. And taking Bush's other failings, and people who protest his actions into account, he has too much against him to be remembered as a good president, by anybody except his most extreme followers.

(Edit) Just correcting some spelling mistakes.

Right..that is my point.

And believe it or not that is a federal offense.

This is sadly true.

This is bullshit.

Total bullshit.

I know.

Getting a bit defensive there huh?
I wonder why...

You wish.

Oh, come on. ?You are telling me that noneone out there was hoping that Bush would fail in Iraq from the start. ?There are plenty of people that simply hated Bush ever since he won Florida. ?I think there is a faction out there, on the left and the right, that would rather see people embarrassed and their views vindicated, then to see that the person they hated made a right decision.

Again, I believe the decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake. ?But there are some that refuse to acknowledge anything positive ever, and that place the blame on Bush for everything.

SLC, so you call the president an "idiot". Do you realize idiot refers to people with an IQ of 0-20, aka profound mental retardation? GW got into Yale and passed with a decent average; he's not an idiot. He's smarter than most people, even if he's not a genius. He's probably smarter than both of us. It's fine to criticize his actions, but poking at his intelligence is low and uncalled for.

So there's piss in my gene pool? Oh, that's brilliant, respectable debate right there...  ::)

I bet my IQ is higher than his.  Can I poke fun at his intelligence?

All kidding aside, I haven't seen anyone answer BerkeleyRiot's points.  I think its because he's right, and no one can argue with him.  But I'm waiting for someone to try.  It should be entertaining.

Personally I go back and forth about whether Bush is ignorant or arrogant.  Sometimes I think he just doesn't care that much.  He grew up in a world where you didn't have to succeed, someone always bailed you out.  You have things given to you, like jobs, and when you are in a position to give them, you take care of your friends.  Sometimes it seems like he's got a conservative, religious agenda, but then it looks like he bailed on it to give a friend a job (Supreme Court nomination.)  So I can't figure him out, but I don't think he concerns himself with what's best for this country. 

I think that people who are against this war, or against human death, suffering, and loss of life no matter what skin color yes. I have yet to hear anybody say or read they wish that the war failed, just because it was Bush.

People may hate Bush, but people marching in the street with peace signs, aren't hoping for anything other than rational leaders who don't send our children off to kill and be killed in half way around the world.

That is why I say "bullshit".

Yup.

Anybody who trolls the internet to type things they really don't believe in order to get a rise out of people....probably has some issues somewhere.

WASHINGTON - Evangelicals, Republican women, Southerners and other critical groups in
President Bush's political coalition are worried about the direction the nation is headed and disappointed with his performance, an AP-Ipsos poll found.

That unease could be a troubling sign for a White House already struggling to keep the Republican Party base from slipping over Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Gulf Coast spending projects, immigration and other issues.

"Politically, this is very serious for the president," said James Thurber, a political scientist at American University. "If the base of his party has lost faith, that could spell trouble for his policy agenda and for the party generally."

Sentiment about the nation's direction has sunk to new depths at a time people are anxious about
Iraq, the economy, gas prices and the management of billions of dollars being spent for recovery from the nation's worst natural disaster.

Only 28 percent say the country is headed in the right direction while two-thirds, 66 percent, say it is on the wrong track, the poll found.

"There is a growing, deep-seated discontentment and pessimism about the direction of the country," said Republican strategist Tony Fabrizio, who believes the reasons for their pessimism differ for those in one political party or another.

Among those most likely to have lost confidence about the nation's direction over the past year are white evangelicals, down 30 percentage points since November, Republican women, down 28 points, Southerners, down 26 points, and suburban men, down 20 points.

Bush's supporters are uneasy about issues such as federal deficits, immigration and his latest nomination for the Supreme Court. Social conservatives are concerned about his choice of Miers, a relatively unknown lawyer who has most recently served as White House counsel.

"Bush is trying to get more support generally from the American public by seeming more moderate and showing he's a strong leader at the same time he has a rebellion within his own party," Thurber said. "The far right is starting to be very open about their claim that he's not a real conservative."

The president's job approval is mired at the lowest level of his presidency ? 39 percent. While four of five Republicans say they approve of Bush's job performance ? enthusiasm in that support has dipped over the last year.

In December 2004, soon after his re-election, almost two-thirds of Republicans strongly approved of the job done by Bush. The AP-Ipsos survey found that just half in his own party feel that way now.

The intensity of support for Bush's job performance has also dropped sharply among white evangelicals, Southerners, people from rural areas and suburban men.

"We've lost focus on where we're supposed to be going and not able to respond to the crises that affect the people of this country," said David Ernest, a Republican from San Ramon, Calif., who is angry about the government's response to Hurricane Katrina. "We're mired in a Middle Eastern adventure and we've taken the focus off of our own country."

Bush has tried to reassure conservatives about his Supreme Court nominee. He's also trying to counter critics of the war by tying U.S. efforts in Iraq to the larger war against terrorism. And he's made frequent trips to the areas devastated by hurricanes Katrina and Rita to offset criticism of the government's initial response to Katrina.

Of all the problems facing the country, the war in Iraq is the one that troubles some Bush supporters the most.

"I approve of what the president is doing, but it's a mixed decision," said Richard Saulinski, a Republican from Orland Park, Ill. "We should get out of Iraq. It seems like there's no light at the end of the tunnel. I just think we're dealing with a culture we don't really understand."

The poll of 1,000 adults was conducted by Ipsos, an international polling company, from Monday to Wednesday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

I speak only for myself.  As does everyone.  I am against the war because it is an unwinnable war.  The only way you win a war like this is if you totally defeat and conquer the enemy.  To do this you have to use harsh tactics.  That is why I am repulsed by the comparisons of Iraq and the defeat of Germany and Japan.  Germany and Japan were totally defeated countries that were rebuilt from rubble.  We are fighting Iraq in a quasi-politically correct way.  If you want to do that, fine, but realize you surely will not win.

In general, my point is that if you don't understand that war is hell, and that the point is to totally dominate the enemy, then you are best not to get involved in war at all.

However, in my opinion there are factions out there that want to see the other side of a political spectrum fail simply because they are the other side.  There have always been people like this.  I am not saying that everyone who marches simply wants to see Bush fail.  But if you do not realize there are people who do, then you are experiencing an illusion.

I think you are missing the point. It's kind of like the "Support the troops" bullshit. It's really taking something and muddying it up. "If you don't support the war...then you must not support the troops". It's a bullshit statement meant to blur the lines of what is really being discussed.

I am not claiming that there aren't people who want him to fail. But to lump the anti-war people in with the "hope Bush's war in Iraq fails" is just like "support the troops" as far as muddying it up is concerned. ie, bullshit.

This is really uncalled for. If a conservative was saying things like that, they'd surely be banned. But you know what, keep it up, it only shows everyone with a brain how weak your arguments are when you have to resort to such pettiness.

Can't really say much more than that. I do think Bush is the worst President in recent time, and gave the country a really bad worldwide reputation. I know some people don't care about this, but apparently about 19 fellows did care in september 2001.



Funny man. FYI, a large percentage of the European population is using public transportation. Of course, a lot of people still use cars, but public transportation is huge here. Just ask the millions of people who use the parisian subway every single day. And I for one do not give a shit about high gas prices for cars because I don't own one and only use the subway and trains, which run on electricity in France...
Different story for airplanes though, cuz airfares are getting more expensive...but it's not like I take the plane everyday so...

Is that the joke of the day? I'm guessing you haven't read Walk's posts. And I am not talking only about this thread. This guy is one of the most insulting people on the board. He likes to provoke just for the sake of it. Maybe you like some of his ideas, well good for you, but maybe you haven't read all of his looney theories.

That is a full fledged distortion of reality.? Bush was in office for 9 months when that happened.? The planning for 9/11 took place when Slick willy was in office.? If you're gonna blame a President for a poor opinion of America to the world, blame the one that was around when the plan started.? Just more proof that some of you walk out of Moore's movies and don't bother to research it at all
?

Someone already in this forum attacked Bush from a joke he made at a dinner party that was shown in Moore's latest toilet.? If they knew their ass from a hole in the ground they'd realize Gore was at the same dinner.


Bush is a fuck up, plain and simple - but far from the worse President in modern times.? Will Bush be looked at as a poor president?? you bet your ass because all the liberal douches secure jobs in academia when they fail in the real world and they dictate what goes in the history books and what is taught.? I just hope that some of your children call you on this bullshit 20 years from now and ask where did you come up with that or what part of this policy didn't you understand.? ?The look will be priceless? ?:hihi:


P.S.? I wrote my senior thesis for my last Political Theory class on C02 and the atmosphere.( I got an A and my teacher was an admitted liberal)? Interesting reading if anyone is up for around 20 pages of libertarian/realist outlook.

That is not a full fledged distortion of reality. That is a full fledged distortion of my post. My point was many people in the US (especially on this board) say they don't care about what the rest of the world thinks about them, and they don't give a shit if the rest of the world likes how their leader acts on the worldwide scene. I was just pointing out it's not a good attitude to have. I do not blame 9/11 on Bush. I blame it on the crazy terrorists of course. Crazy Saudis for the most part. But Iraq was invaded, for the sake of the world. Go figure.

it cracks me up that the people that claimed more than half of america was stupid for voting bush into office, now come on here and quote polls on a daily basis. talk about hypocritical.

in the early 90's, reagan was given very average grades on his presidency. by 2000, those grades had risen dramatically, and he is not viewed as a great president.

the middle of a bloody war isn't a fair time to ask this question.

but hey, all you lefty doves need as many bush bashing threads as possible to release a little bit of your anger. whatever helps you sleep at night.

try drinking a beer instead.  :beer:

I may be wrong but I believe BerkeleyRiot is not exactly what you would call a "lefty dove", unless I'm confusing him with someone else.

It's funny how right wing people see not supporting war as an insult: "you don't support war, you're a coward lefty dove. You tree hugging hippie. You know what we do to doves? We kill them, that's right, hunting doves is a national sport." Talk about opening up your mind. Geez.

Right.  If you read the first post, I am writing as someone that supported Bush because of the alternatives.  I don't think any of the things that I listed about Bush's failures can really be refuted.  Again, I don't believe in the conspiracy theories, and I generally believe that Bush had good intentions when he went into Iraq.  However, this guy continues to fail on many levels. 

And again, if I had the chance to vote over for Gore or Kerry, I would probably still choose Bush.  That is a sad state of affairs.

I don't think anyone can either. 

Me too.

I think that is exactly right.  It may work at an oil company, but in the highest post in our country I am not sure just appointing friends is the way to go.

I am sure that I have quite a different perspective on what makes a good Supreme Court justice than most here.  However, I think all sides should be able to agree that she is unqualified.  I think this was Bush's chance to place another conservative intellect on the court.  I think this will go down in history as a huge missed opportunity.  We have a split court, a so-called conservative president, and 55 republican votes.  We get Harriet Miers?


If I hear one more person defend his nomination of Miers on television I think I am going to throw-up.

i think it's obvious my post was not directed at you. you were not one of the people in these threads talking about how stupid americans are after the election last year.

still, this is probably the most UN-original thread i've ever seen. we have countless threads for bush-bashing. and everything you listed has been said several times in several threads.

I wasn't really assuming that it was directed at me.  Those people are idiots.  As I said, I would probably vote for Bush again over the alternatives.

Well, I actually think it is somewhat original.  Sure we have Bush bashing threads left and right.  But since those on the right, or even moderates, areso busy defending Bush or the administration against conspiracy theories and ridiculous accusations, I dont think these things actually have been discussed in a proper way.

I am not saying Bush hates black people, nor that he went to war for oil.  However, Bush has fucked up a lot of things.  Whether you are a conservative, liberal or moderate I think these things are hard to refute.  Sure you don't want to add fuel to the fire of people that will bash Bush no matter what he does, but looking at these things Bush has done a pretty poor job.  Most of these things are conservative vs. liberal policies, they are simply an inability to have control, plan, and look like a head of state.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://dieoff.org/

You'll lose more than just gasoline if you don't have oil. I'm glad Bush had the guts to go to war for oil instead of trying alternatives, because oil can do so much more than run a car. I don't judge him as immoral; resources have always been fought over. It's what you get in a finite world. Europe's oil comsumption, by the way, is relatively high, even if public transportation is popular. It helps, but it won't solve the problem.

At least the bigot admits why we went into Iraq.

But for YOUR information France runs on 80 percent nuclear, and other European countries use nuke power too. As far as I know no cars have been produced, or retrofitted to run on nuke power. Although public transit DOES run on nuke power. So they certainly have a huge advantage over the USA as far as sustaining a society is concerned.

As usual, you are wrong again.

Absolutely...i found these statistics interesting and surprising

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_nuc_ele_gen_cap

What exactly did you have to say about CO2 that's so different to what is already blatantly obvious? I mean, it's a huge threat to the environment, I don't think there's much denying that.

Paleo-Conservatives are against the war in Iraq...

I disagree that it's a huge threat.  The Earth has been much hotter and colder long before man walked the Earth.  There is a natural cycle that the Earth has in place to protect itself from a runaway green house effect.  Anyway, the majority of the paper is oriented around a free market sollution to aide in the reduction of pollution and a philosophical understanding of why we do what we do.  The reality is that scientist aren't sure what's going on.  Everyone remember the hole in the ozone layer cause by "global warming" - yea it's gone now.  in the 1970s Scientist were claiming we were heading to a new ice age.  Since very few of you actually are interested enough in the issue, I have a Penn & Teller Bullshit! episode on the issue I'd be more than glad to make available.  Since everyone loves to have an open mind, why not read/watch what some libertarian atheist have to say.

Nothing surprising here. Narrow minded people are very often wrong about a lot of things. Sometimes I wonder why we even respond to his posts. lol Maybe for some readers not used to the guy? ;D

The worst president in recent times? George Washington! I mean just look at the guy.. hes so.. stupid looking..

I mean, wooden teeth? Come on. He obviously didn't care about American independance, he just wanted a seat in politics. The man owes my father 500 acres of land in the louisiana territory and 20 pounds for serving in the war. Damn bastard.

   -jack

Nuclear power has disadvantages as well.? The disposal of nuclear waste is a huge environmental issue (you liberals would care about that issue I'm sure) and the chance of a nuclear power plant failure (like Chenobol) exists.? The capital costs are huge as well.? I know we need alternatives to oil, and I'm not at all refuting that.? But I bet there are other alternatives than nuke power.? There are alot of smart people out there working on this right now.? I'm hopeful there will be a solution.

As far as the thread goes, I'd put the do nothing administrations of Clinton and Carter ahead of Bush on the "worst presidents of modern time" list.? Of course, I'm biased.

Let's put Bush's administration into perspective here...

When thinking of all time, the worst presidents are Franking Pierce, Millard Fillmore, and James Buchanan. They literally divided the nation by creating policies that favored the Northern states. I don't think we've had a president as bad as these in the last 100 years.

If by recent, we mean to last 10 administrations or so, I think LBJ would have to be the worst. He expanded the government's powers in the 60's, to the joy of liberals and Communists everywhere. Minor policies that FDR created to inspire confidence and hope became big bureaucratic nightmares. A little more money could have won us the Vietnam war instead.

He didn't know how to handle Vietnam. He didn't understand how to fight Communism. You can't destroy an idea with br00t force alone. To fight propaganda, destroy it with better propaganda. Don't make settlements or bargain for peace; the Communist cannot be trusted. When one's own news media turns liberal, the enemy's propaganda will have an advantage. A few infamous photographs ruined our chance to give the Vietnamese people freedom. Hell, there isn't even oil in that country! We were there out of pure altruism and had a chance to be heroes, and LBJ fumbled.  >:( After all his mistakes, we had 50,000 casualties (20x the Iraq deaths!) and the red army marched into Saigon and took down the American flag. :no: It's disgusting what happened...

For a real Cold War president, look up to Ronald Reagan.  :peace: If we had him as president in the 60's, Vietnam would be a free country now. Enough said.

Bush isn't nearly as great as Reagan, but he's not as bad as LBJ or Jimmy Carter. Overall, he's slightly above average for a Republican, and significantly better than an average Democrat. I give him 8/10. I think it would be intereting to have some ratings, and nothing stupid like 1/10. ;)

A lot of waste can be reprocessed and reused. However, it often isn't for political reasons. Peaceniks think it would be used in nuclear weapons (which is admittedly true), but it could also be fed back into a reactor. These are called breeder reactors, iirc. Also, there is a type of reactor called "pebble bed" that is nearly meltdown proof. My only problem with nuclear power is that it requires government work, since the private industry can't process uranium freely, for obvious reasons. ;)


Smart people have been looking for a solution for a long time. Solar isn't going to cut it. Hydropower damages our rivers. Biofuel gives off C02, a dangerous, toxic gas!  ;) :hihi: Zero sum energy is a hoax, as is cold fusion. Geothermal power might be doable in Hawaii, but not the continental US. Wind power might just work, even if it would be pricier than what we're used to...

Actually, I've read about some guys planning to build a tether to get fans up into the jet stream to generate power in those constant 100+ mph winds!  :o If they could pull that off...

But the biggest problem is NIMBY people who think windmills look ugly.  :o They want to preserve the "pristine skyline" instead of having wind power. They're forgetting that coal powered plants are borderline socialist government owned, since they're so regulated, and windmills can be set up by an individual farmer or entrepreneur. Windmills might be hippie approved, but they're great for decentralizing energy production for the free market individual.

The government, obviously, doesn't like this. Liberals say they might kill birds.  :rofl: The world is a crazy place...


Clinton had a great economy inherited from Reagan, so many people mistakenly believe he's a good president. For a liberal, he really wasn't that bad. Carter was awful. He let a bunch of Iranians take hostages from us and handled them like the UN handles genocide. Luckily, Reagan got elected and freed the hostages!

Why don't all you fucking arm-chair warriors that like Bush all sign up and get your ass sent over t o Iraq if you believe in this war and this President? Huh? Why not...No? Just content to sit back and "support" the troops and tie a yellow ribbon around your front tree and let the others do the fighting.

Bush did not "win" Florida. That whole election was stolen. And no I wont "get over it." Gore was robbed and the election of 2000 was a joke and made a farce of our "great democracy."

Reagan sucked to, and Vietnam would not be "free" had he been the President back then. We had no business being in Vietnam, just like we have no buisness being in Iraq right now. And yeah, RR did not bring down the "evil empire." They brought themselves down because they wanted guns and butter and ran out of money.

Bush isn't half the man Cartar is. Bush is pure slime, pure slime that had everything handed to him in life. I have more respect for the fecal matter hanging in my anal hair than I do for that fuckface.

That's utter BS. Ask people who actually lived on the other side of the iron curtain, like me, and they'll tell you nobody did more to bring it down than Reagan. If somebody hadn't taken a stand and applied pressure like Reagan did, it would have taken a lot longer for Soviet Union to fall apart.

Wow! I'm impressed by your eloquence and intellect. I think I just might become a democrat so I can be more like you? ::)? :nervous:? :no:

The Soviet Union fell apart because they were too big and over expanded. They spent too much money keeping up the arms race. The seams started to burst in the late 60s. Reagan is not responsible taking the USSR apart. It would have happened anyway. ?

Almost as eloquent and intellectual as that born again fruit we have in office. Now all I have to do is start an immoral war cause suffering to millions give unfair tax breaks, and I can be as great as your fuck-face hero. Oh, wait, I don?t have my daddy to get me into an ivy league school or bail me out whenever I have a DUI. My bad.

Guys I take it back.. George Washington wasn't the worst president ever. Grover Cleveland was! Has anyone even heard of this guy!? I mean, with a first name like Grover its a wonder he even won the race! Hes big and fat and ugly. And he should die.

Grover Cleveland is a gay!

     -jack  :rofl:

Sweden in da house!


Please shut the fuck up, thanks.


Unreal the shit that comes from his keyboard. Even more unreal that he is still here (after racist posts), and even more unreal is that he gets backed up by his 'group'.



It's ok, as long as it is not their ass getting shot at. It's rah rah rah, from the sidelines all day long. It's just like anything else in life: once it involves them directly, then all of a sudden everything changes! Just like people who voted for Bush who are now feeling the crunch at the pump. Everything is different once it hit them in the pocket book, hence dumbasses latest poll results (28 percent). In the meantime the few left supporting Bush put their made in China "support the troop ribbons" on the back of their SUVs and race off into fantasyland.

Come on slcpunk.. have some humor. lets be friends  :love:

OK, lets be friends.

(http://tinypic.com/eg4cgh.jpg)

You opinions should be ignored after this moronic statement.  There may be 5 people in the world that think this, and you are one of them.   ::)

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1192

More Gloss for the Gipper
The Myth of Reagan's "Enormous Popularity"

Extra! March/April 1989

By Michael Benhoff


Reagan left office bolstered by the oft-repeated media myth that he had been far and away the most popular of any president since World War II. But bearing in mind Mark Twain's observation that a lie gets half-way around the world before truth puts its boots on, the US public deserves to know what the polling data actually says.

According to Gallup polls taken throughout his presidency, Reagan was not one of the more popular presidents in the post-Roosevelt pack. At various points during his presidency he rated lower than the other presidents during comparable periods of their terms in office. For instance, during the first two years of Reagan's presidency, the public was giving President Reagan the lowest level of approval of all modern elected presidents. Reagan's average first year approval rating was 58%-- lower than Dwight Eisenhower's 69%, Jack Kennedy's 75%, Richard Nixon's 61% and Jimmy Carter's 62%.

The post-Roosevelt presidents who assumed office through circumstances other than elections scored higher approval ratings during their first months in office than Reagan. In October 1945, six months after FDR died, President Harry Truman received an 82% approval rating, down from 87% the previous June. In December 1963, shortly after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson got a 79% public approval rating, and it stayed in the mid-to-low seventies until December 1964, when he scored 69%. Only Gerald Ford, who received a 71% approval rating in August 1974, declined below Reagan's first-year level.

Nor did the US public give Reagan higher marks in his second year than other post-World War II presidents. Reagan's approval rating at the end of his second year in office was 41%, with an average for that year of 44%. Compare these statistics to Eisenhower, who notched a 69% approval rating at the end of his second year and a 65% year's average; Kennedy's were 76% and 72% respectively; Nixon's 52% and 57%; and Carter's at 51% and 47%.

President Reagan's humdrum approval ratings continued throughout his first and second terms. Averaging 50% for his first term, Reagan fared slightly better than Ford at 47% and Carter at 47%, but with Gallup's 3% margin of error even these differences are not statistically significant. On the other band, Reagan's first term average was much lower than those of Presidents Kennedy (1961-63) who averaged a 70% approval rating, Eisenhower with a 69% average, and Nixon at 56%.

In May of the second year of his second term (1986), Reagan's 68% approval rating surpassed the mid-sixth year figures for two-term presidents. But after the Iran-Contra scnadal broke in the fall of 1986, Reagan's approval raing plummeted to 46%, leaving him wiht an unimpressive average for that year.

Reagan finished strong with a December 1988 Gallup poll recording a 63% approval rating. But given the 3% margin of error, this statistic is not appreciably different than the final ratings of Eisenhower (59%) or Kennedy (58%). Polls showed FDR with a 66% favorable tally at the time of his death.

Reagan's 52% average approval rating for his entire presidency was topped by Kennedy's 70% average, Eisenhower's 66%, Roosevelt's 68%, and even by Johnson (54%), who eschewed running for reelection because of the unpopularity of his Vietnam policy. In short, about half-- and sometimes more than half-- of the US public did not approve of Reagan's presidential performance. His approval index was not much better than the lowest modern presidential averages: Truman's and Ford's, each at 46%; Carter's at 47%; and 48% for Nixon.

Even the notion that the American public likes Ronald Reagan the man (as opposed to some of his policies) has been grossly exaggerated. Overall, his "likeability" percentages have ranged in the low-to-mid seventies, reaching a high of 81% in November 1985, and a low of 50% in August 1983. No other modern president's likeability indexes have generally fluctuated in the mid-to-upper seventies for all of Reagan's modern predecessors.

For example, 84% of Americans liked Ike in February 1956. In August 1964, 89% of Americans liked Johnson. Even in the summer months of Carter's final, unpopular year as president (just before his defeat by Reagan in the 1980 election), Carter scored a higher Gallup personal likeability index at 76% than Reagan's 73% during the comparable period of his Administration.

For anyone who cares to look at the actual polling data, the facts show that Reagan was definitely not the most popular post-war president, and during many comparable periods he was among the most unpopular.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_reagan010806.html

Improving With Age
Reagan Approval Grows Better in Retrospect

By Dalia Sussman



Aug. 6, 2001? Two-thirds of Americans look back favorably on Ronald Reagan's presidency, a better rating than he received while serving in the White House. 
Reagan's average approval rating during his two terms in office was 57 percent, in the mid-range for a postwar president and tied with Bill Clinton's rating. But looking back today, more Americans ? 66 percent ? say they approve of Reagan's work, according to an ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll.

That's a familiar phenomenon: Presidents tend to be rated better as they recede from the fray. Reagan scored a similarly strong retrospective job approval rating in February 2000. And Jimmy Carter's was 66 percent in a poll a couple of years ago ? a full 20 points higher than his career average while in office.

Reagan's approval rating while he served peaked at 73 percent in the spring of 1981, after he was shot and wounded in an assassination attempt, and hit 70 percent in 1986, after he ordered a bombing raid against Libya. It fell to a low of 42 percent in early 1983, following a surge in unemployment, and dropped to 44 percent in early 1987, during the Iran-Contra controversy.
Reagan's Job Performance
 
  Approve  Disapprove   
7/30/01  66%  27  (Retrospective)
2/27/00 64  26  (Retrospective)
'81-'88  57  39  (Career average)
2/26/87  44  51  Low ? Iran-Contra
4/26/86  70  26  High ? Libya bombing
1/22/83 42  54  Low ? unemployment
4/22/81  73  19  High ? shot by Hinckley


Nearly seven in 10 Americans also report a favorable overall impression of Reagan, up 12 points since the last asking in 1994, and up from a low of 48 percent in August 1988. That may reflect public sympathy with the 90-year-old former president's struggle with Alzheimer's disease.

Partisan Splits

Reagan still incites sharp partisan differences. A whopping 87 percent of Republicans approve of his work as president, but that dives to 48 percent of Democrats. Independents fall in between.


Rating Reagan
 
 
Approve  Disapprove
Republicans 87%  8
Democrats 48  45
Independents  68 25


Reagan also gets a 79 percent positive rating from conservatives, compared to 69 percent from moderates and just 45 percent from liberals.


Methodology

This ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone July 26-30 among a random national sample of 1,352 adults. The results have a 2.5-point error margin. Field work was conducted by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.

Previous ABCNEWS polls can be found in our Poll Vault.

 

Carter also has a high approval rating now, so there ;D

reagan's rise in approcal ratings has A LITTLE to do with the long-term impact of his presidency (i.e. people that argued against his policies during his administration realized they were wrong years later)

i love the anger all the lefties in here. it cracks me up and makes my morning coffee taste so much better.  : ok:

How many times did they have to count the votes over and over again? ?Everytime it came up with Bush as the winner. ?People who were ineligible to vote or did not meet the voting requirements in Florida should not be counted, plain and simple. ?If you don't like the voting laws, fine advocate change. ?If you don't like the electoral college, fine advocate change. ?But give the whole Bush stole Florida thing a fuckin' rest. ?Do you see Republicans bitching about how Kennedy used his mob influence in WV to steal the election against Nixon - hell no and that was real theft if there ever was. ?Gore couldn't even win his home state of Tennesse. ?Take Farenheit 9/11 out of your dvd player and seek out the truth.

 You conspiracy theory wackos are really crossing the line. ?You want to talk about banning people in this forum, maybe you should start with the person who advocated the assasination of America's President. ?That certainly made me feel 'uncomfortable' and god forbid we express a view that makes someone uneasy. Yet someone committs a felony and not a word is said. ?

No conspiracy theories. Why not just let the final count go through? That election was stolen. Bush?s first term was illegitimate. 

OK ::)

People always ignore the fact there was a lawsuit that was won by the blacks against the State of Florida for their votes not being counted that day.

Five people...ok

Please post link.....

PS, Hey I remember when I asked you to debate me one on one. But you said it was stupid and you had a life. You didn't have time to take on facts, figures and articles beating you down. But somehow, you have had time to come back as a new user, and post all day long. Posting stuff like you did above.

So you can't take me on, one on one in a controlled debate where you will be held for accountability and sources, because you "don't have time" and "have a life" but do have time to come back and post bullshit.

Hmmm...imagine that.

Fine, if we ban that person then we should also ban all the people that conclude that the murder of Iraqi citizens is "collateral damage". Right?

Condoning murder is no laughing matter and we should ban all the people who do so. Agree or not?

Well, I actually would be interested to see it, the Earth may survive the effects of global warming, but the people in it will not. Earth's temperature may have risen and dropped over the years, but that was a natural occurence, global warming is not a natural occurence. If the temperature, on an international level is changed, immaturely, it will surely have catastrophic effects. I mean in the last 3-4 years, I've seen more natural disasters collectively than I have seen in my (admittedly short) life, that is surely not coincedental.

The comment on CO2 is just a tip of the iceberg anyway. Obviously none of the pro-Bush crowd have even read about his Clear Skies program or what it really entails. If they did, they might be in for a shocker.

"The Clear Skies legislation sets new targets for emissions of sulfur dioxide, mercury, and nitrogen oxides from U.S. power plants. But these targets are weaker than those that would be put in place if the Bush administration simply implemented and enforced the existing law. Compared to current law, the Clear Skies plan would allow three times more toxic mercury emissions, 50 percent more sulfur emissions, and hundreds of thousands more tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides. It would also delay cleaning up this pollution by up to a decade compared to current law and force residents of heavily-polluted areas to wait years longer for clean air compared to the existing Clean Air Act."

National Resources Council

I would like to see an scientific paper that claimed that scientists "are not sure what is going on". I would be very interested to see that. Please produce it.

I have asked for the "ice age prediction" made several times but they can not produce it. I have searched myself and can not find anything to support this. They refered to the "scientists predicted the next ice age in the 80's" in their last attempt to deny global warming (caused by man) but never backed it up. So, until then I will call this claim false.

New global warming evidence presented

Scientists say their observations prove industry is to blame

Washington -- Scientists reported Friday they have detected the clearest evidence yet that global warming is real -- and that human industrial activity is largely responsible for it.

Researchers at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science cited a range of evidence that the Earth's temperatures are rising:

-- The Arctic regions are losing ice cover.

-- The populations of whales and walrus that Alaskan Eskimo communities depend on for food are crashing.

-- Fresh water draining from ice and snow on land is decreasing the salinity of far northern oceans.

-- Many species of plankton -- the microscopic plants that form the crucial base of the entire marine food web -- are moving north to escape the warming water on the ocean surface off Greenland and Alaska.

Ice ages come and go over millennia, and for the past 8,000 years, the gradual end of the last ice age has seen a natural increase in worldwide temperatures, all scientists agree. Skeptics have expressed doubt that industrial activity is to blame for world's rapidly rising temperatures.

But records show that for the past 50 years or so, the warming trend has sped up -- due, researchers said, to the atmospheric burden of greenhouse gases produced by everything industrial, from power plants burning fossil fuels to gas-guzzling cars -- and the effects are clear.

"We were stunned by the similarities between the observations that have been recorded at sea worldwide and the models that climatologists made," said Tim Barnett of the University of California's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. "The debate is over, at least for rational people. And for those who insist that the uncertainties remain too great, their argument is no longer tenable. We've nailed it."

Barnett and other experts marshaled their evidence and presented it to their colleagues for the first time at a symposium here.

For the past 40 years, Barnett said, observations by seaborne instruments have shown that the increased warming has penetrated the oceans of the world - - observations, he said, that have proved identical to computer predictions whose accuracy has been challenged by global-warming skeptics.

The most recent temperature observations, he said, fit those models with extraordinary accuracy.

But a spokesman for the Bush administration -- which has been criticized for not taking global warming seriously -- was unfazed by the latest news.

"Our position has been the same for a long time," said Bill Holbrook, spokesman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "The science of global climate change is uncertain."

"Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet, and especially in the Arctic, " said Ruth Curry, a physical oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, "and there is large-scale drying throughout the Northern Hemisphere."

Ice cores drilled deep into the Greenland ice cap show that salinity of the ice at the upper layers of the cores has decreased sharply due to the incursion of fresh water draining from melting snows on the surface, she reported, and land ice and permafrost are in decline all around the Arctic. In the meantime, she said, measurements show that salinity of the ocean waters nearer the equator has increased as the rate of evaporation of warmer tropical and subtropical oceans quickens.

It may take several centuries for all the ice that covers Greenland to melt, Curry said, "but its release of fresh water will make sea-level rise a very significant issue in this century." In fact, she said, changes in the freshwater balance of the oceans has already caused severe drought conditions in America's Western states and many parts of China and other Asian countries.

Already, the physics of increased warming and the changes in ocean circulation that result are strongly affecting the entire ecology of the Arctic regions, according to Sharon L. Smith, an oceanographer and marine biologist at the University of Miami.

Last summer, on an expedition ranging from Alaska's Aleutian islands to the Arctic Ocean above the state's oil-rich North Slope, Smith said she encountered the leading elder of an Eskimo community on Little Diomede island who told her that ice conditions offshore were changing rapidly year by year; that the ice was breaking up and retreating earlier and earlier; and that in the previous year the men of his community were able to kill only 10 walrus for their crucial food supplies, compared to past harvests of 200 or more.

Populations of bowhead whales, which the Eskimo people of Barrow on the North Slope are permitted to hunt, are declining too, Smith said. The organisms essential to the diet of Eider ducks living on St. Lawrence Island have been in rapid decline, while both the plants and ducks have moved 100 miles north to colder climates -- a migration, she said, that obviously was induced by the warming of the waters off the island.

Another piece of evidence Smith cited for the ecological impact of warming in the Arctic emerged in the Bering Sea, where there was a huge die- off in 1997 of a single species of seabirds called short-tailed shearwaters.

Hundreds of thousands of birds died, she said, and the common plankton plants on which they depend totally for food was replaced by inedible plants covered with calcite mineral plates. Those plants thrive in warmer waters and require higher-than-normal levels of carbon dioxide -- the major greenhouse gas -- to reproduce, Smith said.

"What more convincing evidence do we need that warming is real?" Smith asked.

AP

Boo hoo.   :'(

Imagine that, you crying like a baby again...how novel.

You are getting your ass beat all over this forum from thread to thread.  Why should I debate you one on one when you get your ass handed to you daily here?  Not to mention, I stop by here for 5 minutes here, 10 minutes there.  I don't have any time in my life to debate someone properly.  Look at my posts.  I don't created long posts where I break down others posts point by point.  I have a job, a wife, two kids, a house and soccer to coach...I don't have the time to sit in front of my computer like you and break down everyone's posts line by line.

I am content to trash you along with others here on a daily basis in an open forum and expose your extremeist left wing agenda and your let's-help-everyone-in-the-world-cause-I-care-so-much-about-everyone-and-Bush-sucks hippy viewpoint for the rubbish everyone here sees it for.  That's fine by me.

Crying about what?  :hihi:

I'm pointing out you doublespeak that is all.

You are the minority in the country, the world, and here. I'm hardly extreme.

Think I have my ass handed to me here? LOL, you wish. I'm sure the only readers who think that are the other 3-5 of you guys...that is it.

As usual, you can't dispute the facts I posted above, so you go personal.

Have a nice day. ;D

OK, give an example when you and your little possy has ever won a proper argument or debate on this board, without resorting to insults and calling sources "liberal rags" and people on the board "hippies". And as for "everyone here sees it for" that is just utter bullshit, there are seriously about 5 or 6 people here with conservative viewpoints. everyone else seems to disagree with racism and bigotry.

Who went personal first? ?Slow down when you read. ?I didn't take anything personal until you did first.

And you may not realize it, but you get beat around here like a red headed step child. ?Just because there are more liberals here than conservatives doesn't mean you win. ? :-\

I personally think you've lost just about every arguement you've been in. ?I can even tell the moment you lose one too. ?It starts when you can't defend a statement and start getting person with insults. ?For example, in this thread it start when you called popmetal a poptard. ?You lose almost every arguement the same way. ?Funny as hell too.

You equate conservatives to racism and bigotry?  Please.  Just because we don't want to save every life on this plant and grow government welfare programs to the extreme doesn't make us racist.  I believe in complete equality.  That means no affirmative action, no prolonged welfare benefits, no school grants based on color and I'd advocate for more white programing on the WB and less white programming on CNN.  :)

Equality means something different for liberals and conservatives.  But it doesn't make anyone racists.  Got to love someone who plays the race card.  Just like OJ.  You guys probably think he was innocent too.   ::)

There is none.

Repeat until you think it's true.

Rinse.

Repeat.

Ask same questions over and over.

Ignore facts.

Declare yourself the winner..

 ::)

I equate many conservatives on this board to racism and bigotry, go back and read some of the threads about racism, inequality etc. and there are a hell of a lot of racist comments coming from conservatives on this board. And as for OJ, I most certainly do not think he was innocent, he was scum. That's as much grabbing at straws as you guys blaim the liberals on this board for, if not even more, by they way.

You guys are delusional if you think you are always right and win every argument on this board.  I agree with much of what is written from the left on this board, but come on now . .

Lol. Classic. Peace bro.

I think the award for worst president in recent time would have to be Jimmy Carter.

Great humanitarian, terrible president.

This is probably true.

Amen.  Glad to know I'm not the only one out there who feels this way.

Here it is SLC.  One of many articles claiming the Earth was cooling down rather than warming up as scientist now say: http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm     Try and distort this, but I have provided you with an article from 1975.  Scientist turned away from this line of bullshit, why shouldn't we question their motives and exxagerations now?

Here is another one from just 2 years ago.  http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html  Amazing how you claimed you couldn't find any but after 20 seconds on google I came up with hundreds of articles on thousands of pages.  I'm waiting for your doublespeak on this now.  :hihi:

This article is about scientists who are concerned about food production based on the recent (at the time) dip in global temperature.

Nowhere in that article did I see "loony scientists" predicting the next ice age by the 80's. I read references to the 1600-1900 as "mini ice age", but no predictions (other than food production or lack of) for the future.

I will read the next article in a moment, it looks longer.

Either way, no matter what they say, what is the point? That a small group of scientists claimed that we may have another ice age one day (30 yrs ago)? And therefore any theory about the earth should be discarded immediately because of it? Is that your line of logic?

There are scientists that believe and do not belive in global warming. I happen to believe that humans and industry do cause global warming. I think the facts are too much to ignore. I also can't imgine any amount of pollution can be good for this planet. It is a fact that Bush's policies have a lower standard then those in place before. I disagree with that. I disagree because we should not destroy our planet, and I also believe it causes global warming.

What is it you really want to debate? Either you are for Bush's policies for the environment, or you are not. Which one is it? Care to read the facts on them and tell me what you think? Instead of going off topic (like you guys all do)? What is your stance?

Gonna give me a link from Fox showing how all people who believe in global warming also hate their country next?

I read this, and want to ask you something..

What are you claiming this article is backing? What point? I'm curious.

I thought it was  clear.  This scientist is arguing that the world is getting colder while most activist argue the earth is getting warmer.  If it is so apparent that C02 is destroying the planet, why can't scientist agree in what way the earth is being destroyed?  Isn't it possible that just maybe people aren't sure what's going on?  Isn't just a tad possible that liberal joiners are being led by a few elites to spread a much wider agenda and global warming is working for them?  Conspiracy theories are a fad on this board and this is a one I buy into.  Elite socialists take advanatge of naieve joiners who march against global warming but bring 2000 other causes with them.

I'm not denying that global warming COULD be dangerous, but isn't the air we breathe cleaner now than it was 30 years ago?  Isn't it getting cleaner and as we adapt to newer fuel sources the pollution will be even more reduced.  I advocate a free market sollution to all pollution where we heavily tax companies that pollute and that money is used exclusively to repair damage associated with that pollution. ( I outline this in my paper that only 2 have asked to see)  This would cause pollutive products to go up in cost and would require their producer's to find a cheaper way to make their product competitive.  Since all business desires to minimize costs and maximize profits, this system would do more for pollution than any government program or law.


It's not that I don't believe in global warming.  It's just that I don't believe that it will have the effect and outcome many of you share.  You made it a point to state that no "conservative" provided you with evidence that scientist at one time claimed global warming/pollution would lead to colder temps and an ice age.  I provided you with that link.  You're entitled to choose what data you believe, but don't deny that their is valid evidence that contradicts the outcomes you believe.

However, if regulations get too restrictive, the corporation will just give the government the middle finger and move the factory to China and pollute all they want.

I'm sorry....I hadda laugh at your post.

Not because of the sentiment...

But because seeing a poster named "Richard Nixon" take Bush to task was just too amusing, and ironic, to not laugh.

Thanks for the chuckle! :)

Me thinks your opinion on the matter might be a bit skewed.....OK, more than a bit.

Edit: Does SLC win every argument? No.? But I'd say he wins more than his fair share.? And not simply because I share many of his viewpoints....but because he tends to provide verifiable facts/proof/evidence during the discussion.? Many of those on the conservative side do not.? You can't win an arguement if you can't provide proof or evidence to support your side of the discussion, especially when making assertions like the ones I see made by the conservs.?

And when asked for proof, many of you seem to either ignore the request, or try to "poo poo" it.

Certainly.

And it still hasn't been presented.

As for the articles, the first is rididculously dated, and refers to a period that has already passed without the incidences described happening. And even if there is opposition to the global warming theory, there is more than enough evidence to say there is truth within it. It needs to be researched none-the-less and something needs to be done. GW is doing the wrong thing ignoring it, his attitude seems to be, 'it's not 100% set in stone, it can be ignored', what if, like a huge portion of the scientific community claim, it is a realistic threat and does began to damage life on Earth in the next 100 hundred years, or however long it takes, and it's too late to be fixed? We need to do something about the threat before that time comes. Sure there is evidence backing up both sides claims, but if nothing happens, it will be fine, we can continue with our lives, but if something does happen, life on Earth ma just be wiped out

Huh,  I thought you were still on the whole "scientists said we were headed towards an ice age in the 70's" kick....

Where is that? You seem to be twisting things around as we go.....

My paper is here:  http://home.comcast.net/~gunsnrockmusic/Environment.doc    I was sending it through PMs rather than link it, but here it is.  I posted that article because SLC claimed he could not find one from that era from an earlier discussion.

I said I had yet to find at article where scientists claimed an ice age would hit us by the 80's. That is what I said.

And who cares about your paper anyway. What is that proving?

It is like the time Charity Case used his own posts as a reference...... :hihi: :hihi:

Gimmie a break!

Oh SLC, how many times can you be caught distorting what was said.? You call us liars and demand we provide proof.? I provide that proof and you change the argument.? Is this doublespeak, lying or strawman?? you tell me.

here is what I originally said:

? [/b]? http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22920.msg400845#msg400845

here is what you replied:

[/b]
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22920.msg401032#msg401032

So you distorted what I originally said hoping I would miss it or not care enough to reply.? I reply with the link and another modern one just to show that some scientist still believe it and you again change the argument.? Keep it coming SLC, I'll be more than happy to keep bustin' you up.? Sooner or later even the dipshits on this board are gonna realize that you're a blowhard.

I only posted my paper becuase Jamie asked to see it.  I could care less who reads it.  I provided it simply because it discusses the issue in decent length and provides an argument I'm sure none of you have heard or even considered.  You don't want to read it, that's fine.  I'm not claiming to be an expert or authority on the issue.  Keep changing the subject and making attacks to take the heat away from you.  It may have worked before, but now there are some people willing to voice their opposition to the agenda you've collectively patted each other on the back for sharing.  you're entitled to have your opinion and express it, but we're entitled to provide an opposing point of view.  Afterall, dissent is democracy.

No I did not distort it.

First of all you claiming it, is not a link to an article.

Second, all of you guys have been making this claim on the board (everytime global warming is brought up) that scientists predicted an ice age by the 80's. And since it did not happen, then this global warming theory (although backed by many scientists) must be those same type of nutty professors.....my post was merely stating that I could not find any articles (and I searched) backing this claim they made. Not that it means jack shit anyway.


Then why post it like a reference? Obviously you have your own opinion. So why would any intelligent person want to read something that they already undestand to be slanted?

"Sooner or later even the dipshits on this board are gonna realize that you're a blowhard."

Calling them dipshits isn't going to take them to your side that is for sure.

And the only people that like you guys on this board....is you guys!!!  :hihi: All six of you backslapping one another...that is about it. I think most people here would be happy to see you guys hit the road to tell you the truth.

I wish you would stay. people like SLCPUN are jus to meen to get along with

And you seam nice.

---

Anyway...

Blowhards and dipshits and all manner of misfits. That's HTGTH for ya!

Sadly though some people obtrusively push for premature removal of not only individuals, but get this, ENTIRE CASTES!

Cheap huh?

Of course you want us gone so you can go back to the good old days where everyone on this forum jacks off to how horrible Bush/Republicans/Americans are. ?I never said than an Ice age would be here by the 1980s nor did any other poster that I am aware of. ?I stated that I said (as shown above) that during the 1970s (and early 80s in another post) that scientist said we were heading towards a new ice age. ?I then provided you with the link to a study from that era that you denied existed. ?Change around my words and others all you want, but there's no way you can get yourself out of this one. ?My personal claim (as I can't speak for others) is that because the Earth is now "getting warmer" when scientist recently and even now debate it's getting colder, there must be some problems in the methodology used. ?My other point is that these scientist take the most extreme scenario from their computer models and become alarmists. ?I don't dispute that global warming exists, I only dispute or questions the fidnings and outcomes many scientist predict.

This is what I was talking about, it was pretty clear. Don't make me dig up the posts of your buddies saying it either....

Amerika part II......

Attack of the clones.....

(http://tinypic.com/ehwwf6.jpg)

Remember this? http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22754.0



/jarmo

What's your point?  That was when you made it public that you were debating banning people and was when you banned Holy Way.  In our PM exchange, you said as long as I respect the views of different people, I'd be fine.  I respect that they have a different opinion, but SLC Punk altered what words I used and made an argument around that - the same thing he accuses me and popmetal of on a daily basis.  I'm sorry Jarmo, but there are many people on this message board who follow an ideology without any background or research - that is as closed minded and bigoted as someone can be; they just happen to be left of center so it's tolereated (no I don't consider SLC one of these).  Others on this board have made post celebrating SLC as an undefeatavle voice of their beliefs.  My point was and still is, that even people who are clueless are going to figure out that SLC is just as guilty of telling half truths and distortions as the people he points at.

Let me try to sum up jarmo's point (not that I want to speak for him).

1) Insulting posters is against the rules.

2) Calling people on the board dipshits (as is, in the above post, calling them clueless) is an insult to posters.

3) Breaking the rules, repeatedly, can result in banning.

Clear things up?

That pretty much sums it up.





/jarmo

Understood. I apologize for calling certain members dipshits.  I'll refrain from doing so in the future.

No one is fibbing or distorting what was said.

You're just completely misunderstanding each other.

Allow me to try to sort this out:

You made a claim about 70's scientists (and going forward) predicting an ice age to show confusion about the specifics of what the global temp is "doing". ?In the past, similar claims were made by other conservative posters about 70's scientists predicting an ice age would occur in the 80's, as evidence that scientists NOW predicting global warming were probably as right as those 70's scientists were. ?The two, as is often the case in an ongoing conversation, got juxtaposed and spiraled out of control. ?SLC asked for proof of a very specific scenario, because he thought you were adopting a point that has been presented in the past on this topic. ?You presented evidence of your actual claim, rather than the one he was thinking of, or asked for.

In essense, you're both right....and you're both wrong.

Can we move past it now?

OK, I have read your paper and these are my opinions, section by section

Section 1

OK, here, essentially is you voicing the opinion that the rise and fall of CO2, and thus, the rise and fall in world temperature is a naturally ocurring phenomenon, I agree with you there. But what I disagree with you on is, that the human race altering this phenomenon is natural. The Earth's cycle is a delicate thing and by changing it in ways it will eventually change in regardless, is not natural given that we are doing it 100's or even 1000's of years pre-maturely. You also say that, if man does indeed melt the polar ice caps as many theories of recent times suggest, through global warming that the excess water supply will in effect, get rid of the CO2 supply accumlated by the Greenhouse Effect, thus continuing the natural cycle. This may also in fact be true, but what nations, people or even species will be left to see it?! You also pose the question "what does it mean for man to exist naturally?" and site the works of different, what seems to me as philosophers, who spoke of such issues, the underlying argument being that if it is done by humans it is natural. Being un-experienced in regards to the philophers you used as your source, my intial reaction was disagreement. It is my belief that anything, done even, by a natural source, that harms the environment and it's inhabitants is unnatural. Including the example you gae of animals being hunted out of extinction by, let's say, a wolf. A wolf is acting on instict, it knows not the consiquences of what it is doing, God gave the human race better judgement and free will. I do no think that harming the atmosphere, when we are completely aware of what we are doing and what may happen as a result, should be put as natural, we should stop and realise our gift from God and use it rather than saying, oh, human activity is the cause of this problem, but since humans did it, it is natural.

Section 2

The policy you outlined, of taxing companys within ratio of the damage they cause to the environment, could be a good temporary solution to world pollution. However, I do not believe it will be adequete in the long run. It could serve as a first step towards tackling the problem. But as you said, would be difficult to introduce in both very prosperous industrial nations, and the few large nations left in the world living under a communist regime. Also, limiting pollution rather than stamping it out, may be beneficial to us in the short-term, but thinking of future generations, will eventually be faced with the exact same problem that we currently face, pollution needs to be eliminated, somehow, no matter how difficult, enduring and costly the procedure may be. As for, the demand from consumers to large industry to make produce, therefore demanding further damage to the environment, some form of educational government/independant programme or survey designed to enlighten consumers to shop for items produced by companys with an environmentally friendly production technique could work towards solving this problem.

Section 3

Section 3 in your paper is mainly an opinion piece, and I among others have voiced my opinion on more or less every point made by you in this piece.

Pollution "credits" already exist (and are bought/sold/traded amongst industrialized companies).  Given that, I question the merit between distinguishing between "taxes" and "fines"....."taxes" have a nasy habit of being cirumvented, but with "fines"...not so much.

This thread is 8 pages long and unless I'm mistaken, no one has answered BerkelyRiot's original post.  I'd really to know if anyone disagrees?  Or maybe no one has answered because he's right and there is no valid argument?

Or is it just that no one wants to argue with BerkelyRiot?  I suspect its not an easy argument to win.

Your right. I looked at it and the first person to respond was walk. We will disregard him, because he is not serious.

The next was POP who only replied to something I said  ::), not the question.

So.....Where are all the supporters of this prez here to defend him?

Why do you continually assume that Walk is not serious in his posts?  nothing I have seen in his posts lead me to believe he's joking or trying to say something outrageous to get attention.  For the record Walk, do you stand by your posts and affirm that they are your beliefs?

From what I saw, Walk only responded to SLC.  I was wondering why no one would respond to BerkleyRiot.  Seems people only want to fight with SLC and are ignoring BerkleyRiot.   Why?

He is bad but I dont know about the worst ever.

Bush has done some pretty ridiculous shit but he has been struck by some bad luck as well.

9/11. Hurricane Katrina

I dont really wanna argue the war anymore cause its a dead horse.


he definitely is close to the top of the list but I dont have the knowledge of enough past presidents to make a fair assessment

You honestly can read what walk posts and believe he is for real? He will say the most nutty things ever....are you serious? You must be reading something else....


Why do you think they don't? (not trying to be smart ass)

I responded (and someone else too I forget) that Jimmy Carter is the worst president of recent times (and Clinton a close second).  Again, for the sake of pilferk before he asks me to dig up facts to prove this point, it is my OPINION (which of course is what Berkley asked for in the first place).

I think Carter is widely considered to have been a very poor president.  He couldn't handle a hostage situation.  Imagine if he had 9/11 and a war on terror to deal with.  Yikes!

Yea, Bush is doing such a great job of it now..... :hihi:

LOL, I bet he would have gotten the right country at least!

i think it is unfair to judge a presidency in the middle of a war. it's also unfair to judge a presidency when that president's term has not even ended yet.

still, jimmy carter was worse. one of the worst ever.

so the answer to the question of this thread is NO.

Ok so you responded to the question in the title of the thread, but what about the individual points made in the original post?  That other presidents are worse is interesting, but I'm curious about the specific points BerkelyRiot brought up.

My reason for pushing this is that BerkleyRiot tends to be more "middle of the road" I think.  Not extreme one way or the other and probably represents a more common viewpoint.  Its easy to argue with extremists, because extremists are almost always wrong.  9 times out of 10, the truth is somewhere in the middle.  So I just want to know if those who support Bush have an argument to BerkleyRiots original points.  Maybe you all agree, but still think Bush isn't the worst, fine.  Doesn't it still make him pretty darn bad?

I said Carter a few pages back.

Certain people are not cut out to play politics in Washington. Carter was an idealist, which made him ineffective.

I did respond to the question.

Race to the bottom: Bush within one point of beating Jimmy Carter's record for lowest poll numbers

Facing problems ranging from Iraq, the Miers mis-nomination and Bush's continual support of importing Mexican slaves to steal American jobs so his rich, corrupt cronies can enjoy fat profits, Bush has now tanked so bad he may finally achieve the ultimate - beating Jimmy Carter for the lowest poll. This one ought to wake him up a little, that is if he is sober:

Bush approval dips below 40 percent
NBC-WSJ poll shows only 28 percent believe U.S. headed in right direction

MSNBC.com
By Mark Murray
Political reporter

WASHINGTON - It has been weeks since Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast; since gas prices began spiking to record highs; and since Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, held her antiwar vigil outside President Bush?s Texas ranch. But, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the fortunes of the Bush administration and the Republican Party have not yet begun to recover.

For the first time in the poll, Bush?s approval rating has sunk below 40 percent, while the percentage believing the country is heading in the right direction has dipped below 30 percent. In addition, a sizable plurality prefers a Democratic-controlled Congress, and just 29 percent think Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is qualified to serve on the nation?s highest court.

"Any way you slice this data, I think these are just terrible sets of numbers," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff.


The poll shows that Bush?s approval rating stands at 39 percent, a new low for the president. In the last NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, which was released in mid-September, 40 percent approved of Bush?s job performance while 55 percent disapproved. In addition, just 28 percent believe the country is headed in the right direction, another all-time low in Bush?s presidency.

Strikingly, much has happened in the time between those two polls ? many of them seemingly positive events for the White House. The president delivered a prime-time speech from New Orleans, in which he promised to rebuild the Gulf Coast. He also made several more visits to the region, to examine the damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Furthermore, he saw the Senate confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court, and he nominated Miers, his White House counsel, to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O?Connor.

?Huge question mark? on Miers
The Miers nomination, however, has disappointed some of the president?s conservative supporters, because they say she lacks judicial experience and a clear conservative record on social issues. According to the poll, 29 percent say she?s qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, while 24 percent think she?s unqualified. Forty-six percent say they don?t know enough about her.

"There is nothing to suggest that people have turned on her," Hart said. "But there is just a huge question mark behind her at this stage. She has to establish her own bona fides."

The poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points and which was conducted from Oct. 8-10 of 807 adults, also finds that strong majorities don?t believe that the recent charges against GOP leaders Tom DeLay of Texas and Bill Frist of Tennessee are politically motivated. Sixty-five percent say that DeLay?s indictment on charges of illegally using corporate contributions for political campaigns suggests potential illegal activity, while 24 percent say the indictment is politics as usual and has little merit. (Since his indictment, DeLay stepped down from his leadership position but still plays a prominent role in the U.S. House of Representatives.)

Meanwhile, 57 percent say Frist?s sale of stock in a company his family runs ? just before the value of the stock declined ? indicates potential illegal activity, compared with 28 percent who say the charge has little merit.

48 percent want Democratic-controlled Congress
In addition, with 13 months until the 2006 congressional elections, 48 percent say they prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress, compared with 39 percent who want the Republicans to control Capitol Hill. In fact, that nine-point difference is the largest margin between the parties in the 11 years the NBC/Journal poll has been tracking this question.

But Hart argues that Democrats aren?t necessarily responsible for this margin. "It is not that Democrats have done so well," he said. "It is that people are disgusted." McInturff puts it this way: "People are very turned off and unhappy with the state of play in American politics."

People also seem to be turned off and unhappy with high gas prices. According to the survey, 69 percent believe the worst is still to come with energy and fuel prices. Just 25 percent think the worst is behind us.

Because of this generally sour attitude, the NBC/Journal pollsters doubt that Bush will be able to climb out of his standing anytime soon. "His trampoline [is] made of cement," Hart said.

And while McInturff thinks that Bush?s approval rating actually may actually hover between 40 and 45 percent, he says that?s still problematic terrain from which to govern. "It is a very difficult place to be."

Is the sound of thousands of sheepish voters scraping Bush/Cheney bumper stickers off their cars in the dead of night when no one is looking.

- i think bush was right to go into iraq. mistakes have been made and he must be held responsible. but the long term plan there looks good. and he got rid of one of the worst dictators in the world, who was a huge threat to U.S.
also, everyone agreed with his actions in afghanistan. and his handling of the post-9/11 period was excellent.

- he got almost everything he wanted in his first term. no child left behind was passed with tons of bi-partisan support. he also created several government agencies (post-9/11). his low approval ratings have caused him major problems this year. we're in the middle of a war, which makes things difficult. but he knew what he was getting into, so he needs to do a better job with this. still, he but we're not even a quarter through his second term. give him some time.

- i think he could have done a better job on Katrina. But i think the local government should be held more accountable than he.

- i wish he was more fiscally responsible. but he's been faced with some difficult circumstances (inheriting a recession, 9/11, etc.). i believe things would be worse if not for some of his economic policy (he ended the recession in about 8 months - shortest in U.S. history).

- "offensive" choice for the SC??? strong words. i don't know enough about her. and i will wait until i learn more about her to pass judgement. his other choice was brilliant and i respect it alot.

- the borders need to be addressed. i don't understand why we do nothing about it. and bush needs to take ownership of this and include it as a key point in the fight against terrorism.

Yes, he is

He went from wiskey frat to god dorm and says his name is mosesIIthereturn.

Nutcase

I don't think it's fair to judge any President until WELL AFTER their term has ended. We won't know how the Iraq mess turns out until years and years later. His presidency, in a larger historical perspective, will only be judged, in the end, by the results of this war. Thus, it may be 20 years before we will know. Right now, I would have to say he screwed up. But, it is really way to soon to tell. :-\

Exactly, time will tell. t is still to early. If Bush pulls off a successful democratic Iraq he will go down as one of the great ones. If it blows up in his face & another theocracy takes power like in Iran, you could say he was one of the worst.

I am not sure how you can make this argument in hindsight.  Of course, I don't think he could have went either way with the information he had.  I don't blame him for making that decision; however, I think in hindsight it is difficult to defend.

Absolutely.  Wouldn't you agree that a big part of any war is being able to defend your policy and sell it to the people?  This President is completely unable to do this.  Probably the most ineffective communicating President I have seen in my lifetime.  That is probably an understatement.

What is that plan?  To train Iraqis to defend themselves?  I am not sure how much ground we are making on this.  I understand in theory the whole plan sounds good: create democracy in the middle east etc.; however, in reality the cost in achieving such a democracy may be too high.
 
Sure he was an evil dictator.  However, I am not sure how you can make an argument that he was such a huge threat to the U.S.  How?

Fair enough.  Any President would have attacked Afghanistan.  Of course, everyone is going to agree on an action that occurs after the greatest attack on US soil. 


In getting laws passed, and doing the right thing in attacking terrorism I will give him credit.  However, there are still many EASY things that can be done to fix vulnerabilities that he refuses to do: ie border security.

OK, but just because he got everything he wanted doesn't mean they were all great things.  A lot of what he passed is pure pork.  The prescription drug bill was not good.  He has not vetoed one bill since he has been in office.

Not sure how a conservative can necessarily say this is a good thing.  In addition, the agency he created, Homeland Security, proved to be incompetent during Katrina.  Again, howver, I will give him credit for passing tough terrorism laws.

We are in a war that is not going great, I agree.  Of course that is going to effect his ratings.  However, incompetence in Katrina, a horrible pick in Miers, and his inability to handle a press conference have hardly helped much either.

Of course, the local government was incompetent, as I stated in my first post.  However, you can't point to someone more incompetent to justify or lessen the incompetence of the current administration.

No doubt he has had it tough.  Yet, he has still failed to veto one bill.  As I stated before, if they would have been on Katrina from the start, we wouldn't be forced to spend 100 billion in the region, which is primarily pork.  Bush basically has to spend all of our money to prove that he actually does care, something that he wouldn't have had to do if he had been on top of things from the start.

I agree 100%, his tax cuts helped the economy immensly.

I think it is offensive on so many levels.  First of all, she is a crony, something the Federalist papers specifically warned the Senate to prevent.  Second of all, she is probably the least qualified candidate I have seen.  When asked about her qualifications they point to her time as head of the Dallas Bar, and her appointment to the lotter commission. :o  Furthermore, they say the fact that she didn't go to a top school is an attribute.  I am not saying that you have to go to Yale, but it certainly doesn't make her more qualified for not having attended Yale.  She has no history of any practice, writing, or thought on Constitutional law.  I think it was the biggest mistake of his presidency.  I hope she gets rejected.

Her qualifications are enough for me to reject her.  That, and the fact, that she is a crony.


I don't know why he doesn't do this.  If we have another attack that comes from someone that got across the border, then all of the rest of the stuff he is doing will be for nothing.

Quote
- he got almost everything he wanted in his first term. no child left behind was passed with tons of bi-partisan support.
OK, but just because he got everything he wanted doesn't mean they were all great things.  A lot of what he passed is pure pork.  The prescription drug bill was not good.  He has not vetoed one bill since he has been in office.

i did not once say that all of his policies were great. you're original point was:

complete inability to sell his policies or his positions to the public

and that statement is flat out FALSE. because obviously there was public support for his policies if they all got passed (if there was no public support, politicians would not pass them).

you can't say any president would have invaded afghanistan. gore would not have. and the mission there has been a HUGE success.

i think katrina should have been handled primarily by local governments. i don't think the responsibility should fall on the president. therefore, i think he's getting a raw deal because of their incompetencies.

i wanted to invade iraq since the clinton administration. and to say you are fighting a war on terror and not go after iraq would be incompetent.

things do not look good there now, but back in the spring, many national magazines wrote articles that there were some strong signs that bush's long term plan could work there. and if it does, he'll go down as one of the all time gretest presidents.

Good thing, since Iraq was behind terror attacks in the USA and USA interests around the globe....

Oh wait...that was somebody else.

Well, at least we got those WMD.....

(http://tinypic.com/eq328z.jpg)

you didn't see saddam as a threat. that's fine. i disagree. and ALL of my opinion is based on comments made by the democrats, and most importantly, bill clinton. i think he understood very well the threats in iraq. and i can't argue with how he handled them either.