Is Bush the worst President in recent time?

[jarmo]

That pretty much sums it up.





/jarmo

[Guns N RockMusic]

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

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?

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

[pilferk]

( I outline this in my paper that only 2 have asked to see)?

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

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......

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:

in the 1970s Scientist were claiming we were heading to a new ice age.

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

here is what you replied:

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.

[/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.

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?

[Jamie]

( I outline this in my paper that only 2 have asked to see)?

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

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.

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.

[pilferk]

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.

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.

[Sterlingdog]

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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?

[Guns N RockMusic]

the first person to respond was walk. We will disregard him, because he is not serious.

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?

[Sterlingdog]

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?

[D]

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

[SLCPUNK]

the first person to respond was walk. We will disregard him, because he is not serious.

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?

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....

I was wondering why no one would respond to BerkleyRiot.

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

[Charity Case]

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!

[SLCPUNK]

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.....

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

[sandman]

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.

[Sterlingdog]

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?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

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.

[POPmetal]

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

I did respond to the question.

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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."

[SLCPUNK]

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.

[sandman]

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 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.