By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - If the 22nd Amendment didn't exist, would you vote for Pres. Bush?

Retrasado on 01 November 2008
Hawkeye said:
lightbleeder said:
Bush is probably the worst president US ever had. About Bill Clinton, I'd like to see him in office again too

What about Herbert Hoover and Taft? Thye were both worse imo. Making the great depression worse and being a fatass FTL. Bush may have chocked on a pretzel, but he never got stuck in a bathtub.

 

lol. useless trivia for the day: Taft was so fat (for his time; 6'1'' and 300+ pounds) he had to get a custom-made tub that could hold four regualr men.

also, a few other presidents that make Bush look like a genius would be Jimmy Carter, Warren Harding, Benjamin Harrison, Ulysses Grant, and my personal favorite: James Buchanan.

Anyway, you really ahve to wait 40-50 years to get a true perspective on how good or bad a president was. I mean, look at how people view Richard Nixon today versus what people thought of him ten or 20 years ago. Bush wasn't a good president, but he wasn't incredibly bad either. I'd say he'd be about #30 out of the 43 presidents.



Not trying to be a fanboy. Of course, it's hard when you own the best console eve... dang it

Around the Network
Hawkeye on 01 November 2008
akuma587 said:
Username2324 said:
An Obama Nation is an Obomination.

You heard it here first.

P.S. Yes I know it's spelled with an A

That's cute. You come up with that all by yourself?

 

 

HUR theres nuthin cute about a black Muslin anit-american anitchrist who palls around with terurists and won't even support his own illegal immigrant grandmother. His pastor is pretty bad too. And I hear he's not even a citizen- there are multiple lawsuits, and those are SO hard to make that it has to be true that he is really a Kenyan terrorist who wants to destroy America and at the same time is also the antichrist who wants to turn the world into one world and then bring it under darkness. It all makes sense.

Also, we invaded Iraq purely out of the goodness of our hearts to save their country. It would be best if Bush could run for 4 more years, but hes not allowed becuase Clinton wasn't allowed so it wouldn't be fair.

 



akuma587 on 01 November 2008
Hawkeye said:
lightbleeder said:
Bush is probably the worst president US ever had. About Bill Clinton, I'd like to see him in office again too

What about Herbert Hoover and Taft? Thye were both worse imo. Making the great depression worse and being a fatass FTL. Bush may have chocked on a pretzel, but he never got stuck in a bathtub.

 

 

Don't let Jackson hear you say that.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Hawkeye on 01 November 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
SamuelRSmith said:
What's wrong with Europe?

 

It's a little to social for my tastes.

The more social you become, the less free the people are. The standard of living in Europe is good, but try and buy a house (in some countries, you can only buy through auction), A car (some countries have a waiting list), or open a bank account (some require letters of recondition first).

I like to compare it to growing up at home, and then moving out.

Socialism is your country taking care of you, like your parents did. When you were a kid, you didn't need to think about healthcare, or feeding yourself. You parents did that. But that came with rules. Your personal freedoms were not your own.

When you move out, you now have no one taking care of you but yourself, yet you have the freedom to live your life how you see fit.

I like that concept a lot better then living in a country where I am taken care of at the expense of my freedoms. Many don't though, so for them, enjoy Europe. For the rest of us, let's try and keep this country a little more free :).

 

 

 

American socialism would be very double edged.



Hawkeye on 01 November 2008
akuma587 said:
Hawkeye said:
lightbleeder said:
Bush is probably the worst president US ever had. About Bill Clinton, I'd like to see him in office again too

What about Herbert Hoover and Taft? Thye were both worse imo. Making the great depression worse and being a fatass FTL. Bush may have chocked on a pretzel, but he never got stuck in a bathtub.

 

 

Don't let Jackson hear you say that.

 

At the risk of sounding stupid, who's Jackson?



Around the Network
akuma587 on 01 November 2008

This guy. He posted earlier in the thread

http://www.vgchartz.com/profiles/profile.php?tab=forum&id=26169



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Viper1 on 01 November 2008
halogamer1989 said:

I would.  And no John McCain is not a Bush third term either.  Bush is hardcore against terrorists and I don't want 9/11 v2 under Obama.

 

So long as we keep trying to push our agenda where it's not wanted, we will always fear a 9/11 v2.

 

9/11 happened because we were there for too long pissing them off.  Had we minded out own business, we'd rarely, if ever, get attacked.   Do you see Japan getting attacked by terrorists?  No.  Why, because they practice non-interventionism so they don't grow a whole generation of pisses off terrorists.

Imagine if I came to your backyard and started rearranging everything the wy I like and telling you it's for your own good.  Then say I did that to your whole neighborhood.   I think you get it from here.

 



The rEVOLution is not being televised

whatever on 01 November 2008
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:

Bush's record is largely void of accomplishments. He did a pretty good job keeping the country secure, although he handled it about as poorly as possible, and the American public hates him for it. He pretty much tarred and feathered America's good name across the world as well. At least Obama might undo some or all of that damage.

But other than that he has done very little good for America unless you are in the top tax brackets. His education reforms have been a joke, ask anyone who works in education. He rolled back a lot of the advances in environmental reform. He did little or nothing to fix the Social Security and healthcare problems. He turned the Supreme Court further right (which is a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it). He handled Katrina very poorly, (but at least handled the most recent hurricane adequately well).

But the worst thing he did was how he tried to usurp so many powers of the other branches of government. Such levels of "cronyism" in his appointments to judicial positions and his abuse of power over the U.S. Attorney's office has been unprecedented. Bush tried to circumvent the Constitution at every step of the way.  He turned the federal government into his own political plaything.

Bush is a perfect example of what not to do as a President unless you want the American people to hate you. He went from record approval ratings to record approval ratings (highest approval to lowest approval). I am not sure if he has bottomed out to Nixon's nadir yet, but he is within 1-2% points if he hasn't already.

Completly untrue.  The Gini index under Bush has had the lowest growth rates since reagan.

The gap between the rich and poor hasn't changed much at all.

The Bush tax cuts actually made the tax code MORE progressive.... according to the tax policy center.

At "best", you could say Bush did almost nothing for everybody... and the least for the rich.

When it comes to the Gap between the rich and poor.  Bush has been a better president then either Carter or Clinton.

Paul Krugman (recent Nobel Prize winner) disagrees with you.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer/print

"Rising inequality isn't new. The gap between rich and poor started growing before Ronald Reagan took office, and it continued to widen through the Clinton years. But what is happening under Bush is something entirely unprecedented: For the first time in our history, so much growth is being siphoned off to a small, wealthy minority that most Americans are failing to gain ground even during a time of economic growth -- and they know it."



Kasz216 on 02 November 2008
That Guy said:
akuma587 said:
That Guy said:
halogamer1989 said:

I would.  And no John McCain is not a Bush third term either.  Bush is hardcore against terrorists and I don't want 9/11 v2 under Obama.

 

Drat. Well it was a good thing that Obama scrapped that Pro Terror Campaign Slogan he was going to pitch.

 

Urrrrrr.... who isn't pro-terror?

And when did Bush become the foreign relations expert anyways? Al Gore destroyed him when it came to foreign relations knowledge but Bush became president anyways, remember?

 

Bush won because he was the cozier candidate, pretty much both in 2000 and 2004.  But we saw how well that turned out...although it is unfair to say that Gore or Kerry would have done a perfect job either without seeing what they actually would have done.

 

 

I think the Democrats beat themselves in 2000 and 2004.

 

Instead of riding on the Coattails of Clinton, Gore went out and purposely distanced himself from Clintons success and decided to go his own way. That combined with practically no personality, he lost to bust in that infamous hanging chad thingee.

John Kerry lost because of his infamous "I voted for the 82 billion dollars before I voted against it." That and the weird swiftboat thing gave the victory to bush in another close election.

 

I think John Kerry lost because he looks like the creepy doctor in the reanimator who becomes a zombie and performs sexual acts against an unwilling person as a decapitated head.

That and he just was horrible in general.  He was a mess of a politician.  Now John Edwards.  He would of won.

 



Kasz216 on 02 November 2008
whatever said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:

Bush's record is largely void of accomplishments. He did a pretty good job keeping the country secure, although he handled it about as poorly as possible, and the American public hates him for it. He pretty much tarred and feathered America's good name across the world as well. At least Obama might undo some or all of that damage.

But other than that he has done very little good for America unless you are in the top tax brackets. His education reforms have been a joke, ask anyone who works in education. He rolled back a lot of the advances in environmental reform. He did little or nothing to fix the Social Security and healthcare problems. He turned the Supreme Court further right (which is a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it). He handled Katrina very poorly, (but at least handled the most recent hurricane adequately well).

But the worst thing he did was how he tried to usurp so many powers of the other branches of government. Such levels of "cronyism" in his appointments to judicial positions and his abuse of power over the U.S. Attorney's office has been unprecedented. Bush tried to circumvent the Constitution at every step of the way.  He turned the federal government into his own political plaything.

Bush is a perfect example of what not to do as a President unless you want the American people to hate you. He went from record approval ratings to record approval ratings (highest approval to lowest approval). I am not sure if he has bottomed out to Nixon's nadir yet, but he is within 1-2% points if he hasn't already.

Completly untrue.  The Gini index under Bush has had the lowest growth rates since reagan.

The gap between the rich and poor hasn't changed much at all.

The Bush tax cuts actually made the tax code MORE progressive.... according to the tax policy center.

At "best", you could say Bush did almost nothing for everybody... and the least for the rich.

When it comes to the Gap between the rich and poor.  Bush has been a better president then either Carter or Clinton.

Paul Krugman (recent Nobel Prize winner) disagrees with you.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer/print

"Rising inequality isn't new. The gap between rich and poor started growing before Ronald Reagan took office, and it continued to widen through the Clinton years. But what is happening under Bush is something entirely unprecedented: For the first time in our history, so much growth is being siphoned off to a small, wealthy minority that most Americans are failing to gain ground even during a time of economic growth -- and they know it."

That'd be nice if he were disagreeing with me.  However he's not.  He's disagreeing with the Gini Coefficent.  Which are well... the numbers.  The cold hard facts.

Also this was written before the tax cuts came into effect.  Simply, he predicted wrong... the Gini coefficent as it stands now has barely budged during Clinton.

In the year he made this predition 2006.  It made sense since the Gini Coeeficient was at it's highest levels.  However once his tax cuts actually kicked in.. the Gini coefficent dropped for the last two years.

How rare is that?  It's only happened 7 times between 1968 and 2005.

So... yeah.  Non issue of an article.  That inequality was before Bush's economic plans really came into being... and the rise in inequality was really more of a Clinton carryover.