The legacy of 'W'?

I'm going to take your word for that.

I'm honestly looking for some debate here as to what his legacy will be, and what has he actually done a good job with? I'm sure there's gotta be something.

How about these:
1- he has helped to lower interest rates to the best in history.
2- He has helped the economy to one of the most successful in history.
3- He has had VERY good unemployment rates all the while lowering taxes for everyone including the poor.
4- He has hit his objectives and stuck to his word, something we commonly criticize presidents for. (read my lips, no new taxes comes to mind)
5- His unwaivering support for the protection of this country.
(Apparently he is a genius too cause he started this war all by himself, and he has fought this war all by himself. But that is sarcasm, not an actual good job)
6- He prevented Nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
7- Getting Lybia to give up its WMD programs and renounce terrorism.
8- Getting North Korea to shut down it's nuclear reactor.
9- Decapitating Al Quaeda's top leadership and preventing another massive attack on US soil.
10- Boosting Aid to Africa by three times the current aid...and vowed to double it again by 2010.

I'll start with those.[/quote]

What dimension are you living in?

All good points 12th man. But, I tend to give Bush a pass for Katrina if for no other reason than it is impossible to take a totally destroyed city and expect to have the recovery go smoothly.

And, Crazyhorse, I still don't understand how anyone can be honest with themselves and think Bush is a Godsend or pure evil. If you think he's a Godsend you probably should stop listening to Savage Nation, watching Fox News, and hanging out at Sunday School. If you think he's pure evil (which, apparently, you do), you should probably stop listening to Air America, watching Bill Maher, and hanging out with fellow liberal arts professors.

I think it's pretty amazing that conservatives adore a guy who clearly doesn't believe in fiscal responsibility (see our ridiculous budget), small government (see the Patriot Act), or a "conservative" foreign policy (see Iraq). I think it's equally amazing that liberals literally hate the guy for detaining people at Gitmo when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and FDR imprisoned thousands of totally innocent civilians in prison camps, abusing the judicial system when FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court to get his unconstitutional legislation passed, and for keeping us involved in a civil war when those same people want us to get involved in Darfur and backed the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo.

There, I've managed to annoy both conservatives and liberals.

Because only if you're guilty of something should you worry about it.
What the far left needs to realize that in order to be very protected there has to be some "rights" that need to be bent. It's give and take. No one is infridging on my constitutional rights, and I like it that way.

Try reading something or watching a news show.

Because only if you're guilty of something should you worry about it.
What the far left needs to realize that in order to be very protected there has to be some "rights" that need to be bent. It's give and take. No one is infridging on my constitutional rights, and I like it that way.

The founding fathers believed that laws should protect all of us from unwarranted government intrusion. To believe otherwise is very "un-conservative."

All good points 12th man. But, I tend to give Bush a pass for Katrina if for no other reason than it is impossible to take a totally destroyed city and expect to have the recovery go smoothly.

And, Crazyhorse, I still don't understand how anyone can be honest with themselves and think Bush is a Godsend or pure evil. If you think he's a Godsend you probably should stop listening to Savage Nation, watching Fox News, and hanging out at Sunday School. If you think he's pure evil (which, apparently, you do), you should probably stop listening to Air America, watching Bill Maher, and hanging out with fellow liberal arts professors.

I think it's pretty amazing that conservatives adore a guy who clearly doesn't believe in fiscal responsibility (see our ridiculous budget), small government (see the Patriot Act), or a "conservative" foreign policy (see Iraq). I think it's equally amazing that liberals literally hate the guy for detaining people at Gitmo when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and FDR imprisoned thousands of totally innocent civilians in prison camps, abusing the judicial system when FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court to get his unconstitutional legislation passed, and for keeping us involved in a civil war when those same people want us to get involved in Darfur and backed the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo.

There, I've managed to annoy both conservatives and liberals.

It's not so much that I'm blaming him, but I don't see that same motivation, the same difience, if you will, in getting involved in New Orleans that I see with Iraq. I fully understand that the reality of war and the reality of re-building a city are two different issues, but I don't see the press conferences; I don't see or him publicly speak about progress being made there; I don't hear testimonies about people returning to a ward that has been rebuilt; I don't see him talk about new initiatives to get people mobilized and back home. You see what I'm saying? I really think his hands were tied on the levies. They didn't all of a sudden decide to erode and break under Bush, Jr., but it's coming up on two years now, and I'm starting to scratch my head as to where we are.

All fair points 12th Man. I can't really argue with your last post.

There are always votes that get tossed out because they are improperly cast. For Gore to say, "those were votes for me, and I'm the winner" is unreasonable. It may be that his voters were less competent and more likely to have cast an overvote or an undervote but there is no way to know that. The best indication of what Gore was up to is the fact that he tried to exclude those absentee votes from mostly military people. At that point it should have been obvious that he didn't really believe he had won, but was rather trying to steal the thing.

I think what confused some people was the fact that the exit polling incorrectly predicted Gore to be the winner. That caused TV to give him the state (at about 8:45 PM EST, before all the polls in the state were closed, amazingly) and when they realized their mistake and changed their prediction it seemed as though there were some shenanigans when it was really just TV and the people they hire to do those exit polls making a mistake. Exit polls have become worthless as have polls generally, IMO, because conservatives will often tell a pollster to go eff himself. With caller ID, I think the polls that we see touted on TV are extremely suspect. Nobody with a life is going to talk to them.

Facts you don't seem to be aware of:

The Bufferfly ballot in Palm Beach cost Gore thousands of votes.

Florida declared 80,000 black voters inelgible by falsely declaring them to be felons. Florida imported a felon list from Texas and eliminated every black in Florida who had the same name as a Texas felon.

Gore got more votes for president in Florida than Bush did. This was by final count. I realize that you think otherwise with some reason, but you are wrong. The count you are familiar with was the result of votes cast in disputed districts. Long after the election, a complete vote count of all of Florida showed Gore to be the winner, inspite of the felon's list, and inspite of the Butterfly ballot.

Gore didn't just win Florida by actual count, he should have won Florida by tens of thousands of votes, not just a few thousand.

Note: Opinion is one thing; being wrong about the facts is another. Curiously, however, in regard to the state vote count, the correct numbers wouldn't have mattered anyway. Gore didn't ask the whole state to recount votes, so was technically not entitled to a statewide recount,

What the recount did, however, was vindicate the maligned exit poll, which turned out to be correct and, indeed, did show that the Bush campaign had indeed engaged in funny business.

As we now know, the Bush machine has been fundamentally dishonest to an appalling degree since first appearing on the national scene. The Iraq war, tax giveaways to the rich, corruption, violations of civic liberties, spying, etc. had just been predictable aspects of its nature.

No other administration has ever been just a threat to the truth and liberty as well. Bush is truly not just the worse, but the most destructive and dangerous president in U.S. history. He has disgraced everyone who has ever believed in him.

I tend to agree with you here.

Total nonsense.

This is why I thought this would be a bush bashing thread. If you really think he has done nothing right, you're not looking, or prefer just to focus on the negative. I have mentioned several things that he has done well, you could have regurgitated one of them.

PS- 9/11 everyone thought he handled very well, the war was a decision that Dems decided to go to, the economy is in GREAT shape (yes gas prices suck but not really his fault) and Katrina was the fault of thoughless morons that couldn't lift a finger to get themselves out of the way. I think he has given too much to rescue the idiots that didn't want to leave. All those morons on their roof bitching about being rescued should have been left. No one, and I mean no one can convince me that they didn't have time. I was sitting here watching it on tv, and as soon as it passed Florida the projected path was right into New Orleans. Even if you waited just to be sure, 2 days before hand they KNEW it was coming. If 48 hours isn't enough for you to realize that you live 10+ feet BELOW sea level and need to evacuate, then you're a dee, dee, dee and I'm not concerned about your safety. I'm not going to be concerned about you if you choose not to be concerned about youself.
Why would Bush send people in early when it was dangerous? Why put others in danger for the stupidities of others? And what the "armed bandits" making life difficult...shooting helpers? Bush did the right thing by waiting, and has done too much to date. I know that is not the politically correct thing to say, and it's not the dems view, but I am not going to apologize for it. Where was all that help when Charlie hit Punta Gorda / Fort Myers? Where was all that help when Andrew hit? The problem there is the people in New Orleans have a poor me attitude and since they are "poor" they feel they should be heard and lay there until someone helps. The people in Florida are deemed as "having money" so they take care of themselves. But fact is, Punta Gorda was full of trailer parks too. Just goes to show you that Florida is full of republicans (Lee county is 80% republicans) and New Orleans is full of Democrats. DO you think it is a coincidence? I don't. Republicans are taught to fend for themselves while Dems have been taught if they can't take care of themselves (or don't want to) then someone will do it for them. Of course that doesn't apply to EVERY person, but it applies as an in general statement.

Nobody was shooting helpers or raping anyone. All of that was disproved after the crisis. Nor were there "armed bandits." Do you ever read the news? By the way, the economy is not great. Right now, we are in absolutely horrendous debt that some economists think could eventually bankrupt us. Also, unemployment is down, but so is income for most American workers. Close to 40% of Americans working full time are failing to earn a living wage. Try a book or two on the economy.

Thanks

What the recount did, however, was vindicate the maligned exit poll, which turned out to be correct and, indeed, did show that the Bush campaign had indeed engaged in funny business.

As we now know, the Bush machine has been fundamentally dishonest to an appalling degree since first appearing on the national scene. The Iraq war, tax giveaways to the rich, corruption, violations of civic liberties, spying, etc. had just been predictable aspects of its nature.

No other administration has ever been just a threat to the truth and liberty as well. Bush is truly not just the worse, but the most destructive and dangerous president in U.S. history. He has disgraced everyone who has ever believed in him.

You should read the briefs submitted by BOTH Gore and Bush in Bush v. Gore. I don't think you would have the same image of Gore's camp after doing so. Gore's camp didn't want a total recount, they only wanted recounts of those districts in which Gore had the most supporters. Gore's camp also wanted to exclude absentee ballots submitted by members of the military on technical grounds because they knew 90%+ of them would vote for Bush. Gore didn't win the election, it was a close one, but he lost. I tend to vote for Dems, but they lose points in my book when they harken back to an election that took place almost a decade ago.

And I still do not know how you lambast Bush for being so disrepectful of U.S. law and values, and still probably think FDR was a great president. He's done nothing that other Presidents haven't done. And not to be a d**k, but since you are telling others to read books, I would suggest you do the same and read up on guys like Jackson, Lincoln, and FDR.