The legacy of 'W'?

So either the Florida Bush voters knew how to correctly punch a ballot whereas the Gore voters did not, or this article is selectively using facts to draw readers to an incorrect conclusion.

Either way, this is pretty bad for your case.

I tend to agree with you here.

That has nothing to do with anything.

Of course it does. It's like spending all day complaining about Alstott's elbow not crossing the line but then ignoring the fact you let a QB making just his 5th NFL start rack up over 30 points on your defense. (Granted the comparison isn't exactly perfect because there's no question Alstott's elbow didn't cross the goal line)

But the point is why doesn't anybody ever point the finger at Gore for not getting things done elsewhere in the campaign? Why does it have to be some big conspiracy?

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.


Guess what, big guy. Florida has many more democrats than republicans and you don't have any idea what people from New Orleans feel, much less documentation of any such thing. Also, New Orleans was not "full" of trailor parks by any standard I know of and the dems don't teach poor people to avoid taking care of themselves, even as the republicans break our budget with gifts to the rich (see below). Also, under Clinton, FEMA performed as brilliantly in Florida as FEMA performed poorly in New Orleans under Bush, who had deliberately downsized it into ineffectiveness. And while we're discussing reality here instead of a good old boy version of it, here's the House of Representatives report on the consequences of Bush's great tax policy.
http://www.majorityleader.gov/docuploads/WAYSANDMEANSTAXREPORT.pdf

I've never blocked any poster, but you are temting me. I think this is complete horseshit. Or Crazyhorseshit. Then again, it would take someone like you to try and disqualify military votes. Sorry mods, couldn't help it.

I don't blame you.

Guess what, big guy. Florida has more democrats than republicans and you don't have any idea what people from New Orleans feel, much less proof of it. Also, New Orleans was not "full" of trailor parks and the dems don't teach people to not take care of themselves. Also, under Clinton, FEMA performed very well in Florida. And while we're discussing reality here, here the House of Representatives report of the consequences of Bush's great tax policy.
http://www.majorityleader.gov/docuploads/WAYSANDMEANSTAXREPORT.pdf


Please, for the love of God tell me what you're smoking. I would love to live in an alternate world.
1- My point was about LEE COUNTY and the percentage of republicans there cause that is where hurricane Charlie hit. (I guess if you read the news you'd know that. Now two wrongs don't make a right...I guess I shouldn't say that.
2- I never said there were trailer parks in New Orleans. I said the trailer parks in PUNTA GORDA which is in FLORIDA, about 10 miles from Fort Myers which is in LEE COUNTY which has an overwhelming majority of REPUBLICANS.

I thought you would read what I actually said...but now your stance makes sense. You tell us to read, but apprarently what your eyes see becomes all jumbled by the time it gets to your head.

Thank you for the insignificant debate, I will move on to posters that know how to do it properly.

Reading this article got me wondering, when it's all said and done what do you think W's legacy will be? In 25 years when we look back, how do you think he will be perceived?

I mean c'mon, let's face it the guy came into office riding a mountain of controversy over the 2000 election, and he's enjoyin "rock-bottom poll numbers" as this article puts it.

I think the question is worth asking, is he the worst President we've seen to date?

Unpopular Bush risks little by staying course (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/13/BUSH.TMP)

Andrew Johnson and Ulysses S. Grant were phenomially worse presidents. Johnson was nearly the 1st Impeached President in U.S. history. Primarily because of his stubbornness and laziness. Grant had the most corrupt administration in history primarily using his presidency to get rich. He was a master of the Quid pro Quo.

Please, for the love of God tell me what you're smoking. I would love to live in an alternate world.
1- My point was about LEE COUNTY and the percentage of republicans there cause that is where hurricane Charlie hit. (I guess if you read the news you'd know that. Now two wrongs don't make a right...I guess I shouldn't say that.
2- I never said there were trailer parks in New Orleans. I said the trailer parks in PUNTA GORDA which is in FLORIDA, about 10 miles from Fort Myers which is in LEE COUNTY which has an overwhelming majority of REPUBLICANS.

I thought you would read what I actually said...but now your stance makes sense. You tell us to read, but apprarently what your eyes see becomes all jumbled by the time it gets to your head.

Thank you for the insignificant debate, I will move on to posters that know how to do it properly.

Try reading your own posts. You said that Florida was full of Republicans and implied with the word "too" that New Orleans also had an unusual number of trailers. If you misspoke by means of poor grammar, that's fine. If not, it's not.
But, you don't get a pass because I read what you wrote. You said you wanted a debate and I have given you material in two posts that contradict the facuality of what you have said. Now, it's clear to me that you are making up an excuse to bail.

........

Because a new Osama tape surfaced today. Try reading the news.

As-Sahab [Al-Qaeda's media wing (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/alqaeda_ramps_u.html)] produced videos always contain tons of old footage mixed together in documentary style. In fact just a few weeks ago one was released that showed an old video clip of Osama bin Laden. Much like the case for that one this upcoming release reportedly has a 50-second clip of OBL. We do not have final confirmation yet but we believe this clip to be OLD, which means that it was either previously released and is just being reaired or it was recorded awhile ago but never shown till now. Either way in the language of as-Sahab videos a 50-second clip on a 40-minute produced video does not make a "new" Osama bin Laden "video". These videos always have old clips of OBL.

All of this is not to say that this video is not significant. Almost all produced as-Sahab videos are for a variety of reasons. These videos take a lot of time and energy for al-Qaeda to produce and generally they only do so for things they feel are important. For example this new video has a new animated intro which would have taken a lot of work and computing power to do.

So, yes on significant... No, this is not a new OBL video. It is a 40-minute video with a short clip of Osama bin Laden that we have likely seen before.

fromhttp://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/07/new-osama-vid-n.html

This will likely be the only response I make to you since you have no clue what it takes to debate, rather you prefer to assume and throw insults.
So my suggestion to you sir is to try to read OBJECTIVE articles, and actually see things for what they really are.

We might as well post links from the "dark side" as well

John R. Lott Jr. on Florida 2000 on National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200312100915.asp)

The 2000 Election: Where's the Disenfranchisement? (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/08092004.shtml)