The legacy of 'W'?

Yet another liberal warpath bash the President thread.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Are you trying to turn a civil/insightful/well thought out thread into yet another pissing match?
You've added nothing to the thread with this post just because you ASSUME that it's going to turn into a Bush bashing session. Good work.

I'm liberal and damn proud of it, so it's hardly an insult to be called liberal. Nice try though SBF. If you haven't learned by now this is a message board where we engage in discussion, but maybe taking a page from your book I should cry and stomp my feet and tell you to get off MY THREAD if you don't agree with me. But I won't, because I am indeed an open minded liberal who is willing to at least listen to opposing view points and discuss them in a mature and civil manner.

Bush is in my opinion a joke of a president, but I think most people know my opinion on that. As I said I wasn't looking to bash here, that's far too easy and has been done many times over. I'm actually interested in hearing some views on what he's done well and how he might go down in history.

Thank you and good night.

Are you trying to turn a civil/insightful/well thought out thread into yet another pissing match?
You've added nothing to the thread with this post just because you ASSUME that it's going to turn into a Bush bashing session. Good work.

Yeah dewd it's all about me. Make it so if you wish. My comment was just like others but I see you quoted me. That's ok.

~same as it ever was, same as it ever was

Don't like the message shoot the messanger.

And don't forget when you point fingers your thumb is pointed right back at ya. Same as it ever was indeed.

I will comment on these together since they are so closely related.
If you use those as a negative against the presidency, then they have to be a positive if they do a good job. Fact is, Bush has policies in place to help stimulate the economy and the interest rates. Sure it's not him 100%, but you can't deny he has helped the situation.

Use what? Huh? All I said was Presidents don't have much of an impact on the economy. End of story. Anyone who would have you believe otherwise is uninformed or just playing politics. The vast majority of Aemricans do not understand this, which is why administrations take as much cerdit as they can when it is good. But in the end our economy is a free market economy which is by defintion free of influence as much as possible. To say he helped is to give an opinion on the effectiveness of tax cuts as a economic stimulus. This is a highly debateable subject and by no means a fact. I tend to think tax cuts at any level do spur economic growth but that is simply a position. At the end of it there simply isn't any evidence past or present to suggest otherwise.


Considering India and Pakistan have been arch rivals since 1947 and no one has done anything about it, and had nuclear capabilities that were ignored by previous presidents (especially clinton), and India tested their first Thermonuclear weapon in May of 98 to no comments, I'm going to say yes. Sure he didn't act alone in this, but he made it a priority and put a stop to a 50 year problem. I'm sure those ill feelings are still there between the countries, but Bush and Bush alone made it a priority, and I for one and glad he did or Pakistan would have been wiped off the planet by now.

won't argue


Ummm what? Under Bush's term he has wiped out over 90% of the top terrorists, and a lot of them were members of Al Queda. If you think it's gettign stronger, it's likely because you had no idea how big this orginization was, which is all the more reason to thank Mr. President Bush. While you provide valuable counterpoints to most of my comments, this one was off base. Al Queda is weaker than it ever has been and will continue to weaken as long as we don't give up on the war on terror.
Here you are clearly misinformed. Numerous recent reports show that Al Qaeda is still very strong.

Yeah dewd it's all about me. Make it so if you wish. My comment was just like others but I see you quoted me. That's ok.

~same as it ever was, same as it ever was

Don't like the message shoot the messanger.
When you say "others" do you mean jsarno? Because he was the only one that said anything even remotely close to "liberal blah blah blah," but then he got the idea of the thread and posted some well thought out arguments. On the other hand, you just guessed that this thread would be a bashing session, as opposed to a real debate, and you posted accordingly. I feel like you do that all the time and I just wanted to know if you wanted to turn it into another pissing match because you couldn't actually think of a good answer to the question about Bush's legacy. Frankly, I think you lied when you said that you read through the entire thread before posting your initial useless comment.

As far as shooting the messenger: what is that even supposed to mean in this context? What are you the messenger for? Do you even know what that phrase means?

Ok, I'm going out for the night, so feel free to respond and I guess I will read it later. I just hope the people that actually have real opinions that will add to this thread will continue to debate because while I tend to not post in political threads I do enjoy reading them.

Ummm what? Under Bush's term he has wiped out over 90% of the top terrorists, and a lot of them were members of Al Queda. If you think it's gettign stronger, it's likely because you had no idea how big this orginization was, which is all the more reason to thank Mr. President Bush. While you provide valuable counterpoints to most of my comments, this one was off base. Al Queda is weaker than it ever has been and will continue to weaken as long as we don't give up on the war on terror.
Government report: Al Qaeda strongest since September 11, 2001 - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/al.qaeda.report/index.html)

^^^This sort of thing has been the top political news story all week long.

This new report backs up warnings by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and other officials that /topics/al_qaeda" class="cnnInlineTopic">al Qaeda remains a serious threat and that the United States is vulnerable despite the numerous security changes made since September 11, 2001. Watch Chertoff explain his "gut feeling" »

Chertoff said Wednesday, however, that there is no "specific, credible information" that terrorist attacks on the United States are imminent.

In a House Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday, several senior intelligence officials talked about how the terrorist group has found refuge in parts of Pakistan.

"We actually see the al Qaeda central being resurgent in their role in planning operations," John Kringen, head of the CIA's intelligence directorate, testified at the hearing Wednesday. "They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan there. We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications."

Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence, told lawmakers that al Qaeda leaders hiding in Pakistan are able to maintain relationships "with affiliates throughout the Middle East, North and East Africa and Europe."


The interesting thing is that we're not actually going into Pakistan to get Al Qaeda (which I'd probably be for); I wonder if it's because they have nukes and it might piss them off if we stormed in there, guns blazing. I really can't say, but I think something more needs to be done about there presence there.

Ok, now I really have to go.

And don't forget when you point fingers your thumb is pointed right back at ya. Same as it ever was indeed.


The Thumb is pointing upwards and the fingers pointing left is the Talking Heads hand movements. Yes, you again stand corrected.

~same as it ever was, same as it ever was

peace

Historians will view him negatively, but they're all Liberals. He doesn't care and neither do I because he has only done what was necessary and proper.

As for the "mountain of controversy" in 2000, it exists only in the minds of the losers. Close, yes. Controversial? Only to the extent that Al Gore tried to steal the election by doing a selective recount and excluding military votes and making sure their fellow Dems on the Florida Supreme Court (Barbara Pariente must be the dumbest woman I've ever seen on television) didn't allow the vote to be certified until they had pulled off the theft.

If I take a dump in the middle of the Christmas Parade, it wouild be somewhat misleading for me to then describe that parade as having been "controversial" in the passive voice.

As I understand it, the election was a statistical stalemate. The difference in votes for each candidate was not big enough to cover the margin of error. What do you do if Gore gets 49% and Bush gets 51%, but the margin of error is 2%?

Please correct me, if I am wrong.

As I understand it, the election was a statistical stalemate. The difference in votes for each candidate was not big enough to cover the margin of error. What do you do if Gore gets 49% and Bush gets 51%, but the margin of error is 2%?

Please correct me, if I am wrong.

Margin of error applies to polls not elections. You only have to win an election by one vote.