Oh, and has to the question posed by this thread.................I believe he is doing fine in some areas, but lacking in others..............about 50/50 as far as I'm concerned but I do agree that his response to 9/11 was done correctly and as good as anyone else could/would have done if not better. Clinton was definately a better "communicater", but lacked in other areas. The choice between Bush and Gore though...........I still say the better man of THOSE two is our President right now!
Already been through that with beamer a few times...............
No biggy......everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter what proof there is otherwise..................
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,855
- 6,393
- 126
So far the only thing he's done correctly, and the reason for all his popular support, is in going after Al Queda rather than just lobbing some cruise missiles at it.
He entered office with a revenue surplus. Then he cut taxes so deep that the projected(not real just theoretical) was pretty much used up already.
Then he caused an international commotion by earmarking $300+ billion for an anti missile defence system that was then banned by agreements the US had signed. He was forced to renegotiate a treaty with the Russians after the international turmoil he caused. On top of that all previous attempts at such a system had been dismal failures and was/is still considered a near impossible task.
California then had a power crisis which Bush refused to get involved in. Later on one of the principle actors in that crisis and one of the largest power companies in the US suddenly collapsed. It was soon discovered that said(Enron) company had been cooking the books. Later still it came to light that Enron was involved in a conspiracy to rip off California during the power crisis! This is in contrast to Bush's recent comments on how bad the then looming Baseball strike was.
Then came the Steel Tarrifs. Europe and Japan fought and eventually won exceptions to the tarrifs, even the WTO(I believe it was the WTO) ruled against these tarrifs. 6ish months after the tarrifs were in place, US manufacturers were lamenting the poor supply and high prices of steel.
Increased agricultural subsidies. These were especially contentious because the range of agricultural products being subsidized were expanded to include grains that enjoyed strong market prices already(ie many farmers used these grains as cash crops and as a hedge against weak wheat prices). ***On a related but not Bush specific note: The US and Europe are the biggest Agricultural Subsidizers in the world. Many Third World nations are required to remove all protections of their Agricultural industries in order to receive WTO funding. For many of these nations, their Agricultural industries have been totally decimated by the European and US subsidized Agricultural industries. This has worsened not only their ability to grow sufficient food for themselves, but has actually hurt their economies.***
He tried to ignore the Israel/Palestine conflict, but was eventually drawn in somewhat. After a minimal amount of effort, he then basically left them alone again.
9/11 happened, certainly not his fault. His immediate response wasn't that great(where did he go?), but eventually he gathered his wits and began the only good/positive thing he's done so far. After gathering evidence he began courting world leaders in order to help bring Al Queda to justice. Many nations have made direct contributions to this effort and many others will be contributing to the continued support of Afghanistan after the Al Queda operations are complete.
The whole administration seems(maybe it's just Ashcroft/Rumsfeld(1ofthese 2)) scared crapless constantly warning of this or that attack and calling for unprecidented levels of power for intelligence gathering. Meanwhile it seems that intelligence gathering is not even the problem, but that intelligence analysis is.
While the Afghan/Al Queda operation is still under way and appears to be far from finished(especially finding OBL and Co.), Bush begins obsessing on invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam. The reasons are all vague and seem to change from week to week, but the persistance remains. World leaders, except Blair, have refused to support any such action without some kind of reason. So far that reason eludes us, though supposedly something will be shown to us soon. I'll believe it when I see it, so far it seems like a constant buying of time, hoping that something will be found before people begin ignoring him. We'll0soon see I hope.
IMO, Bush has been so bad, I can't imagine how Gore could have been any worse. So far Bush has taken action against Al Queda and not stained any intern's dresses, not much of a legacy.
He entered office with a revenue surplus. Then he cut taxes so deep that the projected(not real just theoretical) was pretty much used up already.
Then he caused an international commotion by earmarking $300+ billion for an anti missile defence system that was then banned by agreements the US had signed. He was forced to renegotiate a treaty with the Russians after the international turmoil he caused. On top of that all previous attempts at such a system had been dismal failures and was/is still considered a near impossible task.
California then had a power crisis which Bush refused to get involved in. Later on one of the principle actors in that crisis and one of the largest power companies in the US suddenly collapsed. It was soon discovered that said(Enron) company had been cooking the books. Later still it came to light that Enron was involved in a conspiracy to rip off California during the power crisis! This is in contrast to Bush's recent comments on how bad the then looming Baseball strike was.
Then came the Steel Tarrifs. Europe and Japan fought and eventually won exceptions to the tarrifs, even the WTO(I believe it was the WTO) ruled against these tarrifs. 6ish months after the tarrifs were in place, US manufacturers were lamenting the poor supply and high prices of steel.
Increased agricultural subsidies. These were especially contentious because the range of agricultural products being subsidized were expanded to include grains that enjoyed strong market prices already(ie many farmers used these grains as cash crops and as a hedge against weak wheat prices). ***On a related but not Bush specific note: The US and Europe are the biggest Agricultural Subsidizers in the world. Many Third World nations are required to remove all protections of their Agricultural industries in order to receive WTO funding. For many of these nations, their Agricultural industries have been totally decimated by the European and US subsidized Agricultural industries. This has worsened not only their ability to grow sufficient food for themselves, but has actually hurt their economies.***
He tried to ignore the Israel/Palestine conflict, but was eventually drawn in somewhat. After a minimal amount of effort, he then basically left them alone again.
9/11 happened, certainly not his fault. His immediate response wasn't that great(where did he go?), but eventually he gathered his wits and began the only good/positive thing he's done so far. After gathering evidence he began courting world leaders in order to help bring Al Queda to justice. Many nations have made direct contributions to this effort and many others will be contributing to the continued support of Afghanistan after the Al Queda operations are complete.
The whole administration seems(maybe it's just Ashcroft/Rumsfeld(1ofthese 2)) scared crapless constantly warning of this or that attack and calling for unprecidented levels of power for intelligence gathering. Meanwhile it seems that intelligence gathering is not even the problem, but that intelligence analysis is.
While the Afghan/Al Queda operation is still under way and appears to be far from finished(especially finding OBL and Co.), Bush begins obsessing on invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam. The reasons are all vague and seem to change from week to week, but the persistance remains. World leaders, except Blair, have refused to support any such action without some kind of reason. So far that reason eludes us, though supposedly something will be shown to us soon. I'll believe it when I see it, so far it seems like a constant buying of time, hoping that something will be found before people begin ignoring him. We'll0soon see I hope.
IMO, Bush has been so bad, I can't imagine how Gore could have been any worse. So far Bush has taken action against Al Queda and not stained any intern's dresses, not much of a legacy.
and
We're seeing only a tactical reponse which appears to be just, honorable and necessary. The strategic map is arrayed with confusing pieces, strange alliances, odd motiviations, greed, and other elements that make great fiction. I was this was fiction.
Now while I believe every last Al Queda involved in the attack should be drawn and quartered then shot, there's a lot of truth to the people who claim America and the West, specificially it's governments and key corporations, created the Evildooers in the first place. This will not end with obliteration of Iraq. We'll "enjoy" a period of reprieve but it will escalate in the future and we'll be back to square one.
So, yes, Bush gets an "A" for aggressively going after terrorists. But he gets an "F" for endorsing policies that continue to create the terrorists. How you want to swallow that is up to you.
sandorski
You are so wrong it is pitifull.
You know zero of economics and history....sorry, but I do not have the time for pointing out your obvious errors.
You are so wrong it is pitifull.
You know zero of economics and history....sorry, but I do not have the time for pointing out your obvious errors.
Excellent post Sandorski. Fortunately I don't have time to refute Tominator's false refutation that he didn't have time to make, thank goodness. I was curious though, since you seemed to get a few names correct, how it is that you know ZERO about history and economics. That is truly an astonishing claim.
Here is some more drivel:
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Vespasian
The fact that so many people around the world don't like the Bush administration is not entirely a bad thing. If the Bush administrastion were popular around the world, that would mean that the United States had become weak and feeble.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The psychological principle here I supose is that if you like Bush it's because he's weak and feeble. On second thought there is a kind of logic here if you're thinking weak and feeble mentally.
I see that ToBeMe is still sucker punched by the lying press, naturally, because his delusion allows him to sleep at night. Here's just a short blurb on what anybody who has the fortitude can find on the web regarding the true outcome of the Florida recount and how the papers cooperated in a fiction:
"On April 4, USA Today announced the results of its long-anticipated re-examination of Florida ballots (done in conjunction with the Miami Herald) with the headline: "Newspapers' Recount Shows Bush Prevailed in Fla. Vote."
The headline touting a Bush win referred to the paper's estimate of what would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not blocked the hand recount of 60 Florida counties that had been ordered by the state Supreme Court. The paper found that Bush likely would have won such a recount.
But USA Today's investigation also found something else-- something it chose not to tell its readers: The official hand counts in the remaining seven Florida counties, completed before the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in, had missed hundreds, even thousands of potential Gore votes. If those votes had been properly counted, under two of the four counting standards used by the paper to determine valid votes, Gore would have won the entire state by 300 to 400 votes.
The paper examined ballots from all 67 counties in Florida, but it only *reported* the results from 60 counties where hand counts were unfinished (except on the paper's website, USAToday.com). The paper's decision to exclude its findings in seven counties was based on its strategy of trying to answer only one narrow question: What would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stepped in and stopped the manual recounts in Florida?
The paper therefore included only the *official* results from the seven counties, even though its own investigation found that the official results had potentially missed enough Gore votes to change the outcome of the election. None of this was revealed to USA Today's readers. The April 4 article explained that the "official counts were final and would not have changed if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount."
Further and most importantly, the findings were that the majority of actual people that went to the polls in the whole state of Florida to vote voted for Gore and all republican court maneuvers were designed not to count the votes.
Here is some more drivel:
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Vespasian
The fact that so many people around the world don't like the Bush administration is not entirely a bad thing. If the Bush administrastion were popular around the world, that would mean that the United States had become weak and feeble.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The psychological principle here I supose is that if you like Bush it's because he's weak and feeble. On second thought there is a kind of logic here if you're thinking weak and feeble mentally.
I see that ToBeMe is still sucker punched by the lying press, naturally, because his delusion allows him to sleep at night. Here's just a short blurb on what anybody who has the fortitude can find on the web regarding the true outcome of the Florida recount and how the papers cooperated in a fiction:
"On April 4, USA Today announced the results of its long-anticipated re-examination of Florida ballots (done in conjunction with the Miami Herald) with the headline: "Newspapers' Recount Shows Bush Prevailed in Fla. Vote."
The headline touting a Bush win referred to the paper's estimate of what would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not blocked the hand recount of 60 Florida counties that had been ordered by the state Supreme Court. The paper found that Bush likely would have won such a recount.
But USA Today's investigation also found something else-- something it chose not to tell its readers: The official hand counts in the remaining seven Florida counties, completed before the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in, had missed hundreds, even thousands of potential Gore votes. If those votes had been properly counted, under two of the four counting standards used by the paper to determine valid votes, Gore would have won the entire state by 300 to 400 votes.
The paper examined ballots from all 67 counties in Florida, but it only *reported* the results from 60 counties where hand counts were unfinished (except on the paper's website, USAToday.com). The paper's decision to exclude its findings in seven counties was based on its strategy of trying to answer only one narrow question: What would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stepped in and stopped the manual recounts in Florida?
The paper therefore included only the *official* results from the seven counties, even though its own investigation found that the official results had potentially missed enough Gore votes to change the outcome of the election. None of this was revealed to USA Today's readers. The April 4 article explained that the "official counts were final and would not have changed if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount."
Further and most importantly, the findings were that the majority of actual people that went to the polls in the whole state of Florida to vote voted for Gore and all republican court maneuvers were designed not to count the votes.
Sandorski qoute: I wouldn't want to continue spouting errors and innaccuracies.
-------------------------------------------------
So you want him to?
-------------------------------------------------
So you want him to?
I think they are at the point between between almost totally sucks and totally sucks. I have not seen one thing done right by them other than the handling of Al Quaida, and look what it took to get the ball rolling on that. EVERYTHING else that I can think of that they have had a hand in they have handled poorly. I have never had as much disdain for an administration that I have for this one. I would vote for a Hillary Clinton/Al Sharpton ticket over these monkeys.
I think they're doing more than the last circle-jerking bonehead did in the last eight years.
nik
nik
That's my main gripe with this administration, they do much but accomplish very little. Airline security. Stem cell research. Tax cuts. The list goes on and on. The only things they seem to accomplish are either duping congress into giving them more power (patriot act) or catering to those with deep pockets (the tobacco lobby actually got lighters & matches removed from & kept off the airline banned list- good for them & the shoe bomber).
George's bush is a politician like no other.
I voted for Bush not because he was good, but due to the fact that Al Hore was worse.
A monkey man who is the dream of every rich, powerful, greedy maggot.
Well instead of slander to Bush, let us be rich, powerful and greedy.
We will automatically begin to like him and his goons.
If that is too hard to acomplish, do my way:
Watch Fight CLub.
I voted for Bush not because he was good, but due to the fact that Al Hore was worse.
A monkey man who is the dream of every rich, powerful, greedy maggot.
Well instead of slander to Bush, let us be rich, powerful and greedy.
We will automatically begin to like him and his goons.
If that is too hard to acomplish, do my way:
Watch Fight CLub.
My mom just went to Brazil and Argentina and told me that when she questioned the locals about their opinions of Americans they said "We hate them."
Mani
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2001
- 4,808
- 1
- 0
I disagree. Clinton was a (relatively) popular president around the world and I didn't see the US becoming either weak or feeble.
Though I'm sure the Chicken Little war hawks are going to shat bricks over this and tell me our military was neglected during his term to the point of being worthless and ineffective.
As for my opinion of Bush - well, he hasn't f*cked up enough in my book to warrant my hating him, though I'm definitely not fond of many of the interests he represents. He handled 9/11 fine, trying to please people at home as diplomatically as possible - but it was nothing extraordinary. Any other president worth their salt probably would have done the same.
I wouldn't doubt some of his Iraq rhetoric comes from lessons learnt from his father, going from the highest approval ratings ever during wartime to losing an election soon after. Bush probably wants to keep enough military pressure up to see him through the next election, and what better guy to pick on than his dad's old universally despised adversary?
While I voted for GWB in 2000, I won't be voting for him in 2004. We got our tax cuts, so we're through with him. Now we need a social liberal to boot out Ashcroft.
I think Bush has done a decent job, and much of the recent recession cannot solely be blamed on his administration. But I question his military actions and policies. While he may be doing a good job at stopping any imminent terrorists threats, I don't see how any of his military actions could possibly end terrorism or lessen it. If anything he is adding more fuel to the fire, and if we do indeed go after Iraq I think we all can expect another 9/11.
Judging from what most have expressed in this thread so far, Bush and his administration are not anything to brag about, except by the sheep that blindly follow everything he does with bold vigor, as their right wing mentors have told them to do. Objective viewpoints express that he has a less than stellar record, and his poll ratings are steadily declining, as are all republican right wing political knuckledraggers.
We are about to dismally remember 9/11/01 this week, and we still don't know where Osama is, or if he is alive or dead. The best equiped military machine on the planet, and supposedly the best intelligence appuratus available, and we still don't have a handle on Al Qaeda or Osama? Don't you people find that to be just a bit curious?
And with that record, Bush is going apesh!t over nailing the Saddam his daddy's legacy is tarnished with for not doing the job a decade ago? Strikes me as being transparent and down right scary.
That said, I support turning Iraq into a parking lot, after removing the God fearing good Iraqi people to a safe place. The vision of the burning oil fields of Kuwait still haunt me, as well as the gasing of the Kurds in the north. But I want it done in conjunction with the war on terrorism,and Saddam must be shown linked to that, because the very fact he is attempting to acquire nuclear power is not justification for assination and the inherent nation building that will need to occur afterwards. We need irefutable proof of his terrorist deeds directed at us and /or our allies.
If a war is started, Isreal will be the easiest and first target of our enemies, and there will be no support from Egypt,Saudi Arabia, Iran,Pakistan,Syria,or Lebanon. The first strike of a scud in Israel will pull European allies into this war and all hell will break loose. Starting a war with Saddam with no coaliton in place with theafor mentioned Arab countries is tatamount to sealing the death warrent for millions of jews, and putting our troops and the troops of our allies at enormous risk. This is not now a war I am confident in or would feel OK with sending my sons into battle for.
Bush has a poor record on this so far. I wonder how many other fathers or mothers feel as I do about this issue?
I suspect a great many.
Start storing up supplies for yourselves. Food, ammuntion, survival planning, and be prepared. If a war is started,things will become quite difficult here. We know we are vulnarable to attack here,and water, food,and fuel are the most oppurtune targets of our enemies.
Get your house in order.
This is the legacy of Bush so far. He has done more to instill fear and aprehension in the populace than any President in my lifetime. I like him, but I think we are on the precipise looking into the abyss. he needs to do a better job at leading, because so far, he is only reacting, and spending an amazing amount of time and energy campaigning and raising enormous amounts of money. We have need of leadership, not a campaign pimp.
We are about to dismally remember 9/11/01 this week, and we still don't know where Osama is, or if he is alive or dead. The best equiped military machine on the planet, and supposedly the best intelligence appuratus available, and we still don't have a handle on Al Qaeda or Osama? Don't you people find that to be just a bit curious?
And with that record, Bush is going apesh!t over nailing the Saddam his daddy's legacy is tarnished with for not doing the job a decade ago? Strikes me as being transparent and down right scary.
That said, I support turning Iraq into a parking lot, after removing the God fearing good Iraqi people to a safe place. The vision of the burning oil fields of Kuwait still haunt me, as well as the gasing of the Kurds in the north. But I want it done in conjunction with the war on terrorism,and Saddam must be shown linked to that, because the very fact he is attempting to acquire nuclear power is not justification for assination and the inherent nation building that will need to occur afterwards. We need irefutable proof of his terrorist deeds directed at us and /or our allies.
If a war is started, Isreal will be the easiest and first target of our enemies, and there will be no support from Egypt,Saudi Arabia, Iran,Pakistan,Syria,or Lebanon. The first strike of a scud in Israel will pull European allies into this war and all hell will break loose. Starting a war with Saddam with no coaliton in place with theafor mentioned Arab countries is tatamount to sealing the death warrent for millions of jews, and putting our troops and the troops of our allies at enormous risk. This is not now a war I am confident in or would feel OK with sending my sons into battle for.
Bush has a poor record on this so far. I wonder how many other fathers or mothers feel as I do about this issue?
I suspect a great many.
Start storing up supplies for yourselves. Food, ammuntion, survival planning, and be prepared. If a war is started,things will become quite difficult here. We know we are vulnarable to attack here,and water, food,and fuel are the most oppurtune targets of our enemies.
Get your house in order.
This is the legacy of Bush so far. He has done more to instill fear and aprehension in the populace than any President in my lifetime. I like him, but I think we are on the precipise looking into the abyss. he needs to do a better job at leading, because so far, he is only reacting, and spending an amazing amount of time and energy campaigning and raising enormous amounts of money. We have need of leadership, not a campaign pimp.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,855
- 6,393
- 126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sandorski qoute: I wouldn't want to continue spouting errors and innaccuracies.
-------------------------------------------------
So you want him to?
Hehe. Not really, but as far as my recollection is concerned I don't think I made any glaring errors.
The Bush Admin. is full of dinasaurs who haven't had a new foreign or domestic policy idea in the last 20 years.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter