GWBush Legacy

[DAPUNISHER]

What will history say about GWB?

That he was the only President to use a satirical write-up by The Onion, as the blueprint for his entire administration.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Well, Bush is ranked 37 (tied with Nixon) out of 42 spots on this site.

The 10 worst presidents to have held office

The top ten - The Times US presidential rankings

The Times US presidential rankings - numbers 21 to 11

The Times US presidential rankings - numbers 32 to 22


Carter was listed at #32.
Reagan at #8
#1 was Lincoln

That list is so fubar it's not funny. The problem with any list like that is that it's a subjective, non-scientific listing. Lincoln shouldn't be #1, he should be at the list of the worst leaders in modern history. He was a cruel, dangerous, despotic demagogue, hell-bent on a new federally central power structure. He is the arch-enemy of small-government conservatism. He waged total war on US civilians, and utterly disregarded constitutional law. His list of misdeeds is massive. Bush cannot compare to Lincoln's depraved bullshit. It's too bad we're taught in school how Lincoln was such a great guy and how he 'freed' the slaves when he in no way did so.

The civil war was about MONEY and POWER. Any grand bullshit about anything otherwise is a LIE.

So I guess you believe that he should have allowed the South to secede?

And BTW, I agree that Lincoln committed some nasty crimes against civil liberties when he was in office. They need to be mentioned more. But if you truly believe that the Union needed to stay in one piece, it's hard to argue that Lincoln was a bad president.

Yes, I believe the south should have been allowed to secede. Starting the deadliest war in this hemisphere's known history, and totally disregarding all rule of law that had been built up to that point was the exact opposite of the founding fathers intent. The whole point of having the right to secede was so that a corrupt or unbalanced regime could not create an empire over people that didn't want to live under those rules. It was intended to give a balance to the states, so that you weren't ruled utterly by a national leader, but rather had a serious say in your own destiny at the state level.

For better or for worse, the new federal supremacy set up by this war created the United States as a superpower, something that wasn't obvious until WW1 and WW2.

Food for thought : if we hadn't fought a civil war, and the States formed separate alliances, we most likely would not have entered WW1. Without the US entering WW1 in 1917, there would have been no treaty of Versailles. Russia had already called it quits, and both the Axis and Allies were becoming economically unable to continue full-scale war. With a balanced end to WW1, Germany isn't subject to severe economic destruction that the Versailles Treaty put in place. Without that spectacular economic blow, Hitler's fascism (which barely clawed its way to power with dirty tricks and rhetoric as it was) has no chance of succeeding. Without a Nazi state bent upon revenge, and reclaiming land that shouldn't have been ceded in the first place (Sudetenland, ethnic German), then WW2 would either have not happened at all, or would look much different.

GRANTED, this is all very subjective, and it's truly impossible to say what the end consequences one way or the other would have been on a global scale if the Civil War had never happened, but I think that it's quite obvious that things would be much much different for all parties.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Well, Bush is ranked 37 (tied with Nixon) out of 42 spots on this site.

The 10 worst presidents to have held office

The top ten - The Times US presidential rankings

The Times US presidential rankings - numbers 21 to 11

The Times US presidential rankings - numbers 32 to 22


Carter was listed at #32.
Reagan at #8
#1 was Lincoln

That list is so fubar it's not funny. The problem with any list like that is that it's a subjective, non-scientific listing. Lincoln shouldn't be #1, he should be at the list of the worst leaders in modern history. He was a cruel, dangerous, despotic demagogue, hell-bent on a new federally central power structure. He is the arch-enemy of small-government conservatism. He waged total war on US civilians, and utterly disregarded constitutional law. His list of misdeeds is massive. Bush cannot compare to Lincoln's depraved bullshit. It's too bad we're taught in school how Lincoln was such a great guy and how he 'freed' the slaves when he in no way did so.

The civil war was about MONEY and POWER. Any grand bullshit about anything otherwise is a LIE.

So I guess you believe that he should have allowed the South to secede?

And BTW, I agree that Lincoln committed some nasty crimes against civil liberties when he was in office. They need to be mentioned more. But if you truly believe that the Union needed to stay in one piece, it's hard to argue that Lincoln was a bad president.

Yes, I believe the south should have been allowed to secede. Starting the deadliest war in this hemisphere's known history, and totally disregarding all rule of law that had been built up to that point was the exact opposite of the founding fathers intent. The whole point of having the right to secede was so that a corrupt or unbalanced regime could not create an empire over people that didn't want to live under those rules. It was intended to give a balance to the states, so that you weren't ruled utterly by a national leader, but rather had a serious say in your own destiny at the state level.

For better or for worse, the new federal supremacy set up by this war created the United States as a superpower, something that wasn't obvious until WW1 and WW2.

Food for thought : if we hadn't fought a civil war, and the States formed separate alliances, we most likely would not have entered WW1. Without the US entering WW1 in 1917, there would have been no treaty of Versailles. Russia had already called it quits, and both the Axis and Allies were becoming economically unable to continue full-scale war. With a balanced end to WW1, Germany isn't subject to severe economic destruction that the Versailles Treaty put in place. Without that spectacular economic blow, Hitler's fascism (which barely clawed its way to power with dirty tricks and rhetoric as it was) has no chance of succeeding. Without a Nazi state bent upon revenge, and reclaiming land that shouldn't have been ceded in the first place (Sudetenland, ethnic German), then WW2 would either have not happened at all, or would look much different.

GRANTED, this is all very subjective, and it's truly impossible to say what the end consequences one way or the other would have been on a global scale if the Civil War had never happened, but I think that it's quite obvious that things would be much much different for all parties.

:Q

Why do you hate the troops so much?

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Well, Bush is ranked 37 (tied with Nixon) out of 42 spots on this site.

The 10 worst presidents to have held office

The top ten - The Times US presidential rankings

The Times US presidential rankings - numbers 21 to 11

The Times US presidential rankings - numbers 32 to 22


Carter was listed at #32.
Reagan at #8
#1 was Lincoln

That list is so fubar it's not funny. The problem with any list like that is that it's a subjective, non-scientific listing. Lincoln shouldn't be #1, he should be at the list of the worst leaders in modern history. He was a cruel, dangerous, despotic demagogue, hell-bent on a new federally central power structure. He is the arch-enemy of small-government conservatism. He waged total war on US civilians, and utterly disregarded constitutional law. His list of misdeeds is massive. Bush cannot compare to Lincoln's depraved bullshit. It's too bad we're taught in school how Lincoln was such a great guy and how he 'freed' the slaves when he in no way did so.

The civil war was about MONEY and POWER. Any grand bullshit about anything otherwise is a LIE.

So I guess you believe that he should have allowed the South to secede?

I wonder in hindsight if he thought it was worth nearly 700,000 lives.

 

[Arkaign]

^^

If anything, I have nothing but total respect and admiration for all who wear our nation's uniform in honor. I don't think they should be squandered in unnecessary wars, of which the Civil War was perhaps the worst. WW1 was pretty unjust as well for us to take sides on, would have been much better to let it play out amongst the continental powers to it's inevitable stalemate that to tip the scales to disastrous consequence. WW2, very much a just cause, though hugely tragic. Korea I'm not convinced either way on. Vietnam was a pointless clusterfuck, I blame LBJ fully and completely. Some of the wars we've been involved in are almost laughably stupid. Panama? Cuba? Heh.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic
One thing that has not been lost on me about Bush is how much the Presidency can age a man.

Are you saying Bush realizes what he has done?

Not that. Just that every President seems to age 20+ years during his time in office.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: microbial

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Budmantom
I posted this yesterday in a couple of thread and seeing how this thread is going I thought I would chime in.



I was listening to Rush the other morning and he had a little story on how the Obama's campaign pays it's staffers to"infiltrate" on line forums and preach Obama's message(I'm not sure if anybody else heard it).

I didn't think too much of it, but I saw a posting from "microbial" a name I didn't recognize, only here since the 10th, 89 posts and only in P&N... so I searched and all his/her posts are Obama's talking points. I know the chances are slim and I know I've been suspicious of all of you on the left for a while but if we had such a person....

I could very well be wrong but what are the chances

and....

...and it would divert attention from the topic...I guess?

Like anybody cares about GWB's legacy??

So inquiring minds want to know, are you getting paid for posting here?? A yes or no will suffice.

Should I take that as a yes?

I have a feeling you may not be staying long after the election?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The US had the world behind them, i was on base within two hours after the first plane hit, it took four hours for all of my men to be there and we were all off duty for three weeks.

Then the US pissed on the UN, pissed all over NATO and the blithering twit of a twat Blair couldn't wait to lick his balls, like puppets Blair and Bush went on and this will not happen again, next time you want to do shit like that, you're going to have to do it alone.

NATO is still there, but if you think that the UK isn't involved in the EU defence forces that was driven forth because of this then you are wrong.

So i think that GWB will be mostly remembered as the man who wrecked NATO.