Let's impeach the president.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i hope this is sarcasm. bush will go down as one of the worst presidents the free world has ever had

Actually it's not, I'm just being the anti bush hater. You guys claim he is so bad because you focus 100% on the negative. He's not a bad president...you're just too busy being a typical democrat...if you look for nothing but negative, guess what you'll find?

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Actually it's not, I'm just being the anti bush hater. You guys claim he is so bad because you focus 100% on the negative. He's not a bad president...you're just too busy being a typical democrat...if you look for nothing but negative, guess what you'll find?

Jsarno, this would be a good time to substantiate your argument.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Jsarno, this would be a good time to substantiate your argument.

Umm what? I said I was just being the anti bush hater, the anti negative person when it comes to Bush...how do I substantiate that?
Too many people bash him as the worst ever, to substantiate this, feel free to go back and read posts on this thread.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Umm what? I said I was just being the anti bush hater, the anti negative person when it comes to Bush...how do I substantiate that?
Too many people bash him as the worst ever, to substantiate this, feel free to go back and read posts on this thread.

Sorry, my post wasn't clear. What I meant was use what you believe to be Bush's accomplishments to construct an argument explaining why liberals are wrong in suggesting he is a historically bad president. Obviously you think that's the case, I am just curious specifically why.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Actually it's not, I'm just being the anti bush hater. You guys claim he is so bad because you focus 100% on the negative. He's not a bad president...you're just too busy being a typical democrat...if you look for nothing but negative, guess what you'll find?

Name 3 things he has accomplished that are positive.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

Name 3 things he has accomplished that are positive.

That's very subjective isn't it, and (like most presidents) his accomplishments can't truly be measured until quite a while after he leaves office.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

That's very subjective isn't it, and (like most presidents) his accomplishments can't truly be measured until quite a while after he leaves office.

Come on Smootsmack, it's not unfair to ask someone to point to policy successes when arguing that a president will be judged favoribly by history. By your logic we can't even talk about the efficacy of a current president because we lack appropriate historical perspective. I think that's bogus, and I think the fact that so many people struggle to point to concrete things that this president has accomplished is a problem.

Some liberals aren't very smart or articulate, but when they are smart and articulate they do an excellent job breaking down in detail how the Bush agenda has failed. Jsarno argued twice in this thread that Bush will go down well in history, and I don't think it's unfair to ask why.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Come on Smootsmack, it's not unfair to ask someone to point to policy successes when arguing that a president will be judged favoribly by history. By your logic we can't even talk about the efficacy of a current president because we lack appropriate historical perspective. I think that's bogus, and I think the fact that so many people struggle to point to concrete things that this president has accomplished is a problem.

Some liberals aren't very smart or articulate, but when they are smart and articulate they do an excellent job breaking down in detail how the Bush agenda has failed. Jsarno argued twice in this thread that Bush will go down well in history, and I don't think it's unfair to ask why.

Look, I don't doubt that W will be judged as one of the worst presidents ever. He's a modern day James Buchanan. Difference of course is that Buchanan did nothing to stop the impending Civil War because he said (rightfully) that the Constituation didn't allow him to really step in. Whereas Bush has essentially said "Damn the Constitution, I have to get shit done"

I'm just saying in overall terms when talking about Presidents in terms of where they rank all-time, it's often difficult to measure their accomplishments until long after. This is mainly because most Presidents aren't in office long enough to see their policies go through. Take Harry Truman, for example. He set the ball rolling on civil rights legislation but nothing truly happened until LBJ. So that's a notch on LBJ's belt, not Truman's. Only now are we starting to see Truman's impact on that issue, and his historical value has gone up.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Look, I don't doubt that W will be judged as one of the worst presidents ever. He's a modern day James Buchanan. Difference of course is that Buchanan did nothing to stop the impending Civil War because he said (rightfully) that the Constituation didn't allow him to really step in. Whereas Bush has essentially said "Damn the Constitution, I have to get shit done"

I'm just saying in overall terms when talking about Presidents in terms of where they rank all-time, it's often difficult to measure their accomplishments until long after. This is mainly because most Presidents aren't in office long enough to see their policies go through. Take Harry Truman, for example. He set the ball rolling on civil rights legislation but nothing truly happened until LBJ. So that's a notch on LBJ's belt, not Truman's. Only now are we starting to see Truman's impact on that issue, and his historical value has gone up.

Not entirely true. Kennedy had a hand in pushing for social and civil rights. LBJ was his VP and picked up where Kennedy left off after his assasination. In all fairness, Truman never got the chance to finish what he started. Eisenhower pretty much dropped the ball on it and then Kennedy picked it up. This is a very rudimentary explanation, I know. LBJ would have probably been an excellent president had it not been for the whole Vietnam thing. A little wrinkle. He was an expert on domestic issues and got bogged down with foreign affairs, of which he had absolutely no experience hence leading to the ouster of the one man in his cabinet that did: McNamara.
Nixon was very flawed but even DURING his tenure, there were positives that could be isolated. Where are they with GW?

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Look, I don't doubt that W will be judged as one of the worst presidents ever. He's a modern day James Buchanan. Difference of course is that Buchanan did nothing to stop the impending Civil War because he said (rightfully) that the Constituation didn't allow him to really step in. Whereas Bush has essentially said "Damn the Constitution, I have to get shit done"

I'm just saying in overall terms when talking about Presidents in terms of where they rank all-time, it's often difficult to measure their accomplishments until long after. This is mainly because most Presidents aren't in office long enough to see their policies go through. Take Harry Truman, for example. He set the ball rolling on civil rights legislation but nothing truly happened until LBJ. So that's a notch on LBJ's belt, not Truman's. Only now are we starting to see Truman's impact on that issue, and his historical value has gone up.

Fair take. I just don't think it's too much to ask a Bush supporter to discuss what it is about his legacy that will be positively remembered.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

That's very subjective isn't it, and (like most presidents) his accomplishments can't truly be measured until quite a while after he leaves office.

Didn't answer my question. Who are you? Alberto Gonzalez? jk

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

Name 3 things he has accomplished that are positive.

Tax cuts
The enconomy
War on terror
no child left behind
Unemployment is very low
This after everything tanked after 9/11

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Tax cuts
The enconomy
War on terror
no child left behind
Unemployment is very low
This after everything tanked after 9/11

I guess the question is "Is our children learning how to spell?"

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I guess the question is "Is our children learning how to spell?"

I hop they can spel beter than me. I always find it somewhat amusing and kind of sad that all of the wonners of the spelling B are either home schooled or from private schools.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Tax cuts
The enconomy
War on terror
no child left behind
Unemployment is very low
This after everything tanked after 9/11

There are aspects of NCLB that are an abomination.