Is there Anyone On this Forum who LIKES Pres. Bush?

[RPGPundit]

For those who say, "What about the Patriot Act?" I'll ask how much the WW2 internment camps taint FDR's presidency.

I would think that the difference is that FDR was seen as an otherwise good and loved president who did something that in retrospect was seen as a terrible mistake.
Bush's presidency has been nothing but a series of terrible mistakes.

RPGPundit

[Pseudoephedrine]

Bush is an Andrew-Johnson-esque low point in American history. His administration is the synergistic result of incompetence and malevolent intentions - they can't even do the questionable shit they want to do properly. Saying "Carter was bad" just ducks the question about the quality of the Bush presidency.

[John Morrow]

I would think that the difference is that FDR was seen as an otherwise good and loved president who did something that in retrospect was seen as a terrible mistake.
Bush's presidency has been nothing but a series of terrible mistakes.

FDR was a president who made plenty of mistakes, too, but like Kennedy, he had a press that was so wrapped around his fingers they didn't let the American public know that he couldn't walk.  I'm sure Bush and the War in Iraq would look at whole lot better under WW2 or even early-1960s standards of journalism, too.

[John Morrow]

God I hate this statement.  given how many terrorist attacks there were prior, and the general odds involved, it's about as useful as suggesting the President's policies regarding meteor strikes must be working because "well, there hasn't been a meteor strike while he was president".

So does that mean that you believe that if nothing changed after 9/11, their still wouldn't have been more terrorist attacks?

[John Morrow]

Ditto.  It's selling polar bear repellant below the Arctic Circle.

Polar bears can be found below the Arctic Circle.

[Koltar]

Look man,
 George Bush passes the beer test  - if he was still drinking.
Most people, BOTH election years would buy that guy a beer.

..They just don't want to say they like him or not.

 I did make a political "telemarketer" break from her script in 2004. She was calling trying to get a donation for the Republican party. I toldher that if she could send me pictures of the BUSH daughters, Jenna and Barbara - then I might send her 20 or 25 bucks.

I could tell she was both surprised and on the verge of laughing (mainly from the unexpected). I must have been the first person that she called all night that had a sense of humor.  She did call right as my game session was supposed to start,.


- Ed C.

[John Morrow]

Bush is an Andrew-Johnson-esque low point in American history. His administration is the synergistic result of incompetence and malevolent intentions - they can't even do the questionable shit they want to do properly. Saying "Carter was bad" just ducks the question about the quality of the Bush presidency.

When someone claims that the Bush presidency is a noteworthy low among all presidents or all presidents in the last 100 years or so, it's important to look at the competition for comparison to see if the claim is legitimate.  Sure, you can criticize the quality of the Bush presidency but I think that raises the question of why the quality of the Carter presidency, for example, isn't criticized and, in fact, he's praised as some sort of enlightened statesman that can do no wrong.  Similarly, when people rant about the gap between rich and poor growing under the Reagan or either Bush presidencies, it makes one wonder why similar complaints weren't raised during the Clinton presidency, when the gap also widened not only substantially but to a larger degree than during some of those other periods.  And people wonder why so many people believe that the media has a left-wing bias.

[J Arcane]

So does that mean that you believe that if nothing changed after 9/11, their still wouldn't have been more terrorist attacks?

I think that 9/11 was largely a singular event, and that if anything, the resultant buildup of both paranoia and bureaucracy only makes it abundantly clear to the world that, yes, terrorism does work on us, it works on us very well.  

I think a more measured approach would likely have done less harm overall in terms of our global image, but that in general, the odds of a terrorist attack are still as close to fucking nil as they've ever been.

I mean really, besides 9/11, how many other terror attacks can you think of, let lone any that even approach that scale?  OK City, and then what?

[John Morrow]

In general I agree that Carter was a crappy president, but there's a couple of points here: the panama canal, really? You think that the US should still have control of that... what, just because? Manifest destiny? What?

I included that there just for you.  While I don't have a problem with it in theory, I'm not particularly happy with the way Carter handled it.  For example, during the campaign, he promised that he wouldn't give up control of the Canal.

And getting a nobel prize for the peace talks that got Anwar Sadat murdered and didn't produce peace doesn't seem like a valid criticism; given that the point was the efforts made toward peace.  I mean it didn't work, of course, but it represented an effort made where others had not and do not now make any efforts at all.

It didn't produce peace and may, in fact, have made things worse.  Should we hand out Nobel Prizes for wishing on a star for peace on earth regardless of the results?  Shouldn't people get prizes for results, not intentions?

But yes, on the whole I agree he was a bad president. He was also probably one of the nicest guys to be president, and was easily the most sincerely CHRISTIAN president the U.S. has had in at least the last century, and the way he lives his christianity puts other people like Bush to utter shame.

Actually, there are people who disagree with that assessment, as well, and claim that he could and can be quite the liar (here, here,  and then there is Robert Novak who says, "Well, I think Bill Clinton was a minor league liar compared to Jimmy Carter. Carter would just lie for the sake of lying. He was absolutely incredible." and "A habitual liar who modified the truth to suit his own purposes" and has some nifty anecdotes to explain why he feels that way).  As for his Christianity, what makes it so sincere, in your opinion?

[Pseudoephedrine]

When someone claims that the Bush presidency is a noteworthy low among all presidents or all presidents in the last 100 years or so, it's important to look at the competition for comparison to see if the claim is legitimate.  Sure, you can criticize the quality of the Bush presidency but I think that raises the question of why the quality of the Carter presidency, for example, isn't criticized and, in fact, he's praised as some sort of enlightened statesman that can do no wrong.  

That's a red herring. You brought up Carter, and no one has either praised, or even really defended him as a politician on this thread. The majority of responses have been very critical of him in fact.

Is your argument that Bush is not a bad president when compared with Jimmy Carter's mishandling of just about everything? If so, what has he done that is better?

[John Morrow]

I think that 9/11 was largely a singular event, and that if anything, the resultant buildup of both paranoia and bureaucracy only makes it abundantly clear to the world that, yes, terrorism does work on us, it works on us very well.

Yes, it works about as well as it worked for the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, when they expected America to roll over and give in.

I think a more measured approach would likely have done less harm overall in terms of our global image, but that in general, the odds of a terrorist attack are still as close to fucking nil as they've ever been.

On what basis do you assume that the odds of a terrorist attack are close to nil?

I mean really, besides 9/11, how many other terror attacks can you think of, let lone any that even approach that scale?  OK City, and then what?

The 1993 WTC bombing.  The intent there was to also topple the Towers but they parked the truck in the wrong place.  That would have killed more people than 9/11 did because the Towers would have been more full at the time.  And we have no idea how many other plots were foiled at various points in their planning or execution, both before and after 9/11.

[J Arcane]

Yes, it works about as well as it worked for the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, when they expected America to roll over and give in.

There is so much wrong with that analogy that I must simply conclude this conversation, because I don't have the patience.

You win.  Yes, the acts of the 9/11 terrorists were exactly like that of a massive invading army from a major world imperial power.  totally the same thing.  

:rolleyes:

[John Morrow]

That's a red herring.

When the issue at hand is whether or not a president is a notably bad president or among the worst, bringing up other bad presidents for comparison is not a red herring at all.  It's called "testing the claim".

You brought up Carter, and no one has either praised, or even really defended him as a politician on this thread. The majority of responses have been very critical of him in fact.

Correct.  So let's go a step further and do the comparison that everyone was avoiding.  Has Bush been worse for the US an the world than Jimmy Carter?

If so, how?

If not, then why is Bush being singled out for scorn in a way that Jimmy Carter rarely if ever is or was?

And then we can compare Bush to some other awful Presidents.  

Is it fair to claim that Bush is a bad president?  While I don't entirely agree on many common points of complaint, I can understand why people make that claim.  Is Bush the worst or one of the worst presidents in US history or has Bush done more damage to the United States, civil rights, the world, etc. than any other president or any other recent president?  I think that's nothing but hyperbole, which is my point.  To make that claim, you have to seriously compare Bush with other Presidents and there were some pretty awful ones in the past.

I also think it helps to illustrate the press bias that many people claim doesn't exist.  The disparate treatment of Carter and Bush, like the disparate treatment of Kerry's and Bush's Vietnam-era military record, suggests a mighty big bias.

Is your argument that Bush is not a bad president when compared with Jimmy Carter's mishandling of just about everything? If so, what has he done that is better?

I think Jimmy Carter set the stage for almost everything that people complain about from Ronald Reagan or either Bush era, including Iran-Contra (Jimmy lost Iran to the Ayatollahs and Nicaragua to the Sandanistas -- yes, I expect RPGPundit to defend the Sandanistas here because he's apparently never met a murderous left-wing totalitarian regime he didn't love) and Afghanistan (Jimmy started the funding to the Muslim fundamentalists that Reagan gets solely blamed for).  Had he had a better grip on world affairs instead of talking world affairs with Amy, he might have been able to tip the course of history before the momentum we have today really started to build behind these problems.  And, yes, you can toss me the 20/20 hindsight defense and I'd be happy to consider that if the same consideration gets thrown Bush's way.

[RPGPundit]

When someone claims that the Bush presidency is a noteworthy low among all presidents or all presidents in the last 100 years or so, it's important to look at the competition for comparison to see if the claim is legitimate.  Sure, you can criticize the quality of the Bush presidency but I think that raises the question of why the quality of the Carter presidency, for example, isn't criticized and, in fact, he's praised as some sort of enlightened statesman that can do no wrong.

Probably because the feeling that the vast majority of people get from Carter is that he was sincerely trying to do a good job, but was just really incompetent as a president; whereas with Bush the guy exudes the feeling of not giving a fuck about anyone or what anyone thinks, and more than occasionally of intentional malignancy.
So Carter was fucking up America by accident, whereas Bush is fucking up America on purpose for his own evil reasons.

Similarly, when people rant about the gap between rich and poor growing under the Reagan or either Bush presidencies, it makes one wonder why similar complaints weren't raised during the Clinton presidency, when the gap also widened not only substantially but to a larger degree than during some of those other periods.

Possibly because Clinton presided over the greatest period of economic prosperity in 20th century american history?

And people wonder why so many people believe that the media has a left-wing bias.

Yes, clearly Fox news and co. have been nothing but foulmouthed liars in their baseless attacks on the Bush presidency while doing everything in their power to make the democrats look good... :rolleyes:

PLEASE, motherfucker. When the largest media conglomerates in the world are all under the control of known right-wing fanatics (Murdoch, Conrad Black, etc), that old chestnut about the media being a left-wing conspiracy really goes out the fucking window.  The media hasn't had a left wing bias since the early 80s, when it went from being a hideout for hippie drug-addled marxists fresh from poli-sci courses, pot binges and anti-war protests at Berkeley, to being a BIG motherfucking BUSINESS.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

As for his Christianity, what makes it so sincere, in your opinion?

The fact that as well as actually being a regular churchgoer and not just when there are cameras pointed his way or when on the campaign trail, Carter has gone on to try to live his life by Christian values at any cost. During his presidency it hurt him because his Christian reluctance to commit violence (remember, contrary to what Bush seems to want people to believe, Jesus does not generally approve of blowing people to fucking pieces) was interpreted as being too weak to "do what it takes".

After his presidency, the guy has dedicated huge amounts of his time to charity work. And I don't mean high-paying charity balls with skull & bone buddies; I mean going out and fucking building houses for the homeless.

And, pathetically, these are some of the reasons why so many right wingers hate Carter. Because his sincere humble peace-loving Christianity reminds everyone of just how fake and slimy and un-christlike the tacked-on fanaticism and prosperity-christianty of the Right Wingers really is. He makes Bush & all the christian coalition fuckers look bad, and takes away their ability to claim that the democrats are the moral degenerates (of course, these days that's hard for a lot of other reasons, like the fact that every time there's a gay sex scandal with a lawmaker and a (possibly underaged) boy, said lawmaker is one of the Republicans that's been preaching about how 'teh gay is the evil' for the last 20 years).

RPGPundit