Opinion about Bush...

[Jarod]

I personally dont consider Bush merely a bad president, in the way I consider his father a poor president. To me Bush is in a league all his own.

There are bad presidents, but to me, Bush has been in a catagory all his own, does anyone else agree...?

I dont think there has ever been a worse president by a LONG shot. Any canidates for a worse president? Its more than merely disagreeing with his policies or the way of doing things.

Who agrees?

 

[Jarod]

Put it another way, I am voting for Obama, but I belive McCain would be a million times better than Bush ever was.

I never liked Regan or Bush Sr. much but Id vote for them over Bush any day of the week.

I would feel okay with Nixon (were he alive) being president again before Id be okay with having Bush back.

 

[Jarod]

Id vote for Ann Coulter, Rush Linbaugh, or O.J. Simpson before Id vote for Bush Jr.

To put it stright Bush Jr. Stinks, Stank and Stunk!

 

[Onceler]

I agree. I basically see Bush as a psychotic person, who should never have even come near the Presidency (and wouldn't have if not for his family).

These have been very surreal times.

 

[Don Quixote]

bush is a typical spoiled kid who got a new toy and tried it out only to discover that wishful thinking and reality are incompatible but continues to live in a state of denial

it is not that he is psychotic or evil, but is unable to accept criticism of his wonderful ideas

karl rove and dick c have manipulated him but lost control somewhere along the line and bush actually managed to a few positive things

however, overall he is shaping up to be the worst president - this is exacerbated by the power of the office of the president

he may have actually exceeded nixon's megalomania so i may have to rescind my comment regarding whether he is psychotic - however at best he is severely neurotic

oh hell

 

[Socrtease]

Bush is not evil or psychotic. He is completely and totally incompetent. He has shown a complete inability to handle the job. He was unable to see the possibility that more troops would be needed after Iraq fell. He fired men who disagreed with him about the after effects of the war. He just recently acted like a member of the press was on drugs when they talked about gas going to 4 dollars per gallon. He misused the DOJ and when certain US attorney's would not prosecute political cases they were fired. I would suggest you all read David Iglesias' book about the aftermath of that ordeal. This mans presidency has been a clusterfuck from just after 9-11. When that first happened American's were united in getting the "evil doers", but he squandered that political currency and still over half the US voted for him again. All of you that did were wrong. You were wrong about him being better than Kerry. But then hindsight is always 20/20. He is the worst president of my lifetime. He has thrown Carter a life ring. The incompentency that this man has done will live after him and we and our children will pay for it.

 

[Cancel3]

Jarod, am I to assume you are not a fan of George W.??

I guess I am just not sure. Tell us what you really think.

 

[KingRaw!]

Bush 43 = beginning of the end of America.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

When you evaluate a presidency still 6 months away from beginning its legacy, it is important to compare it with evaluations of other presidents at the same point in time. 6 months before the end of Lincoln's presidency, about 75% of the country thought he was a madman. He had suspended Habeas Corpus, for you pinheads, that means we had no justice or rule of law, it was probably the only time in American history we were a fascist totalitarian government. Now, in retrospect, we all love Lincoln and praise him as one of our greatest presidents, but such was not the sentiment of the day, in fact, it resulted in his assassination. He literally divided this country against itself and engaged in an all out civil war, something Bush never did, in spite of the liberal treason and attacks on America.

Another president we may consider is Andrew Jackson. While we see him on our $20 bill, and think he was one of our greatest leaders, his policies as president often met with disfavor. He completely oppressed the Native Americans, relegated them to savages and barbarians, and marched them to their deaths along the Trail of Tears because he was prejudiced against them.

There are any number of presidents who, 6-months before the end of their presidency, people viewed as "bad presidents" or "the worst ever" president. In fact, it is precisely where the term "lame duck" came from, people who were disgruntled with the lack of achievement in the last days of an administration.

Bush made his share of mistakes and blunders. The objective and purpose behind Iraq was good, but the planning and implementing was not as good as it should have been, and the administration sorely lacked the communication abilities to combat the anti-war arguments along the way. Like his father, Bush literally ignored public sentiments and failed to address the issues raised at the time, which led to catastrophe. Like his father, he assumed the record high approval numbers he enjoyed would last, and he wouldn't have to do a thing to make that continue. I rank him just below his father as presidents go, and his father is along the same lines as Gerald Ford, nothing much to brag about. The Worst Ever? I don't know about that, history will tell.

 

[Cancel3]

Bush 43 = beginning of the end of America.

Actually, since Bush 41 begat Bush 43......Bush 41 = beginning of the end of America. (if you believe such things)

Grant was a drunk and was seriously disliked. Lincoln is loved for freeing the slaves. But when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation he freed the slaves only in the confederacy. Which had declared itself a separate nation.

 

[Don Quixote]

When you evaluate a presidency still 6 months away from beginning its legacy, it is important to compare it with evaluations of other presidents at the same point in time. 6 months before the end of Lincoln's presidency, about 75% of the country thought he was a madman. He had suspended Habeas Corpus, for you pinheads, that means we had no justice or rule of law, it was probably the only time in American history we were a fascist totalitarian government. Now, in retrospect, we all love Lincoln and praise him as one of our greatest presidents, but such was not the sentiment of the day, in fact, it resulted in his assassination. He literally divided this country against itself and engaged in an all out civil war, something Bush never did, in spite of the liberal treason and attacks on America.

Another president we may consider is Andrew Jackson. While we see him on our $20 bill, and think he was one of our greatest leaders, his policies as president often met with disfavor. He completely oppressed the Native Americans, relegated them to savages and barbarians, and marched them to their deaths along the Trail of Tears because he was prejudiced against them.

There are any number of presidents who, 6-months before the end of their presidency, people viewed as "bad presidents" or "the worst ever" president. In fact, it is precisely where the term "lame duck" came from, people who were disgruntled with the lack of achievement in the last days of an administration.

Bush made his share of mistakes and blunders. The objective and purpose behind Iraq was good, but the planning and implementing was not as good as it should have been, and the administration sorely lacked the communication abilities to combat the anti-war arguments along the way. Like his father, Bush literally ignored public sentiments and failed to address the issues raised at the time, which led to catastrophe. Like his father, he assumed the record high approval numbers he enjoyed would last, and he wouldn't have to do a thing to make that continue. I rank him just below his father as presidents go, and his father is along the same lines as Gerald Ford, nothing much to brag about. The Worst Ever? I don't know about that, history will tell.

d

to date, the only president possibly worse than gwb is harding

with regard to our civil war, the south wanted an aristocracy (while slavery was important to their mainly agrarian economy, it was not what the war was really about) so in order to permit such a thing they seceeded from the union - please note that the original government formed by the rebellious states was a confederacy and it failed only to be replaced by a federal government - the federalist and anti-federalist papers detail the hopes and fears regarding a federal system -

Lincoln wanted to keep the southern states in the union and the southern states wanted out - the northern states won...so lincoln is a hero to the north and a devil to the south...oh well

while gwb has almost 7 months to pull his chestnuts out of the fire, it does not look good for him to do so - as you say time will tell

some other lousy presidents were van buren, grant, harding, hoover, coolidge


but for gwb, he needs a miracle

 

[uscitizen]

Bush 43 = beginning of the end of America.

Yep the golden age is over, it is all downhill from here. The only questions are how fast and far.
And truthfully we deserve it as a country.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

to date, the only president possibly worse than gwb is harding

My point was, the same exact statement was made for a number of presidents on the twilight of their presidency.... Clinton, Carter, Ford, Nixon... the list is endless. You can not judge a presidency accurately from this close. It requires years and years of time to pass, and for history to evaluate what/how their policies changed things.... THEN, you can make this determination, not NOW! Understand my point?

Right now, you are too close to it, nothing has been realized to you because we live in the moment, we can't see into the future. During Clinton's last few months, I thought he was one of the worst presidents in history, but as time has passed and we can objectively look back at those years, he wasn't as bad as I had thought at the time, the same is true with Nixon, and Carter... well, I actually still think Carter was one of the worst.... but the point is, time and history must be applied to gain an accurate evaluation of a presidency.

 

[Cancel3]

My point was, the same exact statement was made for a number of presidents on the twilight of their presidency.... Clinton, Carter, Ford, Nixon... the list is endless. You can not judge a presidency accurately from this close. It requires years and years of time to pass, and for history to evaluate what/how their policies changed things.... THEN, you can make this determination, not NOW! Understand my point?

Right now, you are too close to it, nothing has been realized to you because we live in the moment, we can't see into the future. During Clinton's last few months, I thought he was one of the worst presidents in history, but as time has passed and we can objectively look back at those years, he wasn't as bad as I had thought at the time, the same is true with Nixon, and Carter... well, I actually still think Carter was one of the worst.... but the point is, time and history must be applied to gain an accurate evaluation of a presidency.

Clinton did pull some lousy shit his last days in office. He pardoned people that should not have been pardoned. As they exited they stole everything that wasn't nailed down. And he did some stuff expressly designed to screw Bush up.

As an example, he signed an executive order lowering the acceptable level of arsenic in water to ridiculous levels. If these levels were the law, more than half the tapwater in the USA would have been labelled toxic waste. But he didn't have it take effect while he was in office. No...he set the effective date for just after Bush took office. So that Bush had to start his presidency by raising the acceptable level of arsenic in the water. And this fact was widely reported, but somehow the story about clinton lowering them was ignored.

 

[Cancel11]

In many ways, Bill Clinton was a decent President. Fiscally speaking he was more conservative than Bush. Bush spent our surplus on a tax cut, and while I support the tax cut, it should have been accompanied by a cut in government spending. John McCain is absolutely correct on this issue. We must cut spending.

The FY2000 budget was in the area of $1.8T, as a recall, and the budget was balanced. Currently, the Federal budget exceeds $3.0T, we are running a massive deficit, and the national debt is growing rapidly.

Incoming President McCain needs to commit to cutting spending by at least 5% per year for the next 4 years if we are to secure our nation's future.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Bush spent our surplus on a tax cut

Bullshit, he returned our tax dollars to us without spending it.

The "surplus" was an accounting gimmick anyway, it was the inclusion of social security trusts into the general fund, so they could be included in the budget... money that was intended for us to retire on, was used to "balance" the over-bloated budget, and Clinton sold this to you as a "surplus" or "windfall" when in fact, it was your retirement money.

 

[Cancel11]

Bullshit, he returned our tax dollars to us without spending it.

That is only a half-truth. While I do believe the income tax must be abolished, it also occurs to me that sending every American a $600 check without cutting spending isn't a fiscally responsible thing to do. Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill. He has spent away America's future like a drunken sailor, and you cannot argue otherwise.

When it comes to fiscal policy, Bush is not even remotely conservative.

The "surplus" was an accounting gimmick anyway, it was the inclusion of social security trusts into the general fund, so they could be included in the budget... money that was intended for us to retire on, was used to "balance" the over-bloated budget, and Clinton sold this to you as a "surplus" or "windfall" when in fact, it was your retirement money.

Gimmick or not, there was more money flowing in than being spent. That's more than President Bush and the Republicratic Congress can say.

 

[Beefy]

Bullshit, he returned our tax dollars to us without spending it.

Ar you serious? Look at how much spending increased under Bush from the onset. Republican President flat ass rubber stamping everything the Republican Congress sent his way. "without spending it" ????? Out of your tree Dix.

And I agree that the so called "surplus" wasn't really an honest surplus, but a paper shifting snow job, but it was ass loads better than what's happened since. But since you and I agree that there was never really a surplus, how can you possibly say Bush gave back money that was never spent when our borrowing was increasing during that time?

 

[Cancel11]

Ar you serious? Look at how much spending increased under Bush from the onset. Republican President flat ass rubber stamping everything the Republican Congress sent his way. "without spending it" ????? Out of your tree Dix.

And I agree that the so called "surplus" wasn't really an honest surplus, but a paper shifting snow job, but it was ass loads better than what's happened since. But since you and I agree that there was never really a surplus, how can you possibly say Bush gave back money that was never spent when our borrowing was increasing during that time?

Bingo on all points.

 

[Beefy]

Gimmick or not, there was more money flowing in than being spent.

No, there was simply more flowing in than was "budgeted" for. The national debt has increased every year since 1960. More and more in the red we go. Call it what you want, but during the "surplus", the government still ran in the red to make ends meet.