-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What Bush Got Right
- Thread starter Stoney Mason
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Cooter said:As if being born in 79' or 69' gives you all this additional perspective on over 200 years of presidents.
Which is the reason I tend to stay away from hyperbole in the first place. However it's especially tickling to me when a 19 year old comments on the historical greatness of our current president since I doubt he barely followed politics for the prior one. Just saying.
However I also opened the discussion for him to lay out a few choice reasons for Bush being the "greatest".
Tyrone Slothrop
Banned
even if the man cured cancer he still fundamentally encapsultes everything about a bad democratic leader - the self obfuscation of truth, interpretations of his powers and nation's laws based solely on idealism, and the unwillingness to listen to anybody or anything remotely dissenting. its hard not to bring it up without sounding like a left wing tool, which i know i sound like. but its whatever
Tobor said:We'd better hope you're right, as much money as we owe them.
So we're borrowing from China to give to Africa, then?
JayDubya said:So we're borrowing from China to give to Africa, then?
I mean we'd better hope that China views the money being lent to us as an investment rather than foreign aid.
That's because the truth has liberal bias.Tyrone Slothrop said:even if the man cured cancer he still fundamentally encapsultes everything about a bad democratic leader - the self obfuscation of truth, interpretations of his powers and nation's laws based solely on idealism, and the unwillingness to listen to anybody or anything remotely dissenting. its hard not to bring it up without sounding like a left wing tool, which i know i sound like. but its whatever
JayDubya said:I don't agree with situation x, ergo situation y which I don't agree with is okay? Logic? Do you speak it?
Why should we be spending any taxes on this at all? Why would we tax our own citizenry for one penny more than what is needed to cover our own programs? Whatever excess there is - and lately, there is none - should be going towards the debt. It's like maxing out your credit cards on cash advances and giving it out to the homeless.
Our government has no business having that goal.
Also, the adjective "good" is an oxymoron based on the rest of the the description.
UNICEF et. al. can eat a whole bag of dicks thanks to their abortion stance. I wouldn't give them a penny voluntarily, nor should I be compelled to do indirectly.
You mention other foreign policy mistakes as if that's supposed to matter in this context. Again, evil bastardy here does not justify evil bastardy there.
In any event, this article does nothing to soften Bush, it only clarifies just how complete his failure is.
Will you stop the bullshit of calling everyone that supports abortions as "evil"?
reilo said:Will you stop the bullshit of calling everyone that supports abortions as "evil"?
In order for me to stop doing it I'd have to start doing it first.
That's generally how it would have to work.
You know, it's funny. China has invested so much money in America, that it pretty much needs for us to come through. It's one of those precarious situations where the lender would be as screwed as the borrower if the money isn't payed back. A 'got each other by the balls' kind of relationship, so to speak.Tobor said:I mean we'd better hope that China views the money being lent to us as an investment rather than foreign aid.
when will people stop this bullshit, seriously? When liberals opposed nuclear energy in the 60's did the truth have a liberal bias? When democratic leaders lied and led us into Vietnam, did the truth have a liberal bias?Dali said:That's because the truth has liberal bias.
congrats for not supporting the iraq war, but liberals have often been wrong, factually and morally on a lot of things
He still ain't got shit on Washington!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA
"Six foot twenty, fucking killing for fun!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA
"Six foot twenty, fucking killing for fun!"
wait wait wait, so the thrust of Zakaria's argument is that the failure was the 1st term Bush Administration's policy of ABC (anything but clinton) and not its ideological underpinnings? i also wouldn't flatter Bush for his engagement policy with China. by 9/11 there was a new bogeyman in the international order and the prior thirst for great power battle with China gave way.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
In history, Bush 43 will be looked at as a better than average President.
We bitch now because it is 2008 and think that he ranks at the bottom. Given the history of past Presidents, as much as Bush fucked up in his terms, there have been far worse that stepped into the Oval Office.
Not to mention that as with all Presidents, a healthy dose of revisionism will be done to gloss over or further darken the administration and the GOP does a much better job of it than the Democrats. Ronald Reagan's administration has been almost entirely rewritten. All fuck ups have been swept under the rug, he is given credit to things he had nothing or little to do with, and is considered an idol. Jimmy Carter's administration, you'd think was the most chaotic time in the United States. With those examples, I expect the glorification of Bush to happen right away. Something bad might happen and people will long for the good old days of George W. Bush.
Bush has unfucked a few of his broken policies but typically too late. Instead of going 100 miles an hour in the wrong direction, he has cut it down to 50. While it is better than continuing in the 2001-2006 direction or not doing anything about it at all, no dice.
We bitch now because it is 2008 and think that he ranks at the bottom. Given the history of past Presidents, as much as Bush fucked up in his terms, there have been far worse that stepped into the Oval Office.
Not to mention that as with all Presidents, a healthy dose of revisionism will be done to gloss over or further darken the administration and the GOP does a much better job of it than the Democrats. Ronald Reagan's administration has been almost entirely rewritten. All fuck ups have been swept under the rug, he is given credit to things he had nothing or little to do with, and is considered an idol. Jimmy Carter's administration, you'd think was the most chaotic time in the United States. With those examples, I expect the glorification of Bush to happen right away. Something bad might happen and people will long for the good old days of George W. Bush.
Bush has unfucked a few of his broken policies but typically too late. Instead of going 100 miles an hour in the wrong direction, he has cut it down to 50. While it is better than continuing in the 2001-2006 direction or not doing anything about it at all, no dice.
Mandark said:If those are your best two examples it's time to go back to the drawing board.
what should I pick from? Union legislation like the Davis-Bacon Act that was jim crow in all it's glory, Kennedy and his ilk sitting on affirmative action, though the party preached it for years. A party that prided itself on civil liberties, though they have routinely been for the banning of most things in America, everything from guns(which before the anti-gun groups of today sprouted, was an argument used by white slave owners to keep firearms away from free blacks. Tons of great history there) to Dr. Seuss books.Mandark said:If those are your best two examples it's time to go back to the drawing board.
and lol at the breezing by Vietnam. GWB lied to get us in Iraq and he is terrible. JFK escalated cold war fears, and LBJ has the blood of millions on his hand, but both have the "liberal bias of truth". Nixon came in, set up the EPA, SSI and actually had the deceny to be a diplomat in his spare time, plus tons of other stuff and libs throw him under the bus. Libs take full credit for everyting that happened in the nineties, completely ignoring that the tax cuts of the 80's lead to the massive growth in the 90's, along with ignoring the number of new buisnesses started by minorities in that time. History is not black and white. Both sides have shit
"liberal bias of truth" is the same tactic that conservatives have used for years, their big word is patriotic. Same crap, different people.
Stoney Mason
Banned
The Experiment said:Not to mention that as with all Presidents, a healthy dose of revisionism will be done to gloss over or further darken the administration and the GOP does a much better job of it than the Democrats. Ronald Reagan's administration has been almost entirely rewritten
Ronald Reagan was a lot more popular through out his term (minus the war rally 9/11 effect Bush was able to ride on) including one landmark crushing victory and another pretty good ass kicking if you count the election of George Bush (41) as the spiritual re-election of Ronald Reagan. Not to mention he was/is pretty much a conservative icon that managed to transcend his party. I don't see much connection between the Reagan Years and the Bush Years in the country attitudes once you look past the Republican label.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.