George W Bush's Presidency

[Greek People Nation (GPN)]

Apr 24, 2009 11:28:30 GMT -5 @oronin said:

Worst president evah, no doubt about it. Election fraud, economy crash, fascism, crimes against humanity... name a bad thing, he did it.

The funny thing, is something has gone wrong, it was Bush's fault. When Obama does something wrong or stupid, it is "give a chance, he hasn't been there that long." It's a double standard. Obama is inexperienced and you can tell. He is making our economy worse, making the deficit even bigger. Appointing tax evaders to positions that control the IRS. Making government bigger. (Bush did that too and I blame him for that too) And the bad thing about it, to many people bought into his nonsense. All he has is catchy phrases. Nothing more. For the record, crap didn't go down hill until 2006, and that's when the liberals took over congress. So there's where your blame needs to go. I hope people have wised up and will vote right this coming election in 2010.

[New Dracora]

100 days does not 8 years make says I.

[Chronopolice]

Dec 14, 2008 22:43:38 GMT -5 New Dracora said:

Dec 14, 2008 21:49:40 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

EDIT: Shoes thrown at Bush during News Conference
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7782422.stm

So... close. lol

LOL Observe that the Secret Service seems to stand by for a few moments.

[Guy]

Not the worst ever, of course not. We had presidents who supported presidents! But he's the worst president in a long while. After the fall of Saadam, we should've got out of their. Not our business anymore. New butthole? Another invasion. However, at the start of the Afgahnistan War, he should've made it very clear that he wants bin Laden, or he'll start carpet bombing. You shouldn't be nice to terrorists, or their followers.
Bush Tax Cuts. Worst thing that a president has done in a looong time. Oh and did I mention worst VP?

[Bad Infinitum]

I find it funny that (at the time of this posting) 37.5% of voters selected "worst president evah", even though this is a predominantly conservative forum. That says a lot.

[Grub (Lenlyvit)]

We also have a lot of liberals here too.

[Anime Daisuki]

I suppose by whose standards. Because even "liberals" in America, by standards of Europe, Australia, etc, are rather conservative.

If you look at all the new Conservative governments of Europe right now (the liberal/labor parties have lost almost every election since 2007)... but even the conservative governments are adopting "liberal" policies that the Democrats in US wouldn't even dare to pursue.

[LondonCity]

he was beyond crap but probably not the worst one. looking into it William Henry Harrison did pretty much nothing except die.

[Liberal Systems]

I feel that Bush did a very splended job. However I had to take off points for the bailout support, and he wasn't that good at speaking (forgivable yes). I rated him as "good". I think that is fair as he did inherit a horrible economy, and only a few months in office had to respond to a very large and deadly terrorist attack. He responded very well. All in all a good president, but not the best ever.

[Pompadoodle]

He was an appalling president. He screwed up everything that he touched- the economy, the environment, international relations...you name it.

I can't think of anything positive to say about him at all. Other than the fact that he isn't president anymore.

[Anime Daisuki]

I have to disagree with the last one. He did screw up the economy and the environment, and plenty other things too. But he wasn't that bad on international relations. He was very unpopular and by extension, made the US very unpopular in Western Europe and the Middle East after the invasion of Iraq, but he maintained good relations with Japan, India, Russia and China, better than Obama and Clinton in that respect.

[Cerb]

When the terrorists struck the nation screamed for blood. When the president gave them what they asked for it wasn't fashionable any more, so they screamed for his blood instead.

We live in a 10 second attention span nation that cares about fashion more than function. Bush made mistakes for certain. He was likely misinformed on WOMD and moved on iraq at the wrong moment. When the tanks were rolling and it was 24/7 on CNN people watched and were thrilled by the might of the US. Once it got old and boring it was suddenly monstrous.

I despise the fickle nature of today's culture, where instant gratification seems to be the only acceptable policy.

I rate him no worse than other recent presidents. Obama certainly isn't shaping up to be an improvement.

How I would love for the US to get a strong level headed leader rather than a flim flam fence sitter or an aggressive warmonger.

[Walabamba]

I know this may be lame but ^this ;D

[Pompadoodle]

A strong level-headed leader for the world's greatest democracy and most powerful nation would be nice.

Unfortunately, that isn't what the electoral system seems to be very good at producing.

Bush Jr was imo a desperately bad president. Obama is a victory of style over substance- an improvement over Bush, but maybe not by much. The country (and the world) needs someone of higher calibre. Its hard to see who it would be, or how they could possibly get elected.

[Guy]

Obama is a victory of style over substance

Define substance. I think he's got what it takes.

[Pompadoodle]

Obama is a fine orator, but he's failed to carry out much of what he promised. Notably in the area of civil rights, where he's ended up continuing the practices of the Bush-era security state. And beyond that, I don't think that he's much of a leader. His record on the Gulf oil spill, for example, is not very impressive.

Having said that, he is imo an improvement over Bush.

[Guy]

You know I'm a liberal Pomp. But sometimes we have to abandon our values for our safety.

[Coltonians]

We must rember that "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."- Ben Franklin

[Guy]

Quotes are stupid.

[Pompadoodle]

So is abandoning your liberty.

[Guy]

So is people dying due to terrorist attacks. What's stupider?

[Cerb]

Some would argue that it's better to die free than live in fear and captivity.

It doesn't bother me that the programs started by Bush are being continued by Obi. It's the fact that he claimed that he would turn things around.

I also detest absurd statements like his recent "The combat mission in Iraq is over". Tell that to the 1500 guys in the local area here that are leaving for Iraq in October. It's all good now boys and girls, Obi-Barackinobi says it's fine, no more combat.

I'm sure he'll tell the body bags when they come home too.

It sickens me. Bush was bad. Obama is no better.
Pomp nailed it. Style over substance.

[Bepi]

The Bush administration allowed a financial surplus to become a crippling deficit.

The Bush administration lied to the American people about WMD's in Iraq, bringing the USA into a costly and pointless war.

The Bush administration enabled Goldmann Sachs to take over the American economy during the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

The Bush administration tortured and illegally detained innocent people at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Grahib.

The Bush administration failed the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

I honestly can't think of a single good thing he did.

[Wauntalot]

Perhaps unwelcome comment from a northern neighbor: I think Nixon did more harm to the presidency (loss of respect for the office and its holders), but I suggest that W's decisions to initiate two wars while also cutting taxes and deregulating your financial industry will prove to cause greater short, medium and long term harm to your nation.

[Kurdazistan]

51 to 75 percentile. Good

[Ketab]

Decent, Didn't I think it is still a bit too recent for us to really know the impact of what he did. After this next election I think it will be easier to gauge.

[Free South Califas]

Let me put it this way.

I have a shirt one of my tutoring students made for me in '08 with a caricature of Bush and saying "WORST PRESIDENT EVER"

I liked it at the time, and still agree with it in spirit, but now consider it dreadfully (bloodily) outdated.

On a related note, I'm never voting for a Democrat again. Socialists only, for me.

[Cerb]

Yeah, but if you get socialist, you probably won't be able to actually state your opinion.

[Free South Califas]

Jan 14, 2011 23:59:09 GMT -5 Bepi said:

The Bush administration allowed a financial surplus to become a crippling deficit.

The Bush administration lied to the American people about WMD's in Iraq, bringing the USA into a costly and pointless war.

The Bush administration enabled Goldmann Sachs to take over the American economy during the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

The Bush administration tortured and illegally detained innocent people at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Grahib.

The Bush administration failed the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

I honestly can't think of a single good thing he did.

Please don't take this the wrong way, anyone, as I said earlier I was militantly anti-Bush and I mean, like you imply, there's no rational reason to support his policy unless you directly benefit from war, occupation and deregulation. But there is literally one good thing he did, and of course, he ran straight home to shit all over it once he did it. For a US President he showed a special commitment to the international fight against AIDS. Then he turned around and set the domestic fight against AIDS back decades by offering federal money to schools to teach kids that condoms don't work and marriage is the only effective guard against sexually transmitted infections.

[Free South Califas]

May 26, 2012 1:25:14 GMT -5 Cerb said:

Yeah, but if you get socialist, you probably won't be able to actually state your opinion.

It's unfortunate that authoritarian socialist regimes have dominated the Western public imagination outside of the regions where libertarian socialist experiments have quietly flourished (in a historical revolutionary way and in a current niche way). My neocon uncle mused the other day on how it was so tragic/bizarre/unreconcilable that socialist citizens, who espoused such bold sociopolitical vision and resolve, were willing to abide the abominable counterrevolutionary dictatorship of USSR. (I cannot bear to call them "Soviet Russia", the Soviets were so humble and well-meaning before being captured by the Bolsheviks--well, we all know what a National(ist) Socialist is, eh?) I had to remind him that the Bolsheviks killed or chased off the socialists in civil life and in government who opposed them.

I think the prospect of a revolutionary Socialist government--as paradoxical as it sounds at first blush--must consider not only the historical context of nominally Socialist counterrevolutionary governments of the past and present; but of the American system of checks and balances and the forceful, violent dedication to individual liberty that most Americans hold, taking the words of the candidates into account. WRT individual liberty, I refer here to the favored stock cliche in debates between people with different ideologies: "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". That has not historically been true of anti-socialist dialogue in this country, but I have some hope.

Anyway, while Democrats imply the moon and the stars in their flowery Big Tent rhetoric, the presidential candidates' priorities can be heard when they get down to brass tacks; usually a selection of the most vaguely palatable right-wing political soundbites du jour, so they can issue a come-hither to moderate Republicans without selling out on so many principles that the people realize there's another dang tent to check out. 'Teacher accountability', a 'responsible' end to one or two of the wars the public is most aware of at the moment, forfeiting our rights in the name of national cultural homogeneity, aiding & abetting criminal businesses, expanding drone surveillance and violence, kangaroo courts for terror suspects and what-have-you.

Socialist candidates on the other hand, will of course run all over the lefty spectrum since the Socialist movement is so embarrassingly weak and divided and, as you imply, given to authoritarian flourish on its sizeable fringe. The particular Socialist candidates I am thinking of, Stewart Alexander and Roseanne Barr, run on libertarian platforms and in anti-authoritarian parties. Alexander's party does not allow membership to "democratic centralists" (Leninists, ISO types, the ones we're worried about) and Barr's Green Party not only has longstanding libertarian credentials but has an obvious long-term party-wide motive to support pluralism rather aggressively. Opening up the ballots, after all, would make the Greens first in line for sweeping electoral gains, given the leftward ecological and economic trend of American voters.

As much as leftists may regret the checks and balances which so often hamstring Obama, I think we all agree it's a good thing he can't be King Obama, including Barry himself. And by "we all", I mean the majority subset of, specifically, the American electorate, which could conceivably elect a Socialist party or candidate.

Hope you don't take my counterattack personally, this is just a good opportunity to put my thoughts about the implications for libertarians into words.