Originally Posted By dshyates My grand dad used to say, "Son, if you can tell its a can of worms, for Christ's sake, don't open it." Hey X, hand me the can opener, the label says "Live Worms".
Originally Posted By Lisann22 Deceit, greed and murder do not constitute good man to me, call me crazy.
Originally Posted By mele I don't even think his intentions were all that good. I think he wanted to go down in history as the man who solved the problems in the middle east. I think his pride and desire for glory is what pushed him to do what he did. He did have the chance for coming close to doing it, but he failed miserably. Greed for glory, even if the cause is noble, isn't a great trait.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I also don't believe he was a bad person - but he didn't know how to accomplish some of the things he wanted - and he had a few people around him ( Cheney ) with a mean streak for sure. He will go down in history as not a very good president - but should not go down as a bad person. In my life I have lived under a few bad presidents - Carter and Johnson to name 2 - but I don't thinkthey were bad people either. Carter was just miscast as President to be sure - good hearted person. Johnson had aperson around him like Cheney ( McNamara) who made him look even worse. And in that case many of my friends, friends older brothers and even 2 of my teachers were dying while I watched my president repeat BS from McNamara lying about the scope of deaths in Vietnam, and the level of our involvement. If I had a vote - for that reason alone I would vote Johnson the worst president of my lifetime.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 but again, bad person - No, just in way over his head and trusting the wrong people. ( and yes I know some of the good he did - but all those deaths are mutliples or what we have today - and for me they were very personal )
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<I don't know that Bush was a bad person; just a stupid one.>> My sentiment as well. Good person? Yes; I think truly believed he was doing what he thought was best, regardless of what the rest of us thought (or knew). “Good person” does not mean “good President,” nor does it mean intelligent or any such attribute. Gomer Pyle was a good person too.
Originally Posted By Mr F I idiot is not a good person. A Good Person? What good has he done to be worthy of this title? IF anything, he has hindered the progression of society and man kind by banning stem cell research, supported elimination of right towards LGBT People, started a pointless war in Iraq which has caused thousands of casualties, and has ruined the economy, causing thousands to lose there jobs and homes. Bush is not a good person, he is the Anti-Christ. Those shoes should have hit him right in his throat.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Carter was just miscast as President to be sure - good hearted person.> That's a good point. Plano, I think probably most Republicans (maybe even you) would have to concede that Carter was well intentioned. A good-hearted person. Yet most would say "so what" - he was still a terrible president. Ineffectual and just plain not very good. So being well-intentioned, when we're talking about this particular office, doesn't really mean a whole hell of a lot. And, of course, with Bush, you start at Carter's level and just go up on the awfulness scale. He was not only ineffectual, he was that trait's less-forgivable cousin, incompetent. Throw in arrogant. And throw in deceitful in the way he got us into Iraq. He and Cheney and Rusmfeld may have played CYA carefully enough to stop themselves from lying per se, but did they mislead us, and intentionally so? You bet. Look at the tape from 2002 and 2003 and you'll see they never missed a chance to carefully invoke 9/11 and Saddam cheek by jowl in statement after statement. When we went to war, upwards of 70% of Americans actually thought Saddam was behind 9/11 (not involved, but behind it!), and they didn't get that idea from nowhere. We may not know for several years, until more information is uncovered, all the motivations for Bush's actions, so he may or may not have been well-intentioned. But even if he was, he was still a terrible president, the worst of my lifetime.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 I read the ratings were down 8% and they needed to add some new life to give it a boost. <shrugs shoulders>
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 I've had this life-long mental game going on: "Stupid or Selfish?" When I see someone doing something idiotic, I try to guess whether they're (a) doing it because they're just too stupid to know the rules or (b) doing it because they think they're above the rules. You know. Someone drives down the wrong way in a mall parking lot lane, clogging up traffic. Does that person just not know the American convention of one-way lanes IN WHICH ALL THE PARKING SPACES FACE THE OTHER WAY or is s/he an a****** who just thinks she can disregard the rules? Stupid? Selfish? Hard to tell. It's possible they don't get it. I'll reserve judgement. What about someone who cheats on their partner and doesn't use protection? I see this one all the time in my job. Stupid or Selfish? Believe it or not, sometimes it's hard to determine. I can give someone the benefit of the doubt. There's a lot of true stupidity out there. What about a President of the US who takes actions that will have such INCREDIBLY bad consequences for the US that it makes a rational person's mind hurt? Stupid or Selfish? Sorry. At this level, there's no grace for "Stupid." "Stupid" and "Selfish" are equally damning. Given what Bush has done over the past eight years, I absolutely cannot give him "good person who has made mistakes." His "mistakes" are SO egregious that either (a) he's so stupid that he misrepresented himself as being qualified to be president in the first place, or (b) he's such an egoist that he honestly doesn't feel bad for driving the wrong way down one way lanes. Or (c) both. Anyone who's done what he's done is either too stupid to be our president or too dishonest to be our president. It doesn't matter that some Americans think that he's "good."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder What's interesting to me in all of this is that Republicans are reduced to simply saying "well, he was a good guy, though." Given the lengthy list of mistakes, you have to wonder about that too, though. Old timers here might recall I was one of his staunchest defenders on this board along with our boy beau. I kept saying because of 9/11, his presidency had unexpectedly turned into one of crisis management, and Bush was never able to get to anything on his agenda. I defended him even past the invasion of Iraq, assuming he knew what he was doing. I even voted for the turkey again in 2004, because I just couldn't see Kerry doing anything that would improve the situation. But shortly after that, when it became obvious Bush DIDN'T know what he was doing invading Iraq, well, "good guys" admit when they've made mistakes. On foreign policy, including the war, Bush has allowed himself to be Cheney's puppet, no question. Bush had always wanted to get Hussein for threatening his father and Cheney goaded him into it. That's inexcusable. And Bush still hasn't shown much if any contrition for domestic catastrophes like Katrina. "Brownie" should never have been put in a position to fail in the first place. He was uniquely unqualified for FEMA, much like many of Bush's appointees. Harriet Miers, anyone? But anyway, I think what we're presently seeing with all the hullabaloo over the upcoming inauguration is the manifestation of a big exhaling sigh by the American public. Finally, Bush is over. I don't think it's so much the idea that Obama will turn everything he touches to gold, but it's a fresh start after all the negativity we've endured the last several years. People that are thought to be "good guys" overall usually don't merit this kind of send off that says good riddance, and we hope the door DOES hit you on the way out.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <People that are thought to be "good guys" overall usually don't merit this kind of send off that says good riddance, and we hope the door DOES hit you on the way out.< I liken the feeling( no not the importance) to that of so many Chicago Cubs former managers as they left. Many of them not bad guys - just sucked at getting the job done...a few highlights here and there but overall failure. And they all leave with the don't let the door hit you Michael Eisner left the same way -- even though a lot of credit for turning the company around fell under his early watch
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I liken the feeling( no not the importance) to that of so many Chicago Cubs former managers as they left. Many of them not bad guys - just sucked at getting the job done...a few highlights here and there but overall failure. And they all leave with the don't let the door hit you" LOL. Boy howdy. Dunno about you, but I was excited when Don Baylor got the job. Then, I was really looking forward to Dusty Baker because for some reason Baylor got "Cubitis" like all the rest of them. Dusty started out great, and while it wasn't his fault Alou didn't fight Bartmman more for the ball and it wasn't Dusty but Alex Gonzalez that muffed the doubleplay ball, it WAS Dusty who left Prior in too long and then Wood in Game 7. And as we all know, it never got much better for Baker after that. So while my "In Dusty we Trusty" t-shirts are on a shelf somewhere, my "Sweet Lou" and "Piniella in '08" shirts are still going to be worn, but if this season doesn't go farther than the first round of playoffs and probably at least to the Series, then "Ryno in '1-0", or something like that, can't be far behind. Sandberg is obviously being groomed. What's funny is Jody Davis wants the job too, and frankly I think he's more qualified that the sainted Sandberg.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 likely but I believe also Ryno is next one in......hopefully after Lou wins a WS -- and we aren't booting him out also btw - someone help Jake Peavy pack - the Cubs are acquiring the exact pieces the Padres wanted in return - coincidence ? I don't think so
Originally Posted By alexbook >> But I can buy into many Americans saying he's "a good person". I'd bet if you ran a similar poll about Clinton you'd get pretty much the same answers with the R and D flip of course (probably lower than 50% on the R side at least, due to his infidelity which seems to count more towards "good" than how many innocent people you kill I suppose). << Sorry I'm late, but I'd like to disagree with this. I think most people see Bush as a good man but a bad President. With Clinton, I think things went the opposite way: a bad person, but a good President. ----- This whole discussion reminds me of the Wizard of Oz: "I'm not a bad man; I'm just not a very good wizard."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't know if most people would brand Clinton a "bad man" - his initiatives since leaving office have helped a lot of people, certainly... "bad husband?" Yeah, a lot of people would agree there.
