Originally Posted By Mr X ***There's no way to know if he is the worst president until after his term has ended.*** There's no way to quantify whether or not he really is "the worst", no matter when you look at it. Even a hundred years from now, there will be opinions that differ. However, I'm certain that it's easy enough to say, right now this minute, that his reign has been largely bad. After all, one need not have waited until the end to look at Hitler or Stalin and say "this is not good". Right? Anyone want to wait for history to judge whether or not Kim Jong Il is a horrible tyrant? Poor Woody. So behind the curve on these matters.
Originally Posted By gadzuux At least we can agree that he's in the top tier of 'worst presidents ever', right? Maybe he's just "number two". Does that make you feel better, woody?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh President Bush righted a failing economy, and kept it strong for most of his terms. He took the fight to the terrorists, unlike the previous administration, who did far too little. And he took a chance on changing the face of the Middle East, a decision which might very well prove to be both bold and wise. I think history will judge him a lot kinder than many posters here do.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I think history will judge him a lot kinder than many posters here do.<< Or, apparently, 80% of actual historians, who agree with the posters here.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Or, apparently, 80% of actual historians, who agree with the posters here.> One, no one has surveyed all the actual historians, so your 80% is plucked out of the air. Two, any historian who claims to know what historians will say in the future is not an acutal historian.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***He took the fight to the terrorists, unlike the previous administration, who did far too little.*** That's a load of hooey. Clinton himself refuted that in very strong terms (while being very careful not to slam the Bush administration too badly, it's clear that he wasn't pleased). ***And he took a chance on changing the face of the Middle East, a decision which might very well prove to be both bold and wise.*** Hardly bold nor wise, he took a chance on becoming a conquerer..preemptively attacking a soverign nation for the first time in American history, against the strong objections of the world community. And how's that going now? Six years later, it's a quagmire that both candidates have to promise to fix. Yeah, history will love Bush's actions there. Always good for a laugh, Douglas. Keep em coming. <a href="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=w5TkWGsmZF0" target="_blank">http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=...kWGsmZF0</a> So much for that incorrect argument. ***President Bush righted a failing economy, and kept it strong for most of his terms.*** Even less true than the previous line. Bush righted NOTHING. The economy at large was fine, the dot com companies collapsed as well they needed to...that's ALL. The job situation was fine coming out of the Clinton presidency, inflation was well in check, home prices were rising, and things were good. Are you trying to compare THAT situation to now? Seriously? Well, if so anyway that's ridiculous.
Originally Posted By Mr X The youtube link is in relation to the first point...sorry for the bad edit there.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <President Bush righted a failing economy, and kept it strong for most of his terms. He took the fight to the terrorists, unlike the previous administration, who did far too little. And he took a chance on changing the face of the Middle East, a decision which might very well prove to be both bold and wise.> What's the emoticon for a spit take? Bush is considered a failure by about 70% of the American people, and the country is considered to be on the wrong track by 80% for a reason - your blinkered worldview notwithstanding.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's a load of hooey.> No, it's not. And nothing you or Dabob said actually refuted my points.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 We've refuted them many times in the past. (No, you haven't). (Yes, we have). Just saving us both the typing.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<That's a load of hooey.> No, it's not. And nothing you or Dabob said actually refuted my points.*** Yes, it is, as the video proves. Watch it, and you'll see that it completely refutes your point.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I've seen it before, and it doesn't. President Clinton can claim whatever he wants, but the facts tell a different story.
Originally Posted By Mr X So now you're calling the former President a liar on this issue? Fine. There's no room for discussion then. You've been proven wrong, and you dismiss the proof as a lie. Nothing more can be said.
Originally Posted By mawnck I sure do wish you guys would quit letting DouglasDubh slap you around. It's unseemly.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>So now you're calling the former President a liar on this issue?<< All kidding aside, are you really trying to say that Clinton never lies? (If so, I need that emoticon for a spit take...)
Originally Posted By ecdc >>All kidding aside, are you really trying to say that Clinton never lies?<< Of course Clinton never lies. He's just...misunderstood. Yeah, that's the ticket.
