Originally Posted By DAR I think non sequitir's are those white things on Snow Caps at the movie theatre.
Originally Posted By ElKay Post!#10: "Can you provide proof of the that? That's a pretty strong claim." Ok, so "ecdc" cited a pretty authortive proof (as good as it gets on these boards) that Bush Admin. thourgh the army is paying off Iraqi Sunni tribes not to shoot at our soldiers and marines. I'd hope DAR would acknowledge the proof and comment on it. Funny thing that neocons and "loyal Bushies" here and all over the country DEMAND PROOF on every single comment against dubya, but almost ALWAYS take dubya on his "word" never taking him to task at all of his malaprop pronouncement from his "gut." Almost certainly, Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents, if not the worst, when the US a major world leader--where it really counts. Rest easy Buchanan, Grant, Harding, Coolige, and Hoover. Comapaired to Bush, Dennis Kucinich would look like GHW Bush.
Originally Posted By ElKay mrkthompsn: "I can't imagine what Bush-haters would say about Lincoln if they lived during his age and time." There you go again with "Bush-haters". What happened to the GOP "Clinton-haters"? You really can't make the comparison between Lincoln and Bush II. Under Lincoln, nearly half of the country was in open rebellion, taking away almost most of the top army officers with them. Under Bush II, we were essentially attacked by a well funded organized crime organization. They didn't really have a nation state to attack and occupy as we did in the Civil War or WWI & II. Instead of conducting a police action of rooting out OBL and killing him, we invaded Iraq under trumped up so-called evidence. It's really like after the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR rallied the country to go out and attack the USSR. FDR would have rightly gone down in history as a boob, as will dubya. Lincoln had limitted formal education and came from near poverty, but unlike Bush, he had natural intelligence and understading of the lives of common Americans then as well as today. Lincoln defeated the enemies to America in less time and with more limitted resources that Bush is still struggling to do. Lincoln created a unity cabinet of many of the best minds at that time in the country, regardless of the fact that they were political rivals of his. Bush--'nuf said. So "loyal Bushies" should go around using Bush's name in the same sentence with the "Great Emancipator." It's just like shooting Quayle in a Bush. ;-)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<He's presided over the most uninformed war of modern times and the current housing and mortgage crisis is only beginning to unravel. He's a disaster.>> Oh come now. I certainly agree that he Bush is the worst president of my lifetime. He makes Carter look like a genius. But I would need to know more history than I do to declare him the worst ever. But holding Bush responsible for the current real estate/mortgage crisis? Poppycock!! Who among us was complaining when our home values were increasing at 10-20% per year? Who among us was complaining when we could us home equity lines to make the interest for huge TV's or cars or college educations tax deductible? Who among us was complaining when more liberal loan criteria allowed a huge number of Americans, many of them minority, to own their first home? We all hitched our wagon to the booming housing market in one way or another over the past 10 years. Those of us who could afford to hitched our wagon to this boom in a way that proved very profitable. Those who were less prosperous were unable to do so and have paid the price for making the rest of us very well off. We have met the enemy, and he is us. As usual, American freedom and free enterprise goes hand in hand with American greed. Not that everything about that is bad. Greed has made our country the great country that it is today. But let's not forget that America’s strength rests upon one of the 7 deadly sins. Let's not forget that we have done this to ourselves... it has very little to do with either Bush or the Republicans.
Originally Posted By ElKay "You forgot Carter." Nope, Carter is looking better and better every year during dubya's two terms. Did you forget during his presidency he managed to forge peace between Isreal and Egypt, the biggest military threat to Isreal? Compare that to dubya's two terms. It's just soo pathetic how there this late in the term drive to settle the Middle East crisis after screwing so badly in Iraq, pissing off Iran and ignoring the Palistinian issue for most of this time in office. Don't forget the historical revisionism when Ford passed away last year. Nobody brought up Chevy Chase's Ford pratfalls. Carter's image has been burnished in his post presidental career as freelane peacemaker and work with the poor. Does anyone seriously think that after next Jan. dubya will do a Jimmy Carter turn and forge a solution to Global Warming as president emertius?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>There you go again with "Bush-haters".<< I too find it amusing when people use phrases like this. Because I for one can't think of a single good reason why someone would hate a genius like George W. Bush. I voted for Bush in 2000. I didn't hate him then. He had to work hard, one incompetent screw-up at a time, to earn my hatred.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Post!#10: "Can you provide proof of the that? That's a pretty strong claim." Ok, so "ecdc" cited a pretty authortive proof (as good as it gets on these boards) that Bush Admin. thourgh the army is paying off Iraqi Sunni tribes not to shoot at our soldiers and marines. I'd hope DAR would acknowledge the proof and comment on it.>> Sorry ecdc for not acknowledging you're post way back there. <<Funny thing that neocons and "loyal Bushies" here and all over the country DEMAND PROOF on every single comment against dubya, but almost ALWAYS take dubya on his "word" never taking him to task at all of his malaprop pronouncement from his "gut.">> Yeah this was the first time I had heard of comments like this about the surge. So I was inquiring about it. And for the record I'm not taking Bush at his word nor do I think that everytime someone says something bad about the man provide me proof of why their saying it.
Originally Posted By ElKay "Poppycock!!" Speaking of Jimmy Carter. . . Carter didn't cause the double digit inflation, that was a result of the borrowing that came due because Johnson's and Nixon's escallation of the Vietnam War wasn't funded by tax increase. However, because it got worse under Carter's watch, he got blamed for it because was President. Are you going to say that Bush isn't at all responsible because a bunch of greedy Americans went out and got NINJA loans (No Income, No Job at All)? Bush because he is President is ultimately resposible for the (what little) good or (a lot of the) bad that goes on his watch. As Truman said "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." It's not space aliens that used a ray to force folks into bad loans or evaporated all the good credit. It was pretty foreseeable that a huge chunk of those risky adjustible rate mortgage would be coming due right now, so the Bush Admin. and Bush himself should have been beating the bushes telling folks to watch out and there might have been steps to quell the over exuberance these loans were offered. It's poppycock, to say Bush takes NO responsiblity for this mess under his watch, just as it is wrong to only blame Clinton for 9/11 when Bush was asleep at the switch as "loyal Bushies" claim Clinton was to deflect blame on themselves. Don't forget that Bush took credit for the good economy, so he should accept the blame when it sours on his watch.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip There are plenty of things that Bush had control over to blame him for. Why bother blaming him for things that he had little control over? For better or worse, presidents have very little control over the economy. World events and consumer confidence have far more to do with our economy than anything the president can control.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But let's not forget that America’s strength rests upon one of the 7 deadly sins.<< Optimist! ; )
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << For better or worse, presidents have very little control over the economy. >> I disagree. A President that lacks fiscal discipline and destroys the country's currency through reckless spending on foreign wars and giving tax breaks to the wealthy certainly has a negative impact on the economy.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf No only that, the economy is very emotional. When the president conveys a sense of gloom and doom, it is reflected in consumer confidence. The high-flying nineties were, at least in part, a reflection of how Clinton made people feel: carefree and happy.
