1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How do you remember president G.W Bush

Discussion in 'Serious' started by D3s3rt_F0x, 17 Jan 2009.

  1. Yourcomputer

    Yourcomputer What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    30 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    50
    Likes Received:
    1
    Look up comparative fallacy...

    My point with the politicians being smart is these bills that make Bush a horrible president went through over 500 what you say are reasonably smart people, and the majority of them agreed with it.

    No matter the decision, there are always people that will say "I told you so". There are people that think Obama is crazy spending billions of dollars trying to save these large businesses that obviously made horrible decisions. The auto-makers come to mind.

    If we go from recession to depression, Obama is going to be ridiculed just as you guys are doing to Bush.

    I've stated my beliefs for thinking Bush wasn't a horrible president, I personally am a Democrat, and i disagree with some of the things he did and I was against the war, but I for one don't condone crazy ridicule over things beyond his control, or decisions that the majority of people would have made. I'm no longer trying to sway you any bit as you, as well as myself, won't change either of our opinions on the man, I'm just throwing in there an argument so people who aren't quite sure won't get the wrong idea from reading a one sided tech-forum political debate.
    :blush::blush::blush:


    Decided to add on here and sum up my arguments:

    Bush's "Blunders"

    1. War in Iraq - Congress anyone? Democrats and Republicans both voted for it, and continued to vote for it until It became unpopular to the American people.

    2. Economy - Bush had basically NOTHING to do with this. All because of people being encouraged to buy on credit when they could not afford to. Speculators, bad business practices, ect. all added to its effect, but Bush couldn't have done anything really to stop it.

    3. Katrina - The levees weren't built by Bush, Bush didn't tell the people to stay, they were told to evacuate and many of them decided to wait it out (lets not go into how hard it was to leave, that wasn't Bush's fault either), FEMA couldn't react fast enough because we've never had a disaster this large, they couldn't have prepared for it.

    4. Energy - Every president and congress going back to the Johnson and Nixon era screwed up this one, It just has now gotten pinned on Bush.

    Bush's Goods

    1. Protecting the country - Following 9/11 Bush did what he had to to comfort the American people and assure that there wasn't going to be another. He followed through with it by going to Iraq and Afghanistan. Say what you will, but we haven't had another terror attack since, and a lot of other countries can't say the same.

    2. Africa - From AIDS to Sudan to education and such. His approval rating in Africa is a step up from his approval rating anywhere else if that tells you something about what he has helped do.

    3. Healthcare - Believe it or not, Bush has helped America here. He helped initiate and pass Medicare Part D.

    He isn't as bad as it has become fashionable to say he is.
     
    Last edited: 26 Jan 2009
  2. ufk

    ufk Licenced Fool

    Joined:
    3 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    760
    Likes Received:
    10
    He gets the blame because he was the man at the top, given his position in government at the time he's ultimatley reponsible for all the good (and the bad) that happened on his watch.

    Thats why he got paid the big bucks, and at the end day the buck stopped at his desk.

    Well that and the feeling world-wide that the US was being led by a man that appeared to have all the intelligence of a dead primate.
     
  3. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,708
    Likes Received:
    144
    You, sir, obviously have little clue what goes on in Africa. His approval rating is higher here, because he bothered to actually visit the continent...once. But his AIDS policies are reviled here, because he forced NGOs to limit their education to abstinence to receive US funds. Discussing condoms, birth control or family planning was not allowed. Which made the pittance that the US had payed to fight HIV/AIDS a joke. And as for what Bush did in Sudan, he didn't. He did nothing. There was no help from the US in securing refugee camps from raids, there was no help in stopping children getting kidnapped and sold into slavery or even getting them returned to their families. Sorry, there simply was no help from the Americans. Not a single soldier stepped foot in Sudan. Not a single resolution that actually did anything passed in either house, or was sponsored in the UN. Africa wasn't even on the radar of the Bush administration. And after Somalia, everyone here pretty much thinks the Americans are scared of Africa.


    No, he was by far worse. Never before were the basic ideals of our country so debased and ignored then by the Bush administration. That alone makes the last eight years ones the most dangerous to who and what we are as Americans.
     
  4. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,528
    Likes Received:
    1,897
    That does not make them wrong. Pessimists who got lucky, or foresighted realists?

    The foresighted realists amongst us have realistic expectations. But in his first week in office he has already done more for the US than Bush did in eight years.

    Perhaps you are the one who is bring a bit one-sided here.

    The months leading up to the war saw protests across the United States, the largest of which, held on February 15, 2003 involved between 300,000 - 400,000 protesters in New York City, with smaller numbers protesting in Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and other cities. On July 28, 2002, eight months before the invasion of Iraq, the Washington Post reported that “many senior U.S. military officers” including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed an invasion on the grounds that the policy of containment was working. A few days later, Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (Ret.) warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the invasion was risky and perhaps unnecessary. Morton Halperin, a foreign policy expert with the Council on Foreign Relations and Center for American Progress warned that an invasion would increase the terrorist threat.

    Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to President George H.W. Bush was an early critic. He wrote an August 15, 2002 editorial in The Wall Street Journal entitled "Don't attack Saddam," arguing that the war would distract from the broader fight against terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which should be the U.S.'s highest priority in the Middle East. The next month, Gen. Hugh Shelton, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed that war in Iraq would distract from the War on Terrorism. By January 19, 2003, TIME Magazine reported that “as many as 1 in 3 senior officers questions the wisdom of a preemptive war with Iraq.

    There has also been significant criticism of the war from American politicians and national security and military personnel, including Generals who served in the war and have since spoken out against its handling.

    Now what does a good president do with all this expert advice?

    Clinton left the US with a budget surplus. The Bush administration, with their costly and unnecessary Iraq war has left a massive deficit. The government sure could have used that money now. He didn't see the credit crunch coming in the same way you and I don't see our washing machine breaking down coming. **** happens. You keep a contingency fund and don't spend recklessly.

    And even then, economists made warnings about the banking crisis one year before it happened.

    See above.

    What was his policy on global warming again?

    The terrorist attacks on Spain and the UK would not have happened if it wasn't for Bush' actions. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; it was planned before then. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. But the war on Afghanistan and Iraq destabilised the geo-political stage: polarised the Middle East more against the West (provoking more attacks, inflaming the Palestinian conflict, destabilising Pakistan (which has nukes) further and destroying diplomatic relations with Iran), cost the lives of thousands of soldiers and millions of Iraqi, turned Iraq into a training camp for terrorists, wasted billions in money, created that political time bomb called Guantanamo, ruined America's reputation, credibility and goodwill with civilised countries. And did they catch Osama? In Bush' words: "that is not a priority right now".

    Intelligence actually warned Bush before 9/11 about an impending terrorist attack by Osama. It was ignored --too busy planning a war with Iraq, see?

    I refer you to Jumeira_Johnny.

    I would study carefully what that actually means. Proponents say the $400 billion Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act will provide much-needed help for the nation's 40 million senior citizens to buy medications; critics say it is a giveaway to drug makers and insurance companies and a prelude to the dismantling of the program. High on the list of things not covered in the bill is a mechanism to stem rising prescription drug costs.

    One month later, the ten-year cost estimate was boosted to $534 billion, up more than $100 billion over the figure presented by the Bush administration during Congressional debate. The inaccurate figure helped secure support from fiscally conservative Republicans who had promised to vote against the bill if it cost more than $400 billion. It was reported that an administration official, Thomas A. Scully, had concealed the higher estimate and threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he revealed it. By early 2005, the White House Budget had increased the 10-year estimate to $1.2 trillion.

    Former US Comptroller General David M. Walker has called this "...probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s... because we promise way more than we can afford to keep."

    But isn't that Bush' style?

    I don't mean to sound condescending , or rude, but you simply have no clue.
     
    Last edited: 26 Jan 2009
  5. Guest-23315

    Guest-23315 Guest

    I thought he was pretty good tbh. I don't want to go into my reasoning, but its my opinion. Sure, he could have handled things differently, but he did a pretty good job.
     
  6. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,528
    Likes Received:
    1,897
    Which is the whole problem with democracy, right there. :p
     
  7. UrbanMarine

    UrbanMarine Government Prostitute

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    19
    The US is no safer now than it was pre-911. All these "security" measures have done is restrict the lives of the American people and further push the US into a government controlled state. I'd rather take the risk of 1000 jets flying into buildings versus losing my freedom for the illusion of security. There will be another terror attack in the US and until the government gets its head out of it ass none of us are truly safe. American's can see outside the box and that's what will lead to our downfall.
     
    Last edited: 26 Jan 2009
  8. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    Interesting that you would defend Bush when it comes to the recession and the war (Congress did it!), yet you credit him with Medicare Part D (which had to be passed in Congress).

    Nevertheless, Medicare Part D wasn't exactly signed into law with trumpeting praise. In fact, according to Representatives Dan Burton and Walter Jones (both Republicans), the pharmaceutical lobbyists actually wrote the bill. Furthermore, the lengthy bill - weighing in at 1,000+ pages - was delivered to members of the House in the morning, then voted at 3:00 AM. Why so late, and with such short notice? Why did Congress wait until well into the middle of the night to vote on such an important bill?

    According to Representative Burton, ""Well, I think a lot of the shenanigans that were going on that night, they didn't want on national television in primetime,"


    It doesn't stop there, either
    :

    When it became apparent that the bill might be defeated, the voting machines were left open until enough congress-people could be swayed.

    Medicare Part D was another example of the Bush Administration snubbing the American citizens and looking out for powerful lobbyists.

    -monkey
     
  9. Otto69

    Otto69 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    6 Oct 2007
    Posts:
    253
    Likes Received:
    3
    President who? Can't say as I remember the man. I guess he didn't do much of use.
     
  10. C-Sniper

    C-Sniper Stop Trolling this space Ądmins!

    Joined:
    17 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    3,028
    Likes Received:
    126
    I think you can trace most of that through Chertoff our Department of Homeland Stupidity Chair. In his eyes America needs to build a massive wall around itself and tell everybody that they cannot enter.
     
  11. ufk

    ufk Licenced Fool

    Joined:
    3 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    760
    Likes Received:
    10
    It'd be much more fun for us if he built a massive wall round the US so you couldn't get out. :p
     
  12. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,136
    Likes Received:
    381
    Make a jail out of the USA? what a splendid idea... maybe we can lock Yourcomputer in at the mental ward...

    observation: sorry i am only making fun of the situation, i will always consider Bush as the biggest joke ever made by a citizens of the USA, he has not an ounce of president fibre nor a gram of morality, i think he is incapable of coherent thought and reasoning, even a trash bag could do better than he did, at least he could STFU and not say dumb things in front of the entire world...

    BUT, to Yourcomputer, i can only say the next:

    "I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."

    As in, i agree and applaud you coming here and doing the devils advocate, do more of that in the future, maybe you shall find new things that people were unaware of, but i must remember you that due to Bush's lack of mental capacity, in vetoing useful laws and not vetoing crap laws, the USA has already lost most of its constitutional rights...(if you are a citizen of the USA then this applies to you, Yourcomputer, congratulations).

    i will write no more... for now... :thumb:
     
  13. Yourcomputer

    Yourcomputer What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    30 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    50
    Likes Received:
    1
    I know the majority of online people will infact be Democrats (as am i, believed Clinton a very good president, but not a Kerry fan for reasons I'm not going to go into, then recently supported Obama, and supported many Democratic candidates all throughout Nebraska aswell)

    I've however ran out of patience defending the pro-bush side, as its extremely hard 1 vs xxx many, so I'm going to unlist Google to help me.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...y-will-show-that-George-W-Bush-was-right.html

    http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/pr/archive/2008/08/15/newsweek-cover-what-bush-got-right.aspx

    http://splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/george-w-bush-wasn-t-so-bad

    http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/tp/What-Bush-Has-Done-Right.htm

    http://media.www.carolinianonline.c...on.What.George.W.Bush.Did.Right-3579489.shtml

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/986rockt.asp

    http://www.mndaily.com/2009/01/24/what-president-bush-did-right

    http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/whatbush.htm

    History (along with a couple great history teachers/political science experts) has told myself that indeed hindsight is 20/20 when it comes to judging presidents. In 20 years when Bush is looked back upon the mantra won't be "Worst president ever, possibly mentally retarded" It'll be something more to the tone of "Wasn't exceptional, wasn't horrible".

    I'm getting out of this thread before i get locked up in the Bit-tech mental ward.
     
  14. Cookiemonster101

    Cookiemonster101 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    78
    Likes Received:
    2
    I don't know where you've been but I've read (and learned a lot from) a good amount of intelligent debates on this forum, a number of them centering around the many issues that Bush and his administration have caused, and like Nexxo said I honestly don't think you have a clue. I don't know what you mean by 'Bit-tech mental ward'..that's really not the case :D Going against the grain can be a good thing, but you can't really seriously do that when looking at what Bush has done as president.
     
    mvagusta likes this.
  15. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,528
    Likes Received:
    1,897
    I wonder what Snake Plissken would say about that? :D

    Lots of errors and ommissions in that one. Bush' obsession with invading Iraq caused him to ignore the intelligence that warned of a 9/11 terrorist attack by Bin Laden. The arguments for invading Iraq are as weak as its planning and implementation turned out to be. Who would guess that a dictator would not voluntarily reveal that he has no WMD? A lion who reveals that he has no teeth and claws is soon a dead lion. And how were these supposed WMD possibly a threat to the West? During Gulf war 1, all Saddam could manage is to lauch 86 out-of-date Scud missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel --with a conventional explosive payload.

    There is no mention of the massive financial cost or the more costly toll on the Iraqi population: 1.5 million refugees; 2.7 homeless or displaced, 98.000 dead. And for what? Let's gloss over Paul Bremer's 100 Orders, which basically constitutes an asset stripping exercise of Iraq and are illegal under international law. Let's gloss over the major deals signed by four oil companies, and the exact nature of that deal which secures them most of the oil profits from Iraq for decades to come.

    Contradicts itself. "Hey, Bush hired a few pragmatists... eventually" (Condoleezza Rice, Robert Gates, Stephen Hadley and Hank Paulson). Then it goes on to say:
    Not a ringing endorsement.

    Same list of arguments you gave, already challenged above. Capped off by: "Hey, we'll have to wait a few decades to see if the invasion of Iraq was really a bad thing". I think millions of Iraqi have already made up their mind now.

    Arguments:
    1. Transformed the immigration reform debate. Yup, we need that cheap unskilled manual labour --especially down South where most of his business buddies are.

    2. Declared the first federal ban on racial profiling. Didn't we see racial profiling in the roundup of nearly 1,000 people after 9/11? Now according to the Bill of Rights (amendment 1, 4, 5, 6 and 14) racial profiling is already illegal. Basically this law says: "enforcement cannot engage in racial profiling except to protect national security. This exception is the important bit. It constitutes a legal circumvention of the Bill of Rights disguised as a "ban".

    3. Did not appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. He did appoint Scalia and Thomas, of course. And then he appointed slighlty less conservative judges. Goodie.

    4. Accepted record numbers of refugees and asylum-seekers. See point 1.

    5. Used the bully pulpit to protect American Muslims. No, he tried to keep Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern business partners sweet. At the same time he played nice with pro-Arab and pro-Muslim civil rights groups, the FBI was sweeping Mosques with geiger counters and rounding up hundreds of Arabs without just cause. People were busted for Flying While Arab (some Jews were busted too --they all look alike, y'know). And let's not forget Bush reaching out to the bin Laden family and other potential material witnesses to the 9/11 investigation, allowing them to fly out of the country when all other air trafic was grounded.

    6. Integrated the executive branch. The cynics might say that appointing people of colour bought him their unwavering loyalty and allegiance. In any case he was not the first person to appoint people of colour in high-ranking positions.

    7. Protected the right to bear arms. And this is a good thing, how?

    8. Extended federal pension benefits to include same-sex couples. I'll give him that --even if he then went on to block, and even reverse, same-sex marriages, and block parental and inheritance rights. Meanwhile just when the US needed Arabic speakers and translators the most, after 9/11, over 100 of them were fired by the government because they were gay.

    9. Signed an executive order banning federal eminent domain seizures. Going for brownie points, as it has no real legal power, and no such seizures had ever been performed. But a good thing, sure.

    10. Did not create "an America we won't recognize." Basically that's saying: "He turned out not to be quite as bad as we feared". That is not really a positive, isn't it? Don't forget:

    • Bush has made torture a matter of policy.
    • He has signed off on a decision that says he gets to decide whether he breaks the law.
    • He has denied basic rights to American citizens, American persons and foreigners such as the right to a writ of habeas corpus, the right to an attorney, the right to a speedy and public trial.
    • He has trampled all over the Fourth Ammendment.
    • Indeed, not only has he removed the right to not be searched without a warrant basd on probable cause, he has made it illegal for a person even under oath at a criminal trial to say they had been ordered to produce information from one of these searches.
    • He removed the check on searches by the judicial branch on the executive branch by allowing the FBI to write their own search warrants. All they have to do is say it is a "national security" case.
    • His administration lost four major cases at the Supreme Court regarding detainees - as Rasul v Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v United States, that illustrate how wrong their policy has been.
    • He asserted the right to round people up - including American citizens, and to hold them incommunicado indefinitely and not even admit that they are in custody.

    Same arguments rehashed about Africa. Also:

    The bombing of the USS Cole was never conclusively linked to Al-Qaeda, but never mind. And it is incorrect that Clinton did not retaliate after the 1998 bombing of the American Embassy in Kenya:

    Perhaps that little experience taught Clinton a lesson on the consequences of blindly lashing out in retaliation. Perhaps Clinton just saw that plunging the US into long-term, costly wars which could cause the deaths of millions of innocent citizens and thousands of America's finest men and women soldiers, dangerously destabilising the geo-political stage, thus increasing terrorist threat and opportunity, turning the US into a police state and alienating the rest of the civilised world just wasn't worth it, on balance. George Bush Sr. certainly did --which is why he stopped short of invading Iraq in Gulf War V1.0.

    Perhaps Clinton kept perspective and realised that you cannot catch a criminal by invoking nationwide martial law and carpetbombing the neighbourhood you suspect he lives in.

    Trust me, I'd rather have that President in the Oval Office anytime, blow-jobs and all.

    This one reads like a spoof article from The Onion, to be honest, but the scary thing is that it is actually serious. Basically praises Bush for doing whatever the hell he wants as being a "strong" and "authoritative" president. So what if he ignored the Kyoto protocol --it is not as if the world is warming up is it (oh, hang on, it is). So what if he endorsed torture --thousands of American lives may have been saved (OK, we don't know for sure, or how many, but details, details)! So what if he didn't hesitate to conduct wireless surveillance of terrorists without getting a federal judge's okay, decided on his own how to treat terrorists and where they should be imprisoned. "Those were legitimate decisions for which the president, as commander in chief, should feel no need to apologize." After all, it is not as if he is accountable or something, right?

    It goes on to praise him for making the Supreme Court more conservative, which clearly shows where this author is coming from (further up it is mentioned as a strong point in Bush' favour that he made the Supreme Court less conservative). He also reaps praise for the surge in Iraq (although in reality, intelligence suggests that it was ineffective) and for Medicaid D which, as we have already established, was the most irresponsible piece of legislation in history.

    Then it praises him for strengthening relationships with the East. I guess that includes threatening Pakistan to "bomb it back into the stone age".

    Same arguments rehashed, including that travesty called PERFAR.

    Full of incorrect statements. Connects Iraq with terrorist actions (wrong), states that after 9/11 Bush "resisted immediate retaliation" to avoid photos of carnage at civilian targets hit in error to offset the moral culpability of the devastation at the Trade Center towers (yeah, two wars look so much less damaging); it even argues that "Bush was willing to accept casualties. Perhaps intimidated by his own lack of military service, Clinton was not." Hang on, did Bush do military service?

    Then it indulges in a bit more psychopathic reasoning: it presents reframing the 9/11 attack as a "war" as a good thing, as it does the sweeping generalisation of identifying nations, not just terrorists as culprits (nothing like tarring a whole cultural/ethnic/national group with the same brush).

    So sorry, Yourcomputer, but you really should read up on this subject a bit more before you cast judgement on a President that really, you hardly knew at all.
     
    Last edited: 27 Jan 2009
  16. UrbanMarine

    UrbanMarine Government Prostitute

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    19
    Like Lewis Black said (not exact). America needs to build a wall along Canada because that's where all the cold air comes from and I ****ing hate the cold air, but the only problem is that it would take Congress 5yrs to figure out what ****ing color to paint it.

    The wall idea is a joke as well as American hospitality to illegals coming into the country. We can deter powerful nations but we can't stop a few border jumpers. Now if the Border Patrol or National Guard started shooting them then maybe that would be a deterence but then again the world would cry about it because America is evil/inhumane.

    Both sides of my family came to the US legally, went through all the paperwork and have been good citizens ever since. Come in legally all is well, come in illegally I could care less how you end up.
     
    Last edited: 27 Jan 2009
  17. Burnout21

    Burnout21 Is the daddy!

    Joined:
    9 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    8,614
    Likes Received:
    197

    Mr Black dose speak alot of truth, i remember his distaste when he recieved a letter informing him that his 'cheque' is in the post. And the total cost of every letter sent out!
     
  18. Yourcomputer

    Yourcomputer What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    30 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    50
    Likes Received:
    1
    So you're saying he should have listening to the what we now know is correct intelligence and to not have listened to the what we now know incorrect intelligence? Yeah if only you would have told that to the government when the intelligence came out. What info they had on the attack by Bin Laden was just like every assassination attempt, 99 percent of them don't make it past the planning stage. We listened to it and not a single higher up expected it to materialize. The intelligence on the WMD was much MUCH more believable.

    UN "searchers" went missing, weren't allowed to search "certain areas" ect. You'd be down right stupid to think there weren't any WMDs from all the info they held that said he most likely did. We don't even know for sure that he didn't have access to WMD's.

    And you think those Iraqi's prefured being lied to, tortured, taken advantage off, getting a lack of education, ect. ect. ect. that they were currently getting from their Dictator?



    Most of this is just issues you're taking an extreme Liberal take on. I can't really comment on my personal opinion on these because I don't agree with some of the things he did there, but they cannot be held against him. He's a Republican, and this is what was expected when he was voted in.


    So we had an attack, Clinton does very little, and where does that lead us? We have 9/11. One thing you can't deny is that Since 9/11 we have not had another attack such as that on American soil. If we had done nothing following 9/11 you can bet your behind many others would have tried.


    The Kyoto protocol wasn't all that good, put almost impossible to meet standards on US that would harm the economy and loose jobs, which we see today are VERY IMPORTANT. It also pretty much left out China and India, the two largest developing countries that each could have become the biggest greenhouse gas emitters in the world.



    There is solid evidence government officials from Iraq and Afghanistan helped harbor and aided terrorists.


    I don't think any of us can pass Judgment on Bush that'll honestly stand up the test of time. "Hindsight is 20/20"

    I guess i could just bring up the numerous example of presidents and what was thought of them at the end of their time in the office and what we think of them today.
     
  19. Sir Digby

    Sir Digby The Supprising Adventures

    Joined:
    18 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    95
    Um, so how do I remember Mr. Bush?

    Along with the current labour party, I have grown up with him in power from my childhood - and he gave me very little faith in the democratic system

    Truth be told in the last few years I had almost started seeing not even thinking of Bush when I thought of what was making me angry about how his administration was acting

    I could only associate the wrongs with of his administration with America as a whole, the administration and post-9/11 America had been all I'd ever known of American politics
     
  20. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,136
    Likes Received:
    381
    how is that worse than what they have now?


    what do you do if the driver of the bus is drunk and insane?
    The people from the USA left him driving for 8 years!!!



    if there was a willing group of people trained into smuggling WMDs into the USA they already would have (think KGB and the sort)... they don't have every hole covered....


    harm the economy? China and India the largest greenhouse gas emitters? what are you smoking? give me some, please, i need to recover from recent bad news....

    fist, harm the economy: how the hell is creating jobs in the renewable energy field, reducing dependency on foreign oil, reduced geopolitical destabilization, better air (less probability of lung problems), etc... more damaging to the economy than failed crops, damages from more violent storms, forced relocation, epidemics, etc...?

    second, China and India: even if you consider that China and India produce as much greenhouse gases as the USA, could you please divide the amount of pollution by the number of people that inhabit that country... yes, combined they produce less than pollution than the UK... per capita.

    please stop pointing at China and India every time some one says something about Kyoto and the USA not signing it, who was responsible for not signing it is the biggest looser in the planet, thank that individual for the crap storm we are about to face.
     
    Last edited: 28 Jan 2009

Share This Page