...Not a Bush fan, but I wouldn't say he was the worst President in history. That would probably be either LBJ or Buchanan.
Folks don't take kindly to that kind of post around here. Fix your grammar/spelling/capitalization and remember that most keyboards come with a period key.lizards said:snip
He's not telling you to use grammar and punctuation for our benefit. It's not that we desperately want to hear what you have to say and can't read your post.lizards said:sorry but having grammer in an online forum is up their in my list of interests with having a nail shoved through my stomach dont be such a grammer nazi and i know this is over used but get a life if your going to tell me to use grammer in an online forum
This is going to be funny.lizards said:sorry but having grammer in an online forum is up their in my list of interests with having a nail shoved through my stomach dont be such a grammer nazi and i know this is over used but get a life if your going to tell me to use grammer in an online forum
MrShrike said:usually i keep out of polotics but seeing as his term is up...
I consider him a man with the nescecary discipline and perserverance to give himself to his country, yet lacked the kind of leadership qualities and state of mind that the U.S and,unofficially, the western world needed at that point in history
MrShrike said:edit: this was supposed to be a relpy to a quote but due to my little sister has gone horribly wrong
Dude. You know there's an edit button for your own posts.MrShrike said:goddamnit
howd you think i got to goddamit smart guy?DrunkenKitty said:MrShrike said:usually i keep out of polotics but seeing as his term is up...
I consider him a man with the nescecary discipline and perserverance to give himself to his country, yet lacked the kind of leadership qualities and state of mind that the U.S and,unofficially, the western world needed at that point in historyMrShrike said:edit: this was supposed to be a relpy to a quote but due to my little sister has gone horribly wrongDude. You know there's an edit button for your own posts.MrShrike said:goddamnit
First of all, I have no idea what you mean by your response. I just get a vague sense of disgruntlement from it.MrShrike said:howd you think i got to goddamit smart guy?DrunkenKitty said:MrShrike said:usually i keep out of polotics but seeing as his term is up...
I consider him a man with the nescecary discipline and perserverance to give himself to his country, yet lacked the kind of leadership qualities and state of mind that the U.S and,unofficially, the western world needed at that point in historyMrShrike said:edit: this was supposed to be a relpy to a quote but due to my little sister has gone horribly wrong???MrShrike said:goddamnit
First of all, I have no idea what your response means. I just get a vague sense of disgruntlement from it.
I pointed that out to you because you had a post
Dude. You know there's an edit button for your own posts.
A. True, true. Maybe they were bathing when they should have been in History class.pantsoffdanceoff said:A) Actually the washed masses are pretty ignorant of history as well.Samurai Goomba said:What he said
B) Did you hear how Harding banged his secretary in the closet as soon as he was done with his poker game with his cabinet.
C) You forgot to mention Buchanon who essentially let the civil war happen and didn't try to stop it at all.
All that pesky right to privacy was getting in my way. And the lines to get through airport securities were way too fast.Indigo_Dingo said:For all the p[eople who say he isn't the worst president in U.S. history, I challenge you, who was worse? Nixon opened the Chinese borders. What is positive to say about George W. Bush?
His foreign aid policy was his one truly unqualified success of his presidency, and that is something he doesn't get nearly enough credit for. though if his approval rating was that high in africa, i wonder what obama's is.CmdrGoob said:I'm an Australian, so my take is mainly based on foreign policy.
It's a bit too early to tell, but if there are even moderately successful democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan in the long term, then Bush's presidency will be remembered as being very successful and very historically important in the long run, and I'm optimistic that that is possible. They probably won't become 1st world nations, but at least if they are moderately stable democracies in the order of, say, Venezuala, then that would be a huge improvement compared to what was there before, something that few presidents could claim to leave as a legacy. If they don't do well, of course, then he probably won't be viewed well. A lot of the criticism of him for Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't take the same view history will; people just assume that because people died it must be bad. But you can't judge something objectively like that, you have to consider a particular option against the likely alternatives. And what would the likely alternative in Iraq in the long term without the Iraq war?
The other really good thing about the Bush presidency is his (widely ignored) foreign aid initiatives; he's quadrupled foreign aid to africa and doubled foreign in general, including major anti AIDs initiative. I remember one recent poll where Bush had a ~80% approval rate in Africa thanks to this charitable spending.
He was president in very difficult times, and I think it's been hard to stay objective about what Bush has done, but in the more objective view of history I think there's a very good chance he will be viewed well.
So I voted for quite good.
I couldn't recall the last "terrorist attack" before that however. School massacres and American bombers not withstanding.ffxfriek said:Id say bush did fairly well. Yes we have the credit crunch BUT! there havent been any terrorist attacks in america in 7 years...look at the good stuff common all