|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 12, 2008 16:35:12 GMT -5
The only thing Bush proved was that he was not liked by Democrats, who used their office they won in the 2006 election to begin spewing more hatred then ever toward him. Not one bill dealing with the energy crisis, housing crisis, financial crisis or wall street crisis was passed before the troubles came to pass. All legislation was passed in desperation, after the events mentioned went bad.
Why did that happen? Because the Congress was to busy debating on how to express their hate for George Bush. The Democrats in congress were so focused on winning the office that they created a political business cycle to improve their chances of winning by doing nothing to prevent the looming crises from coming to pass in the form of legislation.
But, it is easier for the simple minded to blame Bush. When you cannot put your finger on the truth you blame the easiest target. It is a child's approach to government. It is your approach to government.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Nov 12, 2008 16:58:28 GMT -5
I'm not "spewing Bush hate," I'm simply pointing out that the number of people who think he's doing a good job and leading America in the right direction has been trending downward since 2002. His unpopularity has surpassed Carter, Nixon during Watergate, and even Harry Truman! I am using this FACT to illustrate that Bush, indeed, is the worst President in recent history.
Bloverk, you probably missed this subtle twist in Saunterelle's argument. He now claims that Bush is the worst president in recent history. As most progressives are chronologically challenged, "recent" to them means the day before yesterday. I'm sure that the "worst president" claim is based solely on popularity polls, not on scholarly research, which puts Jimmie Carter Below Average and Bill Clinton just Average. Bush's unpopularity, though, is surpassed by the Democrat Congress's unpopularity, which continues to poll 5 to 10 points lower than Bush's. So, in spite of the steady drumbeat of negativity coming from the left side of the aisle, most people still see the do-nothing Democrat Congress as a bad thing. What, then, explains the voters putting even more Democrats in? |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 12, 2008 17:17:46 GMT -5
They are mostly politically challenged like saunterelle and think they understand how our government is actually supposed to function.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 12, 2008 17:20:54 GMT -5
I like that chart.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Nov 12, 2008 18:06:57 GMT -5
I'm not "spewing Bush hate," I'm simply pointing out that the number of people who think he's doing a good job and leading America in the right direction has been trending downward since 2002. His unpopularity has surpassed Carter, Nixon during Watergate, and even Harry Truman! I am using this FACT to illustrate that Bush, indeed, is the worst President in recent history. You sir, are a liar. What am I lying about? If my poll information is wrong, take it up with Lou Dobbs. It was reported on his program (see video posted previously). |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Nov 12, 2008 18:13:03 GMT -5
I'm not "spewing Bush hate," I'm simply pointing out that the number of people who think he's doing a good job and leading America in the right direction has been trending downward since 2002. His unpopularity has surpassed Carter, Nixon during Watergate, and even Harry Truman! I am using this FACT to illustrate that Bush, indeed, is the worst President in recent history.
Bloverk, you probably missed this subtle twist in Saunterelle's argument. He now claims that Bush is the worst president in recent history. As most progressives are chronologically challenged, "recent" to them means the day before yesterday. I'm sure that the "worst president" claim is based solely on popularity polls, not on scholarly research, which puts Jimmie Carter Below Average and Bill Clinton just Average. Bush's unpopularity, though, is surpassed by the Democrat Congress's unpopularity, which continues to poll 5 to 10 points lower than Bush's. So, in spite of the steady drumbeat of negativity coming from the left side of the aisle, most people still see the do-nothing Democrat Congress as a bad thing. What, then, explains the voters putting even more Democrats in? What would you suggest is a good measure of how a President is doing, if not the opinion of the very populous who elected him? As for "recent," it doesn't do much good to compare modern day Presidents to Presidents before the 20th century because life and issues are vastly different now. Your quest to find a silver lining to the Bush legacy is futile. He has left nothing but disaster and despair in his wake and the American people have finally woken up to reality. Thusly, they've elected the right man for the job, Barack Obama. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Nov 12, 2008 18:34:42 GMT -5
I don't know Gaff. Anything that ranks Jefferson below racist, totalitarian Lincoln is a bit suspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 12, 2008 18:56:12 GMT -5
This is your attack saunterelle. You can hardly make a post without one. "Bush proved himself incompetent and incapable to lead."
The simple fact is, you said he was not your President a long time ago. So, by caveat, you decided way back to not even follow. That means you cannot judge his ability to lead.
You are a liar by saying you did not attack Bush. The above quote is the proof, for it is clearly an attack. But, you only have 69 more days, then you will have to suck it up. You won't have a target that protects your ass and keeps you safe at night to pick on anymore. If there is a single attack on our soil, I will blame everyone who voted for this weak President Elect.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Nov 12, 2008 19:13:11 GMT -5
If asserting the truth and backing it up with evidence is an attack then I am guilty. It is unfortunate that your stubbornness doesn't allow you to come to the same reasoned conclusion most of America has.
Your logic which doesn't "allow" me to judge Bush is just silly. Had Bush been a great President, I would be the first to admit I was wrong about him. Sadly this is simply not the case. Those of us who could see his idiocy even before he was elected in 2000 were forced to sit idly by while he made a mockery of our great nation.
If the measure of Obama's Presidency is simply that we don't have an attack on American soil, I think it's reasonable to predict that he will exceed your expectations. I, for one, will hold him to a much higher standard than that. For you to make that your measure of Bush shows just how low you will stoop to try and shine a bright light on a turd.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxsawdust on Nov 12, 2008 19:26:34 GMT -5
If asserting the truth and backing it up with evidence is an attack then I am guilty. PURE BULLSHIT - You Never link to FACTS just Opinions It is unfortunate that your stubbornness doesn't allow you to come to the same reasoned conclusion most of America has. Where do you get this "Most" of America bullshit? Of the 208.3 Million registered voters only 60.7 to 61.7 percent turned out to vote..and last time I checked Obama did not get 100% of the vote. Making your"most Americans" argument quite faulty at best.Your logic which doesn't "allow" me to judge Bush is just silly. Had Bush been a great President, I would be the first to admit I was wrong about him. Sadly this is simply not the case. Those of us who could see his idiocy even before he was elected in 2000 were forced to sit idly by while he made a mockery of our great nation. Like everyone who can see through Obama's continuous lies is having to now. Luckily four years will go by quickly.If the measure of Obama's Presidency is simply that we don't have an attack on American soil, I think it's reasonable to predict that he will exceed your expectations. Let us all hope so, or we're in deep shit, martial law anyone?I, for one, will hold him to a much higher standard than that. For you to make that your measure of Bush shows just how low you will stoop to try and shine a bright light on a turd. Plain childish, but what should we expect, from a bottom feeder. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Nov 12, 2008 19:36:34 GMT -5
Although Obama SOUNDLY defeated McCain, I was referring to the polls about the job Bush is doing.
Whatever steps Obama takes after a domestic attack could not be any worse than Bush tearing our constitution to shreds with his "Patriot Act" and illegal wiretapping.
All you give us is sky-is-falling fear mongering and fringe ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Nov 12, 2008 20:04:04 GMT -5
[quote author=saunterelle board=uspolitics thread=558 post=8275 time=1226536594
Whatever steps Obama takes after a domestic attack could not be any worse than Bush tearing our constitution to shreds with his "Patriot Act" and illegal wiretapping.
[/quote]
PRESIDENT Bush did not write it. Nor did he debate it in Congressional Committee. Nor did he pass it overwhelmingly in both houses of Congress. He signed it into law.
Legislative history
Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 3162 by Frank James Sensenbrenner, Jr. on October 23, 2001
Committee consideration by: United States House Committee on the Judiciary; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Committee on Financial Services; Committee on International Relations; Committee on Energy and Commerce (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet); Committee on Education and the Workforce; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; Committee on Armed Services
Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66)
Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1)
Signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001
Yeah, PRESIDENT Bush did it all on his own.
|
|
