Thread: Final assessment of Bush presidency

What I want to know is how someone can give him an above average grade.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

Clinton also had more successful results then Bush, even if Clinton did have a better economy. But that still puts him ahead of Bush.

There you go again with that nonsense. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the economy of the 90's and the brief surpluses that occured happened IN SPITE OF CLINTON. His one budget and tax increase, his first, was a failure and cost us money and jobs.

He failed in his economic policy
He failed in his health care policy.
He failed in is Iraq policy.
He failed to stop welfare reform as he pledged to do, thankfully since it was a success.

Clintons adminsitration will go down as one of the biggest failures by a President who went in with the biggest hopes, at least until Obama tops it.

Originally Posted by Stinger

There you go again with that nonsense. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the economy of the 90's and the brief surpluses that occured happened IN SPITE OF CLINTON. His one budget and tax increase, his first, was a failure and cost us money and jobs.

He failed in his economic policy
He failed in his health care policy.
He failed in is Iraq policy.
He failed to stop welfare reform as he pledged to do, thankfully since it was a success.

Clintons adminsitration will go down as one of the biggest failures by a President who went in with the biggest hopes, at least until Obama tops it.

You know, I think you secretly love Clinton.

However, I just have to point out that you nailed the first and biggest rule of the right wing debate playbook.

1. When confronted by fact, bring up President Clinton.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

You know, I think you secretly love Clinton.

As if I had any concern for anything you think.

However, I just have to point out that you nailed the first and biggest rule of the right wing debate playbook.

1. When confronted by fact, bring up President Clinton.

And once again you proved that when you have nothing to add to the discussion of the issue you post blantant lies.

Nerv brought up Clinton not me, I was refuting her assertions about him. That's what the rest of us do around here, we discuss issues. One person makes a point, the other person addreses that point.

You should try it sometime instead of the pettiness you engage in.

Now, back on ignore.

Originally Posted by Stinger

As if I had any concern for anything you think.



And once again you proved that when you have nothing to add to the discussion of the issue you post blantant lies.

Nerv brought up Clinton not me, I was refuting her assertions about him. That's what the rest of us do around here, we discuss issues. One person makes a point, the other person addreses that point.

You should try it sometime instead of the pettiness you engage in.

Now, back on ignore.

So let me get this straight.

You take me off ignore, insult me, and put me back on ignore so you do not have to see my response?

That is some seriously pathetic shit.

War criminal.
Death Penalty.
'Nuff said.

Originally Posted by Stinger

There you go again with that nonsense. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the economy of the 90's and the brief surpluses that occured happened IN SPITE OF CLINTON. His one budget and tax increase, his first, was a failure and cost us money and jobs.

He failed in his economic policy
He failed in his health care policy.
He failed in is Iraq policy.
He failed to stop welfare reform as he pledged to do, thankfully since it was a success.

Clintons adminsitration will go down as one of the biggest failures by a President who went in with the biggest hopes, at least until Obama tops it.

Whatever, I don't even care. My point is that Bush is way below average and he objectively has done a horrible job.

Clinton may of messed up for healthcare (but Hillary was susppose to be doing that, so what can you exspect?)

But his economic policy of fiscal responsibility and lowering the spending to GDP level was smart. lol inherent surplus? A surplus is the government's decision, Bush chose to not have a surplus early on because of tax cuts, and then later because of increased spending.

But he messed up by setting us up for the housing crisis though by deregulation in some areas and too much regulations in others.

He also had a good Iraq policy of confronting them... but not invading Iraq.

So he still did fine, much better then Bush anyway, and that is what the thread is about.

[quote=Freedom for All;724133]See what happens when you go to a socialist public school?

You believe "honest" is spelled "B-I-A-S-E-D".

[quote=Nerv14;724108]Clinton also had more successful results then Bush, even if Clinton did have a better economy. But that still puts him ahead of Bush.

No, generally society put's rapists at the bottom of the social ladder, behind car thieves and murderers. Then again, I've never rated Clinton any higher the low average, anyway. Not much difference between the two. Socialist presidents don't rank well in an honest assessment, when the Constitution is used as the metric.

Here is your problem, when someone is determining how well a president did, the Constitution is not the rubrick, their results are. You can say that they are connected though. All of your "Average" presidents have also broken the Constitution by using illegal federal power.


No, Bush has done lasting harm.

He cut taxes and didn't veto spending to increase the national debt to a level where many people feel that we can't pay it off.

It seems like most people would agree that the biggests single problem facing our economy is our national debt. During Clinton's time that didn't seem to be an issue.

Bush also made the huge mistake of going into Iraq which helped increase the national debt.
It also caused America to be much more disliked around the world which has caused terrorist activity to increase. However, that is not reversible. His wiretaps are also reversible, but I fear that presidents may now be too afraid of a patriot backlash or terrorist attack to remove them.


At least many of the other average presidents like Polk and Eisenhower did something good for the country.

Eisenhower had large public work's projects that bulstered the economy and got us more ready for the Cold War. We are still even using much of that infrastructure today, just to show its worth.

Polk may of made an ethical mistake to invade Mexico, but when it comes to the growth and health of the country, he made the right decision.

It isn't just that Bush has caused problems, but that he hasn't been a success in anything.

Bush is average. I'm not going to make some kind of detailed historical analysis of the twenty-three presidents that didn't make it into the Top Ten/Bottom Ten lists of history to see where Bush's "exact" spot in history is.

I could name ten that were worst, ten that were best, though it would be a stretch in both cases, and identify what put them there, but it's clear Bush is in with the mob in the middle of the bell curve. He kept the economy rolling - and growing - after Clinton's recession and the terrorist attacks...he didn't know what to do with Iraq to be effective....shit balances like that.

Welcome to Reality.



You mean the one-term Bush, who's policies squandered the opportunities the greatest president since Lincoln left for him to carry on? You think maybe there was a reason, having to do with policies, that Bush the Foist didn't win re-election?

Teddy Roosevelt, who's "Big Stick Policy" is still earning the United States pointless animus in South America to this day?

Cleveland? Yeah, any president that supports classic liberalism and tries to be honest and Constitutional is likely to be a good president.



Not really, you didn't list average presidents.

Average is Polk and Eisenhower and Harrison, who you can't name an accomplishment for without thinking hard, and Bush is going to be one of those guys, just give him time. You people all lack the perspective of history and imagine that your hormonal flows of today are the benchmark of what's real and important.

Bush did no lasting harm, he did no lasting good.

That makes him average, and students of the future will just see a name with no much next to it.

Disagree? Compare Bush's record to Washington, who set a high standard, Lincoln, who saved the Union, Wilson, who destroyed the Constitution, FDR that destroyed the future, and Carter, who was attacked by killer rabbits, just like in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

LEARN something for a change.



Why would I want to do that? Results count. Bush didn't have much either positive or negative, and that's about all that history is going to say, in the long run.

Wilson tops the list of Worst Presidents, Washington is closely crowded by Reagan for top honors.

Ain't no Bush, but in the middle, where bushes belong.

Originally Posted by Stinger

There you go again with that nonsense. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the economy of the 90's and the brief surpluses that occured happened IN SPITE OF CLINTON. His one budget and tax increase, his first, was a failure and cost us money and jobs.

Bullshit

He failed in his economic policy

Bullshit, he left the incoming president with a budget surplus. Bush turned that into a trillion deficit because of the war and an additional almost trillion deficit due to his bailouts. The worst this country has ever been in the hole.

He failed in his health care policy.

He never was able to enact one and Bush never tried.

He failed in is Iraq policy.

Bush wasted a trillion over there and you have the gaul to say Clinton failed at it? Bush's Iraq policy was a miserable failure from square one, first he lied to take us there and now the place is crawling with AQ. That never happened under Clintons watch. If Al Sadr runs for office in Iraq and is elected and tells us to get the fuck out and institutes muslim law, how much of a success will Iraq have been then?

He failed to stop welfare reform as he pledged to do, thankfully since it was a success.

Why did he need to reform it? the 12 years prior to him were under repub leadership, did they leave him a mess?

Clintons adminsitration will go down as one of the biggest failures by a President who went in with the biggest hopes, at least until Obama tops it.

In your fucking dreams! Clinton will go down as a far superior president to Bush. He inherited record debt and turned it into a surplus, something no repub has been able to do in the last 50 yrs. I don't see any past president ever being rated worse than Bush.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

What I want to know is how someone can give him an above average grade.

= "Better than Clinton"

That wouldn't hard to do.