The point is that hooksaw wants to think that Bush is going to get a free pass with history much like he thinks Nixon and Carter did. He is going to continue repeating the same stuff over and over and if you don't agree with him then you are just some liberal moonbat who "doesn't get it".

11/29/2007 4:54:03 PM

^ Nixon and Carter got a free pass in history? I must've taken a different history class.

Quote :

"^ One doesn't have to invest in milk to recognize milk. And read that quotation again."

You said the market is bullish. If you think the market is bullish, that means you think it is going up long-term, and I assume you have money on the stock market, then take out more money and buy more shares, it will go up in price. You'll have more money at the end of it. Why would you be throwing easy money away if you're very confident the market is overall bullish?

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 4:58 PM. Reason : /]

11/29/2007 4:57:16 PM

I wonder when the elder statesmen effect will kick in for Stalin

11/29/2007 5:09:26 PM

^ Along the same lines...surely Castro fits the bill too right?

11/29/2007 5:10:33 PM

Quote :

"^ Nixon and Carter got a free pass in history? I must've taken a different history class."

Note that I am not saying they got a free pass but rather that is the idea that hooksaw is trying to convey.

11/29/2007 5:11:49 PM

Quote :

"I wonder when the elder statesmen effect will kick in for Stalin"

it might not be that far off in russia.

11/29/2007 5:13:19 PM

^^ Will you please stop trolling me, troll? Seriously. I never indicated anything of the sort--you are continually twisting my words. This is what I actually posted:

Quote :

"I think some of that may happen in the next few decades. But I think as the decades roll on, Bush will be seen in a bit more favorable light. Hell, that almost always happens anyway--even with Nixon and Carter [emphasis added]. I'll call it the elder statesman effect."

hooksaw

And I don't think the current President Bush will get a "free pass" at all from mostly liberal historians. Are you stupid or something? In time, opinions of Bush will more than likely level out a bit.

And some of you are continually whining about logical fallacies here. This thread is about the Bush legacy--the legacy of a U.S. president--comparisons to Stalin are false analogies. FYI.

11/29/2007 5:25:09 PM

Clarifying for someone else does not equal trolling you. Get over yourself.

11/29/2007 5:37:05 PM

^, ^^

both of you are teetering on the suspension line.

11/30/2007 2:34:49 AM

bush legacy with one line of text


tax cuts--->9/11--->afghanistan--->iraq--->katrina--->08 election


thats how i see it at least...feel free to add things in there

11/30/2007 2:54:41 AM

Quote :

"both of you are teetering on the suspension line."

Because I am not going to stand for constantly being called a troll through his childish antics while trying to refute his point? Wow.

11/30/2007 3:13:18 AM

He will be remebered as the guy who really made significant impacts on Psychological Torture.

Ahhh, to be remembered for that. Good times.

12/2/2007 9:04:51 PM

Improved diplomacy could shape Bush's legacy
Improved relationships with Europe a welcome sight

Quote :

"After an hour of answering questions, Condoleezza Rice grew philosophical. Fingers joined together in an arc, a smile creasing the corners of her mouth, the secretary of state returned to her days as a professor. Asked about George W. Bush's legacy, she reminded a table full of Dallas Morning News journalists on Friday that 'today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same.'"

Quote :

"But Dr. Rice is right: None of us knows how this war against terror will turn out. She talked about how few people in 1950 would have guessed the Cold War would have ended with the Soviet Union collapsing peaceably."

Quote :

"Sure, most Europeans want Mr. Bush gone. But at least the leaders are talking. Consider Iran. The French are taking a surprising lead, given how much they despised our Iraq venture. President Sarkozy has made clear that the rest of the world can't live with a nuclear-tipped Iran. Now the trick is getting the Germans on board with tightening economic pressure on Iran. This will entail persuading the Germans to disinvest some of their trade with the Islamic republic, which reached $5.7 billion last year. Dr. Rice said she believes Germany is heading in that direction. She questioned the premise of a question about Germany being swayed by its investments in Iran, pointing out how Germany is cutting back on export guarantees to businesses pursuing work in Iran. And Saturday in Crawford, Ms. Merkel said she would consider pressuring more German businesses to cut ties with Iran."

Quote :

"As she wrapped up her interview, Dr. Rice spoke about living in 'big, historic times,' where 'tectonic plates are shifting.' No doubt. For that reason, none of us, even the smarties, know where all of this will end."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/wmckenzie/stories/111307dnedimckenzie.5820dc.html

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 3:08 AM. Reason : .]

12/3/2007 3:08:11 AM

lol, you can have your reasons for liking Bush

"gettin dem turrists in Iraq and saving Iraqi's from tyranny"
" stopping illegals from tukking err jerbs"
" leading christian values into america"
" cuttin taxes!!"

but i do not think even the most hardcore Bush groupies would try to argue that his legacy would include his diplomatic skills unless its the Godfather type "make him an offer he can not refuse."

aiming missiles and telling a smaller country "what the deal is" is not diplomacy.

Here is Bush's Legacy...



+

(Big Brother Award)

+

12/3/2007 10:14:56 AM

^ Sigh. I've already made it abundantly clear that I disagree with Bush on a number of issues. We're attempting to discuss Bush's legacy--as a US president--you do understand what that means, don't you?

12/3/2007 10:59:30 AM

I was merely throwing my opinion of what bush's legacy would be kind sir

12/3/2007 11:56:24 AM

bush has done a good job at making it unpopular to like republicans

12/3/2007 12:03:23 PM

^ Yet, Bush, a Republican, managed to defeat the cerebral Gore and Kerry to serve two terms as president. Hmm.

12/3/2007 1:46:50 PM

^He only defeated Gore in the electorate, not the general population.

And clearly drunknloaded's satement was meant to apply to post 04 Bush, which means your statement is meaningless.

A more apt response would be about the congressional elections, which Democrats swept, so I don't imagine you'd acknowledge that.

12/3/2007 1:52:19 PM

^
1. Wow. Still can't let '00 go, huh? Bush was inaugurated as president--not Gore. FYI.

2. My statement was not meaningless. Bush, a Republican, is still more popular than the Democrat-led Congress, which leads me to my next point. . .

3. The Democrat-led Congress is the most unpopular perhaps ever.

12/3/2007 1:57:53 PM

Quote :

"1. Wow. Still can't let '00 go, huh? Bush was inaugurated as president--not Gore. FYI. "

That's true, but drunknloaded statement was about popularity, which the electoral college doesn't necessarily represent. It would be dumb of you to respond with something that wasn't considering popularity as its context, but instead something else.

Quote :

"2. My statement was not meaningless. Bush, a Republican, is still more popular than the Democrat-led Congress, which leads me to my next point. . ."

Your statement was meaningless, but if you mean this line as your clarification, then your #3 above does have some meaning in that context.

Thank you for clarifying that for me.

12/3/2007 2:02:56 PM

Just for the sake of comparison: aside from success in WWII, FDR was a fairly shitty president who pissed on the constitution more than Bush but people view him in a fairly good light.

12/3/2007 2:09:21 PM

still doesn't change the fact that the majority of our democratic nation voted against Bush. The electorate finally gave bush the first past the poll after Bush's Brother squelched the protests of voting irregularities in FL that could have effected who the FL electors voted for.

12/3/2007 2:17:38 PM

^^ It doesn't matter. He ^^^ just wants to post the words "dumb" and "meaningless" some more. Hey, maybe we'll see "neocon" soon--they like that one a lot, too.

^ Wow. Proof please?



[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 2:26 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2007 2:20:12 PM

^^^ That's true, but the success of WWII was pretty significant. Enough to overshadow his pissing on the constitution.

And, from many peoples' views, the pissing on the constitution resulted in a stronger country (how else would we have been able to fund our powerful military if FDR didn't pave the way?).

^ Huh? They who?

12/3/2007 2:26:54 PM

^ You and the leftist mouse in your pocket. Now stop trolling me.

12/3/2007 2:29:30 PM

^^ Oh it definitely is a big deal, that's kind of my point.

WWII was a lasting success because of the Axis powers that we had rebuilt. Germany and Japan specifically were economic superpowers within a few decades and continue to serve as bases for our military. If Iraq and Afghanistan turn into stable democratic countries sometime in the future Bush could be viewed in the same light with those successes outweighing his failures, at least in a historical perspective. A big part of me thinks that is what his plan has been since 9/11.

Eisenhower said it best "The success of this occupation can only be judged fifty years from now. If the Germans at that time have a stable, prosperous democracy, then we shall have succeeded."

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 2:34 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2007 2:34:13 PM

Quote :

"If Iraq and Afghanistan turn into stable democratic countries sometime in the future Bush could be viewed in the same light with those successes outweighing his failures, at least in a historical perspective. A big part of me thinks that is what his plan has been since 9/11."

That would be true.

But we've pretty much abandoned Afghanistan, so it's unlikely, I think, that 50 years from now it'll be a shining democracy.

Iraq could take a turn for the better, but it's also possible that it'll end up like Afghanistan or Iran or VIetnam.

It was a good few decades ago that our country interfered with them, and it didn't work out better for them (or for us really). So if Bush was banking on a new Germany/Japan, he sure didn't take the right steps to ensure that outcome.

Most evident in the failure was the presumption that the Iraq war would be a quick victory.

12/3/2007 2:42:19 PM

Afghanistan was a success, but it lacks the infrastructure or resources to ever really become any kind of power. However it is a fairly strategic location to have a military presence. I wouldn't say that it was abandoned, as there is still a sizable peace keeping force there and the military has considered sending additional troops now that Pakistan is growing indifferent towards the Taliban.

There were a number of mistakes in Iraq, but I'm optimistic about it achieving at least some level of stability. It certainly has the resources to be a big regional power, but the people need to get their shit together. A prosperous democracy in that location would be great for the chunk of the globe.

Basically I don't have my crystal ball so I can't say what will happen. My point is that if both turn into long term successes then he will be viewed in a much more favorable light by history.

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 3:03 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2007 3:02:23 PM

Republican Unity Trumps Democratic Momentum

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — It was a picture-perfect start for Nancy Pelosi as she took the speaker's podium last January in her tailored aubergine suit surrounded by children to emphasize her singular status as the first woman, mother and grandmother to lead the House. What Ms. Pelosi did not know, as she beamed at her fellow Democrats cheering their return to power, was that the glum Republicans witnessing the tableau would remain persistently unified against her and her ambitious new majority in the legislative year ahead. Defying expectations and surprising even themselves, Republicans were able to slow and sometimes halt Democratic momentum by refusing to break with President Bush and his war strategy, no matter how unpopular, and by resisting social initiatives, no matter how appealing. 'What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president,' said Ms. Pelosi, of California, looking back on her history-making first year capped by the president signing an energy bill that she declared as a top priority from the start. 'I didn’t foresee that' [emphasis added]."

Quote :

"Holding together, they exerted their influence in three main areas: a children's health care bill, domestic spending and, first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Time and again, even when a few of their number defected, they refused to provide the votes needed to challenge the president's handling of the war. As a result, the final House vote of the year handed Mr. Bush another $70 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the frustration of Democrats who had begun 2007 with enormous expectations. 'I was much more hopeful and optimistic that we would be able to do more to bring a new direction to this war, with our majority in the House and Senate,' said Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat often viewed as the conscience of the party. As they left the Capitol, Congressional Republicans took the view that they had been able to leverage their minority status to a degree even they had not thought possible. 'A year into "the wilderness," our Republican team has scored legislative and political victories that no one — no one — could have predicted a year ago,' Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, wrote in a confidential memorandum distributed to Republican House members [emphasis added]. As Democrats asserted their new power at the start of the year, they raced ahead in the House with a series of initiatives on the minimum wage, higher education, terrorism, health care and energy, often with solid bipartisan support, giving hope that they might be able to attract Republicans. But the early action also foreshadowed problems that would hinder the new majority all year: the Senate, with its minority-empowering rules, was not on the same hurry-up schedule, and House Republicans bristled at what they considered heavy-handed treatment. 'Overreaching and the exclusion of Republicans — that formula equals a lack of results,' said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan. The first serious collision with Republicans and Mr. Bush came in the spring when Democrats first tried to condition $120 billion in war spending on a deadline for withdrawal. Initially they were able to push the measure through with minimal Republican support, but when it was vetoed, they fell far short of the margin needed for an override [emphasis added]."

Quote :

"On another national security issue, Democrats caved to administration pressure on terror surveillance before a summer break. Ms. Pelosi allowed the House to approve a temporary extension of a wiretapping program even though she considered the proposal constitutionally flawed and felt that the White House had dishonestly accused Democrats of impeding surveillance. 'That was a sad day,' she said. 'Sometimes it is just a fight where we don't have a similar platform.' The solidarity of House Republicans was also on display in a long-running fight over proposals to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program, a top priority for Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. On Sept. 28, one day after a child health bill cleared Congress for the first time, Democrats mapped out a strategy to override Mr. Bush's promised veto. Democrats and their allies held rallies, broadcast television commercials and made hundreds of telephone calls. They focused initially on 15 House Republicans, many from swing districts and suburban areas. They predicted that most of these lawmakers would switch sides and support the bill. But none did. As the spending bills that finance federal agencies stalled, partly because of a long Senate immigration debate that ended without producing major legislation, Republicans joined Mr. Bush in insisting that Democrats not exceed the White House's spending limit. Democratic leaders, who by and large earned their spurs on the appropriation committees, kept waiting for Mr. Bush to cut a deal. But the White House was spoiling for a fight. 'The president as we all know, I can verify this for sure, has been eager all year to veto bills sent to his desk,' Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, said Thursday."

Quote :

"And Democrats will try to paint Republicans as the problem. 'But for the president and the Bush Republicans in the Senate,' said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, 'we could have accomplished so much more.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/washington/21cong.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=us

"Stupid" Bush beats the Democrats in Congress--again.

12/21/2007 12:51:40 PM

GITTT EERRR DUN HOOKSAW

12/21/2007 2:08:54 PM

12/21/2007 2:12:23 PM

i don't see how either party should be proud of what's going on

12/21/2007 2:14:42 PM

When the Bush haters finally quiet down, Bush's efforts to relieve suffering in Africa will become a significant part of his legacy.

Quote :

"Bono, the Irish rock star turned global gadfly, once said that Mr. Bush has done 'an incredible job' with his AIDS campaign. As it nears the end of its first five years, it has put 1.4 million people on life-sustaining therapies at a cost to the U.S. of more than $15 billion. The Bono-affiliated ONE campaign broadened its praise last month, saying Mr. Bush deserves credit for his fights against malaria and extreme poverty in the region. The White House hopes the trip will lock in congressional support for his initiatives, particularly as he is seeking a doubling of funding for combating AIDS to $30 billion over the next five years."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120251366075155091.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Bob Geldof in Rwanda gives Bush his props

Quote :

"He's going to interview President Bush for Time magazine and several European outlets, such as Liberacion, about aid to Africa for HIV/AIDS, malaria, and business development. Mr. Geldof is an Irish rock and roll singer and longtime social activist who has helped, along with U2 rocker Bono, raise awareness about need in Africa. His most well known achievement is organizing the Live Aid concert in 1985, which raised money for debt relief for poor African countries. But Mr. Geldof has remained closely engaged with African affairs since then, and he spoke off the cuff to reporters today who were waiting for a press conference with Mr. Bush and Rwandan President Paul Kagame Mr. Geldof praised Mr. Bush for his work in delivering billions to fight disease and poverty in Africa, and blasted the U.S. press for ignoring the achievement. Mr. Bush, said Mr. Geldof, 'has done more than any other president so far' [emphasis added]. 'This is the triumph of American policy really,' he said. 'It was probably unexpected of the man. It was expected of the nation, but not of the man, but both rose to the occasion.' 'What's in it for [Mr. Bush]? Absolutely nothing,' Mr. Geldof said. Mr. Geldof said that the president has failed 'to articulate this to Americans' but said he is also 'pissed off' at the press for their failure to report on this good news story. 'You guys didn't pay attention,' Geldof said to a group of reporters from all the major newspapers. Bush administration officials, incidentally, have also been quite displeased with some of the press coverage on this trip that they have viewed as overly negative and ignoring their achievements [emphasis added]."

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2008/02/bob_geldof_in_rwanda.html

[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 2:04 AM. Reason : .]

2/25/2008 2:02:35 AM

too bad americans really dont care about africa

[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 2:17 AM. Reason : at least in my opinion it seems that a majority of people could care less]

2/25/2008 2:17:08 AM

i'll be damned.

hooksaw posted something about bush that was both worthwhile and significant

my perception of both has gone up.

2/25/2008 11:40:02 AM

Maybe he can take some steps to relieve suffering in Iraq next

2/25/2008 11:55:43 AM

or New Orleans

or the tanking economy

2/25/2008 1:02:31 PM

Here is your legacy, hooksaw:

2/25/2008 1:10:19 PM

nice. color printer here i come.

2/25/2008 2:30:12 PM

yeah i like that a lot

2/25/2008 3:11:07 PM

The first one is just names, kinda pointless.

The second two are better, but it already reminds me of the protestors before the War in Iraq who shouted out slogans that they had self-proclaimed to be true, but didn't articulate their arguments. If you disagreed you were simply called a fascist over and over.

2/25/2008 3:53:45 PM

^Yeah but every one of those names is associated with at least one, if not all three, of the following:

a. Incompetence
b. Corruption
c. Outright lying

2/25/2008 4:02:01 PM

I'm not saying I disagree, but there is still the lack of articulation; that has been a perennial problem for the left as of late. If they're going to consistently win elections, they're going to have to come up with better than "well, if you're not smart enough to vote for us, you're just evil / redneck / fundamentalist / fascist / insert epithet here." I realize that isn't all Democrats, but lets face it, they're not offering much other than the fiscal disaster that will be universal health care, and they're not performing particularly well against a party that has managed to destroy itself over the last 8 years.

2/25/2008 4:07:44 PM

I think the problem is that there's just so much shit out there.

Every single one of the things mentioned in those three images could have a page or two written on it. People want their messages sent to them in sound bites.

2/25/2008 4:12:11 PM

Agreed, but there has to be the ability to back it up with substance when you get in an argument. Like state Senator Watson of Texas who couldn't name a single legislative accomplishment of Barak Obama when pressed by Chris Matthews. You have to bring your ideas to the table with humility, not arrogance.

2/25/2008 4:24:35 PM

To the ill-informed: Legacies are made up of the good and the bad. In any event, would you like to discuss the legacy of the Democrat-led 110th Congress, which has an even lower approval rating than Bush?

I didn't think so.

2/25/2008 4:49:52 PM

You can call it 'democrat-led' if you want, but a 49-49 split doesn't give anyone any breathing room, especially when 90% of them are retards.

2/25/2008 4:51:48 PM

^ That post is so stupid--do you even know what "Congress" means? It includes the House, you know--and the House has a Democrat majority.

Concerning the Senate, Lieberman (I/D) caucuses with the Democrats.

2/25/2008 5:05:29 PM

[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 6:36 PM. Reason : no one reads #99]

2/25/2008 6:20:56 PM