PDA

View Full Version : Dobbs: Give it a rest, Mr. President


Donger
06-13-2007, 11:37 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/12/Dobbs.June13/index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush is building his legacy, adding another unfortunate line of hollow bravado to his rhetorical repertoire. To "Mission accomplished," "Bring it on," "Wanted: Dead or alive," and of course, "I earned ... political capital, and now I intend to spend it," he has added "I'll see you at the bill signing," referring to his own ill-considered push for so-called comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

Bush emerged from a midday meeting with Republican senators on Capitol Hill to declare, "We've got to convince the American people this bill is the best way to enforce our border."

No, Mr. President, someone you trust and respect must convince you that kind of tortured reasoning should never be exposed before cameras and microphones. Isn't there anyone in this administration with the guts to say, "Give it a rest, Mr. President"?

Sen. Jeff Sessions came close when he said, "He needs to back off." This president desperately needs to be reminded that he is the president of all Americans and not just of corporate interests and socio-ethnocentric special interest groups.

In what other country would citizens be treated to the spectacle of the president and the Senate focusing on the desires of 12 million to 20 million people who had crossed the nation's borders illegally, committed document fraud, and in many cases identity theft, overstayed their visas and demanded, not asked, full forgiveness for their trespasses?

Illegal aliens and their advocates, both liberal and conservative, possess such an overwhelming sense of entitlement that they demand not only legal status, but also that the government leave the borders wide open so that other illegals could follow as well, while offering not so much as an "I'm sorry" or a "Thank you."

This bill would be disastrous public policy and devastate millions of American workers and their families, taxpayers and any semblance of national security. Yet even in defeat, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, one of the reform bill's chief architects, declared: "Doing nothing is totally unacceptable." Like the senator, Bush says the status quo is unacceptable.

The president and the senator are wrong. It is the sham legislation they support that is totally unacceptable. But if Bush and Kennedy sincerely desire resolution to our illegal immigration and border security crises, I'd like to try to help. But a word of caution, if I may, to our elected officials: Resolution of these crises will require honesty, directness and an absolute commitment to the national interest and the common good of our citizens. Here are what I consider to be the essential guiding principles for any substantive reform:

First, fully secure our borders and ports. Without that security, there can be no control of immigration and, therefore, no meaningful reform of immigration law.

Second, enforce existing immigration laws, and that includes the prosecution of the employers of illegal aliens. As Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, put it, illegal employers are the magnet that draws illegal aliens across our border. Enforcing the law against illegal employers and illegal aliens at large in the country will mean bolstering, in all respects, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Third, the government should fund, equip and hire the people necessary to man the Citizenship and Immigration Services. To do so will ensure that the agency is capable of fully executing and administering lawful immigration into the United States and eliminating the shameful backlog of millions of people who are seeking legal entry into this country.

Those three steps are necessary to the security of the nation and the effective administration and enforcement of existing immigration laws. Those steps should be considered non-negotiable conditions precedent to any change or reform of existing immigration law.

At the same time, the president and Congress should order exhaustive studies of the economic, social and fiscal effects of the leading proposals to change immigration law, and foremost in their consideration should be the well-being of American workers and their families.

The president and Congress should begin the process of thoughtful reform of our immigration laws. Public hearings should be held throughout the nation. The American people should be heard in every region of the country, and fact-finding should be rigorous and thorough. The process will be time-consuming and demand much of our congressmen and senators, their staffs and relevant executive agencies.

The importance of securing borders and ports and reforming our immigration laws is profound, and that security is fundamental to the future of our nation. That future can be realized only with a complete commitment to a comprehensive legislative process of absolute transparency and open public forums in which our elected officials hear the voices of the people they represent. American citizens deserve no less.

Direckshun
06-13-2007, 11:42 AM
Of course, when Dobbs grows a pair, it's about immigration.

Never seen a commentator with such a one-minded bend on a particular issue.

dirk digler
06-13-2007, 11:47 AM
Dobbs nails it perfectly. Bush, Kennedy, and McCain want to sell out America to Mexico.

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 12:32 PM
Great piece. I agree completely.

Cochise
06-13-2007, 12:37 PM
President Bush is building his legacy, adding another unfortunate line of hollow bravado to his rhetorical repertoire. To "Mission accomplished," "Bring it on," "Wanted: Dead or alive," and of course, "I earned ... political capital, and now I intend to spend it," he has added "I'll see you at the bill signing,"...

...This president desperately needs to be reminded that he is the president of all Americans and not just of corporate interests and socio-ethnocentric special interest groups.


This would have been much more effective if Dobbs could make a point without sounding shrill.

the Talking Can
06-13-2007, 12:38 PM
did he use the line about leprosy?

Taco John
06-13-2007, 12:40 PM
It's hard to talk about the worst president in our nations history without sounding shrill. We all deserve a congressional medal of some sort for living through this.

Donger
06-13-2007, 01:22 PM
It's hard to talk about the worst president in our nations history without sounding shrill. We all deserve a congressional medal of some sort for living through this.

"Worst President in our nation's history"?

I would certainly rank him in the bottom half, but not worst. Buchanan deserves that title, IMO.

Taco John
06-13-2007, 02:32 PM
"Worst President in our nation's history"?

I would certainly rank him in the bottom half, but not worst. Buchanan deserves that title, IMO.


At the very least, it's debatable.

Donger
06-13-2007, 02:40 PM
At the very least, it's debatable.

Perhaps among those with a serious lack of objectivity and/or a serious lack of historical knowledge.

Personally, I wouldn't put Bush in the worst ten.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 02:45 PM
Perhaps among those with a serious lack of objectivity and/or a serious lack of historical knowledge.

Personally, I wouldn't put Bush in the worst ten.

Andrew Johnson and Bush have to be fighting out for the worst of the worst.

Bush is easily the worst two term president of all time.

Direckshun
06-13-2007, 02:47 PM
Nixon's down there.

Bush is in the bottom ten.

Donger
06-13-2007, 02:47 PM
Andrew Johnson and Bush have to be fighting out for the worst of the worst.

Bush is easily the worst two term president of all time.

Like I said, objectivity...

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 02:50 PM
Like I said, objectivity...

Says the board's resident hydrocarbon shill. :rolleyes:

Donger
06-13-2007, 02:51 PM
Says the board's resident hydrocarbon shill. :rolleyes:

You obviously haven't been paying attention or don't understand what I'm trying to accomplish.

Taco John
06-13-2007, 02:52 PM
Perhaps among those with a serious lack of objectivity and/or a serious lack of historical knowledge.

Personally, I wouldn't put Bush in the worst ten.



Bah. I'd say you'd have to have a serious lack of objectivity NOT to put him in the worst 10. He's been a terrible president.

Donger
06-13-2007, 02:54 PM
Bah. I'd say you'd have to have a serious lack of objectivity NOT to put him in the worst 10. He's been a terrible president.

That's because you aren't being objective about my objectivity.

Duh.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 02:54 PM
You obviously haven't been paying attention or don't understand what I'm trying to accomplish.

Raise your stock prices?

Donger
06-13-2007, 02:57 PM
Raise your stock prices?

I have no financial interest at all in the petrochemical industry.

HolmeZz
06-13-2007, 03:04 PM
Like I said, objectivity...

Did you vote for him? That wouldn't make you very objective.

Donger
06-13-2007, 03:05 PM
Did you vote for him?

Yes, I did. Twice.

That wouldn't make you very objective.

Nonsense. One can be objective about something (or someone's) performance even though they voted/supported him. That's why I rank him on the lower end of the scale.

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 03:07 PM
Perhaps among those with a serious lack of objectivity and/or a serious lack of historical knowledge.

Personally, I wouldn't put Bush in the worst ten.How can your opinion be "objective?" Even deciding the metrics by which to measure involves a bias.

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 03:08 PM
One can be objective about something (or someone's) performance even though they voted/supported him. That's why I rank him on the lower end of the scale.How?

HolmeZz
06-13-2007, 03:09 PM
Nonsense. One can be objective about something (or someone's) performance even though they voted/supported him. That's why I rank him on the lower end of the scale.

And you can't be objective and think he's been one of the worst?

Donger
06-13-2007, 03:10 PM
How can your opinion be "objective?" Even deciding the metrics by which to measure involves a bias.

I said, "serious lack of objectivity." Meaning, an agenda. I just found this:

Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society. [5] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving President Bush an overall rating of "average".

Donger
06-13-2007, 03:12 PM
How?

Because even though I voted for him, I can look at what he's accomplished (or not) and make a decision based on that, regardless of my personal feelings.

Donger
06-13-2007, 03:13 PM
And you can't be objective and think he's been one of the worst?

Like I said, not without a serious lack of objectivity and/or a serious lack of historical knowledge.

HolmeZz
06-13-2007, 03:13 PM
Because even though I voted for him, I can look at what he's accomplished (or not) and make a decision based on that, regardless of my personal feelings.

So you can't have an objective view on him unless you voted for him?

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 03:14 PM
Because even though I voted for him, I can look at what he's accomplished (or not) and make a decision based on that, regardless of my personal feelings.What you value in terms of his accomplishments (and whether something was indeed accomplished by him) is a part of your bias. Ergo, your decision is not objective.

Donger
06-13-2007, 03:15 PM
So you can't have an objective view on him unless you voted for him?

Sure one can. as long as one can judge without allowing one's personal feelings or prejudices to distort the facts.

Donger
06-13-2007, 03:16 PM
What you value in terms of his accomplishments (and whether something was indeed accomplished by him) is a part of your bias. Ergo, your decision is not objective.

Again, please note, "serious lack of objectivity."

HolmeZz
06-13-2007, 03:18 PM
Sure one can. as long as one can judge without allowing one's personal feelings or prejudices to distort the facts.

There are no 'facts' in determining who's the worst President. It's all opinion. As much as you can say somebody has an agenda for saying he's one of the worst, I could say you have an agenda. You obviously take offense to having voted twice for somebody who's being called the worst President in our country's history.

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 03:18 PM
Again, please note, "serious lack of objectivity."I have no understanding of this objectivity gradient.

Lzen
06-13-2007, 03:18 PM
Isn't it amusing that the libs calling Bush the worst president in history are saying one can't be objective if they voted for him? Can one be objective about it if they voted for his opponent (effectively voting against him)?

Lzen
06-13-2007, 03:19 PM
There are no 'facts' in determining who's the worst President. It's all opinion.

True. End of discussion.

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 03:19 PM
Isn't it amusing that the libs calling Bush the worst president in history are saying one can't be objective if they voted for him? Can one be objective about it if they voted for his opponent (effectively voting against him)?No.

HolmeZz
06-13-2007, 03:21 PM
Isn't it amusing that the libs calling Bush the worst president in history are saying one can't be objective if they voted for him? Can one be objective about it if they voted for his opponent (effectively voting against him)?

You should probably re-read the topic. I haven't heard anyone say there wasn't objectivity in thinking Bush is one of the worst Presidents. Donger's the only one claiming his opinion to be completely objective.

Donger
06-13-2007, 03:22 PM
There are no 'facts' in determining who's the worst President. It's all opinion. As much as you can say somebody has an agenda for saying he's one of the worst, I could say you have an agenda. You obviously take offense to having voted twice for somebody who's being called the worst President in our country's history.

No, I really don't, because I'm objective about it. If I did have an agenda or viewed this contest with a non-objective eye, I would be offended (well, probable not even that). Since I do not, I am not.

And that's why I view Bush as being on the bottom of the scale, but not the worst.

Simple stuff.

Donger
06-13-2007, 03:24 PM
I have no understanding of this objectivity gradient.

Sorry to hear that.

Total and absolute objectivity doesn't exist in humans. It can't. But, some can restrict it better than others.

Donger
06-13-2007, 03:25 PM
Donger's the only one claiming his opinion to be completely objective.

Oh? Where did you see that?

HolmeZz
06-13-2007, 03:30 PM
Oh? Where did you see that?

No, I really don't, because I'm objective about it.

It's your opinion he's in the worst half or whatever. It's not fact as there's no measure with even which to judge that. It's pure opinion.

Donger
06-13-2007, 03:31 PM
Sorry, I don't see the word "completely" in that quote. Do you?

HolmeZz
06-13-2007, 03:34 PM
Sorry, I don't see the word "completely" in that quote. Do you?

Nope. You're still the only one claiming to be objective, regarding your opinion as truth.

Donger
06-13-2007, 03:40 PM
Nope. You're still the only one claiming to be objective, regarding your opinion as truth.

If I wasn't being objective, I wouldn't rank Bush in the lower in of the scale, now would I?

And, you'll note that I also mentioned historical knowledge (or lack thereof). How can one rank Bush against all the other POTUS without a solid knowledge of presidential history? If someone ranks Bush as the worst without such knowledge, it's reasonable to assume that they severely lack objectivity. Or the best, for that matter.

Taco John
06-13-2007, 04:33 PM
I am being objective. Bush is one of the worst presidents of all time. There are plenty of objective standards that you can use to come to this conclusion, the first being his own campaign promises. The second being spending to debt ratios. The third being strategic blunder comparisons. The fourth being leadership during war time.

and on, and on, and on.

We were attacked on our own soil, and he can't keep the country motivated for war? What a limp dick...

I don't say Bush is the worst president of all time because I just *want* him to be so. I say it because he's laid the groundwork for the legacy.

Taco John
06-13-2007, 04:36 PM
If I wasn't being objective, I wouldn't rank Bush in the lower in of the scale, now would I?



The Raiders had the number one pick in the draft this year, because they finished last in the league. If a Raider fan comes to this board to argue that the Raiders weren't the worst team in the league last year, but they were somewhere near the top the bottom 16, are they being objective?

penchief
06-13-2007, 04:40 PM
Of course, when Dobbs grows a pair, it's about immigration.

Never seen a commentator with such a one-minded bend on a particular issue.

It stems from his passion for protecting the American Worker. It ties right in with his other pet issue, shipping jobs overseas for reasons of cheap labor and tax-free profits (both of which ultimately screw America and its citizens).

I'm all for his single-minded bent when it comes to that because that is one issue that ranks right up there with war and peace, or preserving our natural habitat. It's a fundamental issue of justice, and ultimately personal liberty.

Lou Dobbs has earned my respect. Screw the neocon right-wing bigot asswipes who want to change America from a work-ethic nation to a slave nation via slogans and lies. And this administration does all that for the benefit of those who paid for their power.

Donger
06-13-2007, 04:40 PM
I am being objective. Bush is one of the worst presidents of all time. There are plenty of objective standards that you can use to come to this conclusion, the first being his own campaign promises. The second being spending to debt ratios. The third being strategic blunder comparisons. The fourth being leadership during war time.

and on, and on, and on.

We were attacked on our own soil, and he can't keep the country motivated for war? What a limp dick...

I don't say Bush is the worst president of all time because I just *want* him to be so. I say it because he's laid the groundwork for the legacy.

And, are you comparing him against the other POTUS? Do you know the history well enough to make those comparisons?

Donger
06-13-2007, 04:42 PM
The Raiders had the number one pick in the draft this year, because they finished last in the league. If a Raider fan comes to this board to argue that the Raiders weren't the worst team in the league last year, but they were somewhere near the top the bottom 16, are they being objective?

No, they are not. They are the worst due to their record, which everyone knows, can see and agree upon.

ClevelandBronco
06-13-2007, 04:50 PM
Screw the neocon right-wing bigot asswipes who want to change America from a work-ethic nation to a slave nation via slogans and lies. And this administration does all that for the benefit of those who paid for their power.

You have a few good slogans in there.

Taco John
06-13-2007, 05:00 PM
Do you know the history well enough to make those comparisons?



I don't. Professor Sean Willentz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Wilentz) does though. He presents a pretty compelling case for Bush being the worst of all time (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/worst_president_in_history/page/1), based not only on what presidential historians think of Bush, but also on more objective criteria.

Donger
06-13-2007, 05:04 PM
I don't. Professor Sean Willentz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Wilentz) does though. He presents a pretty compelling case for Bush being the worst of all time (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/worst_president_in_history/page/1), based not only on what presidential historians think of Bush, but also on more objective criteria.

And this is where I bring up objectivity again...

Wilentz, a family friend of Bill Clinton, appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8, 1998 to argue against the Clinton impeachment. His testimony -- he told the House members that, if they voted for impeachment but were not convinced Clinton's offenses were impeachable, "history will track you down and condemn you for your cravenness" -- cheered Democratic partisans but earned censure from the New York Times, which lamented his "gratuitously patronizing presentation" in an editorial.

Hydrae
06-13-2007, 05:13 PM
I can't speak for all time but he would give Tricky Dicky a run for worst in my lifetime. Being as that is nearly a 1/2 century, that is plenty bad enough to make it tough for me to stomach.

Donger
06-13-2007, 05:17 PM
I can't speak for all time but he would give Tricky Dicky a run for worst in my lifetime. Being as that is nearly a 1/2 century, that is plenty bad enough to make it tough for me to stomach.

You know what's interesting? LBJ almost makes it into the Top Ten.

patteeu
06-13-2007, 05:18 PM
I don't think he's even the worst President of this decade.

Donger
06-13-2007, 05:20 PM
I don't think he's even the worst President of this decade.

ROFL

Bubba just sneaked in there, eh?

penchief
06-13-2007, 05:33 PM
You have a few good slogans in there.

Completely unintentional my friend. Just a short rant brought on by a momentary flashback to reality.

Taco John
06-13-2007, 09:18 PM
And this is where I bring up objectivity again...

Wilentz, a family friend of Bill Clinton, appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8, 1998 to argue against the Clinton impeachment. His testimony -- he told the House members that, if they voted for impeachment but were not convinced Clinton's offenses were impeachable, "history will track you down and condemn you for your cravenness" -- cheered Democratic partisans but earned censure from the New York Times, which lamented his "gratuitously patronizing presentation" in an editorial.



So what does that have to do with objectivity?

He's right, by the way. History already looks at the Republicans like a bunch of f'ing morons for putting the country through that when we had terrorism drawing a bead on us. Idiots.

Logical
06-13-2007, 09:36 PM
First, fully secure our borders and ports. Without that security, there can be no control of immigration and, therefore, no meaningful reform of immigration law.

This is as stupid and pointless as anything any Senator or the President have said. The bill is unsupportable but that statement is just stupid because it can never be accomplished. World Peace would be as easy as accomplishing that statement.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 10:06 PM
Donger, your poll was conducted in 2005, when Bush still had a modicum of support from the American populace as a whole. I think that were you to be objective, his support even among Republicans, who abandoned him in droves, has plummeted the past two years.

I'm fully awaiting your attempt to turn this into a semantic argument so that we can deflect from your lack of substantive information.

:D

Donger
06-13-2007, 10:25 PM
So what does that have to do with objectivity?

He's right, by the way. History already looks at the Republicans like a bunch of f'ing morons for putting the country through that when we had terrorism drawing a bead on us. Idiots.

Oh, I don't know. When the NY Times calls you that, perhaps you should re-evaluate.

Donger
06-13-2007, 10:26 PM
Donger, your poll was conducted in 2005, when Bush still had a modicum of support from the American populace as a whole. I think that were you to be objective, his support even among Republicans, who abandoned him in droves, has plummeted the past two years.

I'm fully awaiting your attempt to turn this into a semantic argument so that we can deflect from your lack of substantive information.

:D

What poll?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 10:32 PM
What Poll?

Err...this one...post 25 ROFL

I said, "serious lack of objectivity." Meaning, an agenda. I just found this:

Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society. [5] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving President Bush an overall rating of "average".

Donger
06-13-2007, 10:35 PM
Err...this one...post 25 ROFL

Heh. I forgot about that. Sorry, I've been up for a long time.

IIRC, Bush's approval rating was right around 40% in 2005, yes? It's what now? 36% So, I fail to see how that drops him down into the bowels of POTUS history.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 10:37 PM
Heh. I forgot about that. Sorry, I've been up for a long time.

IIRC, Bush's approval rating was right around 40% in 2005, yes? It's what now? 36% So, I fail to see how that drops him down into the bowels of POTUS history.

29%

Donger
06-13-2007, 10:41 PM
29%

I see a range of 29 to 35%

Anyway, I only took issue with TJ's assertion that he is the worst POTUS ever. Like I said, someone who thinks that is ignorant of history and/or severely lacks objectivity.

Surely you agree with that.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 10:45 PM
I see a range of 29 to 35%

Anyway, I only took issue with TJ's assertion that he is the worst POTUS ever. Like I said, someone who thinks that is ignorant of history and/or severely lacks objectivity.

Surely you agree with that.

I was using the most recent NBC/WSJ. Quinnipiac has him at 28...

Now, if someone is saying that Bush is the worst POTUS of all time just to be a knee-jerk reactionary, then yes, you have a point, but this isn't necessarily an episode of "Crossfire".

There is plenty of evidence that a dissenter could use to make a reasonable case of him being one of the worst POTUS' ever, and definitely scraping the barrell of the "modern" POTUS's

Donger
06-13-2007, 10:47 PM
There is plenty of evidence that a dissenter could use to make a reasonable case of him being one of the worst POTUS' ever, and definitely scraping the barrell of the "modern" POTUS's

Okay, so make it.

Please use historical evidence since that is, after all, what we are comparing.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 10:53 PM
Okay, so make it.

Please use historical evidence since that is, after all, what we are comparing.

There was more good will and sympathy for the US at any time since WWII and he squandered it all in less than 18 months.

Record budget deficits.

A poor job creation record.

An ever-growing and disproportionate disparity between the rich and poor.

An utter failure of an educational program.

A unilateral instigation of perhaps the most unpopular War in US history, drummed up over falsities and predicated upon lies and 1/64 truths.

Cronyism

Increased corporatism and corporate influence

A massive reduction of civil liberties, including illegally spying on the citizens of the United States.

A medicare bill written for drug companies

A "debt" bill written by lobbyists for the credit card industry

The Plame Affair

Donald Rumsfeld

John Ashcroft

Alberto Gonzalez and the judicial firings

Katrina

Defrauding the military for the benefit of buddy-buddy corporations

Donger
06-13-2007, 10:54 PM
There was more good will and sympathy for the US at any time since WWII and he squandered it all in less than 18 months.

Record budget deficits.

A poor job creation record.

An ever-growing and disproportionate disparity between the rich and poor.

An utter failure of an educational program.

A unilateral instigation of perhaps the most unpopular War in US history, drummed up over falsities and predicated upon lies and 1/64 truths.

Cronyism

Increased corporatism and corporate influence

A massive reduction of civil liberties, including illegally spying on the citizens of the United States.

A medicare bill written for drug companies

A "debt" bill written by lobbyists for the credit card industry

The Plame Affair

Donald Rumsfeld

John Ashcroft

Alberto Gonzalez and the judicial firings

Katrina

Defrauding the military for the benefit of buddy-buddy corporations

Are you going to compare that to any other past POTUS?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 10:59 PM
Are you going to compare that to any other past POTUS?

Donger, you're just stalling. There is a cornucopia of evidence out there. You aren't going to be convinced no matter how much I put out there because you don't want to be convinced, so why should I waste my time?

You are invested in the idea of Bush in a certain area, and it's not worth my time or effort to educate you, especially when you don't want to receive the information.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2007, 11:04 PM
I have no financial interest at all in the petrochemical industry.
:hmmm: Hmmmm! Aren't you the one who puts the gas price threads up in the Lounge most of the time? Seems to me you have a high interest in the petrochemical industry.

Donger
06-13-2007, 11:06 PM
Donger, you're just stalling. There is a cornucopia of evidence out there. You aren't going to be convinced no matter how much I put out there because you don't want to be convinced, so why should I waste my time?

You are invested in the idea of Bush in a certain area, and it's not worth my time or effort to educate you, especially when you don't want to receive the information.

So, that's a 'no'? I just asked you to provide the information you used to come up with your assertion and you refuse?

I get that some think that Bush is the worst POTUS ever or darn near close to it. So, how can you reach that conclusion without comparing him to other POTUS? Surely you've done so, otherwise, how did you reach your conclusion?

Donger
06-13-2007, 11:08 PM
:hmmm: Hmmmm! Aren't you the one who puts the gas price threads up in the Lounge most of the time? Seems to me you have a high interest in the petrochemical industry.

Interest, yes. But not a financial one, as it pertains to investments. But sure, I have a strong interest in the price of gasoline.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2007, 11:13 PM
Interest, yes. But not a financial one, as it pertains to investments. But sure, I have a strong interest in the price of gasoline.
*giggles*


just messin' wid ya' :p

Cochise
06-13-2007, 11:22 PM
I frankly do not understand how you can compare someone who hasn't even left office yet with presidents who have been gone for 20, 50, 100 years or more.

A president's isn't going to be judged by history in real time. History is about the ripple effect, the long-term effect that you had on the world. Reagan is judged mostly according to the way the world changed in regards to the Cold War, and the Soviet Union didn't fall in 1987. FDR is judged by the historical effect of the outcome of WW2, even though he was pushing up daisies by the time it ended.

How can someone judge the overall historical effect of a president in the moment? How can you compare it to people that we know 100 years of post-history about?

I think a lot of people don't care about the uncertainty of how history will judge someone, as they intend to write it.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2007, 11:30 PM
How can someone judge the overall historical effect of a president in the moment? How can you compare it to people that we know 100 years of post-history about?

I think a lot of people don't care about the uncertainty of how history will judge someone, as they intend to write it.

Per some reading I'm doing, Lincoln was not liked at all when he was president. He was referred to as a dictator or a tyrant. The prevailing pov during his time even amoung many in the nawth felt that the union was a voluntary arrangement. I think the people of any given can at times perceive their presidents totally differently than how there were at the time they lived. Unfortunately, most history is about power and warsó the male testosterone pov, imo...as well as about the few.

Donger
06-13-2007, 11:39 PM
I frankly do not understand how you can compare someone who hasn't even left office yet with presidents who have been gone for 20, 50, 100 years or more.

A president's isn't going to be judged by history in real time. History is about the ripple effect, the long-term effect that you had on the world. Reagan is judged mostly according to the way the world changed in regards to the Cold War, and the Soviet Union didn't fall in 1987. FDR is judged by the historical effect of the outcome of WW2, even though he was pushing up daisies by the time it ended.

How can someone judge the overall historical effect of a president in the moment? How can you compare it to people that we know 100 years of post-history about?

I think a lot of people don't care about the uncertainty of how history will judge someone, as they intend to write it.

Well, of course we are all extrapolating about Bush's legacy based on his activity to date. However, I do think that he will rank in the average to below average category, perhaps worse if the invasion of Iraq leads to an area-wide conflict.

Logical
06-14-2007, 12:23 AM
I frankly do not understand how you can compare someone who hasn't even left office yet with presidents who have been gone for 20, 50, 100 years or more.

A president's isn't going to be judged by history in real time. History is about the ripple effect, the long-term effect that you had on the world. Reagan is judged mostly according to the way the world changed in regards to the Cold War, and the Soviet Union didn't fall in 1987. FDR is judged by the historical effect of the outcome of WW2, even though he was pushing up daisies by the time it ended.

How can someone judge the overall historical effect of a president in the moment? How can you compare it to people that we know 100 years of post-history about?

I think a lot of people don't care about the uncertainty of how history will judge someone, as they intend to write it.

Hard to disagree with this, but on the other hand Bush is easily the worst President of my lifetime in his time in office. Jimmy Carter comes a close second.

Bob Dole
06-14-2007, 12:30 AM
Hard to disagree with this, but on the other hand Bush is easily the worst President of my lifetime in his time in office. Jimmy Carter comes a close second.

Even worse than Franklin D.?

Taco John
06-14-2007, 01:03 AM
Are you going to compare that to any other past POTUS?



Bush vs. Buchanan


Buchanan: Nation was fiercely divided with the South threatening secession. Served during a time period when fist fights would regularly break out in congress. Couldn't manage to pull the country together.

Bush: Nation was united after being attacked on the homeland. Used that good will to invade a nation that was harmless, committing one of the worst strategic blunders in the nation's history. Lost the support of the nation during war because he couldn't manage to pull the country he invaded back together.

Advantage: Buchanan.



Buchanan: Hoped for a Constitutional solution to the issue of slavery believing that the matter was for the Supreme Court to decide.

Bush: Believes that there's a bunch of "activists" in the Supreme court. Constitution nothing. He's the "decider."

Advantage: Buchanan



Buchanan: Known as a "doughface," he was a northerner with southern sympathies.

Bush: Known as a "compassionate conservative," he is a Southerner with northern (see Edward Kennedy) sympathies.

Advantage: Bush



Buchanan: Reversed a trend of fiscal responsibility by commencing in the practice of deficit spending shortly after taxes were cut.

Bush: Reversed a trend of fiscal responsibility by becoming the biggest deficit spender in the history of the nation shortly after taxes were cut.

Advantage: Buchanan by the width of a penny.



Buchanan: Lost the plurality of Congress behind him that he enjoyed when he started his term, and locked up the government. Ended up losing the support of his party after bad decisions weakened it considerably.

Bush: Lost the "permanent majority" in Congress that he enjoyed when he started his term. Ended up losing the support of his party after bad decisions weakened it considerably.

Advantage: Push



Buchanan: Administration was constantly hounded by investigations for impeachable offenses.

Bush: Administration was constantly hounded by investigations for impeachable offenses.

Advantage: Push



Buchanan: Once the war started, he was woefully unprepared to handle the monumental task at hand.

Bush: Once the war started, he was woefully unprepared to handle the monumental task at hand.

Advantage: Push



Buchanan: Left the office with the nation divided and at war, for the more liberal opposing party to sort out.

Bush: Will likely leave the office with the nation divided and at war, for the more liberal opposing party to sort out.

Advantage: Push




Buchanan: Insisted all the way to his death bed that history would vindicate his memory, despite the reality that his administration was by and large a failure for both his party but also America in general.

Bush: Insists that history will remember his presidency favorably...

Advantage: Push

Logical
06-14-2007, 01:14 AM
Even worse than Franklin D.?arr, arr ye scurvy dog, tis not ole enuf to remember is I

Taco John
06-14-2007, 01:49 AM
How can someone judge the overall historical effect of a president in the moment? How can you compare it to people that we know 100 years of post-history about?



Those who condemned the Buchanan presidency during his time were pretty much spot on. Maybe they were magic! :eek:

Or maybe it was just that obvious.

ClevelandBronco
06-14-2007, 02:29 AM
Per some reading I'm doing, Lincoln was not liked at all when he was president. He was referred to as a dictator or a tyrant. The prevailing pov during his time even amoung many in the nawth felt that the union was a voluntary arrangement. I think the people of any given can at times perceive their presidents totally differently than how there were at the time they lived. Unfortunately, most history is about power and warsó the male testosterone pov, imo...as well as about the few.

"Mole-eyed monster with a soul of leather," is one contemporary characterization of Lincoln that I remember reading.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-14-2007, 02:55 AM
So, that's a 'no'? I just asked you to provide the information you used to come up with your assertion and you refuse?

I get that some think that Bush is the worst POTUS ever or darn near close to it. So, how can you reach that conclusion without comparing him to other POTUS? Surely you've done so, otherwise, how did you reach your conclusion?

Bush has the corruption of Warren Harding, the mismanagment and escalation of a war of aggression based upon a lie of LBJ, the ruinous deficits of Reagan, the loathsome global popularity of Jimmy Carter, the obstructionism and abuse of power of Nixon, the incompetence of Hoover and the imperialism of McKinley.


All wrapped up into one President.

Is that better?

patteeu
06-14-2007, 05:57 AM
I don't know where Bush stands in the all-time best/worst Presidents category, but I'm pretty strongly inclined to say that today's Congressional democrats as a group are the worst I can remember. Has there ever been a group of elected officials who so energetically embraced and encouraged the defeat of their own country? I'm a little too young to compare them to their Vietnam-era defeat-loving predecessors who ultimately neutered the presidency and crippled our intelligence capabilities for a generation, but I suspect today's version were both quicker on the trigger and more cynical than those pikers.

BucEyedPea
06-14-2007, 06:27 AM
I don't know where Bush stands in the all-time best/worst Presidents category, but I'm pretty strongly inclined to say that today's Congressional democrats as a group are the worst I can remember. Has there ever been a group of elected officials who so energetically embraced and encouraged the defeat of their own country?
I agree, Congress back then had the balls to cut off funds! Good point pat! :thumb:


Oh btw, didn't you get the memo? The Iraq war's been lost. Otherwise we wouldn't be tryin' to start another in Iran.

dirk digler
06-14-2007, 06:40 AM
I don't know where Bush stands in the all-time best/worst Presidents category, but I'm pretty strongly inclined to say that today's Congressional democrats as a group are the worst I can remember. Has there ever been a group of elected officials who so energetically embraced and encouraged the defeat of their own country? I'm a little too young to compare them to their Vietnam-era defeat-loving predecessors who ultimately neutered the presidency and crippled our intelligence capabilities for a generation, but I suspect today's version were both quicker on the trigger and more cynical than those pikers.

LMAO

They have a long way to go to catch the Republicans of the last 5 years. They have spent more money then any Congress in history and have put us so far in debt we will probably never recover. Not to mention all the corruption scandals and the child molester that was allowed to screw pages.

Amnorix
06-14-2007, 06:57 AM
Per some reading I'm doing, Lincoln was not liked at all when he was president. He was referred to as a dictator or a tyrant. The prevailing pov during his time even amoung many in the nawth felt that the union was a voluntary arrangement. I think the people of any given can at times perceive their presidents totally differently than how there were at the time they lived. Unfortunately, most history is about power and warsó the male testosterone pov, imo...as well as about the few.

There were times when he was very unpopular, even among segments in the North.

BUT, even in the election of 1862, after some serious reversals, the Republicans (Lincoln's party) held the majority in both houses of Congress. The Democrats had decreased the Republican majority, but both houses stayed Republican.

The election of 1864 was, of course, a windfall for Republicans, and had Lincoln re-elected, on the strength mostly of Sherman having taken Atlanta.

Certain segments of the North -- those subject to the draft (see NY draft riots) and Democrats, of course, did not care much for him.

But overall, he generally enjoyed a solid majority of the support of the North.

It is, frankly, foolish to say that anywehre near a majoirty in the North saw the union as a voluntary arrangement. The North was often largely dependent on the states to raise troops, voluntarily, for the early part of the war, and to sustain it. This it did, quite successfully. Did all agree? No, obviously not. But the vast majority did.

Don't let biased sources carry things too far.

Donger
06-14-2007, 08:06 AM
Bush vs. Buchanan


Buchanan: Nation was fiercely divided with the South threatening secession. Served during a time period when fist fights would regularly break out in congress. Couldn't manage to pull the country together.

Bush: Nation was united after being attacked on the homeland. Used that good will to invade a nation that was harmless, committing one of the worst strategic blunders in the nation's history. Lost the support of the nation during war because he couldn't manage to pull the country he invaded back together.

Advantage: Buchanan.


Did you write these comparisons?

patteeu
06-14-2007, 10:51 AM
LMAO

They have a long way to go to catch the Republicans of the last 5 years. They have spent more money then any Congress in history and have put us so far in debt we will probably never recover. Not to mention all the corruption scandals and the child molester that was allowed to screw pages.

Most of that is a matter of opinion so I don't have a problem with it even though I disagree completely. But that last part is false. Unless you know something that hasn't been publicly disclosed, the Foley incident didn't involve child molestation or page screwing.

penchief
06-14-2007, 04:49 PM
I don't know where Bush stands in the all-time best/worst Presidents category, but I'm pretty strongly inclined to say that today's Congressional democrats as a group are the worst I can remember. Has there ever been a group of elected officials who so energetically embraced and encouraged the defeat of their own country? I'm a little too young to compare them to their Vietnam-era defeat-loving predecessors who ultimately neutered the presidency and crippled our intelligence capabilities for a generation, but I suspect today's version were both quicker on the trigger and more cynical than those pikers.

Heh...

You and me........we aren't that much different.

You utilize the exact same hyperbole that you accuse me of using (and then some).

You're funny that way.

patteeu
06-15-2007, 06:35 PM
Heh...

You and me........we aren't that much different.

You utilize the exact same hyperbole that you accuse me of using (and then some).

You're funny that way.

:)

Where do you think I picked it up? Just ask jAZ or any of a number of my other critics around here, I never used to be this way. LOL ;)

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2007, 07:10 PM
:)

Where do you think I picked it up? Just ask jAZ or any of a number of my other critics around here, I never used to be this way. LOL ;)

You've been the Forlorn Hope for conservatives as long as I've known ya :)