[Woolie Wool]

Some love him, some loathe him, but no one can say that Bush isn't as strong a leader as granite. Of all the truly great presidents, Washington is the only one who never polarized people in this way.

Lincoln was elected by a slim margin and absolutely hated by many people in the North and the South. He was ridiculed as a loser, an uncivilized rube, and sometimes even as a sub-human ape. Now he is considered almost a mortal god.

FDR so alienated conservative "plutocrats" that they wouldn't even say his name, simply calling him "that man".

Theodore Roosevelt, who became a  folk hero long before his death, also attracted scorn from wealthy businessmen, who saw Roosevelt's "big stick" descend upon their corporate empires.

And I don't even need to tell you about Ronald Reagan.

I believe that the full extent of Bush's actions have yet to become apparent. Major crises of history like the one we face now are not quickly resolved. The Civil War dragged on for four long, bloody, horrific years, and its scars persist to this day in the south. Roosevelt needed 8 years and a kick in the pants from the Japanese to drag us out of the Depression, and then spent another four years at war with three powerful empires controlled by ruthless madmen. The other Roosevelt didn't really start "trustbusting" until his second term. "Reaganomics" didn't really bear fruit untill late in the Reagan administration, and produced a huge economic boom.

It is quite probable, that years later, we will look back on the presidency of "Shrub" and place him in the presidential Valhalla occupied by Lincoln, the Roosevelts, and Washington. Time will tell.

[aldo_14]

More likely he'll be regarded as one of histories most incompetent leaders - or even just forgotten.

[Rictor]

I think just the opposite.

I'm not going to mention Reagan, because I think that if you want to believe in the man, thats your thing and who am I to spoil it.

But I think Bush's presidency will be idealized by the Right, and remembered by the Left and the world for what it was; a time of agressive foreign policy abroad and opression at home. Just another President looking out for the interests of the rich, one in a long and uninterupted line.

Being a "strong" leader means nothing. Hitler was a "strong" leader, Stalin was a "strong" leader. You have to actually do good in order to remembered as a great man.

[an0n]

His reign will be remembered like the Dark Ages. A time when religion blocked out the wonderous light of science and common sense. A time when many a strong man was sent to his death on a quest to bring civilization to the Islamic barbarians and return with all manner of Gold, spices and exotic oils from the heathen lands.

[Fineus]

Hey, you US guys can have another "day of infamy" you're so fond of creating.. the day Bush was elected

[Moonsword]

You mean when the Supreme Court violated procedure and illegally intervened in the Florida election?

That Day of Infamy?  Or perhpas you were referring to when Gore courageously stepped down for the good of the nation and urged that we work together, unknowing the horrors to come?

Bush didn't get elected.  His opponent stepped down to try and heal the divisve rift the election was creating in America.  It didn't work, though.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Rictor
I think just the opposite.

I'm not going to mention Reagan, because I think that if you want to believe in the man, thats your thing and who am I to spoil it.

*shrug*

But I think Bush's presidency will be idealized by the Right, and remembered by the Left and the world for what it was; a time of agressive foreign policy abroad and opression at home. Just another President looking out for the interests of the rich, one in a long and uninterupted line.

Bush's tax cuts do not just affect the rich. Many of the tax cuts are directed at small busineses, which form the backbone of the American economy and must be distinguished from huge corporations. Can you really equate the local privately-owned donut shop with a corporate titan? Businesses--from the dry cleaners at the local strip mall to General Motors--have always fueled the economy. To hurt business is to hurt the entire economy. If one of those much-maligned large corporations fell over (Enron, anyone?), the economy would invariably suffer. But if small businesses took a major hit, the economy would fall on its face. Why shouldn't we look out for business? That's how money is made in this world, and money keeps human civilization running.

Being a "strong" leader means nothing. Hitler was a "strong" leader, Stalin was a "strong" leader. You have to actually do good in order to remembered as a great man.

Being a strong leader is more than having an iron fist. You need principles and moral fiber to guide a nation through difficult times. Stalin and Hitler, at the very least, lacked the latter.
(Besides, in terms of German success, Hitler quickly refloated a German economy that made the American economy at its nadir look absolutely peachy and brought unprecedented prosperity for the Germans that fit his description of the "Aryan master race" until the Allies crashed the party.). Stalin especially had an iron fist and absolute power, but he didn't have the strong principles and clear vision for the Soviet people I'm talking about. He was an unstable, unpredictable, and paranoid man.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Moonsword
Bush didn't get elected.  His opponent stepped down to try and heal the divisve rift the election was creating in America.  It didn't work, though.

When the results were tallied, they favored Bush, not Gore. When they were retallied again and again, they STILL favored Bush (albeit by an even thinner margin of only 537 votes), even after many absentee votes were quite literally thrown out. Rehnquist pretty much told Gore to give up, because the results were in, Bush won, and no amount of recounts could change it. Gore came really damn close, but he didn't win. Sorry.

[an0n]

Gore got more votes. Unfortunately, you don't run a democracy, you run a republic.

And I'd like to point out: Chad, or whatever the **** they were called.

The entire election was ****ed by technical problems and it shoulda been redone.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
Hey, you US guys can have another "day of infamy" you're so fond of creating.. the day Bush was elected

No, the "day of infamy" was when 19 evil bastards flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Moonsword
You mean when the Supreme Court violated procedure and illegally intervened in the Florida election?

That Day of Infamy?  Or perhpas you were referring to when Gore courageously stepped down for the good of the nation and urged that we work together, unknowing the horrors to come?

Bush didn't get elected.  His opponent stepped down to try and heal the divisve rift the election was creating in America.  It didn't work, though.

No, Moonsword, you've been fooled.  The divisiveness has been gaining steam for a long while before the 2000 elections.  Due almost totally to the way the Left(take your pick of membership) pits social groups against one another to stay in power.  John Kerry is an ideal example of what it is to be a Leftist in America today.  He is on record(audio, video, and print) saying two and three different things about his stance on issues to ingraiate himself to which ever SI group he happens to be addressing.

Example:
When speaking to a United Autoworkers group Kerry commented that he had several cars including a couple of SUVs.  Later, when speaking to an Enviromentalist Wacko group he swore he didn't own an SUV.

The problem is the Left and it's all to willing accomplices in the Major Media(NY Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, various other national newspapers) want to have the population of the country in as many pieces as possible because small groups are easy to control and manipulate.

[Woolie Wool]

Later, when speaking to an Enviromentalist Wacko group he swore he didn't own an SUV.

But of course he doesn't own it, his family owns it.

Kerrry is full of crap.

[Moonsword]

Right.  Not!  You've been reading too many conspiracy theories, Liberator.

While I do not agree with Kerry's statements, explain the Republican party's dirty tricks and tactics, and how they are blameless.

Example: The push-polling directed against John McCain (one of your party's best people).

I don't believe that sort of questioning (would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if he had fathered an illegitimate child with a black woman) has any place in politics.  I bloody ****ing God-damned know it has no place in statistics, certainly not in how you count support for someone, because of how the ****ing question was phrased in the first place!

This is one example of Republican tactics.  One.  There are hundreds more.

[an0n]

It's safe to assume anything coming from Liberator is both stupid and pointless....and possibly racist.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by an0n
Gore got more votes. Unfortunately, you don't run a democracy, you run a republic.

The electoral system served its purpose that day: to keep a few large population centers from completely dominating the election. It you're so upset that Gore lost the electoral while winning the popular vote, why not blame the framers of the Constitution. They came up with the electoral system.

And I'd like to point out: Chad, or whatever the **** they were called.

Jesus Christ. Is it REALLY that hard to figure out at least some of those goddamned chads?

The entire election was ****ed by technical problems and it shoulda been redone.

That would've been a logistical and technical nightmare.

While I do not agree with Kerry's statements, explain the Republican party's dirty tricks and tactics, and how they are blameless.

Are you still living in the 1970s? The Democrats are doing the exact same things the Republicans used to do. Have you heard about the way Democrats would take uneducated, illiterate people, teach them how to "vote" (including--gasp--which buttons to press or which holes to punch so that a Democrat would be voted for), and send them into voting booths to tip the election (this was in the '02 Congressional elections). Republicans aren't blameless, but the Democrats are by far the worst offenders, using filibusters, recounts, any votes that might possibly be at all not what the voter intended, and other, more sinister methods to tilt elections towards them. Besides, if you think any politician will be really honest and trustworthy, you're a complete and total idiot and deserve to be manipulated.

[an0n]

You're stoned, right?

How the **** is an election something that can be done, but burning ballot papers and redoing an election is a 'logistical and technical nightmare'?

And Woolie, you dear, sweet fool: The point of a democracy (something which War-Boy has screamed about) is to let the majority decide. Using the American (and British) system is basically saying that some peoples votes are worth more than others.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by an0n
You're stoned, right?

How the **** is an election something that can be done, but burning ballot papers and redoing an election is a 'logistical and technical nightmare'?

And Woolie, you dear, sweet fool: The point of a democracy (something which War-Boy has screamed about) is to let the majority decide. Using the American (and British) system is basically saying that some peoples votes are worth more than others.

Most people don't want a pure democracy. Here's why. in a dense population center, people always tend to be more like-minded and more inclined to "follow the leader" in political matters (higher voter turnout). Imagine this scenario:

Suppose we have a city with 2 million Democrats and 1 million Republicans, and a huge rural area with 5 million Republicans and 3 million Democrats, giving us a grand total of 6 million Republicans and 5 miillion Dems. But--surprise--the Democrats would almost certainly win the popular vote because the Dems in the city, unlike the Republicans in the country, will tend more to think and act as one (this behavior, in lower animals, is called a herding instinct). The electoral system exists to counteract the way human instinct can distort the "voice of America", as your average greedy, manipulative politician would say.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool

Bush's tax cuts do not just affect the rich. Many of the tax cuts are directed at small busineses, which form the backbone of the American economy and must be distinguished from huge corporations. Can you really equate the local privately-owned donut shop with a corporate titan? Businesses--from the dry cleaners at the local strip mall to General Motors--have always fueled the economy. To hurt business is to hurt the entire economy. If one of those much-maligned large corporations fell over (Enron, anyone?), the economy would invariably suffer. But if small businesses took a major hit, the economy would fall on its face. Why shouldn't we look out for business? That's how money is made in this world, and money keeps human civilization running.

There's a difference between supporting businesses, and enabling them to pillage the nation and the world. For every Enron that got caught, there are 20 that didn't, and thats because the government is staffed full with ex-corporate lobbyists, special inetest groups and so forth. Its hard to look at a single member of Bush's cabinet without thinking conflict of interest.

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Being a strong leader is more than having an iron fist. You need principles and moral fiber to guide a nation through difficult times. Stalin and Hitler, at the very least, lacked the latter.
(Besides, in terms of German success, Hitler quickly refloated a German economy that made the American economy at its nadir look absolutely peachy and brought unprecedented prosperity for the Germans that fit his description of the "Aryan master race" until the Allies crashed the party.). Stalin especially had an iron fist and absolute power, but he didn't have the strong principles and clear vision for the Soviet people I'm talking about. He was an unstable, unpredictable, and paranoid man.

And what strong morals are these? Imposing sanctions from which thousands die slow and horrible deaths? Opposing homosexuality? Denying judicial and human rights to "enemy combatants"? Invading foreign nations? Destroying the environment? Stuffing the pockets of his corporate buddies at the expense of the working class? Giving oppressive regimes carte blanche to do as they please? Subverting democracy worldwide? Treating even petty criminals like they're subhumans, destroying any future they might have? Opposing unions? Protecting war criminals? Tearing up the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Take your pick man.

I just don't see how Bush has done a single good thing during his whole time in office.

Face it, Bush is equal parts redneck cowboy and corporate fatcat. His "morals" are selective.

[Aspa]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool


Most people don't want a pure democracy. Here's why. in a dense population center, people always tend to be more like-minded and more inclined to "follow the leader" in political matters (higher voter turnout). Imagine this scenario:

Suppose we have a city with 2 million Democrats and 1 million Republicans, and a huge rural area with 5 million Republicans and 3 million Democrats, giving us a grand total of 6 million Republicans and 5 miillion Dems. But--surprise--the Democrats would almost certainly win the popular vote because the Dems in the city, unlike the Republicans in the country, will tend more to think and act as one (this behavior, in lower animals, is called a herding instinct). The electoral system exists to counteract the way human instinct can distort the "voice of America", as your average greedy, manipulative politician would say.

I thought the educational system was supposed to counteract herding instinct, or mob mentality or whatever you can call it?

No democracy without education right?

[Saturn2004]

Originally posted by aldo_14
More likely he'll be regarded as one of histories most incompetent leaders - or even just forgotten.

i agree not only is he incompetent but he  tarnished the countries  self image and  angered  muslim  leaders
if you  look back  President Clinton had the country  running well and  not to mention his  session in the whilte house   produced a  stock market boom and a 3.4  trillion  dollar surplus which was  wasted  on a  missile  defense  plan that  failed  horribly
the news was only  one to three times  were the sucess  rates of the so called missile plan
and after he was done  you have a  03 to 06  trillion  dollars in  trade deficit to say in  english  he burned a hole through the countries pocket which  pisses me off
he could've thought of the people and could've spent the budget  surplus on social security and  other people programs
but no  he is too ignorant and  bloated to  do  so.

what do you think?