Dub-yah's Legacy...

[DeepIron]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/04/bush.budget.ap/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7226985.stm
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0241480220080204

It makes me sick to know this SOB is going to draw a pension for the rest of his life after the most disasterous 8 years in US Presidential history. :nope:

[Jimbuna]

The same could be said by so many in the UK of Mrs Thatcher :nope:

[Blacklight]

It makes me sick to know this SOB is going to draw a pension for the rest of his life after the most disasterous 8 years in US Presidential history. :nope:

I couldn't agree more.:nope:

You also know that people who love G W Bush are going to attack this thread with torches, siege towers, and catapults right ? Get ready to defend the fort.. here they come.:stare:

[Tchocky]

The same could be said by so many in the UK of Mrs Thatcher :nope:
I'd take Thatcher over GWB any day of the week.
I don't like either, but it could be argued that some of her policies were necessary. The UK economy needed a kick in the ass, she delivered, and then went batty.

I'd rather not think of GWB's legacy.

[Brag]

It makes me sick to know this SOB is going to draw a pension for the rest of his life after the most disasterous 8 years in US Presidential history. :nope:

I couldn't agree more.:nope:

You also know that people who love G W Bush are going to attack this thread with torches, siege towers, and catapults right ? Get ready to defend the fort.. here they come.:stare:

Look out! They're bringing John Wayne and will make him Secretary of State.

[DeepIron]

You also know that people who love G W Bush are going to attack this thread with torches, siege towers, and catapults right ? Get ready to defend the fort.. here they come.:stare:
All ONE of them? :lol:

Introducing the All New, Larger than Ever Before, Dub-Yah Suppository...
http://www.northrim.net/jhouck/images/bush_suppository.jpg

"Bend over America." ~ Dub-yah

[Sea Demon]

Yeah, yeah, yeah....Another Loserfest "I hate G.W. Bush thread". Actually, he has been a big disappointment to me also. He hasn't done really much to inspire the principles I value as a voter from the "right of center". I for one think a $3 trillion budget is ridiculous. That's not upholding Republican principles in any way. But if you see a disappointing legacy in him and are disgusted about his post presidential pension, what about the losers who make up this failed do-nothing Democrat Congress who's approval numbers are dismal compared to Mr.Bush? They basically lied to every constituent they had to get a majority in Congress, and have done nothing they promised. And what about Bill Clinton, who handed the Chinese space related technologies that have advanced their ability to launch nuclear missiles accurately. For measly campaign donations, Bill Clinton increased the Chinese ability to target U.S. military and allied civilian targets if it came to that. And there is much more disaster from Clinton's sweeping under the rug policies. And if you're speaking economically, Jimmy Carter left the U.S. worse off than when G.W. Bush will be gone. Say what you want of Bush, but he doesn't have the inflationary problems, the double digit interest rates, or a misery index.

No, Bush will get his pension, and you can cry all day about it. If the scandalous Clinton got his, the weak Bush Sr. got his, and the failed Carter got his, then quit complaining.

[Jimbuna]

The same could be said by so many in the UK of Mrs Thatcher :nope:
I'd take Thatcher over GWB any day of the week.
I don't like either, but it could be argued that some of her policies were necessary. The UK economy needed a kick in the ass, she delivered, and then went batty.

I'd rather not think of GWB's legacy.

I think the Bush legacy will have a far longer lasting effect on the UK and the world, than that of the iron maiden :yep:

Hell, we can't even decide if she'll get a state funeral when she dies :nope:

Who'd pay the council tax on her final resting place ? ;)

[DeepIron]

I think the Bush legacy will have a far longer lasting effect on the UK and the world, than that of the iron maiden.

I believe your right Jim. Just look at the economic effects that are being caused in the Global community due to an impending "US recession". Subprimes tank, some big financial guns take it in the shorts and the next thing you know, Ming and Chang are out of a job in China...

My contention is that if the Bush Administration had spent half the time on the US economy that it has on it's incipid "war on terror", perhaps some of this economic woe wouldn't be happening. As it is, we're playing "clean up" on the recession issues instead of being ahead of it.

Of course, as I'm sure someone is bound to say, it's all conjectural...

[Sea Demon]

I think the Bush legacy will have a far longer lasting effect on the UK and the world, than that of the iron maiden.

I believe your right Jim. Just look at the economic effects that are being caused in the Global community due to an impending "US recession". Subprimes tank, some big financial guns take it in the shorts and the next thing you know, Ming and Chang are out of a job in China...



At what point is China's economy the responsibility of China? I realize we are the major players, but we should have seen it coming. These financial institutions that were giving loans to any schmuck on the street has caused alot of problems. And now we await a market adjustment. And it will come. If only we can keep the government out of providing their version of a "solution". Maybe we can learn our lessons this time around, huh?

[Tchocky]

Who'd pay the council tax on her final resting place ? ;)
I say we put a Dance Dance Revolution game on top :p

[DeepIron]

At what point is China's economy the responsibility of China? I realize we are the major players, but we should have seen it coming.
Precisely. My contention is simply that Dub-Yah and the "Bush League" in DC got so wound up in selling and prosecuting the "war on terror" that US domestic issues, such as those that have lead to this recession, were not addressed.

The dolts in DC appeared to forget that the world is, for the most part, no longer individual economies any longer. The phrase "Global Economy" gets bandied about quite freely these days. When something goes "ka-blooey" in the US economy, other feel the shockwaves too. How can the US claim leadership in the "Free World" when we let basic issues like economics fail?

There's more to leadership than "chasing terrorists" and bitch slapping Iran.

[Jimbuna]

Who'd pay the council tax on her final resting place ? ;)
I say we put a Dance Dance Revolution game on top :p

LOL http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7581/thumbsupmz4.gif




http://www.smilieland.com/graphics/0005.gif

[Sea Demon]

Precisely. My contention is simply that Dub-Yah and the "Bush League" in DC got so wound up in selling and prosecuting the "war on terror" that US domestic issues, such as those that have lead to this recession, were not addressed.

The dolts in DC appeared to forget that the world is, for the most part, no longer individual economies any longer. The phrase "Global Economy" gets bandied about quite freely these days. When something goes "ka-blooey" in the US economy, other feel the shockwaves too. How can the US claim leadership in the "Free World" when we let basic issues like economics fail?

There's more to leadership than "chasing terrorists" and bitch slapping Iran.

Well, I can't disagree with your contentions here.....mostly. It just depends on how you view terrorism, terrorists in general, and the whole Iranian issue. I do think those things need to be confronted for various reasons. Just my opinion. But I do think Bush and the DC establishment have been stupidly avoiding domestic issues here at home. That's where I will agree with you. Totally. Bush has been derelict in his duty passing huge budgets, without determining where and how the money will come from. On the other part, when it comes to economics, we must also remember the things that truly drive economic engines of the world and why we are the leaders. It's not only about currency, and things like that. But it's mainly driven by technological innovation, national R & D, and national stability. And it's hard to dispute that the USA has distinct advantages in those areas. If nations choose to link themselves to us, and they will continue to do so, they've got to realize there will be ups and downs.

[sonar732]

I also agree that we have side stepped domestic issues.

However, it doesn't take an economic scholar to know he inherited an economy that was bound to go bust with dotcoms.

[Patboot]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/04/bush.budget.ap/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7226985.stm
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0241480220080204

It makes me sick to know this SOB is going to draw a pension for the rest of his life after the most disasterous 8 years in US Presidential history. :nope:

And your hero Billy is getting paid to shill for his ginch in this election.

[Ishmael]

No! No! According to a Fox News documentary, Bush is the greatest president since Abe Lincoln and some of his speeches are the most visionary ever made. They also said that he's more popular than Lincoln was when Lincoln left office. We all know Fox News doesn't lie. Wait a minute, they went to court in Florida for the right TO lie. But there are a few differences:

Lincoln freed the slaves.
Bush once had frayed sleeves.

Lincoln united a divided nation.
Bush divided a united nation.

Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address himself.
Bush wrote a lot of signing statements with help from the VP.

Lincoln had a son who served in war.
Bush had two daughters that were served in bars.

Lincoln was a politician from Illinois who served one term in Congress before becoming President.
Bush...Oh, sorry. Did I say Obama?

Lincoln was an attorney who was licensed to practice before the bar.
Bush will need lots of attorneys to even see a bar.

Lincoln fought against and prosecuted war profiteering.
Bush enabled war profiteering.

Lincoln spoke out for malice towards none and charity for all.
Bush spoke out of malice for all and charity towards none.

Lincoln temporarily set aside habeas corpus.
Bush set aside habeas corpus once and for all.

Lincoln grew up poor and was self-educated.
Bush grew up rich and remains uneducated after Yale.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Who'd pay the council tax on her final resting place ? ;)


In the words of my dad:

"Ah well, if the public's got any sense, they'll tell them just where they can shove that"

[sonar732]

Lincoln freed the slaves.
Bush once had frayed sleeves.
A very well known fact with the Emancipation Proclamation was that he didn't free all of the slaves. It was a morale booster for the Union army to push thru the Confederacy as the Emanicpation clearly states that slaves in rebellion states under Union control will be freed.


Lincoln united a divided nation.
Bush divided a united nation.
Well after 9/11, the nation was united and firm to the resolve of defeating terror. If you want to get to the root...look at the approval ratings for Congress as they are worse than Bush.



Lincoln was a politician from Illinois who served one term in Congress before becoming President.
Bush...Oh, sorry. Did I say Obama?
Funny...Clinton was a governor of Arkansas and almost a nobody during the early primaries until he got news coverage about all of his legal issues going on at the time.



Lincoln temporarily set aside habeas corpus.
Bush set aside habeas corpus once and for all.
.
Are you forgetting the ground work of President Clinton in the AEDPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1 996) after Oklahoma City Bombing? I remember standing watch in Bangor when this happened...we were at hightened security looking out for vans and moving trucks.

[STEED]

Who'd pay the council tax on her final resting place ? ;)

More to the point we will all be paying for a full blown state funeral for that fart Tony Blair, I can just see it coming. :damn:

[Ishmael]

Lincoln freed the slaves.
Bush once had frayed sleeves.
A very well known fact with the Emancipation Proclamation was that he didn't free all of the slaves. It was a morale booster for the Union army to push thru the Confederacy as the Emanicpation clearly states that slaves in rebellion states under Union control will be freed.

While true that he only freed slaves in states in rebellion, he did sign the order freeing them.


Lincoln united a divided nation.
Bush divided a united nation.
Well after 9/11, the nation was united and firm to the resolve of defeating terror. If you want to get to the root...look at the approval ratings for Congress as they are worse than Bush.

Did Congress lie to itself to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq or did the Bush White House? I will admit they may have lied to themselves that Bush was an honest man.



Lincoln was a politician from Illinois who served one term in Congress before becoming President.
Bush...Oh, sorry. Did I say Obama?
Funny...Clinton was a governor of Arkansas and almost a nobody during the early primaries until he got news coverage about all of his legal issues going on at the time.

I have no love for the Clintons as I see them as the kinder. gentler face of the corporatist New world Order.


Lincoln temporarily set aside habeas corpus.
Bush set aside habeas corpus once and for all.
.
Are you forgetting the ground work of President Clinton in the AEDPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1 996) after Oklahoma City Bombing? I remember standing watch in Bangor when this happened...we were at hightened security looking out for vans and moving trucks.

See above answer. Just as Bill stopped investigations into Republican chicanery during the Reagan and Bush 41 years, If HRC is elected, I expect her to pardon Bush/Cheney/et all to "heal the nation".

[sonar732]

While true that he only freed slaves in states in rebellion, he did sign the order freeing them.
Even though Lincoln was a very vocal anti-slave man in private, he was vocal about preserving the union in public. His policies reflected the war, both before and after. Before the war, he favored policies that would lead to the eventual extinction of slavery as those policies would've prohibited admission of any more slave states in new territories. Early in the war, he replaced generals in border states who claimed the slaves in their region were free to make sure those states would side with the union cause. Late in the war, he gave a speech on 'limited' sufferage.

For all of those who complain about Bush sidestepping the Congress on numberous issues...Lincoln did the same here.


Did Congress lie to itself to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq or did the Bush White House? I will admit they may have lied to themselves that Bush was an honest man.
Congress looked at the same intelligence...hence partly shown in their approval ratings and why the Democrats are playing possum like Kerry did in the last election on whether or not they should've voted for or supported the war from the start. Not because they "didn't know", but because they did know and are looking at their political future to back track on their stances...hence why McCain is the only one who's been upfront about his stance on the war from the start.

Now...as I've said multiple times in other discussions...this will be my last post regarding as I'm sure there will be 5 rebutals soon to be in this topic.

EDIT: ...Last time I checked...there was no reason for the Bush administration to be pardoned. Bad policies, according to some, isn't grounds for impeachment.

[Jimbuna]

Who'd pay the council tax on her final resting place ? ;)

More to the point we will all be paying for a full blown state funeral for that fart Tony Blair, I can just see it coming. :damn:

When ? :lol:


http://www.carlabaron.net/forum/images/smilies/CRYSTA~12.GIF

[Ishmael]

While true that he only freed slaves in states in rebellion, he did sign the order freeing them.
Even though Lincoln was a very vocal anti-slave man in private, he was vocal about preserving the union in public. His policies reflected the war, both before and after. Before the war, he favored policies that would lead to the eventual extinction of slavery as those policies would've prohibited admission of any more slave states in new territories. Early in the war, he replaced generals in border states who claimed the slaves in their region were free to make sure those states would side with the union cause. Late in the war, he gave a speech on 'limited' sufferage.

Good point. Lincoln saw that slavery was economically inefficient in an industrializing society and would have eventually ended due to the inability to compete with modern industry.

For all of those who complain about Bush sidestepping the Congress on numberous issues...Lincoln did the same here.


Did Congress lie to itself to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq or did the Bush White House? I will admit they may have lied to themselves that Bush was an honest man.
Congress looked at the same intelligence...hence partly shown in their approval ratings and why the Democrats are playing possum like Kerry did in the last election on whether or not they should've voted for or supported the war from the start. Not because they "didn't know", but because they did know and are looking at their political future to back track on their stances...hence why McCain is the only one who's been upfront about his stance on the war from the start.

Now...as I've said multiple times in other discussions...this will be my last post regarding as I'm sure there will be 5 rebutals soon to be in this topic.

EDIT: ...Last time I checked...there was no reason for the Bush administration to be pardoned. Bad policies, according to some, isn't grounds for impeachment.

Lest we forget, the Iraqi intelligence was primarily promulgated by Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans. When CIA analyses didn't jibe with their "Curveball" intel, John Bolton was sent to the CIA to browbeat and threaten analysts who disagreed. I agree that Saddam was a bad actor and is better off gone. But I also submit that if we had actually had enough troops to keep civil order and actually hired Iraqis from the beginning, we would have kept a lot more of the good will of the local populace and been able to nip most of the insurgency in the bud. By privatising the reconstruction to his friends and their hiring of people out of other countries gave the Iraqi people no stake in the reconstruction efforts. I also think that a reconciliation comission along the lines of the post-apartheid South Africa model would have gone a long way to reducing Sunni/Shia tensions. Instead, they sent on Death Squad Negroponte as ambassador and the strangest thing happened. Death squads appeared on the streets of the cities of Iraq contributing to the ethnic cleansing of mixed Sunni/Shia neighborhoods.

[Brag]

Hehe, great spot to plug my book :cool:.
Read Kingmaker for a fresh view on the War on Terror and how the world is run today! You're only two clicks away from a good read!

[Tejas Slacker]

Not happy with George W. Bush?

Blame Me.

I elected him Governor of TEXAS twice and then two times more as
President of the United States. I have no complaints about Iraq because
I think our "Drawing the Line in the Sand" and making a stand there is the most
significant World Event since Korea for being a Watershed moment in History that
in the Long Term will prove to be decisive, strategic and the right thing to have done.

TS:D

[Jimbuna]

Not happy with George W. Bush?

Blame Me.

I elected him Governor of TEXAS twice and then two times more as
President of the United States. I have no complaints about Iraq because
I think our "Drawing the Line in the Sand" and making a stand there is the most
significant World Event since Korea for being a Watershed moment in History that
in the Long Term will prove to be decisive, strategic and the right thing to have done.

TS:D

What concerns me, and I suspect a lot of other people is......where will the next line be drawn ? :hmm:

[Sea Demon]

See above answer. Just as Bill stopped investigations into Republican chicanery during the Reagan and Bush 41 years, If HRC is elected, I expect her to pardon Bush/Cheney/et all to "heal the nation".
That's seems to be the pattern. George W. Bush pretty much put all the Democrat corruption from the Clinton years on the back burner. I think Bush should have pursued indictments myself. Much of the Clinton administration should be in prison right now, especially for the treason displayed from the China technology transfers for DNC cash infusions.

What concerns me, and I suspect a lot of other people is......where will the next line be drawn ?
Ask Iran, North Korea, Islamic fundies, and a potentially hostile China that question. How far do they intend on pushing. It's really up to them.

[Tchocky]

China an enemy?

[Sea Demon]

China an enemy?

Yes. If they intend to light East Asia on fire. Reference their Taiwan invasion scenarios.