User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » It's Bush Legacy Time, People Page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 ... 11, Prev Next  
JoeSchmoe
All American
1219 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ That post is so stupid -- do you even know what "Senate" means? it means those folks who have to sign off on anything that comes out of the House, before it gets slapped down by the New England cowboy living in the West Wing.

besides, Loserman sides with the Republicans these days on all the Orwellian, blindly pro-Israel, fightin' the Global War on Terrar, bugging your grandma's phone and stripping your Habeas Corpus bullshit that most reasonably informed people find so offensive.

now that is your Georgie boy's legacy.




[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 6:36 PM. Reason : ]

2/25/2008 6:36:09 PM

hooksaw
All American
16500 Posts
user info
edit post

^ Well, I guess we're going to see how effective the abstract concepts of "hope" and "change" are against terrorists. Not very, I'll wager.

2/26/2008 12:37:55 AM

drunknloaded
Suspended
147487 Posts
user info
edit post

sounds better than the status quo

2/26/2008 12:48:12 AM

hooksaw
All American
16500 Posts
user info
edit post

^ Sounds better =/= Better

FYI--now GTFO.

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 1:28 AM. Reason : .]

2/26/2008 1:27:59 AM

God
All American
28745 Posts
user info
edit post

How can you blame Congress when Bush has vetoed good bills that Congress has tried passing through?

I don't get the cognitive dissonance that some people have here:

a. Congress passes Children's Health Care bill.

b. Bush vetoes bill

c. Therefore Congress can be blamed for not getting anything passed?

2/26/2008 8:22:35 AM

drunknloaded
Suspended
147487 Posts
user info
edit post

i actually kinda agreed with that veto....but i only agreed with it cause of the "some kids of familes that make 85k would be covered" thing...imo 85k is more than enough to afford health insurance

2/26/2008 9:19:35 AM

agentlion
All American
13936 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"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? "


The "legacy" of the 110th Congress? Are you kidding? Has this been a do-nothing, partisan and mostly worthless Congress? Yes - Republicans and Democrats agree on that (Republicans simply because they're not in charge, Democrats because we actually had expectations of Congress that we expected them to meet). But to pretend like failures of the 2007-2008 Congress will be remembered past the next couple elections is ridiculous. Like it or not, Bush will get most or all of the credit and blame for all the good and bad things that happened between 2000-2008. Not he 110th congress.

If Congress sessions are going to start getting legacies, though, I think the 108 and 109th deserve some looking at, with their en'masse approval of a disastrous war, incredible amounts of deficient spending, stalwart support and approval of the Patriot Act, the ever-so-important passing of the Terry Schaivo law, and of course how can we forget all the fun we had with Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Mark Foley and Jack Abramoff!

2/26/2008 10:10:03 AM

mathman
All American
1631 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^ I would say you can blame congress because they spend more time on political grandstanding rather than actually trying to work things out. Now, is this different than any other congress? Probably not, but that doesn't change how much they suck.

They could also follow the constitution and actually make a good faith effort to approve the qualified judges that are waiting to be approved.

Again, just because the executive branch has violated the constitution (in your opinion) that doesn't mean that the congress should just do the same.

Also their disregard for the will of the people on illegal immigration is disgusting.

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .]

2/26/2008 10:14:16 AM

eyedrb
All American
5853 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"i actually kinda agreed with that veto....but i only agreed with it cause of the "some kids of familes that make 85k would be covered" thing...imo 85k is more than enough to afford health insurance

"


Me too, however it has CHILD in the title of the bill. SO the average american has no idea about the 85k or that adults would have been covered under that too. Sadly enough

Also poor kids already have free ins.

2/26/2008 10:16:32 AM

drunknloaded
Suspended
147487 Posts
user info
edit post

^^i'd have to hear what you consider to be the will of the people on immigration before i could agree with you on that....i cant stand the people that act like gathering up 12+ million people is feasable

to add to the child health care thing...the thing that sucks is if you cut it off at 50k then that will piss off the people that make 52k, etc etc....but 85k is way too much to be giving out some free shit

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 10:18 AM. Reason : .]

2/26/2008 10:16:53 AM

SkankinMonky
All American
3344 Posts
user info
edit post

You mean like the Bush-appointed judge who recently put a permanent injunction against wikileaks and thereby completely obliterating the first amendment?


Yea, I'd say that if anything these judges need to be scrutinized more.

2/26/2008 10:18:52 AM

SandSanta
All American
22435 Posts
user info
edit post

I can blame congress easily for this term's problems because they quite simply are the biggest damn push overs on the face of the planet. We have a train wreck of a war going on and congress is holding hearings on steroid use in Baseball. As if anyone really actually still fucking cares about baseball.

2/26/2008 10:29:00 AM

agentlion
All American
13936 Posts
user info
edit post

whoa there, easy now.
The Congress is also looking into misdeeds in the NFL, and i do know some people care about the NFL

2/26/2008 10:44:19 AM

SandSanta
All American
22435 Posts
user info
edit post

Ok true.

2/26/2008 12:52:32 PM

eyedrb
All American
5853 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"whoa there, easy now.
The Congress is also looking into misdeeds in the NFL, and i do know some people care about the NFL

"


LOL. As long as they dont look into the WWF, no steriods there.

2/26/2008 1:54:53 PM

SkankinMonky
All American
3344 Posts
user info
edit post

I've used steroids.

2/26/2008 1:57:20 PM

Redstains441
Veteran
180 Posts
user info
edit post

"a. Congress passes Children's Health Care bill.

b. Bush vetoes bill

c. Therefore Congress can be blamed for not getting anything passed?"

Maybe because the SCHIP program that the libs in Congress proposed included families with incomes up to 400% above the poverty level and "children" up to 24 years old. But the details don't matter, because we all know that President Bush hates children!!!

2/26/2008 3:39:22 PM

God
All American
28745 Posts
user info
edit post

Rolling your eyes?

Roll your eyes at an administration that has constantly used our American troops as a shield against attacks on the credibility of the war.

Don't like the war? You aren't supporting our troops.

Don't like us spying on you without warrants? You aren't supporting freedom.

Don't like us torturing people? You are letting Al-Qaeda win.

That bill wouldn't have hurt anyone, and at the most covered a lot of people with health insurance.

It's obvious that Bush, and most republicans, are in the pocket of the health care industry and insurance companies. That's why they oppose every attempt to "socialize" medicine. That's the only reason he vetoed the bill.

2/26/2008 3:55:08 PM

SkankinMonky
All American
3344 Posts
user info
edit post

They're considered children up to 24 because IIRC that's how long your parents can legally cover you under their insurance.

2/26/2008 3:58:32 PM

Redstains441
Veteran
180 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"That bill wouldn't have hurt anyone, and at the most covered a lot of people with health insurance.
"


Let's give people 18-24 free college, and a free car, that wouldn't hurt anyone would it? I know i know: "buut....buut....health care is a human right!" People 18-24 need to take care of their damned selves. Health care for children under 18? sure thing. There are a lot of shitty parents out there and children shouldn't be punished because their parents had them when they couldn't afford to take care of them. I have worked my way through college with ZERO government assistance, while maintaining health insurance. The reality is, my cable bill is more expensive every month than my medical insurance. So I should have to pay for health insurance for a bunch of lazy-ass 18-24 year olds? FUCK that.

2/26/2008 4:13:40 PM

mathman
All American
1631 Posts
user info
edit post

But you can't really survive without health care so its a right. You know just like food and shelter which the government ought to provide.

Promote the general welfare
Provide the general welfare

What's the big difference anyway...

2/26/2008 9:41:06 PM

Gamecat
All American
17913 Posts
user info
edit post

2/28/2008 10:33:15 AM

Socks``
All American
11792 Posts
user info
edit post

Redstains,

If you're going to NCSU, your education is very much subsidized by the state and federal government. I mean it was created by the state government, after all, and your tuition is much lower than it would be because tax payers are footing the majority of the bill.

Why don't you go to a real private college like Duke? You lazy welfare queen.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 10:57 AM. Reason : ]

2/28/2008 10:56:07 AM

Sputter
All American
4550 Posts
user info
edit post

^ that's a good point


Bush has done more for the continent of Africa than any other President in history, it's just too bad he hates black people. Bob Geldolf who had pretofore expressed great disdain of this man has been praising him in Time Magazine and critisizing American media outlets (for the most part) for ignoring all of his work there.


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934,00.html

2/28/2008 11:10:22 AM

HUR
All American
17732 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"[QUOTE]Maybe because the SCHIP program that the libs in Congress proposed included families with incomes up to 400% above the poverty level and "children" up to 24 years old[/QUOTE]

perhaps they need to include the must be a full time college student provision much like private insurance. you are a heartless bastard if you think insurance companies should not cover the college kids of the customers they insure. Btw i do not support
the children's health care bill, but if we must have it i have no problem covering children enrolled in an accredited university program.

[quote]Roll your eyes at an administration that has constantly used our American troops as a shield against attacks on the credibility of the war.

Don't like the war? You aren't supporting our troops.

Don't like us spying on you without warrants? You aren't supporting freedom.

Don't like us torturing people? You are letting Al-Qaeda win."


i'm no liberal but i agree with God. people turn everything into this partisan battle when they should just be analyzing what is going on.

Quote :
"Let's give people 18-24 free college, "


I am against most social programs but i support this along as they are making satisfactory academic progress. I see educating a willing student as an investment to our society. During the long run with their degree they'll provide more money via taxes and less likely to leech off of social programs b.c they have a crappy job making $5/hr.

Quote :
"Why don't you go to a real private college like Duke? You lazy welfare queen. "


no shit. I'll bitch about crack whore welfare moms till i'm out of breath but it fucking burns me up when someone complains about spending to promote young adults to further their education. ESPECIALLY when they attended NCSU where most of their tuition is subsidized in the first place. Meanwhile we are spending 50% of discretionary spending so Bush can play cowboy in Iraq.

2/28/2008 12:35:06 PM

bigun20
All American
2847 Posts
user info
edit post

I'm against free college for all kids. In theory its fine, but in practice it dosent work so well. My boss is from Germany. They have free college there. He basically went for 8 years of undergrad, the first 3 of which were a big party because "it didnt matter if you passed classes or not, it was paid for". I feel as though students in the US would see this as a non-consequental party time and just waste our tax money. Or thats what my boss says atleast.

2/28/2008 12:56:28 PM

Gamecat
All American
17913 Posts
user info
edit post

free college for A students

80% free college for B students

60% free college for C students

college opportunity for the rest

2/28/2008 1:32:21 PM

HUR
All American
17732 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"they are making satisfactory academic progress."


6 credit hours in my ideal system would NOT be satisfactory academic progress; nor would switching your major 4 times.

I think NCSU to qualify for a stafford loan you have 12 hours/semester and be advancing a grade level per year

2/28/2008 3:45:48 PM

Gamecat
All American
17913 Posts
user info
edit post

^ wasn't true in my day

you can't move a grade level at a time on 12 hours/semester

2/28/2008 3:49:41 PM

HUR
All American
17732 Posts
user info
edit post

AP credits ftw!!!

2/28/2008 4:14:03 PM

Gamecat
All American
17913 Posts
user info
edit post

just saying

i def had stafford loans

did 12 hr semesters

and graduated in 05

-0- AP credits

2/28/2008 4:20:01 PM

hooksaw
All American
16500 Posts
user info
edit post

This is the Bush legacy thread. Search is working now, you know.

Bush's Legacy to Be Shaped by War

Quote :
"Along the way, [Bush] has locked in another certitude. The pre-emptive war will define how he is remembered.

'Let history be the judge,' Bush responds as legacy questions creep into his final months in office."


Quote :
"Bush says an accurate analysis of his legacy, and the war's role in it, is impossible now. He suggests it might take decades.

'There's no such thing as an accurate history of an administration until time has lapsed — unless you're doing little-bitty things,' he says. And there's nothing small, the president says, about liberating people from tyranny or trying to create a democracy in a place where terrorists still roam."


Quote :
"Presidencies are enormously diverse and complex, so the idea that Bush's legacy would be reduced to war is not one the White House supports."


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOe6ohXJI9HcQ-cwskGg_IwE097AD8VUHND80

4/29/2008 11:56:21 AM

Rat
Suspended
5724 Posts
user info
edit post

given the fact that no president in recent history has dealt with a direct assaults on major cities like NY, and DC he did an ok job.

katrina will be a big black mark for him. and the economy/housing/gas issues won't help his record.

dealing with hurricane rita (which was just as strong) was much better the second time, and also the wildfires in sandiego we're handled better than other disasters, so...

i'd say history will give him a 55/100

4/29/2008 9:21:40 PM

JoeSchmoe
All American
1219 Posts
user info
edit post

sorry, he hasn't "dealt with" it -- or anything else, really -- worth a damn

Osama's been Hidin' -- the one person who masterminded the attacks is still at large.

and meanwhile we've broken an entire nation which had nothing do do with it, opened the floodgates of terrorist organizations into the region, become globally-reviled occupying imperialists,are spending $12B per month and sending ourselves straight into a recession to do it. Not to mention the human cost.

meanwhile, our forces are spread so thin and so strained, we've exhausted our allies, and we're woefully unprepared to protect our REAL national interests if, god forbid, another threat materializes.

our infrastructure is deteriorating, jobs are bleeding off to overseas markets, foreseeable natural disasters leave us with hundreds of dead rotting in the streets, we've losing civil rights and are increasingly turning into a police state.

yeah, great fucking legacy.

no wonder damn near every academic historian and political scientist of every persuasion has rated Bush as the -- or one of the -- WORST PRESIDENT EVER

but at least his buddies made out well. and they'll take care of him after the smoke clears.







[Edited on April 30, 2008 at 3:05 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2008 2:59:04 AM

hooksaw
All American
16500 Posts
user info
edit post

^ And yet, despite all those real or perceived problems you listed, Bush has managed to serve two terms as president without being impeached, as Bill Clinton (D) was. I'll bet those two terms really chap your ass, don't they?

And no matter how low Bush is rated in approval numbers or by historians, he's not rated as low as the Democrat-led Congress. They have the lowest approval numbers in history and have been a dismal failure.

Are some of you sure liberals are smarter than conservatives? I mean, it sure seems that "dumb Bush" has outsmarted the liberals at every turn. And now, primarily liberal historians will take their parting shots and begin to write their agitprop-laden screeds.

So what's new?

4/30/2008 6:40:14 AM

agentlion
All American
13936 Posts
user info
edit post

so your measure of success is that
1) a popular democratic president gets impeached by a hostile republican congress, but
2) a wildly unpopular republican president manages to survive 6-years with the same congress, then another 2 with an impotent democratic congress?
why the hell do you think the democratic congress is so unpopular to begin with!?

4/30/2008 7:49:01 AM

hooksaw
All American
16500 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"impotent"


Yes.

4/30/2008 8:23:52 AM

Mr. Joshua
we want chilly willy
43918 Posts
user info
edit post

A lot of this has already been said in the article that hooksaw posted.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/01/poll-bush-most-unpopular-in-modern-history/#more-6821

Quote :
"Poll: Bush most unpopular in modern history

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A new poll suggests that George W. Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush his handling his job as president.

"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

"Bush's approval rating, which stands at 28 percent in our new poll, remains better than the all-time lows set by Harry Truman and Richard Nixon (22 percent and 24 percent, respectively) but even those two presidents never got a disapproval rating in the 70s," Holland added. "The previous all-time record in CNN or Gallup polling was set by Truman, 67 percent disapproval in January 1952."

CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider adds, "He is more unpopular than Richard Nixon was just before he resigned from the presidency in August 1974." President Nixon's disapproval rating in August 1974 stood at 67 percent.


The poll also indicates that support for the war in Iraq has never been lower. Thirty percent of those questioned favored the war while 68 percent opposed the conflict.

"Americans are growing more pessimistic about the war," Holland said. "In January, nearly half believed that things were going well for the U.S. in Iraq; now that figure has dropped to 39 percent."

The numbers on the Iraq war come on the five-year anniversary of President Bush's "mission accomplished" moment onboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, when Bush proclaimed that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

The record low support for the war in a CNN poll could be one reason behind the president's unpopularity, but it probably is not the only one.

"Support for the war, the assessment of the economy and approval of Mr. Bush are all about the same — bad," Schneider said.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted by telephone from Monday through Wednesday, with 1,008 adult Americans questioned. The poll's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points."


I'm surprised that Truman ever scored so low. Of course, his low point was at the end of his second term when the US was still taking heavy losses in Korea, which is interesting because most Americans now think highly of him for ending WWII.

Partisan politics aside, I'm really curious as to how people will look back on Bush in 50 years. His entire legacy depends on Iraq at this point.

5/1/2008 2:47:25 PM

JoeSchmoe
All American
1219 Posts
user info
edit post

i disagree.

Iraq, in all likelihood, will wind up in some sort of half-assed stalemate. It will eventually become a theocratic Islamic state, with social and economic ties to Iran, and the Islamicists will begin to rebuild the country that we destroyed (along with terrorist groups that we inadvertently allowed to set up shop in the past 5 years.)

for our troubles, we'll maintain a corporate presence there in the form of multinational energy corporations who will hold rights to a percentage of oil production and exploration for a number of years until sometime in the future when it winds up all getting nationalized by the Islamicists similar to the Panama Canal or Argentina.

But that will be far enough in the future that the NeoCons in the Bush Administration will declare "VICTORY IN IRAQ", wave some flags, and go home. maybe they'll throw a bone to the VA so the broken soldiers and their orphans will have some nominal benefits available if they care to stand in long lines and waiting in dank rooms with cheap furniture and moldy ceilings.

Bush's real legacy will be the fall of the American economy and the expansion of executive power while simultaneously destroying the Constitution, all in the name of the so-called "Global War on Terror"



[Edited on May 1, 2008 at 6:59 PM. Reason : ]

5/1/2008 6:58:40 PM

hooksaw
All American
16500 Posts
user info
edit post

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

Quote :
"Search the Internet for 'Bush Lied' products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic 'Bush Lied, People Died' bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

'In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent,' he said.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements 'were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.'

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements 'were substantiated by intelligence information.'

On chemical weapons, then? 'Substantiated by intelligence information.'

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? 'Generally substantiated by intelligence information.' Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? 'Generally substantiated by available intelligence.' Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? 'Generally substantiated by intelligence information.'

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda 'were substantiated by intelligence information.' Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda 'were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,' and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda 'were substantiated by intelligence information.' The report is left to complain about 'implications' and statements that 'left the impression' that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: 'There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.'

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, 'the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence.'

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in 'Bush Lied' mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the 'Bush Lied' bumper sticker off his or her car.

But the phony 'Bush lied' story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Hear, hear!

6/9/2008 5:34:48 PM

joe_schmoe
All American
18751 Posts
user info
edit post

Bush Legacy:

Lies, Incompetence, Intolerance, Fraud.

6/9/2008 8:01:46 PM

Stimwalt
All American
15292 Posts
user info
edit post

Bush will definitely go down in history, but not for what you may think.

6/9/2008 8:14:56 PM

ActionPants
All American
9877 Posts
user info
edit post

Kucinich proposed some articles of impeachment tonight, 35 of them to be specific

The littlest congressman with the biggest heart

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 9:40 PM. Reason : and the hottest wife]

6/9/2008 9:40:33 PM

Mr. Joshua
we want chilly willy
43918 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"i disagree."


Over what? I said that his legacy depended on Iraq and you used that launch into a little tirade about Bush and neocons.

Quote :
"Bush's real legacy will be the fall of the American economy and the expansion of executive power while simultaneously destroying the Constitution, all in the name of the so-called "Global War on Terror""


The fall of the American economy? Please tell me more.

As far as the constitution and expansion of executive power, I'm no fan of what Bush has done, but he hasn't pissed on it nearly as much as FDR did, and he has a fairly positive legacy because WWII outshines everything else.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 10:13 PM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 10:07:13 PM

Gamecat
All American
17913 Posts
user info
edit post

Habeas Corpus.

When you take away rights held by millions since 1215, that's a fucking legacy...

6/10/2008 1:54:39 AM

joe_schmoe
All American
18751 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ what did FDR do to "piss on" the constitution? the internment of thousands of americans of Japanese descent? is that your beef with FDR? Okay, i can respect that. because Guantanamo is one of mine with GWB, for nearly the same reason. FDR doesnt get a pass for the Japanese-American internment because it was a war time.... that was essentially a fucking war crime. well, i mean, he gets a pass because he's dead, but its a serious foul mark to what was overall a positive administration that first brought the country out of an economic depression and then successfully executed a world war.

6/10/2008 2:30:17 AM

Fry
The Stubby
7781 Posts
user info
edit post

I'd be curious to see what all of you that hate Bush with so much passion because of the war would think of any of the World War presidents had you been in their time. The interesting thing is that while there are stories of disapproval this and that, the largest reason for this is the increasing level of communication in our world. Thousands more died in single battles in WWII than in the war in Iraq since it began. I mention this because of perspective. The deaths of any soldiers is terrible. I simply think that there is a vast amount of misguided hate towards one single man that I have no doubt has made many mistakes as president of the U.S. but has also faced a ridiculous list of disasters not of his own choosing as well. I would hate to ever have to face any of those situations under the hatred of so many people. If he ever once had the malicious intents that so many people that have no clue the thoughts of his mind or heart have pegged him with, I too would find him a terrible human being unfit for his position. At the same time, were his intentions for the good of our country and the people of it, I pity him and what he faces every waking moment.

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 3:15 AM. Reason : ]

6/10/2008 3:14:33 AM

drunknloaded
Suspended
147487 Posts
user info
edit post

seems like anytime i hear about wars it always goes from ww2 to now with no other wars in between

6/10/2008 6:05:08 AM

Boone
All American
5237 Posts
user info
edit post

Lincoln revoked habeas corpus, and his legacy's taken a hit for it ever since.

and he used it to save the Union


Bush's legacy will be a hybrid of Grant's domestic legacy with McKinley's foreign legacy.

6/10/2008 7:39:14 AM

Fry
The Stubby
7781 Posts
user info
edit post

WWII was an example DNL. yes, there are a lot of other things that have happened since then.

6/10/2008 1:24:47 PM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » It's Bush Legacy Time, People Page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 ... 11, Prev Next  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2021 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.38 - our disclaimer.