Is GW the worse President in the last 70 years?

I'm just waking up and not in the mindset to debate, I do see allout responded already.

Not to mention multiple provisions have already been ruled unconstitutional.

No it isn't, not at all. You stated to protect us, so now you are picking and choosing when they should protect us. I am showing comparisons, you are picking and choosing, that is not 'straw man' not at all.

Ok how about this, gun control. They could protect us by controlling guns, are you prepared for them to control guns to protect us? There are so many examples of items that kill more of us that are not 'by choice'

Further more those who worked in the twin towers knew full well they were a target in the past and would more than likely be so into the future, making your 'oh but it's not their choice' argument that much lamer.

Actually you are wrong again, diet is as key if not more key than actually working out.

Not strawman at all, you've gone to that lame reason to try to wiggle out. So now it's 'protecting our borders and national security' before it was just to simply protect us, can you not maintain the same stance? Or must you dance around?

The right thing 'right' yet it erodes our freedoms. Can monitor US citizens for items that are not terror related, all in the name of preventing items such as 9/11. This had how many non terrorists and how many US citizens involved BTW?

Do you honestly believe once given this power the government will give it up? Yeah right, they've been trying to have these powers for years before 9/11, 9/11 simply gave them the juicy opportunity to pass the laws.

 

I know what ya mean. There are just times when I do not even feel like responding or debating.

It is because the government does make laws to protect us from guns. There is limited gun control. Possession age. Certain models are not allowed. Background checks and more. So the government is doing their job to try and protect us.

And its the governments job to do so on a national level. They are supposed to protect us from foreign threats to keep the nation and its soverignty safe.

No that is just a lame argument in itself. Saying they chose to die for working in a building that had been targeted in 1993. Almost 10 yrs before 9/11. People who work as cops do not choose to die. Its what they choose to do but they do not choose to die. There you are just 100% wrong.

Being lazy plays a much more vital role then what you eat.

No you are assuming things and putting words in my mouth when you know what I meant. You know damn well exactly what I meant when I said its the governments job to protect us. So do not sit here and lie by saying I meant certain things and that I am not changing what I meant. When we are talking about an issue that deals with national security (terror and the patriot act) then then when I say things I am referring to that as well.

It erodes our freedom and right to privacy. Which is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The right to privacy is nowhere included in teh Constitution and our founding fathers actually left it out for a reason.

Honestly I do not know. But I can hope that when the world changes to become a better place and the current threat level is down that we will have a president who will get rid of the law.

 

Bush has almost nothing to do with this bad economy. Bubbles happen, especially when things are good(or at least seem good), elation feeds the bubble. The silly lending and borrowing practices are responsible for the economy we are in. Bush also probably has nothing at all to do with high commodity prices, which have been falling precipitously.
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$GTX&p=D&yr=2&mn=0&dy=0&id=0

Greed is to blame for this bubble that is bursting. Greedy lenders giving loans that were the financial equivalent of anal rape and greedy borrowers trying to live beyond their means, that's who should be blamed.

 

You make a logical argument. Most presidents have very little to do with the economy. However, it is their responds to it that could affect how quickly it rebounds. In the history of the world and most important, the history of the United States, economies are cyclic and go up and down in a cycle. Bush has screwed up by trying to fix it with things like his stimulus packages.

What these so called tax breaks have done is caused a chain reaction down the line. Money had to come from somewhere so funding was cut from Federal to State who in turn cut funding locally. To make up for this cut, state and local governments have raised state income tax, property tax, and sales taxes. My combined taxes from these three have increased much higher than the little refund I received.

That is simple financial planning that even a novice can understand. You can not rob Peter to pay Paul and expect it not to catch up somewhere. Of course now on top of the problems that has created, the United States has reached another huge milestone in its debt.

 

Globalization is what's hurting the American economy. And that's a force that's much bigger than George W. Bush or Ron Paul.

 

I'm not going to continue the discussion above as I see it's pointless, this however made me laugh my ass off

 

You are right to a point. The World Market is more of an influence than ever before. The cost of labor among other business expenses vary greatly from country to country. It is hard for some countries to compete when the business playing field is not level.

 

I don't agree with many of his policies and I do think he messed a lot of things up. At the the same time, though, I don't think he's as bad as some people make him out to be either.

 

Yep. He's hated most by the left and islamists. That doesn't make a good case for hating him, IMO.

Let's see:

He inherited a recession. (recessions are cyclic)

He inherited a diminished Armed forces. His predecessor had cut it in half.

9/11 shook the country and the economy substantially.

Despite that, and with good economic decisions, he rebounded the economy and job growth.

Thwarted nearly 30 terrorist plots by islamic terrorists (much to the dismay of many here).

He removed from power, a man that had murdered more than a million people. Much to the dismay of many here, some of whom still defend saddam.

Dismantled Lybia's WMD program as a result of removing saddam.

Signed the largest nuclear arms reduction deal in the world, with Russia.

Used diplomacy and six party talks to convince North Korea to dismantle it's nuclear facility that was used to produce plutonium to make nuclear weapons.

The Patriot Act. One of the best Acts to come along to protect our country. About the only time you see it argued here is by those who believe "our" (termed used loosely) forefathers fought and died so that terrorists could enjoy our Constitution.

Tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to Africa.

No terror attacks on US soil since 9/11. Much to the dismay of many here.

al qaida in Iraq defeated. The surge worked, Iraqis got fed up with terrorists and started fighting back. Much to the dismay (and disappointment) of many here.

Taliban defeated in Afghanistan - much to the dismay of many here.

Thriving economy in his second term. As numerous "voices of reason" have pointed out here, Bush isn't responsible for bad decisions made by the finance industry regarding subprime loans. Of course, the dishonest people would give it to him, but really...

At least two (that I can recall) tax cuts that greatly benefited the middle class. At the same time, three consecutive years of record setting tax hauls due to millions of jobs created.

There's many more, too numerous to mention. Of course, those that spend all their time here every day, attacking the US and those that give those that do, a free pass, will probably not care for a dose of the truth, but that's what makes it fun

Is he the worst? Not by far! Is he the best? As Mia pointed out, the effects of a President are not known for years. Ultimately, he could be.

 

Hell I even support him once in awhile, a few decisions he has made I actually agree with. Is he as bad as 'some' make him out to be? No he's not Hitler as some would say, he however is pretty damn bad..

 

...and you still live in Dreamland.

 

This is arguably one of the best posts I've seen in a long time. Thanks for restoring my faith in the P/R at DP. I thought it was nearing its end. Finally some reason and logic vs. revisionist drivel and bunk.

Here's to a tin foil free post!

 

Excellent response. That really is. You ignore an entire post and dismiss it with that. You are one good debater. Damn i miss the good old days when people would actually counter something instead of ignoring it all.
*thinks of the good old days*

 

That's his MO.

 

To be honest most of it is based in fantasy land, and no matter how many times good ol Gtech is proven wrong he continues to post the same drivel.

That is why I have him on ignore and most people with any intellect don't take anything he says with more than a grain of salt.

 

He is the worst we've had in 232 years, mr. read my lips is holding a strong second.

 

Jimmy Carter was worse. Much, much worse.

 

He is probably saying he proves everybody else wrong. 2 different mindsets on the same issues. I have never really seen him be proven wrong before. He is one the few that still actually tries to debate.

Also did you get my pm? Id love you have you join in

 

Absolutely. Reading that GTech post almost made me vomit.

 

You haven't been around these parts long enough

Yep on the pm, planned on responding later.