Bush's Legacy

[Zrow]

This is the problem with this forum. Duke is a very active small- or no-government guy and he's manipulated Sage into those beliefs, so you get a lot of slanted, inconsistent stuff here. The opinions forum is good for the occasional laugh, but you won't find anything of worth here.

Manipulating Sage into those beliefs. You've got to be kidding me. What an insult.

Seriously, this is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen at GTP.

 

[FoolKiller]

It is my opinion that there is a very specific slant shared by the "forum leaders" of this particular forum (the Opinions Forum, not GTP). It is further my opinion that when people who are not forum leaders who do not subscribe to this particular slant post here, they are scorned, and the 'good ol' boys club' of forum leaders attacks them, sometimes outrageously. Finally, it is my opinion that because of this, this forum (again Opinions and not GTP) is simply good for a laugh.

The thing is that these forum leaders, I assume you mean moderators and possibly very active members, have yet to use their positions to intimidate people. I have yet to see anyone say, "Don't disagree with me, I'm a mod," or "I've been here five years and have premium membership, so shut up."

However I simply do not and will not apologize for the above opinions, and honestly Duke's comment in reply to the original poster of this thread set me over the edge and compelled me to post here - and your reply wasn't too much better.

Considering that the OP was basing his opinions on rhetoric created in the media...

Sure, their tone could have been better, but they were responding to rhetoric that is old by this point.

As I said, you guys have created a sort of 'club' wherein you laud each other's comebacks against people with opposing viewpoints, agreeing with each other and putting witty replies in each other's signatures, but it absolutely ruins any ability to have any sort of discussion with perspective in here, because the perspective's always the same.

I have to disagree, or ask if you have really been paying attenion. TM and Famine don't share the same view on the environment. Swift and myself disagree with Famine and Duke when it comes to religion, yet at the same time Swift and I have disagreed on how far we each believe religion should reach into politics.

The worst part is I actually agree with you guys the vast majority of the time. Yet every time I read a post with a cheap insult like "Get your history from somewhere besides the mainstream media and Rolling Stone," I really begin to question whether I've aligned myself with the right people.

The issue is that the people who say that often can quote their sources. Just look at the threads where some of these "forum leaders" disagree with each other and you will see charts, graphs, studies, etc linked by both sides of the debate.

 

[Bram Turismo]

In reply to the original topic of this thread:

Bush will go down as the worst President for me. However, this is only due to the fact that I've only experience two Presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. In fact, when I was a little boy America was never as big to me as it is now. I can only judge Bush during his time that I was here as well. I cannot for example compare him to Nixon because I know very little about previous Presidents. The day that America became an every-day discussion was the day when I got home, and I saw the burning Twin Towers on television. Ever since 2003, I related America with the word "war" because America's leader decided to invade the country, using an excuse which still hasn't been prooved...

Anyway, I really hope things turn out better for America now a new President is about to start. I don't think things will get worse under Obama, even with the things some members here claim about him. We can only wait and see what will happen I guess

 

[nk4e]

The thing is that these forum leaders, I assume you mean moderators and possibly very active members, have yet to use their positions to intimidate people. I have yet to see anyone say, "Don't disagree with me, I'm a mod," or "I've been here five years and have premium membership, so shut up."

I still try that but I am the one that gets intimated. I wonder where is the creator in all this mess.

 

[Swift]

FK, Excellent post. If there was still a rep system I'd give you postive points.

Bram Turismo, a very respectable and rationalised post. 👍

 

[Pupik]

I'm not an expert on the matter, but I think Bush Jr. is going to be remembered in terms of "Bush Administration"; the media finds a way to have a field day with the cast of characters he surrounded himself with, just as every president does.

I firmly believe that the media gets to write the rough drafts of history; and with each coming year, the tremendous amount of media coverage increases. The U.S. Office of Historical Record is going to write one version of history, and the private and public media corporations will write the spin that we want to hear, or what will be acceptable to the public, in return.

In the next 10-20 years, we will know the ripple effect and legacy of the 43rd President of the United States. Laws (and changes thereof) take time to take effect, treaties and agreements do not heal all issues immediately, and whether bigger issues like the U.S. economy, Iraq War, and 9/11-War of Terror will eventually become successful episodes, complete failures, or just neutrally forgettable blips on the radar when the look back and tell our kids or grandchildren about these times.

Overall, I think Bush's legacy will be kind of evened out; we stayed strong after 9/11, both in terms of national security, patriotism, and even the economy (although a little shakiness was expected). I think the first three months of the Iraq war had much of the American people feeling like we were doing the right thing by ousting Saddam and the Baath Party from power; as it became known that there were "memos" and when no chemical weapons turned up, I think people felt a little cheated about the reasons to go to war. But Iraq was given about 10 quintillion chances to show that they were clean, anyhow.

I don't think there is a direct link to Bush's presence and the failures of banking system, or the personal greed of individuals who mastermind the destruction of thousands of jobs and the trust of investors: These things occurred far in the past, in recent memory, and will probably continue to do so. There's not a whole lot that can be done about it in a truly capitalist system, other than to create more laws that would be more likely to inhibit the system that fairly and legally spreads wealth than protect others.

I also don't think there's a huge and powerful liberal media that existed only for the sake of jumping on every sneeze and cough from Bush. This same ghostly entity is largely the same one that jumped on every one of Clinton's missteps, and will be all over Barack Obama and his administration like an ill-fitting suit made of raw hemp rope, exposing everything. Sure, there's going to be die-hard elements of the media that will be sure to show a perfect gem of an individual and leadership, just as there are others who nod their head in reverence to everything G. W. Bush does and says at this time, just as they did eight years ago.

Impossible? Nonsense. The best-ever President is William Henry Harrison, without a doubt.

That Depends on your opinion and pet theory of division by zero.

I think these remarks - both of which attacked my political views, despite the fact that I never post any - prove both the quality of the forum, and the insecurity of the posters in their beliefs. My point is proven - good for a laugh!

Thank you for dropping an unnecessary turd in our punch bowl. Now go back to shooting amateur snapshots of exotic cars and leave your lack of truth, opinion, and relevant contribution to our less serious forums. And please remove the log from your eye, splinter boy:

We mods do not always agree on everything; in fact, it is rare that we unanimously agree. Jordan chose individuals that agreed with and showed respect for the house rules, and an ability to uphold the rules and abide by rules. The very fact we do not always agree shows that favoritism is not remotely a factor in our decision-making, but the fact that we calmly and rationally discuss our issues, and can create a basic argument for our opinions shows that we are stronger than you understand.

 

[Duke]

Yet every time I read a post with a cheap insult like "Get your history from somewhere besides the mainstream media and Rolling Stone," I really begin to question whether I've aligned myself with the right people.

I'm not making this up, Doug.

 

[Swift]

I'm not making this up, Doug.

MAn, well. I think that puts an end to that particular part o fthe argument.

 

[YSSMAN]

There are far more reputable publications that have made similar calls, but sure, its a bit odd coming from a magazine that is supposed to be about music.

 

[Keef]

But it sells issues. And it'll sell a ton of issues. Of six headlines on that cover page three of them are about music. All three that are about mainstream crap are in big, bold letters, too. Again, to sell issues.

 

[Tornado]

It is my opinion that there is a very specific slant shared by the "forum leaders" of this particular forum (the Opinions Forum, not GTP). It is further my opinion that when people who are not forum leaders who do not subscribe to this particular slant post here, they are scorned, and the 'good ol' boys club' of forum leaders attacks them, sometimes outrageously.

I'm going to say that I personally share this viewpoint with Doug even though I agree with most of the stuff posted in this forum; and that this perception of this forum gets quite a bit more obvious when the "forum leaders" (so to speak) venture out into other forums and attempt the same "methods" (if you will) in non-political discussions.

 

[Pupik]

I'm going to say that I personally share this viewpoint with Doug even though I agree with most of the stuff posted in this forum; and that this perception of this forum gets quite a bit more obvious when the "forum leaders" (so to speak) venture out into other forums and attempt the same "methods" (if you will) in non-political discussions.

If you or someone else hasn't already, you are free to discuss this side issue in a separate thread (Site Feedback would be the appropriate forum).

Otherwise, this is woefully off-topic.

 

[91hondawagon]

Overall, I think Bush's legacy will be kind of evened out; we stayed strong after 9/11, both in terms of national security, patriotism, and even the economy (although a little shakiness was expected). I think the first three months of the Iraq war had much of the American people feeling like we were doing the right thing by ousting Saddam and the Baath Party from power; as it became known that there were "memos" and when no chemical weapons turned up, I think people felt a little cheated about the reasons to go to war. But Iraq was given about 10 quintillion chances to show that they were clean, anyhow.

So, do you think Bush will historically end up in the same boat as Harry Truman? I could see that happening in the future, taking into account the humiliating scandals in both administrations, the low approval ratings at the end of their terms, the unpopular wars they got involved in, etc. Truman rebounded, and since the two administrations are at least a little similar in the ways they lost public approval, it seems pretty likely the public will eventually mellow out and regard him better than we do now. Then again, with his term ending in the middle of this recession, maybe not so much. Thoughts?

 

[YSSMAN]

Bush has talked about a Truman-like revival for himself before, but that still seems very unlikely given the rather subversive ways that his administration used its power to get its own way. Valerie Plame, the DoJ lawyers, pre-Iraq "intelligence," Hurricanne Katrina, Guantanamo, Rendition programs, phone tapping, and even the hilarious moment at which the White House was unable to figure out if Dick Cheney was part of the Executive or Legislative branch... Yes, there are a lot of things that we're going to have to forgive before Bush can begin to be seen in a more positive light, and personally, I don't think it would happen easily.

 

[wfooshee]

I still feel that the Hurricane Katrina response was Louisiana's responsibility. So was the evacuation that never happened. The feds don't step in until the state asks for them. And they didn't ask for quite a bit of time.

Comparing Florida's hurricane preparedness anytime to Louisiana's at Katrina is like comparing Top Gear to Knight Rider. The former has speed, skill, and cleverness, the latter has . . . . magic.

 

[nk4e]

I still feel that the Hurricane Katrina response was Louisiana's responsibility. So was the evacuation that never happened. The feds don't step in until the state asks for them. And they didn't ask for quite a bit of time.

Comparing Florida's hurricane preparedness anytime to Louisiana's at Katrina is like comparing Top Gear to Knight Rider. The former has speed, skill, and cleverness, the latter has . . . . magic.

I think that the main drama of Hurricane Katrina was that it was a Category 3 Hurricane and the Levee's broke.

Hurricane Katrina formed over the Bahamas on August 23, 2005, and crossed southern Florida as a moderate Category 1 hurricane, causing some deaths and flooding there before strengthening rapidly in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[wfooshee]

Right, but the perception is that the federal government did nothing to bring relief to the victims. Problem is, that's not an automatic process. The feds can't come in until requested by the state, and that didn't happen as quickly as it could have. Even when it did, the area was completely inaccessible except by helicopter, because with such low-lying land the highways were under water. It quickly became Bush's fault somehow that all these people were trapped without food or water, when again it is not the federal government's responsibility to arrange evacuation.

My point is that the blame for the Katrina response is misplaced when it's laid on Bush's head. Just because New Orleans was not habitable 14 days after the storm does not make Bush a scapegoat for the federal response.

Yes, tremendous quantities of food and water could have been flown in on C-5's or something, but then it couldn't have been delivered to the victims, nor could they get to the airport where the planes could come in.

As for neighborhoods still lying in ruin, it's not the government's job to rebuild, it's the property owners'. Insurance is overwhelmed, contractors are overwhelmed, suppliers and manufacturers are overwhelmed. FEMA can help individuals with the difference between actual cost and insured coverage, but mostly FEMA exists to help local governments re-establish their infrastructures, such as courts, schools, fire police departments, etc. It's not FEMA's place to magically put everything back the way it was, no matter how many think that's exactly what they're supposed to do. They don't build you a house and hand you the keys.

And going back to Florida, the cleanup/rebuild after Ivan was going on 3 years later. The I-10 crossing of Pensacola Bay has only had all lanes open for a few months. The cleanup after Dennis was similar. Nobody wanted Bush's head on a platter for any of those things! To get an idea of the scale, have a look at Pensacola on Google Earth. The current imagery is post-Ivan by about a year. Check out the number of buildings and houses with blue tarp for roofing, and look at the southern side of Pensacola Naval Air Station where you see buildings missing sections, foundations visible with no buildings, and a ball park complex with 2 out of 4 ball parks gone. This was how it looked when Katrina happened, but nobody ever heard about it once New Orleans got wet.

 

[nk4e]

I can't really comment upon anything else. FEMA, didn't respond to quickly and then people respond quickly towards the Gov't for not taking action.

 

[Duke]

Invisible +rep for wfooshee's posts. The whole Katrina debacle is one of my real sore points. Everybody loves to dump that directly on Bush's head, and about 99.997% was not his fault in any way.

Anybody remember Hurricane Andrew? That took years and years of rebuilding, but nobody said that it happened because the President "hates black people".

The idea that FEMA and the Army Corps are responsible for fixing everything for the unsustainable lifestyle of New Orleans is utterly ridiculous, yet that is the popular perception.

 

[YSSMAN]

I agree that there is plenty of blame to pass around at every level of government, but nevertheless, under the Bush Administration's leadership we saw a massive failure for FEMA and Homeland Security. Its hard to say if it would have been any different for anyone else, but nevertheless, a visit by the President should not bring the big push of aid with it... It should have been done immediately after the weather calmed down. Instead, some of the people waited for days before any help came.

The big thing is that we've learned from those mistakes, but as the argument goes, we probably shouldn't have made them in the first place.