I've been trying to think of a single one and keep coming up short. Compared to Nixon, he might just take the cake as the worst president since...um....Hoover?
Discuss (cattily if at all possible). 
Dates
· UTC
has G.W. Bush done a single good thing in his presidency?
Archived67 replies · 983 views
This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.
Invading Iraq brought peace and stability to a region that is normally under the sway of terrorists and insurgents and...oh, wait 
Re-Elect Saddam, he has the proven leadership abilities 
He'll have Iraq up and running as a stable democracy in no time
he gave a good back rub.
he hasn't invaded iran. yet.
his vice president shoots old republican rich guys.
:)
70% of Americans aren't glowing green, shedding hair, and growing extra appendiges....yet.
Let us just continue to piss off the rest of the world though! Always works like a charm!
Well, he did refer to the current crisis in Lebanon as "shit", which, despite his intention to not be public about it, was pretty much spot on.
Economy has been good and home ownership has been on the rise more than ever before. And yes he does have something to do with this.
JHC
68Pontiac wrote: Economy has been good and home ownership has been on the rise more than ever before. And yes he does have something to do with this.
JHC
at what expense?
Were Rabbit wrote:
68Pontiac wrote: Economy has been good and home ownership has been on the rise more than ever before. And yes he does have something to do with this.
JHC
at what expense?
????????????????????????/ What does that have to do with economy and homeownership ????????????????????????/
Best thing Bush has done is publicly belittle Bliar. Maybe now the arrogant prick Bliar will realise that not everybody thinks th sun shines out of his ass. Sooner Bliar fucks off, the better. And takes his phoney politics with him. He's screwing this country up.
I don't give a fook about Bush and what he has or hasn't done for America, more concerned with his puppet and the havoc he continues to wreak.
68Pontiac wrote:
Were Rabbit wrote:
68Pontiac wrote: Economy has been good and home ownership has been on the rise more than ever before. And yes he does have something to do with this.
JHC
at what expense?
????????????????????????/ What does that have to do with economy and homeownership ????????????????????????/
Just that given the degredation of the Bill of Rights, unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the low esteem that the rest of the world holds Bush in, his ability to blame others for everything that is wrong bei t minorities, gays,take your pick.......that is really grasping at straws...
Draft The Bush Twins
68Pontiac wrote: Economy has been good and home ownership has been on the rise more than ever before. And yes he does have something to do with this.
JHC
Really? How do you figure?
angeldust_evildust wrote: all i know is that i haven't been bombed by terrorists yet and that's good enough for me...
Pretty spurious logic there?
If you NOT being attacked under his reign is his doing, then surely he must bear equal responsibility for those attacks which DID happen under him? Which would be the worst acts of terrorism in US history.
I HAVE been bombed by terrorists, several times. According to Bush ANY country who funds,, harbours or sympathixes with terrorists is a legitimate target.
Now what country do you think 75% of IRA funding came from? Bush should bomb the USA or admit he's only interested in terrorists with brown skin. (if he does bomb the US, I'd be very nervous if I were Canadian, after all, the USA is a pretty small target for the USAF to hit)
Just to point out that the US Govt never (at least not as far as i'm aware) funded the IRA. thr 75% came from private donations.
Rian wrote: He has done nothing for Sweden, but why should he...
as i'm sure bush would say: "Where's Sweden?"
Uncle Liam wrote: Just to point out that the US Govt never (at least not as far as i'm aware) funded the IRA. thr 75% came from private donations.
Yes, but that still falls within Bush's criteria. And besides, NorAid was/is a registered charity in the USA.
And at least one ex-president attended IRA pissups, joining in the "slaughter all the brits" songs.
Many of the most supportive individuals were in the NYPD and NYFD, ahhhhhh justice.
Sure...giving $43 million to the Taliban to fight the war on drugs.
=:headoff: Wait a sec.......have we won that war yet? Not yet, judging by the meth problems in this country.
Doctor? wrote:
angeldust_evildust wrote: all i know is that i haven't been bombed by terrorists yet and that's good enough for me...
Pretty spurious logic there?
Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, sweetie.
Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers?
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: I see.
Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
AgentWood wrote:
Rian wrote: He has done nothing for Sweden, but why should he...
as i'm sure bush would say: "Where's Sweden?"
by making Britain an obvious terrorist target, with Bliars complicity, maybe Bush has done something for Sweden indirectly.
I'm not one of those "Bush orchestrated 9/11!" conspiracy theorists, but it does cross my mind how the reaction might have been different if thirteen Swedes or Icelanders had stormed the cockpits and flown the planes into the towers.
My thinking is, when the "enemy" is of a race or national origin that we as Americans regard as "uncivilized" (nevermind the fact that the Islamic world was responsible for perserving science in an age where Europe was busy learning how not to read anymore and kill each other instead), it's easier to demonize and thus justify actions that might otherwise have been unimaginable. We dropped the bomb on Japan, after all, not Germany, in WWII. Prior to that, there are some very ugly propeganda films from that time that show the Japanese as inhuman caricatures. The same thing was done to the Vietnamese (calling them "gooks" and what not) and in many ways, it's being done to Muslims today. But what if the 9/11 hijackers had been, say, radical Italian Catholics instead of Arabians? Would we respond in such a "with us or against us" manner?
Of course, the point is that it was Arab terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, so it might be a moot point to speculate like this. But as long as there has been one country or another seeking world dominance (whether out of a percieved benevolence or not), there have been groups opposed to them who are willing to take any measure necessary to see that that doesn't come to pass. It's easy for the state under attack to make the enemy seem "inhuman" and alien, but in the end we're all human beings. That applies to both sides, really. 
Taboo # 7 wrote: I'm not one of those "Bush orchestrated 9/11!" conspiracy theorists, but it does cross my mind how the reaction might have been different if thirteen Swedes or Icelanders had stormed the cockpits and flown the planes into the towers.
He still would've found a way to blame Iraq.
Just like now we're hearing rumblings of Iranian links to Hezbollah. That's why Condoleeza's diplomacy has been effortless. Bush wants this as an excuse to move into Iran, which we know he's been wanting to do for a while now.
Meanwhile, North Korea, a country that has a proven nuclear capability (unlike the ones mentioned above) are test launching missiles at us.
Mr disco 99 wrote:
Meanwhile, North Korea, a country that has a proven nuclear capability (unlike the ones mentioned above) are test launching missiles at us.
Well, we're all about "pre-emptive strikes" now. Can't do much when they actually do have nukes 
That's not covered in the Bush Doctrine (a chill goes through my spine when I think there's an actual "doctrine" to this mess) :D
Taboo # 7 wrote: My thinking is, when the "enemy" is of a race or national origin that we as Americans regard as "uncivilized" (nevermind the fact that the Islamic world was responsible for perserving science in an age where Europe was busy learning how not to read anymore and kill each other instead), it's easier to demonize and thus justify actions that might otherwise have been unimaginable. We dropped the bomb on Japan, after all, not Germany, in WWII. Prior to that, there are some very ugly propeganda films from that time that show the Japanese as inhuman caricatures. The same thing was done to the Vietnamese (calling them "gooks" and what not) and in many ways, it's being done to Muslims today. But what if the 9/11 hijackers had been, say, radical Italian Catholics instead of Arabians? Would we respond in such a "with us or against us" manner?
Of course, the point is that it was Arab terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, so it might be a moot point to speculate like this. But as long as there has been one country or another seeking world dominance (whether out of a percieved benevolence or not), there have been groups opposed to them who are willing to take any measure necessary to see that that doesn't come to pass. It's easy for the state under attack to make the enemy seem "inhuman" and alien, but in the end we're all human beings. That applies to both sides, really.
I see your point. Too clarify, though, the Japanese were the most vicious and inhuman fighters of their day. Alot of the gruesome things that they did were not seen in battle until then. I know Germany had their concentration camps, but those were selected individuals to be that inhumane. The average Japanese soldier on the other hand was brutal that doesn't compare to the average German soldier. When they were conquering China, they would make bets by throwing live babies up in the air and trying to catch them with their bayonets. They would make bets on the on the sex of a baby, then cut the pregnant woman's belly open to find out. They lied to their people in such a way that when Americans took over an island, the population made mass suicide. Killing themselves and their children, fearing we would eat them whole and suck awy their souls. They are the first ones, to my knowledge, to use civilians as sheilds. Japanese took no prisoners, unless to torture them then to kill them later. They aimed at Red Cross personnel, which Germans would never do.
The Vietmenese were not too far off either.
Don't even get me started on humanizing terrorists.
But beyond all this, I can see what you were trying to say.
JHC
68Pontiac wrote:
Taboo # 7 wrote: My thinking is, when the "enemy" is of a race or national origin that we as Americans regard as "uncivilized" (nevermind the fact that the Islamic world was responsible for perserving science in an age where Europe was busy learning how not to read anymore and kill each other instead), it's easier to demonize and thus justify actions that might otherwise have been unimaginable. We dropped the bomb on Japan, after all, not Germany, in WWII. Prior to that, there are some very ugly propeganda films from that time that show the Japanese as inhuman caricatures. The same thing was done to the Vietnamese (calling them "gooks" and what not) and in many ways, it's being done to Muslims today. But what if the 9/11 hijackers had been, say, radical Italian Catholics instead of Arabians? Would we respond in such a "with us or against us" manner?
Of course, the point is that it was Arab terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, so it might be a moot point to speculate like this. But as long as there has been one country or another seeking world dominance (whether out of a percieved benevolence or not), there have been groups opposed to them who are willing to take any measure necessary to see that that doesn't come to pass. It's easy for the state under attack to make the enemy seem "inhuman" and alien, but in the end we're all human beings. That applies to both sides, really.
I see your point. Too clarify, though, the Japanese were the most vicious and inhuman fighters of their day. Alot of the gruesome things that they did were not seen in battle until then. I know Germany had their concentration camps, but those were selected individuals to be that inhumane. The average Japanese soldier on the other hand was brutal that doesn't compare to the average German soldier. When they were conquering China, they would make bets by throwing live babies up in the air and trying to catch them with their bayonets. They would make bets on the on the sex of a baby, then cut the pregnant woman's belly open to find out. They lied to their people in such a way that when Americans took over an island, the population made mass suicide. Killing themselves and their children, fearing we would eat them whole and suck awy their souls. They are the first ones, to my knowledge, to use civilians as sheilds. Japanese took no prisoners, unless to torture them then to kill them later. They aimed at Red Cross personnel, which Germans would never do.
The Vietmenese were not too far off either.
Don't even get me started on humanizing terrorists.
But beyond all this, I can see what you were trying to say.
JHC
The record of Japanese "conduct" during the war certainly doesn't lend itself to any arguement that we shouldn't have dropped the bomb on them, but I think it made it easier for Americans to do so mentally just because
a.) they were of a different (non-white) race, and b.) thus easier to deny their humanity (well, the civilians at least - the military was another matter)
There's a whole other arguement we could have as to whether dropping the bomb was really necessary or just an attempt to show off our new toys to the Russians, but that's for another thread and time
As for "humanising terrorists", it goes on all the time. Technically, you could say we ourselves were "terrorists" when the patriots (the rebel group, not the football team) conducted guerilla campaigns against British soldiers rather than engage in conventional warfare. Plus, it's always easier to appeal to the collective sympathy when you're the underdog. Even if your motives are questionable (and trust me, terrorists today should not be negotiated with), you can appeal to people's basic sense that they wouldn't want their "rights" impigned by some overarching government. Think back about a decade or so, when the milita movement was gaining ground here in the States. Or look at historical examples of groups that obviously engaged in terrorist-like activities but are lionized (a good example is the French Resistance movement of the Second World War, who are heroes to be sure, but would surely fall under Bush's definition of "terrorist").
So nothing is ever as black and white as we'd like to think. Of course, that doesn't mean there is a lack of good and evil in this world, either. It's just that sometimes, it's hard for people to tell the difference
Taboo # 7 wrote:
The record of Japanese "conduct" during the war certainly doesn't lend itself to any arguement that we shouldn't have dropped the bomb on them, but I think it made it easier for Americans to do so mentally just because
a.) they were of a different (non-white) race, and b.) thus easier to deny their humanity (well, the civilians at least - the military was another matter)
There's a whole other arguement we could have as to whether dropping the bomb was really necessary or just an attempt to show off our new toys to the Russians, but that's for another thread and time
As for "humanising terrorists", it goes on all the time. Technically, you could say we ourselves were "terrorists" when the patriots (the rebel group, not the football team) conducted guerilla campaigns against British soldiers rather than engage in conventional warfare. Plus, it's always easier to appeal to the collective sympathy when you're the underdog. Even if your motives are questionable (and trust me, terrorists today should not be negotiated with), you can appeal to people's basic sense that they wouldn't want their "rights" impigned by some overarching government. Think back about a decade or so, when the milita movement was gaining ground here in the States. Or look at historical examples of groups that obviously engaged in terrorist-like activities but are lionized (a good example is the French Resistance movement of the Second World War, who are heroes to be sure, but would surely fall under Bush's definition of "terrorist").
So nothing is ever as black and white as we'd like to think. Of course, that doesn't mean there is a lack of good and evil in this world, either. It's just that sometimes, it's hard for people to tell the difference
Here is a common mistake I think most make and rightfully so. We tend to look through the world in our eyes and put our selves in other people's shoes to get a better perspective of what they are feeling, so to be unbiased. This works, but only under the assumption that the people be refered to have the same values of life and mindset.
In my travels, there are four different groups of thinking. Wide enough that we can't put ourselves in their shoes.
1)European thought (including N. America) 2)Asian thought (including Asia, and the islands surrounding it)(many parts are being Europeanized lately so the gap is closing) 3)Middle Eastern thought (including the ME countries and N. Africa) 4)Latin America (including South and Central America)(Are close to European thought, but a slight viariant)
This is not being racial or biased. There are simply different life values and mindsets in these areas. The actions and reactions of each of these groups are different. The French and American revolutionaries and Jihadists should not be put in the same boat. This would be comparing a person who kills a burgaler who enters their house and poses a threat, to John Wayne Gacy Jr.......and using the statement "well,they both killed people in their house".
First understand the group, before putting yourself in their shoes.
JHC
68Pontiac wrote:
Taboo # 7 wrote:
The record of Japanese "conduct" during the war certainly doesn't lend itself to any arguement that we shouldn't have dropped the bomb on them, but I think it made it easier for Americans to do so mentally just because
a.) they were of a different (non-white) race, and b.) thus easier to deny their humanity (well, the civilians at least - the military was another matter)
There's a whole other arguement we could have as to whether dropping the bomb was really necessary or just an attempt to show off our new toys to the Russians, but that's for another thread and time
As for "humanising terrorists", it goes on all the time. Technically, you could say we ourselves were "terrorists" when the patriots (the rebel group, not the football team) conducted guerilla campaigns against British soldiers rather than engage in conventional warfare. Plus, it's always easier to appeal to the collective sympathy when you're the underdog. Even if your motives are questionable (and trust me, terrorists today should not be negotiated with), you can appeal to people's basic sense that they wouldn't want their "rights" impigned by some overarching government. Think back about a decade or so, when the milita movement was gaining ground here in the States. Or look at historical examples of groups that obviously engaged in terrorist-like activities but are lionized (a good example is the French Resistance movement of the Second World War, who are heroes to be sure, but would surely fall under Bush's definition of "terrorist").
So nothing is ever as black and white as we'd like to think. Of course, that doesn't mean there is a lack of good and evil in this world, either. It's just that sometimes, it's hard for people to tell the difference
Here is a common mistake I think most make and rightfully so. We tend to look through the world in our eyes and put our selves in other people's shoes to get a better perspective of what they are feeling, so to be unbiased. This works, but only under the assumption that the people be refered to have the same values of life and mindset.
In my travels, there are four different groups of thinking. Wide enough that we can't put ourselves in their shoes.
1)European thought (including N. America) 2)Asian thought (including Asia, and the islands surrounding it)(many parts are being Europeanized lately so the gap is closing) 3)Middle Eastern thought (including the ME countries and N. Africa) 4)Latin America (including South and Central America)(Are close to European thought, but a slight viariant)
This is not being racial or biased. There are simply different life values and mindsets in these areas. The actions and reactions of each of these groups are different. The French and American revolutionaries and Jihadists should not be put in the same boat. This would be comparing a person who kills a burgaler who enters their house and poses a threat, to John Wayne Gacy Jr.......and using the statement "well,they both killed people in their house".
First understand the group, before putting yourself in their shoes.
JHC
I think history will reflect that the Jihadists are indeed the "bad guys" in this whole situation, but if you go back to 1776 London and ask someone in the street who the "bad guys" are in the recent unrest in the colonies, they would undoubtedly say the colonists. Similarly, if the Germans had won WWII, the French Resistance would be reviled instead of applauded. Perspective depends on what happens and the outcome.
That's really all I was hitting at, never meant to suggest that George Washington and Bin Laden should be considered as peers 
Taboo # 7 wrote: I think history will reflect that the Jihadists are indeed the "bad guys" in this whole situation, but if you go back to 1776 London and ask someone in the street who the "bad guys" are in the recent unrest in the colonies, they would undoubtedly say the colonists. Similarly, if the Germans had won WWII, the French Resistance would be reviled instead of applauded. Perspective depends on what happens and the outcome.
That's really all I was hitting at, never meant to suggest that George Washington and Bin Laden should be considered as peers
Yeah, just like if we'd lost WWII, American government and military officers would've surely been tried and sentenced as war criminals for dropping atomic bombs and fire bombing wooden cities killing millions of civilians.
Point is, good and evil are often subjective. It all depends on what side you're on. And often evil is done to preserve good, or at least the perception of something good. This happens on both sides, always.
If we're going to make judgements about people's actions based on an agreed set of values, then we need to be consistent, and be able to apply them to ourselves as well.
68Pontiac wrote: In my travels, there are four different groups of thinking. Wide enough that we can't put ourselves in their shoes.
1)European thought (including N. America) 2)Asian thought (including Asia, and the islands surrounding it)(many parts are being Europeanized lately so the gap is closing) 3)Middle Eastern thought (including the ME countries and N. Africa) 4)Latin America (including South and Central America)(Are close to European thought, but a slight viariant)
This is not being racial or biased. There are simply different life values and mindsets in these areas. The actions and reactions of each of these groups are different. The French and American revolutionaries and Jihadists should not be put in the same boat. This would be comparing a person who kills a burgaler who enters their house and poses a threat, to John Wayne Gacy Jr.......and using the statement "well,they both killed people in their house".
First understand the group, before putting yourself in their shoes.
JHC
This is not being biased... but it is.
Judging people by a different set of values based on what part of the world they're from is exactly the sort of sweeping generalizations that get us into the kind of mess we're in now.
However, in this case, I think it's less to do with geography and/or skin color and more to do with economics.
I guess if you make rich people happy, people invest more money, society works better... or something like that, you could make that arguement. As for "what" George W actually "does", it's hard to tell. It really baffles me how people could say something positive about George W's skills as president, as an individual, apart from the overall Republican agenda if they approve of that.
Rednecks and white trash love Bush because he doesn't think like none of the "stupid fag liberal shit", Bush is the common mans' president... this is actually funny but depressing
We'll see if things change in the next 40-50 years in society, and if people like these changes time will tell... post WWII things that have made Americans affluent up to the 21st century are cheap fuel and resources, pensions and support for the elderly, available public education, abortions for unwanted babies, social and intellectual freedom compared to the past... these things seem to be changing or going backwards
Mr disco 99 wrote:
68Pontiac wrote: In my travels, there are four different groups of thinking. Wide enough that we can't put ourselves in their shoes.
1)European thought (including N. America) 2)Asian thought (including Asia, and the islands surrounding it)(many parts are being Europeanized lately so the gap is closing) 3)Middle Eastern thought (including the ME countries and N. Africa) 4)Latin America (including South and Central America)(Are close to European thought, but a slight viariant)
This is not being racial or biased. There are simply different life values and mindsets in these areas. The actions and reactions of each of these groups are different. The French and American revolutionaries and Jihadists should not be put in the same boat. This would be comparing a person who kills a burgaler who enters their house and poses a threat, to John Wayne Gacy Jr.......and using the statement "well,they both killed people in their house".
First understand the group, before putting yourself in their shoes.
JHC
This is not being biased... but it is.
Judging people by a different set of values based on what part of the world they're from is exactly the sort of sweeping generalizations that get us into the kind of mess we're in now.
However, in this case, I think it's less to do with geography and/or skin color and more to do with economics.
You are right that economics plays in some part, but more importantly they have, for generations, grown up different from each other in experience and values. That is the hard hitter.
We as Americans and Europeans, grow up and are taught with the thought that we are important, that we will do good for our future and future generations and that we have a direct place in this world as individuals. Many of these other groups do not hold this thought pattern, which is our greatest disconnect (in my view) to many of world issues.
I think that is the reason for Americanization (really a form of Europeanization) of the world, that many of these groups fear. However, if we all have common values, the world would more likely have peace. This, of course, comes at the cost of other thought patterns. Is it right or not, I can not say. What I can say, is that as long as we have different values, there will be continious misconceptions that will brew more violence than good.
JHC
AgentWood wrote:
Rian wrote: He has done nothing for Sweden, but why should he...
as i'm sure bush would say: "Where's Sweden?"
Isn't there a place in USA called Little Sweden?
Taboo # 7 wrote: I'm not one of those "Bush orchestrated 9/11!" conspiracy theorists, but it does cross my mind how the reaction might have been different if thirteen Swedes or Icelanders had stormed the cockpits and flown the planes into the towers.
My thinking is, when the "enemy" is of a race or national origin that we as Americans regard as "uncivilized" (nevermind the fact that the Islamic world was responsible for perserving science in an age where Europe was busy learning how not to read anymore and kill each other instead), it's easier to demonize and thus justify actions that might otherwise have been unimaginable. We dropped the bomb on Japan, after all, not Germany, in WWII. Prior to that, there are some very ugly propeganda films from that time that show the Japanese as inhuman caricatures. The same thing was done to the Vietnamese (calling them "gooks" and what not) and in many ways, it's being done to Muslims today. But what if the 9/11 hijackers had been, say, radical Italian Catholics instead of Arabians? Would we respond in such a "with us or against us" manner?
Of course, the point is that it was Arab terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, so it might be a moot point to speculate like this. But as long as there has been one country or another seeking world dominance (whether out of a percieved benevolence or not), there have been groups opposed to them who are willing to take any measure necessary to see that that doesn't come to pass. It's easy for the state under attack to make the enemy seem "inhuman" and alien, but in the end we're all human beings. That applies to both sides, really.
What if 9/11 had been carried out by radical fundamentalist NOOLers??? Shedheads in a couple of jets; Vikings in the other two??????
What then, eh???? EH????????????
Bombs raining down on Crouch End???? Bush declares war on plastic jocks from Northamptonshire??? Reclusive Ulstermen forced to go even deeper into hiding???? Spangly New Order chokers on women BANNNED???? Cider-drinking Mancunians with huge lambchops BURNED AT THE STAKE?????!!!!!???
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
Taboo # 7 wrote: I'm not one of those "Bush orchestrated 9/11!" conspiracy theorists, but it does cross my mind how the reaction might have been different if thirteen Swedes or Icelanders had stormed the cockpits and flown the planes into the towers.
My thinking is, when the "enemy" is of a race or national origin that we as Americans regard as "uncivilized" (nevermind the fact that the Islamic world was responsible for perserving science in an age where Europe was busy learning how not to read anymore and kill each other instead), it's easier to demonize and thus justify actions that might otherwise have been unimaginable. We dropped the bomb on Japan, after all, not Germany, in WWII. Prior to that, there are some very ugly propeganda films from that time that show the Japanese as inhuman caricatures. The same thing was done to the Vietnamese (calling them "gooks" and what not) and in many ways, it's being done to Muslims today. But what if the 9/11 hijackers had been, say, radical Italian Catholics instead of Arabians? Would we respond in such a "with us or against us" manner?
Of course, the point is that it was Arab terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, so it might be a moot point to speculate like this. But as long as there has been one country or another seeking world dominance (whether out of a percieved benevolence or not), there have been groups opposed to them who are willing to take any measure necessary to see that that doesn't come to pass. It's easy for the state under attack to make the enemy seem "inhuman" and alien, but in the end we're all human beings. That applies to both sides, really.
What if 9/11 had been carried out by radical fundamentalist NOOLers??? Shedheads in a couple of jets; Vikings in the other two??????
What then, eh???? EH????????????
Bombs raining down on Crouch End???? Bush declares war on plastic jocks from Northamptonshire??? Reclusive Ulstermen forced to go even deeper into hiding???? Spangly New Order chokers on women BANNNED???? Cider-drinking Mancunians with huge lambchops BURNED AT THE STAKE?????!!!!!???
Barney would be hiding in a cave in the wilds of Bolton, sending radio broadcasts of support to his followers in Interpol, the Killers, and other "insurgents". Hooky would hold off US advances with his bass, and Tony Wilson would be flushed from his rabbit hole in a marvelous suit and a bottle of French wine from 1977
How close we came to this nightmare scenario...no one will ever know :p
Taboo # 7 wrote: I'm not one of those "Bush orchestrated 9/11!" conspiracy theorists, but it does cross my mind how the reaction might have been different if thirteen Swedes or Icelanders had stormed the cockpits and flown the planes into the towers.
My thinking is, when the "enemy" is of a race or national origin that we as Americans regard as "uncivilized" (nevermind the fact that the Islamic world was responsible for perserving science in an age where Europe was busy learning how not to read anymore and kill each other instead), it's easier to demonize and thus justify actions that might otherwise have been unimaginable. We dropped the bomb on Japan, after all, not Germany, in WWII. Prior to that, there are some very ugly propeganda films from that time that show the Japanese as inhuman caricatures. The same thing was done to the Vietnamese (calling them "gooks" and what not) and in many ways, it's being done to Muslims today. But what if the 9/11 hijackers had been, say, radical Italian Catholics instead of Arabians? Would we respond in such a "with us or against us" manner?
Of course, the point is that it was Arab terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, so it might be a moot point to speculate like this. But as long as there has been one country or another seeking world dominance (whether out of a percieved benevolence or not), there have been groups opposed to them who are willing to take any measure necessary to see that that doesn't come to pass. It's easy for the state under attack to make the enemy seem "inhuman" and alien, but in the end we're all human beings. That applies to both sides, really.
I agree that there is underlying, unspoken racism involved in many of our decisions. However, I don't think all of your examples are valid. As far as Muslims not being uncivilized because they kept learing alive while Europe was wallowing in ignorance, well, yeah, but that was over 800 years ago. A lot can change in 800 years. Mind, I'm not saying Muslims are uncivilized, seeing as how my wife is Muslim, merely pointing out spurrious (IMO) reasoning. The bit about Catholics or someone else being responsible for 9/11. Well, frankly, most of the terrorist acts against western targets over the past 20 years (except maybe the UK) have been by Muslims, or at least those claiming to be Muslims. So there is a history there to foment a more hard line response.
The US seeking world dominance? Balderdash. Well, maybe just a little. Where's James Bond when you need him?
Rian wrote:
AgentWood wrote:
Rian wrote: He has done nothing for Sweden, but why should he...
as i'm sure bush would say: "Where's Sweden?"
Isn't there a place in USA called Little Sweden?
There are 6 Swedens in the US. Take your pick. :)
68Pontiac wrote: Economy has been good and home ownership has been on the rise more than ever before. And yes he does have something to do with this.
JHC
I think the prez always gets too much credit/blame for the economy. I think the economy largely develops indepentent of the presedent, who then, if it's going well, point to this randomly moving entity and says "hey, look what I did". I'd need some sort of proof, in the form of some initiatives Bush took, followed by logical reasonong and numerical data to back up the expected result, before I'll believe Bush has very much to do with the economy. I think Alan Greenspan is (was) the man.
'Well, at least the economy is OK' smacks of 'I'm alright Jack, fuck foreign policy ethics' & the UK is as much to blame- we're allowing Israel bombers by proxy to refuel on our land (whether they have a permit or not).
Shellshocker wrote:
68Pontiac wrote: Economy has been good and home ownership has been on the rise more than ever before. And yes he does have something to do with this.
JHC
I think the prez always gets too much credit/blame for the economy. I think the economy largely develops indepentent of the presedent, who then, if it's going well, point to this randomly moving entity and says "hey, look what I did". I'd need some sort of proof, in the form of some initiatives Bush took, followed by logical reasonong and numerical data to back up the expected result, before I'll believe Bush has very much to do with the economy. I think Alan Greenspan is (was) the man.
It has been estimated that it takes 4-5 years for the effects of policies to impact the economy in their full-force. Plus the stock market is a fickle place. If people feel the slightest bit of worry, they scramble and freak out. A good example of how politics can do this is the stock market crash of 1999, when tech market stocks fell to drastic levels. This happened the very day after Gore stated "I want a recount". That's all it took for people to scramble like crazy. Sure other reasons aided to this, but it was a snowball effect that was started by political instability. If people felt that Bush was instable for the economy, it would be seen in the stock market, then through out our economy.
JHC
68Pontiac wrote:
Shellshocker wrote:
68Pontiac wrote: Economy has been good and home ownership has been on the rise more than ever before. And yes he does have something to do with this.
JHC
I think the prez always gets too much credit/blame for the economy. I think the economy largely develops indepentent of the presedent, who then, if it's going well, point to this randomly moving entity and says "hey, look what I did". I'd need some sort of proof, in the form of some initiatives Bush took, followed by logical reasonong and numerical data to back up the expected result, before I'll believe Bush has very much to do with the economy. I think Alan Greenspan is (was) the man.
It has been estimated that it takes 4-5 years for the effects of policies to impact the economy in their full-force. Plus the stock market is a fickle place. If people feel the slightest bit of worry, they scramble and freak out. A good example of how politics can do this is the stock market crash of 1999, when tech market stocks fell to drastic levels. This happened the very day after Gore stated "I want a recount". That's all it took for people to scramble like crazy. Sure other reasons aided to this, but it was a snowball effect that was started by political instability. If people felt that Bush was instable for the economy, it would be seen in the stock market, then through out our economy.
JHC
This is all speculation. Economics is much like reading tea leaves and animal entrails. You can spin whatever the hell you want out of the numbers and the economic theories.
The stock market is fickle because the investors and stock brokers involved are a bunch of fucking idiots, one example of which is the Al Gore story you mention.
Bush's approval ratings are at an all time low, and it can never be good, for the economy or otherwise, when the president is so unpopular.
Shellshocker wrote: This is all speculation. Economics is much like reading tea leaves and animal entrails. You can spin whatever the hell you want out of the numbers and the economic theories.
The stock market is fickle because the investors and stock brokers involved are a bunch of fucking idiots, one example of which is the Al Gore story you mention.
Bush's approval ratings are at an all time low, and it can never be good, for the economy or otherwise, when the president is so unpopular.
Not sure it so much like reading tea leaves, as much as a shell game. Every economy is on the brink of an economic crash. It is how the policies, interest rates, and getting people's minds busy with other issues that the economy is controled. Moving these shells around to keep the public's faith is the main job of the Federal Reserve.
Since Bush's approval ratings are low, and they have moved the shells around to keep from it effecting the economy, shows that they are moving the shells around well, which is Economic Policy.
Investors really are a fickle bunch of morons, thus the reason the shell game needs to be played.
JHC
68Pontiac wrote: Investors really are a fickle bunch of morons, thus the reason the shell game needs to be played.
JHC
Hells yeah!
68Pontiac wrote: Economy has been good and home ownership has been on the rise more than ever before. And yes he does have something to do with this.
JHC
Private-sector job growth is not only down, it’s the worst since the Great Depression.
New jobs pay an average of $9K a year less than the jobs being lost.
Real wages vs. inflation: down.
Real wages vs. productivity: down.
Employee compensation vs. corporate profits: down.
Median household income: down.
Percentage of people in the workforce (working or looking for work): down.
Gas prices: way up.
Inflation is up.
Taxes on the rich: way down.
Government revenues: down.
Government spending vs. GDP: up.
Government spending on education: down.
Government spending on the environment: down.
Government spending on healthcare: down.
Government spending on Iraq: way, way up.
The deficit is up.
The trade deficit is up.
The national debt is up.
The national debt as a percentage of GDP is up.
Total household debt is up.
Total household debt as a percentage of GDP is up.
The record budget surplus is gone.
House sales are up – but until those mortgages are paid off, the bank is the owner.
Housing prices: way up.
Mortgage debt: way up.
Housing affordability: lowest level since 1987
Median monthly home ownership costs: up
“Soaring house prices and higher mortgage rates have put homeownership out of reach for more people than at any time in more than a decade…Affordability has long been a problem for low-income home buyers. But as home prices have marched steadily higher in recent years, many buyers with healthier incomes also are being squeezed.” (Wall Street Journal, 12/22/05)
Real estate investments make sense when times are tough, because they’re tangible investments. But the ability of middle-class people to afford homes is down, housing prices are up an unprecedented amount, mortgage foreclosures are up, and with almost 25% of new home sales from adjustable rate mortgages, there will be a lot more foreclosures when those time bombs go off.
Yeah, Bush has something to do with this, all right.
The above shows that the bean counters can pretty much spin the numbers to show whatever result that they want. One side says we're in better shape than 6 years ago, the other side says we're in worse shape.
Shellshocker wrote: The above shows that the bean counters can pretty much spin the numbers to show whatever result that they want. One side says we're in better shape than 6 years ago, the other side says we're in worse shape.
I'd go with the latter.. and hell its all regional. UK list is similar, but again regional.
Lets face it, we are both going down the swannee river..
I've heard arguements that the economic downturn we experienced in the first years of Bush was a direct result of policies by Clinton, and that they would've taken place even if a number of things (i.e., Gore being elected, Iraq still being under Saddam, a prevention to 9/11, whatever) came to pass instead.
But I really think Bush's economic policies have helped facilitate whatever crap that was going to happen into happening a hell of a lot sooner than it should've. And you'll notice that every time the economy is in the shitter, there's suddenly a "new threat" that we have to tackle with all post-haste (very Orwellian, no matter if the threats are real or imagined).
I know from personal experience, some folks that I used to work with across the street from where I work now are still out of work, and it's not because they love the appeal of welfare stamps. It's because jobs are hard to find and get. And the store in question was closed just about a year ago. Hard to say the economy's in "tip-top shape" when that's going on.
And while we're on the subject of economics, I have a bone to pick with FNC (as if I don't always): they regularly do a shitload of "stockmarket-friendly" shows in the mornings or whenever in which the headline invariably is "conflict in the Middle East: What does it mean for your investments?" What the fuck does that matter, people are fucking dying and you're wondering how this affects your goddam portfolio? As Chris Rock once said, the religion that we all worship in America is the all-mighty dollar. It just smacks of vulture-like behaviour, to me at least
Taboo # 7 wrote: And while we're on the subject of economics, I have a bone to pick with FNC (as if I don't always): they regularly do a shitload of "stockmarket-friendly" shows in the mornings or whenever in which the headline invariably is "conflict in the Middle East: What does it mean for your investments?" What the fuck does that matter, people are fucking dying and you're wondering how this affects your goddam portfolio? As Chris Rock once said, the religion that we all worship in America is the all-mighty dollar. It just smacks of vulture-like behaviour, to me at least
Well, it is FNC. It's not their job to report the news straight on. it's their job to report on financial markets and what affects them.
And if you had investments (like I do), then you would care about how ANYTHING affects them. But just because I care about how it affects me doesn't mean I don't care about how it affects anybody else.
I mean, come on... it's like getting mad at the weather channel for reporting on the weather instead of the people dying.
Chase,
Most of these things are not controlled by the President and all these are present for any President. For instance median income for family and wages are due to businesses steering away from career salary jobs and increasingly part-time hourly wages.
Your statement on housing is how housing markets work. In 2002 when interests rates hit 5% for the first time in 55 years, housing was now affordable for many families. The renting market went down and house owership increased. As more people can afford homes, prices for the homes increase to match the market. Once home stagnate, interest rates will increase, causing home prices to drop. So in short, mortagage payments are always about the same (price to interest ratio), but during a 4 year span, mortagages were very reasonable because of the low interest rates, and a market who's prices had not raised fast enough to match.
But anyways, all those things you mentioned are always happening. . .however it is how the public percieves all this happening which effects the stock market, then effects everything else.
Like I said it's a shell game....Clinton did it too, a good example is the "Surplus" that we had. I find this hilarious how everyone latched onto this, as it is a complete sham. How do we have a surplus, if we are trillions in debt??? But then,like I said, it's a shell game.
JHC
Check out Moby's blog as well. It's a bit OTT at times but a lot of it has some sense about what the Bush (and Blair) legacy will be in years to come!
I can't really think of anything...but I'm sure even if he did something positive, it'll be overshadowed by all of the negatives.
He has kept Dick Cheney from becoming actual president (though he is the dark force behind the scenes).
So....one out of a hundred
he behaves when he eats... almost passed away with a bretzel a few years ago, he is able to eat and talk with his mouth full of food. that is not the top for a G8 summit, but what a progress...
and much more important than that : he promoted the need of wearing an helmet while cycling.
