[It's_GO_Time]

There is a school of thought on this Blazer board that having a bad record is not such a bad thing. The team is not a playoff team, they are young and devloping, let them play and develop and even if they suck, the result will be the highest chance in the league of getting Oden with the top lottery pick. Not an attractive way to get better, but the ends justify the means.

Bush is like the losing season. He is pro-rich, pro-big business, poorly spoken, embarrasses our country, and was one of the worst presidents in the history of the US. Ugh, what a season. But in the end, because mainly of Bush' mismanagment of the war on terror and the unexplainable focus on Iraq, he has helped the Democrats take control of the house after 12 years. Talk about a #1 pick! And it didn't stop there. Demcratic governors, senators . . . all beating incumbants and the politcal analysis almost all agree this is a backlash of the American people anger and frustration with Bush and his "war on terrorism."

I can't think of a democrat that has helped out the democratic party as much as Bush has. Not the way I would have wanted to see the house change . . . but the ends justify the means.

Thanks Bush

[HKF]

Big deal. Democrat/Republican whatever. There will never be real change if we only have a two party system. The divide between the haves and the havenots increases exponentially daily.

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by Kiss_My_Darius

Bush is . . . pro-rich

John Kerry, the Democrat party leader in the last election, is 10 times as wealthy as Bush. He has twice married extremely wealthy women, once owned a villa in France, and is one of the upper class snobs from the upper crust of Boston society. If Bush is "pro-rich," Kerry is "pro-super rich."

. . . was one of the worst presidents in the history of the US.

Uh, Bush is still the president--but far from the worst. Jimmy Carter probably takes that prize, with Clinton a close second.

Demcratic governors, senators . . . all beating incumbants and the politcal analysis almost all agree this is a backlash of the American people anger and frustration with Bush and his "war on terrorism."

Would those be the same Democrat senators who voted overwhelmingly to go to war?

[sa1177]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

John Kerry, the Democrat party leader in the last election, is 10 times as wealthy as Bush. He has twice married extremely wealthy women, once owned a villa in France, and is one of the upper class snobs from the upper crust of Boston society. If Bush is "pro-rich," Kerry is "pro-super rich."

Once again ridiculously uniformed statement. The point isn't about the personal wealth of the canidate but rather about the canidates stand towards the upper class particulary the very wealthy. While Kerry may be wealthy his stance on big business, taxation of the upper class and social service programs for the lower class are much different from Bush.

Uh, Bush is still the president--but far from the worst. Jimmy Carter probably takes that prize, with Clinton a close second.

Bush is the worst president in history...bar none. Clinton isn't even in the discussion...Bush he acomplished nothing in 6 years...Afganistan is still a disaster, Iraq even worse...Domestic policy is non-existant, education the worst in decades, healthcare the same.

Would those be the same Democrat senators who voted overwhelmingly to go to war?

Yes they voted to go to war...but they certainly didn't vote to completely and totally **** up the entire operation. No one voted for Incompetence.

[Oil Can]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Uh, Bush is still the president--but far from the worst. Jimmy Carter probably takes that prize, with Clinton a close second.

Just out of curiousity, what is your basis for this assertion? Why is Clinton one of the worst? Same for Carter? Is this opinion?

[It's_GO_Time]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

John Kerry, the Democrat party leader in the last election, is 10 times as wealthy as Bush. He has twice married extremely wealthy women, once owned a villa in France, and is one of the upper class snobs from the upper crust of Boston society. If Bush is "pro-rich," Kerry is "pro-super rich."


Uh, Bush is still the president--but far from the worst. Jimmy Carter probably takes that prize, with Clinton a close second.


Would those be the same Democrat senators who voted overwhelmingly to go to war?

SA beat me to it, but I can't help to think you throw things out there just to argue. You must know the difference between someone's personal situation and the politcal ideas they have. I'm not sure how you can even throw out Kerry's sitaution (which in itself is completely irrelevant) to counter that Bush is a president for the rich.

Whether Bush goes down as one of the worst president's in the US, I'll admit is going to up for debate . . . and I get throwing out Carter as an example of a bad president, but Clinton?

Would you admit at the very least that Bush has been very damaging to this Republican election campaign? (Hard to deny since that seems to be the consensus among msot political analysts.)

[RedHot&Rolling]

Originally Posted by sa1177

.....Yes they voted to go to war...but they certainly didn't vote to completely and totally **** up the entire operation. No one voted for Incompetence.

Now, with Dems regained power, everything should be corrected within a few years, right? Now it will be interesting to watch how they do it - competently.

BTW - anyone care to guess how long it takes to correct Bush's "incompetence"?

[RedHot&Rolling]

Originally Posted by Oil Can

Just out of curiousity, what is your basis for this assertion? Why is Clinton one of the worst? Same for Carter? Is this opinion?

IMHO - Clinton doesn't belong in a list of Worst Presidents. He rode the wave. There are many others to choose from (Hoover and Carter being most prominant).

Carter's term led to inflation of never-before-or-seen levels. Interest rates were in the 20's IIRC.

[Oil Can]

Originally Posted by RedHot&Rolling

anyone care to guess how long it takes to correct Bush's "incompetence"?

Decades.

Our visibility as a nation has taken enormous hits in terms of credibility, honesty, and capability over his tenure. It doesn't matter who is in the office short-term, this will be a long term rebuilding process for the damage his admin has done.

[It's_GO_Time]

Originally Posted by RedHot&Rolling

Now, with Dems regained power, everything should be corrected within a few years, right? Now it will be interesting to watch how they do it - competently.

BTW - anyone care to guess how long it takes to correct Bush's "incompetence"?

I don't think the dems are the silver bullet answer to the war on terrorism or the mess Bush has created.

But once Bush is out of office, I think the US can get back to the basics and follow the golden rule my grade school tennis coach taught me . . . always keep your eye on the Bin Laden . . . er I mean ball.

[bodyman5001]

I can't help but wonder what would have been had Gore been in office. I can't stand him or Bush but we will never know what life in the USA would have been like.

Doesn't anyone want a president that just makes everyone say "dang, that guy is amazing" ?

I do, I am tired of having politicians that make me sick to my stomach every time I hear them speak.


Government is for the people, unfortunately it is also run by the people.

It just seems that everyone now is just a selfish lying weasel. I hope I am wrong.

[Fork]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

John Kerry, the Democrat party leader in the last election, is 10 times as wealthy as Bush. He has twice married extremely wealthy women, once owned a villa in France, and is one of the upper class snobs from the upper crust of Boston society. If Bush is "pro-rich," Kerry is "pro-super rich."

Uh...just because he's 'super rich' doesn't mean his policies are 'pro super rich.' And you're clearly smart enough to know that.

I'm pro equal rights for blacks, gays and women. I'm not black, gay or a woman.

[Fork]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Uh, Bush is still the president--but far from the worst. Jimmy Carter probably takes that prize, with Clinton a close second.

Pfft...

Have you EVER read a history book? Warren Harding anyone? James Buchanon? Franklin Pierce? Do any of these names ring a bell?

Carter was unfortunate enough to be president in one of the worst recessions in american history (brought on in large part by the corruption and incompetence of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.)