How will history look back on the Bush presidency?

[Emu]

What do you think history books will say about Bush's presidency? Will they try to put him in a positive light, or will this be reported as one of the most corrupt failures of an administration of all American history? I'll vote for the latter.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Too early to tell.

[Immortal Goat]

It depends on how this next term finishes up for him. It could really go either way, to be honest. If he screws up even more (which he probably will), I am betting we will have chapters dedicated to his presidency resembling those chapters dealing with the Nixon administration. Still, it could go the other way, and he could have Reagen-esque status in history books across the country in a few years.

[Emu]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Too early to tell.

You think so? It seemed to me some of these fuck ups have been rather epic, especially since Katrina. I don't know how he's going to recover from that.

[RaNkeri]

If he's lucky enough, he mght get into dictionary... I'm pretty sure you can find his picture near the word "asshole".

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Can you actually read a dictionary?

Originally Posted by Emu

You think so? It seemed to me some of these fuck ups have been rather epic, especially since Katrina. I don't know how he's going to recover from that.

A lot of presidents left office with poor approval, but in retrospect, gained respect and admiration. Harry Truman is often cited as an example of this (and Bush so wants to be compared to Truman).

One historian (forgot his name) has a 20 year rule for presidents. If in 20 years iraq and Afghanistan are democratized, terrorism is defeated, the middle east is peaceful, if if if, then Bush could go down as a great international president.

The fuck ups he has now may only be little blips on the radar compared to the scale of history. Think about all of the presidents you can.....you probably can't think of more than two or three things they did during their administration, right? Why would this president be any different?

Richard Nixon won re-election in one of the biggest presidential landslides in American history. He left office as one of the biggest disgraces ever to serve. Opinions change, and time often eases the partisan flames of the day. That's why I say it's too early. :/

[ziggytrix]

Actually, Nixon is pretty widely regarded as a very successful President. Even the shit that nearly got him impeached was more the fuck-ups of his lackies than his own mistakes. Then again you might credit a lot of Nixon's foriegn policy successes to Kissinger.

[Geggy]

I think many of us are going to remember Bush for putting America deeeeep into debt and we all end up paying it back for the rest of our lives....

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Actually, Nixon is pretty widely regarded as a very successful President. Even the shit that nearly got him impeached was more the fuck-ups of his lackies than his own mistakes. Then again you might credit a lot of Nixon's foriegn policy successes to Kissinger.

But this is precisely my point. Bill CLinton actually used to consult him on foreign relations....Nixon! The guy was public enemy #1 when he left office.

[davinxtk]

Only Nixon could go to China.

[El Blanco]

Ask a die hard Republican his opinion of FDR. Ask an old school Southerner about Lincoln.

A lot is going to depend on who and when you ask.

[mozz]

Somebody who started a war.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Ask a die hard Republican his opinion of FDR. Ask an old school Southerner about Lincoln.

Yeah, but these are two of the most polarizing figures we ever had in the White House. Bush could go down as one of those types too, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Most die-hard Republicans hate Bill Clinton too, but that isn't necessarily reflective of the nation's attitude towards him.

Ask the die-hards what they think about Martin Van Buren and Gerald Ford. You'll probably get a blah answer, and I think most presidents would fall in that boat with the majority of Americans.

[ziggytrix]

The die-hard libs will call Gerald Ford "that unlected fuck that pardoned the Nixon administration".

[Kulturkampf]

The Left Wing are going to feel like cocks about Iraq in 20 years, it is my prediction that it will be a stable and democratized state, and all of the opposition to the war will have yet another example of how war solves problems and how intervention for humanitarian sake can be tremendous.

The Left is going to lose, and it iwll always lose, because the left wing is full of shit and base their opinions off of emotions and not facts. They are doomed to failure.

[Immortal Goat]

And the right wing bases their opinions on the allmighty dollar and not on the effects it has on the very people that they are elected to serve. Don't start arguing over which side will lose, because they both suck in their own ways, but wealth fades in time. Emotions, however, span all humanity and are harder to destroy than wealth.

And the left doesn't base their opinions on facts? Let's look at one of the most controversial parts of the failure that is the past 5 years. Gay marriage bans. What isn't factual about the humanity of homosexuals? And as human beings, they deserve the same rights as everyone else. However, The Right based their opinions on religion, which is worse than basing something off of emotions. At least emotions are something we know exist.

So, yeah, both sides are full of shit, and you are a great example of that fact.

[ItalianStereotype]

and by generalizing the right as religious lunatics, this makes you different how?

[ItalianStereotype]

actually, I'm just fucking sick of your entire view of Christianity. you're actually a pretty nice guy, but I'd like to see you make one fucking post in here without making me doubt it. seriously, make one post where you don't try to tie TEH EVOL CHRISTIANS into it.

invasion of iraq? christians did it.
hurricane katrina? christians did it.
soggy fritos? fucking christians.
someone says something stupid on tv? CHRISTIANS LOL

[Immortal Goat]

In all honesty, I don't really think that poorly of Christianity. That may come as a surprise to you, looking at many pf my posts in this forum, but it's true. I have great respect for the many good Christians out there. My big beef with it (or any religion, for that matter) is when it mixes with politics.

To get this out in the open, here is my real view on Christianity:

Christianity is a religion that has the wrong people in the limelight advocating it. My post in the other thread about most Christians liking Pat Robertson was to make a point. Not that most Christians are retarded, but exactly the opposite. They aren't retarded, and they still like the guy. Mostly because he says he is Christian and he is famous. That doesn't make him any less of a capitalizing bigot, but he would be that even without the Cristianity aspect.

Christians in general are good people. Sure, they have their prejudices, but everyone (including me) does. As I said, it isn't so much Christianity, or even most Christians, but rather the people that use Christianity for monetary or political gain (see: Robertson and W).

So I hope that clears things up for you, IS. I realize that I generalize a lot on these forums, but that is only because I have a bad habit of assuming people understand what I mean about things. Now that I have explained myself a bit better, maybe my future posts will be more forgivable.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

The Left Wing are going to feel like cocks about Iraq in 20 years, it is my prediction that it will be a stable and democratized state, and all of the opposition to the war will have yet another example of how war solves problems and how intervention for humanitarian sake can be tremendous.

What problems exactly did it solve? I mean, I think you may be partially right. I support our presence in iraq because A. we're there, so we should, um.....stay the course, and B. It's really nice to see at least the beginning of a democratic Iraq.

However, was that why we went in there? Couldn't you argue that it would be really nice to invade Libya, N. Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and every other despoting and oppressive regime? If we invaded all of those countries and somehow managed to democratize them, would the Left still look foolish for being critical of it? I don't think so.

[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by Immortal Goat

And the right wing bases their opinions on the allmighty dollar and not on the effects it has on the very people that they are elected to serve. Don't start arguing over which side will lose, because they both suck in their own ways, but wealth fades in time. Emotions, however, span all humanity and are harder to destroy than wealth.

It is better to have a good economy and let people lead their own lives, than to be like the Democrats that force absurd policies that do not do their whole job to make folks better of ecconomically and in the end harm the entirety of the economy.

Rather... Let people live, and if they are foolish and retarded, let them suffer at their own hand.

]quote]And the left doesn't base their opinions on facts? Let's look at one of the most controversial parts of the failure that is the past 5 years. Gay marriage bans. What isn't factual about the humanity of homosexuals? And as human beings, they deserve the same rights as everyone else. However, The Right based their opinions on religion, which is worse than basing something off of emotions. At least emotions are something we know exist. [/quote]

It deserves its own thread, talking about homosexuals -- I have compiled some links on the mental health of homosexuals and just general concepts of it. I will start the thread in a moment. If we began discussing it here the thread would be hijacked immediately.

So, yeah, both sides are full of shit, and you are a great example of that fact.

There are some points that I do not like at all of the Republicans, but the Democrats are nearly complete shit.