What GOOD has George W. Bush done for the USA?

  • News
  • Thread starter Keyser Söze
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Usa
I'm sure he has done some good....In summary, the conversation revolves around discussing the accomplishments of the US president, George W. Bush. While many criticize his actions and policies, there are some who point out his good deeds such as being a good ambassador, his AIDS policy in Africa, and elements of his immigration policy. Others mention his tax cuts, keeping the country safe from terrorism, and refusing to ratify the Kyoto Treaty. Some also mention his personal values and his dedication to his goals despite opposition. However, there are also criticisms about his spending and his relationship with the Evangelical Right. The conversation emphasizes the need for proof and reliable sources when discussing the president's accomplishments.
  • #1
Keyser Söze
I hear people snarl and foam at the mouth when our president comes up in conversation. Everyone talks about how horrible he has done, and you never hear his *good* accomplishments for the USA. What *has* he accomplished?

If you're a Bush bashing person, I won't mind if you state his negative accomplishments, but I really would like to hear about what good things he's done (I doubt any president can be all bad - I'm sure the Democrats would like to make things sound worse than they are). However, whatever you say about him I want HARD PROOF (sources), NOT HEARSAY, NO OPINIONS! I cannot stress this enough. If, for example, it's economics - give some numbers and a cited source saying where you got your information. I don't want opinionated crap (ex. "he was strong when we went to war"). Anyway, I hope you can help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Keyser Söze said:
I hear people snarl and foam at the mouth when our president comes up in conversation. Everyone talks about how horrible he has done, and you never hear his *good* accomplishments for the USA. What *has* he accomplished?

He's still married.
That's the end of my list.
 
  • #3
I've heard he's actually becoming a good ambassador.

Just look at how he ragged on China before attending the Olympics, they were thrilled.

He says it's not a political visit, it's just to enjoy the sports. Ok, uhm, why are we taxpayers paying for him and his family to be there then?
 
  • #4
Evo said:
I've heard he's actually becoming a good ambassador.

Just look at how he ragged on China before attending the Olympics, they were thrilled.

He says it's not a political visit, it's just to enjoy the sports. Ok, uhm, why are we taxpayers paying for him and his family to be there then?

Why not? I'm not big on paying for most things for our political leaders but I think it's ok for us to foot the bill and send our Prez to the Olympics. Just my opinion. Having our Senators run around in limos and luxury vehicles (which many do on our dime) is something I do not support. We pay them enough that they can buy their own damn cars and actually pay for gas out of their own pockets. Then they can feel what we feel when it comes to the cost of fuel.
 
  • #5
I'm far from a Bush supporter. But I like some things about what he's done.

First, his AIDS policy in Africa. He has put a lot of money into AIDS treatment and education, but I must admit the priority of his prevention policy I disagree with. That policy is "ABC" - stresses Abstinence before marriage, Be faithful after marriage, use Condoms.

Well, preaching to people when and with whom they have sex is probably useless. Condom use is not useless and, in my opinion, should have been the primary front on this battle, not behind abstinence and faithfulness. (If I were president I wouldn't even include those - so instead of the "ABC" policy it would be the "C" policy. Now you know why I'm not president.)

The program has been generally well-received in Africa. It funds counselors to educate people about condom use.

Second - elements of his immigration policy. Too bad most of his own party opposed it.

If I think of more I'll post again.
 
  • #6
drankin said:
Why not? I'm not big on paying for most things for our political leaders but I think it's ok for us to foot the bill and send our Prez to the Olympics. Just my opinion. Having our Senators run around in limos and luxury vehicles (which many do on our dime) is something I do not support. We pay them enough that they can buy their own damn cars and actually pay for gas out of their own pockets. Then they can feel what we feel when it comes to the cost of fuel.

Hilarious. Do you really think these people are going to feel the gas prices if they drive themselves. They have the money to still be driven around town from their own pockets.
 
  • #7
He cut taxes for a majority of Americans. He also has kept us safe from terrorism since 9/11. And he refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty, which would have severely hampered our economy. And yes, although it's not really our business, and kind of terrible for this to be a "plus" for a politician, he didn't cheat on his wife, which I think says something at least, considering so many seem to have been caught up in various scandals. He also has done exactly what he said he would and has never wavered once, even in the face of fierce opposition. He is a hardworking President who has some of the biggest cajones I've seen. Very few politicians I think would have the guts to invade a country, especially in their first term, and then to keep at their goal even when so much seems to go wrong (people hate you, media hates you, no WMDs, war taking much longer than planned, etc...). The fact that he did invade Iraq and got re-elected to this day still baffles his staunch critics. I do not agree with everything he's done, but I hardly think he has been a terrible President.

He did spend too much, but he spent it mostly I believe on healthcare, education, alternative energy, etc...all the things people like (I might be wrong on that though, but I believe he outspent every other president on alternative energy and signed one of the largest pieces of healthcare legislation).

And if you favor illegals, President Bush was plenty friendly to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
Cyrus said:
Hilarious. Do you really think these people are going to feel the gas prices if they drive themselves. They have the money to still be driven around town from their own pockets.

Yes, I do. I make close to what a Senator makes a year and I FEEL IT.
 
  • #9
He slept with the Evangelical Right and then dropped them like hot rocks the next day. Big points in my book.
 
  • #10
drankin said:
Yes, I do. I make close to what a Senator makes a year and I FEEL IT.

You make close to a Senator's salary, or close to what they make? Because both Obama's and McCain's wives make more than they do. Kerry's wife makes more than he does. Edwards makes a lot of money too, doesn't he? I'm not big into Congress, so I don't know how many of them actually have "Senator" as their main source of income.
 
  • #11
WheelsRCool said:
He cut taxes for a majority of Americans.
And the CBO said the Bush Tax cuts, along with his spending habits, are what have given us the 7 years of amazing deficits we've seen.

He also has kept us safe from terrorism since 9/11.
In the Global war on terror it doesn't matter if the rest of the Globe suffers from more terrorist attacks, so long and we are safer.

And he refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty, which would have severely hampered our economy.
Did you mean to say 'may' instead of "would"?

He also has done exactly what he said he would and has never wavered once, even in the face of fierce opposition.
Wait, are you talking about his campaign promises of a non-interventionist foreign policy, bringing integrity back to the White House, etc.?

He is a hardworking President who has some of the biggest cajones I've seen.
I can't speak for all the cojones you've had the opportunity to see (though I think you could be mistaking Cheney's cojones for Bush's), but on what basis do you say the President that has taken more vacation time (as well as the longest single continuous vacation) than any other President in history is hardworking?

Very few politicians I think would have the guts to invade a country, especially in their first term, and then to keep at their goal even when so much seems to go wrong (people hate you, media hates you, no WMDs, war taking much longer than planned, etc...). The fact that he did invade Iraq and got re-elected to this day still baffles his staunch critics.
...and defeats the point you were making in the previous sentence.

He did spend too much, but he spent it mostly I believe on healthcare, education, alternative energy, etc...all the things people like
I guess the people were going to like Bush's Healthcare Bill so much that he decided it couldn't hurt to hire some actors to stage fake news about it. And also, I guess it doesn't matter that Congress has had to over-ride Bush vetos on Healthcare spending.

(I might be wrong on that though, but I believe he outspent every other president on alternative energy
That's like saying Clinton outspent every other President on Computer Technology - it's completely meaningless.

and signed one of the largest pieces of healthcare legislation).
That did what - took money from the people and gave it to HMOs?

Spending itself is not an accomplishment. The accomplishment ought to be the positive benefits gained from such spending. Has healthcare for the average American improved significantly, thanks to Bush's spending and policy?

And if you favor illegals, President Bush was plenty friendly to them.
And do you "favor illegals"?

Here's what I think are some of the the good things:
- North Korea could turn out to be a big one
- Efforts in Afghanistan, if substantially rethought and stepped up, might turn into a net positive
- Libya, may be a small (even if mostly symbolic) positive
- Improved relations with China and India could be fairly big positives over the long term

...will think of more with time.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
He has united the country behind a single cause.
 
  • #13
drankin said:
Yes, I do. I make close to what a Senator makes a year and I FEEL IT.

Sentors make around $160k a year. If you make $160k a year and are hurting from gas prices, someones not managing their money well. But that's besides the point, what I was getting at is they don't do the job for the money. They already have money, lots of money. Do you think G. W. or Cheney needs a dime from the gov? They could have done the job for free and would still be LOADED.
 
  • #14
jimmysnyder said:
He has united the country behind a single cause.

What cause? The cause of despising him and bringing him to justice?
 
  • #15
WheelsRCool said:
He also has kept us safe from terrorism since 9/11.

No he hasn't. There have been plenty of terrorist attacks since 9/11.

And he refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty, which would have severely hampered our economy.

Deciding to hamper the atmoshphere and long term global climate instead.

And yes, although it's not really our business, and kind of terrible for this to be a "plus" for a politician, he didn't cheat on his wife...

How do you know?

He also has done exactly what he said he would and has never wavered once...

The guy has a notorious history of NOT doing what he said he would.

He said when he was trying to sell the patriot act legislation that wiretaps would still require a warrant. He only said that as lip service, because a year later he was fighting to wiretap withOUT a warrant.

He even said that he would uphold the constitution. He PROMISED us this. He then has consistently done the oppositte whilst he uses the constitution for toilet paper.
 
  • #16
jimmysnyder said:
He has united the country behind a single cause.

but you just can't remember what it is


?
 
  • #17
WarPhalange said:
You make close to a Senator's salary, or close to what they make? Because both Obama's and McCain's wives make more than they do. Kerry's wife makes more than he does. Edwards makes a lot of money too, doesn't he? I'm not big into Congress, so I don't know how many of them actually have "Senator" as their main source of income.

A senator's main source of income is not necessarily their salary or their spouse's.. It can also be in the forms of bribes, kickbacks and payouts from corporate lobbyists who dictate their legislative policy.

I'm sure not all senators are corrupt but human greed for money is natural.. Once they have access to that corporate money trough it's hard to resist.
 
  • #18
Mental Gridlock said:
I'm sure not all senators are corrupt but human greed for money is unacceptable...

Fixed that for you.
 
  • #19
Crosson said:
Fixed that for you.

It should be unacceptable. But surprisingly the public really doesn't seem to care and just look the other way. They then continuously vote in a nonstop chain of corrupted republicrats.
 
  • #20
Gokul43201 said:
And the CBO said the Bush Tax cuts, along with his spending habits, are what have given us the 7 years of amazing deficits we've seen.

The deficit shrank in 2007 from what it appears, but perhaps because of the housing bubble? (it will probably enlarge now). However, I agree on the spending habits. The Republicans could likely have kept the deficit a lot smaller if they hadn't gone on such a wild spending spree. A temporarily increased deficit, to cut taxes, I think is okay, if government is truly reigning in spending at the same time, but when they openly go and spend so much money, that is wrong.

A true Republican, even if they cut taxes and tax revenues start going up highly, still should have the discipline to reign in spending as much as possible.

My fear is if they raise taxes to try and "fix" the deficit, I believe all that will happen is they will end up spending more (Republican or Democrat from what I've seen). I think the best way to stop government from spending so much is to starve it of revenue partially, not so much that disaster results, but enough to make it wake up and start working to fix the problem.

Kind of like people who spend themselves into massive debt, and then win the lottery for $100 million; most of them end up either right back where they started or even worse. More money will just accentuate the current spending habits.

Another example could be California, which has some of the highest taxes in the nation, yet they have still managed to spend themselves into a hole.

In the Global war on terror it doesn't matter if the rest of the Globe suffers from more terrorist attacks, so long and we are safer.

How does protecting America make the rest of the globe more prone to terrorist attacks?

Did you mean to say 'may' instead of "would"?

From everything I have read it would have: http://www.accf.org/publications/testimonies/test-impactkyoto-march25-1999.html [Broken]
It also did not demand the same from countries such as China and India, which are huge releasers of carbon. Kyoto called for some severe carbon constraints on American industry and would have also made America answerable to the United Nations, infringing on our national sovereignty.

Wait, are you talking about his campaign promises of a non-interventionist foreign policy, bringing integrity back to the White House, etc.?

Well the thing is, that was before 9/11 occurred. Things changed. And I think he did bring back some integrity to the White House.

I can't speak for all the cojones you've had the opportunity to see (though I think you could be mistaking Cheney's cojones for Bush's), but on what basis do you say the President that has taken more vacation time (as well as the longest single continuous vacation) than any other President in history is hardworking?

If that is so, then I will have to stand corrected.

...and defeats the point you were making in the previous sentence.

How so?

I guess the people were going to like Bush's Healthcare Bill so much that he decided it couldn't hurt to hire some actors to stage fake news about it. And also, I guess it doesn't matter that Congress has had to over-ride Bush vetos on Healthcare spending.

I'm not meaning to imply his spending on it was a "good" thing, I just mean, usually the Left prefers spending on something like healthcare over something like the missile defense system for example.

That's like saying Clinton outspent every other President on Computer Technology - it's completely meaningless.

I wouldn't say so necessarily. It would mean he has tried more than other Presidents to aid in developing new forms energy. Politicians have been talking about dependence on foreign oil and so forth all the way back to Jimmy Carter.

That did what - took money from the people and gave it to HMOs?

Spending itself is not an accomplishment. The accomplishment ought to be the positive benefits gained from such spending. Has healthcare for the average American improved significantly, thanks to Bush's spending and policy?

Nope, and I agree fully. Spending itself means nothing.

And do you "favor illegals"?

I really don't know where to stand on the issue of illegals. On the one hand, they are illegal, and I don't think they should get things like education, healthcare, etc...off the back of the taxpayer who struggles to afford these things; on the other hand, I think they do lower prices for things like food and so forth by providing cheaper labor (however certain companies have been found to be abusing them as well, which isn't good).

Also, it's not like we can just round up these millions of illegals and ship them out of the country.

So I have mixed feelings about the issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
Mental Gridlock said:
No he hasn't. There have been plenty of terrorist attacks since 9/11.

Not in the United States. There have been plenty of attempts though.

Deciding to hamper the atmoshphere and long term global climate instead.

Doing something that would have hampered the economy and infringed on national sovereignty for something that is still not even fully known (if the Earth is warming from carbon emissions or not), is not a good step to take. It also did not apply to China and India, two enormous CO2 emitters.

Remember, global warming is as much an economic issue as it is a scientific one. We need to greatly weigh the cost-benefits first of different policies and learn more about the science as well.

Global warming is the perfect excuse for governments to use to gain more control over our lives.

How do you know?

No one can know for sure, but I think it would have come out by now if he was. These politicians that do this, so many end up getting caught, I think with President Bush, he especially would have been caught by now.

The guy has a notorious history of NOT doing what he said he would.

He said when he was trying to sell the patriot act legislation that wiretaps would still require a warrant. He only said that as lip service, because a year later he was fighting to wiretap withOUT a warrant.

The surveillance program, from my understanding, is for intercepting signals coming in from outside the United States. It isn't a "warrantless wiretapping" program the way the New York Times originally hyped it up. President Bush, according to that very NYT article: "The Bush administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues."

Also check here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/mar/29/20060329-120346-1901r/

I think if President Bush had really abused his powers, he'd have been impeached.

He even said that he would uphold the constitution. He PROMISED us this. He then has consistently done the oppositte whilst he uses the constitution for toilet paper.

I'd have to disagree for the most part, although I don't like that he said he would re-sign the Assault Weapons Ban if the Congress would support it.
 
  • #22
but human greed for money is unacceptable...

What is wrong with greed for money? Greed, when it drives a person to lie, cheat, steal, and harm other people, to get money, is evil. Greed, where you are willing to work very hard and do productive things that create wealth and help humanity at the same time, to make yourself very wealthy, I see nothing wrong with.

Greed can be good or bad, it depends.
 
  • #23
Mental Gridlock said:
No he hasn't. There have been plenty of terrorist attacks since 9/11.
I thinik by "us" he meant people in the United States. And it is a fact that there has been much less in the past 7 years than in the previous 7 years. In particular, zero attacks by al qaeda.

Here's a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents
Another list, only to 2003:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
List of thwarted attacks:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html

So really there are only two possibilities here: either we've been spectacularly lucky or the ant-terror policy (ie, the DHS) has been very succesful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
russ_watters said:
I thinik by "us" he meant people in the United States. And it is a fact that there has been much less in the past 7 years than in the previous 7 years. In particular, zero attacks by al qaeda.

Here's a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents
Another list, only to 2003:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
List of thwarted attacks:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html

So really there are only two possibilities here: either we've been spectacularly lucky or the ant-terror policy (ie, the DHS) has been very succesful.

Could you explain? From what I could make out, the terrorist attacks in the US in the previous 7 years were all by domestic terrorists (i.e. crazy people). None by foreign terrorists. The number of foreign attacks in the US was exactly the same under Bush as under Clinton if you count 9/11 as one attack. That is one. Could you correct me if I am wrong?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
russ_watters said:
So really there are only two possibilities here: either we've been spectacularly lucky or the ant-terror policy (ie, the DHS) has been very succesful.

Of course the DHS has been very successful. If I put bars over all my windows and doors and just stay home 24/7, I'll never get robbed, either. If I hire 50 people to put those bars on, where it normally takes 3 or 4, I'll make sure they are done correctly, too!

I love expanding the government, don't you?
 
  • #26
The anti-terror policies seem to have been successful thus far, if the following are accurate:

1. West Coast airliner plot: In 2002 the United States disrupted a plot to use shoe bombs to hijack a commercial airliner to attack the tallest building in Los Angeles. The plot was "set in motion" by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks.

"Rather than use Arab hijackers, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed sought out young men from Southeast Asia whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion," Bush said.

2. East Coast airliner plot: In mid-2003 the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to use hijacked commercial airplanes to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States.

3. The Jose Padilla plot: In May 2002 the United States disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the alleged plotters, Jose Padilla, allegedly discussed the possibility of using a "dirty bomb" inside the United States. Bush has designated him an "enemy combatant."

4. 2004 British urban targets plot: In mid-2004 the United States and partners disrupted a plot to bomb urban targets in Britain.

5. 2003 Karachi plot: In spring 2003 the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to attack westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.

6. Heathrow Airport plot: In 2003 the United States and several partners disrupted a plot to attack London's Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this alleged attack was undertaken by a major operational figure in the September 11, 2001, attacks.

7. 2004 Britain plot: In the spring of 2004 the United States and partners, using a combination of law enforcement and intelligence resources, disrupted a plot to conduct large-scale bombings in Britain.

8. 2002 Persian Gulf shipping plot: In late 2002 and 2003 the United States and a partner nation disrupted a plot by al Qaeda operatives to attack ships in the Persian Gulf.

9. 2002 Strait of Hormuz plot: In 2002 the United States and partners disrupted a plot to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz, the entrance to the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean.

10. 2003 tourist site plot: In 2003 the United States and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States. The White House did not list what site that was.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html

Also, there was the 2002 Brooklyn Bridge plot (to bring down the bridge), and the 2007 JFK bomb plot, to blow up fuel storage tanks and pipelines at John F. Kennedy International Airport, setting the place on fire and a good part of Queens.

Some of these plots have been ridiculed by the media, being described essentially as just silly attempts by inexperienced "terrorists" with no real skills, but delusions of grandeur. And maybe they are. But maybe they aren't. The government could foil one-hundred plots that would never work, but all it takes is one to do some major damage.

Imagine if, say, 9/11 had been stopped in its early stages...I could picture the media not making a huge deal about it and shrugging it off ("Like anyone could really hijack airliners and coordinate such an attack...") If you had said in 2000, "You know, this country is ripe open for a terrorist attack," you would have been shrugged off most likely. But one happened.

Such grand-sounding plots to hit a skyscraper in Los Angelos, or set fire to JFK airport, or bring down the Brooklyn Bridge, are only laughed at until they actually happen and take everyone by surprise.

The great trouble of protecting the United States from these attacks is that when you're successful at it, most people are completely unaware that any such threat ever existed, especially when you foil such plots early on, then no one can know for sure if they ever would have succeeded or not. And people will criticize your efforts. But what if President Bush had enacted no such surveillance plans, and taken no steps, and something else really bad did happen, God forbid?

It's a touchy subject, and I get the whole, "Those who prefer security over freedom deserve neither freedom nor security" bit too. But from what I can tell, the President was criticized for 9/11 happening under his watch, and has thus taken the necessary steps, within the law, to make sure such a thing does not happen again.

The ACLU, in order to challenge the whole thing, had to go and get a judge named Anna Diggs Taylor, a Carter appointee and very Leftist judge, to rule against it, and her ruling was then overturned by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
 
  • #27
WheelsRCool said:
But from what I can tell, the President was criticized for 9/11 happening under his watch, and has thus taken the necessary steps, within the law, to make sure such a thing does not happen again.
Within the law? This is a joke, right?

PS: Some of that list is pure propaganda and/or unsubstantiated speculation. Padilla, for instance, was convicted last year, and the Government never even charged him on any bombing attempt. And some of it had little to do with US intelligence (eg: Heathrow). The CNN article specifically calls them "international efforts". Surely, GWB can't take the credit for all international efforts.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
WheelsRCool said:
What is wrong with greed for money? Greed, when it drives a person to lie, cheat, steal, and harm other people, to get money, is evil. Greed, where you are willing to work very hard and do productive things that create wealth and help humanity at the same time, to make yourself very wealthy, I see nothing wrong with.

Greed can be good or bad, it depends.

In the case of politics, isn't cheating, stealing, and harming people where greed gets you. Greed is never a good thing in my opinion. A greedy person is a selfish person. Greed is never a good virtue. If you are rich and help humanity with your power, then you aren't greedy. A greedy person would screw humanity over to turn a profit which is what seams to be constantly happening, and the people who do those thing, (cheat, lie, and steal from the public) are the people who are usually the ones who get labeled as greedy.

As a leader, I can think of few qualities that are worse than greedy. I think greed is far worse than stupidity and ignorance as a quality a leader should have.

With the way people are taught by television now days, greed is a virtue, and lying and cheating and stealing are things people are proud of and brag about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
Gokul43201 said:
Within the law? This is a joke, right?

Not from what I have read and written above.

PS: Some of that list is pure propaganda and/or unsubstantiated speculation. Padilla, for instance, was convicted last year, and the Government never even charged him on any bombing attempt.

It's listed at the White House website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-7.html [Broken]

Here is how GlobalSecurity.org views some of them:

Here the West Coast airliner plot was rated mostly with "some confidence:" http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/west_coast_airliner_plot.htm

The part of the Heathrow airport plot to possibly use hijacked aircraft as missiles was rated with "high confidence:"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/target_heathrow_airport.htm
other parts were rated differently: http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/disrupted_heathrow_airport_plot.htm

The Brooklyn Bridge plot was rated mostly with "high confidence:" http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/al-qaeda_targets_brooklyn_bridge_and_trains.htm

The British Urban Targets plot was rated mostly with high-confidence: http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/uk_urban_targets_plot.htm

So I'm sure that even if some were flakes, some were credible threats as well.

And some of it had little to do with US intelligence (eg: Heathrow). The CNN article specifically calls them "international efforts". Surely, GWB can't take the credit for all international efforts.

True, GWB can't take credit for all the efforts. But if the surveillance program contributed to these international efforts, that's still something I'd think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
I think it depends on one's definition of greed; here is what I found at thefreedictionary.com: "Greed: An excessive desire to acquire or possesses more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth."

So what is wrong with that? It depends on what the greed is for.

sketchtrack said:
In the case of politics, isn't cheating, stealing, and harming people where greed gets you.

Well yes, generally as a politician, greed is bad, because politicians tend to be greedy for power. Greed for power in itself is bad, because the more power one gets, the more corrupt they become.

Greed is never a good thing in my opinion. A greedy person is a selfish person. Greed is never a good virtue.

Greed for knowledge, wanting to know about everything, far more than you "need" to, I wouldn't say is bad. Greed for love, wanting everyone to love you, might seem a bit narcisstic, but I wouldn't label it as evil. Greed for wealth as long as your morals stay in check, etc...I think can be very good.

To build wealth, you have to, for the most part, provide products and services that people value. So let's say you want to become worth $4 billion, so you spend your life building businesses and investing to attain this goal. Think of all the good you accomplish! Lots of job creation, economic growth, good products/services that help people, more taxpayers for the government, plus you become wealthy, and thus can then do even more good by starting charities, contributing to charities, etc...by investing in the markets, you also provide capital for other entrepreneurs to start their businesses, thus creating more jobs, products/services, etc...all that simply because you want to acquire far more wealth than you "need."

If you are rich and help humanity with your power, then you aren't greedy.

Not necessarily; you might love being greedy and building wealth and accumulating money, but also greatly enjoy philanthropy and donate large sums of money to charitable causes that you truly care about.

On the other hand, some rich people only donate to charity as a way to climb the social ladder; they "help humanity" but they are also greedy for acceptance. Some also only donate for tax write-off purposes.

A greedy person would screw humanity over to turn a profit which is what seams to be constantly happening,

Plenty would, but not all.

As a leader, I can think of few qualities that are worse than greedy. I think greed is far worse than stupidity and ignorance as a quality a leader should have.

With the way people are taught by television now days, greed is a virtue, and lying and cheating and stealing are things people are proud of and brag about.

Well I've never heard anyone be proud of being a liar, cheat, or thief, however there does seem to be a prevailing "slacker" attitude of people proud say to never have read a book in their life, stuff like that.

Greed I think is a virtue if used properly, and can be very good. For a leader of a group or team, if the leader has greed for say getting all the credit for the project, that's probably not good. If he has greed in other ways though, it can be very good I'd imagine.
 
  • #31
WheelsRCool said:
I think it depends on one's definition of greed; here is what I found at thefreedictionary.com: "Greed: An excessive desire to acquire or possesses more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth."

So what is wrong with that? It depends on what the greed is for.



Well yes, generally as a politician, greed is bad, because politicians tend to be greedy for power. Greed for power in itself is bad, because the more power one gets, the more corrupt they become.



Greed for knowledge, wanting to know about everything, far more than you "need" to, I wouldn't say is bad. Greed for love, wanting everyone to love you, might seem a bit narcisstic, but I wouldn't label it as evil. Greed for wealth as long as your morals stay in check, etc...I think can be very good.

To build wealth, you have to, for the most part, provide products and services that people value. So let's say you want to become worth $4 billion, so you spend your life building businesses and investing to attain this goal. Think of all the good you accomplish! Lots of job creation, economic growth, good products/services that help people, more taxpayers for the government, plus you become wealthy, and thus can then do even more good by starting charities, contributing to charities, etc...by investing in the markets, you also provide capital for other entrepreneurs to start their businesses, thus creating more jobs, products/services, etc...all that simply because you want to acquire far more wealth than you "need."



Not necessarily; you might love being greedy and building wealth and accumulating money, but also greatly enjoy philanthropy and donate large sums of money to charitable causes that you truly care about.

On the other hand, some rich people only donate to charity as a way to climb the social ladder; they "help humanity" but they are also greedy for acceptance. Some also only donate for tax write-off purposes.



Plenty would, but not all.



Well I've never heard anyone be proud of being a liar, cheat, or thief, however there does seem to be a prevailing "slacker" attitude of people proud say to never have read a book in their life, stuff like that.

Greed I think is a virtue if used properly, and can be very good. For a leader of a group or team, if the leader has greed for say getting all the credit for the project, that's probably not good. If he has greed in other ways though, it can be very good I'd imagine.

Ok, I guess there are different kinds of greed, and some worse than others, but generally greed is bad, not a virtue in my opinion. In my opinion greed is like an addiction. Note the word excessive. A simple desire to have more than you need isn't bad at all, but it can get out of hand, it can take over your life, it can leave you with no true friends, no true love, and can consume how you live your life.

If you are trying to create some kind of dynasty and to gain power to rule the world financially, then I suppose you need a lot of money to do that, so by that definition those people aren't greedy. It takes a lot of money to rule the world, but are you trying to rule the world for greedy reasons, or do you just think that you would make the world a better place by ruling it, so you are doing it for the people. It isn't what you have, but how you act that makes you greedy or not. What are your greedy actions, and what kind of person does it make you?
 
  • #32
WheelsRCool said:
Not from what I have read and written above.
Where have you read that warrantless wiretapping was legal? Where have you read that waterboarding is legal? Where have you read that the operation of CIA black sites and the use of extraordinary rendition are legal? Where have you read that suspension of habeus corpus was legal? Where have you read that the White House exercise of military tribunals in Guantanamo was legal?

True, GWB can't take credit for all the efforts. But if the surveillance program contributed to these international efforts, that's still something I'd think.
Then you have to show how the US surveillance program was contributing to those efforts.

It would be incredibly deceptive to claim that, for instance, that the Brits really depended on US help (and specifically help that would be otherwise impossible, if not for Bush) to uncover the Heathrow plot. That particular effort, in fact, wasn't even a national level effort for the most part - it was almost entirely solved by the local London police.
 
  • #33
Gokul43201 said:
It would be incredibly deceptive to claim that, for instance, that the Brits really depended on US help (and specifically help that would be otherwise impossible, if not for Bush) to uncover the Heathrow plot. That particular effort, in fact, wasn't even a national level effort for the most part - it was almost entirely solved by the local London police.
It's also incredibly pompous to make such statements as "The US and partners stopped attacks..." What he really means is "The UK security services and police forces, helped in part by the US, stopped the attacks.."
 
  • #34
It is kind of funny to think Bush did well protecting us from Terrorism because the biggest terrorist attack on the U.S. in history was during his term. It has been shown that if they had their stuff together it could have easily been prevented.

Then you can say that he prevented further attacks, yet at the same time, he created millions more terrorists and elevated world wide hate against the U.S., so I'm not sure he really did well protecting us from terrorists because now there is a bigger problem lurking in the shadows than before.
 
  • #35
Gokul43201 said:
Where have you read that warrantless wiretapping was legal?

It isn't "warrantless wiretapping" from my understanding. It is a foreign surveillance program that intercepts international signals. It isn't as if the government is illegally wiretapping its own citizens. The President went through all the proper means to enact such a program, it was challenged by the ACLU, and held up by the court system.

Where have you read that waterboarding is legal?

I would say waterboarding is legal when applied to terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay; I do not believe that terrorists are subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention.

[quoteWhere have you read that the operation of CIA black sites and the use of extraordinary rendition are legal?[/quote]

What should it matter when dealing with terrorists?

Where have you read that suspension of habeus corpus was legal? Where have you read that the White House exercise of military tribunals in Guantanamo was legal?

These are captured terrorists, not ordinary U.S. citizens. They are not subject to the same rights as American citizens.

Then you have to show how the US surveillance program was contributing to those efforts.

It would be incredibly deceptive to claim that, for instance, that the Brits really depended on US help (and specifically help that would be otherwise impossible, if not for Bush) to uncover the Heathrow plot. That particular effort, in fact, wasn't even a national level effort for the most part - it was almost entirely solved by the local London police.

I am going by what was released by the White House. But so what if some of them were not really because of the President's efforts? Some of them were, such as the Brooklyn Bridge plot, the JFK plot, and the Los Angelos plot. Furthermore, if the terrorists are trying to do things in Britain, than surely they are also trying to do things here as well I'd think.

It's also incredibly pompous to make such statements as "The US and partners stopped attacks..." What he really means is "The UK security services and police forces, helped in part by the US, stopped the attacks.."

I agree, if that is the case in different instances, then that's how they should have worded it. Give credit where it's due.
 
<h2>1. What were the major accomplishments of George W. Bush's presidency?</h2><p>During his presidency, George W. Bush signed into law several major pieces of legislation, including the No Child Left Behind Act, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and the USA PATRIOT Act. He also successfully pushed for tax cuts and implemented a comprehensive energy policy.</p><h2>2. How did George W. Bush handle national security?</h2><p>George W. Bush is most well-known for his response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He implemented the War on Terror, which included the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. He also created the Department of Homeland Security and implemented stricter security measures at airports.</p><h2>3. Did George W. Bush have any impact on the economy?</h2><p>During his presidency, George W. Bush faced both economic growth and recession. He implemented tax cuts and increased government spending, which some credit for the economic growth in the early 2000s. However, the economy also experienced a major recession towards the end of his presidency.</p><h2>4. How did George W. Bush handle natural disasters?</h2><p>George W. Bush faced several natural disasters during his presidency, including Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Many criticized his administration's response to the disaster, citing slow and inadequate relief efforts. However, he also implemented reforms to improve disaster response and recovery efforts in the future.</p><h2>5. What was George W. Bush's stance on immigration?</h2><p>George W. Bush proposed a comprehensive immigration reform that would have provided a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. However, the legislation was met with opposition and ultimately did not pass. He also implemented stricter border security measures and increased deportations during his presidency.</p>

1. What were the major accomplishments of George W. Bush's presidency?

During his presidency, George W. Bush signed into law several major pieces of legislation, including the No Child Left Behind Act, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and the USA PATRIOT Act. He also successfully pushed for tax cuts and implemented a comprehensive energy policy.

2. How did George W. Bush handle national security?

George W. Bush is most well-known for his response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He implemented the War on Terror, which included the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. He also created the Department of Homeland Security and implemented stricter security measures at airports.

3. Did George W. Bush have any impact on the economy?

During his presidency, George W. Bush faced both economic growth and recession. He implemented tax cuts and increased government spending, which some credit for the economic growth in the early 2000s. However, the economy also experienced a major recession towards the end of his presidency.

4. How did George W. Bush handle natural disasters?

George W. Bush faced several natural disasters during his presidency, including Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Many criticized his administration's response to the disaster, citing slow and inadequate relief efforts. However, he also implemented reforms to improve disaster response and recovery efforts in the future.

5. What was George W. Bush's stance on immigration?

George W. Bush proposed a comprehensive immigration reform that would have provided a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. However, the legislation was met with opposition and ultimately did not pass. He also implemented stricter border security measures and increased deportations during his presidency.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
4
Replies
131
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
119
Views
17K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
88
Views
12K
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
56
Views
9K
Back
Top