Why is Bush a good president?

  • News
  • Thread starter Zero
  • Start date
  • #1
Anyone? And, to simplify, I could prefer that we start with one claim, post some links, and figure out that one before moving on to the next...
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
No one has a positive assertion to make?
 
  • #3
pelastration
162
0
Originally posted by Zero
No one has a positive assertion to make?

I believe I found one: He really supports the US weapon industry and insures that way 'extra' jobs !
I don't believe Gore would have done this better.
Some 'holes' in Florida made the difference.
 
  • #4
Originally posted by pelastration
I believe I found one: He really supports the US weapon industry and insures that way 'extra' jobs !
I don't believe Gore would have done this better.
Some 'holes' in Florida made the difference.
Ok, so, if you are a millionaire arms dealer, you are better off thanks to Bush?
 
  • #5
pelastration
162
0
Originally posted by Zero
Ok, so, if you are a millionaire arms dealer, you are better off thanks to Bush?
Aren't those millionaire arms dealers telling Bush what to do? They give him the comics to read.
I am sure one of them is Superman.
 
  • #6
Originally posted by pelastration
Aren't those millionaire arms dealers telling Bush what to do? They give him the comics to read.
I am sure one of them is Superman.
Now, now...I was hoping for some serious discussion here...making fun of Bush's intelligence isn't getting us anywhere.
 
  • #7
Chagur
33
0
Bush has the guts to lie, big time, to the American people ... No whimpy lies like Clinton told. And, better yet, he's convinced he has God on his side. What more could you want from a President?
 
  • #8
You guys aren't getting into the spirit of this thread...I want a Bush supporter to post something good that Bush has actually done for America. And, hopefully, it will be something that no one else would have done but him, some sort of bold initiative that he and his administration came up with. Something bold, and something that worked!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Mattius_
1
0
Well, Zero, What do you expect, you have posted this in a forum full of educated people... Educated people arrive at the same conclusions.

On the other hand, one could say that Bush has been given a ****ty hand to play with... IMO, these have been two pretty terrible years for a conservative leader. Ofcourse he can manipulate the general public, as any president can, and still attain the majority will. But he cannot manipulate the educated; Eventually, the educated will manipulate the general public against the conservative.

One could say that under Bush, the **** has slid down hill slower.

If that is a positive thing...
 
  • #10
Originally posted by Mattius_
Well, Zero, What do you expect, you have posted this in a forum full of educated people... Educated people arrive at the same conclusions.

On the other hand, one could say that Bush has been given a ****ty hand to play with... IMO, these have been two pretty terrible years for a conservative leader. Ofcourse he can manipulate the general public, as any president can, and still attain the majority will. But he cannot manipulate the educated; Eventually, the educated will manipulate the general public against the conservative.

One could say that under Bush, the **** has slid down hill slower.

If that is a positive thing...
I was hoping that someone would make a supportable argument for re-electing Bush...I honestly don't see one, but obviously not everyone who votes for him is a slobbering moron.
 
  • #11
kat
39
0
Why is Bush a good president?

"Good" compared to who?
 
  • #12
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
Educated people arrive at the same conclusions.

I object.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by kat
"Good" compared to who?
Not good compared to anyone...can you present stand-alone reasons that Bush is a good president?
 
  • #14
Originally posted by Hurkyl
I object.
Ok. But why ??
 
  • #15
pelastration
162
0
some general remarks.

I think good or bad are just perception definitions in relation to each one's goals, idea's or ethics.
For sure Bush or his administration have done a number of good things. But other may be called doubtful.
My concern is that a number of his decisions may be based on pure religious motives, pure fundamentalist believes (like being be chosen not only by the voters but also by God ... with the task to bring his will on Earth). On Internet I found indications on that but I don't know how solid these are.
So if Bush has not only a RED telephone direct with Putin but also a direct BLUE telephone line with God then we may have a problem.

We see a number of similar world leaders like that: the Iranese top, Sharon, the Pope, .... whom all 'believe' they represent a 'chosen group' and have an "un-doubtful right" to tell others how everything should be organized and settled.
History shows were extremes can lead: Stalin and Pol-Pot (pseudo religion), Hitler ( superior race), ...

There is something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and I believe that is very important.
(http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm [Broken])
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Fundamentalist standpoint's are in essence anti-democratic, and in a certain extend even racist if a certain group is give a natural supremacy given by God. They deny that other have similar rights as themselves.

When cultures (based on supremacy of race or religion) clash on the world map (cfr. Former Yugoslavia, Palestine, ...) we always see growth of extremism and the behavior which embeds aggression and motives for terrorism. We see always that action causes reaction.
Tolerance is the key to a better world.

So a question arises: Why does US (Bush) fears of the International Court of Justice (http://www.icj-cij.org/). Are there things we don't know? Did Clinton had the same problems with the ICJ? No.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1


Originally posted by pelastration
When cultures (based on supremacy of race or religion) clash on the world map (cfr. Former Yugoslavia, Palestine, ...) we always see growth of extremism and the behavior which embeds aggression and motives for terrorism. We see always that action causes reaction.
Tolerance is the key to a better world.

So a question arises: Why does US (Bush) fears of the International Court of Justice (http://www.icj-cij.org/). Are there things we don't know? Did Clinton had the same problems with the ICJ? No.
Ha ! Ha ! HA !
What a bunch of BS ! "International" court of "justice" ?!
Who the hell are you (not personally - in general) to tell
people what justice is ? When the last time you fought somebody
or lived hard lives or had to combat terrorists. Your pathetic
European Union thinks it can decide what justice is for
everyone on the planet ? What are you the smartest ? The most
just ? Where's all that "major experience" coming from, huh ?
You think you know what the normal way of life is, what
real principles are ? Not according to history. As for the
way you live - you're on burrowed time and the clock is
ticking loudly, enjoying your short lived supperiority over
the huge 3rd world and developing countries that will soon
leave your economy in the gutter as "hard-working" people
like you should expect. International Court of Justice ?
Ask a person from a 3rd world country wheather he would
like to spend the rest of his life in your air-conditioned,
cable-TV, sports active, 3 full meals a day jails and he'll
admit any crime you want him to. Did the sense of "Justice"
of west Europe get born (except the UK) before it lived
under Hitler or maybe during that time. How about
the French sense of "justice", their recent history
is saturated with it. So take your justice and your
"International" court and preach to some 3rd world country
that cares, at least while it has no choice and is being
payed for it.
Nothing personal btw, I was just adressing Belgium, the EU,
and the rest of your "international" self-appointed
"super-rightouss" fools.

BTW, this is off topic, pelastration. :wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #17
So, drag...where are the reasons for your support of Bush? Stay on topic, please.
 
  • #18


Originally posted by pelastration
I think good or bad are just perception definitions in relation to each one's goals, idea's or ethics.
For sure Bush or his administration have done a number of good things. But other may be called doubtful.
My concern is that a number of his decisions may be based on pure religious motives, pure fundamentalist believes (like being be chosen not only by the voters but also by God ... with the task to bring his will on Earth). On Internet I found indications on that but I don't know how solid these are.
So if Bush has not only a RED telephone direct with Putin but also a direct BLUE telephone line with God then we may have a problem.

We see a number of similar world leaders like that: the Iranese top, Sharon, the Pope, .... whom all 'believe' they represent a 'chosen group' and have an "un-doubtful right" to tell others how everything should be organized and settled.
History shows were extremes can lead: Stalin and Pol-Pot (pseudo religion), Hitler ( superior race), ...

There is something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and I believe that is very important.
(http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm [Broken])
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Fundamentalist standpoint's are in essence anti-democratic, and in a certain extend even racist if a certain group is give a natural supremacy given by God. They deny that other have similar rights as themselves.

When cultures (based on supremacy of race or religion) clash on the world map (cfr. Former Yugoslavia, Palestine, ...) we always see growth of extremism and the behavior which embeds aggression and motives for terrorism. We see always that action causes reaction.
Tolerance is the key to a better world.

So a question arises: Why does US (Bush) fears of the International Court of Justice (http://www.icj-cij.org/). Are there things we don't know? Did Clinton had the same problems with the ICJ? No.
This is the something that would be better served in a separate thread, not discussed here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
kat
39
0
Originally posted by Zero
Not good compared to anyone...can you present stand-alone reasons that Bush is a good president?

I can't remember a "good" president..not any of those I remember from the last 4 decades at least. No, wait, I take that back...Carter was a "good" president, but he was not a very effective one.
 
  • #20
Originally posted by kat
I can't remember a "good" president..not any of those I remember from the last 4 decades at least. No, wait, I take that back...Carter was a "good" president, but he was not a very effective one.
If there are no 'good' presidents, then at least we can ask if their policies have the promised outcomes, and whether those outcomes are a positive or negative for all of us.
 
  • #21
Mattius_
1
0
The defeating thing of this all is the fact that policies generally have long term affects, and yet we vote for people on those same policies in the present.

Long story short, we cant judge a presidents actions until we look at them in retrospect, from a distance, and with little emotion.
 
  • #22
Mattius_
1
0
Ok, i just thought of something positive about bush.

There havent been anymore terrorist attacks on u.s. soil.
 
  • #23
Mattius_
1
0
Also, He has kept US casualties low in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
  • #24
Originally posted by Mattius_
Ok, i just thought of something positive about bush.

There havent been anymore terrorist attacks on u.s. soil.
Is that something Bush is responsible for? How many terrorists attacks have there been on U.S. soil total? (I assume you mean foreign terrorism)
 
  • #25
Originally posted by Mattius_
Also, He has kept US casualties low in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Really? He did that? Is that the goal of the military? And would there have been less casualties if he had done things differently?
 
  • #26
Mattius_
1
0
See, i knew it would come to this...

Anything a president does is reflected through lower bodies...

If 100,000 soldiers died in Afghanistan and Iraq, who would be blamed?? The generals??? HA! You had better believe bush would be taking ALLLLLL of the heat from that.

Also, I think you forgot that the person to appoints commanding generals IS the president.
 
  • #27
russ_watters
Mentor
21,863
8,829
Originally posted by Zero
Really? He did that? Is that the goal of the military? And would there have been less casualties if he had done things differently?
Zero, I thought the question was if he was "good"? Now you seem to be asserting that unless he's perfect, he can't be good.

And yes, keeping casualties low is a goal of the military's leadership, which includes both the uniformed and civilian leadership.

In any case, the primary thing that I see from Bush that is good is leadership. Its the reason presidents have a high approval rating during time of war, but it is very difficult to quantify.
 
  • #28
Chemicalsuperfreak
225
0
Originally posted by Mattius_
Also, He has kept US casualties low in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

If he hadn't lied about WMD in Iraq there wouldn't have been any casualties in Iraq.

And as for Afghanistan, we had the Northern Alliance do all of the real fighting for us, which is probably why most of the Taliban and Al Qaeda were able to slip away.
 
  • #29
Mattius_
1
0
Who really cares if the taliban and al-qaeda got away? they arent here, and they havent been able to get here, so who the hell cares?

secondly, the war in iraq was much more than wmd's it was aimed to do a multitude of other things. Sure he lied about wmd's but it was his justification to get other things on his agenda done.
 
  • #30
Originally posted by Mattius_
Who really cares if the taliban and al-qaeda got away? they arent here, and they havent been able to get here, so who the hell cares?

secondly, the war in iraq was much more than wmd's it was aimed to do a multitude of other things. Sure he lied about wmd's but it was his justification to get other things on his agenda done.
That's an...interesting(?) argument. You don't care about the purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan, and you don't care if the president lies to the American people about why our troops and Iraqi civilians are dying? Wow, honesty, cool!!
 
  • #31
Originally posted by russ_watters
Zero, I thought the question was if he was "good"? Now you seem to be asserting that unless he's perfect, he can't be good.

And yes, keeping casualties low is a goal of the military's leadership, which includes both the uniformed and civilian leadership.

In any case, the primary thing that I see from Bush that is good is leadership. Its the reason presidents have a high approval rating during time of war, but it is very difficult to quantify.
Two questions:

1) How do I make assertions by asking questions?

2) How do you define leadership?
 
  • #32
Mattius_
1
0
Hmmm, The purpose of invading Afghanistan... Hmmm...

Well, since the general public didnt even know where Afghanistan was until after 9-11 so im going so say the invasion had something to do with 9-11...

I think, if i recall, the purpose of the invasion was to...

they arent here, and they havent been able to get here

oh yea, i already stated that... The primary objective for the invasion of Afghanistan was to root out the taliban and their constituents, and keep them from harming America again.

So, i go back to my original statement:

Who really cares if the taliban and al-qaeda got away? they arent here, and they havent been able to get here, so who the hell cares?

Secondly, Last time I checked, the civilian casualty count was not available... so how can YOU begin to postulate our brutality? Also, last time i checked, losing a couple hundred soldiers in a war which removes another person from power is UNPRECEDENTED IN HISTORY. k?

please try to avoid being a product of the media. Thx!
 
  • #33
Originally posted by Mattius_



Secondly, Last time I checked, the civilian casualty count was not available... so how can YOU begin to postulate our brutality? Also, last time i checked, losing a couple hundred soldiers in a war which removes another person from power is UNPRECEDENTED IN HISTORY. k?

please try to avoid being a product of the media. Thx!
Can I ask you a question? How do you balance the idea that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. with the fact that we steamrolled over Iraq with minimal casualties?
 
  • #34
Mattius_
1
0
What did i say before?

In my opinion, the Iraqi war had very little to do with Iraq. When i said:

the war in iraq was much more than wmd's it was aimed to do a multitude of other things. Sure he lied about wmd's but it was his justification to get other things on his agenda done.

Those 'other things' include economic issues, society issues, and the fact it was inherently easy because of our people's general sentiments to the middle-east, and the fact that we could justify it by screaming TERRORRISM!!!

And ofcourse, along the way, we take a dictator out in the name of 'freedom.'

So, to respond to your question, Id say that you participated in libel, and misrepresented me to the rest of this forum, apologize.
 
  • #35
Gale
676
2
i prefer bush over gore, but that doesn't say much. I think gore just would've sat around and done nothing... at least bush is stimulating the media... entertaining...

If we find out years from now that going into iraq was a good thing, then i think bush would've been the only one to do it. So go bush! ...course like Mattius said, its a retrospect thing. Right now we can't really tell whether it was good or bad. I also agree with him pretty much on bush's 'lying' or whatever. He had an agenda sure, wmd was just a means of getting the public to agree with him. He is a good leader... he got most of america steeming with pride, ready to go blow up foriegners, and really half of it wasn't even true. But, again, if we find out later on that it was all worth it, then he's a great guy...

Lets see though... concrete things that bush has done well... i dunno.
 

Suggested for: Why is Bush a good president?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
41
Views
587
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
157
Replies
13
Views
364
Replies
1
Views
282
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
291
Replies
2
Views
344
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
770
Replies
8
Views
412
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
539
Top