-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Did George W. Bush do anything right?
- Thread starter Rainbowdashtheawesome
- Start date
ccangelopearl1362
Well-Known Member
[IMG139]http://www.ibdeditorials.com/images/editimg/issues02082708.gif[/IMG139]
Investor’s Business Daily: The Pie Got Bigger
George Walker Bush’s economic policies may have kept this country stronger than many would guess in the years after 9/11, at least before this global downturn. That Investor’s Business Daily editorial was released on August 26, 2008… mere days before the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions, and the numbers within it are most interesting to chew over. We see a general uptick in average U.S. income up to 2006, slow between 2001 and 2003, but quicker onward. Al-Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center on that dark day, as good a symbol of American capitalism as any, I would think, and in the grim days and weeks that ensued after those airplane jihad attacks, this country’s stock market plummeted. Fortunately, when Bush initiated those tax decreases, the economy rebounded, taking income with it and even scoring a 7.5% jump in 2004’s fourth quarter and a 6.3% jump in 2003’s third quarter, and as income increased, so did the people’s ability to, well, buy whatever they were aiming for, such as new homes.:
Investor’s Business Daily: Bush and ‘Financial Apartheid’
In 2003, to calculate the timeframe described in that article correctly, Bush authorized up to $200 million per year through fiscal year 2007 to give first-time homebuyers some help taking care of down payments and closing costs. The contrast with those who sided with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 I find noticeable, what with its requirement for banks to make loans in distressed neighborhoods – and the resulting subprime mortgage instability. Yet, the contrast with Barack Obama may be even more pronounced as more and more people in Europe ponder the prospect of a world without the United States.:
American Thinker: Steve McCann: Why Europeans are turning against Obama
Nightmarish? As the guardian of liberty across the planet, America has been demonstrating the value of individualism and private enterprise, and consequently, Japan, China, and India have emerged to become economic powerhouses. Unfortunately, Western Europe is facing bankruptcy and below-replacement birth rates, and environmental extremism has made energy even more valuable. Taken together, these factors have led some European associates of Steve McCann to miss George Walker Bush’s cowboy presidency, and even Der Spiegel is starting to worry. To take this argument as it is, the demise of the America as the global superpower would (potentially) signal the demise of Western Christendom, or Western civilization, if you will, and only actual willpower mustered by the successors to Bush – with encouragement from current Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and former Australian Prime Minister John Howard – will reverse this downward spiral. As before, the contrast with Obama’s almost reflexive position against free trade, at least with Colombia, is worrisome.:
National Archives: White House: George Walker Bush’s January 13, 2009, comments about Alvaro Uribe, John Howard, and Tony Blair’s Presidential Medals of Freedom
Investor’s Business Daily: Colombia Gives Free Trade a Chance
Investor’s Business Daily: Raising America’s Global Standing?
Bush’s recollections of Blair, Uribe, and Howard will fit nicely into the freedom agenda overall. Blair was standing right in the chamber of the House of Representatives when Bush declared America’s resolve to take down Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and terrorists around the world nine days after the 9/11 airplane jihad attacks, and he would go on to declare his determination that the world would unite under liberty rather than hate. As I stand, Bush and Blair’s teamwork during Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom has demonstrated the strength of the special relationship between America and Britain in the 21st century, but the benefits of that relationship extended beyond just these two countries. Under Howard, Australia kept an eye on China, India, Burma, and any jihadists converging on and congregating around Indonesia, but neither those jihadists nor China’s economic expansionism deterred Howard from articulating the power of the free market in lifting people into prosperity. With Australia positioned to extend America and Britain’s partnership and moral clarity into the Indian and Pacific Oceans, Howard, Blair, and Bush made quite a trio these past several years, but Uribe may have endured the most actual direct threats against him as the President of Colombia. Uribe urged Congress to encourage investment in both his country and America and counter the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia’s terrorism, and he was determined to create a peace economy by privatizing state industries and cutting regulations to allow new businesses to blossom, all in defiance of the Caudillo of Caracas. Uribe’s refusal to counter Hugo Chavez’s military mobilization in March 2008 in pursuit of “peace through trade and development” stands in stark contrast to Obama’s accusation that Colombia had mocked labor protections within it, thereby standing against the free trade agreement that Bush sought between America and Colombia. Investor’s Business Daily called Obama’s demonization of America’s strategic allies, from Colombia to Britain to Israel, a mystery, which still fits even after Obama succeeded Bush as the President of the United States. Obama should do better in heeding the advice of a man who evidently influenced the freedom agenda since it was first articulated.:
Natan Sharansky: Dissident president
Natan Sharansky authored The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, and George Walker Bush praised its clarity in explaining the differences between freedom and tyranny, expanding the thought patterns of the foreign policy establishment beyond geopolitical calculations and the balance of power, as Henry Kissinger argued regarding the Soviet Union. Even during the days of President William Jefferson Clinton, analysts insisted on stability as the all-important criterion for avoiding conflict anywhere around the world… only to get September 11, 2001. The “democratic earthquake” that Bush helped unleash afterward offered the promise of a sincerely peaceful world, and as one might expect, the Islamists were furious, including Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. One wonders how far the American people will go in urging President Barack Obama to declare solidarity with the Iranian protesters, giving them enough moral strength to overthrow their current regime, thereby planting the flag of freedom in Tehran and carrying forth an agenda, no, a mission articulated by George Walker Bush as the 43rd President of the United States of America.
Investor’s Business Daily: The Pie Got Bigger
George Walker Bush’s economic policies may have kept this country stronger than many would guess in the years after 9/11, at least before this global downturn. That Investor’s Business Daily editorial was released on August 26, 2008… mere days before the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions, and the numbers within it are most interesting to chew over. We see a general uptick in average U.S. income up to 2006, slow between 2001 and 2003, but quicker onward. Al-Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center on that dark day, as good a symbol of American capitalism as any, I would think, and in the grim days and weeks that ensued after those airplane jihad attacks, this country’s stock market plummeted. Fortunately, when Bush initiated those tax decreases, the economy rebounded, taking income with it and even scoring a 7.5% jump in 2004’s fourth quarter and a 6.3% jump in 2003’s third quarter, and as income increased, so did the people’s ability to, well, buy whatever they were aiming for, such as new homes.:
Investor’s Business Daily: Bush and ‘Financial Apartheid’
In 2003, to calculate the timeframe described in that article correctly, Bush authorized up to $200 million per year through fiscal year 2007 to give first-time homebuyers some help taking care of down payments and closing costs. The contrast with those who sided with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 I find noticeable, what with its requirement for banks to make loans in distressed neighborhoods – and the resulting subprime mortgage instability. Yet, the contrast with Barack Obama may be even more pronounced as more and more people in Europe ponder the prospect of a world without the United States.:
American Thinker: Steve McCann: Why Europeans are turning against Obama
Nightmarish? As the guardian of liberty across the planet, America has been demonstrating the value of individualism and private enterprise, and consequently, Japan, China, and India have emerged to become economic powerhouses. Unfortunately, Western Europe is facing bankruptcy and below-replacement birth rates, and environmental extremism has made energy even more valuable. Taken together, these factors have led some European associates of Steve McCann to miss George Walker Bush’s cowboy presidency, and even Der Spiegel is starting to worry. To take this argument as it is, the demise of the America as the global superpower would (potentially) signal the demise of Western Christendom, or Western civilization, if you will, and only actual willpower mustered by the successors to Bush – with encouragement from current Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and former Australian Prime Minister John Howard – will reverse this downward spiral. As before, the contrast with Obama’s almost reflexive position against free trade, at least with Colombia, is worrisome.:
National Archives: White House: George Walker Bush’s January 13, 2009, comments about Alvaro Uribe, John Howard, and Tony Blair’s Presidential Medals of Freedom
Investor’s Business Daily: Colombia Gives Free Trade a Chance
Investor’s Business Daily: Raising America’s Global Standing?
Bush’s recollections of Blair, Uribe, and Howard will fit nicely into the freedom agenda overall. Blair was standing right in the chamber of the House of Representatives when Bush declared America’s resolve to take down Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and terrorists around the world nine days after the 9/11 airplane jihad attacks, and he would go on to declare his determination that the world would unite under liberty rather than hate. As I stand, Bush and Blair’s teamwork during Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom has demonstrated the strength of the special relationship between America and Britain in the 21st century, but the benefits of that relationship extended beyond just these two countries. Under Howard, Australia kept an eye on China, India, Burma, and any jihadists converging on and congregating around Indonesia, but neither those jihadists nor China’s economic expansionism deterred Howard from articulating the power of the free market in lifting people into prosperity. With Australia positioned to extend America and Britain’s partnership and moral clarity into the Indian and Pacific Oceans, Howard, Blair, and Bush made quite a trio these past several years, but Uribe may have endured the most actual direct threats against him as the President of Colombia. Uribe urged Congress to encourage investment in both his country and America and counter the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia’s terrorism, and he was determined to create a peace economy by privatizing state industries and cutting regulations to allow new businesses to blossom, all in defiance of the Caudillo of Caracas. Uribe’s refusal to counter Hugo Chavez’s military mobilization in March 2008 in pursuit of “peace through trade and development” stands in stark contrast to Obama’s accusation that Colombia had mocked labor protections within it, thereby standing against the free trade agreement that Bush sought between America and Colombia. Investor’s Business Daily called Obama’s demonization of America’s strategic allies, from Colombia to Britain to Israel, a mystery, which still fits even after Obama succeeded Bush as the President of the United States. Obama should do better in heeding the advice of a man who evidently influenced the freedom agenda since it was first articulated.:
Natan Sharansky: Dissident president
Natan Sharansky authored The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, and George Walker Bush praised its clarity in explaining the differences between freedom and tyranny, expanding the thought patterns of the foreign policy establishment beyond geopolitical calculations and the balance of power, as Henry Kissinger argued regarding the Soviet Union. Even during the days of President William Jefferson Clinton, analysts insisted on stability as the all-important criterion for avoiding conflict anywhere around the world… only to get September 11, 2001. The “democratic earthquake” that Bush helped unleash afterward offered the promise of a sincerely peaceful world, and as one might expect, the Islamists were furious, including Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. One wonders how far the American people will go in urging President Barack Obama to declare solidarity with the Iranian protesters, giving them enough moral strength to overthrow their current regime, thereby planting the flag of freedom in Tehran and carrying forth an agenda, no, a mission articulated by George Walker Bush as the 43rd President of the United States of America.
Champion Jared 14
Well-Known Member
Wow, I won't try to debate any of that, but I believe Bush had a more agreeable stance on abortion rather than Obama, at least in my opinion.
~Upsidedown 403~
Well-Known Member
I agree, I just can't stomach the stances of pro...I'm not even gonna give them the pride of using that term...
The stance of supporting abortion has nothing to do with pride.I agree, I just can't stomach the stances of pro...I'm not even gonna give them the pride of using that term...
I liked Bush, people can say what they want but the Iraqis are MORE than happy that the US came to take Saddam away. We did win the war. The guy was crazy, he was putting people into acid tanks. And he DID have WMDs btw.
All this stuff that Democrats feed into people's brains as truth is getting ridiculous! its like Goebbels, the leader of advertising in Germany under Hitler, said: "When you tell a lie 100 times, it becomes truth." -shakes head in disbelief-
I definitely don't regret NOT voting for Obama. China owns more than of America by now.
No, it just has to do with killing unborn children.
All this stuff that Democrats feed into people's brains as truth is getting ridiculous! its like Goebbels, the leader of advertising in Germany under Hitler, said: "When you tell a lie 100 times, it becomes truth." -shakes head in disbelief-
I definitely don't regret NOT voting for Obama. China owns more than of America by now.
The stance of supporting abortion has nothing to do with pride.
No, it just has to do with killing unborn children.
Please, don't try to turn this into an abortion thread by saying controversial statements like "lulz it's killing an unborn child" If you want to debate it, you can challenge me to a one on one. And please, do not blame it all on the Democrats. After a few years, there weren't too many Republican supporting the war, either. And I am not trying to mini mod for all future reference.I liked Bush, people can say what they want but the Iraqis are MORE than happy that the US came to take Saddam away. We did win the war. The guy was crazy, he was putting people into acid tanks. And he DID have WMDs btw.
All this stuff that Democrats feed into people's brains as truth is getting ridiculous! its like Goebbels, the leader of advertising in Germany under Hitler, said: "When you tell a lie 100 times, it becomes truth." -shakes head in disbelief-
I definitely don't regret NOT voting for Obama. China owns more than of America by now.
No, it just has to do with killing unborn children.
And I would like you to give me a link stating that Iraq did have WMDs. And the war hasn't been won yet, it can easily turn to crap.
Trying to get this topic back on topic, the always left leaning Newsweek has a rather interesting story out.
Obama should send Bush to Israel
For all of Obama and his supporters rhetoric, about Bush destroying our friendships with countries. Bush had a much better relation with Israelis than almost any President since the founding of that nation, a relationship that is being shot to hell under Obama.
So to jump start discussion, should Bush who so many claim did nothing right, be appointed as our envoy to Israel? And really, does anyone think that he would take it after as horrible as Obama has treated him.
Obama should send Bush to Israel
For all of Obama and his supporters rhetoric, about Bush destroying our friendships with countries. Bush had a much better relation with Israelis than almost any President since the founding of that nation, a relationship that is being shot to hell under Obama.
So to jump start discussion, should Bush who so many claim did nothing right, be appointed as our envoy to Israel? And really, does anyone think that he would take it after as horrible as Obama has treated him.
Sapphiredragon929
A r t i f i c e.
Bush did do somethings right. The people always appoint a president who they believe is not a feeble waste of space. And to be honest, President Bush did handle some stuff well.
ccangelopearl1362
Well-Known Member
(raising eyebrow) Hello. Who knew that Newsweek would attempt something like this? I don’t imagine that George Walker Bush would seek to do anything to prevent Barack Obama from revealing his instinctive responses, but instead, just stay quiet, making the occasional speeches and lectures here and there. On the other hand, I now remember even more of Natan Sharansky’s observations regarding the freedom agenda in its early stages, including a speech by Bush that stated, among other things, that the Palestinian Arabs deserve a government that respects their human rights and focuses on their needs – education and health care – rather than continue feeding their resentments against Israel. In other words, Bush rejected both Yasser Arafat’s terrorism and the Palestinian Arabs’ oppression by their own regime, and Sharansky seized the moment by compiling a new diplomatic initiative predicated on “helping the Palestinians establish a free society and on linking the peace process to the expansion of freedom within that society”. Some might argue that if a people as comprehensively wrecked as the Palestinian Arabs can achieve genuine freedom, peace, and happiness, then any people can achieve a similar goal. Fortunately for us, Mr. Sharansky is still around, even expanding on his articulation of the true power of freedom… and he may get to be vitally important should Barack Obama inflict any more damage to America’s relationship with Israel in the name of equality with the Islamic world.
Last edited:
Red Frostraven
Well-Known Member
The whole TOPIC is a strawman..:
Even HITLER did something right.
Volkswagen exists because of him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen
Even HITLER did something right.
Volkswagen exists because of him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen
One thing that is going around recently is how the Bush White House handled protests compared to the recent handling of the Obama White House. I think we can chalk that up to something more he has done right.
Here are some of the statements from the Bush White House on protests
"I think the president welcomes the fact that we are a democracy and people in the United States, unlike Iraq, are free to protest and to make their case known," - White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer on Anti-war protesters
"The American people have a right to protest, and the right of free speech is something that we're fighting for in this war on terror, to preserve that right of free speech. So the President welcomes opinions from all Americans." - White House Press Secretary Trent Duffy on anti-war protests
"The President talked about some of this the other day in remarks at the Pentagon. He recognizes that there are differences of opinion on Iraq and our role in the broader Middle East. Some people want us to withdraw from Iraq and withdraw from the Middle East. They are well-intentioned." - White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on Iraq protests
Compared to recently at the Obama White House
"I hope people will take a jaundiced eye to what is clearly the Astroturf nature of grass-roots lobbying," said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs during a morning off-camera session in his office with reporters.
"This is manufactured anger," he said. - White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on health care protests
Here are some of the statements from the Bush White House on protests
"I think the president welcomes the fact that we are a democracy and people in the United States, unlike Iraq, are free to protest and to make their case known," - White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer on Anti-war protesters
"The American people have a right to protest, and the right of free speech is something that we're fighting for in this war on terror, to preserve that right of free speech. So the President welcomes opinions from all Americans." - White House Press Secretary Trent Duffy on anti-war protests
"The President talked about some of this the other day in remarks at the Pentagon. He recognizes that there are differences of opinion on Iraq and our role in the broader Middle East. Some people want us to withdraw from Iraq and withdraw from the Middle East. They are well-intentioned." - White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on Iraq protests
Compared to recently at the Obama White House
"I hope people will take a jaundiced eye to what is clearly the Astroturf nature of grass-roots lobbying," said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs during a morning off-camera session in his office with reporters.
"This is manufactured anger," he said. - White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on health care protests
hnestly, i think anybody wouldve damaged our country at that point and time, but im absolutely no fan of bushs. hmm.... did he do ANYTHING right? well, he finally left office(eventually), didnt he? there u go, thats the one thing he did right.
Really?
He protected us for 7 years (there was apparently an attack planned on the West coast), helped Africans, cut taxes. Though I didn't agree with the Bailout, he did do somethings right.
Really?
He protected us for 7 years (there was apparently an attack planned on the West coast), helped Africans, cut taxes. Though I didn't agree with the Bailout, he did do somethings right.
ok, i'll admit that he helped a few things out, but the guy wasnt the best president we couldve had. he made uneducated decisions from time to time, procrastinated etc.. i'm not saying hes the worst thing on earth, and he was stuck with america during harsh times, but someone more, um, educated couldve done a better job. im not sure he was qualified by any jurisdiction apart from those stated in the constitution.
EDIT(dang, i keep 4getting 2 add this shtuff) - And most of the things he did that were at all useful were extentions upon things already proposed or things repeatedly suggested 2 him. he didnt come up with most of his tolerable-good plans off the top of his own head, he just signed the bill. a monkey couldve done that part.
Last edited:
ok, i'll admit that he helped a few things out, but the guy wasnt the best president we couldve had. he made uneducated decisions from time to time, procrastinated etc.. i'm not saying hes the worst thing on earth, and he was stuck with america during harsh times, but someone more, um, educated couldve done a better job. im not sure he was qualified by any jurisdiction apart from those stated in the constitution.
The man went to Harvard, how much more educated could you get past that? Being able to read a speech properly isn't a sign of good or bad education, or a good or bad President. God knows the current President has proven that you can read a speech great, but be horrible.
Also the attack on the West Coast is well known, and one of the first piece of information we got from Water Boarding.
And most of the things he did that were at all useful were extentions upon things already proposed or things repeatedly suggested 2 him. he didnt come up with most of his tolerable-good plans off the top of his own head, he just signed the bill. a monkey couldve done that part.
You can say that about any President, I assume you believe that our current President, our first black President, is a monkey as well?
Last edited:
The man went to Harvard, how much more educated could you get past that? Being able to read a speech properly isn't a sign of good or bad education, or a good or bad President. God knows the current President has proven that you can read a speech great, but be horrible.
Also the attack on the West Coast is well known, and one of the first piece of information we got from Water Boarding.
You can say that about any President, I assume you believe that our current President, our first black President, is a monkey as well?
I'm not even getting into a debate on obama, im a democrat.
Well, when you put it THAT way... technically all humans are monkeys, in a sense, i mean we did evolve from em, but thats beside the point...
im not at all trying to attack anyones oppinions, all im saying is that i feel that we couldve done a considerably better job in choosing our president. i mean, we didnt know better the 1st time around, but what with so many people griping about him by the 2nd election, youd think that he wouldnt make it back 2 office. just saying... im not sure im alone here...
I'm not even getting into a debate on obama, im a democrat.
Well, when you put it THAT way... technically all humans are monkeys, in a sense, i mean we did evolve from em, but thats beside the point...
Nice to see how one sided you are.
im not at all trying to attack anyones oppinions, all im saying is that i feel that we couldve done a considerably better job in choosing our president. i mean, we didnt know better the 1st time around, but what with so many people griping about him by the 2nd election, youd think that he wouldnt make it back 2 office. just saying... im not sure im alone here...
Well for one John Kerry was a horrible choice for Democrats, and John Edwards was even worse. Second Bush didn't do THAT bad of a job, especially since in 2004, the problems in Iraq were not that prominent, it was just a year after the invasion which had been very supported by the American people. Things were going well in Afghanistan, and there were no terrorist attacks after 9/11 even though Al Qaeda had been trying very hard.
I'm not even getting into a debate on obama, im a democrat.
There is a thread for that.
Well, when you put it THAT way... technically all humans are monkeys, in a sense, i mean we did evolve from em, but thats beside the point...
A little don't ya think?
im not at all trying to attack anyones oppinions, all im saying is that i feel that we couldve done a considerably better job in choosing our president.
And hire the Global Warming scammer Al Gore? Or John Kerry? How do you think Al Gore would've handled 9/11?
i mean, we didnt know better the 1st time around, but what with so many people griping about him by the 2nd election, youd think that he wouldnt make it back 2 office. just saying... im not sure im alone here...
And like Biglutz mentioned, up to 2004 he was doing a great job. The only thing I've bitterly disagreed about with him was the Bailout last year. I'm sure there are some minor things to. But for people to say (I'm not saying you are) that he was the worst or one of the worst, is just absured and blinded by ideology.