<p>“What I blame him for is being the least competent American President in the past century, maybe ever.”</p>
<p>Not even close. That would be Jimmy Carter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, that just made my night. I’m laughing so hard I can’t even read the rest of this thread.</p>
<p>what has Bush done for this country that has nothing to do with terror, or 9-11, or Sadam, or Afghanistan…what has hee accomplished</p>
<p>We have “lower” taxes and 2 supreme court judges</p>
<p>but what other legacy will he leave us with…</p>
<p>Many times…maybe this term…the least government is better. Gridlock is not always a bad thing. Bill Clinton’s terms are testament to that.</p>
<p>So what about the SCOTUS? The Republicans won, the Democrats lost. SCOTUS picks are the spoils of victory. </p>
<p>If you’re so worried, go and solicit liberal votes. Give money. Stop eating on Tuesdays. Write your Congressman. Call your Senator.</p>
<p>Just stop whining. </p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>that is it I guess, his legacy for the history book</p>
<p>even Nixon had China, and Reagon had the wall, what’s Bush got…</p>
<p>I am asking a valid question, besides terrorism, what will Bush have to show for himself…tick tick tick</p>
<p>It remains to be seen, CGM. That is the meaning of the word “legacy.” He is still in office now.</p>
<p>Do you mean “we Republicans”???</p>
<p>I just love how the people who are so critical of other people’s grammar here are the same ones who wanted to push “ebonics” on a certain segment of American school children. I don’t think Republicans would have been capable of that stroke of genius.</p>
<p>When did I say I was in favor of Ebonics?</p>
<p>Human’s have 2 primary instincts 1. genetic survival 2. personal survival and they will even sacrifice the later for the former, as for example a parent would give their life for a child. </p>
<p>President Bush won a 2nd term because he presented a more rational argument on the issue of personal survival.</p>
<p>The democratic party (which I am still technically a member of) apparently still believes in a(n) (always invariably vague) path of appeasement, negotiations, apologies, and claimed future alliances with certain hard core pacifistic european nations - that this will all somehow save americans from an enemy who seeks to destroy us and will use any means, methods, or weapons to do so.</p>
<p>All I have to say is thank god that Bush won the 04’ election. The world definately did not need some European kiss-ass, gold-digger, flip-flopping, botox-loving hypocrite.</p>
<p>That comment is ridiculous. I love how people overhear things and repeat them over and over and over and over without realizing they are…ridiculous, irrelevant, and, most of the time, untrue.</p>
<p>okay after the 6 years he has had, what will be in the history books…guess no answers if it is not related to terrorism or taxes…i mean after 6 years…</p>
<p>You knew Nixon would be remembered for China, Reagon for the Wall, and we figured that out while they were in office, guess 6 years isn’t long enough for Bush to have done anything worth putting in the history books.</p>
<p>He’ll be known for being the cause of “Bush Derangement Syndrome”.</p>
<p>With all this talk of polarization, let’s not forget the way that the administration itself is polarized–at least when it comes to their talking points. At one pole is the claim that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. At the other, the claim that the war on terror is going well. I don’t see how these claims can coexist, unless one assumes either that the war in Iraq is going well, or that one can be doing well in a war while struggling along its central front.</p>
<p>
Martha, </p>
<p>I also noticed that some people repeat partisan talking points without realizing they are ridiculous, irrelevant, and untrue.</p>
<p>Fundingfatheri in reply to my statement that all of Kerry’s commrades with first hladn knowledge of his heroism supported his actions stated, “Not true, but if you want to continue believing that it’s your choice.”</p>
<p>The most objective commentary on the Swift Boat ad claiming that Kerry did not deserve his battle honors was factcheck.org who analyzes all campaign ads for truthfulness. It is a long read but here is the link.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html[/url]”>http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html</a></p>
<p>And the most telling quote is, “None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry’s boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.”</p>
<p>None fundingfather!</p>
<p>And you juxtapose Kerry’s military record to those of the cowardly Bush’s record and it make me sick to my stomach. Nobody denies that the coward Bush was stripped of his flying privledges for failing to take the mandatory physicals. Any other airman would probably have been court marshalled.</p>
<p>There are many of us who voted for Bush who do not agree with many of his actions during this term. It’s not as though you have an array of choices when you vote for president. Realistically, it’s either one or the other candidate, and you may well not like either that much and it comes down to the one you dislike least rather than like so much. Voting for someone does not mean you are a full fledged cheerleader for him. You may still have many criticisms and disagreements. Also there are many people in this country who did not vote at all, and those who did not vote for Bush, and in pure numbers that represents a heck of a lot of people.</p>
<p>"And the most telling quote is, “None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry’s boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.”</p>
<p>Oh, it’s just like the relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, as described by Bush’s CIA (thank you, Porter Goss):</p>
<p>– No relationship.
– No harboring.
– No turning a blind eye.</p>
<p>Not, “a little bit”. Or “there could have been”. Or, “we don’t really know”. Or “it stands to reason”. None. Nadda. Zilch. Zippo. Should have invaded Florida, where at leat two of the three conditions held.</p>
<p>Of course, the Bush folks are busy putting out the “Snow” job. They can’t just come out and say the report is wrong. So they come out looking like a bunch of whirling dervishes (with apologies to the Sufis).</p>
<p>Can’t see why it matters, though. Arguing that you were duped, as the Dems have, is hardly a recommendation for individuals who seek to govern.</p>
<p>I also love how some people here have spelled grammar as “grammer”, yet did not receive a single comment about the error. I made one minor mistake regarding a pronoun. Perhaps I made several other grammatical errors. We are not playing the “correct the grammar” game in this thread. I realized my mistake, is it not true? You all do not need to keep saying,“OMG, IT SHOULD BE WE REPUBLICANS, NOT US, LOLZ!” </p>
<pre><code> Get over it; back to politics. If not, then I will play the “grammar” game as well. 
</code></pre>