Bush's Place in History.

[DuncanONeil]

Really? What news do you consume?

[DuncanONeil]

I would like to discuss this but you will have to wait until I can find my book "debunked".

[mkemse]

I still find it very intresting, that before he die, conservative or ultra conservative Columnist & Editor of THe Nation REview which he founded, William F. Buckley Jr. was asked by CBS news what Bush's legacy would be, Buckely replied "He will have no legacy, he did not do anything worth having a legacy for"
Pretty strong words from a very, very well know very conservative Republiczn
It should also be noted, his Son Chris, said he would NOT support McCain he was voting for Obama

[mkemse]

Here is a more comprehensive list, but no complete of Bush's failure as President both Domestic And Foreign Policy Failures this is only through as indicted Feb 20, 2006, this will all be part of his legacy

Who's Counting Bush's Mistakes and Failures?
By Stephen Pizzo, News for Real. Posted February 20, 2006.


Given how ambitious and wide-ranging the incompetence of this administration has been, it's high time we started keeping track of its many failures.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best, "The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." And no administration in U.S. history has spoken louder, or as often, of its honor.
So let us count our spoons.
Emergency Management: They completely failed to manage the first large-scale emergency since 9/11. Despite all their big talk and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on homeland security over the past four years, this administration proved itself stunningly incompetent when faced with an actual emergency. (Katrina Relief Funds Squandered)
Fiscal Management: America is broke. No wait, we're worse than broke. In less than five years these borrow and spend-thrifts have nearly doubled our national debt, to a stunning $8.2 trillion. These are not your father's Republicans who treated public dollars as though they were an endangered species. These Republicans waste money in ways and in quantities that make those old tax and spend liberals of yore look like tight-fisted Scots.
This administration is so incompetent that you can just throw a dart at the front page of your morning paper and whatever story of importance it hits will prove my point.
Katrina relief: Eleven thousand spanking new mobile homes sinking into the Arkansas mud. Seems no one in the administration knew there were federal and state laws prohibiting trailers in flood zones. Oops. That little mistake cost you $850 million -- and counting.
Medicare Drug Program: This $50 billion white elephant debuted by trampling many of those it was supposed to save. The mess forced states to step in and try to save its own citizens from being killed by the administration's poorly planned and executed attempt to privatize huge hunks of the federal health safety net.
Afghanistan: Good managers know that in order to pocket the gains of a project, you have to finish it. This administration started out fine in Afghanistan. They had the Taliban and al Queda on the run and Osama bin Laden trapped in a box canyon. Then they were distracted by a nearby shiney object -- Iraq. We are now $75 billion out of pocket in Afghanistan and its sitting president still rules only within the confines of the nation's capital. Tribal warlords, the growing remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda call the shots in the rest of the county.
Iraq: This ill-begotten war was supposed to only cost us $65 billion. It has now cost us over $300 billion and continues to suck $6 billion a month out of our children's futures. Meanwhile the three warring tribes Bush "liberated" are using our money and soldiers' lives to partition the country. The Shiites and Kurds are carving out the prime cuts while treating the once-dominant Sunnis the same way the Israelis treat the Palestinians, forcing them onto Iraq's version of Death Valley. Meanwhile Iran is increasingly calling the shots in the Shiite region as mullahs loyal to Iran take charge. (More)
Iran: The administration not only jinxed its Afghanistan operations by attacking Iraq, but also provided Iran both the rationale for and time to move toward nuclear weapons. The Bush administration's neocons' threats to attack Syria next only provided more support for religious conservatives within Iran who argued U.S. intentions in the Middle East were clear, and that only the deterrent that comes with nuclear weapons could protect them.
North Korea: Ditto. Also add to all the above the example North Korea set for Iran. Clearly once a country possesses nukes, the U.S. drops the veiled threats and wants to talk.
Social Programs: It's easier to get affordable -- even free -- American-style medical care, paid for with American dollars, if you are injured in Iraq, Afghanistan or are victims of a Pakistani earthquake, than if you live and pay taxes in the good old U.S.A. Nearly 50 million Americans can't afford medical insurance. Nevertheless the administration has proposed a budget that will cut $40 billion from domestic social programs, including health care for the working poor. The administration is quick to say that those services will be replaced by its "faith-based" programs. Not so fast...
"Despite the Bush administration's rhetorical support for religious charities, the amount of direct federal grants to faith-based organizations declined from 2002 to 2004, according to a major new study released yesterday....The study released yesterday "is confirmation of the suspicion I've had all along, that what the faith-based initiative is really all about is de-funding social programs and dumping responsibility for the poor on the charitable sector," said Kay Guinane, director of the nonprofit advocacy program at OMB Watch.." (More)
The Military: Overused and over-deployed.
Former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright warned in a 15-page report that the Army and Marine Corps cannot sustain the current operational tempo without "doing real damage to their forces." ... Speaking at a news conference to release the study, Albright said she is "very troubled" the military will not be able to meet demands abroad. Perry warned that the strain, "if not relieved, can have highly corrosive and long-term effects on the military. (More)
With military budgets gutted by the spiraling costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration has requested funding for fewer National Guard troops in fiscal 2007 -- 17,000 fewer. Which boggles the sane mind since, if it weren't for reserve/National Guard, the administration would not have had enough troops to rotate forces in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly 40 percent of the troops sent to those two countries were from the reserve and National Guard.
The Environment: Here's a little pop quiz: What happens if all the coral in the world's oceans dies? Answer: Coral is the first rung on the food-chain ladder; so when it goes, everything else in the ocean dies. And if the oceans die, we die.
The coral in the world's oceans are dying (called "bleaching") at an alarming and accelerating rate. Global warming is the culprit. Nevertheless, this administration continues as the world's leading global warming denier. Why? Because they seem to feel it's more cost effective to be dead than to force reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. How stupid is that? And time is running out.
Trade: We are approaching a $1 trillion annual trade deficit, most of it with Asia, $220 billion with just China -- just last year.
Energy: Record high energy prices. Record energy company profits. Dick Cheney's energy task force meetings remain secret. Need I say more?
Consumers: Americans finally did it last year -- they achieved a negative savings rate. (Folks in China save 10 percent, for contrast.) If the government can spend more than it makes and just say "charge it" when it runs out, so can we. The average American now owes $9,000 to credit card companies. Imagine that.
Human Rights: America now runs secret prisons and a secret judicial system that would give Kafka fits. And the U.S. has joined the list of nations that tortures prisioners of war. (Shut up George! We have pictures!)
I could go on for another 1,000 words listing the stunning incompetence of the Bush administration and its GOP sycophants in Congress. But what's the use? No seems to give a fig. The sun continues to shine in this fool's paradise. House starts were up in January. The stock market is finally back over 11,000.
But don't bother George W. Bush with any of this. While seldom right, he is never in doubt. Doubt is Bush's enemy. Worry? How can he worry when he has no doubts?

[wmrs2]

I could go on for another 1,000 words listing the stunning incompetence of the Bush administration and its GOP sycophants in Congress. But what's the use? No seems to give a fig. The sun continues to shine in this fool's paradise. House starts were up in January. The stock market is finally back over 11,000.
But don't bother George W. Bush with any of this. While seldom right, he is never in doubt. Doubt is Bush's enemy. Worry? How can he worry when he has no doubts?

You need to be more original with your criticisms and less influenced by miss represented facts. Lost in the many facts you present is the application of respect that is due every president. Bush has done his best and does receive credit for many successes from fair minded people. My opinion is that the liberal minded people who blame Bush for all the evils in the world, including the bleaching of the oceans (how trait), think that the American people do not know that the Democrats have been equally responsible for things that have gone wrong in the world as the Republicans.

Most of American failures in the world have been world wide failures. The USA has not failed alone but other countries have too. when it comes down to the facts, it will not make any difference who is president if Iran decides to nuclear bomb Israel. Any wise person must be against Iraq having WMD. We can not alone in our opposition to WMD in Iran, although you say we have no allies standing with us in foreign affairs.

It is a myth that our allies have turned against us. Our friends are still our friends. The fact is that most counties in the world are opposed to democracies and have allied with the liberals to exert their power. What we see is the liberals in foreign countries ranting their failed political philosophies in the press. Bush did not turn the world against America. The liberal world has always been against our freedom. American liberals are too engrossed with taking their country back that they can not get their heads out of the sand.

Exp., did France change from liberal philosophies to conservative philosophies in one day? No, the conservative people tired of the liberal criticism of the USA while thugs were burning their country down under the name of tolerance of liberal views. Soon, I believe the complete world will tire of political correctness of the liberal philosophies and for the sake of survival will cast the "holier than thous" out.

It scares me that the liberals think they are going to accomplish all that is on their agenda. Ironically, if they do, it will cost Americans their freedoms and the middle class will perish in a classless society offered by Obama and his liberal, communistic and social co-hearts. I for one am not willing to give up the capitalistic philosophy for the complete exchange to socialism.
wmrs2

[mkemse]

You need to be more original with your criticisms and less influenced by miss represented facts. Lost in the many facts you present is the application of respect that is due every president. Bush has done his best and does receive credit for many successes from fair minded people. My opinion is that the liberal minded people who blame Bush for all the evils in the world, including the bleaching of the oceans (how trait), think that the American people do not know that the Democrats have been equally responsible for things that have gone wrong in the world as the Republicans.

Most of American failures in the world have been world wide failures. The USA has not failed alone but other countries have too. when it comes down to the facts, it will not make any difference who is president if Iran decides to nuclear bomb Israel. Any wise person must be against Iraq having WMD. We can not alone in our opposition to WMD in Iran, although you say we have no allies standing with us in foreign affairs.

It is a myth that our allies have turned against us. Our friends are still our friends. The fact is that most counties in the world are opposed to democracies and have allied with the liberals to exert their power. What we see is the liberals in foreign countries ranting their failed political philosophies in the press. Bush did not turn the world against America. The liberal world has always been against our freedom. American liberals are too engrossed with taking their country back that they can not get their heads out of the sand.

Exp., did France change from liberal philosophies to conservative philosophies in one day? No, the conservative people tired of the liberal criticism of the USA while thugs were burning their country down under the name of tolerance of liberal views. Soon, I believe the complete world will tire of political correctness of the liberal philosophies and for the sake of survival will cast the "holier than thous" out.

It scares me that the liberals think they are going to accomplish all that is on their agenda. Ironically, if they do, it will cost Americans their freedoms and the middle class will perish in a classless society offered by Obama and his liberal, communistic and social co-hearts. I for one am not willing to give up the capitalistic philosophy for the complete exchange to socialism.

That was supposed to be a quote from somesome else, and by th time i got back to try and edit it the edit option was gone
wmrs2

I hardly view o
Obama s a Communist, weel wold you rasther see changed or have our ecoomy keep sliding way, 1 of the 3 Republcans that voted for the Stimuls Bill said "I do not like it at all, but somethingdone is better then nothing done"

Our Freedoms will not be lost, if they were we would have most likely lost them during the psas 8 years, warrant less wiretaps, ect ect
We are not going Socialist, he already said Banks for example under his term in office WILL NOT be Nationlized
And interingly enough there was a buiness in Chicago called Nation Glass" they mde windows dorrs ,ect, they shut down 4 weeks ago went bankkrumpt, but a seatle company said with the stimuls package he was able to buy them out and rehire all the emplyess thsat lost their jobs only 250 byt that is 250 less that live off the government. Obama could very well be a complete failure, but keep in mind he has only been in offce 4 weeks as oppsed tohis predessor who was for 8 years you can't compare the 2 and the house andsenate want to pass another bill, both are controlled by DEMOCRATS. Obama hasalready said if the bill cometyo his desk he will veto it
I believe in giving people achance andwith only 1 monthunder his belt ina 4 year term is is entiled to sometime 6-12 months to realy show not only what he can do but how it will effect everyones everyday life, some people may be suprised, but I bet those 250 are glad to be back at work, it is a very tiny begining but that i also a starting point and Ialso do not believe for 1 second ANYONE in Congress is a Communist

[mkemse]

You need to be more original with your criticisms and less influenced by miss represented facts. Lost in the many facts you present is the application of respect that is due every president. Bush has done his best and does receive credit for many successes from fair minded people. My opinion is that the liberal minded people who blame Bush for all the evils in the world, including the bleaching of the oceans (how trait), think that the American people do not know that the Democrats have been equally responsible for things that have gone wrong in the world as the Republicans.

Most of American failures in the world have been world wide failures. The USA has not failed alone but other countries have too. when it comes down to the facts, it will not make any difference who is president if Iran decides to nuclear bomb Israel. Any wise person must be against Iraq having WMD. We can not alone in our opposition to WMD in Iran, although you say we have no allies standing with us in foreign affairs.

It is a myth that our allies have turned against us. Our friends are still our friends. The fact is that most counties in the world are opposed to democracies and have allied with the liberals to exert their power. What we see is the liberals in foreign countries ranting their failed political philosophies in the press. Bush did not turn the world against America. The liberal world has always been against our freedom. American liberals are too engrossed with taking their country back that they can not get their heads out of the sand.

Exp., did France change from liberal philosophies to conservative philosophies in one day? No, the conservative people tired of the liberal criticism of the USA while thugs were burning their country down under the name of tolerance of liberal views. Soon, I believe the complete world will tire of political correctness of the liberal philosophies and for the sake of survival will cast the "holier than thous" out.

It scares me that the liberals think they are going to accomplish all that is on their agenda. Ironically, if they do, it will cost Americans their freedoms and the middle class will perish in a classless society offered by Obama and his liberal, communistic and social co-hearts. I for one am not willing to give up the capitalistic philosophy for the complete exchange to socialism.
wmrs2

The quote I posted was pushlished by a Right Wing Oranization called the RightWing Way is it NOT a Democratic publication and i simply postd what they had posted, no necessarily my views but view none the less

[wmrs2]

The quote I posted was pushlished by a Right Wing Oranization called the RightWing Way is it NOT a Democratic publication and i simply postd what they had posted, no necessarily my views but view none the less

What I said was:"You need to be more original with your criticisms and less influenced by miss represented facts." The rebuttal you offer proves my point but, like I said, you confuse the facts looking thru liberal eyes. You are preaching socialism (communism) whether you know this or not. Liberals need to go ahead and admit this fact. It is not against the law to do so and it is your right of freedom of speech. What is difficult to understand is your reluctance to admit that you hold a left wing philosophy in spite of any facts to the contrary that the world is not totally liberal.

[mkemse]

ok please prove me wrong on those item I have posted I welcome true real facts as oppsed to personal points of view which none of my posts were, they are NOT my original words

And please refran from calling me a Communist just because our views are different and I am a Democrat, you may not like Democrats or Liberals but i AM NOT a Communist or Scialist please refrain from calling me thatIf my facts are incorrect kindly post the correct ones not your point of but those of who you supported and Document, at least I supported my feelings

In either even have a wonderfull evening

[mkemse]

This is the Definition Of a Communist and Socialism, I am as far away from that as I can be, I do not believe in ANY Goverment Control Of Businees, Nationalizing Banks ect ect
Please don't confuse A Communist with being a Democrat , they are 2 entirely different types of people system and beliefs
The Defination is courtesy of Wikipedia

Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.[1][2][3] Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution. "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.

As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism; a broad group of economic and political philosophies that draw on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.[4] Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems with the capitalist market economy and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Marx states that the only way to solve these problems is for the working class (proletariat), who according to Marx are the main producers of wealth in society and are exploited by the Capitalist-class (bourgeoisie), to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class in order to establish a free society, without class or racial divisions.[2] The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism are based on Marxism, but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarcho-communism) also exist.

Karl Marx never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as an economic system, but it is understood that a communist economy would consist of common ownership of the means of production, culminating in the negation of the concept of private ownership. Unlike socialism, which is compatible with a market economy, a communist economy consists of local or communal democratic planning.

[wmrs2]

Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.

There is nothing wrong with you or people who hold your socialist views. I certainly do not intend to insult you by calling you a communist but that is what your views tend to support. The answer as to whether you have socialist and communistic beliefs is in the research you presented here. Your research is fine. The fact is that you miss read it.

I am not sure about your beliefs but Oboma's beliefs and those of the Democratic Party are most certainly on the left significantly enough that these are rightly termed as socialistic. The above statement that you quote certainly agrees with Oboma's point of view. He wants to spread the wealth around and have a classless society. Our country is certainly headed towards the nationalization of the factors of production under Democratic leadership much more than the Republican view for the country to be more capitalistic. I am broad minded enough to admit neither party is 100% capitalist or 100% socialist. But, if there were to be a socialist party in the USA, it would be the Democratic Party to which you belong.

It may come to pass that the socialist in the Democratic Party will win out and America will become a socialist state like the majority of European countries. Those people in the Democratic Party who say America has lost respect and creditability with our allies are actually referring to the socialist and liberal politicians in Europe who sometimes do not speak for the majority of the people in their own countries. France is a great example of this fact. One election and suddenly the French love America.

Democrats like to say we have lost respect in the eyes of the world but that is simply the opinion of liberals, socialist, and communist foreign and domestic. You can say about anything and back it up with facts, as you often do, but that does not mean that you are telling the whole story. Telling the truth to spin your political view may not be the way the real world is.

You obviously resent being classified as a socialist. Perhaps you should review your beliefs then to decide whether or not you want to remain in the Democratic Party. We certainly could use a fine fellow like you in our party. If I can help you understand your point of view better, or I should say, the point of view of the Democratic Party's point of view. just let me know. The help will always be here for you.

[mkemse]

There is nothing wrong with you or people who hold your socialist views. I certainly do not intend to insult you by calling you a communist but that is what your views tend to support. The answer as to whether you have socialist and communistic beliefs is in the research you presented here. Your research is fine. The fact is that you miss read it.

I am not sure about your beliefs but Oboma's beliefs and those of the Democratic Party are most certainly on the left significantly enough that these are rightly termed as socialistic. The above statement that you quote certainly agrees with Oboma's point of view. He wants to spread the wealth around and have a classless society. Our country is certainly headed towards the nationalization of the factors of production under Democratic leadership much more than the Republican view for the country to be more capitalistic. I am broad minded enough to admit neither party is 100% capitalist or 100% socialist. But, if there were to be a socialist party in the USA, it would be the Democratic Party to which you belong.

It may come to pass that the socialist in the Democratic Party will win out and America will become a socialist state like the majority of European countries. Those people in the Democratic Party who say America has lost respect and creditability with our allies are actually referring to the socialist and liberal politicians in Europe who sometimes do not speak for the majority of the people in their own countries. France is a great example of this fact. One election and suddenly the French love America.

Democrats like to say we have lost respect in the eyes of the world but that is simply the opinion of liberals, socialist, and communist foreign and domestic. You can say about anything and back it up with facts, as you often do, but that does not mean that you are telling the whole story. Telling the truth to spin your political view may not be the way the real world is.

You obviously resent being classified as a socialist. Perhaps you should review your beliefs then to decide whether or not you want to remain in the Democratic Party. We certainly could use a fine fellow like you in our party. If I can help you understand your point of view better, or I should say, the point of view of the Democratic Party's point of view. just let me know. The help will always be here for you.

Simply put I am neither a Communist or Socialst, I can't say it any clear, I am neither, I do not believe in Nationalzation I believe the less Goverment control on everything the better we all are, can't be any clear then that

[DuncanONeil]

"I believe the less Goverment control on everything the better we all are, can't be any clear then that "

That being the case how them would you describe yourself?

[DuncanONeil]

"This is the Definition Of a Communist and Socialism"

so⋅cial⋅ism
   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

com⋅mu⋅nism
   /ˈkɒmyəˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

While there are similarities there are significant differences in these two systems!

[mkemse]

my apologies to all from getting away from the topic of the thread, simply reply to posts addressed to me

[mkemse]

I have no reason NOT to remain a Democrt for the last time I am NOT a Socialst, maybe Obama is maybe other DEmocrats are, let's noyt classify EVERY Democrat as a Socialist their are many Democrats that are right of the party and almost Qualify as Repubilcans, McCain is a RINO (Republican In Name Only) if he was more tothe left as a Repub;ican many consider him a Democrat, and he cerainly is not a Socialst

We realy need to stay on the topic of the thread Bush's Legacy

[DuncanONeil]

"I have no reason NOT to remain a Democrt"

But your stated belief system does not agree with that of the Democrat party!
"I believe the less Goverment control on everything the better we all are, can't be any clear then that "

[mkemse]

To keep this thread soley on Bush's Legacy which is what it started out as, I started a new Thread to Debate Obama and the 2 Parties and beliefs, please lets keep this thread just Bush as it was intenended to be, and use the other thread just for Obama and what peole feel about things he is working on and has done or attepmting to do

Just rspect everyones point of view, you may not agree with them but at least afford them the courtesy to expreess their views, that is what these threads are for to express your view point and remember it is YOUR POINT of view not everyones point of view in most cases

[wmrs2]

To keep this thread soley on Bush's Legacy which is what it started out as, I started a new Thread to Debate Obama and the 2 Parties and beliefs, please lets keep this thread just Bush as it was intenended to be, and use the other thread just for Obama and what peole feel about things he is working on and has done or attepmting to do

Just rspect everyones point of view, you may not agree with them but at least afford them the courtesy to expreess their views, that is what these threads are for to express your view point and remember it is YOUR POINT of view not everyones point of view in most cases

The majority of my post are on topic. You are the one that gets off topic in trying to defend your distorted view of world politics. The statement of one's political philosophy has everything to do with the legacy of GW Bush. You do not take as seriously the criticism of a Russian Communist of Ronald Regan because a serious communist is going to hate Regan for what he did to the socialist. The legacy of Bush as presented by Bush haters is flawed with bigotry. Don't you see, your opinion of Bush is not going to change because he beat you so many times. You call his legacy stupid but he outsmarted you. The Democrats never did defeat Bush but now they are attempting to spoil his legacy.

Why do you not respond to the quote about the frame of reference that Bush is judged by? Here it is:
"It may come to pass that the socialist in the Democratic Party will win out and America will become a socialist state like the majority of European countries. Those people in the Democratic Party who say America has lost respect and creditability with our allies are actually referring to the socialist and liberal politicians in Europe who sometimes do not speak for the majority of the people in their own countries. France is a great example of this fact. One election and suddenly the French love America."

"Democrats like to say we have lost respect in the eyes of the world but that is simply the opinion of liberals, socialist, and communist foreign and domestic. You can say about anything and back it up with facts, as you often do, but that does not mean that you are telling the whole story. Telling the truth to spin your political view may not be the way the real world is."

These statements have everything to do with Bush's place in history. Why do you not respond to these statements instead of lecturing us about staying on topic? The answer is that Bush's place in history is being framed by the liberals who control the news media. Your research is always going to be negative about Bush. Why?

No one cares that you say you are not a socialist or a communist. Since you are trying to frame Bush's place in history, it is fair to point out the frame of reference by which you judge the man. Like I stated, you have a right to your opinion but my opinion is that you are a liberal politician with liberal points of view; therefore, you are going to judge Bush harshly like the liberal Europeans do. You can do that. It is you right to do so.However, Bush's legacy may not be written by a liberal interpretation of history. If it is written by a conservative media, he will be considered among the great presidents.

I hope this is on topic enough for you to respond to what is actually said about Bush's place in history.

You obviously resent being classified as a socialist. Perhaps you should review your beliefs then to decide whether or not you want to remain in the Democratic Party. We certainly could use a fine fellow like you in our party. If I can help you understand your point of view better, or I should say, the point of view of the Democratic Party's point of view. just let me know. The help will always be here for you.

[mkemse]

The majority of my post are on topic. You are the one that gets off topic in trying to defend your distorted view of world politics. The statement of one's political philosophy has everything to do with the legacy of GW Bush. You do not take as seriously the criticism of a Russian Communist of Ronald Regan because a serious communist is going to hate Regan for what he did to the socialist. The legacy of Bush as presented by Bush haters is flawed with bigotry. Don't you see, your opinion of Bush is not going to change because he beat you so many times. You call his legacy stupid but he outsmarted you. The Democrats never did defeat Bush but now they are attempting to spoil his legacy.

Why do you not respond to the quote about the frame of reference that Bush is judged by? Here it is:
"It may come to pass that the socialist in the Democratic Party will win out and America will become a socialist state like the majority of European countries. Those people in the Democratic Party who say America has lost respect and creditability with our allies are actually referring to the socialist and liberal politicians in Europe who sometimes do not speak for the majority of the people in their own countries. France is a great example of this fact. One election and suddenly the French love America."

"Democrats like to say we have lost respect in the eyes of the world but that is simply the opinion of liberals, socialist, and communist foreign and domestic. You can say about anything and back it up with facts, as you often do, but that does not mean that you are telling the whole story. Telling the truth to spin your political view may not be the way the real world is."

These statements have everything to do with Bush's place in history. Why do you not respond to these statements instead of lecturing us about staying on topic? The answer is that Bush's place in history is being framed by the liberals who control the news media. Your research is always going to be negative about Bush. Why?

No one cares that you say you are not a socialist or a communist. Since you are trying to frame Bush's place in history, it is fair to point out the frame of reference by which you judge the man. Like I stated, you have a right to your opinion but my opinion is that you are a liberal politician with liberal points of view; therefore, you are going to judge Bush harshly like the liberal Europeans do. You can do that. It is you right to do so.However, Bush's legacy may not be written by a liberal interpretation of history. If it is written by a conservative media, he will be considered among the great presidents.

I hope this is on topic enough for you to respond to what is actually said about Bush's place in history.

You obviously resent being classified as a socialist. Perhaps you should review your beliefs then to decide whether or not you want to remain in the Democratic Party. We certainly could use a fine fellow like you in our party. If I can help you understand your point of view better, or I should say, the point of view of the Democratic Party's point of view. just let me know. The help will always be here for you.

I do resent it because I am not a Socialist, being a Democrat does NOT make me a socialist regasdless of how you view it
Again I am NOT a Socialist I am not a Communist can't be any clearer then that

[Belgarold]

The majority of my post are on topic. You are the one that gets off topic in trying to defend your distorted view of world politics. The statement of one's political philosophy has everything to do with the legacy of GW Bush. You do not take as seriously the criticism of a Russian Communist of Ronald Regan because a serious communist is going to hate Regan for what he did to the socialist. The legacy of Bush as presented by Bush haters is flawed with bigotry. Don't you see, your opinion of Bush is not going to change because he beat you so many times. You call his legacy stupid but he outsmarted you. The Democrats never did defeat Bush but now they are attempting to spoil his legacy.

Why do you not respond to the quote about the frame of reference that Bush is judged by? Here it is:
"It may come to pass that the socialist in the Democratic Party will win out and America will become a socialist state like the majority of European countries. Those people in the Democratic Party who say America has lost respect and creditability with our allies are actually referring to the socialist and liberal politicians in Europe who sometimes do not speak for the majority of the people in their own countries. France is a great example of this fact. One election and suddenly the French love America."

"Democrats like to say we have lost respect in the eyes of the world but that is simply the opinion of liberals, socialist, and communist foreign and domestic. You can say about anything and back it up with facts, as you often do, but that does not mean that you are telling the whole story. Telling the truth to spin your political view may not be the way the real world is."

These statements have everything to do with Bush's place in history. Why do you not respond to these statements instead of lecturing us about staying on topic? The answer is that Bush's place in history is being framed by the liberals who control the news media. Your research is always going to be negative about Bush. Why?

No one cares that you say you are not a socialist or a communist. Since you are trying to frame Bush's place in history, it is fair to point out the frame of reference by which you judge the man. Like I stated, you have a right to your opinion but my opinion is that you are a liberal politician with liberal points of view; therefore, you are going to judge Bush harshly like the liberal Europeans do. You can do that. It is you right to do so.However, Bush's legacy may not be written by a liberal interpretation of history. If it is written by a conservative media, he will be considered among the great presidents.

I hope this is on topic enough for you to respond to what is actually said about Bush's place in history.

You obviously resent being classified as a socialist. Perhaps you should review your beliefs then to decide whether or not you want to remain in the Democratic Party. We certainly could use a fine fellow like you in our party. If I can help you understand your point of view better, or I should say, the point of view of the Democratic Party's point of view. just let me know. The help will always be here for you.

ANd please stop whining and blaming everyone and everything else but where the responsibility for the Bush legacy belongs. In Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Karl Rove and all the people who helped to make mistakes and never take any responsibility. Cowards and whiners all.

It is ALWAYS someone else's fault. It would be hilarious if it hadn't destroyed the ecoonomy, our reputation in the world and our constitution. Blame whomever you want. Real Americans KNOW where the fault lies and they expressed that knowledge on Nov. 4.

[wmrs2]

ANd please stop whining and blaming everyone and everything else but where the responsibility for the Bush legacy belongs. In Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Karl Rove and all the people who helped to make mistakes and never take any responsibility. Cowards and whiners all.

It is ALWAYS someone else's fault. It would be hilarious if it hadn't destroyed the ecoonomy, our reputation in the world and our constitution. Blame whomever you want. Real Americans KNOW where the fault lies and they expressed that knowledge on Nov. 4.

Belgarold, I do not wish to be unkind. I am not smug and I do not call names, nor do I refer to people who present opposing views as "cowards whiners." Irue intellectuals on this forum have agreed that no one person or party is responsible for the world recession. Talk about whining,the best thing you could do for the country is to get over Bush, Cheney, Rove and all the people who beat you fair and square in the election of 2000 and 2004 just like I must put the election of 2008 behind me and do what is best for the country.

It is a myth that Bush destroyed the economy, our reputation, and the Constitution of the USA. However, liberals all over the world agree with you but that does not make it true. But fact is, liberals are the ones who have whined for 8 years, not Rove, Cheney and Bush. You are angry at them because they have not whined but have taken responsibility for their actions.
Democrats are not kind or objective enough just yet to write the legacy of Bush into history.

For too many Democrats it is difficult to be gracious in victory after spouting the venom of Bush hate all these years but be patient, Bush is gone now. He can not hurt you any more. Your sores will heal in time and you can channel your efforts into helping Obama save the country.

Can you not be gracious in victory? That is what true Americas do. When the election is over, they pull together. That is what real Americans know. Real Americans are good sports and seek ways to bind the country together in a mighty force. Part of Bush's legacy will be that he did that whereas the Democrats failed that test in 2000. You could do the country more honor by being gracious rather than continuing the rant towards Bush's legacy. I guarantee you that his legacy will be written different than you want it to be written.
Thank you for listening to my point of view and thank you for yours.
wmrs2

[Belgarold]

Belgarold, I do not wish to be unkind. I am not smug and I do not call names, nor do I refer to people who present opposing views as "cowards whiners." Irue intellectuals on this forum have agreed that no one person or party is responsible for the world recession. Talk about whining,the best thing you could do for the country is to get over Bush, Cheney, Rove and all the people who beat you fair and square in the election of 2000 and 2004 just like I must put the election of 2008 behind me and do what is best for the country.

It is a myth that Bush destroyed the economy, our reputation, and the Constitution of the USA. However, liberals all over the world agree with you but that does not make it true. But fact is, liberals are the ones who have whined for 8 years, not Rove, Cheney and Bush. You are angry at them because they have not whined but have taken responsibility for their actions.
Democrats are not kind or objective enough just yet to write the legacy of Bush into history.

For too many Democrats it is difficult to be gracious in victory after spouting the venom of Bush hate all these years but be patient, Bush is gone now. He can not hurt you any more. Your sores will heal in time and you can channel your efforts into helping Obama save the country.

Can you not be gracious in victory? That is what true Americas do. When the election is over, they pull together. That is what real Americans know. Real Americans are good sports and seek ways to bind the country together in a mighty force. Part of Bush's legacy will be that he did that whereas the Democrats failed that test in 2000. You could do the country more honor by being gracious rather than continuing the rant towards Bush's legacy. I guarantee you that his legacy will be written different than you want it to be written.
Thank you for listening to my point of view and thank you for yours.
wmrs2

You know, saying something does not automatically mean it is magically true.

You HAVE called ALL Democrats Socialists and Communists. Is this true? Not by a long shot. THIS IS CALLING NAMES.

LOL. In this post alone you say you do NOT call people who hold opposing views cowards and whiners and then you state, "Talk about whining . . ." THIS IS CALLING SOMEONE WHO HOLDS AN OPPOSING VIEW A WHINER.

"True intellectuals . . ." SMUGNESS AND SUPERIORITY by definition. I hope, you are not calling yourself elitist. LOL.

And that is just the first few sentences of your post. It does not even mention the ridiculous notion that Bush and company took ANY responsibility for ANY of the many mistakes they made.

And HOW are republicans being gracious in defeat. They are all fighting the president every step of the way. Some, like Alan Keyes, have leveled veiled threats of assassination.

Joe the Plumber (Sam the Opportunist) has proposed armed military action against members of Congress. Rush Limbaugh wants the American Economy to fail.

Now I KNOW from the evidence of your previous posts that you will just deny these things ever happened. So this will be my last post on the subject. "True Intellectuals" know when someone is not worth their time.

[DuncanONeil]

"(A)ll the people who helped to make mistakes and never take any responsibility. Cowards and whiners all."

You mean like Teddy Kennedy?

[mkemse]

I applaud Bush for goingin to Afghanistann after 911, my issue with him is we had rason to go into Iraq except to take attention away from Afghanistan, we should have kept all our efforts ans attention focued their asnd not on Hussein but on Bin Laden id is respoinsible forthe desth of 3.500 from 911 Saddam had nothing to do with it ans Saddam and Binladen had a large hatred towards each other to boot. which Washington now seems to understand we need more trops there go after Bin Ladin he s responable for 911 not the Iraq's Flatten The Tora Bora Mountain where everyone beleve he is hiding, andforthose who say wecan't there will be to much collertal damage, seems to me we had alot of colleteral dame as a rsult of 911, We flatten the Toroa Bora Mountains and getrid of Binladen and all his close allies, NO that will notbe the end of international terrorism which now is world wide, but is will put one major hurt onthem having lost their leaser

I ppluaf Bush for hisd tax rebate last year my only wish is he had issued largerchecks rather then just $300 maybe $500
Is emi Appluad him for Medicare D my issue with that is I use it being disabledand, i reguire maintance medication for life, but less and less of my medicationis now covered by it, they cover meduication for my sitution but nothing I use serves me no good but i wtill have to pay $96.00 a month for coverage that i can't use and part of Medicare D as HEwrote into law it that the prices people patyfor their medication to Pharmactical Companies can not be nefotiated, so they can charge what everthey want
I just wish medicare D was more comprehensive

When I first started using it iI paid $20 a month foe my gneric meidcation, now i pay closer to $100 becuase my meds are no longer covered by it, tough to live on a fixed incme in our economy right now
So no, i do not completely dislike Bush but his failures out weight his positives and it should be the other way around
And NO I do not support everything Obama has done or will be doing
I have never supported or agreed with any President 100% of the time regardles of who they were, or what Party they are with, and i know of few people who would agreee with and support every decsion any Prssident makes, no Prseidnt will ever get a 100% approval rating on everything the do or or plan to do, they never have and never will
I know stauch ultra conservtive Republicans who would not even consider voting Democratic, and even they said to me No we did not agree 100% on everything thing Bush did or said, that is not realistic
And no I am not changing my view point on anything, simply making my beliefs a a bit clearer

[wmrs2]

I applaud Bush for goingin to Afghanistann after 911, my issue with him is we had rason to go into Iraq except to take attention away from Afghanistan, we should have kept all our efforts ans attention focued their asnd not on Hussein but on Bin Laden id is respoinsible forthe desth of 3.500 from 911 Saddam had nothing to do with it ans Saddam and Binladen had a large hatred towards each other to boot. which Washington now seems to understand we need more trops there go after Bin Ladin he s responable for 911 not the Iraq's Flatten The Tora Bora Mountain where everyone beleve he is hiding, andforthose who say wecan't there will be to much collertal damage, seems to me we had alot of colleteral dame as a rsult of 911, We flatten the Toroa Bora Mountains and getrid of Binladen and all his close allies, NO that will notbe the end of international terrorism which now is world wide, but is will put one major hurt onthem having lost their leaser

I ppluaf Bush for hisd tax rebate last year my only wish is he had issued largerchecks rather then just $300 maybe $500
Is emi Appluad him for Medicare D my issue with that is I use it being disabledand, i reguire maintance medication for life, but less and less of my medicationis now covered by it, they cover meduication for my sitution but nothing I use serves me no good but i wtill have to pay $96.00 a month for coverage that i can't use and part of Medicare D as HEwrote into law it that the prices people patyfor their medication to Pharmactical Companies can not be nefotiated, so they can charge what everthey want
I just wish medicare D was more comprehensive

When I first started using it iI paid $20 a month foe my gneric meidcation, now i pay closer to $100 becuase my meds are no longer covered by it, tough to live on a fixed incme in our economy right now
So no, i do not completely dislike Bush but his failures out weight his positives and it should be the other way around
And NO I do not support everything Obama has done or will be doing
I have never supported or agreed with any President 100% of the time regardles of who they were, or what Party they are with, and i know of few people who would agreee with and support every decsion any Prssident makes, no Prseidnt will ever get a 100% approval rating on everything the do or or plan to do, they never have and never will
I know stauch ultra conservtive Republicans who would not even consider voting Democratic, and even they said to me No we did not agree 100% on everything thing Bush did or said, that is not realistic
And no I am not changing my view point on anything, simply making my beliefs a a bit clearer

Sir, I will do my best to not refer to you as a Communist or a Socialist. However, if you give an idea that is basic Communist or Socialist, it must be considered fair play that the idea is basic communism or Socialism, ok?

This being said, after your lecture on keeping on the thread topic, what in your response here relates to Bush's legacy in history? I missed that.

One more thing (in your opinion) how is the Democratic Party not the socialist party in America? And, what is a Democrat? And, how can a Dem. be objective in the historical evaluation of Bush? These are reasonable questions and on topic. I hope you will answer these so we can find some common ground for discussion.

[mkemse]

Sir, I will do my best to not refer to you as a Communist or a Socialist. However, if you give an idea that is basic Communist or Socialist, it must be considered fair play that the idea is basic communism or Socialism, ok?

This being said, after your lecture on keeping on the thread topic, what in your response here relates to Bush's legacy in history? I missed that.

One more thing (in your opinion) how is the Democratic Party not the socialist party in America? And, what is a Democrat? And, how can a Dem. be objective in the historical evaluation of Bush? These are reasonable questions and on topic. I hope you will answer these so we can find some common ground for discussion.

Thank you please don't because I am a Democrat does not make me either Communist or a Socialist

[DuncanONeil]

"my issue with him is we had rason to go into Iraq"

The whole world had reason to go into Iraq. The person at fault for that was Mr Hussain.

[Belgarold]

I think in your smug smirky manner you are throwing names around that you cannot support wmrs.

I COULD say, with the same amount of support that you display, (i.e. your opinions) that the Republican Party is the party of Fascists and Nazis. It would not be productive or TOTALLY appropriate but it could be supported as much as you can support calling the Democratic Party members socialist or Communist.

Now if you can get back on topic without acting superior and all-knowing that would be good. Your opinions are no more valid than anyone else's no matter how much name-calling and self-righteous venom you spew.

If you cannot respect the people and views you are debating, then I, for one, cannot respect you or your opinionated, wrong-headed views.

[DuncanONeil]

"I COULD say, with the same amount of support that you display, (i.e. your opinions) that the Republican Party is the party of Fascists and Nazis."

fas⋅cism
   /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.

Nazi = National Socialist German Workers' party

Seems that the Nazis were in fact Socialist as were the Fascists, except that they have a dicator rather than a ruling party.