DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: syrmark59 on October 23, 2006, 09:37:26 PM
-
Several years back, many of the same people here debated what would be the first thing said of Bill Clinton in the history books (my bet is of course his impeachment).
Of course, other significant things could happen before Bush is out of office, but at this time, at least three historical events he is part of stand out.
1- that he was only the 2nd POTUS ever elected without winning the popular vote
2- that he was the sitting POTUS with 9/11/01 attack
3- that he was the POTUS that ordered and oversaw the invasion of Iraq
What do you think the first sentence or two will say about GWB in future history books?
-
He presided over a scandal-ridden administration, polarizing the nation by adopting the social agenda of fundamentalist Christianity and seriously undermining the separation of church and state. His embrace of torture brought the moral stature of the U.S. government, domestically and internationally, to a new and unprecedented low. His regime was characterized by spectacularly unsuccessful foreign adventurism which, combined with his embrace of torture and general disregard of basic human rights degraded U.S. prestige to the point where the country was openly defied, mocked and laughed at by third-rate powers like Venezuela, North Korea and Iran and brought the nation to the brink (or maybe past the brink) of insolvency. But other than that, he was a pretty good President.
(Sorry, I couldn't work in the Warren Harding allusion which ought to have been mandatory for a piece like this.)
-
1- that he was only the 2nd POTUS ever elected without winning the popular vote
Fourth, actually.
They are:
1. John Quincy Adams trailed Andrew Jackson by 44,804 votes in the 1824 election[6]
2. Rutherford B. Hayes trailed Samuel J. Tilden by 264,292 votes in the 1876 election
3. Benjamin Harrison trailed Grover Cleveland 95,713 votes in the 1888 election
4. George W. Bush trailed Al Gore by 543,895 votes in the 2000 election
-
1- that he was only the 2nd POTUS ever elected without winning the popular vote
Fourth, actually.
They are:
1. John Quincy Adams trailed Andrew Jackson by 44,804 votes in the 1824 election[6]
2. Rutherford B. Hayes trailed Samuel J. Tilden by 264,292 votes in the 1876 election
3. Benjamin Harrison trailed Grover Cleveland 95,713 votes in the 1888 election
4. George W. Bush trailed Al Gore by 543,895 votes in the 2000 election
You can't count Kennedy?
-
Only time will tell. Much of it though will be connected to the events in Iraq, and his leadership following 911, IMHO. Oh, and BTW, he got the most votes any President has ever gotten in the history of this country, in 2004, over 62million, and had his party gain seats in both houses, every election cycle. How does that play into this legacy query?
-
They'll show that photo of him with "Mission Accomplished" in his fighter jock suit, and the caption will show that (at least to date) 2500 more died after that photo was taken, and the total (known) cost of the war. His motto: "Bring'em on." That should be oh so popular with the children of tomorrow stuck paying for the tax cuts of today.
-
Only time will tell. Much of it though will be connected to the events in Iraq, and his leadership following 911, IMHO. Oh, and BTW, he got the most votes any President has ever gotten in the history of this country, in 2004, over 62million, and had his party gain seats in both houses, every election cycle. How does that play into this legacy query?
Whoopdeedoo.
Kerry got the SECOND most votes ever cast in a presidential election.
Plus when you have Diebold and other election officials in your pocket, stealing elections is easy.
-
Only time will tell. Much of it though will be connected to the events in Iraq, and his leadership following 911, IMHO. Oh, and BTW, he got the most votes any President has ever gotten in the history of this country, in 2004, over 62million, and had his party gain seats in both houses, every election cycle. How does that play into this legacy query?
Whoopdeedoo.
Kerry got the SECOND most votes ever cast in a presidential election.
Plus when you have Diebold and other election officials in your pocket, stealing elections is easy.
LOL, my above facts a bit painful Brass? And we'll all look forward to when you actually have some facts to back up the continued "stole the election" dren
-
"Oh, and BTW, he got the most votes any President has ever gotten in the history of this country"
Great non-sequitur, as has already been pointed out.
I wouldnt be touting heavily the "gained seats" point either, as I'm pretty certain things are going to be pretty messy for the GOP on November 8th, the morning after.
-
"Oh, and BTW, he got the most votes any President has ever gotten in the history of this country"
Great non-sequitur, as has already been pointed out. I wouldnt be touting heavily the "gained seats" point either, as I'm pretty certain things are going to be pretty messy for the GOP on November 8th, the morning after.
Umm, Mark, you posted very selective facts, as a prerequisate for questioning what his "legacy" would be like. 911 was going to happen regardless of who won election 2000, but you promptd that as some big to-do about Bush. That's no more a "to-do" than Bush getting the most votes ever for re-election, AFTER he'd gone into Iraq already, and AFTER all the dren about him supposedly having stole the 2000 election. Now, it's true that the GOP could indeed lose seats in the President's 8th year, come Nov 8th. The point about gaining seats was specific in referencing how historically the President's party consistenly loses seats during his term, especially during mid terms.
With the final point being that his legacy is much more likely to be played out when taken the totality of his tenure & actions, not the few specific out-of-context facts that would wish to paint Bush in a much more negative light.
-
"9/11 was going to happen regardless of who won election 2000, but you promptd that as some big to-do about Bush."
Might want to step away from the bong Sirs.
"that he was the sitting POTUS with 9/11/01 attack" prompts nothing, and no, I'm not being coy. Fact is that the days following 9/11 were Bush's finest IMO.
Thats he's repeatedly used 9/11 as a crutch for invading Iraq is pretty sad and pathetic- I will say that.
But my premise was simply what would be the foremost event that Bush would be identified with when his history is written.
In Clinton's case, it's gotta be impeachment. In Bush's case, despite his extraordinary election in 2000 and the 9/11 attack- landmark historical events- I'm betting the invasion of Iraq is the foremost thing he will be identified with.
-
Might want to step away from the bong Sirs.
Never have touched the stuff. You actually a think Gore administration would have prevented 911?? Oh do tell, do tell
"that he was the sitting POTUS with 9/11/01 attack" prompts nothing, and no, I'm not being coy. Fact is that the days following 9/11 were Bush's finest IMO.
Of course it does. Presented as you did with the other selected facts, paints a negative picture. Come on, be honest, we're all adults here
Thats he's repeatedly used 9/11 as a crutch for invading Iraq is pretty sad and pathetic- I will say that.
And I will say that your distortion of how it's been used is equally as sad & pathetic
But my premise was simply what would be the foremost event that Bush would be identified with when his history is written. In Clinton's case, it's gotta be impeachment. In Bush's case, despite his extraordinary election in 2000 and the 9/11 attack- landmark historical events- I'm betting the invasion of Iraq is the foremost thing he will be identified with.
And I'm inclined to agree with you, though I'd still opine the totality of the Presidency will have its shaping effects as well. Only time will tell how Iraq eventually shapes up. If it becomes the blackhole of a cesspool the left is praying for under this President, then yea, that's likely to be his legacy. Same as if the people of Iraq start getting mad enough and start throwing these insurgents & terrorists out, who are trying to wreck their chance for Democracy. If we leave Iraq a shining example of what freedom really can be like in a middle eastern Arab country......again likely Bush's legacy
-
Same as if the people of Iraq start getting mad enough and start throwing these insurgents & terrorists out, who are trying to wreck their chance for Democracy. If we leave Iraq a shining example of what freedom really can be like in a middle eastern Arab country......again likely Bush's legacy
So, you are blaming the Iraqis for not being mad enough? Has it occurred to you that they are mad, and that it is they who are a part of these insurgent groups?
Do the people in Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates live horribly oppressive lives?
-
Same as if the people of Iraq start getting mad enough and start throwing these insurgents & terrorists out, who are trying to wreck their chance for Democracy. If we leave Iraq a shining example of what freedom really can be like in a middle eastern Arab country......again likely Bush's legacy
So, you are blaming the Iraqis for not being mad enough?
No, I blame the terrorists & insurgents
-
Then what was the point of this sentence?
Same as if the people of Iraq start getting mad enough and start throwing these insurgents & terrorists out
And you didn't answer my other question:
"Do the people in Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates live horribly oppressive lives?"
-
Then what was the point of this sentence?
Same as if the people of Iraq start getting mad enough and start throwing these insurgents & terrorists out
And you didn't answer my other question: "Do the people in Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates live horribly oppressive lives?"
The "point" was the actions of the Iraqis will play a part in Bush's legacy, as it relates to the Iraq War. I'm not sure why that wasn't clear from the initial comment. And I have no idea of the lives of the folks living in Qatar, Bahrain, & the UAE. Are they living under dictatorial rule?? Was there a memo I missed getting?
-
And I have no idea of the lives of the folks living in Qatar, Bahrain, & the UAE. Are they living under dictatorial rule??
You claim that Iraq can be a "shining beacon of freedom in the Middle East." My question is, does the Middle East need such a thing? Can those nations look to Qatar, Bahrain, or the UAE as models to develop their economies and political framework - as opposed to Iraq? Or would you consider the lives of people in those nations to be too oppressive?
-
You claim that Iraq can be a "shining beacon of freedom in the Middle East." My question is, does the Middle East need such a thing? Can those nations look to Qatar, Bahrain, or the UAE as models to develop their economies and political framework - as opposed to Iraq? Or would you consider the lives of people in those nations to be too oppressive?
Only if they chose to. We can only open the door. It's up to them (the Iraqis) to step through. If they wish to emmulate other countries, after being given the chance for democracy, that'd be there decision now, wouldn't it.
-
Only if they chose to. We can only open the door. It's up to them (the Iraqis) to step through. If they wish to emmulate other countries, after being given the chance for democracy, that'd be there decision now, wouldn't it.
You misunderstand. My point is that why don't we hold up those three nations as models for other Arab countries? Why try to create one from scratch in Iraq?
-
Only if they chose to. We can only open the door. It's up to them (the Iraqis) to step through. If they wish to emmulate other countries, after being given the chance for democracy, that'd be there decision now, wouldn't it.
You misunderstand. My point is that why don't we hold up those three nations as models for other Arab countries? Why try to create one from scratch in Iraq?
What would be so special in pointing to a specific country and tell them they have to "copy them"? Did we copy some country Constitutional segment by Constitutional segment. Again, let iraq choose how they wish to develop, vs making them copy some other country. If they chose to emmulate the UAE, then I say go for it.
-
*sigh*
I'm not talking about Iraq.
You are saying that Iraq ultimately should be held up as a shining beacon so that other Middle Eastern countries will emulate them. That is President Bush's model of "spreading democracy." Let me simplify: Democracy in Iraq = Democracy spreading to other Arab nations.
Now.
My point is why? Why go into another nation and install a government to be set up as a model for others? Why shouldn't the UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar be touted as models for other Arab states?
See how that has nothing to do with Iraq's constitution?
-
I'm not talking about Iraq.
And yet we both keep bringing them up. Kinda bizarre that in doing so, we're not talking about them
Let me simplify: Democracy in Iraq = Democracy spreading to other Arab nations.
Not quite Let me simplify Democracy in Iraq = an example of modern day democracy to other Arab nations. This whole excursion into Iraq never had as some primary goal, to spread it's version of Democracy. If other coutries choose to, then fine. Let it be their choice
Why go into another nation and install a government to be set up as a model for others?
Because we're not. See above. We have arguably the best form of Government, based on our Constitution. How come we're not making Iraq copy us, branch by branch, position by position?
Why shouldn't the UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar be touted as models for other Arab states?
Why should they? Why can't Iraq be its own model?
See how that has nothing to do with Iraq's constitution?
Not really, but whatever
-
Sometimes Sirs, I think Hamlet probably had more success talking to Yorick.
-
And sometimes Js, a duck is just a duck
-
And sometimes Js, a duck is just a duck
One wonders what sort of repression is buried in your fascination with waterfowl.
-
And sometimes Js, a duck is just a duck
One wonders what sort of repression is buried in your fascination with waterfowl.
Well, lemme help dissuade your worry and wonder. None. Hope that helped. Perhaps I should use another term? And sometimes Js, a whistle is just a whistle. Better?