I think the worst part of his legacy will be the mess in Pakistan. Not only that he didn`t notice how the ISI double crossed him, but how the billions of dollars of US aid were used to create the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world. Combined with the fact that the ISI constantly kept supporting the Taliban and radical islamist organisation, thereby strengthening radical islamist throughout Pakistan.
I am more affraid of this instabil Pakistan with it`s enormous nuclear arsenal, a secret service which supports radical islamists and organises terror in India and a it`s absolutly incompetent and corrupt goverment. Then from a nuclear Iran, a distabelised Iraq or a financial meltdown.

(December 4, 2012 at 3:14 am)Polaris Wrote: The fans would just tell you lies anyway, but part of the Patriot Acts are quite helpful if you attribute that the legislation to him.

It must suck to be you ...

Fucking liberal, ivory tower, progressive, biased, deluded, egghead wankers!


Btw, the encroachment of conservative Christianity on government and popular culture happened a few decades earlier than you remember it, TGAC.

I'm not surprised that Reagan didn't make the top ten. Perhaps his coming in at 18th reflects some bias in the thinking of these scholars, as well as the rather strange and motley crew of traits to rank the president on. ("I was going to vote for Willard Fillmore, but he's not as creative as that other guy.") And that Kennedy even made the top ten at one time is another strike against the list.

For what it's worth, I think this vastly underestimates Bush's positive qualities. He was a very effective leader, and managed to accomplish many of his and his party's goals. If he had been an ineffective president, like a Carter or Ford or his father before him, then liberals would not still be pissing in their beer over his presidency. I may loathe his policies and what he did while in office, but I don't deny him the credit he deserves for being a capable and accomplished president, even if we'll spend the next 20 years trying to undo everything that he did.

(December 4, 2012 at 2:30 pm)apophenia Wrote: Btw, the encroachment of conservative Christianity on government and popular culture happened a few decades earlier than you remember it, TGAC.

I am aware of that. But fact is that Pat Robertson didn`t become the republican nomine for the 1988 US presidential election due to lacking support.

Radical evangelical christans only became a big player within US politics after the Bush era.

At least that is my assessment.

Quote: If he had been an ineffective president, like a Carter or Ford or his father before him, then liberals would not still be pissing in their beer over his presidency.

Um - he left the country in a shithole. There is something of a difference between doing things and doing things well.

(December 4, 2012 at 9:02 am)Dee Dee Ramone Wrote:

(December 4, 2012 at 1:37 am)Polaris Wrote: Open a history book Dee Dee. We are currently in the fourth phase of a long, bloody civil war in Afghanistan. It did not become some new war just because the US entered the arena.

Open a history book yourself. Bush invaded Afghanstan in 2001/2002...so yes that's another war of G W Bush.

I can't deny a connection with the taliban, osama, russia and all.

But I can't deny the connection between the world wars either, but I still am quite sure Hitler started the second and not Kaiser Wilhelm. Get it?

So by your logic, World War I did not start until 1917 because the US did not become involved until then.

(December 4, 2012 at 1:52 pm)Kousbroek Wrote:

(December 4, 2012 at 3:14 am)Polaris Wrote: The fans would just tell you lies anyway, but part of the Patriot Acts are quite helpful if you attribute that the legislation to him.

It must suck to be you ...

What? I support the anti-money laundering section. I am against criminals profiting from illicit activity.

(December 4, 2012 at 9:50 pm)Polaris Wrote: So by your logic, World War I did not start until 1917 because the US did not become involved until then.

No, I explained clearly that the pre-events of world war 2, including world war 1 don't mean world war 2 started in 1914. It started in 1939. The same with afghanistan. The russia invasion ended in 1989, than there was civil war for a few years untill the taliban took power. And bush came in 2001. But you are willfully ignorant, because tell me....what war was going on in Afghanistan during the late nineties? None.

(December 4, 2012 at 9:59 pm)Dee Dee Ramone Wrote:

(December 4, 2012 at 9:50 pm)Polaris Wrote: So by your logic, World War I did not start until 1917 because the US did not become involved until then.

No, I explained clearly that the pre-events of world war 2, including world war 1 don't mean world war 2 started in 1914. It started in 1939. The same with afghanistan. The russia invasion ended in 1989, than there was civil war for a few years untill the taliban took power. And bush came in 2001. But you are willfully ignorant, because tell me....what war was going on in Afghanistan during the late nineties? None.

Timeline of the Civil War in Afghanistan.

1978-1989 (Soviet puppets in Afghanistan and later Soviet troops engage rebel forces.

1989-1996 (infighting between rebel Afghan forces leading to the victory of the Taliban)

1996-2001 (Northern Alliance fight against the Taliban)

2001-Present (NATO forces invade Afghanistan and join Northern Alliance)

I bow to the northern alliance info. Still, Bush is accountable for the war since 2001.

(December 4, 2012 at 2:48 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: If he had been an ineffective president, like a Carter or Ford or his father before him, then liberals would not still be pissing in their beer over his presidency.

Um - he left the country in a shithole. There is something of a difference between doing things and doing things well.

So then you're granting my point that he was an effective president.