The Bush Thread

[StorminNorman]

What are you basing that on, name success Bush had as a business man.

Success and intelligence are different, though Bush was a successful Texas governor.

Dude you use that way too often, it seems like your way of avoiding things.

I use it when someone says something so ridiculous that there is no reason validating it with an answer. Such as describing Ivy League schools as "a joke".

It is relevant, because that's not my point. My point is you can argue Clinton is corrupt (I don't care because I don't see how his negative qualities effected the country worse then Bush's) while you argue is corrupt, incompetent and an ideological fanatic, which would make him a far worse leader.

This isn't even readable. Try it again and I will address it.

When I said "Atr least Clinton" was competent, you said "even that is debatable".

Again, being a competent leader and intelligence are not the same.

Really , then how was Bush a smart guy, what major accomplishments did he have before becoming Governor of Texas? You say those are just opinions, fine, let's test them. I can name a ton of testable ways Bush was a fool (not having a plan to deal to deal with insurgency in Iraq for 3 years, appointing morons like Michael Brown), what truly intelligent thing has Bush done?

While the long term plan in Iraq was non-existent, the Iraqi battle plan was a great success.

Bush's constant advocacy for the Six Party Talks proved successful in dealing with North Korea.

Bush appointed Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, which must of been good enough for Obama.

Bush also spoke out against the sub prime loans and insisted Congress look into Freddie and Frannie - DEMOCRATS opposed this and it was them that helped the financial mess we have now.

Bush's work in Africa has been documented in this thread already.

Bush also has allowed Obama unprecedented power in the transition period, a testament to his ego.

That's such buck passing, Bush was in charge for the country for 8 years before the economy collapsed, blaming it Clinton is beyond lame, because Bush had 8 years to fix any problems with the economy but choose not too.

LOL I love it when words like lame are used in a political discussion - but thats beside the point. If you want to act as if it was Bush and not Clinton that lead to the sub prime mortgage crisis simply because the damage done came to be during Bush's term - fine, be my guess - enjoy a life of ignorance and ignore reality. But if you want to grow up and look at the issues of politics like a mature and intelligent person you are going to need to see that sometimes the reaction of an action is delayed.

Besides how is corrupt wall street execs treating the mortgage system as their personal house of cards, Clinton's fault? Can show him a law Clinton passed that said treating the mortgage system as a house of cards to exploit poor people in order to get performance bonuses was legal? The sub prime loans really became popular in 2004, 4 years after Clinton left office.

Do some actual research. Google Community Reinvestment Act.

Truman is the exception, not the rule, Nixon left with low approval ratings and people still don't like hiim. How is Bush different from Nixon?

Lincoln was despised at the time he was shot. John Adams wasn't even reelected and is now viewed as a good President.

How history perceives a President changes drastically over time.

 

[StorminNorman]

Which is far more criticism than Bush ever took from his diehards until it was so undeniable that even they couldn't keep living in delusion.

Bush was criticized by the far right for working with Teddy Kennedy with his education policy early in his term.

Its just easy to forget all about that because it was 8 years ago. Irrelevant outcry (like the Warren stuff) is easily forgotten.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Bush was criticized by the far right for working with Teddy Kennedy with his education policy early in his term.

Its just easy to forget all about that because it was 8 years ago. Irrelevant outcry (like the Warren stuff) is easily forgotten.

Well now they're pissed because the gay bishop who delivered the invocation at the concert yesterday was not televised. It came on HBO at 2:30 but he began speaking at 2:20. The hyperbole is stunning. They're calling Obama a homophobe.

 

[Kelly]

Well now they're pissed because the gay bishop who delivered the invocation at the concert yesterday was not televised. It came on HBO at 2:30 but he began speaking at 2:20. The hyperbole is stunning. They're calling Obama a homophobe.

*sighs* yeah because he held the watch that told them when to start.....

 

[redfirebird2008]

*sighs* yeah because he held the watch that told them when to start.....

That's exactly what they think. Everything, I mean everything, is an intentional slight.

 

[hippie_hunter]

No, Obama has said he DOESN'T want to investigate Bush and Cheney. It's the left wing that wants to do it. Obama wants to bring some civility to Washington.

And let me see here, which group of nutjobs is it that's calling for Obama's impeachment BEFORE he takes office because they delusionally think he was born in Kenya and isn't a citizen? The right wing is no better than the left wing, and if you think Hannity, Limbaugh, and their ilk aren't fanning partisan flames, you're not paying attention. Hannity is the same jerk that was playing guilt by association and calling Obama a terrorist while Hannity associates with Neo Nazi Hal Turner and other nefarious bigots. So much for "getting behind the President."

Even if Obama was born in Kenya he's still a naturalized citizen on account that he has an American parent.

 

[The Overlord]

Success and intelligence are different, though Bush was a successful Texas governor.

So no then. Really then, how are supposed to judge someone's intelligence, if they can't succeed in their chosen field.

If Obama sucked as community organizer, would anyone say he was intelligent?

I use it when someone says something so ridiculous that there is no reason validating it with an answer. Such as describing Ivy League schools as "a joke".

I was saying that to make a point, its called called being provocative, the point is going to an Ivy League School doesn't make one instantly intelligent, how they got in, what they did there and what they did with their education, is how judge their merits, just saying which school they went to says nothing.

This isn't even readable. Try it again and I will address it.

No, you are just actively being dismissive now.

Again, being a competent leader and intelligence are not the same.

Wouldn't you want both in a leader?

While the long term plan in Iraq was non-existent, the Iraqi battle plan was a great success.

Rummsfeld promised all fighting would end in six months, not just the war against Saddam.

Bush's constant advocacy for the Six Party Talks proved successful in dealing with North Korea.




Bush appointed Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, which must of been good enough for Obama.

Remeber the decider speech, Gates appointment was too little, too late.

Bush also spoke out against the sub prime loans and insisted Congress look into Freddie and Frannie - DEMOCRATS opposed this and it was them that helped the financial mess we have now.

Bush's work in Africa has been documented in this thread already.


Bush also has allowed Obama unprecedented power in the transition period, a testament to his ego.

So Bush didn't act like a spoiled child when Obama won, big deal.

I don't feel like dealing with all those points, so let me cut to the chase, even incompetent leaders in history have had a few good decisions to their name. I pretty sure Czar Nicholas II made a few good decisions during his reign (I Beleive he helped create Russia's train system) but does that make an overall competent leader? No, it doesn't. He had more misses then hits and ultimately his rule led Russia to a bad place. A lot of those examples you mentioned are just Bush correcting fatal errors he made in the first place and taking way too long to do so (remember his I'm the decider speech, his appointment of Gates was forced, he wanted to keep Rummsfeld until the last minute.)

LOL I love it when words like lame are used in a political discussion - but thats beside the point. If you want to act as if it was Bush and not Clinton that lead to the sub prime mortgage crisis simply because the damage done came to be during Bush's term - fine, be my guess - enjoy a life of ignorance and ignore reality. But if you want to grow up and look at the issues of politics like a mature and intelligent person you are going to need to see that sometimes the reaction of an action is delayed.

Someone is arrogant, its not like you are unbiased. You are quoting a theory like its a fact, you treating your opinions like they are facts. Physician heal thy self. Maybe you need to lose attitude and maybe you can debate like an adult. Your opinions are not facts, stop treating them that way.

Do some actual research. Google Community Reinvestment Act.

I did, guess what: theory, not fact:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm

Your arguments are based your own arrogant assumptions, not facts. You saying something is fact, doesn't make it a fact. In fact that article makes it an decidedly discredited theory.

Ball's in your court, got an article to back your claims up, one not written by Rush?

Lincoln was despised at the time he was shot. John Adams wasn't even reelected and is now viewed as a good President.

How history perceives a President changes drastically over time.

When has that happened in the last 40 years?

 

[redfirebird2008]

Even if Obama was born in Kenya he's still a naturalized citizen on account that he has an American parent.

Exactly. It's racism, plain and simple. And the attacks on his middle name are a combination of racism and xenophobia. Which makes it even cooler that these attacks didn't prevent him from getting elected. I hope he crams his middle name down their throats over the next 4 or 8 years.

 

[Red Mask]

i say this as a republican but this man has made mostly stupid decisions that have cost not only trillions of dollars but hundreds of thousands of lives as well... he's nothing but a two bit ****ing petty bastard *******. I'm so glad he's gone and I hope people investigate him.

I'm disturbed with how much this jack ass has managed to get away with, while someone like Nixon who granted made some mistakes but no where near the calibre class idiocy of Bush gets investigated so heavily and resigns due to a friggin break in.

I don't think the American people are the same as those in the 70's. While the election was very promising the people just don't have the same post 1960's fire. These days they know they can't push for anything that could greatly disrupt the system. Nor can they do any drastic enough to undermine the image of America's stability or democracy. Why? Because the People now know that such anarchy could collapse the economy. And they won't risk that. Not now, not for many years to come will they risk that.

So yeah, Bush won't get tried as a war criminal. I doubt any American administration will ever allow that to their leaders.

 

[danoyse]

The end of Bush Administration is also the end of an era at Avenue Q on Broadway. The final song in the show, "For Now" is about how life exists in fleeting moments. The most popular verse has gone like this since the show opened in 2004:

"Sex? Is only for now!"
"Your hair? Is only for now!"
"George Bush? Is only for now!"

They had a lot of fun with this when the 2004 RNC was held in NY. I saw the show for the 2nd time the night after Bush was re-elected and it nearly got a standing ovation.

Since the line is now officially dated, the producers held a contest to let fans decide the replacement line. They've chosen 4 winners, which will begin with tomorrow night's performance. The winners are:

"Recession"
"Prop 8"
"This show"
"Your mother-in-law"

Apparently "Paris Hilton" and "polar ice caps" were runners-up.

I've seen Ave Q twice and that was definitely one of the many highlights of the show - but I'm also happy to see it go.

 

[Red Mask]

Rummsfeld promised all fighting would end in six months, not just the war against Saddam.

Bush made a bigger mistake on the eve of the invasion. He made televised promises to the Iraqi people that they will be free from tyranny and become safe. A leader from another country should never make such promises when he's sending armed forces! That morally obliges him to those people! That idiot had saddled Iraq's problems with America's.

 

[The Major]

the issue with obama that I fear is that people will not give him enough time or be patient enough for him to do the things he wants to do.

I live abroad and it's amazing to see how many people out there have this mistaken impression when they tell me "I can't wait to see what he does and how he plans to change the world..." I KEEP hearing remarks like these it's scary...

I am concerned that the media will turn its back on him fast and people will become impatient and want immediate results, especially the expectations i see people have of him abroad in various countries... I heard some who are like we're depending on how he fixes the world economy so that we can get jobs... I'm like Why don't you talk to the leaders of your country first before hoping someone else from a different country will take care of ur country's economic problems... this goes mainly for european countries, most of which I have lived in due to my job

Agreed.

 

[The Major]

I agree but I don't think it's a given that he or any members of his administration are going to get away with anything. They can still be investigated and lawsuits can someday be brought forward. I wonder what Obama would do in that situation.

Obama shouldn't be sitting on his ass to get that done. It shouldn't be up to citizens to bring criminals to justice, that's the government's job.

They can still file lawsuits after Bush and his allies are investigated and prosecuted by America and, god willing, the Hague.

 

[StorminNorman]

So no then. Really then, how are supposed to judge someone's intelligence, if they can't succeed in their chosen field.

So you skipped over the "Good Governor" part, gotcha.

If Obama sucked as community organizer, would anyone say he was intelligent?

Obama's reputation for intelligent had nothing to do with his work as community organizing - it was his books, his teaching positions, his degrees, etc.

I was saying that to make a point, its called called being provocative, the point is going to an Ivy League School doesn't make one instantly intelligent, how they got in, what they did there and what they did with their education, is how judge their merits, just saying which school they went to says nothing.

But see the problem is that you have absolutely nothing indicating the Bush did not belong to be in an Ivy League School. After all, he earned his degree not only from Yale - but from Harvard Business school after that. The idea that Bush's impressive school history doesn't count because he is really an idiot not only lacks any sort of evidence, it's simply ridiculous.

Going to an Ivy League School does not mean one is intelligent, however intelligence is required to earned diplomas from one.

No, you are just actively being dismissive now.

No - I am stating that "It is relevant, because that's not my point. My point is you can argue Clinton is corrupt (I don't care because I don't see how his negative qualities effected the country worse then Bush's) while you argue is corrupt, incompetent and an ideological fanatic, which would make him a far worse leader." doesn't make sense.

If your point is that I can't argue that Clinton is corrupt, incompetent and an ideological fanatic you are correct. Clinton is not an ideological fanatic - and I have never said he is, but he was corrupt and I think his National Security policies were poor and helped Al Qaeda become the threat to America it became (incompetence) - among other things. If you want to go blow for blow on the failures of Clinton's Presidency, I suggest opening a thread.

Wouldn't you want both in a leader?

Preferably, but, again, the mind of a scholar is not required to be a great leader.

Rummsfeld promised all fighting would end in six months, not just the war against Saddam.

Rumsfeld being gravely mistaken about post-war Iraq is irrelevant to the success of the Iraqi battle plan in removing Saddam's government.

I don't feel like dealing with all those points, so let me cut to the chase, even incompetent leaders in history have had a few good decisions to their name. I pretty sure Czar Nicholas II made a few good decisions during his reign (I Beleive he helped create Russia's train system) but does that make an overall competent leader? No, it doesn't. He had more misses then hits and ultimately his rule led Russia to a bad place. A lot of those examples you mentioned are just Bush correcting fatal errors he made in the first place and taking way too long to do so (remember his I'm the decider speech, his appointment of Gates was forced, he wanted to keep Rummsfeld until the last minute.)

You asked for some things Bush did right - I gave you some examples. Simple as that. I never said Bush was a great President, simply better than what you think.

Someone is arrogant, its not like you are unbiased. You are quoting a theory like its a fact, you treating your opinions like they are facts. Physician heal thy self. Maybe you need to lose attitude and maybe you can debate like an adult. Your opinions are not facts, stop treating them that way.

I have trace of arrogance, and I am not without bias - but neither are hindering me here. Your statement demonstrated a belief that the actions of a past President cannot effect a President years later, this simply shows a lack of logic or reason.

If you wanted to debate Clinton's impact on the economy, that is one thing - but to simply dismiss all ideas entirely as you did you are guilty of exactly the same sin you falsely accuse me of - warping opinion into fact.

I did, guess what: theory, not fact:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm

Your arguments are based your own arrogant assumptions, not facts. You saying something is fact, doesn't make it a fact. In fact that article makes it an decidedly discredited theory.

Has nothing to do with my own arrogant assumptions but my own research and opinion. Again, I have no problem debating this topic at all.

Let me give you three links for your one:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

This is an article on the CRA in 2000 that predicts the results of act being the ones we are suffering now.

Howard Husock is the Vice President, Policy Research and the Director of the Manhattan Institute's Social Entrepreneurship Initiative. He was formerly the director of case studies in public policy and management at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Husock a prolific writer on housing and urban policy issues.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

This is from 2007

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is an American economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland. He is an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics. He is a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and an affiliated scholar of the League of the South Institute, the research arm of the League of the South and the Abbeville Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Virginia Tech.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm?page=0

Stan J. Liebowitz is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute and Ashbel Smith Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for the Analysis of Property Rights and Innovation at the University of Texas at Dallas. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles, and he has taught at the North Carolina State University, University of Chicago, University of Rochester, and the University of Western Ontario.

When has that happened in the last 40 years?

Reagan's legacy in a historical context is showing him to be seen as a worse President than he was remembered when he left office.

Nixon's reputation, ironically, is slowly improving as time passes from Watergate.

 

[The Major]

Well, the thing is....if there is an investigation....and I don't believe there will be because I think Obama is smart enough to know that it would do far more damage than it would help....

Damage to whom?

Not that that's a good excuse to let criminals go free, especially ones who were involved in abusing government power.

We have laws for a reason. America's not going to redeem itself from Bush unless they are followed.

Letting the powerful exist outside the law creates an oligarchy. Isn't this supposed to be a republic and democracy?

with that said, Pelosi and many others who are calling for the investigation can be put on the stand as well...and I think that we would find that they knew far more than they have said....and I would venture to say, everything.

If I were them, I would simply shut up, let history judge him....because if there is an investigation now....THEY will be investigated as well.

They should have thought about that before they went along for the ride. They should just come clean and maybe if they assist the authorities getting the bigger fish they'll get deals.

 

[The Major]

Obama won't let them investigate the Bush Administration and I'm glad. We need to stop this partisan BS. And I'm sure the far right will still find a way to attack Obama relentlessly even when he stands up to the far left and chooses to essentially pardon Bush's administration. And make no mistake, I personally do think there were criminals in Bush's administration. Alberto Gonzalez belongs in jail.

You do realize Gonzales was a part of the Bush administration, right?

 

[The Major]

So yeah, Bush won't get tried as a war criminal. I doubt any American administration will ever allow that to their leaders.

That's really worked out for America.

Stormin':

Diploma's can be got without intelligence to earn it. Cheating and bribery, for instance. Heck, given the proper incentive a corrupt secret service agent could do both and we know Bush had had access to them before he was president. He's connected to Ivy league secret societies, too. They don't just sit around eating scones and sipping tea.

 

[StorminNorman]

Stormin':

Diploma's can be got without intelligence to earn it. Cheating and bribery, for instance.

Obviously, but unless anyone can provide any evidence at all in the slightest that Bush cheated or paid for grades it isn't fair, nor intellectually honest for anyone to claim or even imply he did.

 

[redfirebird2008]

You do realize Gonzales was a part of the Bush administration, right?

Yes, that's pretty clear in my post, isn't it?

 

[The Major]

Obviously, but unless anyone can provide any evidence at all in the slightest that Bush cheated or paid for grades it isn't fair, nor intellectually honest for anyone to claim or even imply he did.

That's a bit hard to prove considering who he is. He's the son of not only a president, but an oil man and former CIA chief with secret service on his payroll and both are connected to one of the most powerful secret societies in America. George's not some random poor college fratboy. Do you really think someone with that access would not be able to hire people to cover their tracks for something as minor as cheating in Ivy league schools?

 

[redfirebird2008]

That's a bit hard to prove considering who he is. He's the son of not only a president, but an oil man and former CIA chief with secret service on his payroll. Not some random poor college fratboy. Do you really think someone with that access would not be able to hire people to cover their tracks for something as minor as cheating in Ivy league schools?

Tell us how you REALLY feel, why don't ya?

 

[StorminNorman]

That's really worked out for America.

Stormin':

Diploma's can be got without intelligence to earn it. Cheating and bribery, for instance. Heck, given the proper incentive a corrupt secret service agent could do both and we know Bush had had access to them before he was president. He's connected to Ivy league secret societies, too. They don't just sit around eating scones and sipping tea.

LOL, I am so glad you edited your post. So glad, because see, this is fun. It also proves my point entirely in a way that I can not simply do with my own words. Thank you for providing the perfect example, you could not of done it better.

You see, people hate George W. Bush SOOOOO much that it's not simply enough that he was a flawed President who made great mistakes in his Presidency (I never argued this point, it should be noted) - he HAS to be more. He HAS to be an idiot. He HAS to be a self serving *******. He HAS to be worse than Clinton in every way.

Facts? Irrelevant.

For some reason people like The Overlord and apparently The Major think Bush HAS to be an idiot, a real idiot. Not just a poor leader - someone intellectually lacking. Someone with no redeemable or praise worthy feature. So in order to PROVE this point they dismiss the credit of IVY LEAGUE SCHOOLS (to quote The Overlord "Ivy League Schools are a joke").

When that fails then the line is changed - BUSH CHEATED! BUSH PAID FOR HIS DIPLOMA! Of course there needs not be any evidence supporting this case - again, its irrelevant because they know.

And then to help their case they bring up the above hypothetical - a corrupt Secret Service agent did it! Because, you know, Bush had that sort of help when he was in college!

Wait for it...


Wait for it...


If Kel was possible to actively participate in this post I have no doubt that since she posses intellectual honesty, but has a great deal of intelligence herself would point out that Bush was at Yale during the 60's and Harvard in the 70's.

George H.W. Bush was, of course, Vice President from 1980-1988 and President 1988-1992.

 

[StorminNorman]

That's a bit hard to prove considering who he is. He's the son of not only a president, but an oil man and former CIA chief with secret service on his payroll and both are connected to one of the most powerful secret societies in America. George's not some random poor college fratboy. Do you really think someone with that access would not be able to hire people to cover their tracks for something as minor as cheating in Ivy league schools?

So are you saying that JFK Jr. probably cheated?

You know what, I think its obvious. I don't know why I didn't see it before!

JFK Jr. cheated at flight school! He bribed his way into a flight license. After all, he was the son of a PRESIDENT, his Uncle was Attorney General, another Uncle is Senator. He BOUGHT, not EARNED, his pilot's license!

 

[The Major]

So are you saying that JFK Jr. probably cheated?

You know what, I think its obvious. I don't know why I didn't see it before!

JFK Jr. cheated at flight school! He bribed his way into a flight license. After all, he was the son of a PRESIDENT, his Uncle was Attorney General, another Uncle is Senator. He BOUGHT, not EARNED, his pilot's license!

While I'd doubt it due to his character, and unlike George I actually believe he had a brain, it is certainly possible.

Power does weird things to people, especially when they are mentally screwed up to begin with like killing frogs for entertainment as a kid and experiencing loss like a death of a close family member with no-one to turn to to deal with the tragedy. I'd definitely consider George cheating a possibility since his dad has been saving him constantly for years. When you grow up learning you don't get to face consequences all your life with access to connections most people could only dream of corruption comes that much easier.

 

[The Overlord]

So you skipped over the "Good Governor" part, gotcha.

That's highly debatable.

Obama's reputation for intelligent had nothing to do with his work as community organizing - it was his books, his teaching positions, his degrees, etc.

But see the problem is that you have absolutely nothing indicating the Bush did not belong to be in an Ivy League School. After all, he earned his degree not only from Yale - but from Harvard Business school after that. The idea that Bush's impressive school history doesn't count because he is really an idiot not only lacks any sort of evidence, it's simply ridiculous.

Going to an Ivy League School does not mean one is intelligent, however intelligence is required to earned diplomas from one.

What was his grade point average, what was his biggest accomplishment in school? Him just going to that school isn't in itself impressive, what he did there is. I respect actual feats of intelligence, not just name dropping about which school he went to.

No - I am stating that "It is relevant, because that's not my point. My point is you can argue Clinton is corrupt (I don't care because I don't see how his negative qualities effected the country worse then Bush's) while you argue is corrupt, incompetent and an ideological fanatic, which would make him a far worse leader." doesn't make sense.

Perhaps I phrased that wrong, let me try again.

If your point is that I can't argue that Clinton is corrupt, incompetent and an ideological fanatic you are correct. Clinton is not an ideological fanatic - and I have never said he is, but he was corrupt and I think his National Security policies were poor and helped Al Qaeda become the threat to America it became (incompetence) - among other things. If you want to go blow for blow on the failures of Clinton's Presidency, I suggest opening a thread.

The point I'm making is about the overall picture about said individuals: Clinton may have been corrupt, but Bush had more overall faults in that he was corrupt, at least had very poor judgment and was far more ideological then Clinton, that's why I think he is a worse President, Bush had more strikes against him, personality, then Clinton did.

What matters ultimately is end results, who left America in better shape for the next President?

Preferably, but, again, the mind of a scholar is not required to be a great leader.

I think I have higher standards of what makes a good leader then you do. Call me an elitist, if you will.

Rumsfeld being gravely mistaken about post-war Iraq is irrelevant to the success of the Iraqi battle plan in removing Saddam's government.

That's not what people were concerned about though, they were worried about the aftermath, not the war itself and that was not addressed for 3 years, how is that smart?

You asked for some things Bush did right - I gave you some examples. Simple as that. I never said Bush was a great President, simply better than what you think.

I never said he always wrong about everything, just that overall he did a bad job.

I have trace of arrogance, and I am not without bias - but neither are hindering me here. Your statement demonstrated a belief that the actions of a past President cannot effect a President years later, this simply shows a lack of logic or reason.

Perhaps not, but I dispute your theory in the first place.

If you wanted to debate Clinton's impact on the economy, that is one thing - but to simply dismiss all ideas entirely as you did you are guilty of exactly the same sin you falsely accuse me of - warping opinion into fact.

I'm not treating theories like they are facts, you are.

Has nothing to do with my own arrogant assumptions but my own research and opinion. Again, I have no problem debating this topic at all.

The problem is your treated your theory like a fact, when it clearly is a theory, that is a logical fallacy of the highest order. You had gall to assume I hadn't researched this myself and had the arrogance to assume that because I disagreed with theory meant that I was some sort of dullard.

That is vexing and I'm calling you on it. I hate these kinds of attitudes, there is nothing worse then unwarranted arrogance.

Let me give you three links for your one:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

This is an article on the CRA in 2000 that predicts the results of act being the ones we are suffering now.

Howard Husock is the Vice President, Policy Research and the Director of the Manhattan Institute's Social Entrepreneurship Initiative. He was formerly the director of case studies in public policy and management at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Husock a prolific writer on housing and urban policy issues.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

This is from 2007

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is an American economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland. He is an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics. He is a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and an affiliated scholar of the League of the South Institute, the research arm of the League of the South and the Abbeville Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Virginia Tech.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm?page=0

Stan J. Liebowitz is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute and Ashbel Smith Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for the Analysis of Property Rights and Innovation at the University of Texas at Dallas. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles, and he has taught at the North Carolina State University, University of Chicago, University of Rochester, and the University of Western Ontario.

Note that my article was from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, why would the guys you posted know where about this policy the government department that deals with how the government spends its money? I mean who is a bigger authority here?

Besides I can easily find other articles disputing your "facts", I just posted the one I found first. That's the point, if I can place reasonable doubt and I think an article disputing your claims from Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System counts.

Face it, you gambled and lost, be a man and admit you were wrong. You presented a theory as a fact and had the gall to lecture about it, that is just rude and ignorant.

Reagan's legacy in a historical context is showing him to be seen as a worse President than he was remembered when he left office.

Nixon's reputation, ironically, is slowly improving as time passes from Watergate.

Too bad Nixon is still pretty disliked and Reagan was pretty well liked at the end of his second term.

The fact is your examples are old and dated, not suitable to the new information era. Nowadays people can look at bush bloopers on youtube, it will be harder for him to recover.

You are living in the past, your examples are dated, they do not reflect the modern times.