Why do they only shoot the good ones?

Yes.


Neither does anyone supporting Republican initiatives over the last 20 or so years. Otherwise, they'd know better.


No.

And this thread belongs in Political Outsider. Please feel free to join me and the rest of the ruffians over there.

Oh... " Why do they only shoot the good ones?"

Reagan got shot, too.

THere's a forum for this: Political Outsider.

And the answer is: there are probably equally incompetent presidents of the past. Ford and Carter were both incompetent, and that's not very far back. Moreover, there's really no evidence that your favorite president, whomever that may be, would have handled the last 8 years better. That's not to say that Bush hasn't failed -- he has -- but you can't easily compare one decade to another. Books are written about this type of analysis. An internet forum populated by fervently biased non-historians is not going to give you a scientific answer. (just look at the post above for evidence of that)

It's likely that if Bush were president in the 90's, nobody would have cared. However, that was not the case, and he is president during a very turbulent time -- and a time that no honest person will largely attribute to Bush's administration per se. That is, only loonies believe that the recent increase in islamic terrorist bombings and middle eastern manifest destiny are products of a giant, right-wing conspiracy. They've been bubbling up for a long, long time, and Bush got unlucky. He's a terrible communicator, and we have to witness that fact way more than we would have had to during the 90's, when everything was peachy.

So, basically you had already made up your mind when you posted this thread. Then why did you do it?

Carter was laughed at here and abroad, much like Bush II. Carter was lucky enough, however, not to have had a jihad on his hands. Reagan didn't fit the Washington mold either, and he has what may have been the most successful presidency of the last 60 years. He had the biggest landslide victories, his administration put the nail in the USSR coffin, and they made very important changes to the tax code. If you think those tax code changes were counterproductive, you're a goose-stepping, party-line buffoon. They came at the right time, and without them investors would not have been as eager to fund the tech boom that is still going on. The high tech industry now employs millions of Americans. Even the biggest Obama supporters (with brains) aren't likely to complain about these policies.

And no, you can't blame Bush for an event that happened nine months into his job. If Gore were elected, it would have happened just the same. If there's anyone to blame, they are the Bush I and Clinton administrations, who stood by as all bubbled up. There were indeed world trade center bombing attempts prior to 9/11. Bush I should have steamrolled through Iraq when we had the whole freakin' UN coalition to do so. Clinton shouldn't have been such a complete stooge, period. National security was a farce in the 90's.

If you remember the 2000 campaign, one of Bush's main points was his promise to pursue hostile, rogue nations if they attack or threaten. Gore was shaky on this topic due, probably, to party line. Guess what: Bush did what he promised, for better or for worse. It's hard for me to say if the DHS, the attacks on Afghanistan, and the occupation of Iraq have been beneficial to national security or not, but on the homefront we have been better off than Europe. That's for certain.

Bush II has been in over his head for sure. But due to the extreme nature of the last eight years, coming to the conclusion that he's the worst ever is pretty foolish. There have been a lot of presidents who were not good at handling the pressure of rough times. Guess what: life goes on.

It all always comes back to 9/11. Bush's disaster of a presidency is not solely due to 9/11. The extreme nature of the last eight years? The Bush Administration's doing... not what happened on one day 7 years ago. We've had Toonces the cat behind the wheel for the last 8 years. What did any one expect to happen?

Can we move this to PO already?

And Spliney, it's not toeing party lines to realize that the economic mess that we're in now is mainly due to two things: deregulation and runaway Republican spending. A philosophy that very clearly started with Reagan.

The 9-11/war situation most DEFINITELY would have been handled differently under another administration. As would have the economy. No one on earth can blame Bush's failure entirely on the situation.

I'm not buying this idea that he was simply unlucky. I also view Bush as perhaps half responsible for the turbulence of our times.

9/11 was bad, but relatively less costly in lives and money when compared to other events in American history. Hurricanes regularly do more monetary damage and more people die from drunk driving every year. If you look at the total lives lost and economic hardship in the year following 9/11, it isn't that far from the norm. News coverage of sky scrapers collapsing is what really set it apart historically. From a historical perspective 9/11 was a turning point and set off other events. But it didn't have to. It could have stood by itself as a terrible terrorsit act whose perpatraitors were brought to justice. Instead Bush turned it into a world upheaving event, fostering a culture of fear, hate, and preemptive violence.

What has really has cemented his negative legacy is our response to 9/11 and other problems or disasters. Our response to 9/11 has had more of a negative impact than 9/11 did itself. Tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died in an unjust war that we started. So have a few thousand Americans. Then there is the monetary cost on all sides as well.

Luck simply had nothing to do with starting the war.

(And that's just the war. Don't even get me started on Katrina, The Patriot Act, the sub-prime mortgage collapse, etc... )

I think the reason Bush hasn't been killed yet is that he's not hated by idiots, he's hated by smart people who wouldn't do such an irrational thing as kill someone. Religious nuts would easily go after someone but they're on his side. He's also not dangerous to the people who really run the country unlike some people:

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot...dered-rfk.html

So murdering lunatics support him, religious nuts support him and the people who can take him out have complete control over him. Why kill him when he's everything most of America wants in a president - a mindless puppet.

As soon as you have someone capable of rational thought, they are capable of having an opinion you disagree with. This guy just holds up his hands and admits he doesn't have a clue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD7BDP3XMG0

The response is simply laughter not gunshots.

To be perfectly accurate, local religious nuts are on his side. Millions of religious nuts elsewhere in the world would certainly approve of his assassination.

If someone doesn't want a knock on their door by the Secret Service the tone in this thread had better take a more moderate set of literary expressions.

You're confused or misinformed. Nobody here has said anything remotely close to meriting a visit by the SS.

Bush has been extremists' wet dream. They manipulated him and the US, and the Western World perfectly. They don't want change. He played right into their grandest plans.

Yeah, right. That must be why you edited your post. Nothing to see here? <anymore>.

I stand by my assertion in previous threads that George W. is a well disguised sociopath.

(not a joke)

Seriously? I can't tell if you're joking or really that paranoid and suspicious.

Rest assured, I've held nothing back. If anything, my edit of that post made it more critical of the current regime.

You guys do know that Reagan pretty much singlehandedly gave nuclear technology to Pakistan, right? And that that technology was then sold to Iran and North Korea? Gee, thanks, Gip.