Basso, do you support giddyup's position that the number of combat deaths should be used to judge who is the worst president in history? Y or N?
IIRC, there were few combat deaths in the andrew johnson administration. but if your question is, is Bush the worst president in history, my answer is not only is he not the worst president in history, there are at least 5 presidents in the past 50 years who are worse, Carter, Ford, GHWB, Clinton, and Nixon. Since it's still early in the GWB presidency, i'd put him ahead of JFK and LBJ at this stage, not quite in the Truman Reagan class.
Originally posted by SamFisher Yes, we are in complete agreement. We both focused on the number of combat deaths in order to evaluate the president. you took the position that the low number for bush made him look better than his counterparts, who had higher numbers. You equated that with job performance; you can pretend like you didn't, but you did. I've explained it to you 55 times here but you just start screaming about extrapolating and being too literal and then not being literal enough. <b>And you call me stupid? I didn't focus on the number of combat deaths, the piece did. Remember, it posed a question which it never answered. Neither did I. I answered the Lincoln question in the negative because that factor and that factor alone is not the sole determinant of best or worst. Same is true for GWB. I said that as regards GWB it was a counter-trend that made him look better in the context of that one feature of his presidency than his critics were giving him credit. In other words, there was a great disparity between the number of deaths on his watch and the number of deaths on the watch of other presidents, yet the critics weren't clamoring that they were "the worst president." FYI, "better" is only a relative term not an absolute one. I didn't equate it with job performance. You tried to... and you kept trying to speak for me to the same purpose.</b> I'm actually still waiting for your syllogism. Major premise? How am I supposed to tell you what your major premise is? You're the one who posted it, and you're the one who whines about me missing the point, so you do it. That's why I asked you to do it so th at we could be perfectly clear as to what you are saying. What you call "reductionism" I call clarity. I can only guess as to why you wish to be obscure.... <b>I don't think a piece which has a question mark in BOTH the title and the conclusion really has a premise, but I'll try. How's this: Bush is not the worst president. The worst president is unpopular with the people. Therefore, Bush is not unpopular with the people.</b> You can claim you didn't author it, but you threw it up here and have defended and endorsed it several times a day for the last week. So pardon me if I associate you with it. <b>Associate is fine, identify is not. That's a very subtle shift hat you just pulled there! My greatest defense of the piece is that it didn't say what you kept trying to make it say (that's where I was asking you to be literal-- perhaps accurate would have been a better word). I asked you to show me where it reduced to a single conclusion. Question marks still count don't they? You haven't cited that line yet, so I'm still waiting.</b>
Busted: So you didn't focus on it, you just intentionally typed "" in order to draw attention on it. Please explain the difference. But otherwise, as long as we are in agreement that the framework of the discussion you created is that the number of combat deaths are being used to judge who is the worst president, I pose you the following question: should combat deaths alone be used to judge who is/was the worst president?
My favorite was the 'giddyburg' however I would have thought you would have jumped on the singularity epithet from a few pages back.
Sad. Giddy, I can't get mad at you or frustrated with you anymore. After this thread and particularly this comment, I only pity you.
LOL, I'm on the side of the confederacy? I guess since I said Lincoln was the worst president ever it serves me right. That is pure gold though KingC!
The events show that Europe has been dealing with terrorism for CENTURIES as the US has remained blissfully ignorant. We come under attack (on our soil) twice in a decade and all of a sudden you (along with Bush and his cronies) seem to think that we are the poster children for terrorism. No, it doesn't. We HAD that support. It was given to us and, for nearly 2 years, we were allowed extremely wide latitude in what we could do. We were supported by countries that had NEVER before supported us. GWB and his cohorts squandered that goodwill and support BY ATTACKING A SOVERIGN NATION WITH EXAGGERATED, DEBUNKED "INTELLIGENCE." If it had not been for the action in Iraq, we might STILL have the entire world on our side rather than what we have now. GWB and his crew are directly to blame for shifting world opinion against us.
Originally posted by SamFisher Busted: So you didn't focus on it, you just intentionally typed "" in order to draw attention on it. Please explain the difference. <b>I didn't want people to overlook the dramatic discrepancy in the numbers. Unlike you, I didn't draw any specific conclusion from it; that's what I meant by "focus."</b> But otherwise, as long as we are in agreement that the framework of the discussion you created is that the number of combat deaths are being used to judge who is the worst president, I pose you the following question: should combat deaths alone be used to judge who is/was the worst president? <b>We don't agree on that, never have, never will. Why do you keep going there? That is not the discussion that I created. That is the discussion that you want to create. I have said a number of times that combat deaths alone should not be used to make these kind of judgement. It's a factor, yes.</b>
Thanks but don't need it or want it. Tell me the relevance please. Somehow I think that terrorists with swords and terrorists with bio-chemical weapons don't compare, but I'm willing to learn.
Bush created more enemies than he destroyed. More people in America's traditional ally countries now dislike USA. People in America's traitional enemy states now hate USA with even more passion. This is all due to Bush and his r****ded diplomacy. It created a whole generation of USA haters around the world. These are facts that giddyup's numbers don't tell. (All you have to do is to check out a few survey results in Europe and Asia.) These are long term effects that will remain detrimental to USA for the next 25 to 50 years. In the last 50 years, USA was well liked in most nations because of its role in WWII. In the next 50 years, USA can only fight alone because of Bush. If you have some foreign connections, you will understand the wide spread anti-American sentiments since 2003. Travelling with a U.S. passport is no longer welcome/safe now. Bush also has dubious connections with some big companies, which many suspect motivated his stubborn stand in the war against Iraq.
This post is spot ON! giddyup, do you understand this? This issues here are more broad than any "death toll" tally. I think you just have a problem the way the media portrays particular points of Bush's performance. But step back a little....and you'll see a whole new picture. The issue is Bush'es policies foreign and domestic as a whole. His view of the world is about 50 years too late. And I hope you don't believe in his "God is on our side" spin (religious fundamentalism will create hatred no matter who does it)? You know? There ARE good people all over the world. It would do you good to travel around the world. Go to places like Africa, Hong Kong, Italy, German, France, England, Mexico City (not Tijuana!)...just to name a few. I think your perspective would change a bit. And you would see the absurdity of a "Us vs them" mantra. 911 should have been a wakeup call about what our Government has been doing around the world. And, as KD said, I feel that the US is worse off than before in terms of future hatred directed towards it. I feel that any "attack" on the USA is only delayed. Hatreds that Bush has aggravated and nurtured TODAY. The job of the democrats and progressive Americans (in the future) is to defuse that hatred around the world. Let me ask you this. Are American Interest "good" regardless of how many people's knecks are steped on around the world? As the lone superpower our sheer size alone will cause harm. Just something to think about. Not everyone values capitalism to the same level as we Americans. It's not always about making a "buck." Contrary to what Bush thinks.
That's true. That's why I said I think your grief is more with "the media" blowing thing out of proportion as oppposed to the greater question regarding the "worst president" That titles deserves more scrutiny. Broader scrutiny that other posters have already stated here. By the way, that "new picture (perspective)" is not pretty. So, the farther you step back, the WORSE Bush looks. Not better.
Yeah. I think the point of the piece was to point up the discrpency of his reputation per this one kind of measure. Compared to other administrations, GWB is anything but sending untold numbers of US soldiers to their demise. Poor GWB. His administration, inherits a reeling economy and then an unrivaled terroristic attack in the US financial district before his first year is out. Why doesn't he just try harder?
Because he was already hamstrung by his narrow-minded view of the world from the start. So, "trying harder" only exacerbates the situation. Thus, yes..."Poor GWB, he only knows one way to deal with particular situations." If that's the case, lets replace him with someone than doesn't just speak the "language of money." Enough of the "sense of entitlement" Administration! No more oligarchy! The religious front is just a ruse. It's more about the privileged elite class rather than "religion or piety."
