The legacy of President George W. Bush

[Anji]

President Bush going is the best thing that has happened in recent years! America used to be held in high esteem, but not now. That it is purely down to the fact that there has been a complete pillock in charge for years.

His Bushisms are hysterical true, but from my point of view (and many I talk to here about him), it just looked like the village idiot was in charge of one of the most powerful nations in the world He did a LOT do destroy America's credibility to the outside world IMHO

Trouble is many Americans can't or won't see that

[pgv]

Originally Posted by Anji

: He did a LOT do destroy America's credibility to the outside world IMHO

People are pretty anti-America over here in England (note - AMERICA, not Americans) and it's all because of Bush. America has had a real chance to redeem itself in the worlds eye now with Obama and I think its image will greatly improve. Especially in regard to his closure of Guantanamo.

[deep]

Originally Posted by Anji

President Bush going is the best thing that has happened in recent years! America used to be held in high esteem, but not now. That it is purely down to the fact that there has been a complete pillock in charge for years.

His Bushisms are hysterical true, but from my point of view (and many I talk to here about him), it just looked like the village idiot was in charge of one of the most powerful nations in the world He did a LOT do destroy America's credibility to the outside world IMHO

Trouble is many Americans can't or won't see that

Really, why is his popularity at all time lows ?


I was 18 when Nixon resigned, this is very similar.
Only a few die-hards hanging on.

[U2isthebest]

Originally Posted by deep

I was 18 when Nixon resigned, this is very similar.
Only a few die-hards hanging on.

You're the same age as my dad. Just thought I'd mention it. I'm procrastinating getting ready for work.

[deep]

go to your room !

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Oh yes, the liberal view which ignores or attempts to dismiss basic facts which upset or refute the standard liberal talking points.

Here we go again.

Average is meaningless. We discussed this.

[Anji]

Originally Posted by partygirlvox

People are pretty anti-America over here in England (note - AMERICA, not Americans) and it's all because of Bush. America has had a real chance to redeem itself in the worlds eye now with Obama and I think its image will greatly improve.

Exactly! I specifically said America for that very reason.

When I talk to my work colleagues in the US, some are fully aware on how the Brits view America now and they don't like it. But they are screwed on enough to realise it is not personal against them. Some don't have a clue what's going on outside their own front door.

I have always said (based on past history between our countries) that we are the missing star on the American flag and our past and future entwine with America's not with Europe. But these days (whilst Bush was in) which is the lesser of the two evils?

We have a saying here - "America sneezes and the world catches a cold"

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Anji

I have always said (based on past history between our countries) that we are the missing star on the American flag and our past and future entwine with America's not with Europe. But these days (whilst Bush was in) which is the lesser of the two evils?

We have a saying here - "America sneezes and the world catches a cold"

this is quite true. the world we've inherited as the lone superpower, and many of it's problems, can be traced back to the British Empire and it's subsequent break up.

[pgv]

Originally Posted by Anji

Exactly! I specifically said America for that very reason.

When I talk to my work colleagues in the US, some are fully aware on how the Brits view America now and they don't like it. But they are screwed on enough to realise it is not personal against them. Some don't have a clue what's going on outside their own front door.

I have always said (based on past history between our countries) that we are the missing star on the American flag and our past and future entwine with America's not with Europe. But these days (whilst Bush was in) which is the lesser of the two evils?

We have a saying here - "America sneezes and the world catches a cold"

I do think for the most part a lot of the Bush/Blair alliances came about through a "go along with it, have some sort of say in it, keep damage to a minimum" mentality. Although we're not completely blameless and people forget that. Far easier to make America the scapegoat.
My only worry is that now, after years of using America as that scapegoat, the world is expecting America to sort everything out again. Obama has SO much pressure on his shoulders and I don't envy the man.
But I do think he'll restore their standing in the world somewhat And I totally agree about how we're so connected with the country - especially in terms of the British empire.

Do people in the US realise how in thrall the rest of us are to Obama, too? I genuinely want to know the answer to that - it feels like he's been elected as leader of the world, not just America.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

Here we go again.

Average is meaningless. We discussed this.

Nope, what is meaningless is using the first of 96 months of an administration and the last month of a 96 month administration in attempting to gauge is success. All 96 months matter, which is why the average does matter. Historians use such averages to help in their assessments.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

What are you talking about? Context is a global concept, look it up...

The numbers you posted, were they averages as of yesterday?

When you say "Will Barack Obama be able to match these numbers..." you do realize the different starting points, right?

This is all called context.

The numbers are based on the latest information available. Were dealing with very long periods of time which makes the starting point not nearly as important as you think.

Its not just where you start off or finish up that matters, its also what happens in between. Plenty of time for multiple ups and downs depending on policy and other factors. Otherwise you miss out on the facts like unemployment being at historical lows from the summer of 2005, to the start of 2008.

[BVS]

Sting, you do realize Bush and Obama were handed two entirely different economies, right?

I mean you do read the news right, you know what's going on...

So to ask "will Obama be able to match..." is a pretty meaningless question.

There starting points are apples and oranges, so the side by side comparison will not be based on numbers but what they were able to do with the numbers they were handed.

That's how the real world judges these types of things.

[Diemen]

Has Sting ever managed to convince you to change your tune? Has Sting ever changed his tune based on arguments you've given?

Is that ever going to change?

[mobvok]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Has Sting ever managed to convince you to change your tune? Has Sting ever changed his tune based on arguments you've given?

Is that ever going to change?

I guess it's not really this board's policy, but I think things would be different if debaters were forced to link to evidence to support their claims. Then we'd see who's merely authoritative-sounding, and who can actually back up their words.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Has Sting ever managed to convince you to change your tune? Has Sting ever changed his tune based on arguments you've given?

Is that ever going to change?

Momentary memory loss, I forgot who I was talking to...

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by mobvok

I guess it's not really this board's policy, but I think things would be different if debaters were forced to link to evidence to support their claims. Then we'd see who's merely authoritative-sounding, and who can actually back up their words.

That might help a little, but as those of us who've been around FYM for a while know, being able to cite supporting sources of information doesn't necessarily mean your argument is more sound. Especially in the age of the internet.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Sting, you do realize Bush and Obama were handed two entirely different economies, right?

I mean you do read the news right, you know what's going on...

So to ask "will Obama be able to match..." is a pretty meaningless question.

There starting points are apples and oranges, so the side by side comparison will not be based on numbers but what they were able to do with the numbers they were handed.

That's how the real world judges these types of things.

My point is that what you are handed with in your first month or where you finish in your 96th month povided you get re-elected is only part of what has to be evaluated and looked at. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Unemployment started going up before Bush got into office and then 7 months later 9/11 happened and unemployment went up further over 2002 and 2003. Then from 2005 through the start of 2008, Bush had unemployment at historical lows. These types of figures fluctuate considerably over this length of time and rarely do you have a flat line downward or upward over 4 or 8 year time in office.

Over the next year, unemployment may rise considerably, and then fall, only to rise again, depending on various policies and other factors that we don't know of yet. What you don't do, is declare economic policy a success or a failure based simply on the situation the first month in which you started, and the last 96th month. There are 94 months in between those two points that could contain numerous rises in falls in the economic numbers based on a host of policies and other factors.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by mobvok

I guess it's not really this board's policy, but I think things would be different if debaters were forced to link to evidence to support their claims. Then we'd see who's merely authoritative-sounding, and who can actually back up their words.

If you doubt the economic numbers, look them up yourself. Its not that difficult to find annual unemployment, inflation, poverty rate, GDP growth rate, and debt as a percentage of GDP.

[mobvok]

General info like GDP, unemployment, et. al in the context of this thread isn't really what I'm talking about.

edit- Ehh forget I said anything.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Nope, what is meaningless is using the first of 96 months of an administration and the last month of a 96 month administration in attempting to gauge is success. All 96 months matter, which is why the average does matter. Historians use such averages to help in their assessments.

Did I suggest that you use the first and last months? Absolutely not. Don't put words in my mouth.

An average is just as meaningless. Both of those suggestions are too simple. You need more detail. For starters, each of those statistics, with information for each year from 2001 to 2008.

The last two to three years are the most important because they're the years in which his policy had the most impact.

And that paints a totally different picture of the situation.