Bush never traveled outside US until he became President, can you believe it!

Of all I said in that post, this is the one you highlighted to question. Not just highlighted, but you made it bold and put it on a billboard for the world to see. Your question is not genuinely to get understanding but to ridicule and embarrass. This is why you used so many negative words in that response. There is a anger seething beneath the surface and this is my reason for asking you, . . . what's your point?

I repeat, it is an intelligent dialogue when you are talking about academic interests of a President. You probably do not see it so because your agenda is focused more on destroying the credibility of the respondent than it is on objectivity. Do you not see that? It is clear!

Anyway, let me say this, . . . . I got better things and more objective minds here to share views with you than wasting it addressing the warped viewpoints of an envious person.

Enjoy the rest of the day David.

Thank G bush for being so bad that Obama was seen as soon good
if not for him Obama would not have won

Negro_Ntns:

Of all I said in that post, this is the one you highlighted to question. Not just highlighted, but you made it bold and put it on a billboard for the world to see. Your question is not genuinely to get understanding but to ridicule and embarrass. This is why you used so many negative words in that response. There is a anger seething beneath the surface and this is my reason for asking you, . . . what's your point?

Because it automatically makes nonsense of what other points you claim to be marshalling. When the premise is wrong there is no point looking at the conclusion. I'm sure you did logic in school.

There is no anger anywhere, anybody reading your long nebulous tome without bothering to check the facts would have gone away thinking you had something important to say. I had to set the records straight.

Negro_Ntns:

I repeat, it is an intelligent dialogue when you are talking about academic interests of a President. You probably do not see it so because your agenda is focused more on destroying the credibility of the respondent than it is on objectivity. Do you not see that? It is clear!

but it becomes unintelligent discourse when you fail history 101.

YOU destroyed whatever credibility you may lay claim to when you consistently lied that Bush never traveled outside the US before he became president.

Negro_Ntns:

Anyway, let me say this, . . . . I got better things and more objective minds here to share views with you than wasting it addressing the warped viewpoints of an envious person.

Enjoy the rest of the day David.

You certainly dont understand the meaning of the term "objective minds".

If it includes people who lie and dont understand history then you're in good company.

Enjoy the rest of your day too.

Next time do a good google search before posting. Some of us actually take the time to crosscheck facts.

Bush did nothing wrong. Since the democrats became the majority in the house, the US economy went downhill and everything fell apart. Their new slogan should be "Things fall apart".

deepzone for Fox News Anchor

Every one is missing the point here.

Bush was the president but he wasn't the one making the big decisions and he wasn't the one who screwed everything up. He's just the dumb scapegoat. He'll get the blame whilst the people who did make the mistakes will slip off un-noticed.

The real culprits are the Cheneys, the Roves, the advisors and the big businesses who went out for themselves and left the American people in the mire.

Bush was merely their mouth-piece.

David,

We should leave this to the public opinion to judge. My contention, before you rail-roaded it with your envious presumptions is this:

Public administrators at the high level of government are vetted for positions. The vetting includes, amongst other things, reviewing their resumes and policies and opinions. Nobody cares about places you visited unless if it's in relation to a security clearance to be sure that you have not acted counter to the interests of the Federal Government. Your policies and opinions weigh heavily on what your beliefs are and in which you can contribute to the progress of the nation. An administration will not appoint an academic blank to fill a position when the field is saturated with innovative minds that have intellectual opinion on the subject appointment. For a President, having a broad mind about the world is very essential. Obama in his campaigns visited Middle East and Europe but the reference point of credibility for his international exposure came from his background in Hawaii, Indonesia and other places he grew up in. This is attested to by his many references to those upbringing and background in his book. That background is believed to be the principal reason why after leaving Harvard he turned down offers for six figure salary on Wall Street to go instead to grassroot advocacy in Chicago.

On the question of how to rank G.W. Bush, I stated that we would have to look at the presentation of Sarah Palin for a VP title, a position many believed she is not qualified for on account of her academic standing - no policy formation on anything outside of Alaska; she has however visited other parts of America and indeed other parts of the world. That parallel, in retrospect is the root for why Bush ended his Presidency as he did with foreign policy failures. To cap that, I opened by inferring that I did not need to go into all these lenghty narratives which I just did above because you have mentioned a number of them already.

Now, I don't know why it is easy for me to look at what you wrote and assess it with depth of mind and conclude on the direction you were heading but it is difficult for you to understand what other readers with depth of mind like myself understood as legitimate response. Unless of course you were not seeking objectivity but out hunting for a misstep that you could amplify as erroneous. You succeeded in the amplification when you posted what you thought was an error on the billboard, but failed to prove it as an error. You cannot interprete visit to equate travel. One is done for leisure, the other is done for a productive goal. If after reading all of the above, not scoping for material to put on your billboard, you still disagree, then I leave you with your shallow mind and will not bother to school you on objective analysis.

Bastage one point i'd like to put out
Nothing passes without teh president's approval NOTHING!!

The senate can vote but if the president uses his exercutive orders he can undo it.
Bush teh great did that several times unfortunately most of teh decisions which he took by using his exercutive orders
turned out to have negative effects and that is why even teh republicans blame him.
( the war in Iraq was a typical situation where he told the senate the decision had been taken, and he issued exercutive orders to endorse it )

Negro_Ntns:

David,
We should leave this to the public opinion to judge. My contention, before you rail-roaded it with your envious presumptions is this:

Let's start here, there is nothing about you that i shld be envious of . . . absolutely nothing.

Negro_Ntns:

Nobody cares about places you visited unless if it's in relation to a security clearance to be sure that you have not acted counter to the interests of the Federal Government.

Really? Then on what grounds did you make this fallacious statement? - Bush never traveled outside US until he became President, can you believe it!

Negro_Ntns:

Obama in his campaigns visited Middle East and Europe but the reference point of credibility for his international exposure came from his background in Hawaii, Indonesia and other places he grew up in.

To start with, this is incredibly foolish.

- Obama visited the Middle east and Europe during his campaign when it became obvious that was an important plank of McCain's campaign against him. Bush visited Europe and the Middle east but a good 2-10 yrs before he announced his candidacy for president.

- How is being born in Hawaii a substitute for "international exposure"? Would that also be applicable to Sarah Palin born in Alaska and John McCain born in the Panama?

- Obama lived in Indonesia from the ages of 6 - 9 . . . that is your own idea of "international exposure"?

Negro_Ntns:

On the question of how to rank G.W. Bush, I stated that we would have to look at the presentation of Sarah Palin for a VP title, a position many believed she is not qualified for on account of her academic standing - no policy formation on anything outside of Alaska; she has however visited other parts of America and indeed other parts of the world.

I said it earlier and i still maintain - you dont know what u're talking about and the earlier you just shut up the better.

Sarah Palin only recieved a passport in 2007 and has only been to Kuwait to visit Alaskan national guard members.

Is visiting "other parts of America" a substitute for "international exposure"?

Negro_Ntns:

That parallel, in retrospect is the root for why Bush ended his Presidency as he did with foreign policy failures. To cap that, I opened by inferring that I did not need to go into all these lenghty narratives which I just did above because you have mentioned a number of them already.

What has where you travelled to have to do with "foreign policy"? So every country with a failed foreign policy is because the rulers did not travel to other countries before they became leaders?

How does travelling to Europe prepare you for dealing with Pakistan, Iran and north Korea?

Negro_Ntns:

Now, I don't know why it is easy for me to look at what you wrote and assess it with depth of mind and conclude on the direction you were heading but it is difficult for you to understand what other readers with depth of mind like myself understood as legitimate response.

- I've read all your input on this thread, you dont have any depth of mind at all . . . stop decieving urself.

- Perhaps it is difficult for me to grasp what you're talking about because it is peppered with untruths and ignorant comments.

Negro_Ntns:

Unless of course you were not seeking objectivity but out hunting for a misstep that you could amplify as erroneous. You succeeded in the amplification when you posted what you thought was an error on the billboard, but failed to prove it as an error. You cannot interprete visit to equate travel. One is done for leisure, the other is done for a productive goal. If after reading all of the above, not scoping for material to put on your billboard, you still disagree, then I leave you with your shallow mind and will not bother to school you on objective analysis.

This man is in delusion.

Let me give you a brain exercise.

With all his visits, as you claim, how many written opinions or even policies on foreign relations did Bush espouse before becoming President?

Give your answer.

If you can't find any, then you should weigh the last question against this one:

With all his travels, as Negro claims, how many written opinions or relevant policies on foreign policy did Bush espouse before becoming President?

If the answer on the second position is still zero, then regardless of whether he traveled or visited, Bush did not formulate any policy relevant to his Presidential ambitions, despite that he had more than ample resources and opportunities to do so both as a Harvard graduate and as the first son of G.H. Bush.

This validates the objectivity of my post. Now you need to validate the objectivity of your billboard; if it was not emotionally minded I don't know what else to call it.

Negro_Ntns:

Let me give you a brain exercise.

With all his visits, as you claim, how many written opinions or even policies on foreign relations did Bush espouse before becoming President?

Give your answer.

Another incredibly foolish question - How many did Angela Merkel write? where are clinton's? Where are those of John F. Kennedy? Did Vladimir Putin write any? Since when did writing opinions and policies on foreign relations become a litmus test for an effective presidency?

Is writing a book meant to give you passage in congress?

Negro_Ntns:

If the answer on the second position is still zero, then regardless of whether he traveled or visited, Bush did not formulate any policy relevant to his Presidential ambitions, despite that he had more than ample resources and opportunities to do so both as a Harvard graduate and as the first son of G.H. Bush.

This validates the objectivity of my post. Now you need to validate the objectivity of your billboard; if it was not emotionally minded I don't know what else to call it.

It simply validates the emptiness of your position. What are Obama's foreign policy opinions? What were those of John McCain?

Since when did graduating from Harvard become the yardstick for intellect?

My guy, when u're in a hole smart people stop digging.

Daviddylan

sorry to iterupt ur conversation with Negro but let me point this out

Obama wants to
1) Close Guantanamo bay prision
2) Pull troops out of Iraq

Now if i listened carefully McCain wanted to continue the war in iraq and bring teh troops home in Victory , when ever that will be

Emad:

Daviddylan

sorry to iterupt ur conversation with Negro but let me point this out

Obama wants to
1) Close Guantanamo bay prision
2) Pull troops out of Iraq

Now if i listened carefully McCain wanted to continue the war in iraq and bring the troops home in Victory , when ever that will be

the issue isnt Obama's policies . . . the issue is do you require to:

a. graduate from Harvard
b. travel to the middle east and Europe
c. write opinion papers on foreign policy

to come to those clear cut conclusions that America needs to pull its troops out of Iraq or close Guatanamo?

Ok i get your point

Well i think the whole world knows by now that GW Bush was the leader God chose for America to carve the way for the first black president
he was Obama's Herald a little bit like John the baptist was for Jesus, soooooo

Hail BUSH!!

Nothing passes without the president's approval NOTHING!!

The senate can vote but if the president uses his exercutive orders he can undo it.
Bush the great did that several times unfortunately most of the decisions which he took by using his exercutive orders
turned out to have negative effects and that is why even the republicans blame him.
( the war in Iraq was a typical situation where he told the senate the decision had been taken, and he issued exercutive orders to endorse it )

You're still missing the point.
He signed the papers put in front of him but was it his policy or was it handed to him?

Bush critics often point to him being a fool. If this was the case, would he be capable of creating policy? Doubtful.
He may have signed the executive papers to invade Iraq but you can almost guarantee that it wasn't his idea. That would have come from the money-men, lobbyists, Haliburton execs (Cheney) and the economists.

Like I said, he was a patsy. They put papers in front of him and he signed them.

You can't have him as an idiot and a political manipulator. He was one or the other. My money is on the former.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a staunch Obama supporter. But Bush was merely the Yes-man in the US administrator. The fact that the Yes-man held the position of president is why the guys who pulled the puppet's strings managed to do so much damage.

I dont beleive that! if that were the case for 100% of the time then there would be no difference who is in teh white house

But there was a clear difference btw the presidency of clinton and his
Yet are there ( according to you theories ) not the same powers that be?

No i think each president had his own agenda, maybe GBush's was run by Dick cheny but definitely he KNEW what he was doing and did it
to get his own selfish benefits
i dont buy the fact that he was simply a pawn, he had a hand in whatever he chose to sign, he was not just a puppet

David,

In reference to our discussion, you are mixing apples and oranges. Consider the following for a minute and see how it fits in with my position -

Statement: Sony is regarded as a very knowledgable person on International Affairs.

Fill in the blanks to draw the same meaning as above statement -

Statement: Sony is _______________

(a) well-travelled

(b) well-visited

David, you are presented with the above scenarios, what is the correct answer?

You have made some serious errors in judgement. It's our first encounter so I will be gracious and let you save face this time. Next time you make this blunder in response to my post. . . I am coming for you jugular! I don't scour google for knowledge, I camp in libraries for my knowledge. Discuss google answers with like minds as yourself that love to cut and paste from search engines and web databases. Ok?

I don't beleive that! if that were the case for 100% of the time then there would be no difference who is in the white house
But there was a clear difference between the presidency of clinton and his
Yet are there ( according to you theories ) not the same powers that be?

No. There was a difference between Clinton and Bush because they are from different political parties. They had different teams of advisors with different agendas. The same goes for Obama and Bush.
But compare Bush Junior's administration with Bush Senior's and you get the scenario you've put in your first sentence. Many of the advisors that were in the first Bush's administration held postions in Junior's. Take a look at their administrations policies and you'll see that they were pretty much identical. The same was true for the Reagan - Bush Senior administrations. The advisors generally stayed the same and the policies stayed the same.

The same goes for the Democrats. Clinton had guys on board from the Carter administration. Remember though, that there were 8 years of Reagan in between so the policy similarities weren't so obvious. They had to be a little different simply because times had changed.

Take a look at Obama's new team and you'll see that many of his guys have held advisory postions in both the Democrat and Republican parties. It illustrates my point. Don't get too depressed though, the reason why Obama is a ray of light (hopefully) is that he does seem to be one of those rare presidents who wants to make his own mark - hence his statement that he will decrease the power of lobbyists.

So yes. The President doesn't run the country or make the big policy decisions. The back-room boys do and they don't go away when there's a change of president. They're always around in some form or another. It's just the way that politics works.

I can't believe someone vote as one of the best

sexyLeamon
i am suspecting either DavidDylan or bastage

well Bastage, i get ur drift buttttttt i dont think we can say he is not to blame at allll

he takes some i say,,,,, 65%

what u say?

Heh. No way.

Much of the President's main purpose is to present an acceptable face of the US Administration to the people. Bush was probably one of the worst ever at doing this. Therefore, I wouldn't classify him even as just a bad president - he's way worse than that. He's definitely up there with the worst ever.

I'd say your 65% is high. He gets around 20% from me. And most of that is purely because he was stupid enough to be a patsy and incompetent at being able to spin policy to the people.

Emad:

sexyLeamon
i am suspecting either DavidDylan or bastage

that wasnt my vote.

Negro_Ntns:

David,

In reference to our discussion, you are mixing apples and oranges. Consider the following for a minute and see how it fits in with my position -

Statement: Sony is regarded as a very knowledgable person on International Affairs.

Fill in the blanks to draw the same meaning as above statement -

Statement: Sony is _______________

(a) well-travelled

(b) well-visited

David, you are presented with the above scenarios, what is the correct answer?

Again i insist, when did travelling around the globe become the criteria for preparing a man to govern his country? Dont be foolishly stubborn . . . Clinton, Abraham Lincoln, Roosevelt . . . care to tell me where they all travelled to before they became president?

Obasanjo traversed almost the entire globe before he became president and made 50 more trips in his first yr as president of Nigeria . . . what difference did it make?

Negro_Ntns:

You have made some serious errors in judgement. It's our first encounter so I will be gracious and let you save face this time. Next time you make this blunder in response to my post. . . I am coming for you jugular! I don't scour google for knowledge, I camp in libraries for my knowledge. Discuss google answers with like minds as yourself that love to cut and paste from search engines and web databases. Ok?

My guy shut up! If you dont know stuff ask those who have brains.

You didnt know Bush travelled anywhere before he became president . . . you dont know if other better US presidents wrote foreign policy papers before they became president and u are here shouting about jugular and library?

If this is the knowledge you gather in the library then i suggest you ask for a refund of ur wasted fees.

ABout Bush. Hmm

Honestly, only history and posterity would judge Bush. Besdies the fact that he waged an unnecessary war against Iraq, i can say no other US president has been barraged with natural disasters/ a Spetember 11 and a tanked economy at the same time!

Walker Bush was certainly born with a rotten luck in the wrong year, cos if Bill Clinton (One of the best US presidents) had faced this mammoth catastrophe, he woulda had the lowest approval rating same as Bush is having now!

In terms of the economy, people forget that this tanked economy is not something that just cropped up under Bush. Infact the Clinton's administration and Clinton's Secretary of Housing and Urban development wrote a memo to Fannie and Freddie to give out loans to unqualified people, infact, Welfare paychecks were counted as an income to qualify this folks to get a mortgage. Ok, no doubt, Dubya spending $10 billion dollars a month in Iraq has also been a catalyst to this crisis, So Bush has his fault in the economic crisis too!

Yes, we are in a recession but people forget that for an economy that was doing good and well especially after the dotcom boom years, things was always gonna go awful, its part of economics!

I concur with Davidylan on Clintons failure to get Binladen which woulda prevented 9/11.

Someone should pls go read Richard Clarke (counter-terroirm Czar) "Against all Enemies". Though, Clarke massaged clinton's ego and absolved him, but the indisputable fact was that Clinton had all the time and everything in the world to take Bin Laden out, infact Binladen was seen walking on the streets of Khartoum and Kabul in Afghanitan free, yet Clinton failed to take him out!

Ofcourse Dubya has not been an excellent president but as i said history would judge him!. Would history judge him positively or negatively? I have no idea but lets all watch as event fold and unfold in the next couple of decades.

rikkyjen:

ABout Bush. Hmm

Honestly, only history and posterity would judge Bush. Besdies the fact that he waged an unnecessary war against Iraq, i can say no other US president has been barraged with natural disasters/ a Spetember 11 and a tanked economy at the same time!

Walker Bush was certainly born with a rotten luck in the wrong year, because if Bill Clinton (One of the best US presidents) had faced this mammoth catastrophe, he woulda had the lowest approval rating same as Bush is having now!

In terms of the economy, people forget that this tanked economy is not something that just cropped up under Bush. Infact the Clinton's administration and Clinton's Secretary of Housing and Urban development wrote a memo to Fannie and Freddie to give out loans to unqualified people, infact, Welfare paychecks were counted as an income to qualify this folks to get a mortgage. Ok, no doubt, Dubya spending $10 billion dollars a month in Iraq has also been a catalyst to this crisis, So Bush has his fault in the economic crisis too!

Yes, we are in a recession but people forget that for an economy that was doing good and well especially after the dotcom boom years, things was always going to go awful, its part of economics!

I concur with Davidylan on Clintons failure to get Binladen which woulda prevented 9/11.

Someone should please go read Richard Clarke (counter-terroirm Czar) "Against all Enemies". Though, Clarke massaged clinton's ego and absolved him, but the indisputable fact was that Clinton had all the time and everything in the world to take Bin Laden out, infact Binladen was seen walking on the streets of Khartoum and Kabul in Afghanitan free, yet Clinton failed to take him out!

Ofcourse Dubya has not been an excellent president but as i said history would judge him!. Would history judge him positively or negatively? I have no idea but lets all watch as event fold and unfold in the next couple of decades.

History will Judge him Negative thats For Sure!!

he isn't the worst president considering the amount of racist, sexist and ethnocentrist people that have once considered themselves the president of the US

Bush won the war on terror, cut taxes for all americans, has kept us safe for the last 8 years and oversaw the greatest, most diverse and free market economy the United States has ever seen. He will surely be missed and I hope Osama can live up to even 10% of what Bush brought to the table. I wish the US was Nigeria sometimes so he could throw a coup and become dictator in chief, man that would be so,

shango:

Bush won the war on terror, cut taxes for all americans, has kept us safe for the last 8 years and oversaw the greatest, most diverse and free market economy the United States has ever seen. He will surely be missed and I hope Osama can live up to even 10% of what Bush brought to the table. I wish the US was Nigeria sometimes so he could throw a coup and become dictator in chief, man that would be so,

Is this a JOKE?

Cut taxes for all americans?

shango i dont think we are talking about the same Bush!

did you really say "Won the war on terror? " buhahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Emad:

shango i don't think we are talking about the same Bush!

did you really say "Won the war on terror? " buhahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

perhaps this mysterious "war" was waged in Shango's backyard.

Personally, i think Bush should be tried for mass murder.

Peace

Cayon:

Personally, i think Bush should be tried for mass murder.

Peace

why?