|
|
Post by warren on Jan 25, 2009 19:34:14 GMT -5
What are you talking about, Live4evr? Is your idea of being educated stealing something from someone else's blog or something? Honestly, Truman is not highly regarded by many - it was his failed policies of containment that put America in the position it was for the entire Cold War. Democrats, like Truman, and equally Republicans were stuck in that ideological trap until the start of the 90s. Honestly, Truman didn't do a very impressive job..... But at the same time, when you're President for 8 years people are ready to see you go....... That's from wikipedia. And in every single one of my history and poli sci classes, Truman is mentioned for how he was seen as a bad president at the time, but that's no longer the case. If you listen to me, you might learn something. Get it through your thick skull that while you may personally not like Truman, the academic community and corresponding historians and politicians view the man as a great president. Yeah wikipedia. Geez I am a fucking idiot! |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 25, 2009 19:41:32 GMT -5
^Oh and notice the criticism of Clinton for 9/11 in that article, too....'nuff siad
|
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Jan 25, 2009 20:47:59 GMT -5
A Great President for Difficult Times: www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20407585-25377,00.html There are many many many more articles out there comparing Bush to Truman, and many that are by more prestigious organizations than The Australian, but this is one of the first I found, and can't be bothered to look more. The simple fact is that Truman is now seen as a good president, and perhaps in 30 years time we'll view Bush in a much better light, too. Stop being naive. so you get pissed off when media compares obama to jfk or martin luther king. and still you defend bush by citing media that compares him to truman. how is that going to work? |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 25, 2009 22:16:35 GMT -5
A Great President for Difficult Times: www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20407585-25377,00.html There are many many many more articles out there comparing Bush to Truman, and many that are by more prestigious organizations than The Australian, but this is one of the first I found, and can't be bothered to look more. The simple fact is that Truman is now seen as a good president, and perhaps in 30 years time we'll view Bush in a much better light, too. Stop being naive. so you get pissed off when media compares obama to jfk or martin luther king. and still you defend bush by citing media that compares him to truman. how is that going to work? Massive difference. Bush's presidency is over, Obama's has hardly began. IE., Bush has already done things, Obama hasn't done anything. With the Truman analogy, you're fitting a pattern that we've seen time and time again where Presidents are judged 30 years later after more documents become public, etc etc With the JFK analogy, it's way too far fetched. To say that Obama will be like Lincoln or JFK because he speaks well and thus comes off as inspirational and because he's inexperienced is just flat out wrong. Jimmy Carter was inexperienced, too. In the world of politics and statistics there's a common phrase of "Correlation does not yield causation." If Obama does turn out to be similar to JFK, it will have nothing to do with him being inexperienced nor the pre-President hype that made that claim; but rather due to his actions and thus own merit. While if Bush is seen as a better President in 30 years time, then that strictly follows the analogy of Truman. The 2 examples here are vastly different. |
|
|
|
Post by joeyfrancis on Jan 25, 2009 23:24:19 GMT -5
Bush could have gotten caught raping a horse on the white house lawn and you'd still be defending him, ranting on and on about how bestiality will be viewed in a different light in 30 years....  |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 26, 2009 1:05:48 GMT -5
Bush could have gotten caught raping a horse on the white house lawn and you'd still be defending him, ranting on and on about how bestiality will be viewed in a different light in 30 years.... haha. Not true though. While I do defend a lot of Bush's policies, I've gone on record countless of times saying that I don't think of him as a good president by any means. What I have said, though, is that he's better than a lot of people would like to think and he doesn't deserve all the criticism he gets. Basically, my view, in my opinion, is less radical than all of yours. I'm not exalting the man, but I'm not casting unjustified scorn at him either. |
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jan 26, 2009 5:27:41 GMT -5
don't you dare talk down to me. my contempt for dubya is very justified. new yorkers trusted him. i trusted him. he stood there on the debris of the twin towers, saying we'd get osama bin laden, dead or alive. bring it on, terrorists. we supported him in the push for the iraq war. still, his government hasn't taken enough care of our policemen and firemen who are so sick from 9/11 that they can't work. they can't afford the healthcare and aren't getting enough help from the government. this is the way we treat our heroes? he also broke that promise that we'd get bin laden, dead or alive. compassionate conservatism, indeed.
you try losing a father from 9/11 with little help from the government. or how about this, try losing your home and people in your family from a hurricane that bush did nothing about. then tell me that our scorn isn't justified.
i'm waiting on your response.
|
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Jan 26, 2009 6:56:50 GMT -5
Massive difference. Bush's presidency is over, Obama's has hardly began. IE., Bush has already done things, Obama hasn't done anything. With the Truman analogy, you're fitting a pattern that we've seen time and time again where Presidents are judged 30 years later after more documents become public, etc etc this sounds like your last hope for me. wait 30 years and then we'll see. we all waited 8 years for bush making the world better anyhow. but he failed big time. i am not willing to wait one more second. "history will prove me right"... too many really bad politicians have used this phrase after loosing their power (including hitler, too. if i am not mistaken). it is the last excuse for somebody who doesn't want to accept the reality: i was wrong. With the JFK analogy, it's way too far fetched. To say that Obama will be like Lincoln or JFK because he speaks well and thus comes off as inspirational and because he's inexperienced is just flat out wrong. "don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" "ich bin ein berliner" JFK was inspirational because of his speeches, too. i don't think, the analogy is wrong at all. |
|
|
|
Post by chocolate st*rfish on Jan 26, 2009 10:13:56 GMT -5
you condemn other users for quoting from (stupid) liberal blogs during discussions about politics. however, to stress your own view you provide a link to a one-sided and hateful short film from geert wilders who wants to ban islamist hate speech, save freedom of expression and equals the quran to mein kampf all at the same time. can you specify what dubya could have and should have done more to call out the islamists? and please be graphic. |
|
|
|
Post by Cast on Jan 27, 2009 23:57:46 GMT -5
no he wasn't that amazing but a ton of people HATE him with a passion and I personally think that he doesn't deserve that. I mean i was at the inauguration and people were like cursing/flicking him off and everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by jacksonlennon on Jan 29, 2009 0:47:28 GMT -5
Some people just don't like politicians.
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5