NationStates Jolt Archive

This is meant towards all who have considered either Bush or Obama below respect, and why that is so disgraceful and wrong. I am a conservative, but I support President Obama because it is the right thing to do and he hasn't done really anything I disagree with, thus far.

The majority of the people on this forum will probably not agree with me about Bush, but I feel I must say what must be said.

Former President George W. Bush did not have a successful presidency. It was not even a somewhat successful presidency, it failed. He didn't do a good job as President. I've had this told to me over and over by people, and I agree.

However, what I do not agree with is the idea that former President Bush is not worthy of respect as a former President. There is no reason why Bush does not deserve respect for leading the United States these past 8 years. In fact, I admire the man, not necessarily for what his administration accomplished, but for the fact that this man tried his best to do what he thought was right. For 8 years, I have seen the most hateful things spoken about him, and I find that repulsive.

I am not forcing people to agree with what he did. You could dislike every single thing he did, I don't care about that.

But, nonetheless, the man was still the president, and he deserves all the respect as would any other president.

The same goes to my fellow conservatives who are refusing to cooperate with Obama. These same people complained about how the Democrats wouldn't work with Bush, and then do the same thing they were accusing others of. Shame on you. Your partisanship is what prevents anything from getting done.

I may not agree with President Obama's decisions in the future, but, he is still the president of my country, and I do not want to do the same thing to him that others did to Bush. When the election was done, I was happy even though McCain, who I supported, had lost, because the American political process had worked peacefully yet again.

So, thank you, former President George W. Bush, for your service to the country, and congratulations, President Barack Obama. May your presidency be great, and may the next 4 years be unparalleled in prosperity and peace as we continue to strive to be that "shining city upon a hill" that the late former President Ronald Reagan spoke so warmly of over 2 decades ago.

I think I make a distinction you don't (at least I don't think you do), in that I respect the office but not the man. If he came into the room while I was sitting, I would most certainly stand up for him, but I don't respect him.

Hear hear. I vow to give twice the support to Obama that the Left gave to Bush.

I didn't regard him as the rightful president to begin with, and think it disrespectful to the office to treat a usurper with the same respect a rightful occupant of the office would be entitled to.

I don't believe in respecting people for doing nothing but holding a job and doing badly at it. It kind of irks me that hundreds of thousands of people die as a result too. My respect for that person takes a downward aim, I can't help it really.

I didn't regard him as the rightful president to begin with, and think it disrespectful to the office to treat a usurper with the same respect a rightful occupant of the office would be entitled to.
You'll disagree with me, I'm sure, but he was elected to the Presidency as according to the Constitution. Therefore, his presidency was valid, just as much as Gore's would have been if he had won the Supreme Court vote.

You'll disagree with me, I'm sure, but he was elected to the Presidency as according to the Constitution. Therefore, his presidency was valid, just as much as Gore's would have been if he had won the Supreme Court vote.

I think the problem is that if Gore had "won", there would have been a recount, versus when Bush "won" and there was no recount. Just seems a little... counter-democratic to disregard votes like that.

In that case, the Supreme Court should be catching all the flak.

I agree with the OP. I am a Libertarian, and I backed Bob Barr. However, I am also tired of the partisanship that this country has been under for the past 8 years under Bush. I'm tired of the Us. Vs. Them mentality. I actually agree with Obama when he calls for unity, and calls for us to work together for a better America.

I congratulate Obama on winning the White House and I wish him the best of luck. When the New Moon comes, I will also send him some energy so that he may do his job well.

You'll disagree with me, I'm sure, but he was elected to the Presidency as according to the Constitution.
Correct: I disagree with you.
Therefore, his presidency was valid, just as much as Gore's would have been if he had won the Supreme Court vote.
The Constitution gives no role whatsoever to the Supreme Court in deciding disputed elections. In fact, the idea of letting the Court settle such matters did come up during the Constitutional Convention, and Madison called it "unthinkable".

Correct: I disagree with you.

The Constitution gives no role whatsoever to the Supreme Court in deciding disputed elections. In fact, the idea of letting the Court settle such matters did come up during the Constitutional Convention, and Madison called it "unthinkable".

However, they technically did not decide the election, they merely decided that there was no need for a recount. The votes said Bush won, so Bush won.

The fact that people are still pissed about that whole debacle is amazing to me.

However, they technically did not decide the election, they merely decided that there was no need for a recount. The votes said Bush won, so Bush won.

That's actually not exactly what they decided. They decided that the matter of HOW to count votes was an issue to be decided by each individual state, and the state of florida had made its choice.

They didn't decide there was no need for a recount, they decided that it was not their place to decide how Florida should count its votes.

As for Bush, no, the man deserves no respect. I respect some presidencies that I would consider "failed" for the reasons you articulated. Honest, good faith efforts that ended badly. Ford falls into this category. Carter falls into this category. Presidents who honestly, legitimately tried.

Bush, on the other hand, is a whole other animal. Bush was not a well intentioned president who just made bad choices. He, and his administration, deliberately lied to the American people. He, and his administration, deliberately attempted to circumvent the very constitution he swore an oath to uphold.

Bush is not a "well meaning guy who made some bad choices". He is a criminal. Criminals deserve no respect.

The Constitution gives no role whatsoever to the Supreme Court in deciding disputed elections. In fact, the idea of letting the Court settle such matters did come up during the Constitutional Convention, and Madison called it "unthinkable".

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the Constitution. So when one wishes to officially know what the Constitution says regarding disputed elections the Supreme Court has be consulted.

their are people who still care about politics!?

The fact that people are still pissed about that whole debacle is amazing to me.

I bet the greens worked with the republicans! :mad:

Bush is not a "well meaning guy who made some bad choices". He is a criminal. Criminals deserve no respect.

I must completely disagree with you.

If you were to speak of some of his cabinet or staff in such a way, I could see a little bit of where you're coming from.

Former President Bush was not a criminal, he just chose a terrible Cabinet and didn't really know what he was doing. His Cabinet gave him the false information on WMDs, he didn't think clearly enough and decided to go on their word.

The man was foolish, but not criminal.

That's actually not exactly what they decided. They decided that the matter of HOW to count votes was an issue to be decided by each individual state, and the state of florida had made its choice.

They didn't decide there was no need for a recount, they decided that it was not their place to decide how Florida should count its votes.

And thus since Florida's actions on not to hold a recount seemed like a cynical attempt by Republicans not to see who really won lots of people were/are upset.

However, they technically did not decide the election, they merely decided that there was no need for a recount.

More accurately, that a recount must not be allowed. But however you put it, it was not their decision to make.
The votes said Bush won, so Bush won.
No, the votes said Gore won.
The fact that people are still pissed about that whole debacle is amazing to me.
Because the damage which that debacle did to this country will not be undone for a long time, if ever.

That's actually not exactly what they decided. They decided that the matter of HOW to count votes was an issue to be decided by each individual state, and the state of florida had made its choice.

They didn't decide there was no need for a recount, they decided that it was not their place to decide how Florida should count its votes.
That is the opposite of the truth. They overrode the state of Florida.

No, the votes said Gore won.
How on earth can you make a statement like that? If a recount had taken place, Bush could have won too.

Doesn't the Constitution give the states the right to decide how elections are held?

I think its a spilt-milk dilemma. There's no point is arguing over what happened, let's talk about what can be done to fix it.

How on earth can you make a statement like that? If a recount had taken place, Bush could have won too.
The votes were inspected afterwards. More voters wanted Gore than Bush, as we suspected all along.
Doesn't the Constitution give the states the right to decide how elections are held?
Except if the candidates are named Bush and Gore: in that one case only (the Court even said so), the Supreme Court will award the election to Bush.
I think its a spilt-milk dilemma. There's no point is arguing over what happened, let's talk about what can be done to fix it.
Well, the OP is demanding that I give Bush the same respect as any other President. No. He is in a class with Rutherford B. Hayes, and no other. Except, of course, that Hayes didn't manage to do nearly as much damage.

The assumption in the OP is that Bush did what he thought was best for the country. I think that's false, after all, he had his corporate masters to appease too.

Respect is something that is earned not given.

He really didn't earn it.

Sorry, but I don't buy this at all. Logic of this type would oblige me to show some human affection or respect to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Alastair Campbell and the entire pantheon of New Labour, which I simply don't intend to do.

Frankly, I see no reason to respect "good intentions"; any number of awful leaders, morally and politically, have held the strongest of "good intentions".

I have no respect whatsoever for Bush.

His actions, his positions, and the way he himself has shown no respect for the office of President of the United States, no respect for U.S. and international laws and institutions and large parts of the populace of the U.S. simply forbids it.

P.S.: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Guess which way George has been walking all along?

I did not respect Bush because he proved himself unworthy of respect. Should Obama show the same lack of respect for the rule of law as did Bush, I will lose all respect for him.

I must completely disagree with you.

If you were to speak of some of his cabinet or staff in such a way, I could see a little bit of where you're coming from.

Former President Bush was not a criminal, he just chose a terrible Cabinet and didn't really know what he was doing. His Cabinet gave him the false information on WMDs, he didn't think clearly enough and decided to go on their word.

The man was foolish, but not criminal.

Ah, so your answer is that we should respect him because, rather than being criminal, he was just completely and totally incompetent.

Sorry, that doesn't help.

The man was foolish, but not criminal.

At what body count does he become criminally foolish?

If I entered my job every day and taught my students incorrect information, diminished or demeaned their personal rights, and drove the school budget into a ditch using 15,000 boxes of paper to make photocopies of my ass, I would not be due any respect as a teacher.

It's just a job, until you make it more.

I support and respect the office of the President. I did not and never will respect and support Bush as President. It is kind of like saying I support the troops and the military, but I don't support the war in Iraq. Republicans never got that or didn't want to get that. Neither did Bush. With all due respect to you, I hope you see the difference.

At what body count does he become criminally foolish?

If I entered my job every day and taught my students incorrect information, diminished or demeaned their personal rights, and drove the school budget into a ditch using 15,000 boxes of paper to make photocopies of my ass, I would not be due any respect as a teacher.

It's just a job, until you make it more.

That, as an analogy for the Bush presidency, strikes me as a little simplistic, in as much as I doubt Bush consciously and determinedly sought to fuck up the USA. He may, heaven forfend, have been misinformed, ill-advised, or, simply wrong.

I dont respect Bush and I dont respect those who respect him. He started an unjust war. He could of given more time to weapons inspectors. But he rushed to it, causing too many Iraqi and Coalition casulties.

He refused scientific advice on global warming.

He denied civil rights to gays and his administration didnt even sign the UN declaration thingie.

He's out of office now. Good riddance.

In the end, I don't give a damn what everyone else thinks, I thank former President Bush for his service (Anyone who can is still standing after taking 8 years of crap from people deserves my applause), and am hopeful that President Obama will do well.

The only reason people don't respect either of them is because they disagreed with them politically. President Obama has been pretty friendly to Bush, I don't see why we shouldn't.

I dont respect Bush and I dont respect those who respect him. He started an unjust war. He could of given more time to weapons inspectors. But he rushed to it, causing too many Iraqi and Coalition casulties.

He refused scientific advice on global warming.

He denied civil rights to gays and his administration didnt even sign the UN declaration thingie.

He's out of office now. Good riddance.

Go ahead, don't respect me, even though I did nothing wrong.

(Anyone who can is still standing after taking 8 years of crap from people deserves my applause)

I give Bush the same respect I would give to any septic works technician who has been in the business at least 8 years.

The only reason people don't respect either of them is because they disagreed with them politically.
No, that's not right. I strongly disagreed with Reagan, and disagreed with Bush Sr., but I don't despise either of them the way I do Bush Jr.

No, that's not right. I strongly disagreed with Reagan, and disagreed with Bush Sr., but I don't despise either of them the way I do Bush Jr.

I don't think Bush Jr. deserves to be considered a good president, but I just think we must just give him the courtesy of respect for at least being president for 8 years. I doubt he greatly enjoyed those 8 years, he's probably glad to be done as much as everyone else that wanted him out.

Well... I have no respect for that commie red dictator you conservatives call apresident ...especially when he cheney and all his other goons were the masterminds behinds9/11 and seeing he left office with a 24 percent approval rating and "president"obama is coming in with an 80 percent well...it isnt hard to figure out ...that bush just plain sucks ...that jerk should be tried for treason and crimes against humanity and thrown in jail where he belongs ...so hellllll nooooo he doesnt deserve one single ounce of respect and if u r so stupid or nieve to thing otherwise then u seriously need a psyche eval or something....so good riddens to bad rubbish.

Now, to get to the matter of people disrespecting Obama.

Anyone who is charging him with having a fake birth certificate is a moron. I am sick of hearing my fellow conservatives act like total tools about Obama. President Obama is a good man, his journey to the presidency is an inspiration (and has revived my interest in politics. I've always dreamed of someday being President. Don't be alarmed, I would actually not do the things Bush did if elected.) and I believe that his election is the boost America needs at this moment.

Well... I have no respect for that commie red dictator you conservatives call apresident ...especially when he cheney and all his other goons were the masterminds behinds9/11 and seeing he left office with a 24 percent approval rating and "president"obama is coming in with an 80 percent well...it isnt hard to figure out ...that bush just plain sucks ...that jerk should be tried for treason and crimes against humanity and thrown in jail where he belongs ...so hellllll nooooo he doesnt deserve one single ounce of respect and if u r so stupid or nieve to thing otherwise then u seriously need a psyche eval or something....so good riddens to bad rubbish.

Your calling Bush...a communist...what?!

And why is President Obama called "President" Obama? Are you denying his legitimacy as President?

Bush, Cheney, and the others were not behind 9/11. A bunch of Muslim extremists were.

You're a fool. I respect the other posters because they have given actual legitimate reasons for why they are not willing to respect Bush. I don't need a psychiatric evaluation. I'm perfectly sane. But I do know that you need a course in spelling.

Amen holy paradise i totally agree with u 100percent....and i know pres.obama will help our nation as well as the world ...ponder on this all those commie conservatives...dont u find it odd that when bush was in office....that those counties that were once our strongest allies now hate us ...and now that pres.obama is here they all love him almost as much as our own people do! All u commie republicans should be ashamed of yourselves for turning our allies against us like u did.

In fact, I admire the man, not necessarily for what his administration accomplished, but for the fact that this man tried his best to do what he thought was right.

I seem to remember a certain leader ~70 years ago who also did what he thought was right... and he was so evil that when we mention that guy's name, everyone shouts "Godwin's law!"

...Godwin's law! [/pre-emptive]

I don't think Bush Jr. deserves to be considered a good president, but I just think we must just give him the courtesy of respect for at least being president for 8 years. I doubt he greatly enjoyed those 8 years, he's probably glad to be done as much as everyone else that wanted him out.

I have a feeling he still believes that history will judge him as a great president. Years and years from now. When all books, computers, newspapers and historians have burned up in the Great Bonfire of the Future (for those wondering: it will be BYOB).

Amen holy paradise i totally agree with u 100percent....and i know pres.obama will help our nation as well as the world ...ponder on this all those commie conservatives...dont u find it odd that when bush was in office....that those counties that were once our strongest allies now hate us ...and now that pres.obama is here they all love him almost as much as our own people do! All u commie republicans should be ashamed of yourselves for turning our allies against us like u did.

I gotta admit, I'm really confused. Are you applauding me or chiding me?

Am I just being dumb, or can anyone else figure out what he's saying?

I seem to remember a certain leader ~70 years ago who also did what he thought was right... and he was so evil that when we mention that guy's name, everyone shouts "Godwin's law!"

...Godwin's law! [/pre-emptive]

I don't think the comparison of Bush and the infamous German is a fair one.

I don't think Bush really had evil intent, at all.

I hope I haven't sounded bitter or angry at people disrespecting Bush. It's their right to disrespect him according to the Constitution, I have no say, and frankly, at the end of the day, I don't really care. I've been looking at some of my posts, and I realize I have come off a bit...tool-ish. I apologize for that. I realized I was on the losing side of the argument, and I was using aggression as a defensive mechanism. It wasn't cool, I looked really stupid, and I hope I'm not remembered by it.

I still respect former President Bush, and I always will. I still believe he is a good man who had the best intentions at heart. He was a failure as a president, there is no denying it. I'm kinda glad his presidency is done, but mostly because I've been sick of having to criticize or defend him all the time.

U KNOW WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS...BUSH HAS DESTROYED OUR MILITARY...THIS I KNOW BECAUSE I WAS IN FOR 15 YEARS...AND IVE BEEN TO IRAQ...AND BELIEVE ME THERE IS NOTHING THERE WORTH LOSING YOUR LIFE FOR...SO THERE IS HIS FIRST SCREW UP...AND HE HAS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY AND NOW 1000's ARE PAYING FOR IT ....AND FINALLY HE WILL NEVER BE CONSIDERED A GOOD LEADER...NEVER....AND HE WILL ALWATS BE A BLACK STAIN ON AMERICAN HISTORY...BUT FINALLY...I AGREED WITH U BECAUSE U GAVE PRES.OBAMA AGOOD COMPLIMENT...SO THAT IS WHY I AGREED WITH U...I DIDNT AGREE WITH IN REGARDS TO THAT COMMIE BUSH.

I don't think the comparison of Bush and the infamous German is a fair one.

I don't think Bush really had evil intent, at all.

I'm not saying Bush is as evil (he's not)

I am, however, saying that "they're good because they did what they believed in" is a highly flawed reason for supporting him.

U KNOW WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS...BUSH HAS DESTROYED OUR MILITARY...THIS I KNOW BECAUSE I WAS IN FOR 15 YEARS...AND IVE BEEN TO IRAQ...AND BELIEVE ME THERE IS NOTHING THERE WORTH LOSING YOUR LIFE FOR...SO THERE IS HIS FIRST SCREW UP...AND HE HAS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY AND NOW 1000's ARE PAYING FOR IT ....AND FINALLY HE WILL NEVER BE CONSIDERED A GOOD LEADER...NEVER....AND HE WILL ALWATS BE A BLACK STAIN ON AMERICAN HISTORY...BUT FINALLY...I AGREED WITH U BECAUSE U GAVE PRES.OBAMA AGOOD COMPLIMENT...SO THAT IS WHY I AGREED WITH U...I DIDNT AGREE WITH IN REGARDS TO THAT COMMIE BUSH.

Pardon me, good chap, but I fear that you accidentally activated caps lock instead of spell check. Fear not; it happens to all of us.

Oh...one other thing before i go...if you would like to see why i say he and cheney and his goons were behind 9-11 ...look up a video called "the great conspiracy"by barry zwicker...maybe then you will be convinced.

I don't think Bush really had evil intent, at all.

I don't think Bush intentionally tried to harm America. I just don't think he really cared. I don't think he cared about america, and the lives of americans. If he did, he wouldn't have placed someone like Michael Brown in charge of FEMA. If he did, he wouldn't have tried to put Harriet Miers on to the Supreme Court. If he did, he would have confirmed intelligence as true BEFORE going to war. If he did, he wouldn't have forced out members of his administration who tried to be a voice of reason

And you've tried to defend him by saying he didn't know any better. Frankly, if the best you can say about the man is that he was grossly incompetent, that's not worthy of respect.

U KNOW WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS...BUSH HAS DESTROYED OUR MILITARY...THIS I KNOW BECAUSE I WAS IN FOR 15 YEARS...AND IVE BEEN TO IRAQ...AND BELIEVE ME THERE IS NOTHING THERE WORTH LOSING YOUR LIFE FOR...SO THERE IS HIS FIRST SCREW UP...AND HE HAS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY AND NOW 1000's ARE PAYING FOR IT ....AND FINALLY HE WILL NEVER BE CONSIDERED A GOOD LEADER...NEVER....AND HE WILL ALWATS BE A BLACK STAIN ON AMERICAN HISTORY...BUT FINALLY...I AGREED WITH U BECAUSE U GAVE PRES.OBAMA AGOOD COMPLIMENT...SO THAT IS WHY I AGREED WITH U...I DIDNT AGREE WITH IN REGARDS TO THAT COMMIE BUSH.

no you weren't.

In fact, I'm willing to bet you're not even 15 years old.

yes i was i went in just before desert shield/storm in sept 1990 and i got out in jan 2008 i had a few breaks in service...and for your info...i am 39 years old ...born 8 oct 1969

U KNOW WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS...BUSH HAS DESTROYED OUR MILITARY...THIS I KNOW BECAUSE I WAS IN FOR 15 YEARS...AND IVE BEEN TO IRAQ...AND BELIEVE ME THERE IS NOTHING THERE WORTH LOSING YOUR LIFE FOR...SO THERE IS HIS FIRST SCREW UP...AND HE HAS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY AND NOW 1000's ARE PAYING FOR IT ....AND FINALLY HE WILL NEVER BE CONSIDERED A GOOD LEADER...NEVER....AND HE WILL ALWATS BE A BLACK STAIN ON AMERICAN HISTORY...BUT FINALLY...I AGREED WITH U BECAUSE U GAVE PRES.OBAMA AGOOD COMPLIMENT...SO THAT IS WHY I AGREED WITH U...I DIDNT AGREE WITH IN REGARDS TO THAT COMMIE BUSH.

Okay, I'm seeing what you're saying now, and yes, he won't be remembered as a good leader.

Still, one thing that irks me is calling him a "commie". I don't know how one of the more right-wing presidents is a Communist, but, whatever.

Also, the economy was not single-handedly destroyed by Bush. Everyone has to share some blame. To put all of the blame on one man for something really he has, in the end, only partial control of, isn't wise.

Also, I'm not saying Bush was good because he fought for what he believed in, I'm saying that his principles were, overall, more inclined towards good, even though his policies failed.

I personally think that he should just kinda fade into history, enjoy the rest of his life with his family, and everyone will be a lot better off because of that.

Oh...one other thing before i go...if you would like to see why i say he and cheney and his goons were behind 9-11 ...look up a video called "the great conspiracy"by barry zwicker...maybe then you will be convinced.

I've heard all about those vids, they aren't true. Everyone with credibility believes them not to be true.

Oh...one other thing before i go...if you would like to see why i say he and cheney and his goons were behind 9-11 ...look up a video called "the great conspiracy"by barry zwicker...maybe then you will be convinced.

Bush and Cheney weren't responsible for 9/11; they were merely too evil/incompetent to prevent and deal with it.

I don't think Bush intentionally tried to harm America. I just don't think he really cared. I don't think he cared about america, and the lives of americans. If he did, he wouldn't have placed someone like Michael Brown in charge of FEMA. If he did, he wouldn't have tried to put Harriet Miers on to the Supreme Court. If he did, he would have confirmed intelligence as true BEFORE going to war. If he did, he wouldn't have forced out members of his administration who tried to be a voice of reason

And you've tried to defend him by saying he didn't know any better. Frankly, if the best you can say about the man is that he was grossly incompetent, that's not worthy of respect.

I'm saying he deserves respect as a person who was president. His presidency, and by that I mean by what it accomplished, doesn't really need to be respected, but the man does for the fact he was president. The booing of him is fair enough, but there are people who have taken it to far, to the point where they hate the man.

I'm never good at really trying to get across what I've been saying. I think I got it right here, and it might sound somewhat contradictory, but it's really what I've been trying to say all along.

I'm saying he deserves respect as a person. His presidency, by what it accomplished, doesn't really need to be respected, but the man does.

no, he does not. Nobody deserves respect simply for existing. nobody deserves respect because of the title he holds. A person gains respect through his actions, through his decisions, and through his deeds.

And through his actions, decisions, and deeds, Bush has earned not one shred of respect from me.

I feel a need to refute Holy Paradise's statement, but Neo Art has posted pretty much the same thing I was going to say.

I'm saying he deserves respect as a person. His presidency, by what it accomplished, doesn't really need to be respected, but the man does.

Respect is usually based on merit, other than some basic respect a person is given just for existing. Merit is based on some standard. Many people possess standards in which Bush does merit respect because of his failed policies.

no, he does not. Nobody deserves respect simply for existing. nobody deserves respect because of the title he holds. A person gains respect through his actions, through his decisions, and through his deeds.

And through his actions, decisions, and deeds, Bush has earned not one shred of respect from me.

So, by that very same aspect, I am not worthy of respect, as I haven't done really anything thus far in my life.

ok ...look maybe calling him a commie is a little extreme...hes a fascist...and he is no better than leonid breznev was in the 19980s when he invaded afghanistan ...just because he thought the us was trying to sorround the former soviet union ...when in reality we werent and again my friend ..i know this because i was around then ...and yes i can blame him for our crumbling economy because he was giving tax breaks to the wealthy while hammering on the little guy ...and ...he refused to regulate wall street and the corporate jerks in this nation ...and no he didnt fight for what he believed in ...i didnt see him or his slutty daughters in iraq when i was there fighting along side me or my buddies....finally ....no....he should be tried as a crimal ...he is along with his buddy cheney...responsible for the peopl in 9-11 deaths as well as all those innocent iraqi civilians,our almost 5000 soldiers ,marines,airman,and sailors deaths.

So, by that very same aspect, I am not worthy of respect, as I haven't done really anything thus far in my life.

you are worthy of the very basic level of human dignity. Meaning I won't spit on you should I see you on the street.

Short of that, though, no, not really. Respect is something you earn.

Respect is usually based on merit, other than some basic respect a person is given just for existing. Merit is based on some standard. Many people possess standards in which Bush does merit respect because of his failed policies.

The man has had some merits to his presidency. Overall, yes, he had many, many more failures than successes, but he still had some.

The one I can think of that most everyone will agree with is his designation of land to be national parks and wildlife reserves. He did do very well at least in that aspect.

You might ask, "But what about ANWR?" A fair enough question, however, that is one of the few cases where former President Bush actually tried to remove wildlife land. The creation of a reserve in Hawaii is actually the largest reserve created by any President.

An extremely minor accomplishment, yes, but it proves that he wasn't an absolute failure.

that is something i do have to agree with you guys on ...and that is ...yes ...respect is something earned ...not just handed to you...but ..im sorry ...bush does not deserve it ...

i didnt see him or his slutty daughters in iraq

Was it really necessary to bring in his daughters.

I believe they just did something very classy for the Obama children. I don't like it when people insult a politician's children for the sake of political argument.

he refused to regulate wall street and the corporate jerks in this nation

I didn't see anyone else clamoring to do such until now.

well i hardly consider his daughters classy when they are out getting drunk and partying ...especially when their father is suppose to be leader of the most powerful nation on earth and know full well the press will get ahold of the incident and splash it all over nationwide tv for everyone to see

why is it that when pres clinton had his scandal he got impeached ...but when bush does something wrong we are all suppose to just forget it ever happened....

where is the justice in that...i ask u?

The man has had some merits to his presidency. Overall, yes, he had many, many more failures than successes, but he still had some.

The "many, many more failures" would more than wipe out the relatively small number of good policies.

i agree tech

well i hardly consider his daughters classy when they are out getting drunk and partying ...especially when their father is suppose to be leader of the most powerful nation on earth and know full well the press will get ahold of the incident and splash it all over nationwide tv for everyone to see

A lot of people got drunk and partied when they were young. That doesn't mean they are bad people now.

hmmmmm......no answer?

yeh ur right...we all did...but only difference is ...we werent the children of the leader of the free world either...

as americans we are suppose to set the example to the rest of the world ...not be the example ...it just like when i was in the army ...we were held to a higher standard and we were punished if we did otherwise...any one who was in the military would tell u that...

Okay, here's my sum up of this thread.

There seems to be a majority opinion that Bush does not deserve respect other than basic respect that all people receive. I disagree, but we would argue about this forever.

We all seem to agree Bush failed, other than in some very minor areas.

Overall: Bush Presidency, possibly worst ever, I think there might be some that had more troubles, but most of you probably would say worst ever.

I'm not really going to post in this thread anymore. I got my point out, a bunch of others got their points out to counter my point, and we haven't really seemed to change our minds. No real point in continuing the argument. I'm just going to let this thread slide into the many pages of the General forum.

I hope I haven't sounded like an ass this entire time.

look whoever you are ...i am not here to fight or try to change your opinions in any way ok....look for 15 years i have worn a uniform and served honorably so that people like yourself could have that right to be able to say what u feel and i commend u for that ok i commend u for standing ur ground and plz if i offended u any way ...plz forgive me ...but hey it was great debating with u and i hope u have the best future ...one thing is true throuh all this tho...and that is...things can only get better ...right...so hey good luck to u and i hope to hear again from u good nite and GOD BLESS!

Even if the Dubya presidency isn't the worst ever, it'll be very low in the rankings.

As for Clinton, it was apparent quite early on; by the time we realized Dubya was more than just incompetent, it was so late in his presidency that his term would end before they vot eon the conviction!

If it makes you feel better, Clinton will be viewed as a good president (or at least a decent one), whereas Dubya will be the broken yardstick they compare all presidential failures to.

I don't think Bush Jr. deserves to be considered a good president, but I just think we must just give him the courtesy of respect for at least being president for 8 years.
He had NO RIGHT to be. Every day he spent in the White House was a TRESPASS. You want respect given to him just for being there, but in my mind that was his first and foremost offense.

In the end, I don't give a damn what everyone else thinks, I thank former President Bush for his service (Anyone who can is still standing after taking 8 years of crap from people deserves my applause), and am hopeful that President Obama will do well.

The only reason people don't respect either of them is because they disagreed with them politically. President Obama has been pretty friendly to Bush, I don't see why we shouldn't.

FOR FUCKS SAKE

It aint just politics when theres human lives involved:


The World Health Organization said its study, based on interviews with families, indicated with a 95 percent degree of statistical certainty that between 104,000 and 223,000 civilians had died. It based its estimate of 151,000 deaths on that range.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/world/middleeast/10casualties.html

Yes, I dont respect him and I also think he's an immoral and unethical person. I also dont respect US Republicans and American conservatives in general.

Go ahead, don't respect me, even though I did nothing wrong.

Oh yea, you certainly did when you voted for him the 2nd time (presumably).

Bush does not deserve respect. He deserves indictment at The Hague.

FOR FUCKS SAKE

It aint just politics when theres human lives involved:




Just like with Rwanda right?

Just like with Rwanda right?

I dont know. I'm 20. Bush is the only US president I'm familiar with. But I bet there were many unethical Democrat presidents as well.

I have no respect for Bush. None. I want to see the man prosecuted.

I have no respect for Bush. None. I want to see the man prosecuted.

Joing the club. I do too.

I have no respect for Bush. None. I want to see the man prosecuted.

Along with Blair. But I dont see that happening. US and UK are too influential for that.

I haven't heard anything that screams "Blair is a war criminal!". Bush, however....

I haven't heard anything that screams "Blair is a war criminal!". Bush, however....

The thing is they rushed to war. I mean who'd rush to something so bad?

I see a last gasp defense of an indefensible man by the people who wanted to believe in him, but are slowly settling the cognitive dissonance with the steady, inevitable grind of cold hard reality. The Bush bubble is bursting.

To paraphrase, 'Yes, we know he was an absolute failure, unethical and dangerous in the application of his policies.... but he did SOME very small good things!!' It reminds me of "at least they got the trains running on time" type comments about good old fascism. (The fact that they DIDN'T actually get trains running on time is irrelevant to how silly the "he's not ALL bad" argument really is.)

It is a strawman, because it implies some of us are saying that in effect, Bush is the incarnation of pure, undiluted Evil. That by pointing to a shred of goodness we're going to go, "Oh, he's NOT the quintessential physical manifestation of all that which is wicked and cruel! How WRONG we are!"

It's missing the point, that's for sure.

Joing the club. I do too.

Been a card-carrying member for years ;)

Been a card-carrying member for years ;)

*does secret handshake*:D

Bush does not deserve respect. He deserves indictment at The Hague.

ICC lets the terrorists win.

In serious news, the US should never ever join. If one of our nationals commits a crime, we have courts that will gladly try them. The Netherlands is a great country, but international law is a farce and we (as a superpower) shouldn't give up power like that.

ICC lets the terrorists win.

In serious news, the US should never ever join. If one of our nationals commits a crime, we have courts that will gladly try them. The Netherlands is a great country, but international law is a farce and we (as a superpower) shouldn't give up power like that.

Then in order for that to work. People we capture, should be tried by our laws.

The thing is they rushed to war. I mean who'd rush to something so bad?

6000 conflicts in the last 2000 years? Guess we all love to fight.

Then in order for that to work. People we capture, should be tried by our laws.

I said nothing to contradict that.

I seem to remember a certain leader ~70 years ago who also did what he thought was right... and he was so evil that when we mention that guy's name, everyone shouts "Godwin's law!"

...Godwin's law! [/pre-emptive]
I was going to say something along those lines when I read the OP, but for obvious reasons I refrained from doing so.
I don't think the comparison of Bush and the infamous German is a fair one.

I don't think Bush really had evil intent, at all.
From our point of view, Adolfnazi did evil - no doubt about it. Whether he himself and those who followed him actually had evil intent... I don't know. One could make a case that their intent was not evil. Yes, twisted form our point of view. But they themselves may very well have believed they sure tried to do the right thing. Yet that doesn't count for anything in the overall picture.
Bush does not deserve respect. He deserves indictment at The Hague.
Hear hear!
Just like with Rwanda right?
Being directly responsible for causing human tragedy and death is different from being responsible for not stopping human tragedy and death.
Bush is directly responsible for Iraq.
Clinton, however, is only indirectly responsible for Rwanda because he did not intervene there.
(And seeing how the last intervention on the African continent faired in Somalia, I believe public support wouldn't have been found easily. Same goes for the situation in Sudan - why not blame Bush for not going in there as well while we're pointing the finger?)
I have no respect for Bush. None. I want to see the man prosecuted.
Same here. And it's not like there wasn't enough to make a case, either.

In serious news, the US should never ever join. If one of our nationals commits a crime, we have courts that will gladly try them. The Netherlands is a great country, but international law is a farce and we (as a superpower) shouldn't give up power like that.

Surely you're not sugesting that we should get special treatment simply because we have the biggest army and can get away with it? The ICC is ok for those lesser nations, but not for us? This is why the rest of the world thinks we're arrogant.

Surely you're not sugesting that we should get special treatment simply because we have the biggest army and can get away with it? The ICC is ok for those lesser nations, but not for us? This is why the rest of the world thinks we're arrogant.

Considering the ICC was developed to provide a non-biased court system for countries whose domestic courts couldn't be counted on to try criminals... yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.

I don't care if the rest of the world thinks we're arrogant if it means they can't try our citizens for crimes. That's not arrogant, that's smart.

Considering the ICC was developed to provide a non-biased court system for countries whose domestic courts couldn't be counted on to try criminals... yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.

I don't care if the rest of the world thinks we're arrogant if it means they can't try our citizens for crimes. That's not arrogant, that's smart.

I suppose that's why all those backward third-world countries in Western Europe are members of the ICC; because they don't have the wherewithal to set up courts.:rolleyes: And, yes it is arrogant.

I suppose that's why all those backward third-world countries in Western Europe are members of the ICC; because they don't have the wherewithal to set up courts.:rolleyes: And, yes it is arrogant.

I'm not speculating. That's why it was created - European countries can join of their own accord. That it doesn't necessarily make smart political sense to us and does to them reflects the different approaches we take towards international relations. If you care for me to elaborate I would love to do so, but if you don't then feel free to say so.

I'm not speculating. That's why it was created - European countries can join of their own accord. That it doesn't necessarily make smart political sense to us and does to them reflects the different approaches we take towards international relations. If you care for me to elaborate I would love to do so, but if you don't then feel free to say so.

I'm pretty sure I already get the difference, but please, go ahead.

I'm pretty sure I already get the difference, but please, go ahead.

It doesn't just apply to the ICC, but also to the UN, Iraq, and every other situation. Like ever.

There are two theories of international relations: realism and liberalism. (There's technically a third, but its less of a theory and more of a way of looking at things that transcend the theories, and besides, it doesn't apply here, so I'll skip it.) The US is and has historically been very much a realist nation, whereas Europe definitely is liberal. Realism is very easy to explain - security is all that matters. International law, peace treaties, thousand year friendships, anything at all, doesn't count. We set them up because they are convenient, but if there ever presented a situation which threatened our security and something stood in our way, we would crush it in the name of defense. Realism assumes a Hobbesian 'state of nature' in politics - its the rainy weather that he describes. We can see America's realism in the Second Iraq War. The UN said we couldn't go in, and we did anyways because we believed them to threaten our security. Realism also assumes that international power is a zero-sum game, so when another state grows in power our power diminishes.

Now Europe is the opposite. As liberals, they believe that international law and all that other stuff is relevant on an international stage. They also believe that international relations is a non-zero-sum game, where states can gain power without other states losing it. The European Union is a prime example of how Europe approaches international relations, but the refusal by some nations to sign the European Constitution reflects their (hang-over) realism.

Now, there are naturally problems with both theories. The big one with realism that it is quite often oversimplistic, and the big one with liberalism is that it has problems with supranational support for the int'l treaties etc. that are backed by it.

So the reason the US won't join the ICC is that it would jeopardize our security (a no-no) and really has no purpose to begin with and the reason that Europe does is that they believe it to be effective.

And that's the academic's perspective!

Surely you're not sugesting that we should get special treatment simply because we have the biggest army and can get away with it? The ICC is ok for those lesser nations, but not for us? This is why the rest of the world thinks we're arrogant.
Yup.
Considering the ICC was developed to provide a non-biased court system for countries whose domestic courts couldn't be counted on to try criminals... yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Seeing how your court system(s) (including military courts) have so far not be very convincing in actually trying those responsible for war crimes committed in Iraq... What do you fear when you've already established that the ICC is non-biased, huh?
I don't care if the rest of the world thinks we're arrogant if it means they can't try our citizens for crimes. That's not arrogant, that's smart.
So, who gave you the right to abduct other countries' citizens to be tried by your country?
I suppose that's why all those backward third-world countries in Western Europe are members of the ICC; because they don't have the wherewithal to set up courts.:rolleyes: And, yes it is arrogant.
I concur.

So, who gave you the right to abduct other countries' citizens to be tried by your country?
Who told you about them?? I thought they were secret in my basement!

Who told you about them?? I thought they were secret in my basement!
I wonder how much fun you'd be poking at such a crime if you were on the receiving end.

The question still stands.

I wonder how much fun you'd be poking at such a crime if you were on the receiving end.

The question still stands.

I made a post that addresses your concerns. Its up there somewhere. Read it.

As to your question, I haven't abducted anyone as far as I know, and I don't represent the US.

I made a post that addresses your concerns. Its up there somewhere. Read it.

As to your question, I haven't abducted anyone as far as I know, and I don't represent the US.
Yeah, that post... I did read it. Not good enough.

To paraphrase: As long as it serves the U.S., we'll play along the established rules and laws we've agreed on - yet we take a huge steaming dump on that whenever we feel like it and it serves our needs better? Is that it?

Yeah, that post... I did read it. Not good enough.

To paraphrase: As long as it serves the U.S., we'll play along the established rules and laws we've agreed on - yet we take a huge steaming dump on that whenever we feel like it and it serves our needs better? Is that it?

I doubt you'd hear anyone in the field of political science put it that way, but ok. Its not exactly when it "serves our needs better" so much as its whenever following said rules and laws endangers the US as a sovereign power. To paraphrase Hobbes, "the first and foremost concern of a man is self-defense; everything else comes after". For Hobbes, that is the only natural law.

I'm really not trying to please you, I'm just informing you on the situation. This is how things are.

I know it might be tough (cognitive dissonance and all), but think of the situation from the realist perspective.

I doubt you'd hear anyone in the field of political science put it that way, but ok. Its not exactly when it "serves our needs better" so much as its whenever following said rules and laws endangers the US as a sovereign power. To paraphrase Hobbes, "the first and foremost concern of a man is self-defense; everything else comes after". For Hobbes, that is the only natural law.

I'm really not trying to please you, I'm just informing you on the situation. This is how things are.

I know it might be tough (cognitive dissonance and all), but think of the situation from the realist perspective.
That just makes the U.S. - realistically speaking - a nation of self-serving arrogant assholes who put their own well-being above anyone else they share a planet with instead of looking for and establishing a common ground which would serve humanity as a whole.

Ever wonder why you'd have to give defense such a high priority? A great deal because of exactly that kind of mindset and resulting behavior which does not bode well with the rest of the world.

ICC lets the terrorists win.

In serious news, the US should never ever join. If one of our nationals commits a crime, we have courts that will gladly try them.
I seem to be missing the time we tried Kissinger.

That just makes the U.S. - realistically speaking - a nation of self-serving arrogant assholes who put their own well-being above anyone else they share a planet with instead of looking for and establishing a common ground which would serve humanity as a whole.

Ever wonder why you'd have to give defense such a high priority? A great deal because of exactly that kind of mindset and resulting behavior which does not bode well with the rest of the world.

To be fair, it seems to come from the sort of perspective that assumes that we have to be like this because everyone else is like this, and it's the only way for us to stay on top. It's not arrogant so much as it is defensive.

Not that it's better, but a far cry from malicious.

To be fair, it seems to come from the sort of perspective that assumes that we have to be like this because everyone else is like this, and it's the only way for us to stay on top. It's not arrogant so much as it is defensive.

Not that it's better, but a far cry from malicious.
You're right, the position itself makes sense from a certain point of view, and it isn't malicious from the start - but it sure leads to actions or inactions that can be regarded as such.

That just makes the U.S. - realistically speaking - a nation of self-serving arrogant assholes who put their own well-being above anyone else they share a planet with instead of looking for and establishing a common ground which would serve humanity as a whole.
Unfortunately for your idealism, I'm not a citizen of the world, I'm a citizen of America. And while the best course of action for both of us often runs parallel, when it doesn't I am not going to sacrifice my country for some vague idea of "humanity". That's just how it works - whether you like it or not (I know, you don't like it) there is a stronger sense of nationalism in the US than in Europe, so when our views diverge, America usually puts America first.

And I would even argue that America has been far more willing to work with the rest of the world at times than it should have been.

For someone who dislikes not compromising so much, your name calling seems a little hypocritical.

Unfortunately for your idealism, I'm not a citizen of the world, I'm a citizen of America. And while the best course of action for both of us often runs parallel, when it doesn't I am not going to sacrifice my country for some vague idea of "humanity". That's just how it works - whether you like it or not (I know, you don't like it) there is a stronger sense of nationalism in the US than in Europe, so when our views diverge, America usually puts America first.

And I would even argue that America has been far more willing to work with the rest of the world at times than it should have been.

For someone who dislikes not compromising so much, your name calling seems a little hypocritical.
So humanity is a "vague idea" and your "country" (which is basically only just a part of Earth, bounded by somewhat arbitrary lines, in which you just so happen to live for whatever reason) somehow ISN'T? What do you base this on?

I doubt you'd hear anyone in the field of political science put it that way, but ok. Its not exactly when it "serves our needs better" so much as its whenever following said rules and laws endangers the US as a sovereign power. To paraphrase Hobbes, "the first and foremost concern of a man is self-defense; everything else comes after". For Hobbes, that is the only natural law.

I'm really not trying to please you, I'm just informing you on the situation. This is how things are.

I know it might be tough (cognitive dissonance and all), but think of the situation from the realist perspective.

Hmmm I think I have heard that logic before. I think they used to scream for the fatherland!

Bush, deserve respect? For?

6000 conflicts in the last 2000 years? Guess we all love to fight.

Oh yea, there were lots of murders in those 2000 years so I guess murder is ok now.

Bush, deserve respect? For?

Nothing. They'll never learn and half the US electorate will always vote for people like him.

Bush, deserve respect? For?

For not throwing a tantrum and refusing to leave last Tuesday?

Nothing. They'll never learn and half the US electorate will always vote for people like him.

An unfortunate malady.:(

Nothing. They'll never learn and half the US electorate will always vote for people like him.

Hell, Bush proved he didn't even need a full half of the electorate to get elected.

Hell, Bush proved he didn't even need a full half of the electorate to get elected.

Of course. He stole the elections.

I respect Bush for not raping my dog. I'm real glad he didn't do that.

See, I can recognize he wasn't ALL bad.

Hmmm I think I have heard that logic before. I think they used to scream for the fatherland!

Godwin's Law!

I respect Bush for not raping my dog. I'm real glad he didn't do that.

See, I can recognize he wasn't ALL bad.

I like you. :D

So humanity is a "vague idea" and your "country" (which is basically only just a part of Earth, bounded by somewhat arbitrary lines, in which you just so happen to live for whatever reason) somehow ISN'T? What do you base this on?

I have very little in common with the rest of humanity, and while I recognize that most Americans have very little in common as well, at least we know we have one commonality.

Hell, Bush proved he didn't even need a full half of the electorate to get elected.

Yeah, but the fact is that it even "approximately half", both times, is rather an indictment of the country as a whole.

Yeah, but the fact is that it even "approximately half", both times, is rather an indictment of the country as a whole.

No shit, right?

I have very little in common with the rest of humanity, and while I recognize that most Americans have very little in common as well, at least we know we have one commonality.

Being born in an arbitrary area?

Being born in an arbitrary area?

Technically that might be what makes me an American, but no, that's not what I meant.

As I'm sure you're aware.

there's respect and there's respect. one kind for samaritans and one for rattle snakes.

Yeah, but the fact is that it even "approximately half", both times, is rather an indictment of the country as a whole.

Only if you enjoy painting with a 150,000,000-man brush.

I've seen bigger brushes wielded around these parts, however.

I have very little in common with the rest of humanity, and while I recognize that most Americans have very little in common as well, at least we know we have one commonality.
So you're suggesting that being a human is insignificant, and just so happening to have been born into a specific society bounded by arbitrary lines is significant?

Distorted priorities much?

Technically that might be what makes me an American, but no, that's not what I meant.

As I'm sure you're aware.

No, I'm not aware. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you were the only person on the entire forum who had the remotest idea about what you're talking about.

No, I'm not aware. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you were the only person on the entire forum who had the remotest idea about what you're talking about.

I seriously doubt that. What makes me an American is not where I was born but the ideals I espouse. You can be born in Mexico and come here illegally, and still consider yourself an American. It might very well be different elsewhere, but Americans are bonded not by birthplace but by ideological sameness.

I seriously doubt that. What makes me an American is not where I was born but the ideals I espouse. You can be born in Mexico and come here illegally, and still consider yourself an American. It might very well be different elsewhere, but Americans are bonded not by birthplace but by ideological sameness.

So then, an "American" is anyone who agrees with you.

So then, an "American" is anyone who agrees with you.

That's a little wide a net to cast, but I suppose anyone who espouses American ideals and ideas could be considered an American. That's not the only dimension of course (as I have stated previous) but it certainly is the one I am focusing on here.

That's a little wide a net to cast, but I suppose anyone who espouses American ideals and ideas could be considered an American. That's not the only dimension of course (as I have stated previous) but it certainly is the one I am focusing on here.

I wasn't asking a question, I was merely calling you on it. The only ones you consider Americans are the one whose ideals and ideas of what it means to be an American agree with yours.

That's a little wide a net to cast, but I suppose anyone who espouses American ideals and ideas could be considered an American. That's not the only dimension of course (as I have stated previous) but it certainly is the one I am focusing on here.

That's odd. There are Americans who'll be bound to not express ideas and ideals typical of an American. Something like an American liking Communism. Would that make this person less of an American? I don't think so.