Poll
63%
37%
Bush Sr. also had a much easier fight to deal with... If our mission in Iraq was to go in, fight an actual Iraqi army, and kill pretty much in the country we'd of won years ago.
Instead we're fighting people who by day are the guy selling you cheese burgers at the food stand, then at night they pick up their AK's and **** you up...
Originally posted by Wil Deidara
Well who's worse than Bush then?
That's somewhat of a loaded question, as there are very few people who know a considerable amount about all 43 U.S. Presidents. Your average KMC poster probably just knows something about Washington, Lincoln, F.D. Rosevelt, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and G.W. Bush.
It's also a rather subjective question; it depends on which qualities the person answering finds to be "worse" in a leader. E.G. Some think FDR was horrible and detrimental to America because of the "New Deal" he put in place. Some (mostly gun nuts) think LBJ was shit because of his 1968 Gun Control Act.
Edit: One thing you also have to take into account, how well would past presidents have faired in public opinion if they did their terms under the same level of information sharing we have today? E.G. Bush farts rudely and 2 minutes later it's on youtube.
Originally posted by Robtard
That's somewhat of a loaded question, as there are very few people who know a considerable amount about all 43 U.S. Presidents. Your average KMC poster probably just knows something about Washington, Lincoln, F.D. Rosevelt, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and G.W. Bush.It's also a rather subjective question; it depends on which qualities the person answering finds to be "worse" in a leader. E.G. Some think FDR was horrible and detrimental to America because of the "New Deal" he put in place. Some (mostly gun nuts) think LBJ was shit because of his 1968 Gun Control Act.
Edit: One thing you also have to take into account, how well would past presidents have faired in public opinion if they did their terms under the same level of information sharing we have today? E.G. Bush farts rudely and 2 minutes later it's on youtube.
...or if he gets shoes thrown at him.
So it does serve some good purpose in this regard.
I don't think Bush will be looked on as badly by history as he is at the moment. He had probably the toughest set of circumstances that any president has ever had in US history because even those who have been in charge through wars have known the enemy. with Iraq and Afghanistan their is so much complexity that is known now in hindsight but wasn't known at the time decisions had to be made.
the US have never been attacked on their own soil as blatently as they were on Sept 11th 2001.
I think he's suffering from the mistakes and gambles made by people delegated to run the economy and who treated it as a giant casino with big stakes for potentially big profits and lost...and now the US and the rest of the world face potentially the worst recession in history. granted perhaps he and his government are partly to blame for allowing deregulation of market forces but the banks and their irresponsible actions were the root of the problem rather than any incompetence at government level
i also think the huge amounts of development in Africa that Bush has funded through his Pepfar scheme has been completely overlooked
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/georgebush.usa
Under Bush the US has been transformed from a country in complete denial about climate change to one that is now developing some the best technologies to tackle it. a change that he himself had to make after some resistance to the idea.
Under Bush the US has been transformed from a country in complete denial about climate change to one that is now developing some the best technologies to tackle it. a change that he himself had to make after some resistance to the idea.
Didn't he reject the Kyoto Accord? Signing that, or any form of emissions cap would do a lot to build his reputation as a 'green' president. I don't think that Bush has had much of an impact on the dawning realization of Global Warming for many Americans- to attribute it to the Bush administration seems foolish.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Didn't he reject the Kyoto Accord? Signing that, or any form of emissions cap would do a lot to build his reputation as a 'green' president. I don't think that Bush has had much of an impact on the dawning realization of Global Warming for many Americans- to attribute it to the Bush administration seems foolish.
hence the reason i said HE had to change as well...because initially he flat out denied that humans were influencing global warming
since 2003 the climate change budget in the US has went from an average of about $5billion to $37billion last year and it's budgeted to increase again to around $45billion in 2009-2010
some 9 times that of the UK budget for example
so i'm not saying he was ever at the forefront of green awarness but he has certainly changed his government's stance on the issue...he could have simply not done a u-turn due to some foolish pride and the US would be another 4 years behind in funding development in alternative energies and other green projects.
since 2003 the climate change budget in the US has went from an average of about $5billion to $37billion last year and it's budgeted to increase again to around $45billion in 2009-2010
Good to know. I'm not going to argue against this, as any increase in awareness is obviously a good thing.
some 9 times that of the UK budget for example
This isn't really a fair comparrison: The United States has a far larger GDP and budget to throw around. I'd be more interested in the percentage of money spent on 'Green' projects/technology.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Didn't he reject the Kyoto Accord? Signing that, or any form of emissions cap would do a lot to build his reputation as a 'green' president. I don't think that Bush has had much of an impact on the dawning realization of Global Warming for many Americans- to attribute it to the Bush administration seems foolish.
There are flaws with the Kyoto Protocol. There are also mistaken measurements used. Much too lenient measures in some portions and too harsh in others.
Also, man-made global warming accounts for very little of the total global warming picture.
Not to mention the economic detriments associated with imposing limits on our nation that we literally cannot afford.
There's much better ways to go about a green remedy than agreeing to a significantly flawed international accord.
I've noticed, in Oklahoma alone, a significant effort in renewable energy. Spain has a commercial wave farm already up too. Solar technology needs to still improve along with battery technology, but we are already headed in the correct direction, especially considering Obama's "green" talking points.