Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Last Day

46 posts in this topic

Posted

Come on economy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Or Jimmy Carter?

I was only using presidents that got us into unpopular and costly wars. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well Jimmy didn't start any stupid wars. He inherited a terrible economy from a lame duck presidential replacement and did not do much to help (my position is that the President can't control this too much anyways), and to his credit brought Israel and Egypt to the table, something that no other President has had as much success at.

Johnson did a lot of bad things (Vietnam escalation) but also did a lot of good things (equal rights). At least he had the humanity to realize that his Vietnam decision was wrong and it caused him a lot of anguish later on.

Dubyas choice to go into Afganistan (his best decision maybe), IMHO, would have been the course of action of any person sitting in that chair. Economically he had no problem with cutting taxes without cutting spending, led us into massive debt and refused to check it, added a gigantic unneeded war, and then kind of retreated into a shell during the election cycle. He was in fact a terrible leader, relied on people more interested in conservative dogma than practical reality, and IMHO used the highest office in the land to prove himself to his daddy.

People don't seem to remember that Reagan won because he made a deal with the religious right - something that the Republicans were not interested in before, as republican "free choice" ideology does not work well with far right Christian "do as we say!" attitudes on many subjects. Dogmatism in the Republican party led to the same on the left, which explains the complete polarization of the parties, despite their both really being in the middle on most subjects, that we see today.

Bush is the ultimate representation of the Reagan sell out philosophy based on "the good old days" that never really existed - he wore his contradictions on his sleeve and people could finally figure out that they didn't make a lot of sense. Now the Republicans are trying to "reinvent themselves" which I am all in favor of - dump the moral high ground crap, become more Libertarian, and embrace the issues of the people that will be the majority by the end of the century if you want to provide a true counterpoint to the Democrats, as sheer numbers will continue to roll in their direction and will cause them to get complacent and further away from what the people may actually want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Bush did some good things outside of Afghanistan.

Africa Aid

The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion

Although some activists criticize Bush for not doing more to end the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan, others credit him for playing a role in ending deadly conflicts in Liberia, the Congo and other parts of Sudan. Meanwhile, Bush has overseen a steady rise in U.S. trade with Africa, which has doubled since 2001.

Bush launched his $1.2 billion malaria initiative in June 2005 with the goal of reducing malaria-related deaths in 15 African countries by 50 percent. The disease kills more than 1 million people a year, most of them African children under age 5.

The number of lives Bush has been responsible for saving in Africa is probably greater than the number of casualties from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

I still don't like him, but I do feel he deserves credit for the good things he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

On what planet could LBJ be considered worse than Bush?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

On what planet could LBJ be considered worse than Bush?

Well, the primary criticism of Bush is based on Iraq, and getting us into the war on false pretenses. LBJ escalated our involvement in a far bloodier war in Vietnam also based on false pretenses. So imo, its a valid comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Also, with all our losses in Vietnam we accomplished nothing except for delaying the inevitable North Vietnam victory. In Iraq, there is now a stable functioning government that might actually last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The number of lives Bush has been responsible for saving in Africa is probably greater than the number of casualties from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

it's unfortunate that he could never figure out how to save peoples lives without killing others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes, I will happily give credit to Bush for those humanitarian programs. I would have liked to see less war and more stuff like this, especially in the more Muslim parts of Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Bush did some good things outside of Afghanistan.

Africa Aid

whatever good he's done in africa has been negated by his insistence that everything be tied to abstinence only sex education. Want financial aid? Don't teach about condoms.

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2006/09/21/nocondom_policy_lea.php

“Just remember, whatever you do, don’t mention condoms.”

I froze halfway inside the hot, dusty classroom in Kampala, Uganda. I turned to Crystal, the coordinator for ASK Africa, an initiative promoting HIV/AIDS awareness and education in Ugandan primary and secondary schools. I must have looked bewildered because she again made it clear that my impending speech about the ASK program could not include any shout-outs to the Trojan Man. Apparently the headmistress would be present, and as far as she is concerned, “safe sex” is an oxymoron.

…It’s bad enough that $1.3 billion has been spent domestically in the United States on these unproven and controversial abstinence-only programs, many of which are soiled with subliminal religious messages passed as scientific fact. But it’s criminal, even unpardonable, that we have forced our own policies on countries unable to deny them, undermining the potency of programs needing every resource at their disposal in their educational arsenal to adequately equip vulnerable populations against a virus that continues to purge their countries.

also a reminder that roughly 80 percent of aids infection occurs from heterosexual sex, something that could no doubt be controlled through progressive sex ed education and availability of contraceptives.

in uganda it's as high as 84%

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0516-01.htm

In Uganda, 84 per cent of Aids victims contract the disease through heterosexual contacts. The men go first, followed by their wives. Fourteen per cent of children are infected by mother-to-child transmission. Up to 6.6 per cent of the adult population in Uganda is infected with HIV. If you are an adult male in Uganda suffering from Aids, you are unlikely to live beyond the age of 47.

reminder that there's no evidence at all that abstinence only education does a better job, and in many cases it does worse.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4485691/

PHILADELPHIA - Teens who pledge to remain virgins until marriage have the same rates of sexually transmitted diseases as those who don’t pledge abstinence, according to a study that examined the sex lives of 12,000 adolescents.

...

The problem, the study found, is that those virginity “pledgers” are much less likely to use condoms.

http://search.yahoo.com/404handler?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fus%2Fstory%2Fnm%2Fabstinence_usa_dc&src=news&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fcronespeaks.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F04%2F24%2Fabstinence-only-doesnt-work%2F

Programs teaching U.S. schoolchildren to abstain from sex have not cut teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases or delayed the age at which sex begins, health groups told Congress on Wednesday.

The Bush administration, however, voiced continuing support for such programs during a hearing before a House of Representatives panel even as many Democrats called for cutting off federal money for so-called abstinence-only instruction.

“Vast sums of federal monies continue to be directed toward these programs. And, in fact, there is evidence to suggest that some of these programs are even harmful and have negative consequences by not providing adequate information for those teens who do become sexually active,” Dr. Margaret Blythe of the American Academy of Pediatrics told the committee.

The number of lives Bush has been responsible for saving in Africa is probably greater than the number of casualties from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

not really by any measurable statistic.

actually in the last year in the congo, an estimated 5.4 million people have been slaughtered. the worst part about it? they're using rape as a weapon.

http://www.newser.com/archive-world-news/1G1-188884812/rape-is-a-weapon-of-war-in-congolocal.html

(Newser) – A record number of brutal rapes has devastated the women of war-ravaged Congo. A single province reported 27,000 last year, with some assaults so brutal that victims' reproductive systems will never recover, the New York Times reports. "We don’t know why these rapes are happening, but one thing is clear: they are done to destroy women," said a doctor who sees 10 victims daily.

Sexual violence in the Congo is “the worst in the world,” said a UN official. “The sheer numbers, the wholesale brutality—it’s appalling.” Last year's elections were not enough to help the Congolese government deal with renegade forces. Large areas of lawlessness survive where the most heavily armed are free to do what they please.

i guess in the sense that bush has actually paid attention to africa is a step in the right direction. he took relatively inexpensive steps to install mosquito nests and treat the water, which should have been done under clinton but never was. however, he dismantled numerous UN agencies that taught sex education and left them to be openly bid on by christian organizations that taught abstinence and made condoms impossible to get.

luckily for his immediate reputation, due to the gestation period of HIV, it's impossible to tell just how many more people will contract the disease due to disinformation handed out due to his policies, but it's going to be awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

it's unfortunate that he could never figure out how to save peoples lives without killing others.

The two are seperate. He deserves credit for Africa, but criticism in Iraq, either for going to war in the first place from those that opposed, or for going to war under false pretenses and or poor execution of the war from those that supported going in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The two are seperate. He deserves credit for Africa, but criticism in Iraq, either for going to war in the first place from those that opposed, or for going to war under false pretenses and or poor execution of the war from those that supported going in.

i agree the two are separate, so lets not go holding his hand by saying that he saved more people than he killed when the two are totally unrelated and aren't mutually exclusive, it just sounds like you're grasping at straws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites