That'd be the view from FoxNews planet, I expect.
LeftCoastBum wrote:FDR's polices (which were all socialist policies) turned the depression into the great depression.
I don't know if I would go that far, but incidentally noticed the other day what the top marginal tax rate was under Hoover, then later under Roosevelt was raised again, both ahead of the economy going into worse conditions. At one point, unemployment was close to 25%. Remember the old worn out liberal mantra now, get rid of the tax breaks for the rich, lets soak the rich........ Didn't work then. Just maybe the biggest thing to save FDR and the economy was the war?
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year-old Texas rancher whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to former Texas Governor, George W. Bush and his elevation to the White House. The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Bush is a 'post turtle'."
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a "post turtle" was.
The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle." The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain, "You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just want to help the dumb **** get down."
Leftcoastbum, You got rolled up partner. Your like a little kitty in the lions den. We don't have a kitty A2K.
okie's still living in the past; he can't dare to talk about the present conditions under Bush. He hasn't noticed the world has changed since the time of the depression.
I answered your post about the Siena professors. I rebutted your evidence, Mr. Imposter. I can only deduce that either you did not read my post or you cannot meet my challenge in answering the questions I posed.
I will replicate my post. If you cannot answer the rebuttal, I understand, but I must point out that an unanswered rebuttal destroys the previous argument(yours-Mr. Imposter when you quoted the Siena study)
Please be so good as to attempt to answer my post or admit that you cannot!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a few questions:
l. Who were the professors(744) who responded to the survey?
2. Were most of the Professors from New York State?
3. If the Bush presidency were to end now--(a ridiculous comment.)It is obvious that it will not end now. What will the professors, most of whom are from the very liberal state of New York, I am sure,say when his tenure is over?
4. When will Barry Bonds hit another homer?
5.Is Barry Bonds through?
6. Can Barry Bonds hit twenty more homers this year?
(Who knows,Only an idiot can predict since he has not finished his last year yet)
7. Will President Bush get as bad a press as Clinton has received?
8. Was Seina's ranking in 2002 their last ranking? If so, When will they do the next one?
9. Can a president truly be ranked before he finishes his Presidency?
10.Does President Bush have another thirty months in office?
11.Is thirty about 31% of 96?
12. Does Bush have 31% of his tenure remaining?
13. Can anyone rate a baseball player, no matter how poor his hitting in the last year, who still has 31% of his tenure remaining?
BD, You're not trying hard enough. All you had to do was type "Sienna college research on bush failure," and you would have gotten many hits.
But since you are not capable of doing a simple search from the article I posted, here it is:
http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2006/05/01/daily4.html
This was the Google response:
Results 1 - 10 of about 68,400 for sienna college research on bush rates as failure. (0.16 seconds) [/color]
Do you see that? It got 68,400 hits. Try it next time.
Mr. Imposter. I read the Siena College Poll. That is why I posed a set of questions to you. Did you read them?
Are you able to answer the questions I posed to you after I read the Poll?
If not, my questions stand unanswered and are testimony to the fact that you are unable to answer my rebuttal.
Please do not dissimulate. It is not becoming.
Please be so good as to answer the questions I posed in my rebuttal after you posted and I read your entire link.
I'm not a party to that research. If you are really intersted in getting answer for you questions, it's only logical you ask "them" for your answers.
Do you see how that works? They are the ones making the claims of that report. I'm just posting what they found.
YOu may ask them any question you wish; it's up to them to defend their findings. You're asking the wrong person by asking me; I did not participate in that investigation in any way. As a matter of fact, I don't even know where Sienna College is located.
Collegs and universities do research on many subjects, and write reports to be published for public consumption. I'm not in the habit to question their research, because I don't have the time to question them on method or results of what they find.
People like you should contact them, and get the answers to satisfy your curiosity.
As a matter of fact, I encourage you to do so.
Mr. Imposter: You may have missed this on another thread. It responds to your posting on Siena. Please be so good as to try to rebut my points.
If you cannot do so, it stand unrebutted:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Imposter cobbled together a post which puroports to PROVE that President Bush is the "Worst President in US History"
After reading the source for his claim( A Siena Poll), I am not certain that his claim would stand up in court.
l. The survey received answers from some nearly 800 History and Political Science Professors--There is nothing that I can find on the site( Maybe Mr. Imposter can help) as to how those 800 History and Political Science Professors were chosen or, indeed, the questions that were posed to them( Anyone familiar with polling practices is aware that the wording of the questions and, more significantly, how the population of those who received the poll questions were chosen.
2.It has been empirically demonstrated that most Academics, at least those in the Liberal Arts, and especially in the History and Political Science Departments of our Colleges and Universities are Democrats if not out and out leftists. Asking them whether President Bush is the "worst president" is like asking the "Schutz- Staffel" in 1942, their opinion of Winston Churchill.
3. It is ridiculous that any intelligent commentary can be educed about the performance of anyone when that person has only completed 70% of his or her tenure.
4. Approval ratings are interesting but they can not be said to be decisive. Those who have followed the rating system for president are aware that Harry S. Truman received the LOWEST rating among modern presidents in Feb. 1952---22--(Source--The Presidential Difference- Greenstein- P. 235). Truman is now considered to have been a great president--When a Biograph of Truman was written in 1992 by David MCullogh--a Biography that won the Pulitzer prize for its excellent--a revision was made of the former slurs against Truman--as DAvid McCullough points out--Only when the sealed correspondence was opened was it clear that Truman( who had a tough act to follow-FDR- was a great president.
5. The poll from Siena was interesting, but a poll which was even more interesting was the "poll" taken in November 2004 which polled ,not 800 Democratic and left wing Academics, but over a hundred million of the American people-----
Mirable Dictu--The American people re-elected what Mr. Imposter calls the worst President in American History.
I did not know that the majority of the American people were so stupid.
Or, maybe, Mr. Imposter thinks that they are!!!
Don't be silly. Republicans COUNT on the shortsightedness of the American people.
Still, keep up that attitude, Bernie. It looks good on you. And the other 32% who still have faith in their Fearless Leader...
Blacksmithn-
Sir--
I must repeat-
l. President Bush was elected by the majority of the American People in 2004. That is the only poll that counts.
2. I can say without fear of contradition that George W. Bush will not be re-elected in 2008. He cannot run.
3. Poll numbers mean very little. Election results are the only thing that count and President Bush has won two elections.
4. You may recall, that President Clinton won two elections also. You may not be aware that in June 1993, President Clinton was down to a 37% Job Approval Rating, yet in 1994( only seventeen months later, he won re-election with 8 Million more votes than Dole received.
Polls are only a snapshot in time and, as is obvious from the 1994 election, usually ephemeral.
Yada yada yada.
Keep whistling in the dark.
It's true Bush got into the white house for the second term, but that was when his performance rating was much higher. You just haven't noticed, that his performance rating is now one of the lowest in presidential history.
The latest polls show his approval rating at 29 percent. Wake up and smell the coffee!
Those other presidents that won the election also ended up with pretty bad performance ratings. Look at Bush senior. That a president is put into the white house doesn't assure their ratings as the president. It seems with three more years for Bush junior, his ratings can go to the lowest of any president of this country; he's a loser by most people's measure. An incompetent by most evaluators.
That is your opinion. Do you have a link?
Lowest in Presidential History? You don't know Presidential Histories very well, do you?
Truman, Carter and Bush Sr. were lower. Again, you are oblivious of the fact that Job Approval Ratings are a "snapshot" in time. President Bush has still 30% of his tenure left.
When his Job Approval Rating begins to climb, as Clinton's paradoxically did when he was impeached, I will inform you.
In the meantime, I can tell you that President George W. Bush will not be re-elected. He was elected twice and, you seem to have forgotten, Mr. Imposter, unlike WilliamJefferson Clinton, President Bush gained seats for the GOP in both the 2000 and 2004 elections in the House and Senate. The GOP also gained seats in the House and Senate in the off year of 2002(Tradition and History clearly state that the party in power LOSES seats in the House and Senate during off years)
How in the world could that happen if the worst president in the history of the US was in office?
In the meantime, the great William Jefferson Clinton ALSO won two terms BUT, AND THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT, his blunders led to the fact that the Democrats LOST the House and the Senate in 1994 and,except for a very short time, because of a renegade Senator, HAVE NEVER REGAINED THE HOUSE AND SENATE.
And that, Mr. Imposter, was not under the worst President of all time in the USA, it was under William Jefferson Clinton.
How Strange!!!
BD wrote:
Truman, Carter and Bush Sr. were lower.
You simply ignore the fact that Bush is still in office, and the trend is decidedly going south. With three more years and all the problems Bush has with the American People and his own congress, we can expect his approval rating to go below those of Truman, Carter, and Bush Sr. We just have to wait and see, won't we?
Affirmative Action, Bush-Style
Ellis Henican
January 22 2003
He was a C student at Phillips Andover. He got a not-so-stellar 1206 on his SATs - 566 verbal, 640 math. That was a full 180 points below the median score for the Yale University class of '68. But boola-boola for him! In the fall of 1964, George W. Bush was welcomed inside Yale's ivy-covered walls as a "legacy admittee." And why not? The wisecracking Texas teen had something far more powerful than dumb ol' test scores or silly grades.
He had a father, George H.W. Bush, who was a rich and prominent Yale alum. And a grandfather, too. Prescott S. Bush, the aristocratic Connecticut senator, was even a Yale trustee. If this wasn't affirmative action, nothing is. Affirmative action for rich white kids whose daddy and granddaddy also went to Yale. And of course, this particular unlevel playing field denied a place to some higher-scoring, harder-working student who made a single, tragic mistake - not being born as well as the Bushes. Tough luck for him or her.
But wait! Wasn't that just the kind of squeezed-out student that now-President Bush was supposedly speaking for this past week when his Justice Department filed a brief with the Supreme Court challenging the affirmative-action program at the University of Michigan? First, Bush inaccurately derided the Michigan plan as "quotas." Then he got all moralistic, saying that giving a leg up to black or Latino applicants is "divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution." That kind of system, he complained, "unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students."
It's unfair? Unfair like being ushered into the Ivy League by Poppy and Gramps? Unfair like getting into Yale with a 1206 and C's? And in W's case, the special boosts didn't begin or end with the admissions committee at Yale. Had the future president's name been, say, "Arbusto" instead of Bush, would he even have made it as far as Andover, the tony prep school that was also up to its crinkled nose in Bushes? At Andover, Bush never got his name on the honor roll, even one term. The published record shows that on his very first essay assignment, the future president's grade was zero.
"Disgraceful," the teacher wrote in bright red ink. With a prep-school record this sad, his college counselor suggested, maybe he ought consider applying to a safety school in case things didn't work out at Yale. Bush chose the University of Texas. But the Bush name packed such a wallop at Yale that he never had to fall back on Austin. And once classes started in New Haven, this third-generation Yalie continued not to impress academically. Oh, his easy manner won him plenty of friends on campus.
He was active in his fraternity, rising eventually to president. He made the cheerleading squad and the super-secret Skull and Bones society. But freshman year, his grades put him in the 21st percentile of his class, meaning four-fifths of his classmates did better than the future leader of the free world.
And in the years that followed, young W never pulled his average above a C. His college transcript, in an eye-popping leak to The New Yorker magazine, showed a 73 in Introduction to the American Political System and a 71 in Introduction to International Relations, to cite two examples that could mean something in hindsight. Now, none of this is any cause for shame. Lots of people do poorly in college and succeed grandly in life. And a crucial lesson was obviously learned.
The playing field is never level, whatever people say. Just make sure the tilt is your way. As it was for George W. Bush. His own family-sponsored affirmative-action plan kept pulling through. Despite the Yale grades, he was accepted at the Harvard Business School. Despite repeated business failures, cronies kept bailing him out. You don't think some black kid in Michigan would have a problem with that?
