President Bush

[AtticaFlinch]

@ Bryan, Crunch: Well, I wasn't really trying to successfully argue a case, I just kind of wanted to learn about it.

I did post something like this, but this topic for me isn't really an entertainment and recreation source, it's rather an educational experience. Sorta.

In that case, rather than open up this overfilled can of nightcrawlers, perhaps you can go into the "Way Off Topics/Politics" forum and just read. Anything written here won't cover any new ground. While you're in that forum, spend some time in the Sheila Jackson Lee thread too. It's mighty funny.

[IronTiger]

In that case, rather than open up this overfilled can of nightcrawlers, perhaps you can go into the "Way Off Topics/Politics" forum and just read. Anything written here won't cover any new ground. While you're in that forum, spend some time in the Sheila Jackson Lee thread too. It's mighty funny.

True. But I kind of wanted the "condensed" version, if you will, without the needless hate (as in, beyond anything normal). Actually, if I REALLY wanted to answer my own question, I could venture out into the rest of the Internet, and the Internet is a rather scary place filled with radicals (and the not the numerical kind) and other things.

Eh, should I just call it a loss and request the thread to be locked?

Edited December 3, 2009 by IronTiger

[crunchtastic]

Actually, if I REALLY wanted to answer my own question, I could venture out into the rest of the Internet

Sweet Jesus. We truly are raising a generation who can't be bothered to learn if it's not avaialbe on page one of a Google search.

[LTAWACS]

Sweet Jesus. We truly are raising a generation who can't be bothered to learn if it's not avaialbe on page one of a Google search.

I blame Bush for this.

[Highway6]

pstt... each additional response validates this thread... let us watch as it sinks to the depths of Haif instead.

[IronTiger]

Sweet Jesus. We truly are raising a generation who can't be bothered to learn if it's not avaialbe on page one of a Google search.

Nope, I looked, but there wasn't anything I haven't learned before. And yes, Crunch, I have looked extensively on Google page after page on certain topics until all I got was nonsensical garbage. It's just what I'm interested in and that makes all the difference. That holds true for all of the things I do in life.

And I don't believe in the "if it's not on Google, it doesn't exist".

[ricco67]

I wouldn't be too quick to jump down his throat.

Sometimes its the ancedotes from different people are often used to provide details in which isn't always clear looking at a big picture.

The problem is that those with a differing view just assumes someone with a different viewpoint is a moron.

[RedScare]

The problem is that those with a differing view just assumes someone with a different viewpoint is a moron.

I disagree, you moron.

[Fringe]

Where Bush Went Wrong

He didn't legalize marijuana. 

[TheNiche]

Sweet Jesus. We truly are raising a generation who can't be bothered to learn if it's not avaialbe on page one of a Google search.

The problem with searching politics on Google: garbage in, garbage out. Discretion is necessary and appropriate, especially where politics are concerned.

FWIW, I don't think that IronTiger picked the best online forum for a debate on the matter, but his curiosity is laudable (in spite of the smugness) and his complaint regarding the Google search results is a valid one.

If he wanted to turn it around on you, IronTiger might accuse Gen X of being insufficiently diligent and too succinct in rendering opinions such that Google has become clogged with their cynical platitudes. He could accuse Baby Boomers of being clanish, partisan, devisive, and too trusting of both commercial and non-commercial journalists. And I'd be inclined to agree with those criticisms. These young'ins are being brought up in a world where media is increasingly decentralized. They're inexperienced (but then we all were once) and seem prone to group-think, but are far more adept at sifting through dozens of different media outlets and opinion leaders...at least to the extent that they want to.

[crunchtastic]

They're inexperienced (but then we all were once) and seem prone to group-think, but are far more adept at sifting through dozens of different media outlets and opinion leaders.

which is utterly meaningless if they lack the critical thinking skills to process the information.

I don't believe Tiger understands enough to really know how to begin answering the question, and moreover, is less interested in learning and more interesting in entertaining himself online by concocting ways for people to engage him.

If he really wants to answer to the question "where did Bush go wrong" he starts with an study of contemporary political history. Without that context you have nothing by filler, lies, and supposition--the cynical platitudes that clog the internets. If he really wanted to find answers, there's a big-ass university library in his town with people who could tell him how to go about organizing a meaningful search for answers.

Tough love, baby! I want to see our Tiger become a useful, thinking, functioning adult and not another I-read-the-Wiki-entry mouthbreather. And I mean that.

[TheNiche]

which is utterly meaningless if they lack the critical thinking skills to process the information.

I don't believe Tiger understands enough to really know how to begin answering the question, and moreover, is less interested in learning and more interesting in entertaining himself online by concocting ways for people to engage him.

If he really wants to answer to the question "where did Bush go wrong" he starts with an study of contemporary political history. Without that context you have nothing by filler, lies, and supposition--the cynical platitudes that clog the internets. If he really wanted to find answers, there's a big-ass university library in his town with people who could tell him how to go about organizing a meaningful search for answers.

Tough love, baby! I want to see our Tiger become a useful, thinking, functioning adult and not another I-read-the-Wiki-entry mouthbreather. And I mean that.

First you chastized Tiger for not merely conducting a Google search to find his answers. You were an advocate of convenient research lacking in depth, certainly not doing him any favors. Tiger then provided a valid reason why Google was inadequate to assuage his curiosities, indicating that he is thinking critically enough to understand that platitudes aren't useful ways to form opinions about the world...which to his credit already is already light years ahead of the average joe schmo blogger. When called out on it, you advocated research that involves going to the library, about the most inefficient means of research available to him. Also, if the A&M library is stocked as poorly as the UH library then the bulk of the materials probably won't discuss contemporary political history beyond the Reagan administration, and the most useful thing there is a computer terminal that he can't log in to because he isn't a student there.

So which extreme are you recommending? Google or the 3rd edition textbook on the subject out of 11 total editions? (Btw, I use those edition numbers because I actually used a 3rd edition textbook from the UH library once as a substitute for the 11th edition textbook used in class. You wouldn't figure that international monetary economics had advanced that much in so little time. I sure didn't.)

The fact is, Tiger probably doesn't have a curiosity so strong that he's going to go about like a grad student in meticulously building an expertise in this area. There's very little in this world that would motivate me to do something like that, let me assure you. He's seeking a compromise position somewhere in between the Google results or Wikis-for-mouthbreathers and grad-level research. I don't blame him. It's only prudent for someone whose time has higher and better alternative uses. It's healthy in fact.

Judging by the tone of his initial post, I'm inclined to believe that Tiger started the thread in good faith and is not merely trying to stir the pot. He acknowledged that he was on unstable ground and tried to lay ground rules. He certainly didn't come across as optimistic that the thread would be a success, and for good reason. Witness what we've done to it.

[AtticaFlinch]

Witness what we've done to it.

In other words (and to bring this full circle), we've just acted as a microcosm of the Bush failures that IronTiger seeks to understand.

Bush presided over a time period that saw an upswing in internet usage, for good and for evil. During this period, marked by rabid anti-intellectualism and bitter partisanship plus this new unfettered cyber-social resource, idiots the world over learned to express their ignorance in new and utterly uninteresting ways. Under his watch, the quality of debate in this country dropped to a historically low nadir. But, I'm of the opinion he was just the right man who was in the wrong time. He was an average joe with a big job, bolstered by other average joes who appreciated his bland averageness. Had Bush been born ten years earlier or ten years later, he probably would have been the baseball commissioner or the owner of a drycleaners. As it stands, he was at the center of a perfect information storm. The world, already pregnant with information and latent globalism, broke its water while Bush was in office. He sat behind a desk in the Oval Office in one of the most dynamic and devisive times this world had ever before seen, and he clearly lacked the training and insight to steer us on an appropriate path towards the future. He was Hans Brinker with his finger on the dike, and what the world needed then was an engineer. In my opinion, Bush wasn't so much bad as he was inadequate. (The people around him, on the other hand...)

[IronTiger]

In other words (and to bring this full circle), we've just acted as a microcosm of the Bush failures that IronTiger seeks to understand.

Bush presided over a time period that saw an upswing in internet usage, for good and for evil. During this period, marked by rabid anti-intellectualism and bitter partisanship plus this new unfettered cyber-social resource, idiots the world over learned to express their ignorance in new and utterly uninteresting ways. Under his watch, the quality of debate in this country dropped to a historically low nadir. But, I'm of the opinion he was just the right man who was in the wrong time. He was an average joe with a big job, bolstered by other average joes who appreciated his bland averageness. Had Bush been born ten years earlier or ten years later, he probably would have been the baseball commissioner or the owner of a drycleaners. As it stands, he was at the center of a perfect information storm. The world, already pregnant with information and latent globalism, broke its water while Bush was in office. He sat behind a desk in the Oval Office in one of the most dynamic and devisive times this world had ever before seen, and he clearly lacked the training and insight to steer us on an appropriate path towards the future. He was Hans Brinker with his finger on the dike, and what the world needed then was an engineer. In my opinion, Bush wasn't so much bad as he was inadequate. (The people around him, on the other hand...)

That is true: when Bush was elected, the Internet was known and semi-popular, but not nearly the thing it is today. Everyone's home computer (unless you were rich) ran at a pokey 56k.

The "blame the administration" game is popular for all recent presidents (Obama and Clinton included), so I don't really know the validity of that.

@others: I don't think I'm a fair representation of my generation. If we want to play statistics, we can't pick one person as the focus group. Seriously, I'm the only one in my school who knows anything about Houston. I could talk about Westheimer Road, the MKT, Northwest Mall, the HOV lane, the Fifth Ward, downtown, Rice Village, and Montrose, and almost no one will get what I'm saying. My economics teacher is one of the exceptions, I asked him something regarding Splashtown (if people really did do obscene things in the wave pool), yes they did, as he was a lifeguard there too.

[Jeebus]

Then you obviously do NOT want to know where Bush went wrong. Chosing to invade Iraq split this country right down the middle. Even if his intelligence had been 100% right, most Americans simply did not want to go to war - or rather, another war.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Jeebus

[IronTiger]

Then you obviously do NOT want to know where Bush went wrong. Chosing to invade Iraq split this country right down the middle. Even if his intelligence had been 100% right, most Americans simply did not want to go to war - or rather, another war.

You kind of misquoted me, so I have no idea what comeback that was to. I think you are referring to my first post. I don't think its really fair to say that "most Americans did not want to go to war"...I'll know it when I see the data. Singling Bush out for starting the Iraqi war is a grotesquely unfair accusation in the grand scheme of things...every President started/contributed to a war.

If indeed that is the point where Bush went wrong, I will no longer pursue the topic and assume that everyone who thought he was bad was just an opinionated pacifist. But that can't be the only thing. It just can't.

[BryanS]

You kind of misquoted me, so I have no idea what comeback that was to. I think you are referring to my first post. I don't think its really fair to say that "most Americans did not want to go to war"...I'll know it when I see the data. Singling Bush out for starting the Iraqi war is a grotesquely unfair accusation in the grand scheme of things...every President started/contributed to a war.

If indeed that is the point where Bush went wrong, I will no longer pursue the topic and assume that everyone who thought he was bad was just an opinionated pacifist. But that can't be the only thing. It just can't.

Bush isn't president anymore. Why does any of this matter? Nothing can change the past.

This thread is worthless.

[RedScare]

Singling Bush out for starting the Iraqi war is a grotesquely unfair accusation in the grand scheme of things...every President started/contributed to a war.

If indeed that is the point where Bush went wrong, I will no longer pursue the topic and assume that everyone who thought he was bad was just an opinionated pacifist. But that can't be the only thing. It just can't.

You've clearly not read anything about the origins of the Iraq War. And, considering that Bush wanted to invade Iraq only weeks after being sworn into office, one could easily conclude that this is where 'Bush went wrong'.

[Jeebus]

You kind of misquoted me, so I have no idea what comeback that was to. I think you are referring to my first post. I don't think its really fair to say that "most Americans did not want to go to war"...I'll know it when I see the data. Singling Bush out for starting the Iraqi war is a grotesquely unfair accusation in the grand scheme of things...every President started/contributed to a war.

If indeed that is the point where Bush went wrong, I will no longer pursue the topic and assume that everyone who thought he was bad was just an opinionated pacifist. But that can't be the only thing. It just can't.

So then what do you think the reason is? You're taking my answer and rationalizing it to the extreme. I am in no way a pacifist, but we had no legitimate reason to be in Iraq. That is the mind set of most conservatives I talk to. If that's how conservatives feel, just imagine how liberals feel.

Bush Jr. = Iraq War = Hate.

[TheNiche]

Bush isn't president anymore. Why does any of this matter? Nothing can change the past.

Nope, but by learning it, we can learn from it.

This thread is worthless.

Then how about contributing something of value to it?

[BryanS]

Nope, but by learning it, we can learn from it.

Then how about contributing something of value to it?

It's a waste of time, on a tired, useless topic.

[TheNiche]

It's a waste of time, on a tired, useless topic.

If it is so unimportant, then how is it so important that it deserves even one iota of your time? Why validate it with a comment?

[barracuda]

There are different ways to interpret your original question, IronTiger. But from my viewpoint, the biggest failure of the Bush administration was his handling of Hurricane Katrina. This episode severely damaged Bush's credibility, and it triggered a series of cracks in the administration's facade from which it never recovered.

The coercion (lying about WMD) and eventual preemptive invasion of Iraq was more damaging in most respects, but the realization of this by the majority of Americans occurred well after Bush's credibility had already been damaged from the Katrina episode. There are plenty of other damaging issues, but I hesitate to add more due to the risk of causing a political fight in this thread.

[Jeebus]

There are different ways to interpret your original question, IronTiger. But from my viewpoint, the biggest failure of the Bush administration was his handling of Hurricane Katrina. This episode severely damaged Bush's credibility, and it triggered a series of cracks in the administration's facade from which it never recovered.

The coercion (lying about WMD) and eventual preemptive invasion of Iraq was more damaging in most respects, but the realization of this by the majority of Americans occurred well after Bush's credibility had already been damaged from the Katrina episode. There are plenty of other damaging issues, but I hesitate to add more due to the risk of causing a political fight in this thread.

I agree that Bush failed to "step-up" during Katrina. However, being from Louisiana, I still hold all the blame on Louisiana's government (at both the state and local level) for failing first to serve its people in a time of need. I think though that most of the country doesn't see it that way and would agree that the blame was Bush's.

[AtticaFlinch]

I agree that Bush failed to "step-up" during Katrina. However, being from Louisiana, I still hold all the blame on Louisiana's government (at both the state and local level) for failing first to serve its people in a time of need. I think though that most of the country doesn't see it that way and would agree that the blame was Bush's.

Louisiana has a government? I thought it was basically Somalia on the swamp over there.

[IronTiger]

So then what do you think the reason is? You're taking my answer and rationalizing it to the extreme. I am in no way a pacifist, but we had no legitimate reason to be in Iraq. That is the mind set of most conservatives I talk to. If that's how conservatives feel, just imagine how liberals feel.

Bush Jr. = Iraq War = Hate.

@ Barracuda, Jeebus: I see. I won't break my promise and argue, but I will tell you that I did mention that there were to be no personal attacks on Bush in this forum starter. See, name-calling brings down the validity of arguments. Do you really take the "Obama is Satan"-type people seriously? No, because their attacks on the President destroys any validity of their arguments! It works both ways.

Edited December 9, 2009 by IronTiger

[AtticaFlinch]

@ Barracuda, Jeebus: I see. I won't break my promise and argue, but I will tell you that I did mention that there were to be no personal attacks on Bush in this forum starter. See, name-calling brings down the validity of arguments. Do you really take the "Obama is Satan"-type people seriously? No, because their attacks on the President destroys any validity of their arguments! It works both ways.

I take it very seriously, and I'm sure the secret service do too.

Obviously, these two were not the Obama-is-Satan personality type:

Edit: May help if I don't use a photo with Biden in it.

Edited December 9, 2009 by AtticaFlinch

[IronTiger]

@Attica: Oh, are they the partycrashers?

The "Obama is Satan people" is just a placeholder for the mean anti-Obama people. I was just bringing up a point against the collective mean anti-Bush people. See, when I hear the word "hate", any slanderous attacks, etc. against former President George W. Bush, I just dismiss them as crazy liberals who like to blow steam on the Internet. Similarly, when things done against President Barack H. Obama, I just dismiss them as crazy conservatives who like to blow steam on the Internet.

Now, about the WMDs...did Bush really lie about them? Or did he just make an honest mistake? I fully believe the latter...he is only human, after all...unless you could prove me wrong.

[AtticaFlinch]

@Attica: Oh, are they the partycrashers?

The "Obama is Satan people" is just a placeholder for the mean anti-Obama people. I was just bringing up a point against the collective mean anti-Bush people. See, when I hear the word "hate", any slanderous attacks, etc. against former President George W. Bush, I just dismiss them as crazy liberals who like to blow steam on the Internet. Similarly, when things done against President Barack H. Obama, I just dismiss them as crazy conservatives who like to blow steam on the Internet.

Now, about the WMDs...did Bush really lie about them? Or did he just make an honest mistake? I fully believe the latter...he is only human, after all...unless you could prove me wrong.

After 9/11, Bush had huge amounts of goodwill from the American people and the rest of the world. He squandered that due to his gross ineptitude and the actions of the people he surrounded himself with . He was responsible for his actions and other people's perception of him. Obama is disliked not for something he's done, but simply because his ideals don't align with those of his opponents. Can you spot the difference? Do you understand why lumping Obama's detractors and Bush's detractors into the same category is not a very bright thing to do? It's apples and oranges, kid.

[august948]

Now, about the WMDs...did Bush really lie about them? Or did he just make an honest mistake? I fully believe the latter...he is only human, after all...unless you could prove me wrong.

Politicians have a knack for making 'mistakes' that further their agenda. You see this most often as lowball estimates when funding is being discussed.