mrs Posted July 27, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 45 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,081 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 53 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/13/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 27, 2007 That is true for all of us. We are not someone else. However ther can be similarities in historical circumstances Yes there can be. However, the challenges that Bush has faced in his presidency pale in comparison to the challenges faced by Lincoln or FDR. Instead of trying to compare Bush to them in the hopes of redeeming Bush's Presidency in some way, we ought to just thank that good Lord that during those extremely trying times in our nation's history we had men like Lincoln and FDR in the Whitehouse instead of a man like Bush, else our nation may well have not survived. I'm a Canadian and I dislike the Iraqi war, but I don't see what makes you have such a problem with him. I don't consider him a bad president at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted July 27, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 27, 2007 That is true for all of us. We are not someone else. However ther can be similarities in historical circumstances Yes there can be. However, the challenges that Bush has faced in his presidency pale in comparison to the challenges faced by Lincoln or FDR. Instead of trying to compare Bush to them in the hopes of redeeming Bush's Presidency in some way, we ought to just thank that good Lord that during those extremely trying times in our nation's history we had men like Lincoln and FDR in the Whitehouse instead of a man like Bush, else our nation may well have not survived. I'm a Canadian and I dislike the Iraqi war, but I don't see what makes you have such a problem with him. I don't consider him a bad president at all. I think he is a decent person, I am sure he would be quite likable in person. However, by the judgement of most Americans, he has been a terrible president. You say you dislike the Iraq war, well, we are there because of him. He also failed the country in the aftermath of Katrina (in fact, it was a national disgrace), has a record of appointing extremely incompetent people to key positions based on their political loyalty alone, has what may well be the most insular administration in American history, distorts science, has an abysmal environmental record, is remarkably vindictive at times, has not always been honest with the American people, and by the time he leaves office, he will have added more the the national debt than all over previous presidents combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted July 27, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted July 27, 2007 I don't romanticize Lincoln and FDR - I'm well aware that they weren't perfect as presidents or as people. But both of them were great leaders. They were shrewd men who knew how to connect with people and earn their respect, surrounded themselves with intelligent advisors, and thought forward. Ultimately, history lends them greatness for successes they had as a result; I suspect that Bush will be remembered less kindly for the mess into which he has plunged the country in large part because he has not done, or simply does not know how to do, those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senerhu Posted July 27, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 120 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,661 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/23/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 27, 2007 I wonder how Lincoln would have fared in those polls during the Civil War? Bush is no Lincoln... It's like comparing a dime to a dollar. If Bush were president during the Civil War, half way through it, he would have pulled the majority of the union troops out of the south, and invaded Canada with them. I hope this is just an attempt at humor. It is. But there is some truth to it, Bush is no Lincoln. Since this is strictly hypothetical, I 'll say Bush could have done a better job than Lincoln... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axxman Posted July 27, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 24 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,292 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 27, 2007 I'll tell you what Lincoln NEVER had to deal with: The media! The media has done a very successful job of tainting the Bush Presidency. The American public has become largely socialist and has no need for a conservative president, so they believe whatever the media tells them...most Americans don't even question the media because they simply don't care if they are getting the truth or not. Concerning the article... I am most interested to read Bush's memoirs when they come out in a few years. I'm not sure I agree with the article fully in regards to whether Bush is that worried about his numbers. If Bush was that concerned about his numbers he wouldn't make half of the decisions he makes. I think Bush is FAR MORE motivated by doing what he believes is the "right thing" to do...whether anyone else agrees or not. I think Bush takes care to inform people WHY he makes the decisions he does...I think that the peoples acceptance of those decisions is secondary...and the media's opinion is way down on the priority list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted July 27, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 27, 2007 I'll tell you what Lincoln NEVER had to deal with: The media! The media has done a very successful job of tainting the Bush Presidency. The American public has become largely socialist and has no need for a conservative president, so they believe whatever the media tells them...most Americans don't even question the media because they simply don't care if they are getting the truth or not. Concerning the article... I am most interested to read Bush's memoirs when they come out in a few years. I'm not sure I agree with the article fully in regards to whether Bush is that worried about his numbers. If Bush was that concerned about his numbers he wouldn't make half of the decisions he makes. I think Bush is FAR MORE motivated by doing what he believes is the "right thing" to do...whether anyone else agrees or not. I think Bush takes care to inform people WHY he makes the decisions he does...I think that the peoples acceptance of those decisions is secondary...and the media's opinion is way down on the priority list. Lincoln did not have to deal with the media??? The media was far more vicious in the day of Lincoln than they are today. Bush's failed policies have done a successful job of tainting the Bush Presidency, the media only reports the results of those failures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kat8585 Posted July 27, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,360 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 7,866 Content Per Day: 1.23 Reputation: 26 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1946 Share Posted July 27, 2007 the media only reports the results of those failures. But you never hear about the positive things or the successes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senerhu Posted July 27, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 120 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,661 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/23/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 27, 2007 the media only reports the results of those failures. But you never hear about the positive things or the successes. or reports half truths or distortions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axxman Posted July 28, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 24 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,292 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 28, 2007 Lincoln did not have to deal with the media??? The media was far more vicious in the day of Lincoln than they are today. Bush's failed policies have done a successful job of tainting the Bush Presidency, the media only reports the results of those failures. Seriously...you are going to compare a few newspapers in Lincolns era to 30 cable news networks, 1000's of internets newsites and blogs, and up to 5-10 newspapers in every major US city??? You can't seriously be prepared to say that Lincoln had to "deal" with the media in comparison to what Bush has to deal with. Honest Abe's biggest problem with the media was figuring out where to detain the ones who criticized him. Lincoln ordered military action against a newspaper that criticized him...and imprisoned the editor of the newspaper. Yeah, he really had troubles with the media...lol. Can you imagine that scenario today? Bush has ZERO control over the lies that the media spins. You think Bush is imperialistic...Lincoln was 'the man' in that catagory! He placed the media under Federal control and monitored it...he imprisoned ANYONE who dealt in misinformation. CNN would have to relocate to Guantanamo if Bush did what Lincoln did. You are dealing in intellectual dishonesty if you intend to peddle the notion that the media merely 'reports' the results of failed policies. Even you have to admit that the media is rife with opinionated editorial and unverifiable "news" concerning the President. I think you can be honest about the media and still hate the President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted July 28, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 28, 2007 Lincoln did not have to deal with the media??? The media was far more vicious in the day of Lincoln than they are today. Bush's failed policies have done a successful job of tainting the Bush Presidency, the media only reports the results of those failures. Seriously...you are going to compare a few newspapers in Lincolns era to 30 cable news networks, 1000's of internets newsites and blogs, and up to 5-10 newspapers in every major US city??? You can't seriously be prepared to say that Lincoln had to "deal" with the media in comparison to what Bush has to deal with. Honest Abe's biggest problem with the media was figuring out where to detain the ones who criticized him. Lincoln ordered military action against a newspaper that criticized him...and imprisoned the editor of the newspaper. Yeah, he really had troubles with the media...lol. Can you imagine that scenario today? Bush has ZERO control over the lies that the media spins. You think Bush is imperialistic...Lincoln was 'the man' in that catagory! He placed the media under Federal control and monitored it...he imprisoned ANYONE who dealt in misinformation. CNN would have to relocate to Guantanamo if Bush did what Lincoln did. You are dealing in intellectual dishonesty if you intend to peddle the notion that the media merely 'reports' the results of failed policies. Even you have to admit that the media is rife with opinionated editorial and unverifiable "news" concerning the President. I think you can be honest about the media and still hate the President. I don't hate the president. He faces the same media that every other president faces. He also has virtually all of talk radio, Fox New's prime-time lineup, several conservative publications, nearly countless internet right wing rags, and right wing bloggers cheerleading for him, spinning, and in some cases out and out lying for him. If Bush were more pragmatic and moderate, he would be much more popular. It's that simple. Why is it that the party of "Personal Responsibility" never seems to take responsibility for any of their failures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts