Town Square

Post a New Topic

Worst. President. Ever.

Original post made by Mike on Apr 9, 2008

This pretty much sums up what I've been thinking for the last six years, about Shrub. He is an embarrassment to America. We have embarrassed ourselves by putting him in office.

As it is, America was entering a time of declining hegemony when Shrub came into office. No American enemy has been able to accomplish what Shrub has accomplished, in terms of helping this great country into steep decline.

We have work to do.

Web Link

""No individual president can compare to the second Bush," wrote one. "Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world's goodwill. In short, no other president's faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large."

"With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct," said another historian. "When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of areas: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life." "

Comments (44)

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 10, 2008 at 7:06 am

Ha! Ha! That little hit piece by Harpers shows how incredibly onobjective and prejudiced the current crop of historians are. Many of us have known this for years.

If the current trend in Iraq continues, Bush we be seen as one of the great world leaders of the past century. His critics will be seen as weak and cowering in the face of evil. Churchill is seen as a great leader, even though he was castigated by the appeasers. Nobody puts Chamberlain up on a pedestal any more, even though he certainly had his supporters in the late 30s.

Most historians are leftists that failed to get their way. Socialsim is dead, Mike. So is your hero, Stalin. Get used to it. You and your historian comrades are on the ashheap of history, confined to surveys of yourselves. Good for a laugh now and then, though, like this little Harpers piece.

Posted by Jim, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Apr 10, 2008 at 7:38 am

Vote McCain.

Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 10, 2008 at 8:10 am

Bush has done more for China and Iran than any of their leaders. Cheney's New American Century will do for the U.S. what the 20th century did for Great Britain.

Posted by 2020, a resident of University South
on Apr 10, 2008 at 9:35 am

Nobody puts Bush up on a pedestal any more, even though he certainly had his supporters in the early 00s.

Posted by Peter, a resident of another community
on Apr 10, 2008 at 10:13 am

Time for your meds, Gary.

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 10, 2008 at 11:02 am

American prestige: trashed
US military: strained to breaking
Iraq war: no win, no plan, no end
Iraq: broken
Iran: going nucular
Taliban: winning
Osama: at large
Terrorists: stronger
National finances: tanked
National debt: record high and growing fast
Katrina: disaster compounded again and again

Yup. Great president.

Posted by Marvin, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 10, 2008 at 11:34 am

Paul better be careful, since you do not like the president and disagree with Gary's position he will accuse you of loving Stalin and being a leftist.
He may even make his cute "two neurons touching" comment.

Posted by june, a resident of Professorville
on Apr 10, 2008 at 12:21 pm

America love it or leave it.

Bush has also done a fantastic job re AIDS in Africa

Posted by Marvin, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 10, 2008 at 12:40 pm

June--right on. That's the sentiment we need. Disagreeing with Bush means you hate america and should leave it.
Boy will that old chestnut ever be ceased to be used to stifle dissent or label those that dare to criticize as un-american

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 10, 2008 at 12:48 pm

The options are to love America or to side with Bush and Co. I've made my choice.

Posted by SUMD, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 10, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Today's WNBC/Marist poll finds the so-called Democratic "dream ticket" of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (in whatever order you'd prefer) woud be edged out by a pairing of John McCain and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who ostensibly isn't seeking the No. 2 post.

Asked if they would prefer McCain/Rice over Clinton/Obama, 49 percent of registered New York voters opted for the GOP ticket compared to 46 percent who went for the Democrats.

Posted by june, a resident of Professorville
on Apr 10, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Air America's rock-bottom ratings offer a valuable lesson:

attempting to fill the left's void of ideas with F-words and ad hominem attacks will not fool the listeners for long.

Liberal theology, as expressed by left-wing talk hosts, has no apparent ideological consistency.

Groups that are linked only by their hatred of President Bush don't really share a commonality of thought or policy goals.

That is the real problem for liberals/Democrats.

A coalition of those who support the unlimited and unrestricted abortion of unborn children,
labor union activists, gay and lesbian groups that oppose traditional marriage,

open-border proponents who see illegal immigrants as political and economic pawns to be played on the national chessboard,

race-oriented activists, gender-oriented activists, conservative southern Democrats who remain linked to the party simply because "great-granddaddy" was a Democrat,

the Code Pink crowd that wants America to retreat and cower in the face of terror,

and all the other constituencies that make up the unholy alliance that has become the modern day Democratic Party is not a coalition of conscience.

The only common link is a desire for political power.

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 10, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Like any herd, Republicans tend to go in the same direction. Under Bush they have stampeded in exactly the right directions for themselves and precisely the wrong directions for America. As Bob Dole used to say, it's that simple.

Posted by rb, a resident of Palo Verde
on Apr 10, 2008 at 2:24 pm

"Bush has also done a fantastic job re AIDS in Africa"
"Also"?? Was there something I missed?

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 10, 2008 at 2:36 pm

You missed nothing. The posting is ironic, whether intended or not. Bush has been pushing his abstinence fantasies on Africa, doing more harm than good. Web Link

Posted by Jane, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 10, 2008 at 2:41 pm

If our nation survives another thousand years, it's extremely unlikely that we'll have a president and administration as awful and as utterly corrupt as this one. The Bush regime has made us despised around the world, we owe trillions of dollars we cannot ever hope to pay off to China, Japan and India. The Bush regime as made a mockery of our constitution and has turned us into a police state. These people ought to be executed for treason, they make me and millions of US citizens ashamed of our country.

Posted by julie, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 10, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Actually the combination of abstinence, fidelity and condoms in that order of priority is the only approach that works in Africa.

Consider this fact: In every African country in which HIV infections have declined, this decline has been associated with a decrease in the proportion of men and women reporting more than one sex partner over the course of a year—which is exactly what fidelity programs promote.

The same association with HIV decline cannot be said for condom use, coverage of HIV testing, treatment for curable sexually transmitted infections, provision of antiretroviral drugs, or any other intervention or behavior.

The other behavior that has often been associated with a decline in HIV prevalence is a decrease in premarital sex among young people.

If AIDS prevention is to be based on evidence rather than ideology or bias, then fidelity and abstinence programs need to be at the center of programs for general populations.

Outside Uganda, we have few good models of how to promote fidelity, since attempts to advocate deep changes in behavior have been almost entirely absent from programs supported by the major Western donors and by AIDS celebrities.

Yet Christian churches—indeed, most faith communities—have a comparative advantage in promoting the needed types of behavior change, since these behaviors conform to their moral, ethical, and scriptural teachings.

What the churches are inclined to do anyway turns out to be what works best in AIDS prevention. Web Link

The list of countries that have seen both changes in sexual behaviors and declining HIV prevalence is growing and now includes Uganda, Kenya, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Thailand, and Cambodia, as well as urban areas of Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Zambia, and Malawi.

Many countries that have not seen declines in HIV have seen increases in condom use, but in every country worldwide in which HIV has declined there have been increases in levels of faithfulness and usually abstinence as well.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 10, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Like so many leftist hatriots, the comrades on this, and other threads on this blog, follow the Walter Duranty school of truth: Selective 'facts' (or lies); true-believing red-diaper (acutally pink and lavender at this point) gullability; socialism-as-a-religion; hate-Bush (above all else); Pulitzer Prize nominations; NY Times-as-the-Paper-of-Record; fawning over European approval, etc.

BTW, for the ignoratti among us, Duranty was the Pulitzer Prize winner, of the NY Times, who covered up the genocide of the Ukranian and Cossack peasants. This genocide was about twice the level of the Jewish holocasut under Hitler. Duranty was hailed by the leftists in this country. Why? Becasue he supported the supposed inevitability of socialism.

We now have the same socialist tribe, that hates Bush, becasue he is a capitalist president, who wants to free Stalinst states, like Iraq. He even has the gaul to call an axis of evil, the Axis of Evil. Shades of Ronald Reagan, who called the USSR the Evil was, but the same leftists had a howl about that. Who had the final say on that one?

In the end, the current hatriots will lose. That is a good thing for the USA.

Posted by Marvin, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 10, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Gary is at it again. Hurling personal insults at those that dare to disagree with him.
Rather than engaging in debate, gary stoops to insults and painting everyone with a broad brush as being leftists/hatriots/pinkos etc.
Gary precludes any real debate by stating in his posts that "real answers" to him are an impossibility.
Do not waste your time with him.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 10, 2008 at 4:55 pm


If you would simply make some rational arguments, I would be glad to engage you in debate. However, if you are having a hard time distingusihing between George W. Bush and Pol Pot, how is rational debate possible?

Yes, Marvin, the serious question, in this case, IS about how many neurons are touching.

Here is a softball for you, Marvin: If Iraq becomes a democracy in the Arab world of tribal and ethnic conflict, after GWB invaded, would you consider GWB one of the great leaders of our time? Or would you resort to the standard pablum of "it happened despite him?", as has happened with the hate-Reagan crowd? Please defend your stance.

Posted by Miles Smiles, a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Apr 10, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Bush is a metaphor for everything that's wrong with the USA-the stupidity, ignorance, greed, militaristic and murderous impulses, the feeling we are exceptional and shouldn't be judged by the moral/legal standards and values we demand other nations to adhere to.
Even if the impossible happens, and Iraq becomes a semi-democratic nation(no chance whatsoever),the Iraq invasion and occupation was dead wrong and a 100% criminal. The US just has no more right to invade other sovereign nations than other nations have of invading us. We have become a lawless nation that decides for other nations which form of government they should have and who should run those governments. This is nothing but Hitlerism. We have done it before Bush, but now it's so blatant, it's obvious that we are not a democracy in any form or shape. Wherever I travel around the world, people who used to admire our principles say to me that we have become the most deadly and criminal nation since the 3rd Reich and Stalinist USSR, and they are totally correct.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 10, 2008 at 5:22 pm

"Wherever I travel around the world, people who used to admire our principles say to me that we have become the most deadly and criminal nation since the 3rd Reich and Stalinist USSR, and they are totally correct."

Smiles, you've bought into hatriotism big time. You travel in strange circles. That is a sad thing for you, personally, but most rational Americans will ignore you.

Is there is any rational debate potential out there? I am willing, but there are no real challenges. Anyone?

Posted by Craig, a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 10, 2008 at 5:31 pm

There are many matters that justify labeling Bush as the worst president in our history. Leaving aside the Iraq mess for a moment, he has contributed to a looming economic catastrophe that has the potential to destroy this nation. US imports actually exceed total US manufacturing output by 5% of GDP, it does not seem possible that the US can close its massive trade deficit. Even if every item manufactured in the US was exported, the US would still have a large trade deficit.

The NIPA and industry tables from which the percentages come are not calculated identically, and I do not know to what extent differences might exaggerate the differences between the percentages. However, it seems unlikely that mere calculation differences would account for US imports exceeding US manufacturing output.

If the US cannot close its trade deficit, it is unlikely that the US dollar can remain the world reserve currency. If the dollar were to lose the reserve currency role, the US government would not be able to finance its annual red ink budget by borrowing from foreigners, as the US saving rate is about zero, and the US would not be able to pay its import bill in its own currency. The rest of the world continues to hold depreciating US currency, because the dollar is the world reserve currency. The dollar is certainly not a good investment having declined dramatically against other traded currencies.

For those who don't understand what's at stake here-the US is financing everything through massive borrowing, including the Iraq occupation. If the dollar collapses as the world's reserve currency, something that seems now almost inevitable, our economy and society would collapse.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 10, 2008 at 6:12 pm


Except for your first two sentences, those are rational arguments. I don't agree with your conclusions, but you are, at least, back on the rational page.

The USA is no longer, primarlily, a manufacturing economy. We also no longer produce cotton with slave labor. Mechanisation with computer inputs, along with demand-driven management, will preserve some of our manufacturing base, but the easily-copied items are gone, unless there is a major breakdown of the international trade system. The Dems, today, did their best, by blocking a free-trade agreement with Columbia. Duh? Is this what Obama or Hillary wants? Really?!

U.S. citizens and much of the rest of the world have benefitted, enormously, from so-called globalization (aka free trade). Are you suggesting that we cancel the free trade agreements, like NAFTA, which was pushed by Bill Clinton? Can you provide a rationale for doing so?

Or are you reverting to the ad hominem attack on GWB? I would hope not, because you are one of the few Bush-haters that has come up with a rational argument.

Please expand your argument.

Posted by marvin, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 10, 2008 at 6:54 pm

clearly Gary you have comprehension problem. You introduce the bush/pol pot red herring. I do not answer and now you continue to beat the dead horse. You preclude debate with your derogatory comments and once again you get your thrills with your "two neuron"comment". Why waste my time with you?

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 10, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Marvin, at the risk of descending into your pit of ignorance, I will ask you, one more time: Is there a difference between GWB and Pol Pot? Please provide a rational response, something you have failed to do, to this point.

My youngest daughter is fond of saying, "Dad, that is so last year!". I gently tell her that "last year" is an immagination. Today is last year, yesterday and today and tomorrow. Where are you, Marvin? If you do, indeed, have more than two neurons touching, you should be capable of answering a simple question. Please, no Duranty-speak. Just use your own neurons, and give it a try. Today.

At least "Craig" had some rational arguments, tenuous as they were. Thus far, you are lacking.

Posted by Marvin, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 10, 2008 at 7:41 pm

There you go again, Gary. Beating the "Bush/Pol pot" dead horse some more.(just so you understand--it is a red herring you introduced--it has nothing to do with the discussions at hand). Then continuing with personal insults and derogatory comments and finally finishing off with your "two neuron" line (do you get a little thrill everytime you use it? Must be)
You are so predictable, Gary. That is your generaly approach to anyone who disagrees with you or dares to criticize Bush. Your words vary but the overall pattern is the same. You need to try a new shtick, Gary. As

Posted by Peter, a resident of another community
on Apr 10, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Good rants, Gary, now it's time for your meds.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 10, 2008 at 8:09 pm


If you want to play in the marbles game, for keeps, you need to be willing lose marbles, or to win them. Thus far, you have been crying about the fact that there is a marbles game. Then you assert that you cannot tell the difference between the kid that draws the circle, and the thug that comes down the street and uses a switch blade on the players.

Besides running shallow, Marvin, you run deep...but in very strange ways.

Once again, Marvin: Is there a difference between GWB and Pol Pot? This is a very honest question, and one that you should, very honestly, be able to answer. Just give the answer. Why do you have such a hard time with this one? My answer is: Yes, there is a huge difference. GWB fought for freedom and demcoracy, while Pol Pot fought for socialist purity, something he learned about on the Left Bank in Paris, and of which he murdured millions of his own peoples. One could blame the French communists, amd their Duranty-speaks, but I primarily blame Pol Pot amd his socialist apologists. How about you, Marvin? You sound like one of them. Defend your case!

This is not complicated, Marvin. Where do you stand? Then expalin why.

Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 10, 2008 at 9:30 pm

...and one last time, Iraq was NOT a sovereign country when we reinvaded, but a nation defeated in war but in default of the UN sanctions and shooting at our planes lawfully patrolling.
Put down the scatter gun and snipe at specifics.Tell me why the statements above are wrong.

Posted by Far away Palo Altan, a resident of another community
on Apr 10, 2008 at 10:05 pm

"Worst. President. Ever. This pretty much sums up what I've been thinking for the last six years"

This says it all. Why even bother to argue about anything said by someone whose sum total of thinking for the last six years can be described in three words?

Posted by Marvin, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 11, 2008 at 6:37 am

Gary--let go of the Bush/Pol pot red herring. It is irrelevant to this thread and the others. It is just a ploy for you to launch into another insult loaded diatribe against those that disagree with you.
You seem to make a habit of "guilt by association"--if someone does not like Bush he must be, therefore, a leftist, and therefore he must have Stalin as his hero and agree with the writings of Walter Duranty and on and on.
Won;t even mention your continued personal insults in your post to me above.

Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 11, 2008 at 7:20 am


It's time to shut this thread down.

Posted by Craig, a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 11, 2008 at 7:47 am

Bush has been the single most disastrous president in every aspect of his presidency, but again, let's focus on the economy.

Until now, Herbert Hoover has been the president most closely associated with economic disaster. He presided over the 1929 stock crash, and choked while the economy collapsed around him. Bush did not preside over the 2000 Nasdaq crash. But he's turned the biggest federal surplus into history's biggest deficit, which a nervous global banking community sees as a potential weapon of mass fiscal destruction. Bush has lost more jobs than Hoover. A top Bush advisor has called outsourcing "just a new way of doing international trade."

Bush has achieved the economic trifecta by simultaneously collapsing the dollar while gutting the industrial infrastructure and running up gargantuan trade deficits. Even GOP conservatives are petrified over a Bush Blowout that could make the 1930s seem a time of widespread prosperity. With Vice President Dick Cheney saying "deficits don't matter," the administration has introduced a form of "kamikaze economics" entirely new to the American presidency.

Posted by Dov, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 11, 2008 at 7:57 am

There's so much to choose from, but here are a few more reasons why Bush is by far the worst president in US history.

Global Contempt:

American presidents from Washington to Lincoln to FDR to JFK have been loved around the world. Jimmy Carter, now an ambassador for peace, may have excited the most global contempt by preaching human rights while embracing the brutal Shah of Iran. But no American president has incited such worldwide hatred as George W. Bush. He has turned the global sympathy from the 9/11 terror attacks into inexpressible rage over the attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, his contempt for the United Nations and his cynical, uncaring arrogance and global ignorance. By blatantly lying to both the United Nations and in the State of the Union, and then unleashing brutal violence, Bush has become the most polarizing president in US history abroad as well as at home.

Military madness:

About a dozen US presidents served in the armed forces. Three-Washington, Grant and Eisenhower-are among history's greatest generals. None ever advocated attacking countries that have not attacked us. All honored the firewall between military and civilian rule by avoiding wearing a military uniform while in office. Bush trashed that tradition with his infamous flight suit. Bill Clinton occupied the short list of presidents known to have dodged the draft. But with an entire cabinet of chickenhawks, Bush gets the Congressional medal for having used his wealth and connections to avoid military service, for likely having gone AWOL and for lying about having ever been in combat. None has heaped such hypocritical praise on American soldiers while slashing their benefits.

Messianic Delusion:

Presidents from Washington to Lincoln to the Roosevelts to Reagan have invoked the name of God. Only Bush claims to speak directly to Him and for Him. Only Bush claims to have been elected by Him (the American people certainly didn't do it). At least since the witch trials of Salem in the 1690s, no other president has ever attempted to impose his personal religion on the nation-or world-as has Bush.

Macho Matricide:

Ronald Reagan ostensibly opposed a women's right to choose, but did little about it. Ditto George H.W. Bush. But W. has launched an unprecedented crusade against women's rights, affirmative action and a whole range of social legislation supporting equality between the races, genders, communities of preference and classes.

Much more could be said. I have not mentioned Bush's attacks on organized labor, health insurance, retirement benefits, renewable energy and much much more.

Posted by fred, a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 11, 2008 at 1:46 pm

The brother of a man that died when his Jeep smashed into Glasgow airport during a terrorist attack today admitted withholding information about the incident.

Sabeel Ahmed, 26, a trained doctor, pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to failing to tell police information about the botched suicide attack that would have been of "considerable assistance". His brother, Kafeel Ahmed, died later from his injuries.

The doctor was arrested near Liverpool Lime Street station on June 30 last year and was charged under the Terrorism Act.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 11, 2008 at 2:20 pm


I will ignore the hystrionics from some of the other Bush-haters (hatriots), and simply take you on a rational basis.

The U.S. economy has never been so wealthy. The world economy has never been so wealthy. World wealth continues to invest in the USA. They know a good thing when they see it. Whatever "trifecta" Bush has accomplihed, it is a good thing, on balance. Would you prefer that Clinton's NAFTA agreement be abolished? Bush doesn't. Hillary doesn't. Barack will say whatever he needs to say to get elected, but he will not change NAFTA. McCain is solid for free trade.

What are you talking about, Craig? Please provide a reasonably full metric that supports your assertions about the US economy.

Posted by get it right, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 11, 2008 at 5:15 pm

"I will ignore the hystrionics from some of the other Bush-haters (hatriots),"
Excuse me, Gary, but that definition of a 'hatriot' is rubbish. It's BECAUSE I love this country that I have such little respect for Bush. And just because I find fault with his performance as President doesn't imply I HATE him. I don't even know the guy - how can I hate him? It's true, however, that I have little respect for him in his role as President. He's caused too much harm to our beloved country - the sooner he's out of office, the better.

Everytime you erroneously use your favorite fallback 'hatriot' attack it underscores your lack of comprehension. One could say you've got only two neur....oh, never mind, you wouldn't get that, either.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 11, 2008 at 7:19 pm

get it,

Actually, I think I get it pretty well. The gut-level hatred for Bush is palpable, and many leftists would prefer a defeat in Iraq, compared to a success for Bush, because they cannot fathom admitting that GWB would be be on the side of history, and they would be on the ash heap. That attitude, is, truly, hatrotism.

Lefties, from my day, hated the very notion of American patriotism. In fact, they thought it was the last bastion of scoundrels. Now, you want me to believe that you all have bought into patriotism? I won't buy that bridge, no matter hard you want to sell it.

Shoe fit?

Posted by Shrink, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 11, 2008 at 8:15 pm

Meds, Gary, meds.

Posted by The Real Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Good job, Gary. Thanks for carrying the torch for freedom and rational thought.

Cracks me up..Germany and France just elected America lovin' leaders: 35 of the 45 DEMOCRACIES in the world were and are with the USA in Iraq, all the non-Russia former iron curtain countries were and are with the US in Iraq, ( because they know communism's brutal dictatorship like our lefties don't), we fill our H1 visas in the first 24 hours of the beginning of the year, we have 250,000 illegal immigrants per year crossing our borders, we have at the minimum 10 times as many people immigrating to the USA as American citizens immigrating to any other country in the whole world, even Canada, 69% of our "poor" own their own homes, we earn more in real dollars today than we ever have in the history of the USA, even during those golden Clinton years, Iraq is becoming the fastest established full democracy ever, with gratitude to the USA and Britain and the countries who helped...need I go on?

Yet, somehow, reality eludes the left. They continue to try to push the fantasy that we are hated, poor, declining etc.

It is a load of..fantasy. The left hates America, and is desperately trying to spread the hate, and is failing.

Posted by The Real Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2008 at 3:02 pm

And it really cooks them that in 10 years the new history books are going to have to acknowledge that we saw the fastest economic growth IN SPITE OF a 9/11, a doubling of the federal education and health budget, the lowest unemployment, a stoppage of some of the worst nuclear weapon build-up ( remember Libya?), the fastest growth of democracy in former full-dictatorships, the realization of full liberty for Afghanistan and Iraq, the first use of embryos for federally funded embryonic stem cell research ( which fries me, really),


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 12, 2008 at 3:04 pm


Thanks, I enjoy the ride.

Now, how about some rational responses from the lefties? "Craig", I'm still waiting for that metric that demonstrates that the U.S. is a failing economy. At least Craig tried a rational argument, and I accept his effort. Other than him, though, it has been histrionics and hatriotism.

Posted by The Real Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Oops, forgot that we were in a REAL ( not just feared, like we have been for 7 years) recession when Bush took over, and we pulled out of that, also, in spite of 9/11 which rocked our economy.

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

On Tour at Selective Schools: Chapman, La Verne, Redlands, Whittier
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 1,685 views

The dress code
By Jessica T | 15 comments | 1,516 views

Two Days to Save This Dog?
By Cathy Kirkman | 13 comments | 1,011 views

. . . People will never forget how you made them feel.
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 873 views

It Depends... Disguising Real Characters in Fiction
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 297 views