On a scale of one to ten , how would you rate Bush ?

[Cutlass]

Carter: 1977-1981, presides over the larget increase in the price of oil in the history of the US.

Reagan: 1981-1989, Brings oil price from a record high, back down to pre-Carter levels.

Bush I: 1989-1993, Except for a blip of the Gulf War, prices remain at pre-Carter levels. Net result - no change.

Clinton: 1993-2001, A dip resulting from Asian economic crisis and a recovery. Net result - no change.

Bush II: Prices spike due to war, no surprise.

We can do gas instead of oil, but there will be no difference. You are just wrong.



How wrong can one get? Keep trying though, your partisan hackery will get better with practice.

There's a fundamental difference between what happens on a president's watch and what happened as a result of the president's actions and policies.

 

[Ecofarm]

There's a fundamental difference between what happens on a president's watch and what happened as a result of the president's actions and policies.

I'm not trying to prove that the president has any influence on the economy - certainly not during his term. I was proving that this is wrong:

No, he still has em I belive. And yes, the president could regulate the price of gas, if it wasn't so profitable for him to look the other way. I garrentee you, if Clinton or Obama are elected, gas prices will plumit.
Look at it this way....
Carter-low gas prices
Regan- high gas prices
Bush-high gas prices
Clinton-low gas prices
Bush-high gas prices
Anyone else see the connection?

And my proof stands. Carter saw some of the highest gas prices in history, and during Reagan those prices returned to pre-Carter levels. Further, neither Bush I nor Clinton saw significantly expensive or cheap gas; 89-01 were pretty average gas prices.

There's a fundamental difference between Sephiroth's post and reality. If he want's to play the "but Carter caused the gas price to drop 6-7 years after his presidency", then the current price is Clinton's fault.

There's no way around it. He is inversely incorrect on the 1st two, and just wrong on the second two. He's only correct about the current price... that's weak. Given his evidence, you'll understand if I flush his gaurantee.

 

[Quildavyr]

He had two terms.And USA still exists."7" is fine for him

 

[Boris Godunov]

Bush gets a 2, but Cheney gets a 0 as our worst president ever.

 

[bhsup]

...

Cheney was never our President.

 

[Ambidexter]

My major objection to Bush is his pro-Al Qaeda effort. That man has done more for recruitment and funding of Middle East terrorism than anyone else in the world.

 

[Boris Godunov]

...

Cheney was never our President.

 

[JollyRoger]

...

Cheney was never our President.

Someone should break it to him.

 

[choxorn]

-12!

Oh, wait, I can't go any lower than 1. 1 then.

 

[WICKLC1]

I think he has done what most of the other presidents would have done under the same situation, mediocre, but we aren't dying by the millions or having our civil rights flushed down the toilet like some people seem to think.

Also, if you could blame 9/11 on anyone it would be the Clinton administration and the CIA.

 

[choxorn]

The Clinton Administration may have failed to see it coming, but considering that the CIA told the White House Al Qaeda was planning something pretty much daily for the 8 months between Bush's inauguration and 9/11...

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I think he has done what most of the other presidents would have done under the same situation, mediocre, but we aren't dying by the millions or having our civil rights flushed down the toilet like some people seem to think.

Also, if you could blame 9/11 on anyone it would be the Clinton administration and the CIA.

No. Clinton was wicked close to catching Osama bin Laden and if Bush had continued, he probably would have cuaght him. But Bush took no heed, and 9/11 happened, which actually gave him a ton of political leverage (see 88% approval rating, Patriot Act, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, his 2004 re-election)

 

[Ecofarm]

No. Clinton was wicked close to catching Osama bin Laden and if Bush had continued, he probably would have cuaght him. But Bush took no heed, and 9/11 happened

How absurd!

What do you think Sandy Berger stole and destroyed from the national archives for Clinton? Evidence of his (possibly criminal) inaction, that's what. When Berger destroyed those documents, he destroyed any hope of Clinton being legit, ever.

 

[WICKLC1]

Clinton actually had a chance to nail Bin Laden back in the 90's, a sniper I think, but he chose not to.

 

[Cutlass]

Clinton actually had a chance to nail Bin Laden back in the 90's, a sniper I think, but he chose not to.

Because it would have upset the Saudi's too much. bin Laden was very in with the royal family.

 

[MobBoss]

Because it would have upset the Saudi's too much. bin Laden was very in with the royal family.

Dude...do some reading. The guy was exiled under penalty of death.

 

[Neomega]

Clinton actually had a chance to nail Bin Laden back in the 90's, a sniper I think, but he chose not to.

You got that . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . from some hollywood movie or tv show. It enraged Bill Clinton that it was shown.

 

[WICKLC1]

I'm pretty sure that he did have the chance. The movie just dramatized the event. It was some kind of docudrama. I've never actually seen it though.

 

[Neomega]

I'm pretty sure that he did have the chance. The movie just dramatized the event. It was some kind of docudrama. I've never actually seen it though.

"pretty sure"?

try backing it up sometime... or better yet, drop the fantasy.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I voted 10














-












9.