The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Just curious if anyone who actually likes George Bush (as a president - don't give me "i'd like to have a beer with him" shit) thinks they are an actual intelligent person. Because you have to be deaf, dumb, and blind if you don't think this guy is the biggest fuck up this country has ever seen.

Can someone actually name 1 positive contribution that George Bush has made to this country?

Tax cuts are fine if you can cut spending to match.  Unfortunately, the Bush administration spent like crazy,

and gave tax cuts to the wealthiest of the population.

Bush has hurt many things, including our standing in the world.

Bush is an utter failure by the standards set by his own party...

He will be remembered for his mis-handling of Iraq

and Katrina most of all.

From an objective standpoint, everything he's touched has been a complete debacle.  And even from a partisan standpoint, on his own side, he's been a failure.  People that still support him at this point are a lost cause.

If you can seriously say that the last screwup this country had was Clinton's blowjob, then you need your head examined, as you are completely brainwashed.

I am a huge liberal...

People that still support him at this point are a lost cause.

I am a huge liberal, but I'd like to think that I wouldn't blindly support a candidate just because he was a democrat that was a complete failure.

Bush is an utter failure by the standards set by his own party, not to mention the Democrats.  He will be remembered for his mis-handling of Iraq and Katrina most of all.

Not to mention him instituting policies that invade our civil liberties and setting up secret bases around the country where U.S. citizens are being held against their will and tortured in the name of counterterrorism. 

You can add the extremely high gas prices and the housing crisis to that too.

you can blame a lot of shit on bush. but high gas prices and housing troubles are 100% the fault of the federal reserve.

We might be liked less, but we're probably respected more... 

I think first term I supported him,then during his second term everything we "thought " he was doing that was good...

so i guess that means Supporting him is like supporting the dolphins.

Do you think you would have supported Jimmy Carter during his presidency. No offense, but that guy is worst then bush.  I could name 9 others who are worst, Bush certainly isn't the greatest but he sure as hell isn't the worst.

 

I personally think franklin pierce was and continues to be the worst president in the history of the us. bush has a lot of catching up to do to be worse than the guy, who more than any single person brought about the civil war.

Just to name a few

James Buchanan (worst president ever), Warren G harding,  Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Rutherford D Hayes, Franklin Pierce, William H. Harrison, James Garfield, Herbert Hoover, and Andrew Johnson

But hey, if you don't want to listen to a person that is big on history, be my guest. History is not on your side

Yeah you thought that t i would put only democrats on this list, right? Well . Both parties have had their fair share of bad presidents  Even the whig party have had worst.

I'm not debating whether or not he's been a disaster, he hasn't been successful, but the worst?, not even close.

Actually do some research on Carter, you will be surprised he wasn't as great as you think. There is a reason why Democrats are distancing themselves from him. Take the hint,

This is why i don't bother going into political discussions since there are people that are so ignorant, that they think whatever they say is right and what everyone else said is wrong.  It's so pointless.

Whatever, kid.  You would have impressed me slightly had you told me WHY instead of googling "worST presidents ever" and typing some names.

I asked you WHAT made Carter worSE?  (notice the ignorant spelling)

What good would me telling you why he is worse then bush. You won't listen.

Now I'm primed and ready to pull that handle on the Democrats side. This country is a mess. The boarders are been trampled daily, Medical and Insurance co$ts are killing American Business, Gas Prices are INSANE..........and what do they give us? Hillary and Obama!?  They are making it VERY hard to vote their way. Very hard.  :|

^ Yep...everyone is stupid.  Resigning over one scandal most certainly trumps all the shit going on today.   ::)

If you thought Bill Clinton did a good job, vote for Hillary.

Exactly what amazing stuff did he do? He was not personally responsible for the economy, Greenspan had more to do with that the Billy did.
Lets not forget the spineless Demo's who kept voting for the war, the Patriot Act, spending, etc.
Personally I feel the worst presidential election was 1876. The Dem's offered the GOP the White House in exchange for ending Reconstruction, and the GOP readily accepted. It doe not get too much worse than that.

Yeah, nevermind the Pentagon Papers, his corrupt cabinet members, his increasing of military spending at the expense of education and healthcare, his own personal tax fraud, and the oil crisis that resulted in part from our involvement in the Israeli war with Syria.

^ Yep...everyone is stupid.  Resigning over one scandal most certainly trumps all the shit going on today.   ::)

What made Carter worse than Bush?

I don't care who has gotten blow jobs or spied on others.

Medical and Insurance co$ts are killing American Business, Gas Prices are INSANE..........and what do they give us? Hillary and Obama!?  They are making it VERY hard to vote their way. Very hard.  :|

Department of Energy and the Department of Education

I always find it amusing when someone that wasn't alive during a president's time in office ranks that president. 

Jimmy Carter wasn't a great president but, like most presidents, there are good things that came out of his time in office.  Namely the Department of Energy and the Department of Education (created by the Carter Administration).

Education Lessons We Left Behind

By George F. Will
Thursday, April 24, 2008

If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

Let us limp down memory lane to mark this week's melancholy 25th anniversary of a national commission's report that galvanized Americans to vow to do better. Today the nation still ignores what had been learned years before 1983.

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once puckishly said that data indicated that the leading determinant of the quality of public schools, measured by standardized tests, was the schools' proximity to Canada. He meant that the geographic correlation was stronger than the correlation between high test scores and high per-pupil expenditures.

Moynihan also knew that schools cannot compensate for the disintegration of families and hence communities -- the primary transmitters of social capital. No reform can enable schools to cope with the 36.9 percent of all children and 69.9 percent of black children today born out of wedlock, which means, among many other things, a continually renewed cohort of unruly adolescent males.

Chester Finn, a former Moynihan aide, notes in his splendid new memoir ("Troublemaker: A Personal History of School Reform Since Sputnik") that during the Depression-era job scarcity, high schools were used to keep students out of the job market, shunting many into nonacademic classes. By 1961, those classes had risen to 43 percent of all those taken by students. After 1962, when New York City signed the nation's first collective bargaining contract with teachers, teachers began changing from members of a respected profession into just another muscular faction fighting for more government money. Between 1975 and 1980 there were a thousand strikes involving a million teachers whose salaries rose as students' scores on standardized tests declined.

In 1964, SAT scores among college-bound students peaked. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) codified confidence in the correlation between financial inputs and cognitive outputs in education. But in 1966, the Coleman report, the result of the largest social science project in history, reached a conclusion so "seismic" -- Moynihan's description -- that the government almost refused to publish it.

Released quietly on the Fourth of July weekend, the report concluded that the qualities of the families from which children come to school matter much more than money as predictors of schools' effectiveness. The crucial common denominator of problems of race and class -- fractured families -- would have to be faced.

But it wasn't. Instead, shopworn panaceas -- larger teacher salaries, smaller class sizes -- were pursued as colleges were reduced to offering remediation to freshmen.

In 1976, for the first time in its 119-year history, the National Education Association, the teachers union, endorsed a presidential candidate, Jimmy Carter, who repaid it by creating the Education Department, a monument to the premise that money and government programs matter most. At the NEA's behest, the nation has expanded the number of teachers much faster than the number of students has grown. Hiring more, rather than more competent, teachers meant more dues-paying union members. For decades, schools have been treated as laboratories for various equity experiments. Fads incubated in education schools gave us "open" classrooms, teachers as "facilitators of learning" rather than transmitters of knowledge, abandonment of a literary canon in the name of "multiculturalism," and so on, producing a majority of high school juniors who could not locate the Civil War in the proper half-century.

In 1994, Congress grandly decreed that by 2000 the high school graduation rate would be "at least" 90 percent and that American students would be "first in the world in mathematics and science achievement." Moynihan, likening such goals to Soviet grain quotas -- solemnly avowed, never fulfilled -- said: "That will not happen." It did not.

Moynihan was a neoconservative before neoconservatism became a doctrine of foreign policy hubris. Originally, it taught domestic policy humility. Moynihan, a social scientist, understood that social science tells us not what to do but what is not working, which today includes No Child Left Behind. Finn thinks NCLB got things backward: "The law should have set uniform standards and measures for the nation, then freed states, districts and schools to produce those results as they think best." Instead, it left standards up to the states, which have an incentive to dumb them down to make compliance easier.

A nation at risk? Now more than ever.

In theory and operated properly they actually would have been very good.

Theory vs reality.  How the world should work vs how it actually works.  It's the quintessential liberal vs conservative argument. 

...many believe that Bush will be seen unfavorably as time goes on.