Is George Bush a Good President?

[Rev Rabies]

watch the swears link

[Gamefreak]

I took care of it, and Link104, that'll be a first warning for you, please refrain from swearing unless absolutely necessary.

[MasterKeyX]

maybe this topic shiuld be locked before someone gets banned?

[Gamefreak]

No, the topic is still on course with nothing bad happening except for the warning.  It can still continue if we can refrain from outbursts like that.

[MasterKeyX]

alright, but gotta be careful...emotions can run high and people get angry in political debates.

[Gamefreak]

I know, but we just have to be mature enough to not lose our cool like that.

[Pale Dim]

I took care of it, and Link104, that'll be a first warning for you, please refrain from swearing unless absolutely necessary.

Sorry.

[Gamefreak]

It's ok, just try to refrain from it from now on.  However, this should get back on topic.

[Jack]

I voted OK, because I think he's had an equally positive and negative effect on the country. On one had he's prosecuted the War on Terror well, so much so we've basically crippled the Al Qaeda leadership and prevented any further terror attacks on US soil, and he also helped keep the economy out of recession following 9/11 and kept the economy puttering along well enough since then. On the other hand, he's pursued a lot of stupid policies, like his stance on illegal immigration and allowing the Europeans to play footsy with Iran and NK, rather than using Hardball diplomacy backed up with strict sanctions and possibly force if whatever forbid it ever came to that.

I'm also a little mad at his betrayal of basic conservative principles like smaller government and the pursual of ineffective social policies that have consequently driven me into the Libertarian camp.

That said, I'll head back to my undisclosed location.  

[Pale Dim]

Well Jack, that certantly is a good point, but just think, even now Canada has started a thing against him, and is even starting to think about suceeding, plus, in his point of view, the war on terror comes first, BEFORE the economy, which in my point of veiw, is COMPLETLY wrong. There you go, that's my reason, end of story.

[Jack]

the war on terror comes first, BEFORE the economy, which in my point of veiw, is COMPLETLY wrong.

Wait, two questions: one, what do you mean about Canada? I didn't really catch what you said there.

Second: putting the war before the economy makes perfect sense. What good would watching the economy do and ignoring terror if that means the possibility of a nuke attack or some other serious terror attack, which would that in turn lead to a serious economic shockwave which could in turn crash the stock market.

He really has not done that bad with the economy, the US right now has one of the lowest unemployment rates in our history, and the highest number of job we've ever had. Our economy has been growing at @ 4% every quarter, which for a multi-trillion dollar economy means billions and billions of dollars in growth.

Ultimately he's trying to balance the two, and I think he's done a good job in that regard.

[Gamefreak]

Well said.  It's important that the war on terror is fought with diligence, if we let up on them, they might attack again.

And on what you said about Canada...There was a terror plot foiled there, but that doesn't mean Canada is trying to get us.

[MasterKeyX]

hes done good.I watched his press conference on Fox and he made many good points about Iraq, Iran, and the war.

[Pale Dim]

I'll shut up, now.

[Rev Rabies]

You don't need to shut up link