Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Disinformation.

So this is Tit for Tat season?  Since one side did it to the other, it's the other guy's turn now?  This is the way we want our politicians and citizens to behave now?  I gave Bush all the credit and leeway I could give, he was my president.  Do I disagree with almost everything he ever did in office?  Sure I do, but I still respected and supported him because he was my president.  That's all I am asking those on your side to do for Obama.

 

Do I think he should be scrutinized, of course he should.  But attacking and undermining him before he takes office isn't scrutiny. It's partisian politics ment to weaken an incoming president.


Everyman wrote:

And the way the Democrats went after Reagan and Bush.    Why do you think Obama should be given any more or any less scrutiny than Bush has been? 

 


fforgnayr wrote:

That wasn't my point.  My point was that Republicans will go after Obama the way they went aftrer Clinton.  Complete fishing to find anything they can.

 


Everyman wrote:

Billions of dollars and years of investigations over WhiteWater and all they could come up with was him lying about having sex.

 

It was more -- much  more -- than lying about having sex.  It was  a lawyer, and the man in absolute charge of the Justice Department, committing clear and unequivocal perjury.  Lying under oath.  He was disbarred for that, and properly so.  Of course he doesn't care, he's making hundreds of millions of dollars in other ways, but to the legal profession, it was a very big deal, and it should have been a very big deal to anybody who believes in the importance of integrity in our judicial system. 

 


fforgnayr wrote:

if it wasn't the way the campaing was financed it would be something else.  Look what happended to Clinton.  Billions of dollars and years of investigations over WhiteWater and all they could come up with was him lying about having sex.  Jerry Falwell even sold a video tape on his broadcast accusing the Clinton's of murder and drug smuggling. 

 

But if a Democrat complained about Sara Palin's qualifications or her horrible interview skills, we were called sexist and every thing else. 

 

There is a doulbe standard on the right.  They come after us with everything they got but if we dare fight back we are communists, socialists, anti-American, love terrorists and every other stupid thing out there. 

 

They need to get over it, they lost, shut up, quit complaining and move on.

 

 


 

 


 


 

 


 

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Disinformation.

Do I disagree with almost everything [Bush] ever did in office?  Sure I do, but I still respected and supported him because he was my president.

 

So you supported his invasion of Iraq and his spending on the war there? And you supported his decision to ban stem cell research?   I'm impressed!

 


fforgnayr wrote:

So this is Tit for Tat season?  Since one side did it to the other, it's the other guy's turn now?  This is the way we want our politicians and citizens to behave now?  I gave Bush all the credit and leeway I could give, he was my president.  Do I disagree with almost everything he ever did in office?  Sure I do, but I still respected and supported him because he was my president.  That's all I am asking those on your side to do for Obama.

 

Do I think he should be scrutinized, of course he should.  But attacking and undermining him before he takes office isn't scrutiny. It's partisian politics ment to weaken an incoming president.


Everyman wrote:

And the way the Democrats went after Reagan and Bush.    Why do you think Obama should be given any more or any less scrutiny than Bush has been? 

 


fforgnayr wrote:

That wasn't my point.  My point was that Republicans will go after Obama the way they went aftrer Clinton.  Complete fishing to find anything they can.

 


Everyman wrote:

Billions of dollars and years of investigations over WhiteWater and all they could come up with was him lying about having sex.

 

It was more -- much  more -- than lying about having sex.  It was  a lawyer, and the man in absolute charge of the Justice Department, committing clear and unequivocal perjury.  Lying under oath.  He was disbarred for that, and properly so.  Of course he doesn't care, he's making hundreds of millions of dollars in other ways, but to the legal profession, it was a very big deal, and it should have been a very big deal to anybody who believes in the importance of integrity in our judicial system. 

 


fforgnayr wrote:

if it wasn't the way the campaing was financed it would be something else.  Look what happended to Clinton.  Billions of dollars and years of investigations over WhiteWater and all they could come up with was him lying about having sex.  Jerry Falwell even sold a video tape on his broadcast accusing the Clinton's of murder and drug smuggling. 

 

But if a Democrat complained about Sara Palin's qualifications or her horrible interview skills, we were called sexist and every thing else. 

 

There is a doulbe standard on the right.  They come after us with everything they got but if we dare fight back we are communists, socialists, anti-American, love terrorists and every other stupid thing out there. 

 

They need to get over it, they lost, shut up, quit complaining and move on.

 

 


 

 


 


 

 


 


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Disinformation.

No I didn't, but he is my president and I showed respect for his decesions.  What I did not do is attack him as a person and call him names because I disagree with decesions he made.  I did not disparage his reasoning or his convictions.  I did not second guess the decesions he made and decide that he had ulterior motives behind those decesions. I did not, as a citizen, try to undermine his character and blame him for every negative thing going on in this country.  He is still the person who represents my country to the rest of the world, wether I agree with him all the time or not.  There is a difference between having a serious disagreement on issues and making disparaging remarks about a man's character or motives.
"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Disinformation.

Your first statement was that "I still respected and supported him because he was my president."  Now you're modifying that "supported" to "I showed respect for his decesions."   I have to wonder, though, whether you really did respect his decision to prohibit US funds overseas from being used to discuss abortion, or his decision to ban certain stem cell research. 

 

But no matter.  I think I understand what you are saying -- that opposition should be based on policies, not personality.  

 

OTOH, we do have to keep in mind, I think, that both McCain and Obama set a very low bar during their campaigns for how to respect your opponent.  Both of them resorted to trying to undermine the character of the other (though McCain did object publicly when his followers went too far in this).  But with both candidates having engaged in "disparaging remarks about a man's character or motives," it's hard to expect the voter to show more restraint and responsibility.  It would be nice, but the examples we've been given from the top aren't very encouraging. 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Setting an example.

But with both candidates having engaged in "disparaging remarks about a man's character or motives," it's hard to expect the voter to show more restraint and responsibility.  It would be nice, but the examples we've been given from the top aren't very encouraging. 

 

So does this mean that folks here should stoop to the same level?  Given that we are supposed to be a community of intelligent people who read books to garner our information, shouldn't everyone here try to rise above the level of the gutter press?    

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Your first statement was that "I still respected and supported him because he was my president."  Now you're modifying that "supported" to "I showed respect for his decesions."   I have to wonder, though, whether you really did respect his decision to prohibit US funds overseas from being used to discuss abortion, or his decision to ban certain stem cell research. 

 

But no matter.  I think I understand what you are saying -- that opposition should be based on policies, not personality.  

 

OTOH, we do have to keep in mind, I think, that both McCain and Obama set a very low bar during their campaigns for how to respect your opponent.  Both of them resorted to trying to undermine the character of the other (though McCain did object publicly when his followers went too far in this).  But with both candidates having engaged in "disparaging remarks about a man's character or motives," it's hard to expect the voter to show more restraint and responsibility.  It would be nice, but the examples we've been given from the top aren't very encouraging. 

 


 

Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Setting an example.

Amen.  Thank you for your voice of reason.

Choisya wrote:

But with both candidates having engaged in "disparaging remarks about a man's character or motives," it's hard to expect the voter to show more restraint and responsibility.  It would be nice, but the examples we've been given from the top aren't very encouraging. 

 

So does this mean that folks here should stoop to the same level?  Given that we are supposed to be a community of intelligent people who read books to garner our information, shouldn't everyone here try to rise above the level of the gutter press?    

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Your first statement was that "I still respected and supported him because he was my president."  Now you're modifying that "supported" to "I showed respect for his decesions."   I have to wonder, though, whether you really did respect his decision to prohibit US funds overseas from being used to discuss abortion, or his decision to ban certain stem cell research. 

 

But no matter.  I think I understand what you are saying -- that opposition should be based on policies, not personality.  

 

OTOH, we do have to keep in mind, I think, that both McCain and Obama set a very low bar during their campaigns for how to respect your opponent.  Both of them resorted to trying to undermine the character of the other (though McCain did object publicly when his followers went too far in this).  But with both candidates having engaged in "disparaging remarks about a man's character or motives," it's hard to expect the voter to show more restraint and responsibility.  It would be nice, but the examples we've been given from the top aren't very encouraging. 

 


 


 

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Disinformation.

Actually yes I did respect his decisions, he is the president, he sets policy for this country not me.  Wether or not I agree has no bearing on the respect I show the man who holds the office of the presidency.
"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Disinformation.

Respect for the "Office of the President" as well as the President as a person, is what we all should expect from our fellow countrymen, regardless of whether or not we agree with his/her policies. There were people who, without restraint or caution, wished the worst things on President Bush and his family during the last eight years. These very same people who were so disrespectful are now demanding respect for President-elect Obama.
I am glad that you were not one of those people and I am glad that although I do not agree with many of Obama's policies, I still support and respect him has the new leader of what we call "the free world". I just pray that we remain that way under his leadership. His will be a trial by ordeal and we don't need any rabble-rousers making it harder for him.
twj
fforgnayr wrote:
No I didn't, but he is my president and I showed respect for his decesions. What I did not do is attack him as a person and call him names because I disagree with decesions he made. I did not disparage his reasoning or his convictions. I did not second guess the decesions he made and decide that he had ulterior motives behind those decesions. I did not, as a citizen, try to undermine his character and blame him for every negative thing going on in this country. He is still the person who represents my country to the rest of the world, wether I agree with him all the time or not. There is a difference between having a serious disagreement on issues and making disparaging remarks about a man's character or motives.

 

Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Disinformation.

Ultimately, we should all want our President to be successful in taking care of our country. I would much rather have no national debt, no wars that we can't get out of, and not be in a recession than see Bush leave with the country the way it is, and an incredibly low approval rating. I don't want to say " I told you so" to those that voted for Bush. I'd rather say, I was wrong, he did a great job. Because when the President does a great job, we all benefit. There are many people that don't see it that way, and many people that would be glad and are rooting for Obama's administration to crash and burn even if that meant the country was worse off.
A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Disinformation.

Thank you for your comments.  You give me hope that there are at least of few of you on the "right" that are rational citizens.  That you care about this country more than you do your party or ideology.  That you have respect for the office of the Presidency.  That no matter who hold the office that they deserve your support and respect because they represent you just as much as he represents me.  I just hope that more of the "right" in this country comes to believe this as well.

thewanderingjew wrote:
Respect for the "Office of the President" as well as the President as a person, is what we all should expect from our fellow countrymen, regardless of whether or not we agree with his/her policies. There were people who, without restraint or caution, wished the worst things on President Bush and his family during the last eight years. These very same people who were so disrespectful are now demanding respect for President-elect Obama.
I am glad that you were not one of those people and I am glad that although I do not agree with many of Obama's policies, I still support and respect him has the new leader of what we call "the free world". I just pray that we remain that way under his leadership. His will be a trial by ordeal and we don't need any rabble-rousers making it harder for him.
twj
fforgnayr wrote:
No I didn't, but he is my president and I showed respect for his decesions. What I did not do is attack him as a person and call him names because I disagree with decesions he made. I did not disparage his reasoning or his convictions. I did not second guess the decesions he made and decide that he had ulterior motives behind those decesions. I did not, as a citizen, try to undermine his character and blame him for every negative thing going on in this country. He is still the person who represents my country to the rest of the world, wether I agree with him all the time or not. There is a difference between having a serious disagreement on issues and making disparaging remarks about a man's character or motives.

 


 

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Disinformation.

I don't want to say " I told you so" to those that voted for Bush. I'd rather say, I was wrong, he did a great job.

 

I think that when his presidency is viewed with the objectivity of time, he will be seen not as a great president but as a good one.  He kept our country safe from any major terrorist attack after 9/11, which isn't a bad legacy, and one that I sincerely hope Obama can continue.  The roots of our present financial crisis were laid long before he took office; it is as much misfortune as misjudgment that the chickens came to roost in the last year of his Presidency rather than in the first year of his successors; let's keep in mind that up to his seventh's year in office we were basking in a long period of prosperity, the stock market was at record levels, unemployment and inflation were both low, gas prices were reasonable.   Seven years of a successful economic boom isn't a bad legacy. 

 

Sure there are things he could have done better.  But there are also a lot of things he could have done worse.  When we have time to step back and look objectively at his overall Presidency, I think he will come out fine.  

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Disinformation.

So where would you rank George W. Bush with the other presidents.  Obviously you don't think he belongs down with Harding.  Do you think he is up there with Washington and Jefferson or more with those we barely think about like Harrison?

Everyman wrote:

I don't want to say " I told you so" to those that voted for Bush. I'd rather say, I was wrong, he did a great job.

 

I think that when his presidency is viewed with the objectivity of time, he will be seen not as a great president but as a good one.  He kept our country safe from any major terrorist attack after 9/11, which isn't a bad legacy, and one that I sincerely hope Obama can continue.  The roots of our present financial crisis were laid long before he took office; it is as much misfortune as misjudgment that the chickens came to roost in the last year of his Presidency rather than in the first year of his successors; let's keep in mind that up to his seventh's year in office we were basking in a long period of prosperity, the stock market was at record levels, unemployment and inflation were both low, gas prices were reasonable.   Seven years of a successful economic boom isn't a bad legacy. 

 

Sure there are things he could have done better.  But there are also a lot of things he could have done worse.  When we have time to step back and look objectively at his overall Presidency, I think he will come out fine.  


 

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Disinformation.

I'm no historian of Presidential politics, but fwiw I would rank him in abut the 60th percentile.  Somewhat but not a whole lot better than average.  But trying to fine tune rankings like that is hard, so I would really go with excellent, acceptable, and poor, and he would rank in the acceptable group.

 

How about you?  Where would you rank him, and why?  I've explained my basis for ranking in a) keeping the country safe after 9/11, b) overseeing seven years of prosperity which stumbled on the basis of policies put in place before his Presidency but which he should have had the foresight to anticipate and at least modify if not prevent (I'm not sure it would have been possible to prevent the melt-down without repealing the CRA and severely trimming the horns of Fannie and Fannie Mac, and neither of those things could be done with a Democratic Congress with Barney Frank's committee responsible for the oversight of the Fannies), and c) prosecuting a brilliant military campaign against Iraq, but offset with a dismal prosecution of the ensuing peace process.   What is your ranking, and why?

 


fforgnayr wrote:
So where would you rank George W. Bush with the other presidents.  Obviously you don't think he belongs down with Harding.  Do you think he is up there with Washington and Jefferson or more with those we barely think about like Harrison?

Everyman wrote:

I don't want to say " I told you so" to those that voted for Bush. I'd rather say, I was wrong, he did a great job.

 

I think that when his presidency is viewed with the objectivity of time, he will be seen not as a great president but as a good one.  He kept our country safe from any major terrorist attack after 9/11, which isn't a bad legacy, and one that I sincerely hope Obama can continue.  The roots of our present financial crisis were laid long before he took office; it is as much misfortune as misjudgment that the chickens came to roost in the last year of his Presidency rather than in the first year of his successors; let's keep in mind that up to his seventh's year in office we were basking in a long period of prosperity, the stock market was at record levels, unemployment and inflation were both low, gas prices were reasonable.   Seven years of a successful economic boom isn't a bad legacy. 

 

Sure there are things he could have done better.  But there are also a lot of things he could have done worse.  When we have time to step back and look objectively at his overall Presidency, I think he will come out fine.  


 


 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Disinformation.

It's really hard for me to get past the blunders in Iraq.  So let me think for a little bit on this.  I have to say that I don't believe we had any business in Iraq to begin with.  That's another argument though that has long since passed.  I think it has been horribly managed, especially the first couple of years. I think his stance on stem cell research was wrong.  I think he waited way to long to do anything in regards to North Korea and Iran.  He hasn't reall done much about the Middle East Peace process until recently.

 

On the other had I have a great deal of respect for him as far as AIDS in Africa.  He has done more than the previous three presidents did.  He handled 9/11 well and even if I disagree with some tactics we haven't had another attack on our soil.

 

So I'm not sure, for me the bad barely outways the good.  So I would give him a 40%, which is still better than his current popularity rating.

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Disinformation.

Truthfully, I have never heard a single one of my friends who are on the right, wish for Obama's administration to fail. Mostly they are terrified that it will because of his inexperience but they pray for his success. On the contrary, I have heard many of my friends on the left wish for the most awful things to happen to President Bush and they say the most awful things about him. It is not an anomaly as "W" and "The American Wife" are just some of the latest examples of the nasty way he and his family have been publicly portrayed and humiliated. We forget, we are sending this message out to the world at large and that is one of the reasons they have such a poor opinion of us and our government. If we tried sending some positive messages, maybe it would have been different. We will never know.
I have heard a lot of people say despicable things about Obama but they are on both sides, left and right. They would be horrible no matter who was elected if it wasn't their candidate. Others are just plain bigots and should be punished for using hate speech.
Historians will rate President Bush in the future and whomever of us is still around may be surprised by the results. Regardless, I am fairly certain that he believed he was acting in the best interest of the country in the same way Clinton thought he was, when as President he made mistakes. The President cannot act based on public opinion, he has to act based on national security interests. Often, ordinary citizens have no idea why certain decisions have been made, that they disagree with, and that is as it should be if it is necessary for our safety.
I have a theory that in order for some people to rid themselves of their anger about Bush being elected President and also to rid themselves of the guilt they feel about Clinton's behavior, which they excused, they have to destroy Bush in exchange. Probably, there are a lot of people doing the same thing now, justifying their hate of Obama because they are angry that their candidate lost. I only hope they don't keep up this hate as long as the left did with Bush. It serves no good purpose.
In this country, we have forgotten the meaning of good sportsmanship. It is only about winning, not about how we win or lose.
twj


debbook wrote:
Ultimately, we should all want our President to be successful in taking care of our country. I would much rather have no national debt, no wars that we can't get out of, and not be in a recession than see Bush leave with the country the way it is, and an incredibly low approval rating. I don't want to say " I told you so" to those that voted for Bush. I'd rather say, I was wrong, he did a great job. Because when the President does a great job, we all benefit. There are many people that don't see it that way, and many people that would be glad and are rooting for Obama's administration to crash and burn even if that meant the country was worse off.

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Bush's legacy.

I find it hard to get past the Iraq debacle too, both on this side of the Pond and over there.  The loss of life, the expense, the loss of goodwill and the 'breeding' of more terrorists at home and abroad have been a dreadful legacy which will last long into the future.  I very much blame both Blair and Bush for the increased dangers they have placed me, my children and my grandchildren in and for the increased hatred they have engendered in the Islamic world.

 

On the question of his contribution to the AIDS programme I disagree, because my understanding is that he did a great deal of harm to the AIDS programme in a number of African countries because he directed money only towards those evangelical religious groups who were advocating sexual abstention and this, in fact, did a lot of harm because previous campaigns had issued condoms, contraception advice etc.  He has tripled the aid, goes the argument, but has also tripled AIDS. 

 

I saw an interview recently with an African man attending an American 'abstinence' meeting in Uganda. Asked by a British reporter if he was now going to be abstinent he replied with a smile 'Yes, sometimes'.:smileysurprised:   That sums it all up! 

 

Nor do I feel that Bush stopped further terrorist attacks after 9/ll because we put into place almost exactly the same procedures but still had a terrorist attack after that date (and another attempted one).  It think it seems more likely that the terrorists/jihadists have concentrated their efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

 

What do you think Bush should have done about North Korean and Iran? 

 

 


fforgnayr wrote:

It's really hard for me to get past the blunders in Iraq.  So let me think for a little bit on this.  I have to say that I don't believe we had any business in Iraq to begin with.  That's another argument though that has long since passed.  I think it has been horribly managed, especially the first couple of years. I think his stance on stem cell research was wrong.  I think he waited way to long to do anything in regards to North Korea and Iran.  He hasn't reall done much about the Middle East Peace process until recently.

 

On the other had I have a great deal of respect for him as far as AIDS in Africa.  He has done more than the previous three presidents did.  He handled 9/11 well and even if I disagree with some tactics we haven't had another attack on our soil.

 

So I'm not sure, for me the bad barely outways the good.  So I would give him a 40%, which is still better than his current popularity rating.


 

Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Bush's legacy.

What do you think Bush should have done about North Korean and Iran? 

 

Mainly he should have ignored the situations for as long as he did. With North Korea it would have been nice if he finshed the negotiations that the Clinton administration started.

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com