What is the best thing Bush did during his presidency?

[BLUEDOVE3]

Typial SE Texas thought.... : :

That was a well thought out remark......... typical

That generally means, "I have no other comeback against the facts so I'll have to make some silly quip".

Exactly.  Notice how not one of them have refuted what you posted.

Back then, it wasn't called "bullying," it was called "nation-building." It was deemed acceptable and it was something that every nation on the planet did.

Can you prove that President Bush was a "bully"? Can you offer me one tidbit of evidence that might even remotely incriminate him? No, you can't. All you can offer is a few, very questionable "documentaries" that were directed and produced by some very questionable characters. It could be argued that the very same people who have given you these "facts" were the true criminals. It could be argued that they were the ones with the personal agendas, that they were the ones with their own interests in mind, and that they, or, at least, several others of the same political connotation, have played a bigger part in the recent decline of our nation than any other party or politician, including President Bush.

(A) Bullying use to be called The Manifest Destiny and ( An example?  Sure, remember "Shock & Awe?

[WOS87]

In response to the initial title of the thread...

The best thing he did was to NOT try to change the Constitution and run for a 3rd term.  Good Riddance!!

[PURPLE 4EVER]

In response to the initial title of the thread...

The best thing he did was to NOT try to change the Constitution and run for a 3rd term.   Good Riddance!!

Now look what we got...

A president who spent BILLIONS to bail out GM, and they are still going bankrupt.

Someone who said he would reverse many of Bush's "controversial" terror war measures, but he is still going on with the tribunals, not releasing pictures (although he said he would), and not going to close Gitmo.

On top of that our Speaker (two heart beats away from the presidency) has lied so many times the last three weeks she can't even say her words from the heart in a news conference.

Bush may have made some mistakes, but the democrats sure don't have clean hands in all this mess we are in.

[thetragichippy]

In response to the initial title of the thread...

The best thing he did was to NOT try to change the Constitution and run for a 3rd term.   Good Riddance!!

Now look what we got...

A president who spent BILLIONS to bail out GM, and they are still going bankrupt.

Someone who said he would reverse many of Bush's "controversial" terror war measures, but he is still going on with the tribunals, not releasing pictures (although he said he would), and not going to close Gitmo.

On top of that our Speaker (two heart beats away from the presidency) has lied so many times the last three weeks she can't even say her words from the heart in a news conference.

Bush may have made some mistakes, but the democrats sure don't have clean hands in all this mess we are in.

All within a 100 or so days.................

[Guest DickVitale]

Guess what....He is STILL your president...Hate that, don't you? How can you with good conscience attempt to point the finger at HIM? You guys mentality is amazing. You and your people at FOX news did all you could to TRY to smear his name so that he wouldn't get the nomination...Didn't work...Then you tried to keep him out office during the campaign claiming he was Muslim....Still didn't work...Give up folks....He is here and he will continue to fix what Bush screwed up...Get over it...Move on...Next topic, please.

[thetragichippy]

Guess what....He is STILL your president...Hate that, don't you? How can you with good conscience attempt to point the finger at HIM? You guys mentality is amazing. You and your people at FOX news did all you could to TRY to smear his name so that he wouldn't get the nomination...Didn't work...Then you tried to keep him out office during the campaign claiming he was Muslim....Still didn't work...Give up folks....He is here and he will continue to fix what Bush screwed up...Get over it...Move on...Next topic, please.

Instead of name calling, why don't you argue your facts.......remember your post:

Excellent post by stang and I will admit, tvc makes a fairly good point as well, but I have do disagree when you say that taking one's land is "no big deal". It is a VERY big deal...You don't see that as a wrong doing, tvc? Can you name a group of Africans that stole any land? What about on the Australian continent? You said it was a common practice and I sorely disagree with you...It was common among EUROPEANS, maybe, but it was not a common practice to bully land and cheat people out of what was already claimed.   

We have all game examples proving you're wrong...........

All you have left is name calling???

[PN-G bamatex]

Back then, it wasn't called "bullying," it was called "nation-building." It was deemed acceptable and it was something that every nation on the planet did.

Can you prove that President Bush was a "bully"? Can you offer me one tidbit of evidence that might even remotely incriminate him? No, you can't. All you can offer is a few, very questionable "documentaries" that were directed and produced by some very questionable characters. It could be argued that the very same people who have given you these "facts" were the true criminals. It could be argued that they were the ones with the personal agendas, that they were the ones with their own interests in mind, and that they, or, at least, several others of the same political connotation, have played a bigger part in the recent decline of our nation than any other party or politician, including President Bush.

(A) Bullying use to be called The Manifest Destiny and ( An example?  Sure, remember "Shock & Awe?

In response to (A), thanks for proving one small part of my point.

In response to (, Shock & Awe wasn't "bullying," it was a military operation designed to demoralize the Iraqi army by putting on, literally, a fireworks show by repeatedly bombing strategic targets or the remains thereof, causing a decline in the will to resist and ultimately saving American lives. "Bullying" suggests that the operation was pointless violence, and it most certainly was not. Virtually no lives were lost in Operation: Shock & Awe on either side. It was just a way to "soften up" Iraq, much the same way we did in Vietnam with Operations: Linebacker, Linebacker II, and Rolling Thunder and in WWII with the intense bombardments of Normandy immediately previous to Operation: Overlord and the various Pacific islands we took during our "Island Hopping" campaigns.

Guess what....He is STILL your president...Hate that, don't you? How can you with good conscience attempt to point the finger at HIM? You guys mentality is amazing. You and your people at FOX news did all you could to TRY to smear his name so that he wouldn't get the nomination...Didn't work...Then you tried to keep him out office during the campaign claiming he was Muslim....Still didn't work...Give up folks....He is here and he will continue to fix what Bush screwed up...Get over it...Move on...Next topic, please.

You are characterizing me as a racist based on the area I live in, and, frankly, I find that characterization insulting and slanderous. You, sir, are the ignoramus in this situation. You make claims with absolutely no evidence to affirm them and do so based solely on emotions and hearsay. I have nothing against President Obama based on his race or questionable religous background; my only concerns are based on his political positions and agendas. The idea that I am a racist is something that you are inferring with no factual basis whatsoever.

[thetragichippy]

Back then, it wasn't called "bullying," it was called "nation-building." It was deemed acceptable and it was something that every nation on the planet did.

Can you prove that President Bush was a "bully"? Can you offer me one tidbit of evidence that might even remotely incriminate him? No, you can't. All you can offer is a few, very questionable "documentaries" that were directed and produced by some very questionable characters. It could be argued that the very same people who have given you these "facts" were the true criminals. It could be argued that they were the ones with the personal agendas, that they were the ones with their own interests in mind, and that they, or, at least, several others of the same political connotation, have played a bigger part in the recent decline of our nation than any other party or politician, including President Bush.

(A) Bullying use to be called The Manifest Destiny and ( An example?  Sure, remember "Shock & Awe?

In response to (A), thanks for proving one small part of my point.

In response to (, Shock & Awe wasn't "bullying," it was a military operation designed to demoralize the Iraqi army by putting on, literally, a fireworks show by repeatedly bombing strategic targets or the remains thereof, causing a decline in the will to resist and ultimately saving American lives. "Bullying" suggests that the operation was pointless violence, and it most certainly was not. Virtually no lives were lost in Operation: Shock & Awe on either side. It was just a way to "soften up" Iraq, much the same way we did in Vietnam with Operations: Linebacker, Linebacker II, and Rolling Thunder and in WWII with the intense bombardments of Normandy immediately previous to Operation: Overlord and the various Pacific islands we took during our "Island Hopping" campaigns.

Guess what....He is STILL your president...Hate that, don't you? How can you with good conscience attempt to point the finger at HIM? You guys mentality is amazing. You and your people at FOX news did all you could to TRY to smear his name so that he wouldn't get the nomination...Didn't work...Then you tried to keep him out office during the campaign claiming he was Muslim....Still didn't work...Give up folks....He is here and he will continue to fix what Bush screwed up...Get over it...Move on...Next topic, please.

You are characterizing me as a racist based on the area I live in, and, frankly, I find that characterization insulting and slanderous. You, sir, are the ignoramus in this situation. You make claims with absolutely no evidence to affirm them and do so based solely on emotions and hearsay. I have nothing against President Obama based on his race or questionable religous background; my only concerns are based on his political positions and agendas. The idea that I am a racist is something that you are inferring with no factual basis whatsoever.

BandKid, you crack me up..........what are you going to college for? If you say your not, me and you are going to have a problem!

[baddog]

You racist SE Texans just wont stop trying to beat up Obama....Guess what....He is STILL your president...Hate that, don't you? How can you with good conscience attempt to point the finger at HIM? You guys mentality is amazing. You and your people at FOX news did all you could to TRY to smear his name so that he wouldn't get the nomination...Didn't work...Then you tried to keep him out office during the campaign claiming he was Muslim....Still didn't work...Give up folks....He is here and he will continue to fix what Bush screwed up...Get over it...Move on...Next topic, please.

What has he ''fixed''? Who do you think elected him president, the black vote? Dream on dude. He is my president, and as my president, I expect him to be truthful to me. From day one he has denounced Bush's policies and blamed him for the economic downturn, plus attempting to have him criminally charged for Gitmo. When someone acts as if they truly believe in one thing, then do an about-face, I question the integrity of the individual. Throwing trillions of dollars at the automakers and Wells Fargo hasn't helped. Where is that money now? Did it just disappear? That money did belong to you and me once.

You are the racist. You can't discuss anything about Obama without bringing up his race. Let him stand on his own as a man....I am.

[tvc184]

Here is your problem or your crutch DV, you assume that anytime anyone says anything against another person and the person happens to be black, then that must be the cause. Obama hasn't caught nearly the flak (yet) that Bill Clinton ended up catching. Was it because Clinton was.... what? He wasn't black so that can't be it. Maybe it was because he was from Arkansas... yeah, that's it.

The people that don't like Obama is because they don't like spending even more tax money on bailouts (they didn't like it under Bush either), they don't like the cutting of military programs, they don't like his anti-gun stance, etc.

Put a white guy in the same place (like Clinton) and you will get the same responses..... and did.

[thetragichippy]

Here is your problem or your crutch DV, you assume that anytime anyone says anything against another person and the person happens to be black, then that must be the cause. Obama hasn't caught nearly the flak (yet) that Bill Clinton ended up catching. Was it because Clinton was.... what? He wasn't black so that can't be it. Maybe it was because he was from Arkansas... yeah, that's it.

The people that don't like Obama is because they don't like spending even more tax money on bailouts (they didn't like it under Bush either), they don't like the cutting of military programs, they don't like his anti-gun stance, etc.

Put a white guy in the same place (like Clinton) and you will get the same responses..... and did.

TVC, if he did what you recommended, then he would have to take personal accountability for his actions........it's much easier for him to blame it on his color!

[Guest DickVitale]

Clinton was not faced with HALF the ridicule that Obama has, and he was involved in a MAJOR scandal while in office. Even with that said, and done, I would rather have THAT guy back than Bush. Look, we can go back and forth all day long...You are not going to change my mind about Bush being greedy and causing problems for America while in office, and I can't get you guys to realize that President Obama CAN and WILL run this country effectively....Just leave it at that. We all have our views and opinions at the end of the day...Right, left, black, white, green....It really should be about what's best for OUR country. I hope that we can at least agree on that.

[thetragichippy]

Clinton was not faced with HALF the ridicule that Obama has, and he was involved in a MAJOR scandal while in office. Even with that said, and done, I would rather have THAT guy back than Bush. Look, we can go back and forth all day long...You are not going to change my mind about Bush being greedy and causing problems for America while in office, and I can't get you guys to realize that President Obama CAN and WILL run this country effectively....Just leave it at that. We all have our views and opinions at the end of the day...Right, left, black, white, green....It really should be about what's best for OUR country. I hope that we can at least agree on that.

If you quit bringing up all those points, then maybe we could agree on some things........but your the one that brought up Race!

[AggiesAreWe]

Clinton was not faced with HALF the ridicule that Obama has, and he was involved in a MAJOR scandal while in office. Even with that said, and done, I would rather have THAT guy back than Bush. Look, we can go back and forth all day long...You are not going to change my mind about Bush being greedy and causing problems for America while in office, and I can't get you guys to realize that President Obama CAN and WILL run this country effectively....Just leave it at that. We all have our views and opinions at the end of the day...Right, left, black, white, green....It really should be about what's best for OUR country. I hope that we can at least agree on that.

Now, see how easy that was DV. You actually made an intelligent post without calling someone or an entire area racist.

I knew you had it in you.

[PN-G bamatex]

Clinton was not faced with HALF the ridicule that Obama has, and he was involved in a MAJOR scandal while in office. Even with that said, and done, I would rather have THAT guy back than Bush. Look, we can go back and forth all day long...You are not going to change my mind about Bush being greedy and causing problems for America while in office, and I can't get you guys to realize that President Obama CAN and WILL run this country effectively....Just leave it at that. We all have our views and opinions at the end of the day...Right, left, black, white, green....It really should be about what's best for OUR country. I hope that we can at least agree on that.

If you quit bringing up all those points, then maybe we could agree on some things........but your the one that brought up Race!

Agreed. If you (DickVitale) would stop making false accusations, we wouldn't have a problem here.

[BearBryant]

Guess what....He is STILL your president...Hate that, don't you? How can you with good conscience attempt to point the finger at HIM? You guys mentality is amazing. You and your people at FOX news did all you could to TRY to smear his name so that he wouldn't get the nomination...Didn't work...Then you tried to keep him out office during the campaign claiming he was Muslim....Still didn't work...Give up folks....He is here and he will continue to fix what Bush screwed up...Get over it...Move on...Next topic, please.

yes he is my president and I can praise or criticize him as I see fit!  Bringing up the ole Fox News Boogey man Again?   Boy you ladies sure have some zingers out there don't ya.  Yeah Bush screwed up driving the deficit to 300Billion, And Obama has fixed it by sending it to 1.8 Trillion.  Real Fixin there. 

But then what do I know, I'm not a private school basketball coach. 

[stang4life]

Yep, we bullied our way in and took some land. As I said in another post, every piece of land ever owned by any person or the government was taken by somebody that lived on or used the land.

Every group of people and every race did it. Heck, even the American Indians did it to each other. So what's the big deal? That is the very way countries were formed from mere collections of huts, then cities and then countries. So yes, you are correct.

The Constitution does guarantee liberty for everyone. I see no slaves today. The fact is that many people back then knew slavery was abhorring, it was the law of the land in this part of England, of which we were a part at the time of the Revolutionary War. It is true that many people let it go because of political expedience. They may never have gotten the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution passed if they drew a line in the sand and said no slaves. If there had been no slaves, then there may have been no country. The Constitution that did not free everyone immediately, eventually did.

The Constitution did not create slavery nor did it condone slavery. It did leave slavery in place that was here long before the Constitution was ever thought up, before any war of indepence was ever contemplated and within 74 years of its signing, the country fought the Civil War that ended slavery. The United States of America (not counting the Confederate States) lost 140,000 soldiers killed during the Civil War. The USA lost more people in a battle to free the slaves than in World War I, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War combined. Think about that for a minute.

It is a big deal.  It was a big deal when Hitler was conquering lands.  The Constitution DID NOT guarantee everyone freedom because at the time it was created...not all were free.  The fact that you state you see no slaves today is how it should have been from day one.  Didn't many people come here to escape religious persecutions and to be able to form a democratic society where all should have the rights to all that the Constitution represents?  I guess all of the formerly oppressed groups should just feel blessed that we've come so far?  Sorry, but if the foundation of our country states that ALL are guaranteed freedoms and liberties...ALL is a fairly defining word.  While I am glad that I am here, the fact that one group of people profited at the expense of another through oppression, abuse, neglect, murder, separating families...that turns my stomach as I type this.  I think that walking in other's shoes "may" change people's views.  Kind of gives a new perspective on things. 

No, the Constitution did not create slavery...in an indirect way, I would have to respectfully disagree that it did not condone it because through inaction, that's essentially what happened.  The fact that slavery existed...so.  Religious persecutions and dictators and all of the other potentially harmful ways of the world were also here before the Constitution was here, but again...those were also ideals and things that our forefathers believed should not be a part of our America.  The United States might not have lost 140,000 lives had slavery not been allowed to become a disgusting part of who we were supposed to be.

We just executed Saddam Hussein because of how he treated his countrymen (and others) and the atrocities that he masterminded and followed-through with and we want to lead these other countries to be a democratic society where freedoms are a "guarantee"...yet, it took us how long to guarantee those freedoms to our own citizens and countrymen?  How would you feel if you were a slave (a mother) whose "master" stole her child and sold that child to another owner because he was so determined to break her?  Not much different than what Hitler and the Nazis did during WWII. I would ask you to think about that for a little more than a minute. 

[thetragichippy]

Yep, we bullied our way in and took some land. As I said in another post, every piece of land ever owned by any person or the government was taken by somebody that lived on or used the land.

Every group of people and every race did it. Heck, even the American Indians did it to each other. So what's the big deal? That is the very way countries were formed from mere collections of huts, then cities and then countries. So yes, you are correct.

The Constitution does guarantee liberty for everyone. I see no slaves today. The fact is that many people back then knew slavery was abhorring, it was the law of the land in this part of England, of which we were a part at the time of the Revolutionary War. It is true that many people let it go because of political expedience. They may never have gotten the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution passed if they drew a line in the sand and said no slaves. If there had been no slaves, then there may have been no country. The Constitution that did not free everyone immediately, eventually did.

The Constitution did not create slavery nor did it condone slavery. It did leave slavery in place that was here long before the Constitution was ever thought up, before any war of indepence was ever contemplated and within 74 years of its signing, the country fought the Civil War that ended slavery. The United States of America (not counting the Confederate States) lost 140,000 soldiers killed during the Civil War. The USA lost more people in a battle to free the slaves than in World War I, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War combined. Think about that for a minute.

It is a big deal.  It was a big deal when Hitler was conquering lands.  The Constitution DID NOT guarantee everyone freedom because at the time it was created...not all were free.  The fact that you state you see no slaves today is how it should have been from day one.  Didn't many people come here to escape religious persecutions and to be able to form a democratic society where all should have the rights to all that the Constitution represents?  I guess all of the formerly oppressed groups should just feel blessed that we've come so far?  Sorry, but if the foundation of our country states that ALL are guaranteed freedoms and liberties...ALL is a fairly defining word.  While I am glad that I am here, the fact that one group of people profited at the expense of another through oppression, abuse, neglect, murder, separating families...that turns my stomach as I type this.  I think that walking in other's shoes "may" change people's views.  Kind of gives a new perspective on things. 

No, the Constitution did not create slavery...in an indirect way, I would have to respectfully disagree that it did not condone it because through inaction, that's essentially what happened.  The fact that slavery existed...so.  Religious persecutions and dictators and all of the other potentially harmful ways of the world were also here before the Constitution was here, but again...those were also ideals and things that our forefathers believed should not be a part of our America.  The United States might not have lost 140,000 lives had slavery not been allowed to become a disgusting part of who we were supposed to be.

We just executed Saddam Hussein because of how he treated his countrymen (and others) and the atrocities that he masterminded and followed-through with and we want to lead these other countries to be a democratic society where freedoms are a "guarantee"...yet, it took us how long to guarantee those freedoms to our own citizens and countrymen?  How would you feel if you were a slave (a mother) whose "master" stole her child and sold that child to another owner because he was so determined to break her?  Not much different than what Hitler and the Nazis did during WWII. I would ask you to think about that for a little more than a minute.   

Slavery was accepted back then. I'm glad we abolished it, but it was not just in the United States. When you say selling a mothers child, they did that in Africa as well.  No matter what Country, it's still wrong. America figured that out over time. There is still slavery in Africa. I never hear blacks speaking negatively about Africa. Dick Vital actually thought African groups never took over lands. The more you look at both countries, the more we "were" the same.........now we are different in many ways, such as America has no slaves.

[stang4life]

Yep, we bullied our way in and took some land. As I said in another post, every piece of land ever owned by any person or the government was taken by somebody that lived on or used the land.

Every group of people and every race did it. Heck, even the American Indians did it to each other. So what's the big deal? That is the very way countries were formed from mere collections of huts, then cities and then countries. So yes, you are correct.

The Constitution does guarantee liberty for everyone. I see no slaves today. The fact is that many people back then knew slavery was abhorring, it was the law of the land in this part of England, of which we were a part at the time of the Revolutionary War. It is true that many people let it go because of political expedience. They may never have gotten the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution passed if they drew a line in the sand and said no slaves. If there had been no slaves, then there may have been no country. The Constitution that did not free everyone immediately, eventually did.

The Constitution did not create slavery nor did it condone slavery. It did leave slavery in place that was here long before the Constitution was ever thought up, before any war of indepence was ever contemplated and within 74 years of its signing, the country fought the Civil War that ended slavery. The United States of America (not counting the Confederate States) lost 140,000 soldiers killed during the Civil War. The USA lost more people in a battle to free the slaves than in World War I, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War combined. Think about that for a minute.

It is a big deal.  It was a big deal when Hitler was conquering lands.  The Constitution DID NOT guarantee everyone freedom because at the time it was created...not all were free.  The fact that you state you see no slaves today is how it should have been from day one.  Didn't many people come here to escape religious persecutions and to be able to form a democratic society where all should have the rights to all that the Constitution represents?  I guess all of the formerly oppressed groups should just feel blessed that we've come so far?  Sorry, but if the foundation of our country states that ALL are guaranteed freedoms and liberties...ALL is a fairly defining word.  While I am glad that I am here, the fact that one group of people profited at the expense of another through oppression, abuse, neglect, murder, separating families...that turns my stomach as I type this.  I think that walking in other's shoes "may" change people's views.  Kind of gives a new perspective on things. 

No, the Constitution did not create slavery...in an indirect way, I would have to respectfully disagree that it did not condone it because through inaction, that's essentially what happened.  The fact that slavery existed...so.  Religious persecutions and dictators and all of the other potentially harmful ways of the world were also here before the Constitution was here, but again...those were also ideals and things that our forefathers believed should not be a part of our America.  The United States might not have lost 140,000 lives had slavery not been allowed to become a disgusting part of who we were supposed to be.

We just executed Saddam Hussein because of how he treated his countrymen (and others) and the atrocities that he masterminded and followed-through with and we want to lead these other countries to be a democratic society where freedoms are a "guarantee"...yet, it took us how long to guarantee those freedoms to our own citizens and countrymen?  How would you feel if you were a slave (a mother) whose "master" stole her child and sold that child to another owner because he was so determined to break her?  Not much different than what Hitler and the Nazis did during WWII. I would ask you to think about that for a little more than a minute.   

Slavery was accepted back then. I'm glad we abolished it, but it was not just in the United States. When you say selling a mothers child, they did that in Africa as well.  No matter what Country, it's still wrong. America figured that out over time. There is still slavery in Africa. I never hear blacks speaking negatively about Africa. Dick Vital actually thought African groups never took over lands. The more you look at both countries, the more we "were" the same.........now we are different in many ways, such as America has no slaves.

Accepted you say?  By who?  It shouldn't matter that "it was not just in the U.S."  Our U.S. was supposed to be better than that.  Who cares what they did in Africa?  Atrocities have happened all over the world, then and now...that does not justify (or at least should not justify) the atrocities of slavery in this country in the past.  And, you are right...the more we look at both countries and others, the more we were the same...except that America was supposed to be founded on the notion that EVERYONE was guaranteed FREEDOM and EVERYONE did not include EVERYONE until not so long ago.  From the initiation of the Constitution...America should have had no slaves. 

How would we feel if white people had been the slaves?  I know I wouldn't be a happy camper...or slave.  I would have a hard time believing that anyone would.  Of course, I would have probably been lynched or hanging in the next tree because what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong, no matter how convenient it may be to say...well, look at that country...they were doing it.  That's not very mature.  The nonchalantness is kind of disturbing...almost as much as the post about not caring about car bombs and children being killed.  Well, we could always justify our participation in slavery and oppression and all of the sins committed to keep it intact with the people setting off the car bombs and killing INNOCENT people.  NOT! 

[thetragichippy]

Yep, we bullied our way in and took some land. As I said in another post, every piece of land ever owned by any person or the government was taken by somebody that lived on or used the land.

Every group of people and every race did it. Heck, even the American Indians did it to each other. So what's the big deal? That is the very way countries were formed from mere collections of huts, then cities and then countries. So yes, you are correct.

The Constitution does guarantee liberty for everyone. I see no slaves today. The fact is that many people back then knew slavery was abhorring, it was the law of the land in this part of England, of which we were a part at the time of the Revolutionary War. It is true that many people let it go because of political expedience. They may never have gotten the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution passed if they drew a line in the sand and said no slaves. If there had been no slaves, then there may have been no country. The Constitution that did not free everyone immediately, eventually did.

The Constitution did not create slavery nor did it condone slavery. It did leave slavery in place that was here long before the Constitution was ever thought up, before any war of indepence was ever contemplated and within 74 years of its signing, the country fought the Civil War that ended slavery. The United States of America (not counting the Confederate States) lost 140,000 soldiers killed during the Civil War. The USA lost more people in a battle to free the slaves than in World War I, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War combined. Think about that for a minute.

It is a big deal.  It was a big deal when Hitler was conquering lands.  The Constitution DID NOT guarantee everyone freedom because at the time it was created...not all were free.  The fact that you state you see no slaves today is how it should have been from day one.  Didn't many people come here to escape religious persecutions and to be able to form a democratic society where all should have the rights to all that the Constitution represents?  I guess all of the formerly oppressed groups should just feel blessed that we've come so far?  Sorry, but if the foundation of our country states that ALL are guaranteed freedoms and liberties...ALL is a fairly defining word.  While I am glad that I am here, the fact that one group of people profited at the expense of another through oppression, abuse, neglect, murder, separating families...that turns my stomach as I type this.  I think that walking in other's shoes "may" change people's views.  Kind of gives a new perspective on things. 

No, the Constitution did not create slavery...in an indirect way, I would have to respectfully disagree that it did not condone it because through inaction, that's essentially what happened.  The fact that slavery existed...so.  Religious persecutions and dictators and all of the other potentially harmful ways of the world were also here before the Constitution was here, but again...those were also ideals and things that our forefathers believed should not be a part of our America.  The United States might not have lost 140,000 lives had slavery not been allowed to become a disgusting part of who we were supposed to be.

We just executed Saddam Hussein because of how he treated his countrymen (and others) and the atrocities that he masterminded and followed-through with and we want to lead these other countries to be a democratic society where freedoms are a "guarantee"...yet, it took us how long to guarantee those freedoms to our own citizens and countrymen?  How would you feel if you were a slave (a mother) whose "master" stole her child and sold that child to another owner because he was so determined to break her?  Not much different than what Hitler and the Nazis did during WWII. I would ask you to think about that for a little more than a minute.   

Slavery was accepted back then. I'm glad we abolished it, but it was not just in the United States. When you say selling a mothers child, they did that in Africa as well.  No matter what Country, it's still wrong. America figured that out over time. There is still slavery in Africa. I never hear blacks speaking negatively about Africa. Dick Vital actually thought African groups never took over lands. The more you look at both countries, the more we "were" the same.........now we are different in many ways, such as America has no slaves.

Accepted you say?  By who?  It shouldn't matter that "it was not just in the U.S."  Our U.S. was supposed to be better than that.  Who cares what they did in Africa?  Atrocities have happened all over the world, then and now...that does not justify (or at least should not justify) the atrocities of slavery in this country in the past.  And, you are right...the more we look at both countries and others, the more we were the same...except that America was supposed to be founded on the notion that EVERYONE was guaranteed FREEDOM and EVERYONE did not include EVERYONE until not so long ago.  From the initiation of the Constitution...America should have had no slaves. 

How would we feel if white people had been the slaves?  I know I wouldn't be a happy camper...or slave.  I would have a hard time believing that anyone would.  Of course, I would have probably been lynched or hanging in the next tree because what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong, no matter

There were white slaves.......

Originally in the American colonies, 1600 to 1800, Native Americans and other groups, mostly white Europeans such as captured soldiers, minor criminals, etc., were used as slaves

Jamestown, Virginia in 1619 as indentured servants.

The transformation from indentured servitude (servants contracted to work for a set amount of time) to racial slavery happened gradually. There are no laws regarding slavery early in Virginia's history. By 1640, the Virginia courts had sentenced at least one black servant to slavery.

Three servants working for a farmer named Hugh Gwyn ran away to Maryland. Two were white; one was black. They were captured in Maryland and returned to Jamestown, where the court sentenced all three to thirty lashes -- a severe punishment even by the standards of 17th century Virginia. The two white men were sentenced to an additional four years of servitude -- one more year for Gwyn followed by three more for the colony.

When I said accepted, it was lawful.

[PN-G bamatex]

Yep, we bullied our way in and took some land. As I said in another post, every piece of land ever owned by any person or the government was taken by somebody that lived on or used the land.

Every group of people and every race did it. Heck, even the American Indians did it to each other. So what's the big deal? That is the very way countries were formed from mere collections of huts, then cities and then countries. So yes, you are correct.

The Constitution does guarantee liberty for everyone. I see no slaves today. The fact is that many people back then knew slavery was abhorring, it was the law of the land in this part of England, of which we were a part at the time of the Revolutionary War. It is true that many people let it go because of political expedience. They may never have gotten the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution passed if they drew a line in the sand and said no slaves. If there had been no slaves, then there may have been no country. The Constitution that did not free everyone immediately, eventually did.

The Constitution did not create slavery nor did it condone slavery. It did leave slavery in place that was here long before the Constitution was ever thought up, before any war of indepence was ever contemplated and within 74 years of its signing, the country fought the Civil War that ended slavery. The United States of America (not counting the Confederate States) lost 140,000 soldiers killed during the Civil War. The USA lost more people in a battle to free the slaves than in World War I, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War combined. Think about that for a minute.

It is a big deal.  It was a big deal when Hitler was conquering lands.  The Constitution DID NOT guarantee everyone freedom because at the time it was created...not all were free.  The fact that you state you see no slaves today is how it should have been from day one.  Didn't many people come here to escape religious persecutions and to be able to form a democratic society where all should have the rights to all that the Constitution represents?  I guess all of the formerly oppressed groups should just feel blessed that we've come so far?  Sorry, but if the foundation of our country states that ALL are guaranteed freedoms and liberties...ALL is a fairly defining word.  While I am glad that I am here, the fact that one group of people profited at the expense of another through oppression, abuse, neglect, murder, separating families...that turns my stomach as I type this.  I think that walking in other's shoes "may" change people's views.  Kind of gives a new perspective on things. 

No, the Constitution did not create slavery...in an indirect way, I would have to respectfully disagree that it did not condone it because through inaction, that's essentially what happened.  The fact that slavery existed...so.  Religious persecutions and dictators and all of the other potentially harmful ways of the world were also here before the Constitution was here, but again...those were also ideals and things that our forefathers believed should not be a part of our America.  The United States might not have lost 140,000 lives had slavery not been allowed to become a disgusting part of who we were supposed to be.

We just executed Saddam Hussein because of how he treated his countrymen (and others) and the atrocities that he masterminded and followed-through with and we want to lead these other countries to be a democratic society where freedoms are a "guarantee"...yet, it took us how long to guarantee those freedoms to our own citizens and countrymen?  How would you feel if you were a slave (a mother) whose "master" stole her child and sold that child to another owner because he was so determined to break her?  Not much different than what Hitler and the Nazis did during WWII. I would ask you to think about that for a little more than a minute.   

Slavery was accepted back then. I'm glad we abolished it, but it was not just in the United States. When you say selling a mothers child, they did that in Africa as well.  No matter what Country, it's still wrong. America figured that out over time. There is still slavery in Africa. I never hear blacks speaking negatively about Africa. Dick Vital actually thought African groups never took over lands. The more you look at both countries, the more we "were" the same.........now we are different in many ways, such as America has no slaves.

Accepted you say?  By who?  It shouldn't matter that "it was not just in the U.S."  Our U.S. was supposed to be better than that.  Who cares what they did in Africa?  Atrocities have happened all over the world, then and now...that does not justify (or at least should not justify) the atrocities of slavery in this country in the past.  And, you are right...the more we look at both countries and others, the more we were the same...except that America was supposed to be founded on the notion that EVERYONE was guaranteed FREEDOM and EVERYONE did not include EVERYONE until not so long ago.  From the initiation of the Constitution...America should have had no slaves. 

How would we feel if white people had been the slaves?  I know I wouldn't be a happy camper...or slave.  I would have a hard time believing that anyone would.  Of course, I would have probably been lynched or hanging in the next tree because what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong, no matter how convenient it may be to say...well, look at that country...they were doing it.  That's not very mature.  The nonchalantness is kind of disturbing...almost as much as the post about not caring about car bombs and children being killed.  Well, we could always justify our participation in slavery and oppression and all of the sins committed to keep it intact with the people setting off the car bombs and killing INNOCENT people.  NOT! 

I would like to point out that no slavery would have meant no Constitution, meaning a very loose union working under the Articles of Confederation and probably an eventual breakup, meaning no United States of America and making the eastern seaboard easier for the British to take back. All of the states had to ratify the Constitution, including the southern states. Do you really think that the southern states would have ratified the Constitution if it meant giving up their slaves? Our forefathers were already under fire for not having a bill of rights in the original Constitution and had to make a promise to add them post-ratification. They couldn't afford to make another controversial move. They had to make some concessions or face the loss of our then-infant nation.

I believe that slavery is morally wrong.

Now, that being said, this argument is about decisions made before our great, great, great, great grandparents were even gleams in the eyes of our great, great, great, great, great grandparents. There's no use in arguing the ethics of a 220+ year-old decision.

This thread is about the best decision/action President Bush made/took during his presidency. Let's get back to that. I'll start:

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security. This action organized all of our nation's various security agencies into one functioning body, increasing efficiency. It laid down department-wide standards that had to be upheld and precautions that had to be taken. DHS played a pivotal role in protecting a post-9/11 nation.

Anyone else care to offer something along these lines into the record? Remember, we're talking about the best thing President Bush did while in office.

[stang4life]

Whew...thanks guys...that makes it all better.  I mean, that justifies makes it all make so much sense to me now.... :

Perhaps a 220+ year old argument that was only truly indicative and representative of what we were supposed to stand for.  And, there was a use of my making my comments on this subject...it just really helps me understand some things a little more and a little less.

You'll have to forgive me...I'm having trouble staying focused...it's really a little too late for me to take my Aderall.  And, I just really couldn't think of the best thing he did...guess that's probably not what you meant by along those lines, huh?

Heck no I don't think that the southern states would have ratified anything that would have prevented them from making money off of the blood, sweat and tears of other human beings.  In doing so, they wouldn't have an adequate avenue to vent their frustrations and take them out on.

I really don't need the history lesson.  Besides, I would rather have history plus some good ole moral senses than just the history.  They couldn't afford...LOL.  You are probably right about that...they couldn't AFFORD.  There was money to be made and since everyone else was doing it and the country wouldn't be here...we should just feel so blessed that AT LEAST we overcame that.  Thank you for having the time and fortitude to do the right thing ancestors.  It shouldn't have been lawful...for anyone. 

[thetragichippy]

Whew...thanks guys...that makes it all better.  I mean, that justifies makes it all make so much sense to me now.... :

Perhaps a 220+ year old argument that was only truly indicative and representative of what we were supposed to stand for.  And, there was a use of my making my comments on this subject...it just really helps me understand some things a little more and a little less.

You'll have to forgive me...I'm having trouble staying focused...it's really a little too late for me to take my Aderall.  And, I just really couldn't think of the best thing he did...guess that's probably not what you meant by along those lines, huh?

Heck no I don't think that the southern states would have ratified anything that would have prevented them from making money off of the blood, sweat and tears of other human beings.  In doing so, they wouldn't have an adequate avenue to vent their frustrations and take them out on.

I really don't need the history lesson.  Besides, I would rather have history plus some good ole moral senses than just the history.  They couldn't afford...LOL.  You are probably right about that...they couldn't AFFORD.  There was money to be made and since everyone else was doing it and the country wouldn't be here...we should just feel so blessed that AT LEAST we overcame that.  Thank you for having the time and fortitude to do the right thing ancestors.  It shouldn't have been lawful...for anyone. 

Ok, you said there were no white slaves, there were........now you bring up you dont need a history lesson. PNGkid is throwing facts as I do to support my statements. The history is history, it cannot be changed, BUT we can learn from it. In order to learn from it, you have to know it and understand it!

About 40 messages ago I gave my spill on the things I thought Bush did well. I have to agree, Homeland security is one of the best things he's done. 

[BearBryant]

Boy this thread sure has gotten off topic.

[shovel]

Gonna disagree with y'all on Homeland Security being one of Bush's better moves. All this did was lump several Gov. agencies into one and POURED tax dollars into this new stew pot. While some of this money appears to be well spent, (i.e. the Coast Guard being better equipped) you only have to look at FEMA to find the financial messes and gross mismanagement (under Bush!). The Border Patrol and Immigration services have not improved either. The DHS is another "big brother" organization that is eroding the liberties of all American. Not all bad, but certainly not all good. I don't see it as a good marker for GWB to hang his legacy on.