[quote name='E-Z-B']It's funny - seems like the majority of people here are anti-bush. Is that because Republicans, who are rich, wouldn't bother wasting valuable golf time to shop for the best deal?
I once heard this analogy: a man's car breaks down and a democrat stops to help him out. In the process of fixing his car, he sets the car on fire. Whereas a republican wouldn't even stop to help because he's late for his golf game.
Bush has had 3 years now to fix our economy, and it's still in the gutter. He's sent the public schools into chaos with his "no child left behind act", which in theory sounds plausible, but in reality you can't teach fractions to a kid who has trouble moving a block from one end of the table to the other. Plus, when he set these mandates for public schools, he provided 1% of the funding necessary to meet these mandates. So what does that mean? That the normal kids get a heck of a lot less money for education, along with soaring property and state taxes to meet these unrealistic mandates. So instead of producing some bright kids, you'll end up with a bunch of average kids. His envirnomental policies would have Theodore Roosevelt, a fellow republican who spearheaded the whole environmental conservation act, rolling in his grave. His protection for the oil industry will keep us dependent on arab nations for years, especially since his daddy is heavily invested into it. His protection of the steel industry harmed our economy even worse because suddenly we had to pay more for our cars and other products. He only repealed it because european nations threatened to impose tariffs on our oranges, computers, and other american products. I think the question we need to ask ourselves is "are we better off today than 3 years ago?" This is what clinton asked in '96, and most people could say "yes". But with bush, it's a loud "no."[/quote]
I'd agree with you, except for Clinton's "assault weapons" ban. That sucked ass.