NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread here is to debate about whether YOU think the current USA president George W. Bush.

Wow... Another Shurbbury thread...

Wow... Another Shurbbury thread...
Shurbbury? It's not like I had anything better 2 do.

Shurbbury? It's not like I had anything better 2 do.

That's my nickname for Bush.

FYI: Bush has been done to death here, pick another topic.

Theres no debate about what I think. Dubya is the worst president I have ever lived through.

That's my nickname for Bush.

FYI: Bush has been done to death here, pick another topic.
Bush isn't dead you know, I don't have to pick another topic. and by the way, what kind of nickname is shurbbury. I think that's what it was.

no

This thread here is to debate about whether YOU think the current USA president George W. Bush.
Maybe this will answer your question:

Bush's Approval Rating Falls to New Low (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_ap_poll)

On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.

Personally, far fewer Americans consider Bush likable, honest, strong and dependable than they did just after his re-election campaign.

By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls.

Bush isn't dead you know, I don't have to pick another topic. and by the way, what kind of nickname is shurbbury. I think that's what it was.

Things related to Bush... bush/plant/shrub... geddit?

Wow... Another Shurbbury thread...

http://moon.felk.cvut.cz/~pisem1/blog/KnightsWhoSayNi.jpg

"You will bring us... A SHRUBBERY!!"

I hate Bush like a plauge. He is the worst president America has ever seen I think. But, I have to leave, so I can't talk anymore right now, though I'll b back sometime. I think he has snipers on the White House roof. :sniper: :mp5: and here they are! (Im kidding.)

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/beat_deadhorse.gif

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/beat_deadhorse.gif
Why are you beating a dead horse? :p

Why are you beating a dead horse? :p

The Neocons are making me. :p

http://moon.felk.cvut.cz/~pisem1/blog/KnightsWhoSayNi.jpg

"You will bring us... A SHRUBBERY!!"

LOL! "And then, a HEMP PLANT!"

This thread here is to debate about whether YOU think the current USA president George W. Bush.
No one will anwer with a "yes", here, unless you ask in a funny farm...
and even there, people might not be that retarded.

He's probably the biggest failure ever as a president. Sure, the ones before him also sucked badly, but he sets new records in suckage :rolleyes:

We've had a President that saw half the country up and leave before he even took the oath of office and look at how most of us see him.

The presidents before him danced around, ignored or flat out dropped the ball on the slavery issue and took us down a road to a full blown Civil War that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands.

I can list the deeds and misdeeds of all 43 presidents and call each one the worste ever.

To call Bush a good or bad president now is foolish. Its just more of this petulant republican/democrat bickering.

"Is Bush a Good USA President?"

No.

Ahahaha! "Good President" and "Bush" dont go together! Silly rabbit!

Although I do back him on the patriot act, and a lil on spying.. But shhh you didnt hear me say that.

"Is Bush a Good USA President?"

No.
Posterity? Ruse?

Hmmm. 'nyway, no poll on this one?

Not really. I just considered him to be the lesser of two evils. Or was that the lesser of two weevils? I don't know. I'm just sort of hoping for a real choice next time.

Maybe this will answer your question:

Bush's Approval Rating Falls to New Low (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_ap_poll)

On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.

Personally, far fewer Americans consider Bush likable, honest, strong and dependable than they did just after his re-election campaign.

By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls.

36% is a step up from the 34% the incompetent in chief polled at 2 weeks ago.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/28/news/poll.php

(And you know it's bad when the likes of me and you are on the same political side! :))

I don't think that president Bush is good for the US because of the state of the US economy, Lack of aid in the aftermath of Katrina, Terrible Military losses abroad (Mainly Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Also I have heard rumors (and can somebody correct me on this subject.) that he has allowed for US Commanders the use of battlefield nuclear weapons which have been banned since the end of the Cold War.

I think that Bush is a blessing in disguise. Whoever is elected into the Presidency next time will seem so good in comparison that everybody will be happy.

Not really. I just considered him to be the lesser of two evils. Or was that the lesser of two weevils? I don't know. I'm just sort of hoping for a real choice next time.


Dreamer.

Theres no debate about what I think. Dubya is the worst president I have ever lived through.
Meh, it could be worse. He could be Reagan.

To call Bush a good or bad president now is foolish. Its just more of this petulant republican/democrat bickering.

I disagree.

Theres no need to wait for history to tell us wether or not Bush is doing a good job. Anything you want to know about his peformance as President is available for the perusing.
We can look, right now and see the mistakes he has made, and the things he has accomplished.

The mistakes far, far outweigh any successes.

History may tell us the final extent of the damage Bush is doing, and wishes to do, and granted, we wont know that until its done.

However, Bush has a year or so left to go, and theres all kinds of trouble he could get in.

What will be interesting, is how history will remember Bush's administration, and how much criminal activity may, or may not be occuring within it.

No, nuh-uh, nope, now way, nein, nyet, no, no, NO!!!

Just how little I think of the guy.

GW Shrub? Good thing he can't go for a 3rd term.

GW Shrub? Good thing he can't go for a 3rd term.

For now he can't...

For now he can't...

He's got a problem called Iraq around this neck dragging him down at the moment, and it's getting heavier.

Bush is taller than I thought he was. He's like six feet. Taller than me. :(

He's got a problem called Iraq around this neck dragging him down at the moment, and it's getting heavier.

I've heard rumors about him seeking to remove the 22nd Amendment (limits presidential terms). After that all he has to do it rig another election. VIOLA! Dictator Bush. :rolleyes:

Is Bush a Good USA President?

Yes he is good. Good for me to poop on.

I keed, I keed.

Well, it seems to me that America is in a much weaker position globally, all things considered, after his term than before it.

I think that would be the definition of a bad president. And not only that...Neo-Conservatism as a whole is failing at what it was meant to deliver. Seems like democracy is not the default state of society at all, where you just have to remove oppression and democracy will follow automatically.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1715180,00.html
Even the intellectuals among the Neocon elite are realising their folly. The only ones not catching up are the ideologues and morons in office.

Well, it seems to me that America is in a much weaker position globally, all things considered, after his term than before it.

I think most of that was in place well before Bush took office; honestly, the only thing he has done in regard to our international position has pissed off our allies in Europe with the Iraq thing. Virtually everything else wasn't his fault or existed before he entered office.

I think most of that was in place well before Bush took office; honestly, the only thing he has done in regard to our international position has pissed off our allies in Europe with the Iraq thing. Virtually everything else wasn't his fault or existed before he entered office.
Not sure whether that ever counted as an excuse though.

And the deficit is something that you can largely thank him and his patriotic congress for.

And the deficit is something that you can largely thank him and his patriotic congress for.
We've had the deficit a long, long, long, time my Germanic-Aboriginal friend.

We've had the deficit a long, long, long, time my Germanic-Aboriginal friend.


No, when Clinton left office, we had a budget surplus.

Perhaps, you meant National Debt?

Perhaps, you meant National Debt?
Actually, yes. Dang ecnomic-talk. Getting "debt" and "deficit" all mixed up.

We've had the deficit a long, long, long, time my Germanic-Aboriginal friend.
Aboriginal? :eek:

Aboriginal?
What? You're not Aboriginal?! I thought everyone that lived in Australia were criminals, Aboriginals, or related to sheep! ;)

No one will anwer with a "yes", here, unless you ask in a funny farm...
and even there, people might not be that retarded.

He's probably the biggest failure ever as a president. Sure, the ones before him also sucked badly, but he sets new records in suckage :rolleyes:

I guess it all really depends on what is important to you. I personally think Dubya is one of the best presidents we have seen. ((anticipates a lynching)) For me (and apparently a vast number of Americans), morals and standards are most important and are what reelected Bush. Sure, this whole Iraq war is getting a bit old, but nobody is as gung-ho 4 or 5 years into a war as they were at the first shots. His Patriot Act and Wiretapping issues bother me a bit. But, he is one of the best defensive presidents since *forever*. Also, he isn't afraid to make a stand against the immoral acts this country has come to accept as normal; abortion, homosexual civil unions, etc. He won reelection when many feared his stance would cost him 4 more years. Why? Because stats showed a large influx of non-voting Christians as well as college students came out and voted in '04, IN FAVOR of Bush!

Sure he has his flaws, as does each and every person, but he is the best president since, and second only to, Reagan.

Actually, yes. Dang ecnomic-talk. Getting "debt" and "deficit" all mixed up.


Well its similar.

The national debt, is simply money we owe to ourselves.
Kinda like a national credit card, that we never really make any payments on.
Fortunately, we arent harrassing ourselves to pay it off anytime soon.

Its good to be the boss.

The other is a budget surplus.
Wich of course, is a huge chunk of money left over, after balancing the national budget.

After Clinton, we had the largest budget surplus in history.
After Bush balanced the budget, we had the largest deficit.

How?

He spent it all.

Thats what Republican Presidents do.
They spend money like monsters, so that when a Democrat gets elected, they have no choice but to raise taxes.
This is never, ever popular.
Thus...a Republican gets elected again...and repeats the cycle.

Kinda like a national credit card, that we never really make any payments on.
I know what they mean, I just a mind lapse. :)

Well its similar.

The national debt, is simply money we owe to ourselves.
Kinda like a national credit card, that we never really make any payments on.
Fortunately, we arent harrassing ourselves to pay it off anytime soon.

Its good to be the boss.

The other is a budget surplus.
Wich of course, is a huge chunk of money left over, after balancing the national budget.

After Clinton, we had the largest budget surplus in history.
After Bush balanced the budget, we had the largest deficit.

How?

He spent it all.

Thats what Republican Presidents do.
They spend money like monsters, so that when a Democrat gets elected, they have no choice but to raise taxes.
This is never, ever popular.
Thus...a Republican gets elected again...and repeats the cycle.

The "W" Deficits now exceed the combined deficits of all previous Presidents. He has added more debt to our country in 6 years than the preceding 230 years. We will all have to pay higher taxes for the rest of our lives in order to repay that. Thanks George.

Not to mention that when his term is over , he is dropping a huge mess into the next presidents lap. I wonder if he's reached the point of apathy and just doesnt care anymore?

The "W" Deficits now exceed the combined deficits of all previous Presidents. He has added more debt to our country in 6 years than the preceding 230 years. We will all have to pay higher taxes for the rest of our lives in order to repay that. Thanks George.


But dont you feel safer?

C'mon...is a little security, worth making ours, and our childrens, and possibly thier childrens lives harder, worth a little false piece-of-mind?

You MUST just be a Liberal Commie Pinko.

For me (and apparently a vast number of Americans), morals and standards are most important and are what reelected Bush.
I never really got all that "moral standards" talk. Sounds like a lot of hypocrisy and "I want you to live your life like I tell you to, dangnammit!"
Not particularly American. Live and let live, remember?

But, he is one of the best defensive presidents since *forever*.
Defensive President? You mean because he's always under attack? :confused:

Sure he has his flaws, as does each and every person, but he is the best president since, and second only to, Reagan.
You have a talent for selective judgement, you know that?

Anyways, here is a BBC link I found mildly amusing on one hand, thought-inspiring on the other.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4807446.stm

And the deficit is something that you can largely thank him and his patriotic congress for.

Well, from 2002 to 2004 the deficit was pretty useful in reviving the economy following all of the crap that occured in 2000-2002, but now it's just starting to cause inflation rather than help anything.

Well, from 2002 to 2004 the deficit was pretty useful in reviving the economy following all of the crap that occured in 2000-2002, but now it's just starting to cause inflation rather than help anything.
I haven't looked at the details, but I would suggest that much of the military spending is doing little if anything to help the economy. That's trillions and trillions out the window.

I haven't looked at the details, but I would suggest that much of the military spending is doing little if anything to help the economy. That's trillions and trillions out the window.Rebuilding Iraq helped the economy, though. Bush managed to create demand for zounds of jobs by invading.

Like any other office-holder, Bush has done some good things and some bad things. If I were asked the question "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George Bush is handling his second term in office?", my only honest answer would no. I'd rather have him there than Kerry, but there are things other than terrorism and homeland security that I would like to see him address.

1. Why did he sign the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance act? He stated that he thought it was unconstitutional, then signed it into law, anyway.

2. Why has non-defense related government spending risen so fast during his Administration? Why did he set all-time records for government spending increases during the first three years of his presidency?

3. Why did he team up with Ted Kennedy to double spending on the Department of Education, a Department Republicans had pledged to eliminate six years before he was elected. The spending hasn't helped. The quality of education has steadily decreased during the past six years.

4. Why hasn't he addressed the issue of school choice?

5. Forget the Arab aspects of the port deal, why would George Bush support turning over essential operations of six American ports to any foreign government, let alone an Arab one?

6. Why hasn't he spoken out against Kelo vs. New London?

7. It goes on and on. How did he get talked into that awful Prescription drug program? Why did he appoint a blue-ribbon tax reform panel that only managed to suggest changes that repeated the 1986 tax reform law? Illegal immigration, social security reform, health care reform are all still troubling issues with no resolution.

8. Is the port deal the only thing worth vetoing in the past 5 years? That's hard to believe.

No, he hasn't done a good job, but it certainly isn't the worst.

Rebuilding Iraq helped the economy, though. Bush managed to create demand for zounds of jobs by invading.
Well, questions remain as to who exactly is benefitting from it the most, but it's pointless anyways, as the one area where Bush actually did cut back/limit the spending was in the one area where I felt it might have been worth it, and that was rebuilding Iraq.

Well, questions remain as to who exactly is benefitting from it the most, but it's pointless anyways, as the one area where Bush actually did cut back/limit the spending was in the one area where I felt it might have been worth it, and that was rebuilding Iraq.It certainly helped the British economy a lot. Brought in large sums of money.

Forget the Arab aspects of the port deal, why would George Bush support turning over essential operations of six American ports to any foreign government, let alone an Arab one?
It's called globalisation. Deal with it.

The ownership of the company is not the issue. It operates on the free market to make a profit, just like any other company. But it was started by the Dubaiati government as part of a larger plan to create an economy that doesn't need oil exports to function. That's why it is government-owned.

It certainly helped the British economy a lot. Brought in large sums of money.
"Large sums"?

Do you have a link? It would have to be a pretty damn large sum to have a reasonable effect on a trillion-dollar economy.

"Large sums"?

Do you have a link? It would have to be a pretty damn large sum to have a reasonable effect on a trillion-dollar economy.Read it in a newspaper. Not sure anymore whether it was 3 digit million or 1 digit billion anymore though...

No.

Dreamer.
Myotisinia = Lennon?

I guess it all really depends on what is important to you. I personally think Dubya is one of the best presidents we have seen. ((anticipates a lynching)) For me (and apparently a vast number of Americans), morals and standards are most important and are what reelected Bush. Sure, this whole Iraq war is getting a bit old, but nobody is as gung-ho 4 or 5 years into a war as they were at the first shots. His Patriot Act and Wiretapping issues bother me a bit. But, he is one of the best defensive presidents since *forever*. Also, he isn't afraid to make a stand against the immoral acts this country has come to accept as normal; abortion, homosexual civil unions, etc. He won reelection when many feared his stance would cost him 4 more years. Why? Because stats showed a large influx of non-voting Christians as well as college students came out and voted in '04, IN FAVOR of Bush!

Sure he has his flaws, as does each and every person, but he is the best president since, and second only to, Reagan.
Well, there's an awful lot of wrong stinking up that post, but thanks for sharing. :rolleyes:

For example, see this post ...:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10581485&postcount=66

and this one:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10582640&postcount=74

I haven't looked at the details, but I would suggest that much of the military spending is doing little if anything to help the economy. That's trillions and trillions out the window.

Well, in 2001-2003 the job market was spared a lot more pain than it would have had due to the massive hiring for various agencies (the DHS alone hired 170,000 people...more than 8 times the total employment of Enron). Plus, companies like Boeing were lifted from dire financial straits.

And Halliburton...well, let's just say that 5,000 new hires from 2002-2006 and a stock that jumped from $14 to $70 is a nice boost.

Well, in 2001-2003 the job market was spared a lot more pain than it would have had due to the massive hiring for various agencies (the DHS alone hired 170,000 people...more than 8 times the total employment of Enron). Plus, companies like Boeing were lifted from dire financial straits.

And Halliburton...well, let's just say that 5,000 new hires from 2002-2006 and a stock that jumped from $14 to $70 is a nice boost.
Go the defence industry! :rolleyes:

At any rate, considering the opportunity cost of that money, I still maintain that it was a bad decision economically.

Go the defence industry! :rolleyes:

At least it pays well...really well.

At any rate, considering the opportunity cost of that money, I still maintain that it was a bad decision economically.

Speaking from a Keynesian perspective, I'd say the deficits were good in 2002 2003 and 2004, but from there on we've just been causing increasingly more inflation and more crowding out of private investment.

This thread here is to debate about whether YOU think the current USA president George W. Bush.

Well, I think the current USA President is George W. Bush, unless he was impeached today. :eek:

I guess it all really depends on what is important to you. I personally think Dubya is one of the best presidents we have seen. ((anticipates a lynching)) For me (and apparently a vast number of Americans), morals and standards are most important and are what reelected Bush. Sure, this whole Iraq war is getting a bit old, but nobody is as gung-ho 4 or 5 years into a war as they were at the first shots. His Patriot Act and Wiretapping issues bother me a bit. But, he is one of the best defensive presidents since *forever*. Also, he isn't afraid to make a stand against the immoral acts this country has come to accept as normal; abortion, homosexual civil unions, etc. He won reelection when many feared his stance would cost him 4 more years. Why? Because stats showed a large influx of non-voting Christians as well as college students came out and voted in '04, IN FAVOR of Bush!

Sure he has his flaws, as does each and every person, but he is the best president since, and second only to, Reagan.

"the best president since, and second only to, Reagan" Firstly, not the intellectual are we?

Secondly, how can you qualify the following "Also, he isn't afraid to make a stand against the immoral acts this country has come to accept as normal; abortion, homosexual civil unions, etc." as being immoral? In relation to what absolute code of morals that incontravertible? Moreover I daresay you percieve co-habitation to be immoral, yet deplore homo-sexual civil unions.

Furthermore, to what end is he an effective "defensive" president, or doesa n offensive war into a non-combatent and impoverished state qualify as defence? Incidentally, how many Americans have died, omitting the anomoly of 9/11, under Bush's tenure? Consideraly more than either Kennedy, who governed in the cold war, or Clinton I would contend, and whilst you may counter-assert that such deaths are complicit to the war on terror, it is evident that the war is one instigated by Bush himself.

Finally, in relation to his illustriousness being evident in the christian votes who elected him, how many of them have na IQ over 120, or a university education? A minority I would contend. However, they do assert an anachronistic and repressive moral code, that was formulated prior to the fall of Rome, as the basis for the government of a contemporary, advanced state. I daresay the political contrivances necessary to procure their votes were complex.

Finally, in relation to his illustriousness being evident in the christian votes who elected him, how many of them have na IQ over 120, or a university education? A minority I would contend. However, they do assert an anachronistic and repressive moral code, that was formulated prior to the fall of Rome, as the basis for the government of a contemporary, advanced state. I daresay the political contrivances necessary to procure their votes were complex.

Most people don't have an IQ over 120, and I can assure you the Democrats don't have intellectual superiority over the Republicans...just look at the inner cities of the US.

Disturbingly enough, the fundamentalist movement is quite well educated and wealthy and it is comprised mostly of college graduates.

Stupid post. Even the Republican run Congress is having major doubts about him. Have you even looked at his approval ratings?

Most people don't have an IQ over 120, and I can assure you the Democrats don't have intellectual superiority over the Republicans...just look at the inner cities of the US.

Disturbingly enough, the fundamentalist movement is quite well educated and wealthy and it is comprised mostly of college graduates.

College students fueled the National Socialists as well. So?

:) The U.S. Economy is very good, taxes are down.

:headbang: Border security, not so much.

:headbang: Spending, out of control. He doesn't veto anything. And the increased revenues brought in by the tax decrease are spent faster than they come in, causing people to think that the solution (incorrectly) is a tax increase.

:gundge: The real solution is cutting spending. But he won't veto anything.

:upyours: Seems to be on his own course, doesn't seem to listen to anyone.

:) Brought freedom to 2 countries, in spite of the terrible cost.

:( Rarely addresses the people to bring them along aka lead. Reagan was much better in that regard.

:( Brings up good ideas, then drops them in the face of opposition (social security reform)

:mad: Not nearly conservative enough. We are still looking for the next Ronald Reagan...:(

College students fueled the National Socialists as well. So?

Exactly! The fundies aren't some dumb hicks living in the backwoods, they are well educated and wealthy people with an agenda in mind and they will stop at nothing to get their policies in place because they know exactly what they are doing and know how to play politics.

The sooner people realize that, the sooner they will realize how dangerous fundamentalist beliefs are and how much power these people really wield when they put the effort in.

Exactly! The fundies aren't some dumb hicks living in the backwoods, they are well educated and wealthy people with an agenda in mind and they will stop at nothing to get their policies in place because they know exactly what they are doing and know how to play politics.

The sooner people realize that, the sooner they will realize how dangerous fundamentalist beliefs are and how much power these people really wield when they put the effort in.


Yes because educated people are evil and we should kill them and replace them with non-educated idiots...:rolleyes:

Yes because educated people are evil and we should kill them and replace them with non-educated idiots...:rolleyes:

Education is amoral. It's what people do with it that determines their morality...and fundamentalists are an example of a well educated, dangerous aspect of American politics. People who portray them as dumb hicks simply don't know what they are talking about.

(Sorry if rearranging this offends you, but it's easier to address your post this way.)

For me (and apparently a vast number of Americans), morals and standards are most important and are what reelected Bush.
--snip--
Also, he isn't afraid to make a stand against the immoral acts this country has come to accept as normal; abortion, homosexual civil unions, etc.

Caught in a contradiction. Either they are considered normal and are supported by the majority or they are opposed by the majority of the people.
The former appears to be the case, as poll after poll (and yes, me or someone else will dig the exact polling data up if you really want) indicates that a majority of the US want abortion, some form of gay marriage/civil union, and stem-cell research to be legal.

And the idea that the GOP's "moral" stance won the election is not necessarily correct.
See:
http://www.slate.com/id/2109275/
http://mediamatters.org/items/200411100010

Finally, the authoritarian bent the GOP has taken in the last 25 years under the influance of the religious "moralists" is anathema to conservatism. The traditional conservative stand in this country is that the government should keeop it's damned nose out of the peoples private and moral lives. The path down which the religious "moralists" have lead the GOP is one of great danger, even unto themselves.

His Patriot Act and Wiretapping issues bother me a bit.

They bother me a great deal more, and not just on the invasion of civil rights issues. The wiretap issue appears to be at least as grave a crime (if not more) as Clinton's perjury.

Sure, this whole Iraq war is getting a bit old, but nobody is as gung-ho 4 or 5 years into a war as they were at the first shots. But, he is one of the best defensive presidents since *forever*.

The last statment is simply a joke. Even if the war in Iraq is justified, it hads been prosecuted in a completely incompetent manner.

Sure he has his flaws, as does each and every person, but he is the best president since, and second only to, Reagan.

No. Simply no.

Aren't his current approval ratings lower than Nixon's were before he resigned?



I heard that once, just wondering if any of you know otherwise.

(Sorry if rearranging this offends you, but it's easier to address your post this way.)

Caught in a contradiction. Either they are considered normal and are supported by the majority or they are opposed by the majority of the people.
The former appears to be the case, as poll after poll (and yes, me or someone else will dig the exact polling data up if you really want) indicates that a majority of the US want abortion, some form of gay marriage/civil union, and stem-cell research to be legal.

And the idea that the GOP's "moral" stance won the election is not necessarily correct.
See:
http://www.slate.com/id/2109275/
http://mediamatters.org/items/200411100010

Finally, the authoritarian bent the GOP has taken in the last 25 years under the influance of the religious "moralists" is anathema to conservatism. The traditional conservative stand in this country is that the government should keeop it's damned nose out of the peoples private and moral lives. The path down which the religious "moralists" have lead the GOP is one of great danger, even unto themselves.
Good post and a interesting articles. I was sure that the issue of Bush being a better "defense" President than Kerry was the number one thing that drove Bush's re-election, but I also thought that the "moral issues" theme was the gravy. It appears that I was wrong according to those articles, at least as far as the "moral issues" are concerned.

They bother me a great deal more, and not just on the invasion of civil rights issues. The wiretap issue appears to be at least as grave a crime (if not more) as Clinton's perjury.
Big Brother anyone? Very scary abuse of power to say the least.

The last statment is simply a joke. Even if the war in Iraq is justified, it hads been prosecuted in a completely incompetent manner.
While I do not believe that the war was jusified, I do agree with the lack of competance issue.

No. Simply no.
Bush 2nd best President next to Reagan???? No effen way!!

Aren't his current approval ratings lower than Nixon's were before he resigned?



I heard that once, just wondering if any of you know otherwise.

He hit
34% in November (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113216347138199155-5Z1Ri_om8ITUbV_jD2bx6maguMY_20061116.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top) and two weeks ago (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/3692292.html), which is in the top 5 lowest, but still better than Nixon's low of 27.5.

Most people don't have an IQ over 120, and I can assure you the Democrats don't have intellectual superiority over the Republicans...just look at the inner cities of the US.


So how does the situtations of the inner city measure the IQ level a person?

He hit
34% in November (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113216347138199155-5Z1Ri_om8ITUbV_jD2bx6maguMY_20061116.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top) and two weeks ago (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/3692292.html), which is in the top 5 lowest, but still better than Nixon's low of 27.5.

If he doesn't get murdered/assassinated first, he's well on his way to those record lows. I could see him being THE least popular president in history... if nothing else, he's totally screwing over the Republican party, the longer he's in charge...
So... yeah... elected in a year ending in 0. That's the curse, right?
Someone's going to take a shot sooner or later...
I've been saying that since he was elected to his first term. :p
My only question is, will it be an inside job, or non-American to tag him? If the Republicans get scared enough that they're going to lose all power for a long time, and the recent predictions of a third party coming to power scare them enough, they might off their own man...
Not that I'd really care WHO does it... :)
Man, it scares me to think that there's a human being I wouldn't mind watching die on live tv... usually such a pacifist.

It's called globalisation. Deal with it.

The ownership of the company is not the issue. It operates on the free market to make a profit, just like any other company. But it was started by the Dubaiati government as part of a larger plan to create an economy that doesn't need oil exports to function. That's why it is government-owned.
See that's the problem. A state-owned company isn't subject to free market forces like privately owned companies. The company can absorb huge losses to do whatever the state considers best for the state. A privately owned company can't do that.

With a free market economy of our own, we have no business allowing state run enterprises to operate large sections of our infrastructure.

President Bush has disappointed a lot of conservatives. I don't know if we should have predicted these spending sprees, i.e. was the term 'compassionate conservative' synonymous with 'big spender', or not? I still think there are a few questions that the public deserves answers to. Problem is that there are few reporters that will look past Iraq and Abu Graihb(sp?) to ask them.

From Peggy Noonan's column in the WSJ:

Did you ever hold conservative notions and assumptions on the issue of spending? If so, did you abandon them after the trauma of 9/11? For what reasons, exactly? Did you intend to revert to conservative thinking on spending at some point? Do you still?

Were you always a liberal on spending? Were you, or are you, frankly baffled that conservatives assumed you were a conservative on spending? Did you feel they misunderstood you? Did you allow or encourage them to misunderstand you?

What are the implications for our country if spending levels continue to grow at their current pace?

What are the implications for the Republican party if it continues to cede one of the pillars on which it stood?

Did compassionate conservatism always mean big spending?