NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush's notoriously low approval ratings have mired beneath the viscous muck of the Iraq War and unpopular domesitc policies for several month, impotent to escape their predicament. The media has greedily seized upon this development, as a vulture would rotting meat, hailing it as a failure of the administration. Yet this conclusion is without a logical premise and ridden with fallacies.

The underlying assumption behind that erroneous thesis is that high approval ratings are a positive indication of the efficacy of the president; conversely, that low approval ratings are just the opposite. Unfortunately for the liberal media, reality does not bear out this ridiculous claim; in fact, it is just the opposite.

Consider, for example, merciless, bloodthirsty tyrants such as Stalin, Hussein, and Ceauşescu. The were some of the cruelest fiends to hold a position of power. The systematically butchered their people and unrelentingly drove their country into social and economic ruin. Yet, perhaps surprisingly, over 90% of the populace "approved" of them. A similar phenomenon is once again rearing its grotesque head in Russia and Venezuela, where two abhorrent "dictators" are enjoying elevated approval ratings. Propelled by powerful waves of public fear and dismay, these despots are attaining awe-inducing numbers.

Now, we arrive at Bush. In contrast to the aforementioned authoritarian rulers who made mincemeat of their countries and inflicted unspeakable horrors upon their people, Bush's approval ratings are dismal. So, what does this reflect? Why should his approval ratings be so low? I'll tell you.


Bush is faithfully devoted to democracy and freedom; yet these ideals exact a terrible price as they allow the public to register their discontent with Bush. He also allows anti-American cells to operate freely within the US, poisoning innocent ears with their hateful rhetoric which is highly critical of him.
Bush is a visionary who possesses a glorious long-term vision for this country, yet is misunderstood by the narrow-minded and artless who cannot grasp his complex concepts.
Bush is unwilling to pander to populist sentiment, which drove droves of nations into disarry and dispair. Instead, he is a decider who is willing and fully capable of making tough decisions to better America at the expense of his own political capital.


The reasonable conclusion to draw is that although -- nay, because -- Bush has low approval ratings, he is doing what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole instead of benefiting himself, as did the dictators I mentioned. I, for one, will welcome the day that Bush's approval rating slips below 25%, as it will show that Bush is impervious to criticism, is strong-willed, and is courageous enough to do what needs to be done despite vehement outpourings of rage among the liberal media.

You may have caught a case of liberalism there, my twisted friend.

You may have caught a case of liberalism there, my twisted friend.

What do you mean? Are you claiming that my opposition to dictators renders me a liberal?

Considering that Bush is a lame duck, and isn't going to get anything substantive through Congress between now and the end of his term, it's not really relevant what his approval rating is.

Approval ratings matter to people who are running for re-election.

Approval ratings matter to people who are running for re-election.

I was simply striking out against the unfair characterization that Bush's low approval ratings indicate that he is a poor president; on the contrary, it illustrates his great strength, poise, and far-sightedness. Perhaps it may not matter, but it definitively shows how excellent a president Bush was.

What do you mean? Are you claiming that my opposition to dictators renders me a liberal?

Liberalism (n): reality deficit disorder.

I rest my case.

Bush is faithfully devoted to democracy and freedom; yet these ideals exact a terrible price as they allow the public to register their discontent with Bush. He also allows anti-American cells to operate freely within the US, poisoning innocent ears with their hateful rhetoric which is highly critical of him.
Bush is a visionary who possesses a glorious long-term vision for this country, yet is misunderstood by the narrow-minded and artless who cannot grasp his complex concepts.
Bush is unwilling to pander to populist sentiment, which drove droves of nations into disarry and dispair. Instead, he is a decider who is willing and fully capable of making tough decisions to better America at the expense of his own political capital.


The problem is that Bush hasn't done or stood by any of these things (and I challenge you to show me otherwise), so the logical conclusion is that he lost his approval ratings with his stupid, bungling wars, and bad policies. Try again.

I was simply striking out against the unfair characterization that Bush's low approval ratings indicate that he is a poor president; on the contrary, it illustrates his great strength, poise, and far-sightedness. Perhaps it may not matter, but it definitively shows how excellent a president Bush was.

It doesn't mean he's a poor President - it means his way of doing things is unpopular.

On the other hand, it does not prove that he's a good President, either.

Considering that most Americans are less educated and less aware of national and world matters than Bush, they are hardly in a position to judge whether he's a good President or not.

Most historians usually wait a few years before trying to determine if someone was a good or bad President - it often takes that long to find out if the policies that were put into effect made any positive or negative difference. Sure, you can say the Iraq War is bad at this point - but the situation can always get worse or better - and at that point, with the filter of politics removed, historians will make their judgment.

I was simply striking out against the unfair characterization that Bush's low approval ratings indicate that he is a poor president; on the contrary, it illustrates his great strength, poise, and far-sightedness. Perhaps it may not matter, but it definitively shows how excellent a president Bush was.

Not necessarily a low rating indicates just that ... a low rating. It does not show why nor give qualifications.

Maybe he has a low rating cause he did stupid shit and is now paying the piper in the way of public approval

He has no choice but to endure the low approval rating now either way ... it does not take "strength" nor poise. He has nothing left to loose, its not like he can get elected again either way.

Bush's notoriously low approval ratings have mired beneath the viscous muck of the Iraq War and unpopular domesitc policies for several month, impotent to escape their predicament. The media has greedily seized upon this development, as a vulture would rotting meat, hailing it as a failure of the administration. Yet this conclusion is without a logical premise and ridden with fallacies.

The underlying assumption behind that erroneous thesis is that high approval ratings are a positive indication of the efficacy of the president; conversely, that low approval ratings are just the opposite. Unfortunately for the liberal media, reality does not bear out this ridiculous claim; in fact, it is just the opposite.

Consider, for example, merciless, bloodthirsty tyrants such as Stalin, Hussein, and Ceauşescu. The were some of the cruelest fiends to hold a position of power. The systematically butchered their people and unrelentingly drove their country into social and economic ruin. Yet, perhaps surprisingly, over 90% of the populace "approved" of them. A similar phenomenon is once again rearing its grotesque head in Russia and Venezuela, where two abhorrent "dictators" are enjoying elevated approval ratings. Propelled by powerful waves of public fear and dismay, these despots are attaining awe-inducing numbers.

Now, we arrive at Bush. In contrast to the aforementioned authoritarian rulers who made mincemeat of their countries and inflicted unspeakable horrors upon their people, Bush's approval ratings are dismal. So, what does this reflect? Why should his approval ratings be so low? I'll tell you.


Bush is faithfully devoted to democracy and freedom; yet these ideals exact a terrible price as they allow the public to register their discontent with Bush. He also allows anti-American cells to operate freely within the US, poisoning innocent ears with their hateful rhetoric which is highly critical of him.
Bush is a visionary who possesses a glorious long-term vision for this country, yet is misunderstood by the narrow-minded and artless who cannot grasp his complex concepts.
Bush is unwilling to pander to populist sentiment, which drove droves of nations into disarry and dispair. Instead, he is a decider who is willing and fully capable of making tough decisions to better America at the expense of his own political capital.


The reasonable conclusion to draw is that although -- nay, because -- Bush has low approval ratings, he is doing what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole instead of benefiting himself, as did the dictators I mentioned. I, for one, will welcome the day that Bush's approval rating slips below 25%, as it will show that Bush is impervious to criticism, is strong-willed, and is courageous enough to do what needs to be done despite vehement outpourings of rage among the liberal media.


Yeah the approval rating of Ceausescu was really high, it was what saved him in the end, wasn’t it
:D

Bush's notoriously low approval ratings have mired beneath the viscous muck of the Iraq War and unpopular domestic policies for several month, impotent to escape their predicament. The media has greedily seized upon this development, as a vulture would rotting meat, hailing it as a failure of the administration. Yet this conclusion is without a logical premise and ridden with fallacies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2004

The underlying assumption behind that erroneous thesis is that high approval ratings are a positive indication of the efficacy of the president; conversely, that low approval ratings are just the opposite. Unfortunately for the liberal media, reality does not bear out this ridiculous claim; in fact, it is just the opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll

Consider, for example, merciless, bloodthirsty tyrants such as Stalin, Hussein, and Ceauşescu. The were some of the cruelest fiends to hold a position of power. The systematically butchered their people and unrelentingly drove their country into social and economic ruin. Yet, perhaps surprisingly, over 90% of the populace "approved" of them. A similar phenomenon is once again rearing its grotesque head in Russia and Venezuela, where two abhorrent "dictators" are enjoying elevated approval ratings. Propelled by powerful waves of public fear and dismay, these despots are attaining awe-inducing numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_bias

[LIST=1]
Bush is faithfully devoted to democracy and freedom; yet these ideals exact a terrible price as they allow the public to register their discontent with Bush. He also allows anti-American cells to operate freely within the US, poisoning innocent ears with their hateful rhetoric which is highly critical of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment

Bush is a visionary who possesses a glorious long-term vision for this country, yet is misunderstood by the narrow-minded and artless who cannot grasp his complex concepts.

404 Error: Facts not found.

The reasonable conclusion to draw is that although -- nay, because -- Bush has low approval ratings, he is doing what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole instead of benefiting himself, as did the dictators I mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage

I, for one, will welcome the day that Bush's approval rating slips below 25%, as it will show that Bush is impervious to criticism, is strong-willed, and is courageous enough to do what needs to be done despite vehement outpourings of rage among the liberal media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment

On one hand, I wish I knew where that "Ah jeez, not this shit again!" pic was.

On the other hand, I am just dying to know if FandG would support Bush staying in office beyong 20 January 2009 for any reason at all...even if the 22nd Amendment says he has to park his low-approval-rating-having ass in Crawford, TX after that day.

And on the third hand I still need to grow, Occam's Razor comes in here. Bush's approval rating is shitty because his policies are shitty. Sure, lots of maniacal dictators had high approval ratings, but they also had butchers coming to kill dissenters. We kid of don't have that here.

Yet.

On the other hand, I am just dying to know if FandG would support Bush staying in office beyong 20 January 2009 for any reason at all...even if the 22nd Amendment says he has to park his low-approval-rating-having ass in Crawford, TX after that day.

Of course. The notion that politicians may tell the American people who or not to elect is an affront to our democracy and needs to be done away with.

Of course. The notion that politicians may tell the American people who or not to elect is an affront to our democracy and needs to be done away with.

But wouldn't that mean Bush's approval rating would go up? Meaning he would become a dictator?

lol oh lol

But wouldn't that mean Bush's approval rating would go up? Meaning he would become a dictator?

I think FandG would have a front-row seat to Emperor Dubya's coronation if he did that...

A well deserved low approval rating. He's doing a bad job. Don't let anybody tell you any different, FandG.

On one hand, I wish I knew where that "Ah jeez, not this shit again!" pic was.


Fear not, weary troll-feeder (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Not_This_Shit_Again).

A well deserved low approval rating. He's doing a bad job. Don't let anybody tell you any different, FandG.

Good luck getting through that mind of his/hers/its...that mind is like a steel trap. That's been rusted shut. And rotted through. And covered in mercury. And fossilized shit. And just for good measure, someone spilled beer on it.

You're right dude!

All Bush wants to do is spread Freedom and Democrocy all over the world to the uncivilized barbarians who aren't God-fearing honest to goodness white Christians.

Dear Bush does so much for us and asks for so little in return; just some constitutional rights, and it's not like we really needthose right? He even gives us tax breaks so rich white men... Well the reasons aren't important, but I'm sure they involve freedom.

I mean name at least ONE thing Bush, who I refer to as Our Fearless Leader, hasn't done in the name of spreading Freedom and Democracy all over the globe.

The War? What's wrong with it? Sure we've lost some Humvees n' stuff, but did you know that over ten thousand insurgents are killed every single day? The media won't tell you that because they're a bunch of baby-killing liberals who won't even go to baseball games or eat apple pie.

Bush is the second greatest president to ever rule over the American people. Here's a list to help you better understand.

4. Abe Lincoln
3. George Washington
2. George Dubya Bush
1. Ronald Reagan (A fusion between Lincoln and Washington)

Cheers to this wonderful selfless man who has improved America and the rest of the world for generations to come!

You're right dude!

All Bush wants to do is spread Freedom and Democrocy all over the world to the uncivilized barbarians who aren't God-fearing honest to goodness white Christians.

Dear Bush does so much for us and asks for so little in return; just some constitutional rights, and it's not like we really needthose right? He even gives us tax breaks so rich white men... Well the reasons aren't important, but I'm sure they involve freedom.

I mean name at least ONE thing Bush, who I refer to as Our Fearless Leader, hasn't done in the name of spreading Freedom and Democracy all over the globe.

The War? What's wrong with it? Sure we've lost some Humvees n' stuff, but did you know that over ten thousand insurgents are killed every single day? The media won't tell you that because they're a bunch of baby-killing liberals who won't even go to baseball games or eat apple pie.

Bush is the second greatest president to ever rule over the American people. Here's a list to help you better understand.

4. Abe Lincoln
3. George Washington
2. George Dubya Bush
1. Ronald Reagan (A fusion between Lincoln and Washington)

Cheers to this wonderful selfless man who has improved America and the rest of the world for generations to come!

You broke my sarcasm meter.

You're right dude!

While I mostly agree with what you say, I must beg to differ on a couple of points. First of all, the Bush tax cuts were across-the-board and benefited all Americans, regardless of race or income. Second of all, I doubt the factual veracity of the statement that thousands of insurgents are being killed daily; although we are making substantial progress in Iraq, I believe the real figure to be somewhat lower. Also, although it's a close call, I would put Washington ahead of Bush, but that's just my personal opinion.

While I mostly agree with what you say, I must beg to differ on a couple of points. First of all, the Bush tax cuts were across-the-board and benefited all Americans, regardless of race or income. Second of all, I doubt the factual veracity of the statement that thousands of insurgents are being killed daily; although we are making substantial progress in Iraq, I believe the real figure to be somewhat lower. Also, although it's a close call, I would put Washington ahead of Bush, but that's just my personal opinion.

LOL!!!!!! :D

First, for the most part the media is conservative. Look at all of the owners and listen to what they are showing and saying. This war is in no way being covered with the truth that was shown in Vietnam. When was the last time they showed a wounded soldier or even a real firefight? When was the last time they showed a casket or funeral? For the most part they set in the command compound and repeat the military press releases.

Second, what the people of the US want and what the people of other nations want can be two different things. Under Saddam fewer Iraqis died per year than under the "democracy" of the US. And Saddam only killed criminals, treasoners, their families and supporters. The people could walk the streets without fear. Children could go to school. Iraq was one of the best educated countries in the region. They had medical care. (Can the people of the US say that?) For the average person life wasn't bad and certainly wasn't fearful. They all had automatic weapons. If they wanted to start a revolution they certainly could have. If they can fight guerrilla against the US they could have against Saddam. The fact is there are different cultures in the world and it is totally bigoted for the US to deny the values of other cultures.

Third, the people of the US have more fear today than on 9/10. And that fear is justifiable as the enemies have been boosted by decisions of the "decider". And this fear is played upon and used by the administration to hold onto that last 30%.

Fourth, the average person is worse off than they were 6 years ago. The rich have gotten richer but the average has gotten stagnant or retreated. The environment is worse. The infrastructure is worse. Pay adjusted for inflation is worse. Work hours are longer. The basic services of government are worse. The education is worse. The financial position of the government is worse. Job availability for those at the bottom is worse. Scientific advancement is worse. The Bill of Rights and any other constitution protections are shredded.

Name anything relating to the average citizen that is better. Name anything that makes the average people of the world better than they were 6 years ago.

Bush is the second greatest president to ever rule over the American people. Here's a list to help you better understand.

4. Abe Lincoln
3. George Washington
2. George Dubya Bush
1. Ronald Reagan (A fusion between Lincoln and Washington)

Cheers to this wonderful selfless man who has improved America and the rest of the world for generations to come!

Ronald Reagan committed TREASON. He sold arms to the enemy and directly defied congress and committed a felony by using the money to fund a group that congress specifically voted not to fund.

What is more treasonous than selling arms to the enemy?

Ronald Reagan committed TREASON. He sold arms to the enemy and directly defied congress and committed a felony by using the money to fund a group that congress specifically voted not to fund.

What is more treasonous than selling arms to the enemy?

No actually, we laundered it through Israel.

Ronald Reagan committed TREASON. He sold arms to the enemy and directly defied congress and committed a felony by using the money to fund a group that congress specifically voted not to fund.

What is more treasonous than selling arms to the enemy?
Being an Evil Liberal, of course. Along with not bowing to the whims of the Dear Leader.

*Steps into the thread with a sickening squish* EWWWW!!! It's everywhere! Bleah!!! *wrinkles nose*

Someone needs to post a sign...

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

There. :)

Ronald Reagan committed TREASON. He sold arms to the enemy and directly defied congress and committed a felony by using the money to fund a group that congress specifically voted not to fund.

What is more treasonous than selling arms to the enemy?

Balance that with "Ronald Reagan won the Cold War"

*Steps into the thread with a sickening squish* EWWWW!!! It's everywhere! Bleah!!! *wrinkles nose*
It is everywhere! :eek:

Still, cannot resist playing with it...:D

*throws it at posters* :p

How mature :rolleyes:

It is everywhere! :eek:

Still, cannot resist playing with it...:D

*throws it at posters* :p

How mature :rolleyes:

I won't judge you. Keep throwing. :)

Balance that with "Ronald Reagan won the Cold War"

Afghanistan won the cold war by destroying the Soviet economy and the common citizen's faith in the government. Also Mikhail Gorbachev opening up the government to the people was a direct cause.

Reagan happened to be president when these happened but nothing he did could be considered a cause of the change in any way. "Tear down this wall" is a great line but the wall didn't fall with those words like the horns brought down the walls of Jericho. Actually the breakup didn't take place until he was out of office. I defy you to find a real historian that gives Reagan any credit for ending the cold war. Rush and Sean don't count.

Afghanistan won the cold war by destroying the Soviet economy and the common citizen's faith in the government. Also Mikhail Gorbachev opening up the government to the people was a direct cause.

Reagan happened to be president when these happened but nothing he did could be considered a cause of the change in any way. "Tear down this wall" is a great line but the wall didn't fall with those words like the horns brought down the walls of Jericho. Actually the breakup didn't take place until he was out of office. I defy you to find a real historian that gives Reagan any credit for ending the cold war. Rush and Sean don't count.

Sorry, a fair number of historians give him the credit.

The USSR was trying to match our defense spending, which Reagan ratcheted up - rather like raising the stakes in poker.

He also implemented former Defense Secretary Harold Brown's plan (PD-59) with explicity targeting of Soviet leadership with nuclear weapons. Carter didn't have the balls to implement it.

It provoked an unsustainable level of defense spending in the Soviet Union, which ultimately damaged its economy to the point where the government could not remain in power.

Bush actually has an approval rating?!?!

Sorry, a fair number of historians give him the credit.

The USSR was trying to match our defense spending, which Reagan ratcheted up - rather like raising the stakes in poker.

He also implemented former Defense Secretary Harold Brown's plan (PD-59) with explicity targeting of Soviet leadership with nuclear weapons. Carter didn't have the balls to implement it.

It provoked an unsustainable level of defense spending in the Soviet Union, which ultimately damaged its economy to the point where the government could not remain in power.

Straight from the mouths of Rush and Sean.

Afghanistan won the cold war by destroying the Soviet economy and the common citizen's faith in the government. Also Mikhail Gorbachev opening up the government to the people was a direct cause.

Reagan happened to be president when these happened but nothing he did could be considered a cause of the change in any way. "Tear down this wall" is a great line but the wall didn't fall with those words like the horns brought down the walls of Jericho. Actually the breakup didn't take place until he was out of office. I defy you to find a real historian that gives Reagan any credit for ending the cold war. Rush and Sean don't count.

Reagan Smash! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=wqN-mbPP5Qs)

Reagan sleepy.

Afghanistan won the cold war by destroying the Soviet economy and the common citizen's faith in the government. Also Mikhail Gorbachev opening up the government to the people was a direct cause.

Reagan happened to be president when these happened but nothing he did could be considered a cause of the change in any way. "Tear down this wall" is a great line but the wall didn't fall with those words like the horns brought down the walls of Jericho. Actually the breakup didn't take place until he was out of office. I defy you to find a real historian that gives Reagan any credit for ending the cold war. Rush and Sean don't count.

Not so at all. I fear you are mistaken. Reagen spent so much of the American GDP on the military, that the USSR spent itself into oblivion trying to keep up. Reagan won the Cold War through hard economics. Afghanistan sowed seeds of unrest in the Soviet Population, but was not THE reason the Soviet Empire collapsed. It was because of the American Gross Domestic Product and a President's willingness to spend it all on tanks. :p

Straight from the mouths of Rush and Sean.

I hardly think so.

I remember doing an extensive paper on PD-59 and its ultimate implementation in 1986.

Where were they then?

In reply to the argument that bush's low approval ratings show some sort of high efficiency rate in actuality I would like to say as the title might suggest, What are you smoking dude? You gave a good explanation yourself of why this anomaly exists. When people are put under incredible amounts of pressure and threatened by all powerful dictators with their deaths and the deaths of their families then even in an anonymous poll they are not going to take any chances with the crazy dictator who as far as there concerned could be watching them right then. Then there is the logic that doing this :upyours: to a crazy dictator could result in one of the following actions on the dictators part: :mp5: :sniper: I know that if I was faced with just putting on a piece of paper that I liked the dictator and risking my life and my families then I would chose the first.

Not so at all. I fear you are mistaken. Reagen spent so much of the American GDP on the military, that the USSR spent itself into oblivion trying to keep up. Reagan won the Cold War through hard economics. Afghanistan sowed seeds of unrest in the Soviet Population, but was not THE reason the Soviet Empire collapsed. It was because of the American Gross Domestic Product and a President's willingness to spend it all on tanks. :p

If you read real historical accounts you will find that the Soviet leadership had no concern with American tanks. A tank is only good if you have a land border. Conventional arms had little to do with the cold war. Both sides had plenty of missiles to the point that conventional arms were really not a factor. They only played a part when they could be given to client states to use in substitute wars. (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Latin America, Cuba (to Africa), and various wars in Africa that Cuba didn't aid.)

If you read actual studies that include the opinions of the former Soviet Leaders you will find they were not impressed or influenced by the US arms buildup. They saw it as a domestic political ploy. They were more concerned about possible internal guerrilla wars that would further drain the country after Afghanistan.

There was also the new generation of thinkers taking power in Moscow. They were looking at reform of the economy and thought they could do it by a few "tweaks". The problem was those few tweaks led to unrest among the common citizens. In the end it was the common citizens that threw their power behind even more aggressive reformers that ended the former regime.

Again, if you read actual historical studies you will see Reagan only effected American thinking not Soviet/Russian thinking.

Ronald Reagan committed TREASON. He sold arms to the enemy and directly defied congress and committed a felony by using the money to fund a group that congress specifically voted not to fund.

What is more treasonous than selling arms to the enemy?

Not being able to recognize sarcasm...

Not being able to recognize sarcasm...

Sarcasm doesn't work on this site because, as you can see, there are people that actually believe Reagan and GW are Gods that do no wrong. So the assumption always has to be that the nuttier the post the more serious it is.

Bush is a visionary who possesses a glorious long-term vision for this country, yet is misunderstood by the narrow-minded and artless who cannot grasp his complex concepts.

:D


I'll rather go with:
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/deletebg9.jpg

If you read real historical accounts you will find that the Soviet leadership had no concern with American tanks. A tank is only good if you have a land border. Conventional arms had little to do with the cold war. Both sides had plenty of missiles to the point that conventional arms were really not a factor. They only played a part when they could be given to client states to use in substitute wars. (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Latin America, Cuba (to Africa), and various wars in Africa that Cuba didn't aid.)

If you read actual studies that include the opinions of the former Soviet Leaders you will find they were not impressed or influenced by the US arms buildup. They saw it as a domestic political ploy. They were more concerned about possible internal guerrilla wars that would further drain the country after Afghanistan.

There was also the new generation of thinkers taking power in Moscow. They were looking at reform of the economy and thought they could do it by a few "tweaks". The problem was those few tweaks led to unrest among the common citizens. In the end it was the common citizens that threw their power behind even more aggressive reformers that ended the former regime.

Again, if you read actual historical studies you will see Reagan only effected American thinking not Soviet/Russian thinking.

Ooh I like!

US intelligence had no idea that the Berlin Wall would fall. Do people really think that the US government could possibly predict a policy of driving up arms would lead to a collapse of the USSR as though it was some sort of uber-Nostradamus. It didn't, it was inconsequential.

Reagan was a B-movie actor trying to be John Wayne, trying to be the man on a horse riding in to save the world. Trying to be the sheriff with the bigger gun.

I can understand Bush, I like to think he has good intentions at heart - but Reagan was clinically insane.

I truly believe that America is a damn fine country, but I am perturbed by the unquestioning belief that people act according to what it does.

Bush's notoriously low approval ratings have mired beneath the viscous muck of the Iraq War and unpopular domesitc policies for several month, impotent to escape their predicament. The media has greedily seized upon this development, as a vulture would rotting meat, hailing it as a failure of the administration.

No, simply that his administration doesn't have popular support for its actions.

Although that can be seen as a failure to listen to the voters.

The underlying assumption behind that erroneous thesis is that high approval ratings are a positive indication of the efficacy of the president; conversely, that low approval ratings are just the opposite.

This is true in a country with free and fair elections.

Consider, for example, merciless, bloodthirsty tyrants such as Stalin, Hussein, and Ceauşescu. The were some of the cruelest fiends to hold a position of power. The systematically butchered their people and unrelentingly drove their country into social and economic ruin. Yet, perhaps surprisingly, over 90% of the populace "approved" of them.

Soviet Russia, Iraq and Romania were not countries with free and fair elections. On the contrary there was little to no political freedom at all; so that "approval" statistic is an indication of enforced obedience, rather than (as with the US) an indication of the actual public approval.

So your comparison here is specious.

Now, we arrive at Bush. In contrast to the aforementioned authoritarian rulers who made mincemeat of their countries and inflicted unspeakable horrors upon their people, Bush's approval ratings are dismal. So, what does this reflect?

It reflects the differences between the nation you are talking about - the US - with the nations you compared it with.

Your whole premise seems to be based on this faulty comparison. As such, your conclusions are also flawed. I'll look at them for a laugh, but they don't have wind in their sails.


Bush is faithfully devoted to democracy and freedom; yet these ideals exact a terrible price as they allow the public to register their discontent with Bush. He also allows anti-American cells to operate freely within the US, poisoning innocent ears with their hateful rhetoric which is highly critical of him.

Every president has been "devoted to democracy and freedom," and yet Bush has a lower approval rating than most. This says nothing good about Bush.

Bush is a visionary who possesses a glorious long-term vision for this country, yet is misunderstood by the narrow-minded and artless who cannot grasp his complex concepts.

This is just fucking hilarious.

Bush is unwilling to pander to populist sentiment, which drove droves of nations into disarry and dispair. Instead, he is a decider who is willing and fully capable of making tough decisions to better America at the expense of his own political capital.

Saddam was also a "decider."

The reasonable conclusion to draw is that although -- nay, because -- Bush has low approval ratings, he is doing what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole instead of benefiting himself, as did the dictators I mentioned.

Even if your premise comparisons were not flawed, this conclusion wouldn't be supported by them. You have at best found an inverse correlation between dictators' approval ratings and their efficacy as leaders; but that is not a causation and you haven't shown it is.

I, for one, will welcome the day that Bush's approval rating slips below 25%, as it will show that Bush is impervious to criticism, is strong-willed, and is courageous enough to do what needs to be done despite vehement outpourings of rage among the liberal media.

I welcome the day when trolls like you are banished from this forum.

Now do ignore all but the easy parts of my post when, or if, you deign to respond.

It's all well and good. The Democratically-led Congress's approval rating is currently hovering around 19% among Democrat-voters, 13% among Republican-voters, and 8% among Independent-voters.

Just wanted to point that out. And let's wait until September to hear that report on the war, ok?

Bush's notoriously low approval ratings have mired beneath the viscous muck of the Iraq War and unpopular domesitc policies for several month, impotent to escape their predicament. The media has greedily seized upon this development, as a vulture would rotting meat, hailing it as a failure of the administration. Yet this conclusion is without a logical premise and ridden with fallacies.

The underlying assumption behind that erroneous thesis is that high approval ratings are a positive indication of the efficacy of the president; conversely, that low approval ratings are just the opposite. Unfortunately for the liberal media, reality does not bear out this ridiculous claim; in fact, it is just the opposite.

Consider, for example, merciless, bloodthirsty tyrants such as Stalin, Hussein, and Ceauşescu. The were some of the cruelest fiends to hold a position of power. The systematically butchered their people and unrelentingly drove their country into social and economic ruin. Yet, perhaps surprisingly, over 90% of the populace "approved" of them. A similar phenomenon is once again rearing its grotesque head in Russia and Venezuela, where two abhorrent "dictators" are enjoying elevated approval ratings. Propelled by powerful waves of public fear and dismay, these despots are attaining awe-inducing numbers.

Now, we arrive at Bush. In contrast to the aforementioned authoritarian rulers who made mincemeat of their countries and inflicted unspeakable horrors upon their people, Bush's approval ratings are dismal. So, what does this reflect? Why should his approval ratings be so low? I'll tell you.


Bush is faithfully devoted to democracy and freedom; yet these ideals exact a terrible price as they allow the public to register their discontent with Bush. He also allows anti-American cells to operate freely within the US, poisoning innocent ears with their hateful rhetoric which is highly critical of him.
Bush is a visionary who possesses a glorious long-term vision for this country, yet is misunderstood by the narrow-minded and artless who cannot grasp his complex concepts.
Bush is unwilling to pander to populist sentiment, which drove droves of nations into disarry and dispair. Instead, he is a decider who is willing and fully capable of making tough decisions to better America at the expense of his own political capital.


The reasonable conclusion to draw is that although -- nay, because -- Bush has low approval ratings, he is doing what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole instead of benefiting himself, as did the dictators I mentioned. I, for one, will welcome the day that Bush's approval rating slips below 25%, as it will show that Bush is impervious to criticism, is strong-willed, and is courageous enough to do what needs to be done despite vehement outpourings of rage among the liberal media.

Okay.

You're comparing the approval ratings of Bush, who is an elected president of a country where people who live there, such as myself, feel free to post insults such as, "Bush is the worst, stupidest piece of moronic crap to ever grace the Oval Office," with the approval ratings of some dictators that ruled countries where they would have you executed in greusome, public displays if you failed to bow low enough when their motorcades passed you in the street? Go live in North Korea and yell "Kim Jong Ill sucks red dick!" as loud as you can. Or, better yet, when the government pollsters there come and ask you your opinion of him, tell them you don't really care for him.

It's all well and good. The Democratically-led Congress's approval rating is currently hovering around 19% among Democrat-voters, 13% among Republican-voters, and 8% among Independent-voters.

Just wanted to point that out. And let's wait until September to hear that report on the war, ok?

There's a vast difference between Congress and the president. This is especially true in the house. A house member is elected from a district that has been purposely gerrymandered to get the incumbent reelected. So you can hate congress but love your congressman. The senate is a little insulated by the 6 year election and it is also a system where you can love 2 and hate 98.

So if you ask "Do you like Congress?" you will get a different answer than if you ask "Is your representative doing a good job?"

There's a vast difference between Congress and the president. This is especially true in the house. A house member is elected from a district that has been purposely gerrymandered to get the incumbent reelected. So you can hate congress but love your congressman. The senate is a little insulated by the 6 year election and it is also a system where you can love 2 and hate 98.

So if you ask "Do you like Congress?" you will get a different answer than if you ask "Is your representative doing a good job?"

Dude, they're impervious to logic. I've been trying to get them to understand this point and they intentionally won't see it.

Bush has long term plans?!? ROFL, he's not that intelligent.

Another FAG thread. Summed up (as they all are)

Black is white, up is down., you've proved me wrong, but I didn't say that I mean't something else, never assume what I am saying even if I am indicating it.... and on an on.

Seriously does bush knows what he has done? LoL! :D

Another FAG thread. Summed up (as they all are)

Black is white, up is down., you've proved me wrong, but I didn't say that I mean't something else, never assume what I am saying even if I am indicating it.... and on an on.

Peter: "Well excuse me for being retarded. My whole world is turned upside-down. Black is east, up is white."

:D

Bush is faithfully devoted to democracy and freedom; yet these ideals exact a terrible price as they allow the public to register their discontent with Bush. He also allows anti-American cells to operate freely within the US, poisoning innocent ears with their hateful rhetoric which is highly critical of him.
Bush is a visionary who possesses a glorious long-term vision for this country, yet is misunderstood by the narrow-minded and artless who cannot grasp his complex concepts.
Bush is unwilling to pander to populist sentiment, which drove droves of nations into disarry and dispair. Instead, he is a decider who is willing and fully capable of making tough decisions to better America at the expense of his own political capital.


http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif

You owe me a new keyboard

What do you mean? Are you claiming that my opposition to dictators renders me a liberal?

Yes.

But on top of that, the Daily Show has already made this argument.

Hitler took a humiliated and broken nation and turned it into an economic and military powerhouse that the world admired.

Bush took a military and economic powerhouse that the world admired and turned it into one that is an object of hatred and ridicule all around the world while destroying it's economy and economic might.

Hitler was a gifted public speaker who swayed public opinion with his speeches and appearances.

Bush is a tongue-tied half-wit who makes an ass of himself every time he opens his mouth in public and has to pack his appearances with hand-picked attendees with scripted pre-approved questions to keep from getting booed.

Hitler was a well-disciplined individual who avoided drugs and alcohol

Bush got arrested for drunk driving in the Seventies. That's like getting arrested for lewd behavior in Gomorrah.

Clearly, Bush is the most un-Hitler like president we've ever had. Name a redeemable trait that Hitler possessed and Bush is the complete opposite.

Of course, there are similarities too.
Hitler was a failure as an artist, a failure in the military, and a failure as a revolutionary. Then he lucked his way into office at a time when his country was insane and drove it to hell with a military campaign that initially seemed really successful, but lead his country to ruin.

Bush was a failure as a businessman, a failure as a sports team owner, a failure as a Congressman. He finally lucked his way into office by getting his daddy's rich friends to help him and ... well, you see where I'm going.

Bush has long term plans?!? ROFL, he's not that intelligent.

Bush's lack of long term plans isn't because he's unintelligent. It's because he thinks he's going to bring about the biblical apocalypse.

All the other shit is because he's unintelligent.

Bush's lack of long term plans isn't because he's unintelligent. It's because he thinks he's going to bring about the biblical apocalypse.

All the other shit is because he's unintelligent.

Winner of thread. :D

Bush got arrested for drunk driving in the Seventies. That's like getting arrested for lewd behavior in Gomorrah.


Is that all ? :D
http://images.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_SM/0015-0609-2720-1542_SM.jpg

Actually Bush and his "conservative" buddies really do believe in GOD.

Gold
Oil
Drugs

Actually, what Bush's horridly low approval rating means is that he's doing so awful that nobody's willing to fudge the poll results the way (say) saddam's followers did.

On a side-note, you can't compare Ceausescu to the likes of saddam and stalin. Sure, he's no FDR or anything, but he DID have a good amount of support, especially after his fall. Just last year (17 years after his deposition and execution), he was rated the eleventh greatest romanian ever.

I will admit that he was also rated the second *worst* romanian ever (although that list contains EVERY romanian head of state since 1967), so you can consider him a love/hate guy (as opposed to Saddam, a hate/hate guy).

I was simply striking out against the unfair characterization that Bush's low approval ratings indicate that he is a poor president; on the contrary, it illustrates his great strength, poise, and far-sightedness. Perhaps it may not matter, but it definitively shows how excellent a president Bush was.

The guy may have walked in front of a train, but that just shows he had great awareness and far-sightedness. Now he doesn't have to read this kind of crap anymore.

FAG, you say Bush being unpopular as if it's a good thing, but in a democracy populism is the only real capital.

Ahh- you found the flaw of democracy - leadership is not a popularity contest. A good leader sometimes has to make unpopular decisions. History is full of examples. Often the wisdom wasn't appreciated for years or even decades, or longer.

What is popular often is not the same as what is right. The masses are often irrational, short sighted and stupid. Bummer - but true.

The question is how you reconcile a leaders ability to correctly make the tough decisions with their ability to win a popularity contest every few years?

Of course - no other form of government offers any better solution. As Churchill said; "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have ever been tried"

I was simply striking out against the unfair characterization that Bush's low approval ratings indicate that he is a poor president; on the contrary, it illustrates his great strength, poise, and far-sightedness. Perhaps it may not matter, but it definitively shows how excellent a president Bush was.

I think it was very well spoken, and agree with you wholeheartedly!

Ahh- you found the flaw of democracy - leadership is not a popularity contest. A good leader sometimes has to make unpopular decisions. History is full of examples. Often the wisdom wasn't appreciated for years or even decades, or longer.

What is popular often is not the same as what is right. The masses are often irrational, short sighted and stupid. Bummer - but true.

The question is how you reconcile a leaders ability to correctly make the tough decisions with their ability to win a popularity contest every few years?

Of course - no other form of government offers any better solution. As Churchill said; "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have ever been tried"

The problem with almost every governmental structure save Imperial/Royal is that sooner or later, every branch of the government is lined with parasites and Machivalian cancers. Governments with kings somewhat, not entirely, avoid this because the leader can be either good or bad. The problem is that the next one tends to be rotten to the core.

So the best possible solution is a benevolent dictatorship with immortals, or barring that, AI government. Get rid of the human element entirely. People as a whole are too short sighted to rule themselves effectively.

Bush's GOP successor will have an interesting time, he can't detach himself from the current administraton but can't be seen as another GW Bush either.

Bush's GOP successor will have an interesting time, he can't detach himself from the current administraton but can't be seen as another GW Bush either.

Especially when you're going to have so many congessmen up for re-election in '08 trying to distance themselves from him at the same time. *nod*

Especially when you're going to have so many congessmen up for re-election in '08 trying to distance themselves from him at the same time. *nod*

It's like a poisoned chalice except you know it's poisoned from the start.

It's like a poisoned chalice except you know it's poisoned from the start.

Only if both are poisoned, and the man facing you is Sicilian.

It's like a poisoned chalice except you know it's poisoned from the start.

It's more like being a pedophile priest; For years, you blended in to the background, but now people are actually paying attention to your behavior and you're starting to wonder how many trails you left behnd to track down. :p

It's more like being a pedophile priest; For years, you blended in to the background, but now people are actually paying attention to your behavior and you're starting to wonder how many trails you left behnd to track down. :p

Good one
:D

Actually, the dictators you mention struck fear into their "voting populance." For example, anyone who did not vote for Hussin in his regime were dragged from their homes in the middle of the night and never seen again. These people have a high approvel rating because people are terrified of what could happen to them if they vote against said dictator.

Considering that most Americans are less educated and less aware of national and world matters than Bush, they are hardly in a position to judge whether he's a good President or not.

My cat is more educated and more aware of national and world matters than Bush. And has more sensitivy, compassion and morality. Any of my cats.

Balance that with "Ronald Reagan won the Cold War"

I think you're confusing "winning the cold war" with "happening to be President a few years before the USSR imploded from within".

Ooh I like!

Reagan was a B-movie actor trying to be John Wayne, trying to be the man on a horse riding in to save the world. Trying to be the sheriff with the bigger gun.

I can understand Bush, I like to think he has good intentions at heart - but Reagan was clinically insane.


There was a rather amusing short story by Douglas Adams about a certain humanoid life form which was extremely dangerous because it could do what no other ordinary person could. It could bypass all the detections which people naturally have for "crazy insane psycho" and automatically makes them do anything possible to stop them getting into power.
This humanoid would in fact 'push the big red button'.
All three of the life forms were supposed to be thrown into a black hole along with various other materials which could variously irradiate, destroy or infect a whole planet but the ship crashed.
One of these beings was discovered to be missing along with a life pod which had headed in the direction of the sector ZZ plural Z Alpha, a sector which in HG2G was unexpectedly demolished one Thursday afternoon to make way for a new hyperspace bypass.
This being was called 'Regan'.

on topic... I think that FAG and RO are the most deluded people in the world. If I ever meet them, I hope it will be when carrying some sort of weapon so that they will not have chance to breed. Humanities future depends on it.

Balance that with "Ronald Reagan won the Cold War"

In which delusional world of yours? The Pope and Gorbachev deserve as much credit, if not more, for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Though most of the credit goes to the 'some pigs are more equal than others' system in the USSR.

Sorry, a fair number of historians give him the credit.

In which case you can no doubt name some of them. Or is this going to be like those photographs?

So the best possible solution is a benevolent dictatorship with immortals, or barring that, AI government. Get rid of the human element entirely. People as a whole are too short sighted to rule themselves effectively.

You can always tell the people who've never played Paranoia . . .

Of course. The notion that politicians may tell the American people who or not to elect is an affront to our democracy and needs to be done away with.

Well, assuming that his approval rating shows that he very few people like him, it would take nothing more than a trained monkey to beat him in an election. Kerry was a monkey, but unfortunately the Democrats didn't have the foresight to train him, so he lost *narrowly*.

Thus, the only way Bush could remain president after 2009 would basically be to assume power through military actions(As he technically is el Presidente, and thus Commander in Chief). Would you oppose Bush if he did such a thing, or no?

Might I ask how F&G discovered that Stalin, Mao and Hitler enjoyed 90% "approval rating"? If it is derived from an official source, it is sufficiently unreliable so as to be worthless; if it is derived from supposition, inferences taken from the media, or as I suspect, his arse, it is equally worthless.

Well, assuming that his approval rating shows that he very few people like him, it would take nothing more than a trained monkey to beat him in an election. Kerry was a monkey, but unfortunately the Democrats didn't have the foresight to train him, so he lost *narrowly*.

Thus, the only way Bush could remain president after 2009 would basically be to assume power through military actions(As he technically is el Presidente, and thus Commander in Chief). Would you oppose Bush if he did such a thing, or no?

F&G strikes me as one of those who would, in that situation, turn in his neighbors for "re-education".

The real poll question is how could 20% of the people vote to reelect Bush and a couple months later not support him? I really have far more respect for F&G and his ilk than for that 20%.

The real poll question is how could 20% of the people vote to reelect Bush and a couple months later not support him? I really have far more respect for F&G and his ilk than for that 20%.

So you respect F&G for the fact that his learning curve doesn't exist?

So you respect F&G for the fact that his learning curve is a dot?

I respect F&G in the same way I respect Corneliu. While I may disagree with everything they say, I must accept that there is some form of genuine argument behind it. F&G made a thread a while back that was truly excellent, but it got buried because people were unable to look past his political standing.

I respect F&G in the same way I respect Corneliu. While I may disagree with everything they say, I must accept that there is some form of genuine argument behind it. F&G made a thread a while back that was truly excellent, but it got buried because people were unable to look past his political standing.

I was questioning the guy respecting more F&G for not realizing that Bush is a moron than the former supporters that did.

I respect F&G in the same way I respect Corneliu. While I may disagree with everything they say, I must accept that there is some form of genuine argument behind it. F&G made a thread a while back that was truly excellent, but it got buried because people were unable to look past his political standing.

For me, it's not their politics that make me not respect them. Yes, I disagree with everything they say. I disagreed with pretty much everything Eutrusca said, but I respected him because unlike F&G and Corny, he wasn't an arrogant fool with a prediliction for hyperbole.

You can always tell the people who've never played Paranoia . . .

I know pretty much every possible event that could stem from an AI government. Worst case scenario. Humanity wiped out. Best case scenario, humanity learns to live inside the box.

So you respect F&G for the fact that his learning curve doesn't exist?

I respect people who believe what they believe and are willing to defend it against all opposition.

What I don't respect are the 20% that had 4 years to consider what they were voting for and made the decision to vote for the status quo, then in a couple months somehow came to the realization that the next 4 years were going to be a repeat of the last 4 years.

This is totally different than the "flip-flop" argument that says a person can never change his/her mind even when conditions change. Changing one's mind at a whim is one thing. Changing after due consideration is another. When someone changes their mind after due consideration of changing conditions, I honor that also.

But, when you vote for the status quo, then complain that things aren't changing, it is a sign that the voter didn't give due consideration to what he/she was voting for. I do not understand how a thinking person would think things would change with such a vote. I do not understand how those voters could change their mind when conditions didn't change. They are getting exactly what they voted for and are complaining about it. That I do not honor.

For me, it's not their politics that make me not respect them. Yes, I disagree with everything they say. I disagreed with pretty much everything Eutrusca said, but I respected him because unlike F&G and Corny, he wasn't an arrogant fool with a prediliction for hyperbole.

Regardless, the capability for a genuine argument is there. More so for Corneliu, but still.

Regardless, the capability for a genuine argument is there. More so for Corneliu, but still.

I'll grant that Corny can, but doesn't always, argue his case in a mature manner. Then again, neither do I, so maybe I shouldn't talk. I get angry too easily.

I'll grant that Corny can, but doesn't always, argue his case in a mature manner. Then again, neither do I, so maybe I shouldn't talk. I get angry too easily.

You're preaching to the quire singing like George Carlin on steroids.

F&G strikes me as one of those who would, in that situation, turn in his neighbors for "re-education".

Re-Neducation?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38179000/jpg/_38179889_ned300.jpg

Regardless of what Bush's approval ratings indicate about the success of his policies and "vision" so far, in a democratic republic such as ours approval ratings are vitally important to any attempts he may make to get things done over the remainder of his term, especially as a lame duck.

Does Bush have a "glorious" vision for America? I seriously doubt it, and if he does I'm honestly afraid to imagine what it might be.

But it hardly matters. He's thoroughly depleted his political capital. The most he can do at this point is drag his feet or otherwise set himself up in an obstructionist position.

He might be able to stop things from getting done (as with a veto), but it's hard to see how he can press his own policies very far against a Congress opposed at worst and divided at best.

I still insist that I didn't know he even had an approval rating.

I still insist that I didn't know he even had an approval rating.

Funny, 'cuz even he insists that he didn't even know he had an approval rating! :D

I was simply striking out against the unfair characterization that Bush's low approval ratings indicate that he is a poor president; on the contrary, it illustrates his great strength, poise, and far-sightedness. Perhaps it may not matter, but it definitively shows how excellent a president Bush was.

the only farsightedness that Bush understands is the expansion of his and his friends wealth in the aftermath of wars, through restoration of oilfields with decent shares in the production as compensation. I haven't seen him react with his "democracy export program" to help the oppressed populations of crude oil poor countries ! and you said it he is a "was president", but he got rich.

The very nature of a term-set delegate 'democracy' means the only 'long-term goals' of the incumbent is being reelected, nothing more. This could be viewed in a positive light because it forces them have policies that deliver, or in a negative one because it forces them to spin, deceive and outright lie through their teeth to survive. So whenever a politician talks about 'long-term goals' for the country he is definitely lying.

So whenever a politician talks about 'long-term goals' for the country he is definitely lying.

Homer: It takes two to lie, Marge. One to lie, and one to listen.

Marge: What does that mean?


Sadly true.

[QUOTE=FreedomAndGlory;]
The reasonable conclusion to draw is that although -- nay, because -- Bush has low approval ratings, he is doing what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole instead of benefiting himself, as did the dictators I mentioned.

The only farsightedness that Bush has ever had was to expand his proportions of oil shares in the world, for him and his friends. you don't see him applying his "democracy export program " also known as the fight against terrorism, to countries that are also dictatorships but crude oil poor !

Sadly true.
The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.

Plato knew exactly what 'liberal democracy' over direct democracy would lead to.

The price of indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.

10$ to whoever guesses the quote ;)

Plato?

Yup, I edited too.

Perhaps you'll change font/language to make it more authentic?

...where's my $10? :p

Plato?

Yup, I edited too.

You can always tell the people who've never played Paranoia . . .

The Computer only wants to help you, Citizen! Why won't you let The Computer help you? If you move the brainscrubber, the process will only be more painful, and then we'll have to see if your next clone has the same traitorous thoughts.

What's that, Citizen? You want me to stop? But I'm just trying to make you a better Citizen!

Of course. The notion that politicians may tell the American people who or not to elect is an affront to our democracy and needs to be done away with.Wow. You really don't get it.

Executive term limits are one of the finest innovations ever instituted to preserve democracy against its own shortcomings.

Balance that with "Ronald Reagan won the Cold War"I think you mean, "Gorbachev ended the Cold War."

Reagan just happened to be in office while Russia figured itself out. From the inside.

The Computer only wants to help you, Citizen! Why won't you let The Computer help you? If you move the brainscrubber, the process will only be more painful, and then we'll have to see if your next clone has the same traitorous thoughts.

What's that, Citizen? You want me to stop? But I'm just trying to make you a better Citizen!

As opposed to:

"Vote for me citizens, and you'll get free beer and good times!"

"How?"

"Uh....Free beer and good times!"

*Audience cheers*

The very nature of a term-set delegate 'democracy' means the only 'long-term goals' of the incumbent is being reelected, nothing more. This could be viewed in a positive light because it forces them have policies that deliver, or in a negative one because it forces them to spin, deceive and outright lie through their teeth to survive. So whenever a politician talks about 'long-term goals' for the country he is definitely lying.Actually, research shows that after the first few terms, incumbents in Congress become increasingly interested in genuine policy goals.

Those first few terms they have to fight to stay in. But once the incumbency factor really sets in, unless they (and/or their party) really fuck up, they don't have to worry about reelection... and they start worrying about other things.

As for the President, he knows his time is limited regardless. Research has shown that concern for his historical legacy is a core motivator for presidents, which is a good thing: being worried about how people will remember you is, for most, a strong motivator to do things that will benefit the country in the long run.

Vote Bush in '08! Or you will go to hell, anyone who doesn't vote for bush is a sinner. You vote for the black guy or the chick or the mexican or the vampire or the prettyboy or the other vampire or the short guy or the old guy and you are SINNING!

As for the President, he knows his time is limited regardless. Research has shown that concern for his historical legacy is a core motivator for presidents, which is a good thing: being worried about how people will remember you is, for most, a strong motivator to do things that will benefit the country in the long run.

So how do you explain his general bungling?

So how do you explain his general bungling?

Genetic inability to accept reality ? ;)

Actually, research shows that after the first few terms, incumbents in Congress become increasingly interested in genuine policy goals.

Those first few terms they have to fight to stay in. But once the incumbency factor really sets in, unless they (and/or their party) really fuck up, they don't have to worry about reelection... and they start worrying about other things.

As for the President, he knows his time is limited regardless. Research has shown that concern for his historical legacy is a core motivator for presidents, which is a good thing: being worried about how people will remember you is, for most, a strong motivator to do things that will benefit the country in the long run.

Link me that 'research' please.

Vote Bush in '08! Or you will go to hell, anyone who doesn't vote for bush is a sinner. You vote for the black guy or the chick or the mexican or the vampire or the prettyboy or the other vampire or the short guy or the old guy and you are SINNING!

Which ones are the Vampires, again?

Which ones are the Vampires, again?

They were the ones in the capes, that couldn't survive sunlight and sucked blood. They also seemed to have an accent not unlike Lt. Chekov from Star Trek. :p

Consider, for example, merciless, bloodthirsty tyrants such as Stalin, Hussein, and Ceau?escu. The were some of the cruelest fiends to hold a position of power. The systematically butchered their people and unrelentingly drove their country into social and economic ruin. Yet, perhaps surprisingly, over 90% of the populace "approved" of them. A similar phenomenon is once again rearing its grotesque head in Russia and Venezuela, where two abhorrent "dictators" are enjoying elevated approval ratings. Propelled by powerful waves of public fear and dismay, these despots are attaining awe-inducing numbers.

Now, we arrive at Bush. In contrast to the aforementioned authoritarian rulers who made mincemeat of their countries and inflicted unspeakable horrors upon their people, Bush's approval ratings are dismal. So, what does this reflect?

I think it reflects that President Bush has a legislative branch, a judicial branch, and a relatively well-informed public (compared to the aforementioned dictatorships, at least), that prevent him from becoming a dictator (though he's a little too close for my liking right now). It also reflects that, unlike these nations where the dictators controlled (or at least strongly influenced) the entire media, it is not as easy to fake approval ratings.

Bush is a visionary who possesses a glorious long-term vision for this country, yet is misunderstood by the narrow-minded and artless who cannot grasp his complex concepts.

That's nice, but I honestly don't know if Bush really has the brainpower for such an idea.

Wow. You really don't get it.

Executive term limits are one of the finest innovations ever instituted to preserve democracy against its own shortcomings.
Well recallable delegates are a key area of democratic accountability, the sooner and easier we can recall our delegates from office according to their lack of performance, means that system is more democratic.

It's important to remember here that in a democracy our 'politicians' do not role, we do, it's our popular sovereignty, and in our system we simply choose to delegate our sovereignty to those to act on our will through sheer practicality, nothing more.

Ideally, we would rule ourselves, be totally autonomous, but because of time constraints in economic occupations (our jobs) we cannot, so we elect people not to act on our interest, but on our will, theres a differences - plenty of oligarchies and dictatorships claim to be working in the interest of their people, the difference between that and democracy is doing exactly what the people want, no matter what it is. No one would argue that more direct and radical democratic reforms in our current representative system could be instated practically, the best one that comes to mind is a system of public compensation for those that take part in democratic public life, to compensate them for time loss in what they could make in a private job. This would be an excellent step forwards at least bridging the gap between economic and political freedom.

Okay, to touch on the guy who accused Reagan of treason (I forget who), that's a very ignorant way of looking at it. Reagan was funding an Iranian terrorist organization (or so I've been told by those old enough to remember it) and got caught. That only thing he did "wrong" was the miss-use of funds. The President says yes or no, the Congress controls the national bank account. Congress said they didn't want to fund them so he went around behind their backs and took money from other programs and gave it to them anyways. The fact that he was funding a terrorist organization does not make him guilty of treason because the U.S. has been funding a variety of terrorist organizations from day one. We just choose who to fund and who to kill based on our political alliances and theirs. If we both hate the same people, we fund them, if we hate different people, we try to kill them. But the U.S. funding terrorists has been extremely common for a long long time.

And on to the media. Don't trust nearly anything you hear on TV or the radio. You see, the media thrives on controversy. Have you ever noticed that all the news is bad news or is designed to try to piss you off, or both? If everyone thought that everything was all right and everyone was doing a great job at everything, first they'd probably be completely stoned off their a--, but secondly, they'd sit back and trust the people they hear about and they'd stop tuning into the news programs. It's a fact of life and the life blood of the media, controversy increases ratings. So they will naturally complain about anything and everything, they will NOT talk about what people are doing right, and if there's nothing to complain about, they'll make something up.

And now on to Bush. As it's been said time and time again, an approval rating is not an efficiency rating, it's a popularity rating. If you cut taxes across the board equally, increase funding to everything commonly understood to be "nice" and "good" and (hears what's getting Bush) actually listen to your voters, everyone will love you! Your approval rating will soar. Bush doesn't listen to his voters because he has different beliefs (more on that in a moment) and he can't get re-elected anyways so what does he care? Problem is, if you cut taxes and increase funding, you may be well loved, but you'll also bankrupt the country. The approval rating is not a measure of how much the president is benefiting the country, is a measurement of how much the voters regret voting for him. Bush isn't doing a terrible job at managing the economy, he's doing a bad job at 1) retaining dignity and respect for America in the international community because... 2) he's doing a bad job at managing the U.S. military and respecting the other countries' sovereignity.
Second, the economy in the U.S. is kinda lumbering along but that's not entirely because of Bush. I'm gonna sound like a die hard Republican here but please keep in mind that I'm not Republican. It's a proven fact that the economic policies the president puts in place never see their complete effects for about 6-10 years. By that time the current president is out of office and a new one takes over and gets blamed for the bad moves the last one made. The American economy is a war-time economy. What brought us out of the great depression was WW2. The thing that has kept the economy "doing good" ever since has been war. In order to wage war, someone has to make all the stuff the government uses over seas, so the government buys all sorts of stuff for it's military, lots of money changes hands and the economy is boosted. Polititians have lost the ability to effectively manage the economy without the cheater's crutch (war). So when a Democrat comes into the Oval Office, the economy is starting to do really good because the last president just spend alot of money on the military so the Democratic president gets the credit. But the Democratic will tend to shy away from war and will not use that 'cheater's crutch' so the economy starts sagging and starts doing not so well, but by the time the effects are felt, the Democratic president's term is up and a Republican takes over the office and he gets the blame for the bad economy management of the Democrat because the effects are just starting to be felt after the Republican takes office. Now, granted, that's not always the case, but most of the time it is. The reason the American economy is sagging right now isn't completely Bush's fault.
Third, Bush is not a raving lunatic. If he was, he'd be institutionalized long ago and we'd be onto our Vice President (God Forbid). The reason why Bush is taking his military and stomping around the planet at will without any respect for person, property, boundaries or soveriegnity is not because he's crazy but because he's got some really screwed up religeous views (even for a Christian I might add). It's called the "Dominion Kingdom" idea. What it says is that Christ will come back to earth and begin the Biblical Apocolipse when the road has been paved perse. In other words, it says, the "Second Coming" will happen when all the "bad people" are taken out. That's the reason why he's been so hell bent on killing all the commonly understood "bad people" or "evil doers" :headbang: so quickly. He wants to bring about the Christian idea of the end of the world. He's not driven by lunacy, he's actually very intelligent, he just doesn't care what you think and he's very stubborn. He is driven however by some really screwed up religeous ideas.

And in closing I would like to kindly and respectfully ask that people not hate America so much because it's a self centered and self important jerk of a nation. You see, we don't choose to be complete a--holes when it comes to international relations and politics, it's just that all we hear is what we are told by the American propiganda machine. If America didn't spread so much of it's propiganda to it's own people we would be less brainwashed and more reasonable and respectful. We are the way we are because the American Propiganda Machine has (for the most part) brainwashed it's own civilians into being overly cocky, self-centered jerks.

Balance that with "Ronald Reagan won the Cold War"

A funny one, created to cover the massive overestimate of Soviet strength made by his administration. However rather it went there than to his friends in the death squads, I suppose.

Okay, to touch on the guy who accused Reagan of treason (I forget who), that's a very ignorant way of looking at it. Reagan was funding an Iranian terrorist organization (or so I've been told by those old enough to remember it) and got caught. That only thing he did "wrong" was the miss-use of funds. The President says yes or no, the Congress controls the national bank account. Congress said they didn't want to fund them so he went around behind their backs and took money from other programs and gave it to them anyways. The fact that he was funding a terrorist organization does not make him guilty of treason because the U.S. has been funding a variety of terrorist organizations from day one. We just choose who to fund and who to kill based on our political alliances and theirs. If we both hate the same people, we fund them, if we hate different people, we try to kill them. But the U.S. funding terrorists has been extremely common for a long long time.

For those of you not old enough to remember:

Reagan gave arms to the enemy. How much more treasonous is there? He gave arms to the government of Iran which had held US embassy workers hostage for 444 days costing Carter the election. They released them within minutes of Reagan becoming president. There was and is speculation it was a payoff deal made before the election.

He then took the money from the sale and gave it to a Central American terrorist group that Congress specifically said not to fund. If you read the constitution, Congress, not the president, is given the power of spending.

What it comes down to is in order to get impeached one not only has to commit treason, but to be disliked by Congress. Nixon was a far better president than Reagan but he didn't have the smile. Clinton was hated by a strong minority that had the power of Congress. Reagan had friends in Congress so was not charged. It also helped that he was in his last term before this was discovered and those in power knew his mind was going. They didn't think it would be best for the nation to let the world know the president was becoming mentally incompetent.

For those of you not old enough to remember:

Reagan gave arms to the enemy. How much more treasonous is there? He gave arms to the government of Iran which had held US embassy workers hostage for 444 days costing Carter the election. They released them within minutes of Reagan becoming president. There was and is speculation it was a payoff deal made before the election.

He then took the money from the sale and gave it to a Central American terrorist group that Congress specifically said not to fund. If you read the constitution, Congress, not the president, is given the power of spending.

What it comes down to is in order to get impeached one not only has to commit treason, but to be disliked by Congress. Nixon was a far better president than Reagan but he didn't have the smile. Clinton was hated by a strong minority that had the power of Congress. Reagan had friends in Congress so was not charged. It also helped that he was in his last term before this was discovered and those in power knew his mind was going. They didn't think it would be best for the nation to let the world know the president was becoming mentally incompetent.

yeah.

that act of treason should have gotten him impeached and jailed.

*spits*

yeah.

that act of treason should have gotten him impeached and jailed.

*spits*

And drawn & quartered.

Vote Bush in '08! Or you will go to hell, anyone who doesn't vote for bush is a sinner. You vote for the black guy or the chick or the mexican or the vampire or the prettyboy or the other vampire or the short guy or the old guy and you are SINNING!

Lesser of two vampires?

Oooh ... decisions, decisions.

For those of you not old enough to remember:

Reagan gave arms to the enemy. How much more treasonous is there? He gave arms to the government of Iran which had held US embassy workers hostage for 444 days costing Carter the election. They released them within minutes of Reagan becoming president. There was and is speculation it was a payoff deal made before the election.

He then took the money from the sale and gave it to a Central American terrorist group that Congress specifically said not to fund. If you read the constitution, Congress, not the president, is given the power of spending.

What it comes down to is in order to get impeached one not only has to commit treason, but to be disliked by Congress. Nixon was a far better president than Reagan but he didn't have the smile. Clinton was hated by a strong minority that had the power of Congress. Reagan had friends in Congress so was not charged. It also helped that he was in his last term before this was discovered and those in power knew his mind was going. They didn't think it would be best for the nation to let the world know the president was becoming mentally incompetent.


Hmm...thanks for the history lesson! I've always been curious about the details. Now that I know more about it, that does sound kinda fishy. (to be nice about it)

And you're right about Congress having the right to decide what to spend where. The President calls the shots (for the most part) but Congress holds the purse strings. Just like I said earlier.

Why wasn't Regean held responsible for his little *ahem* scheme? Was it just because he was in his last term and he was going alzheimers? Was that it? Convict him anyways!

Bush is unwilling to pander to populist sentiment, which drove droves of nations into disarry and dispair. Instead, he is a decider who is willing and fully capable of making tough decisions to better America at the expense of his own political capital.


There's some spelling mistakes in this paragraph. You typed "disarray" as "disarry", "despair" as "dispair", and "batter" as "better."

There's some spelling mistakes in this paragraph. You typed "disarray" as "disarry", "despair" as "dispair", and "batter" as "better."

His main mistake was that he typed.