FORUMS > Gay News & Events Forum Rules

Story Highlights:

President Bush's disapproval rating hits all-time high in polling

More than 70 percent disapprove in CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll

Survey indicates support for Iraq war has never been lower

Low approval numbers come five years after "Mission Accomplished" moment

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/01/bush.poll/index.html

"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup Poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.

no surprise. bush is the worst president in history and will be the downfall of America. dont mean to sound negative but it will be years because a even a perfect president can fix all the wrongs and mistakes bush made while in office (which means it wont happen).

He still doesn't have the lowest approval rating though. Hal Truman and Rich Nixon still were still less approved of. But we have seven more month, so cross your fingers.

Polls don't constitute elections.

Well, he has definitely made a name for himself as the worst president in history. I'm sure that will make the history books! I don't think he could add together 2+2 without an advisor and even with an advisor he would probably have the wrong answer. The next election cannot come soon enough!

President Bush's legacy rests with future events. The future will judge us all.

John43620 saidPresident Bush's legacy rests with future events. The future will judge us all.

Good that means we can still cover this up and nobody in the future will no about it. Someone lift the rug I will go get the broom.

Hey munchingzombie: it's Harry Truman dude.

I think that I can speak with some authority on the subject of Iraq at least. After 9/11 my love for my country just went through the roof, I had just graduated from West Point and was all gung-ho to go after the "bad guys". Well after lots of schooling I finally got my orders to deploy to Iraq. I was there for 32 days got hit with an IED lost a leg, have permanent damage to my eye ear and brain. That is what President Bush's insane invasion has cost just one soldier. Afghanistan yes, get Bin Laden and those fuckers but shit we should have stayed the hell out of Iraq.
That's just Iraq, what about gas prices, food prices (a gallon of milk today $5.39) and on and on. I am surprised that the moron in the White House's APPROVAL rating is 30%!!!! Are we Americans that pussy whipped that 30% actually support this clown!!!
Sorry to go off like that I have lost my military bearing, and a lot of other stuff to.
God Bless America but damn Bush to hell!!!

NewYoahka81 saidHey munchingzombie: it's Harry Truman dude.

Harry and I are close. I call him Hal, he calls me Zombs. We play squash together on the weekends.

Keep in mind that a lot of people get their news only from Fox news and AM radio. Through a filter like that it's easy to believe that Bush is practically perfect and all that's wrong with the world is because of libruls, Demoncrats, gays and foreigners.

McCain's on deck to become Bush's 3rd term and people are eating it up!

Colbert... and that scares the hell outta me

That this idiot we got now was even nearly elected once makes me think that we as a people have rocks in our heads

Good.

Can we impeach the bastard now?

tonyp321 saidno surprise. bush is the worst president in history and will be the downfall of America.

Right on, I totally agree with you. I don't know what to say! I think I am in love with you lol

Bush and Cheney both should be impeached very long time ago.

We all know that! Plus Mr Brown is having the same problem in the UK. Time for a change l think?

George W. Bush staked his presidency on the Iraq War. Well so far the gamble has not turned out well. The reasons for going into Iraq were suspect, and the planning for the post-invasion was shockingly bad.

How will George W. Bush be remembered? It is hard to say since the impact of events sometimes takes decades to take effect. We are too close to them right now. Who knows maybe a new Iraq will eventually emerge with a fledgling democracy that slowly spreads to the rest of the Middle East. I personally doubt it, but it could happen.

In 1914 many people in Great Britain were supporting the government's decision to support "poor little Belgium" by declaring war on Germany and Austria-Hungary. Some historians wonder (and I agree) whether getting involved in the First World War was really in the British Empire's best interests. It certainly had a major role to play in the Empire's eventual demise.

Colbert Nation, If you knew anything at all about media bias, you would see that CNN and CBS compete for the top spot of America's most biased mainstream national news networks.

I suggest you read "Bias" by former CBS correspondant Bernard Goldberg. That ought to enlighten you.

To all a question; what modern president had the highest approval rating of any president in history since polls have been used?

Hmmmmm...I'm guessing Reagan?

The future sure will judge this administration !!! I believe it will be more like what bushes first Head of the DEPT of JUSTICE said when he invited to discuss torture with the many of bushes top cabinet leaders. "HISTORY WILL NOT JUDGE THIS VERY KINDLY" More and more each week has come out about what this administration has been involved in. the bushies are franticly making use of lawyers to avoid requests for information on many issues that constitute illegal use of power. When the bushies are no longer in power they won't be able to stop the flow of the truth, so I doubt sincerely that there will be many bright spots shining from his administration

[quote]bush is the worst president in history and will be the downfall of America. dont mean to sound negative[/quote]

This is amazing!

John43620 saidColbert Nation, If you knew anything at all about media bias, you would see that CNN and CBS compete for the top spot of America's most biased mainstream national news networks.

I suggest you read "Bias" by former CBS correspondant Bernard Goldberg. That ought to enlighten you.

That book has been debunked by numerous critics. Here's just one example:

http://americancrackpot.blogspot.com/2004/12/goldberg-unwittingly-undermines.html

The vast majority of newspaper publishers voted for Bush in 2000 and reporters voted for him 2 to 1, according to a poll by Editor and Publisher.

The idea that the media are generally dominated by liberals is ridiculous.

John43620 saidColbert Nation, If you knew anything at all about media bias, you would see that CNN and CBS compete for the top spot of America's most biased mainstream national news networks.

Not correct... that dubious award goes to FOX.. and its clear to anyone whos awake & thinking....

I had heard this... glad Caslon put it online here.

He deserves every bit of it. I hope it sticks in the history books as well.

CuriousJockAZ saidHmmmmm...I'm guessing Reagan?

That would be a "puker" if true.....

What are you guys talking about? Bush is great...

Seriously, where would we be as a nation without Blueberries? Or certain varieties of beans. Blue Lake *Bush* Beans anyone?

Buncha haters..

Why, G. W. Bush has the highest approval rating. Right after 9/11 we had a collective hard on for the man. But, we could of had a house plant for a president and it would have had great ratings after that event.

You know,

All I hear is a problem with no solution being presented. Whats the more amiable solution so that everyone in the US gets their needs and wants filled?

Presidents don't vote for themselves so why are we not working on other ways of expressing our ideas through more forcefull actions?

You don't like the price of gas? You don't like your subprime home loan? You're stuck in your 9-5 job at the choke and puke?

DO SOMETHING!

Social programs don't cover voter registration.. you still need to get off your ass and vote.

This is getting to be an old hat topic. Tired...very tired people.

Jeff

Really if you think about it, Bush stopped caring about approval ratings after he won his second term. Because after that, he is barred from running again and there are still enough Republicans in the House and Senate to stop any impeachment threat. Bush is free to pursue the less popular direction on things and until November there is nothing we as citizens can do.

Obscenewish, how can anyone know who voted for whom to come up with a 2-1 statistic?

You have an oped piece to counter Bernard Goldberg's book, from a blog?

HndsmKansan, Fox has some bias but as television networks go it's much more balanced than any other, even PBS. You just disagree with the primary ideas presented on Fox.

Here's a sign of Bias, the use of framing, or presenting material that is one sided. So, using terms like "Broken Borders", and "War on the Middle Class" CNN already frames the agenda.

[quote][cite]John43620 said[/cite]Obscenewish, how can anyone know who voted for whom to come up with a 2-1 statistic?

You have an oped piece to counter Bernard Goldberg's book, from a blog?

HndsmKansan, Fox has some bias but as television networks go it's much more balanced than any other, even PBS. You just disagree with the primary ideas presented on Fox------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHH DUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHH John !!!!----"you just disagree with the primary ideas presented on Fox" --- Damn straight I "disagree with the primary ideas" on Fox, because they are nearly all in favor of whatever this administration spews out !!! you know john nearly everything that bush has done has been on the outside of what should have been done, this is why he's got the worst reputaion/approval in US history, its not something to be proud of as an American. Thinking of him, his die hard followers, and the direction he's taken this country in, is kinda like the old southern saying---"LIKE GOING UP SHIT CREEK WITHOUT A PADDLE", thats what backing him is effectively doing, he's "Going against the grain", I believe its time to end backing the idiot. "BAIL OUT" while you still can buddy, there's no shame in recognizing facts.

"polls don't constitute elections"

Neither does stealing an election.

John43620 saidObscenewish, how can anyone know who voted for whom to come up with a 2-1 statistic?

You have an oped piece to counter Bernard Goldberg's book, from a blog?

HndsmKansan, Fox has some bias but as television networks go it's much more balanced than any other, even PBS. You just disagree with the primary ideas presented on Fox.

Here's a sign of Bias, the use of framing, or presenting material that is one sided. So, using terms like "Broken Borders", and "War on the Middle Class" CNN already frames the agenda

I told you how in my post, John. Editor and Publisher did a thorough survey of media voting after the election. I'm sure you can find it on their site or you can find it documented in several books, including Alterman's "What Liberal Media?"

Also, the great majority of American newspapers endorsed Bush on their editorial pages. You might take a look at Alterman's book -- I read Goldberg's. You might be surprised by what Republican strategists actually have to say about the claim that the media is dominated by liberals.

And, yes, that's from a blog. It contains facts. It demonstrates where Goldberg distorted the facts. Goldberg's book is a joke.

John43620 saidPresident Bush's legacy rests with future events. The future will judge us all.

This, of course, parrots the excuse that our President has been peddling the past year.

Translated: "Now that I've botched it big-time, and now that even I know there's no escape from this self-inflicted horror (at least not in the near future), I'll ignorantly make the unsupportable assertion that, somehow, things will all 'work out' sometime during the next twenty, fifty or a hundred years. I don't know exactly when that'll happen, but it'll happen. For sure. Trust me."

Odd, how our President claims to see clarity decades into the future, yet he completely lacks the prescience to see the consequences of his horrific decisions even during the comparatively few short years of his adminstration.

Disgraceful, Bush's tenth-rate mind.

Infuriating, how he insults our intelligence by pushing this swill.

And shameless, how he dumps this disaster of his own creation on to his successor.

Obscenewish, you're so wrong, as an example, the chapter in Goldberg's book "Bias" about how President Clinton "cured homelessness" is the perfect example.

In the George H. W. Bush administration the GAO estimated the homeless rate between 300,000 to 600, 000 Americans. The Urban Institute set the rate at 335,000 to 462,000. The homeless lobby set the rate in the millions. CNN Candy Crowley ran a story saying that there were 3,000,000 homeless Americans, Then NBC ran a story saying it was 5,000,000, then CBS' Charles Osgood ran a story saying that 19,000,000 Americans will be homeless by the year 2000. These numbers came from lobbyists for the homeless coalition, exaggerated beyond all recognition. The network and print media were all over the Reagan and Bush administrations about homelessness.
Then President Clinton came into office,the media stopped the homelessness stories. Homelessness ceased to exist all of a sudden. Until the present George W. Bush came into office and in the year 2001 reported that "Homelessness is on the rise".

There, that's just another example of bias in stories supporting leftist.

What your problem is, you're so far left you see the media as rightwing fascists.

People just have to ask, are we better off after 8 years of Bush? I would have to say the answer is no. But those same people who are losing their homes, jobs, health care, civil rights, paying record gas prices, record credit card rates, keep on supporting him and the right.

Thang God these 8 year are almost over, although I am not sure anyone will be able to get us out of the mess the Republicans have got us into.

Koaa2 said; "People just have to ask, are we better off after 8 years of Bush? I would have to say the answer is no."

We're having tough times because Al Qaeda attacked us in 2001, even though they were in the US and planning and preparing for it all through the late 90s. Al Qaeda was attacking Americans overseas, a clear indicator that they are bad news. President Bush didn't cause that and President Clinton did nothing about that. President Clinton didn't cause it either.

Hurricane Katrina struck, that was an act of nature. President Bush didn't cause that. The responce was widely criticized but, the majority of the hardship that followed was due to the "victims" failure to heed the warnings from state and local officials to evacuate. President Bush didn't cause that.

The Sub Prime Mortgage crisis has been brewing since way before President Bush was sworn in. He and his administration had nothing to do with it.

You Democrats have an irrational supernatural side. So with a statement like "are you better off today than eight years ago" you're just showing that irrational side again. It's as if you're saying, "this party/administration is bad luck".

John43620 said
The Sub Prime Mortgage crisis has been brewing since way before President Bush was sworn in. He and his administration had nothing to do with it.

The article on Subprime Lending on Wikipedia doesnt seem to support that this crisis has been brewing for a long time. In fact, it seems to coincide precisely with the Baby Bush second administration. I guess Business figured they only had 4 more years to rip people off.

"Although most home loans do not fall into this category, subprime mortgages proliferated in the early part of the 21st Century. About 21 percent of all mort­gage originations from 2004 through 2006 were subprime, up from 9 percent from 1996 through 2004, says John Lonski, chief economist for Moody's In­vestors Service. Subprime mortgages totaled $600 billion in 2006, accounting for about one-fifth of the U.S. home loan market."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage#U.S._subprime_mortgage_crisis

So President Bush caused people to enter into loans they couldn't afford?

Yes.

John4360What your problem is, you're so far left you see the media as rightwing fascists.

A. Goldberg's story about the homeless does not account for the facts either. I'd bother to recite them here, but you'd just dismiss them because they don't comply with your belief. But go ahead and google the subject. You'll find the actual facts. Then you can chuck them in the garbage so you can continue your liberal conspiracy theory.

I do think the homeless reporting is in part an example not of liberal bias but of the stupidity of the press, which continues to report what it's told rather than actually investigating the facts. This is true whether it's Saddam's fictional cache of WMD (NY Times' Judith Miller) or costs of Medicare prescription benefits.

B. I worked in media for over 20 years. The idea that people running newspapers and networks are generally liberal is frankly hilarious. I repeat: consult Editor and Publisher's survey of a actual voting in 2000.
Read what Republican strategists ACTUALLY say about media bias in Alterman's book.

John43620 saidThe Sub Prime Mortgage crisis has been brewing since way before President Bush was sworn in. He and his administration had nothing to do with it.

You said that the sub prime crisis was brewing way before Bush. I was showing that that wasnt so.

Bush et alia's responsibility would be as the government not seeing this happening, questioning it, and taking action before it created a crisis. But the Republicans are too pro-business to interfere and protect the country, its people, and the economy.

John43620 said
Hurricane Katrina struck, that was an act of nature. President Bush didn't cause that. The responce was widely criticized but, the majority of the hardship that followed was due to the "victims" failure to heed the warnings from state and local officials to evacuate. President Bush didn't cause that.

Way to blame the victim. Not everyone here can afford a car, legitimate car insurance, and fuel. There were people who were trapped here because they couldn't get out on their own.

Maybe it's me, but I'm a heck of a lot better off than I was 8 years ago...I own a home, have a great job, travel, etc. I know all kinds of people who are better off now than they were 8 years ago. Do I think it's because of President Bush for this? Hell no.

Sure, there are people who are worse off, but can they ALL blame Bush for this? Of course not. I had some hard times in the 90's, did I blame Clinton? What the HELL did he have to do with it?? Sheeesh. I made some bad decisions, had some bad luck, whatever, but it had nothing whatsoever to do with who was running the country.

Most people that are having trouble with sub-prime loans (and by the way it is a very small percentage of the home mortgage market because MOST people are paying their loans) are people that either were not paying attention when they signed their loans (Bush's fault? I think Not) or they were buying homes they couldn't afford in the first place (Blame Bush? Go ahead, but that's ridiculous. Americans need to take responsibility for their own actions, not just blame the President every time they make an ill-advised decision that goes wrong).

Personally, I think all this "Hate Bush, Blame Bush" mentality more than anything is just a bunch of hysteria and negative hype run amuck. America has gone through some tough times - PERIOD - beginning with the 9/11 attacks in 2001 (in the planning long before Bush was in the White House), compounded with acts of nature like Hurricane's Katrina & Rita, and complicated even more with financial woes like the current mortgage crisis. Shit happens...we deal with it...we move on...but to blame the President for every single thing that comes down the pike is absurd.

CuriousJockAZ said beginning with the 9/11 attacks in 2001 (in the planning long before Bush was in the White House), compounded with acts of nature like Hurricane's Katrina & Rita, and complicated even more with financial woes like the current mortgage crisis. Shit happens...we deal with it...we move on...but to blame the President for every single thing that comes down the pike is absurd.

Well there Curious Jock... I would bet money if Clinton were President and the incompetent things has occurred with Rita and Katrina on his watch, but bet you would have (and rightfully so) criticism for Mr. Clinton. I DO blame Bush for some of what happened in those instances.

I also don't see you commenting on the "populism" Bush got after 9/11 (remember that). Your comment on the planning (for 9/11) prior to Bush has no merit here.

Hndsm, lemme know where you got that Crystal Ball, cuz I want one too. In fact, I'm sure the President could use one as well.



As for the populism that Bush got after 9/11...he deserved it. He got a huge HUGE test as a President practically right out of the box, and he rose to the occasion and lead the country through the biggest crisis since World War II. It united the country, as it should have. Unfortunately, that unity didn't last as long as it should have, and now we are clearly a country divided -- which is never a good thing.

As for Katrina responses and that whole argument...again, "Act of Nature"...but if any finger pointing needs to be done in that situation immediately following the Hurricane and the response it needs to go toward the state & local level, NOT President Bush.

SOCKMONKEYWay to blame the victim. Not everyone here can afford a car, legitimate car insurance, and fuel. There were people who were trapped here because they couldn't get out on their own.

Had they driven away, their homes would not have been flooded, the local economy would not have been devastated and they would not have those magnificent words -- "You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie -- still echoing in their minds.

caslon said[quote][cite]John43620 said[/cite]The Sub Prime Mortgage crisis has been brewing since way before President Bush was sworn in. He and his administration had nothing to do with it.

You said that the sub prime crisis was brewing way before Bush. I was showing that that wasnt so.

Bush et alia's responsibility would be as the government not seeing this happening, questioning it, and taking action before it created a crisis. But the Republicans are too pro-business to interfere and protect the country, its people, and the economy.[/quote]---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Caslon---To further back what your saying, it is a fact that the Senate/congressional Banking committee Democratic chair, wrote letters urging Bush to work with them to ward off the subprime crisis a year or more before the problem imploded. This committee got no cooperation from Bush, and his statement was to leave the "MARKETS ALONE". And of course since Bush has a well known tendency to be oblivious to whats happening in the real world, he let it go too long. Also the defamed Governor "Spitzer" (sp?) just 3 weeks before his outing wrote an OpEd piece in the Washington Post telling about how bush stopped the states from taking action to ward off the subprime crisis, the states came together to regulate the banks responsible for this, but bush stopped them, and from what I've read nearly all 50 states including the republican governors protested bushes blocking the states from regulating the banks. "Spitzer" had warned that he was going to go public with bushes involvement, and in just weeks, the FBI took him down, which shut up the facts of bushes involvement/blame in the subprime fiasco. If you want to read the story and its references you can look it up in the OpEdNews.com archives. I don't make this stuff up !!!!

[quote][cite]realifedad said[...

Caslon--- If you want to read the story and its references you can look it up in the OpEdNews.com archives. I don't make this stuff up !!!![/quote]


Of course you don't, Dad, because everything we read in the OpEd news is the gospel.

CuriousOf course you don't, Dad, because everything we read in the OpEd news is the gospel

.
Standard reply when someone replies to an opinion with one that's based on facts. That is the real problem with our political discourse now.

Conservatives think that their opinions should be respected even when they are misinformed, lying or distorting the truth.

Unfortunately, the media have purchased this belief, permitting right-wingers to blather on without challenging their facts. This is the new definition of "objectivity," whereas the old one required reporters to examine both sides of an issue and make a determination about the facts.

One unbelievable example was Colin Powell's appearance before the UN with fabricated "evidence." It would never do for a reporter to actually examine and research the crap he was foisting on the UN.

CuriousJockAZ said[quote][cite]realifedad said[...

Caslon--- If you want to read the story and its references you can look it up in the OpEdNews.com archives. I don't make this stuff up !!!!

Of course you don't, Dad, because everything we read in the OpEd news is the gospel.[/quote] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL !!! CuriousjockAZ !!!!! its not up there with "gospel" unless its verifiable !!! But I am glad you trust me !!! LOL !!! You should do some reading from this site and from GlobalResearch.com, they are particularly good at including references, so the reader knows the articles aren't just opinion pieces, but based on fact. I discount opinion pieces without references.

CuriousJockAZ saidHndsm, lemme know where you got that Crystal Ball, cuz I want one too. In fact, I'm sure the President could use one as well.



As for the populism that Bush got after 9/11...he deserved it. He got a huge HUGE test as a President practically right out of the box, and he rose to the occasion and lead the country through the biggest crisis since World War II.

As for Katrina responses and that whole argument...again, "Act of Nature"... NOT President Bush.

CuriousJock... I wish I could get you in a room and have a serious conversation with you on politics. I would like nothing better!!

Your crystal ball comment is appropriate. I think this dunce uses voodoo and tealeaves to determine his actions. And you and I are in total disagreement, bud, about Bush and the "goods" and "bads". If he is going to get the credit for 9/11 (and for his "leadership")
HE HAD BETTER TAKE THE BAD as well... and what happened with Katrina was NOT soley just a state issue.

Obscenewish said; "Conservatives think that their opinions should be respected even when they are misinformed, lying or distorting the truth."

It's you who is misinformed. For starters, did you ever take a Political Science course? We Republicans are far from being Conservative. In fact the Republican party is probably the most liberal bunch on the planet. Then again, you need to know the definition of a Conservative and a Liberal, clearly you don't.

The media and some unscrupulous politicians try to muddy the water with the definition and now, true Liberalism must be classified as "Classic Liberalism", which is what the Republican party is all about.

Now for the Subprime mortgage crisis. The overwhelming number of people defaulting on their loans lied on their credit applications. How can you people blame this on President Bush? Subprime lending, Adjustable Rate Mortgages for subprime lending and interest only loans started in 1994 and gained steam. There was and always is a market risk.

HndsmKansan said[quote][cite]CuriousJockAZ said[/cite]Hndsm, lemme know where you got that Crystal Ball, cuz I want one too. In fact, I'm sure the President could use one as well.



As for the populism that Bush got after 9/11...he deserved it. He got a huge HUGE test as a President practically right out of the box, and he rose to the occasion and lead the country through the biggest crisis since World War II.

As for Katrina responses and that whole argument...again, "Act of Nature"... NOT President Bush.

CuriousJock... I wish I could get you in a room and have a serious conversation with you on politics. I would like nothing better!!

[/quote]







Hndsm, if I'm alone in a room with ya, the LAST thing I'd wanna be doin' is talkin' politics ;-)

Lack of personal responsibility is destroying this country. There is hope but you have to grab those things called balls that you so love to have slapping against your partner and use them to do the right thing.

This thread is truly scary.

Jeff

whitenoise saidLack of personal responsibility is destroying this country. There is hope but you have to grab those things called balls that you so love to have slapping against your partner and use them to do the right thing.

This thread is truly scary.

Jeff

Truer words were ever spoken. The government can't bail everybody out, nor should they be expected to, when bad decisions are made --- can't save your house when you bought one you couldn't afford...can't save you from a Hurricane when you live in a city that was built below sea level and ignore warnings to "GET OUT"...blah-blah-blah. Even when the government tries to protect us they get bitched at.

I have a feeling that when certain people say that accepting gay society destroys a civilization I think they mean that a society with that much liberalism will kill itself regardless of sexuality.

Lets hope it doesnt come to that for all of our sake.

Jeff

CuriousJockAZ said

Hndsm, if I'm alone in a room with ya, the LAST thing I'd wanna be doin' is talkin' politics ;-)

Wow, you really know how to change my mood in a hurry.
Your something else!

John43620 saidIt's you who is misinformed. For starters, did you ever take a Political Science course? We Republicans are far from being Conservative. In fact the Republican party is probably the most liberal bunch on the planet. Then again, you need to know the definition of a Conservative and a Liberal, clearly you don't.

The media and some unscrupulous politicians try to muddy the water with the definition and now, true Liberalism must be classified as "Classic Liberalism", which is what the Republican party is all about.

Oh for heaven's sake. I read On Liberty in college, so I know what "Classical Liberalism" means. Perhaps you should tell some of these Republican legislators that they are not really Republicans:

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4802296

If the theme of "Classical Liberalism" is about getting government out of the way of individual ambitions as much as possible, why are some (not all, but some) Republican legislators trying to keep sex toys out of citizens' bedrooms?

My point is simply that at this moment in history, when evangelical Christianity seems to have a resurgent hold on political power (especially in the shaping of social policy) there is a faction of the GOP that is not exactly hewing to the ideals of John Stuart Mill.

SockMonkey, I'm glad you brought that up. The Republican Primaries yielded a nice surprise, the Christian Taliban wing of the party isn't so powerful afterall.
The Entrepreneur and Hawk wings are in the majority.

Sometimes polls are wrong because they only target a certain group of people. I think that noone outside the White House and his close group of friends and family agree with him and like him at all. And it's up to the rich ethically challenged history writers to say whom Bush will be in the eyes of future generations. God knows we all love Raegan and Nixon more now than we ever could when they were in office, but I'm speaking as a kid whom understood them through histories eyes. This is where a culture based on story telling and passing on an oral record of history would serve as a good confirmation or negator for a flawed system of political history writer made the war winners, the rich and influential. Lord knows I learned more from the stories and history my grandfather gave me then the books I read and teachers I had ever gave me ....

If the Iraq war had turned out the way the Bush administration had imagined (I am not sure how that could have happened but indulge me) then he may have gone down as one of the USA's more popular Presidents. I am not a big Bush supporter, never have been, but I must admit one could never accuse him of having no goals or amibition for his presidency.

Unfortunately the Iraq War not turning out the way it should have and Hurricane Katrina's response, made it impossible for him to tackle other pressing issues such as Social Security reform and tort reform (both important issues that need addressing).

Lincoln during the Civil War was not exactly popular, but since the Union eventually prevailed his popularity soared (at least in the North). Truman was very unpopular at the end of his presidency but now many consider him one of the USA's best presidents (not sure exactly why except for getting rid of MacArthur and his blunt talking).

As for the sub-prime mortgage mess, if any individual should shoulder the blame it should be Alan Greenspan for keeping credit so cheap for so long. That precipitated the housing bubble.

That many people detest Bush is unsurprising; what is surprising is that GAY MEN are rushing to defend him in any way. I guess it's that "I got mine so fuck you if you ain't got yours" mentality at work.

As far as Bush's highlights, whew, where can you begin: 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, "Black Sites," Rendition, Tax cuts for the rich, state budget cuts, cuts to social spending, Stop Loss, Katrina, SCHIP, $100+ oil, $5 bread, housing meltdown, recession, Patriot Act, GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT support(!)...you can go on and on. Not to compare apples to vomit, but Clinton was impeached for a blow job. Bush? It's business as usual.

Of course, not all of this shit is the Bush Administration's fault and the Dems are just as responsible for a lot of this mess (including the support of the war on terror, thank you George Orwell). Still, Bush has done enough to qualify as the worst and history will remember him. I'd go on but really, everything Bush & Co. stand for disgusts me and I become tedious talking about them after a while.

Well I am not suprised because not only does President
Bush have the lowest approval rating, he is the most polarizing figure and the most ignorant man to occupy the White House. It is too bad that voters in both Ohio and West Virginia did not realize this back in 2004. If both Ohio and West Virginia voted for Keary/Edwards along with all the other blue states in 2004, we would not be having this conversation today. This country would most likely not be having the serious problems that we are now facing today.

John4360It's you who is misinformed. For starters, did you ever take a Political Science course? We Republicans are far from being Conservative. In fact the Republican party is probably the most liberal bunch on the planet. Then again, you need to know the definition of a Conservative and a Liberal, clearly you don't.

Sure, sure. And the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln! So they can't be racist either. The "Southern strategy" wasn't racist, for example. Things are just as you say they are, regardless of actual behavior -- which is exactly my point about the ridiculous state of political discourse.

I am curious. Some of you think home purchasers should take full "responsibility" for their "role" in the mortgage crisis. Do you also think the feds should not have bailed out lenders?

Jackal69 said; "As far as Bush's highlights, whew, where can you begin: 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, "Black Sites," Rendition, Tax cuts for the rich, state budget cuts, cuts to social spending, Stop Loss, Katrina, SCHIP, $100+ oil, $5 bread, housing meltdown, recession, Patriot Act, GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT support(!)...you can go on and on. Not to compare apples to vomit, but Clinton was impeached for a blow job. Bush? It's business as usual."

This is a perfect example of the superstition you Democrats have. You blame it all on Bad Luck.

9/11: That was an attack brewing through most of the Clinton years. It was just bad luck the attack happened in the Bush years. It's as if you're saying that if Gore was president they wouldn't have attacked because he would be lucky.

Iraq: The Clinton years caused a slow death to Iraqis with the oil for food program but the real problem, Saddam Hussein was doing great.

Afghanistan: Refer to 9/11, would Gore have done nothing? He probably wouldn't have done anything but cry to the UN. And the west would have suffered more attacks.

Black sites, Rendition, Guantanamo: These were all perfectly logical steps in dealing with this new kind of enemy.

USA PATRIOT Act: Another logical step in securing our countries integrity and protecting the population. I have no doubt that if Gore or Kerry had been president, the 9/11 attacks would have been the tip of the iceberg.

Katrina: Too bad the responce was slower than you think it should have been. The disaster was greater than anything that came before it. Had the dumbasses stuck in New Orleans followed the instructions of the authorities they wouldn't have been in such a mess.

SCHIP: This plan already exists and is well funded, the Democrats wanted to add funding and President Bush didn't fit it into the budget so he vetoed it. The SCHIP is just fine. The Democrats only did this for a show and only an idiot would think the whole SCHIP program was shot down.

Tax Cuts for the Rich: We all got tax cuts and continue to get tax cuts. People who pay more taxes got a bigger tax cut but we all got the same percentage so quit crying.

Housing Meltdown: Well it's too bad the banks took some bad risks lending money to a multitude who lied on their credit application and couldn't pay their mortgage. The housing market is just that, a market and has some risk. What's your solution? You got any ideas?

The price of Oil is up: Well that happens. If we drilled ANWAR ten years ago like the Republicans wanted to, it wouldn't be so high. Had the Congress allowed the oil companies to build more refineries the price would be lower but the Democrats blocked that.
We have plenty of oil here in the US but the Democrats blocked that drilling too. Too bad the price is up but it's not the fault of President Bush or the Republicans in the Congress. That's so typical of Democrats, cause a problem and then bitch about it.

Gay Marriage: It's too bad we live in a country where the popular vote denies us the equality of marriage. We need to do a better job of Public Relations. The country for the most part feels we don't deserve equality. So how would we change that? How could we make the rest of the country change their minds?
After the 9/11 attacks we could have marched in the streets demanding to be allowed into the military to fight the common enemy. What did we do (collectively)? Nothing but bitch about the president.

America has challenges and President Bush is doing an outstanding job at meeting those challenges. It's messy and unpleasant but he's doing a great job. You whiners are reaping the benefits of his actions. You're alive today and free to speak your mind.

John43620 said
This is a perfect example of the superstition you Democrats have. You blame it all on Bad Luck.

9/11: That was an attack brewing through most of the Clinton years. It was just bad luck the attack happened in the Bush years. It's as if you're saying that if Gore was president they wouldn't have attacked because he would be lucky.

John this may be your best comedic bit so far. You say Democrats blame everything on bad luck and then right there in issue number one you say Bush wasn't responsible for 9/11 but rather it was the fault of that bastard bad luck.

I find it interesting John, and CuriousJ, that no matter how many things are brought up about the bush/cheney war, their trouncing on human rights, the constitution, constitutional seperation of powers, politicizing the Dept. of Justice, (who are even now as we speak in a desperate effort to buy time to save bush and cheney from the results of their lawbreaking) Illegal surveilance, contracts given to chronies without bidding, signing statements to ignore the power of the congress, and one of the worst is bush/cheney's "CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT PLAN" that they refuse to allow the congressional oversight committee to see, this is the peak of their secresy. Well boys if its ok now for this administration to break the law, to have secrets from congress and the public, to take away freedoms. I guess you won't mind then if Clinton or Obama, hand out billions of contracts to chronies, and it will be alright for them to spy on your emails, phone calls, and text messages, and if they consider one of your good republican neighbors a terrorist threat/enemy combatant,who makes some statement about the dems ought to be hung or some similar threat, it will be OK when he/she is jailed with no recourse of law, no charges, no Habeaus Corpus rights. I could fill a page of things if the next president is unprincipled like this one, that they could now do after bush led the way, and lets see if the shoe is on the other foot, what you have to say then. somehow i think you'll be talking out of the other side of your mouths if it comes down to that scenerio. I just hope that either of them are much more principled than these crooks we have the dishonor of calling our leaders now.

Since we're at war I wouldn't trust the Democrats with classified info either.

John43620 saidSince we're at war I wouldn't trust the Democrats with classified info either.

Always, always, the real enemy, as far as this Administration is concerned, is the Democrats. "If you Democrats would just get on board and stop disagreeing with our policies [no matter how conscientious that disagreement is] we wouldn't have any problems at all." Since when did disagreeing make you a traitor (which seems to be your implication, John43620)?

um john... btw bush was warned about some intelligence of an attack brewing. nothing was done about it. but in his defense it was a pre 9/11 world. clinton wouldve loved to have done more but in a pre-9/11 world that was unthought of. Also, the patriot act was conceived long before the war in iraq was a gleam in bush's eye. the republicans had been trying to figure out a way of getting it passed. the attacks on sept 11th just gave them an easy way. no questions asked. barely anyone read the damn thing.

and in terms of gay marriage.... we dont need to sway everyones opinion in our favor. just the courts. one ruling at a time. the rest will follow. when it comes to civil rights, popular vote is irrelevent when it creates a second-class citizenship. It started here in massachusetts and its spreading. Personally I dont care if what some bible beater in the deep south feels about my relationship, as long as I have my rights intact.

the rest is mindless drivel which i won't reply to, and i really hope you just said all that to get a rise out of everyone. read up on stuff other than the RNC website and fox news and you'll realize how badly this administration has fucked over not just us, but future generations. ~end rant~

John43620 saidSince we're at war I wouldn't trust the Democrats with classified info either.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No John this is not war since bush declared "Mission Accomplished" oh what a spectacle that sherade was !!! We are occupiers, bush has labeled people defending their sovereignity as terrorists to sell this as a war for our safety here in the US. WHAT A FARCE !!!!!! but now 70% don't buy it, how long will it take for you holdouts to see the light????>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By your statement, are you suggesting that since dems cannot be trusted, that a dictatorship by bush is necessarry, to protect us from ourselves, from those who dissagree like the dems do? So now bush has some superior knowledge/policies that only he can handle, since you appear to suggest that the rest of the governing body's cannot be trusted. So I guess we should be honored to have de fuhrer doing the deciding for all of our good. GOD BLESS DE FUHRER BUSH !!! MAY HE SAVE US FROM OUR DEFICIENSIES

realifedad, so you do support the enemy. I knew it but it's good to see you admit it. American forces in Iraq are supporting the elected government of Nouri al Maliki.
You want to see us abandon him like Nguyen van Thieu.

If we do that, the war will not be over, it will just be over here.

John43620 saidrealifedad, so you do support the enemy. I knew it but it's good to see you admit it. American forces in Iraq are supporting the elected government of Nouri al Maliki.
You want to see us abandon him like Nguyen van Thieu.

If we do that, the war will not be over, it will just be over here.

OK, I think this conversation is getting a little warped. Somehow we went from a poll showing how the public disapproves of Bush to this. Lets be real.

CuriousJockAZ said[i][quote][cite]HndsmKansan said[/cite][quote][cite]CuriousJockAZ said[/cite]Hndsm, lemme know where you got that Crystal Ball, cuz I want one too. In fact, I'm sure the President could use one as well.

As for the populism that Bush got after 9/11...he deserved it. He got a huge HUGE test as a President practically right out of the box, and he rose to the occasion and lead the country through the biggest crisis since World War II.

As for Katrina responses and that whole argument...again, "Act of Nature"... NOT President Bush.

CuriousJock... I wish I could get you in a room and have a serious conversation with you on politics. I would like nothing better!!

[/quote]Hndsm, if I'm alone in a room with ya, the LAST thing I'd wanna be doin' is talkin' politics ;-)[/quote][/i]






EEEEEwwwwwww! If they had a baby together, it would look like Ann Coulter!!!!!!

I suppose my biggest problem with the current administration (and it's really not a republican or democrat issue at all) is the whole "with us or against us" mentality. I think it was most apparent after the attacks of september 11. If you mentioned anything critical about the war or the president you were instantly set upon by a horde of "real americans" clubbing you with american flags. Does anybody remember the rather dark and embarrassing days of "freedom fries?" I think john continues to do a great job of toeing the line in the "us good, them bad" world view, but I suppose he is a product of his military training and we all know it is easier to kill your enemy if you vilify or dehumanize them in some way. I just wish it was possible to have real political discussions with real solutions instead of sweeping generalizations that only polarize those involved(neither democrats or republicans are immune from that).
I think we can all agree that during the past 7 years some really crazy stuff has happened and I don't think it's out of line for many americans to be critical or question the choices of our political leaders. I guess I find it most alarming that john (and many others out there) consider those that don't blindly follow the president to whiners or label them as bush-haters and their opinions and concerns are simply disregarded.

And as a side note John's ability to deflect any and all blame from bush is pathological. ok so maybe bush isn't the anti-christ, but come on he has made some bad choices and some mistakes...

I've a slight suspicion that John is a troll so this reply is more for my own amusement than anything, but to take on the troll's counterarguments, briefly:

9/11: How is it the nation spending the most on military/war couldn't, if nothing else, stop the plane from hitting the Pentegon? Why did Bush try to appoint war criminal Henry Kissinger to the head of the 9/11 investigative committee? Why did Bush respond to 9/11 (totally ignoring how it happened, which is still unclear and suspicious) not with humility and calm, but war in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan: Since you brought it up, revisit the Reagan years and how the US funded the mujahideen to defeat the Soviets, giving birth to the Taliban or...

Iraq: a bi-partisan issue to be sure, but it was under Reagan that the US was funding/supplying the chemical weapons (which it would later find, circa 2003) Saddam used against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam was a friend of the US until the US encouraged Kuwait's "slant drilling," leading to the first Gulf War under Bush I.

Black Sites/Etc.: Hitler gave the same justification you just did. Truly repellant.

Katrina: great, tell people to leave then give them no way out. Better yet, cut funding to upgrade the levees so that they can't even withstand a storm. Even better still, wait days while the world looks on in horror at a US unable to even provide water and shelter to its own citizens! Where was the National Guard? Oh wait, in Iraq "bringing freedom."

Housing/Oil/Etc.: These so-called "bubbles" emerge because the government allows speculation and corporations to maintain fradulent accounting practices; the price of oil, incidentally, has gone up since the invasion of Iraq, perhaps the intent(?); the support for gay marriage amendments is nothing but pandering to the radical, fundamentalist religious right and the SBC which is turning the US into a theocracy.

John, you're good for a laugh but really go pick up a book sometime.

Oh Jackal, a Troll? Now you're resorting to insults?

OK, lets clean this mess up.

"9/11: How is it the nation spending the most on military/war couldn't, if nothing else, stop the plane from hitting the Pentegon? Why did Bush try to appoint war criminal Henry Kissinger to the head of the 9/11 investigative committee? Why did Bush respond to 9/11 (totally ignoring how it happened, which is still unclear and suspicious) not with humility and calm, but war in Afghanistan?"

First off, the nation spends more on entitlement programs than it does on the military.

The actual attack was a failure of the FBI. The FBI were supposed to be watching the 9/11 terrorists. I find it peculiar that in the documentary Mr. Bush's war",Frontline says the FBI had Mohammed Atta in Florida when the Czechs said he was in Prague meeting with the Iraqis. If they had him in Florida then, why didn't they have him at the Boston Airport on 9/11?

Henry Kissinger is very good at foreign affairs. He isn't a war criminal at all. Who better to look into 9/11?

President Bush responded with a war in Afghanistan the same way FDR responded to Pearl Harbor and Lincoln did with the bombardment of Fort Sumter.


"Afghanistan: Since you brought it up, revisit the Reagan years and how the US funded the mujahideen to defeat the Soviets, giving birth to the Taliban or..."

The Soviet Union was the big fish to fry then. Did you want to see the Cold War go on and on? I get the impression that the Democrats mourn the Soviet's loss.
It's not surprising, they did everything they could to lose to the Soviets.

"Iraq: a bi-partisan issue to be sure, but it was under Reagan that the US was funding/supplying the chemical weapons (which it would later find, circa 2003) Saddam used against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam was a friend of the US until the US encouraged Kuwait's "slant drilling," leading to the first Gulf War under Bush I."

Saddam Hussein was fighting a common enemy, Iran. Were you alive when those damn Iranian religious nuts took our embassy hostage? Unfortunately we had a wimp for a president and he ordered the Marines to not defend the embassy. Those Marines and the president forgot the Code of Conduct. Saddam Hussein said it was "Slant Drilling". Do you know how oil wells are built? At that time slant drilling couldn't go much more than a mile.

[i]"Black Sites/Etc.: Hitler gave the same justification you just did. Truly repellant."

When did Hitler deal with muslim terrorists? Other than the ones he employed against the Serbs anyway?

"Katrina: great, tell people to leave then give them no way out. Better yet, cut funding to upgrade the levees so that they can't even withstand a storm. Even better still, wait days while the world looks on in horror at a US unable to even provide water and shelter to its own citizens! Where was the National Guard? Oh wait, in Iraq "bringing freedom."[/i]

New Orleans had plenty of buses waiting to haul the people out, they just didn't get on them. That was at the time, the responsibility of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana and Mississippi. Funding for the Army Corps of Engineers was diverted from the lake Ponchitran levees by the state of Louisiana for other projects.
The entire National Guard was not in Iraq at the time.


You're hatred for President Bush is just plain irrational.

Jackal69 saidJohn, you're good for a laugh but really go pick up a book sometime.

LOL it's funny cuz its true. his confabulations are like the madlibs version to United States history

John43620 saidOh Jackal, a Troll? Now you're resorting to insults?




You're hatred for President Bush is just plain irrational.

I've just heard enough of this nonsense....

John43620 said
New Orleans had plenty of buses waiting to haul the people out, they just didn't get on them. That was at the time, the responsibility of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana and Mississippi. Funding for the Army Corps of Engineers was diverted from the lake Ponchitran levees by the state of Louisiana for other projects.
The entire National Guard was not in Iraq at the time.

OK, that is just not right. It is simply not the case that there were lots of buses here ready to whisk everyone away to safety, but that the foolish people declined the offer of transportation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/national/nationalspecial/04reconstruct.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

This story is long, because it gives a complex and accurate picture of the way the evacuation effort failed at many levels. Certainly there were people who did choose to stay even though they had the option to leave. However, those who stayed generally tended to be among the poor, the elderly, and the disabled, and getting out of the city was more difficult for them.

The story also underscores that there were not nearly enough buses to evacuate everyone who needed it, and the civil engineer they quote contends that the buses weren't used efficiently. I very much doubt planning that kind of thing is the federal government's responsibility.

Also, the National Guard was definitely here. Sometimes you can still see the marks they spray-painted on abandoned houses to keep track of where they had checked for survivors. (That is, if you leave the French Quarter and the Garden District.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/02/AR2005090200670.html

I don't think the point I'm trying to make here is anti-Bush. I'm just saying that blaming the poor, elderly, and disabled of New Orleans in order to exonerate President Bush is not right.

McGay>>>>>>>>>>>> I just love your posts !!! this one had me near tears of laughter !!! It makes a great point !!!! LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another reason bush/cheney are so very disliked is that so many of their actions, and statements are not credibal. How many times did they change what the war was over to suit the current situation, how many times did one or both of them claim that some story published about their war, rendition/black sites and ghost prisoners, torture, Guantanimo prison conditions, illegal surveilance, and on and on, were nothing but a "CONSPIRACY THEORY" by less than "PATRIOTIC" far left democrats, only to admit when they were finally cornered that the story was true, then found to be but much worse. One story that has been checked out and proven was that Cheney had taken control of national air safety support by the airforce (I forget the proper title)several months before 911, and on 911 was running a trial run version of how this agency would handle large buildings being attacked by plane. So therefore the planes that should have been sent to down the flights heading for washington, and the twin towers were off playing games with Cheney overseeing the games. (Cheney and Bush would not allow this in the official 911 commission report. When Bush and Rice were asked to testify, they both stated that "who would have thought that planes would be used to attack buildings". Put that together with cheney "CURIOUSLY" running a test run of this same scenario the very day of the 911 event. Do you really think that Cheney didn't tell Bush or Rice that he would be doing this gaming of our air defense having to do with airplanes being used as weapons? Around every corner Bush/Cheney's statements are not credible, they have proven themselves to be totally untrustworthy for anyone willing to question and do research into the truth. Don't take my word for any of this, do a search on where Cheney was the day of 911, this info. isn't hard to find. Its a wonder bush/cheney's approval rating isn't more like 5%. Give it time !!! it will go down further with all the facts that are coming out.

If all you guys think that things in this great country are so bad then I highly advise every one of to buy a good book about North Korea that I am currently reading. The title is Rogue Regime: Kim Jong Il and the looming threat of North Korea. The author is Jasper Becker. The publisher is Oxford University Press. Copyright: 2005. ISBN: 0-19-530891-3. This book is a real shocking eye opener about the brutal regime in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea. While the mass majority of North Korean nationals starved to death because of the country's economic collapse Kim Jong Il lived the life of first world luxury. You guys think it is so miserable here in the good ol' USA, then you should all emigrate to North Korea or any other totalitarian ruled country like Libya, Myanmar(Burma), or Iran. Then after living in those harsh, impoverished conditions then you all will really have something legitimate to bitch about providing the government does not here your criticism because punishments are fierce and swift. Our problems here in the USA are petty and minor compared to the horrible conditions that the people of North Korea are enduring.