Resolved: Bush has been a brilliantly successful President

apart from that hes not done too bad then phil !

It's the price you pay for not having an unelected Royal family.

Lots of continuity, some wise advice and a tourist industry that many nations would want.

Jono

Is he giving Mugabe a post for the last few months just to round things off?

I'm sure Al Qaeda specifically & terrorists in general consider Bush an outstanding American President!

Like they say these days:

THE. WORST. PRESIDENT. IN. USA. HISTORY. BY. FAR. PERIOD!

All best,
Fred

LOL - I've not heard that one before!

If that's the perception now, I wonder how the history books will record the Bush administration once all is revealed?

quote:

THE. WORST. PRESIDENT. IN. USA. HISTORY. BY. FAR. PERIOD!

Well, SOMEBODY must have liked him - he got himself voted into office TWICE.

Does that mean the American electorate is just plain stupid or your elections are corrupt or meaningless or....what?

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

THE. WORST. PRESIDENT. IN. USA. HISTORY. BY. FAR. PERIOD!

Well, SOMEBODY must have liked him - he got himself voted into office TWICE.

Does that mean the American electorate is just plain stupid or your elections are corrupt or meaningless or....what?

A combination of any or all of the following factors ... a significant portion of the electorate is generally ignorant, a certain portion fearful, a certain portion semi-educated, a certain portion ill-informed, and a certain portion just plain stupid. Do keep in mind, however, that these subsets comprise less than half the American electorate.

On top of this add a monumental snow job of nearly unprecedented magnitude, perpetrated by Bush himself, the principals of BushCo (Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Kristol, Bolton, Libby, etc.), the Republican Party in general, the so-called Christian Coalition and its subsidiaries, the corporate constituents of BushCo (Enron, etc.), and the media arm of BushCo known as FOX News, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, etc.

Further, all of the above are complicit, either directly or indirectly, in the blatant corruption of both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

All best,
Fred

quote:

On top of this add a monumental snow job of nearly unprecedented magnitude, perpetrated by Bush himself, the principals of BushCo (Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Kristol, Bolton, Libby, etc.), the Republican Party in general, the so-called Christian Coalition and its subsidiaries, the corporate constituents of BushCo (Enron, etc.), and the media arm of BushCo known as FOX News, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, etc.

Further, all of the above are complicit, either directly or indirectly, in the blatant corruption of both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

So on that basis, can we expect McCain to be voted in this November or was the Republican party no way complicit in ensuring Bush did not require a recount in Florida?

Part of the problem was that the Democrats couldn't come up with anyone better than John Kerry to run against Dubya.

Americans (or enough of them to swing an election) want their presidnt to pass the Barbecue Test--Is this person someone I could hang out with at a cookout and have a good time? Bush passes the test (even in my eyes) and Kerry does not. Kerry would eat his hamburger with a knife and fork.

quote:

Americans (or enough of them to swing an election) want their presidnt to pass the Barbecue Test--Is this person someone I could hang out with at a cookout and have a good time?

A remarkable and accurate synopsis of the American political landscape!

I have been accused by Fred of porting over to another thread and misrepresenting what he said on this one. What I said on the other thread was:-

I'm surprised that Bush got ANY votes last time round if his supporters are as plain stupid as Fred suggests.....they would have all put their crosses in the wrong box!

Cheers

Don

Then after Fred's accusation I posted the following:-

quote:
.. a significant portion of the electorate is generally ignorant......and a certain portion just plain stupid....... however.....these subsets comprise less than half the American electorate.

So, you see, I said that only a small portion of Bush's supporters were "plain stupid."


Fred,

I have reduced your words (yet again!) simply to highlight/emphasise what appear to be important "facts". Lets not split hairs as to whether the American elotorate is "generally ignorant" or just "plain stupid" or whether "less than half" equals 49% or 48%. Lets also face up to the fact that by "less than half" you were implying the half that voted for Bush. I sincerely doubt whether the other half are any less ignorant or stupid.

My main concern is that the world is facing a human population sustainability problem and none of the "super-powers" or the G8 or the UN seems to recognise this or have an overall strategy for dealing with it. Meanwhile, one of the (current) super-powers is electing a new president, effectively on the basis of his/her "dress-code"/"social grace". Whilst accepting these are important factors in mobilising/motivating support and getting things done, it is depressingly disappointing that discussion isn't well focused on "what" needs to be done, as well as "who" is best placed to get it done.

Cheers

Don

Where's Mick Parry?

Nobody defends the indefensible quite as amusingly IMO, he's bound to love Bush.

There is no hope, I've looked at the opposition. A political system that is so dependent on big business and the extreme religious right is never going to produce much representation of anything else is it?

My worry is that out system is moving toward a similar state of affairs.

Steve

quote:

My worry is that out system is moving toward a similar state of affairs

Steve, aren't we there already? We are living proof that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king!

It is of course far too early to judge Bush, especially as he is still in office, but I suspect that historically, he will be viewed in much that same way as Hoover, Harding and Nixon are - ie, extremely unfavourably.

He does seem to have bequeathed America a massive amount of debt and has overseen a period when the US' reputation has plummeted to an all-time low.

Also, any president whose administration contains someone as arrogant and incompetent as "Donny" Rumsfeld can't possibly be described as good.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin-W:
It is of course far too early to judge Bush ...

No, it's not too early at all. In fact, it's tragically too late.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

Lets not split hairs as to whether the American electorate is "generally ignorant" or just "plain stupid" or whether "less than half" equals 49% or 48%.

"Ignorant" does not mean "stupid," nor vice versa, and it's not splitting hairs at all to make the distinction. I try to choose my words carefully and generally mean exactly what I say ... these are distinct conditions, along with the others I mentioned: ill-informed, fearful, etc. Granted, in many people several or even all of these conditions overlap, and I did acknowledge that.

And, yes, I'm referring to the roughly half of the voters who voted for Bush, but it's also not splitting hairs to note that the percentage of the eligible electorate that voted for Bush was far less than half since little more than half the eligible electorate voted at all. But my point is that the group comprised of the ignorant, the ill-informed, the fearful, and the stupid account for only half at best, and that the rest of the world should not discount the half who did not vote for Bush, who, by definition, are indeed less ignorant, less stupid, and more well-informed.

Finally, to address your main concern about over-population, I've already said that I share that concern, and although the specific issue itself may not have been addressed directly by Obama, as I've said before many of the issues that are clearly related to over-population have indeed been addressed by him. Further, of all three candidates, Obama is clearly best positioned to deal with the rest of the world in a respectful and non-partisan manner, which is crucial in dealing with global issues.

All best,
Fred

Smacks of elitism....

Is it elitist to think about, and challenge current accepted wisdom? George

No. But in China it's a criminal offence.

quote:

And, yes, I'm referring to the roughly half of the voters who voted for Bush, but it's also not splitting hairs to note that the percentage of the eligible electorate that voted for Bush was far less than half since little more than half the eligible electorate voted at all. But my point is that the group comprised of the ignorant, the ill-informed, the fearful, and the stupid account for only half at best, and that the rest of the world should not discount the half who did not vote for Bush, who, by definition, are indeed less ignorant, less stupid, and more well-informed.

Try as I might, I couldn't find any self-respecting dictionary that confirmed your definition of less ignorant, less stupid, and more well-informed.

Fred, I have a feeling that you are reduced to a world of self-induced make-believe.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

And, yes, I'm referring to the roughly half of the voters who voted for Bush, but it's also not splitting hairs to note that the percentage of the eligible electorate that voted for Bush was far less than half since little more than half the eligible electorate voted at all. But my point is that the group comprised of the ignorant, the ill-informed, the fearful, and the stupid account for only half at best, and that the rest of the world should not discount the half who did not vote for Bush, who, by definition, are indeed less ignorant, less stupid, and more well-informed.

Try as I might, I couldn't find any self-respecting dictionary that confirmed your definition of less ignorant, less stupid, and more well-informed.

Stupid in the sense of people who lack basic intelligence, ignorant in the sense of people who may not be stupid but don't fully understand, and ill-informed in the sense of people who may or not be stupid and/or ignorant but they definitely lack information.

Members of all three groups made up a significant portion of the pro-Bush contingent. That his approval rating is currently at its slowest point is the result of an increase in understanding and an increase in information.

All best,
Fred

Dear Fred,

Being in the position of judging who is stupid, judging who is not, judging who is ignorant, judging who made less effort to become informed, puts you into tremendously talented group indeed, and a very good position to tell people who they should vote for, and what would be good for them. You seem to indicate that you are very good at “judging.”

I sincerely hope that for your own self-esteem that people vote in the way you suggest, in a way that is not stupid, not ignorant, and well in informed.

It seems you have a tremendous talent. You seem to be able to judge that more stupid people voted for one party or another – in you opinion. I find this self-confidence quite worrying, for all that.

I wonder what consequences of this sort of certainty might be were it to grow?

George

Fred,

Now I see it. Anybody who voted for Bush is, by YOUR definition, stupid, ignorant or ill-informed.

So now we KNOW that you are reduced to a world of self-induced make-believe.

My guess is that each candidate has a similar proportion of supporters who could be classified as stupid, ignorant or ill-informed - based on the more conventionally held definitions of stupid, ignorant and ill-informed.

Cheers

Don