Do You Like Dubya?, or, Hindsight is 20/20
 

Real simple concept, here. Do you like George W Bush? Think he's the greatest President since Truman, or the worst President since Hoover?

Let's judge the Conservative/Liberal temperature of The Cellar!

But I like it with butter and there was no choice for that, so like the President, I made a choice based on the next best thing.

Too many variables...but I totally get the "all the choices sucked, so I took what I thought was the least sucky at the time" thing.

That's why "I like popcorn" is there. Which, in reality, is one more choice than we get for the Presidential elections.

I found it difficult too.....cuase I don't believe in God or the creation...but if there was a God and he had created the earth I'm pretty sure he'd be pissed off.

I voted for popcorn. I don't know this was well designed to gauge the conservative/liberal temperature of the cellar. an awful lot of conservatives aren't very fond of ol' geedub. if you're just asking if i would vote for him over Kerry all over again... yeah, unfortunately i would.

So far, with only 9 votes, the poll is mirroring national public opinion polls fairly closely.

People like popcorn that much?

My answer was a no-brainer for me. And I really really really like popcorn, so for my chosen answer to be chosen, I had to agree with it more than I love all that is popcorn and all popcorn accessories. :corn:

History will judge him better than the present does, but not that much better.

I'm not fond of popcorn, but amongst those choices, it's like an unopened candy bar lodged in a pile of crap. Though I still wouldn't eat it...unless it were a Twix. Then I'd have to think on it a bit.
With so many people following the "Left" and "Right" Rule Books, down to "how we wipe our ass," I fail to see the difference between that sort of blind zealotry and some crazed fanatic that blows himself up in a marketplace.

"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is."
- Mohandas Gandhi

I'm confused with what this has to do with our thoughts about the Dubya presidency. If one thinks he is an awful president then one is a zealot? Just looking for clarification.

It was just the "all your eggs in one basket" bit.
Also, the coffee.

I do not like King George, never have. He's just waaaaaaay too smug.





And stupit.

What eggs and what basket? There are two baskets to choose from (disregarding all the popcorn): the 'likin' the Dub basket' and 'the not likin' the Dub basket.' I put my single Dub egg into the not likin' the Dub basket. Left, Right, or Middle, religion, politics, or fanaticism are all irrelevant to the initial question.

I guess I'm just missing the point. That's ok, I can be dense. ;)

Heh, I can be vague and aloof. There are 2 baskets...but you can't pick which eggs to go in which baskets; it's always either "like everything he's done" or "hate everything he's done"...though, now that I think about it, I'm not sure I'd put any eggs in the "like" basket...oh well.

I see what you're saying now.

I was thinking of it as an overall feeling about him or what he's done. I probably do shut out any positives because of my general dislike of him.

Damn eggs! :)

Sometimes, the most malformed threads and polls result in the most interesting commentary.

Carry on, please.

For the record, *I* think that our cardiac deficient VP has had his hand up Dubya's ass for eight years, making his mouth move. Think about it...when have we *ever* had a VP that was less visible, less out there in the public eye? Why is he even there?

Surely his primary job description wasn't "lodge some shotgun pellets in your hunting buddy's ass?" Or face.

I like popcorn...although maybe I shouldn't vote in this poll...being unAmerican and all...

Are you NON-American or UN-American?

I mean, I like Australia and all...

I'm probably both NON and UN. Even if I were a US citizen, some here would call me UN because of the political views I hold.

Personally, I think nationalism should be done away with, even if it takes 1000 years. Of course, we don't want people like Dubya running the world, and breaking it to shit all over again...

Glad that was clear somehow Shawnee.
(completely off topic, your quote = my favorite Paula Cole song by far - nice and raw, heh)

GW will be the only president in US history whose presidential library is comprised entirely of pop-up books.

His legacy will be, 100%, based on how the Middle East looks in 50 years. Everything else will be a footnote.

That would be the equivalent of Roosevelt taking credit for the 1980's boom. "Reagan did that? Ha! It was my New Deal that made it possible."

It was Carter who forged one of the only lasting Middle East peace accords in the 20th century.

I might give him partial credit for anything in the next 10 years, if someone can point to a link, but if peace breaks out in the next 50 years it will probably have more to do with the next 6-12 US Presidents.

if the middle east is stable in the next 10 years and stays that way for 50 years it will be his legacy.

That's a big giant IF. What will be his legacy in the likely event that peace does not break out in the middle east?

That he made a bad situation worse. All of the anti-bush jokes and ridicule will be his for all history. he'll be the Filmore of this century.

So far.

I wish there was a choice that said...

George W. Bush is the single worst president in American history. He's violated the U.S. Constitution more than all other presidents combined and caused damage to America that won't be likely fixed for 100 years if ever. He is guilty of treason and not only should be impeached, he should be tried for treason and war crimes.

What does "one of the only" mean?

I can't find any constitutional damage no matter how much radar alleges it's happening. I see a President who didn't figure it was right to pick on Smith & Wesson, unlike his glib but wisdomless predecessor. Clinton visibly found the Bill of Rights a stumbling block to his ambitions, whereas Bush hews to it, no ands or caveats.

That the left-of-center have been acutely disappointed and rather marginalized these last seven years is all to the good. That bunch doesn't keep the Republic.

I think what I particularly like is that the Federal level of the Government has been wholly occupied with foreign policy, and isn't mucking about with the domestic economy -- that never ends well. The current generation of Democrats doesn't know this and won't be instructed. That keeps them somewhere between worthless and a downright menace.

Any war big enough to notice bruises the economy. At bottom, all wars are economic, and you can expect the war winners to be those economies that took the least damage, by percentage or in absolute quantity.

I think somebody is going to have to admit that a "lasting peace accord" for the Middle East is a very relative term. Temporary lulls are really all we've ever seen, no? Since absolutely no one can be trusted to throw an airtight economic embargo around the Palestinians and the Israelis and tell them to thrash it out permanently entirely on their own, there is no prospect at all for peace in the Middle East: it's taking on the properties of a proxy war. The principals can keep playing because their sponsors can supply them with the sinews of war and keep them in the game.

And isn't it funny how some people think it's irredeemably dumb to actually try and win a war, particularly when somebody else has handed you one in the grand and very public manner? Such an opinion makes me tired of the slackeroids who hold it. Particularly radar, whose raging discredits him as a serious thinker: trying to actually win a war handed you by foreigners is not and never can be treason. You cannot think intelligently until you discard this toxic idea, Paul. You can only rage, rave, and froth at the mouth, and none of that looks good on you.

If you could identify this mysterious "somebody" we might have some idea what you think Dubya's war is redressing.

A few months back I saw a Frontline story on Cheney. I found out that the shows are available online for anyone to see.

There is the 'Dark Side 2006' online video and 'Cheney's Law 2007' among others regarding this administration. I think it was Cheney's law I watched with my mouth hanging open. :eek:

FRONTLINE ONLINE VIDEOS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/

Meaning that the US wasn't the only western country mucking about in the Middle East, and that other treaties were written an adhered to for decades. Israel and Egypt haven't shot at each other in the 30 years since the Camp David Peace Accords, which is a pretty good stretch for the region.

Sorry rich, I was being pedantic. I meant, literally, "What does 'one of the only' mean?" To me, it's a phrase that doesn't make sense, similar to 'try and do,' or 'try and anything.' These should be 'try to,' and the first phrase should be 'the only one,' or 'one of the few.'

Carry on.

Sorry, Clinton beat him to it.

Hardly.

Clinton's entire presidency was about his pop ups.

The Middle East has never been stable, ever. We can only try to protect our interests there.

Jealous. :D

Not at all. I'm still waiting for a pop down.

We're exporting security and globalization's connectedness. The purveyors of a competing disconnectedness -- the radical Islamists, if anyone needs it spelled out -- are fighting back. We are redressing the fuckage those totalitarian sons of syphilitic bitches are perpetrating, and never forget that, Griff. It's my war too. It should be yours, but you haven't figured out antidemocracy is wrong, wrong, ten quadrillion times wrong. It makes you a dreadfully weak Libertarian. You won't bludgeon the anti-Libertarians. You have designed yourself to be a passive feeb -- in effect, a brownshirt.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is suboptimal, even dumb -- and for an enumeration of the dumb, how about every last don't-fight-with-the-fascists-you-might-make-them-mad idiot who ever spoke against this war. Fascists' dupes the lot, for what are our enemies but fascists? The stumblefucks don't want the fascists to die, and this is not comprehensible on any level, political or moral. It's either bad politics or worse morality, and none can gainsay that without revealing a defective moral center.

These, my friend, are the kind of wars we really fight, and have for over a century, so we're definitely in the habit. The Left has been trying for generations to obscure this. Study of our wars tells us the Left is full of stuff that makes roses grow -- but cannot be mistaken for a rose.

I refuse to be a totalitarian's sockpuppet, even unknowingly. You really ought to do the same and go kill a couple of their lackeys if you want to aspire to being a strongly moral man. Fascist blood is beautiful, man. If you didn't think so, you wouldn't have become a Libertarian.

However, he who mistakes Republicans for Fascists knows nothing about either. He can't.

Why on God's green Earth were you calling our radical Islamist foes a "mysterious somebody?" I'd like to see you explain that one! I don't expect your effort will resemble logic.

Hussein was secular. The radical Islamists did not have any significant presence in Iraq. Your war has likely handed them Iraq. That is why your argument is not taken seriously. I'll let you work out your own definition of fascism, mine includes militarism and crony capitalism two Bushite values.

This being our last communication, I'll end with humor.