24% thinks zippy is doing a good job

[houtx48]

G.W. Bush: 76% - Nov. 2008............just being kind

Clinton: 54% - Sept. 1994
G.H.W. Bush: 60% - July 1992
Reagan: 56% - Jan. 1983
Carter: 59% - June 1979
Ford: 46% - April, Nov., Dec. 1975
Nixon: 66% - Aug. 1974
Johnson: 52% - March, Aug. 1968
Kennedy: 30% - Nov. 1963
Eisenhower: 36% - March 1958
Truman: 67% - Jan. 1952
at least harry knew what a wmd was...................

 

[amygdala]

at least harry knew what a wmd was....

He sure did!

You gotta wonder who these 24% of respondents are, because it can't be the wealthy wall street bankers anymore. It's gotta be the evangelicals who believe the rapture is imminent, right?

Don't forget - GWB has 2 more months to fuck shit up. 2 months ago, we were *just* at the beginning of the meltdown - think about how much has happened since. Jan 20, 2009 cannot come fast enough.

 

[Calboner]

Twenty-four percent? That is a lot of people! That figure reminds me of something else. Let's see now, what could it be. . . . Hmm. . . . Hmm. . . . Ah, yes!

Kyle: Will you shut up about 9/11!

Cartman: Kyle, why are you so afraid of the truth?!

Kyle: Because anybody who thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy is a retard!

Cartman: Oh really? Well did you know that over one-fourth of people in America think that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Are you saying that one-fourth of Americans are retards?

Kyle: Yes. I'm saying one-fourth of Americans are retards.

Stan: Yeah, at least one-fourth.
​

—South Park, season 10, "The Mystery of the Urinal Deuce"

 

[amygdala]

Fucking Awesome! I love that episode!

At the risk of inviting scorn, I don't necessarily believe that "evangelicals" and "retards" are mutually exclusive demographic groups. In fact, I'd venture to guess there's a great deal of overlap.

 

[Qua]

Well, you did make the grossly off assumption that the wealthy think the economy fucking itself up through bipartisan misguidance is reason to blame Bush and align their interests with those counter to them (How's that for a syntactical nightmare?).

Given your dubious demographical track record I'd consider that scorn reasonably invited.

In any case, I wouldn't consider what you said that awful. It's too passe to be offensive.

Oh and that South Park episode made my life during the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Brilliant

 

[1BiGG1]

George Bush is doing a good job but the work he has done will take years to show the benefits. History will look kindly on him and he’s not in this for a popularity contest since he knows like I know, the typical voters in a contest of this nature are nauseatingly uneducated and/or uninformed.

 

[houtx48]

George Bush is doing a good job but the work he has done will take years to show the benefits. History will look kindly on him and he’s not in this for a popularity contest since he knows like I know, the typical voters in a contest of this nature are nauseatingly uneducated and/or uninformed.............................history/kindly in the same sentence? the only good job he ever did was on jeff gannon's crank and you know what kind of a job they call that.

 

[Industrialsize]

George Bush is doing a good job but the work he has done will take years to show the benefits. History will look kindly on him and he’s not in this for a popularity contest since he knows like I know, the typical voters in a contest of this nature are nauseatingly uneducated and/or uninformed.

 

[deleted15807]

George Bush is doing a good job but the work he has done will take years to show the benefits. History will look kindly on him and he’s not in this for a popularity contest since he knows like I know, the typical voters in a contest of this nature are nauseatingly uneducated and/or uninformed.............................history/kindly in the same sentence? the only good job he ever did was on jeff gannon's crank and you know what kind of a job they call that.

Well we can say history and historians are not the same thing. However HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst and He's The Worst Ever.

Was it Barbra Streisand who sang 'it's the laughter we will remember whenever we remember the way we were'? I just don't remember anything funny about the last 8 years or any fun for that matter.

If 9/11 had happened with a democrat in power it would have been because the the 'democrats are weak on defense' or it's because the democrats 'hate America'.

 

[1BiGG1]

Well we can say history and historians are not the same thing. However HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst and He's The Worst Ever.

Was it Barbra Streisand who sang 'it's the laughter we will remember whenever we remember the way we were'? I just don't remember anything funny about the last 8 years or any fun for that matter.

If 9/11 had happened with a democrat in power it would have been because the the 'democrats are weak on defense' or it's because the democrats 'hate America'.

:biggrin1: LOL! The leftwing raises its ugly head again with more revisionist history when history cannot even be assessed yet = yawn.

Intellectual honesty debunking the Michael Moore style intellectual dishonesty sargon20 is selling can be found here …


The Follies of Instant History: Another Meaningless Poll of Historians


"Here we go again. We are engaged in another exercise in instant history, in the form of a poll of opinion in which historians assume the role of soothsayers, predicting the future judgment of the profession on the Bush presidency. This is a follow-up poll to one from 2004 that Robert S. McElvaine reported on here on HNN in an August 2005 essay.

The current poll’s respondents (like those of the earlier poll) are acting as soothsayers because the history profession has not yet had the opportunity to engage the practices of valid historical scholarship. Valid historical scholarship requires us to do lots of things which require time, and especially, the passage of time. To make an historical assessment we need to engage the standard practices of scholarly research. It is these methodological disciplines which render historical judgments valid; it is not the “votes” of contemporary historical opinion. Even if every professional historian in the world placed Bush on exactly the same rung of the historical ladder, it would still be an empty exercise, because the processes of historical scholarship have not yet had an opportunity to be engaged here. ...."

"..... Simply put: it is foolish to think that historians can offer an historical judgment on the Bush presidency (even a tentative one) while that presidency is still in motion. We cannot short-circuit the processes of historical research and scholarship and produce anything remotely related to valid historical judgments."

 

[rob_just_rob]

If you know nothing else about politics (and perhaps especially US politics), you should know that each party has a hard core of fanatics who will support their boy through anything.

Bush could go on live TV and set the constitution on fire before smothering the flames with a US flag soaked with his own urine, and he'd probably still poll around 10-15% approval.

 

[Qua]

:biggrin1: LOL! The [doesn't really matter if left or right to me, cept that historians tend to trend left] raises its ugly head again with more revisionist history when history cannot even be assessed yet = yawn.

QFT. Sure, you can say Bush is bad (I do), but how any serious scholar of history can jump so quickly to that premature conclusion when any such conclusion would be premature even 10 [EDIT: Maybe not 20] years from now is absolutely ludicrous and unprofessional.

 

[stratedude]

If you know nothing else about politics (and perhaps especially US politics), you should know that each party has a hard core of fanatics who will support their boy through anything.

Bush could go on live TV and set the constitution on fire before smothering the flames with a US flag soaked with his own urine, and he'd probably still poll around 10-15% approval.

Nice use of hyperbole as a totally ficticious metaphor for Bush's presidency.

In other words, wake up from the nightmare you are living in. It isn't real.

 

[vince]

:biggrin1: LOL! The leftwing raises its ugly head again with more revisionist history when history cannot even be assessed yet = yawn.

"..... Simply put: it is foolish to think that historians can offer an historical judgment on the Bush presidency (even a tentative one) while that presidency is still in motion. We cannot short-circuit the processes of historical research and scholarship and produce anything remotely related to valid historical judgments."

I agree that it will take years for professional historians to correctly and dispassionately research and assess just how bad, or (outside chance) good, the Bush presidency has been.

But then you say- "George Bush is doing a good job but the work he has done will take years to show the benefits. History will look kindly on him and he’s not in this for a popularity contest since he knows like I know, the typical voters in a contest of this nature are nauseatingly uneducated and/or uninformed".

Well, you are doing the same thing you are crying about others doing. You have no way to know how history will judge Bush. Unless you are clarivoyant or have a crystal ball, it's just an OPINION as well.

75% of the public are dissatisfied with Bush's job performance at the end of his term. That IS a fact and points to a failure of leadership on his part and I think historians will have to factor in how the people at THIS time judged him. It is his job to be the leader and when about half of his own constituents (his got 50% in 2004, so half of the people who voted for him think he has done poorly), then it seems there is a massive loss of confidence in his leadership. That is a failure in and of itself.

Maybe you are right BiGG. Maybe history will look kindly on Bush. But you have no way of knowing for sure either. It's only your opinion.

 

[HyperHulk]

It would be easy to see the disapproval of Bush as being some left wing thing--sure they can't stand him, that makes sense. But at 24% approval, it means that about half of the right wing/conservative people who supported Bush, now disapprove of him. That's rather startling.

As for the history thing, I can see what some are saying. Many presidents who were deemed failures in their times are seen as not so bad or pretty good after many many years. I don't see that happening for Bush though, in fact, I think things will get much worse for him if the investigations continue into this misuse of power and the other shady stuff Cheney got up to. However, I do think that history may end up finding that Bush wasn't as malicious as he's currently thought of, just remarkably incompetent.

9/11 (probably) and Katrina (definitely) would have happened to Gore as well. The Iraq war, the torture stuff, Guantanomo Bay, the Plame mess, suspension of habeas corpus, the ire of the international community and everything connected to that is all uniquely Bush. It will have to take Obama or beyond to turn Bush's lemons into lemonade, if such a thing is even possible.

The odd part is, had Bush stayed focused on Afghanistan and not invaded Iraq, he most likely would be viewed quite differently now and I can't even imagine that Obama would have won. Bush's legacy now is tied directly to Obama's. If Obama succeeds as President, then it will be partially because Bush created an environment where Obama could be elected and Bush created enough fires for Obama to put out. If Obama fails, most likely it will be cause Bush's actions were so damaging that they have made it impossible for virtually anyone to do well. So Bush needs Obama to succeed, so history can say that what Bush did was bad and stupid but not irreversible and put the country in a better place from future generations learning what not to do.

I would imagine then, if there are 24% of people who actually support Bush, they should be rooting for Obama to succeed more than anyone else. Logic though has never been their strong suit.

 

[deleted15807]

9/11 (probably) and Katrina (definitely) would have happened to Gore as well. The Iraq war, the torture stuff, Guantanomo Bay, the Plame mess, suspension of habeas corpus, the ire of the international community and everything connected to that is all uniquely Bush.

And how could you not mention the current financial mess that threatens to unhinge the entire wrold economy? The Master of Disaster can't leave 1600 Pennsylvania Ave fast enough. I don't think bin Laden could have done a better job of sending the country over the cliff. How many trillions are we gonna spend to fix the ship while the rich get richer? As it turns out Saddam didn't have the WMD's. The banks had them “We finally found the W.M.D.” They were buried in our own backyard — subprime mortgages and all the derivatives attached to them.

 

[HyperHulk]

And how could you not mention the current financial mess that threatens to unhinge the entire wrold economy? The Master of Disaster can't leave 1600 Pennsylvania Ave fast enough. I don't think bin Laden could have done a better job of sending the country over the cliff. How many trillions are we gonna spend to fix the ship while the rich get richer? As it turns out Saddam didn't have the WMD's. The banks had them “We finally found the W.M.D.” They were buried in our own backyard — subprime mortgages and all the derivatives attached to them.

Well, quite frankly I would be writing a book if I had to list everything. But I'm not sure how much of the current economic mess history will place on Bush's shoulders--my feeling is not much. The housing crisis and much of the bad and greedy business decisions aren't directly connected to Bush. History might show a stronger connection between the massive oil profits and Bush but not the big 3 automakers inability to follow growing trends. What Bush will bear is straining the government, armed forces and the federal deficit as a result of the Iraq war. One of the causes of the economic crisis is everyone's over reliance on credit and Bush isn't responsible for that. Much of what is happening with the economy wold have happened with Kerry or Gore as president too. Perhaps though, if Bush hadn't been so preoccupied with Iraq and tending to that mess, more attention would have been given to problems that apparently were foreseeable? There is no doubt that Bush has been incompetent, but the truth is, he's also been remarkably unlucky.

 

[deleted15807]

One of the causes of the economic crisis is everyone's over reliance on credit and Bush isn't responsible for that. Much of what is happening with the economy wold have happened with Kerry or Gore as president too. Perhaps though, if Bush hadn't been so preoccupied with Iraq and tending to that mess, more attention would have been given to problems that apparently were foreseeable? There is no doubt that Bush has been incompetent, but the truth is, he's also been remarkably unlucky.

Bush IS responsible and the anti-regulatory zeal he has stamped on every government agency he could.

Banking Regulator Played Advocate Over Enforcer Agency Let Lenders Grow Out of Control, Then Fail

and

The Day the SEC Changed The Game

It is NO coincidence that all these government failures happened during his Reign of Error. When you put people in charge of government who hate government, seriously what do you think the result is going to be?

 

[Qua]

Just stop. Seriously man, it's impossible to take you seriously. You are worse than Trinity.

(he put me on ignore the first time I criticized his ability to think objectively)