| The Grand Poobah | Friday, January 16, 2009 - 11:09 am 
BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!! Can you smell it? |
| Alexander Platypus (Little Upsilon) | Friday, January 16, 2009 - 11:16 am
Why bother mocking him at this point?
Lets just try to make sure obama does a significantly better job. |
| The Grand Poobah (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, January 16, 2009 - 11:38 am
lets keep our fingers crossed. |
| Tattooed Priest | Friday, January 16, 2009 - 04:43 pm
At this point I would trust a fry cook from McDonalds with our Presidency. ANYONE has got to be able to do at least something good for the country at this point. |
| Jack Frost (Little Upsilon) | Friday, January 16, 2009 - 04:50 pm
you all do realize that the president is merely a political puppet right? someone is pulling his strings. so blaming the shit country on the president does nothing since he has no control over it |
| Okstate Guy (Little Upsilon) | Friday, January 16, 2009 - 07:28 pm
I have a great deal of hope and faith in our new President Barack Obama! |
| nix001 | Friday, January 16, 2009 - 07:55 pm
I agree with Jack Frost. It's like changing the lable on a can of beans.
America's been walking down the same path for way too long. Even Clinton knew it was all going to end up in tears. You can't really blame George W. You should blame yourselves and your ego go go USA. You did'nt learn a thing from the Mother Land did you. Moderation is the key. |
| Arno0717 (Fearless Blue) | Friday, January 16, 2009 - 07:59 pm
Considering Bush got in for a second term then I can only presume Americans thought he was doing something Right. I think Obama is a level headed guy and will do a good job of a bad situation. However considering the state of the world today from finance to Global warming you could say we are pretty much in it up to our necks and Obama will have to be a magician to be able to turn it round. Get ready for a long 2009 |
| General Dirt (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 01:11 am
If I was of voting age...I would have voted against bush twice.
And he stole the first election. |
| Tattooed Priest | Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 05:29 am
How do you call it stealing the election when what happened was Gore tried to steal it by demanding recounts and still lost? I have always been amazed by the idea people have that Bush 'stole' that election. Makes no sense in any way shape or form. |
| Alexander Platypus (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 05:47 am
I think the fact Bush's brother was the governor of the disputed state has something to do with it Priest. Not to mention the supreme court vote was 5-4? And several of the 5 were appointed by bush's own dad. I mean thats 3rd world stuff right there. |
| Noproblem (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 07:13 am
Bush didn't so much as mismange as he unmanaged.
If he had mismanaged, it could be fixed. He could have done some things, but he didn't even do what he could have. So we have the biggest mess in decades, and when Obama gets there,, the till will be empty, and the mess will be larger than ever.
Obama should ask for a recount and hope he loses!
And Hilary lost the election, and got the second best job in the world. Too bad she didn't realize that being a senator is the best one. Maybe she will do less harm in the cabinet. At least she can be fired from there. |
| Alexander Platypus (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 07:23 am
If obama and congress waste too much dough, there's always 2010 and 2012 to un-overreach.
(assuming Palin isnt on the ballot) |
| Zentrino (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 07:25 am
It is not often that I find myself in a situation where I might defend GW Bush, since I am liberal Dem who has voted for every Dem presidential ticket since I could vote.
However, Bush 41 had next to nothing to do with the 2000 court battle. He did not appoint "several" of the Justices on the Court. He didn't even appoint a few or some of them. In his entire term, he appointed only 2--Thomas and Souter. And they split their votes on Bush v Gore with Souter in the minority and Thomas with the majority.
Much has been questioned about the decision in Bush v Gore. If you want to read more about what was wrong with the decision, I suggest Dershowitz's "Supreme Injuctice." It is quite informative.
Bush didn't "steal" any election. He may not have really won, but Bush didn't have anything to do with that--poor election management in FL was the cause. Bush has plenty of "accomplishments" upon which to judge the failure of his presidency; let's not get boggled down in myth. |
| Alexander Platypus (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 07:35 am
Zentrino i still think its really suspicious when your own dad and brother have so much influence on the outcome of your "election" for president. Espeically considering he got fewer votes than Al Gore did. And if you were to add in lets say 60% of Nader's votes for Gore, easy and clear victory. So it *was* stolen. Maybe youre right about those details however i think youre nitpicking and missing the larger idea. |
| Zentrino (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 07:39 am
Oh well sure--had those people who voted for Nader not done so and voted for Gore, he would have won. But, they wanted to vote for Nader. A better argument along those lines is that in Palm Beach County (a large NY-Jewish transplant retirement community), Buchanan got something like 3% of the vote, which is ridiculous. The arrangement of the ballot, though, made it easy to mistakenly vote for Buchanan instead of Gore. Surely, those people meant to vote for Gore and just got it wrong on the ballot. Even if true, this does make the election "stolen" by anyone. It means that Gore should have won, but didn't because of election errors. Maybe you can blame the SOS for the design of the ballot, but GW didn't design it so you can't blame him. |
| Alexander Platypus (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 10:54 am
The point still is: majority didnt want bush to be president. |
| The Grand Poobah (Golden Rainbow) | Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 11:03 am
yup |
| Zentrino (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 05:59 pm
A "majority" has often voted against the person who won. Clinton never got a majority of the votes. Neither did Kennedy, Truman, and Wilson all in the 20th century. I believe Bush is the only Republican since Lincoln to win with less than a majority. Lincoln was elected with less than 40% of the vote. Nixon, by contrast, had over 60% of the vote and Hoover nearly got 60%. How has history judged them? Bush isn't even the only President to get elected without the "most" votes. Harrison lost the popular vote by a full percentage point but won anyway.
If we want to talk about all the terrible failures of the last 8 years, I would be happy to jump on board because the list is long and the discussion fruitful. This has been certainly been the worst admin in my lifetime and probably ranks up there as one of the worst ever. However, how he got into office was not theft and is not a reflection of his presidency. |
| Alexander Platypus (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 06:51 pm
Harrison is the only other president who lost the election yet became president. Guess how history judges that fiasco? Yep, as a theft. |
| Zentrino (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 10:58 pm
In 1824, JQ Adams did not receive the most votes. In fact, he didn't even have the most electoral votes. He was chosen by the House in a fairly obviously corrupt bargain.
There is another one who lost the popular vote but got elected. I can't think of who it is. It is the president who ended Reconstruction, probably also in a corrupt bargain.
I don't recall learning that Harrison "stole" the election. He played dirty, but NY politics had never been clean. |
| Alexander Platypus (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 11:14 pm
zentrino i agree with you in your original point that % of election victory and historical judgement dont really correlate. although in some cases they do. many terrible presidents were appointed or succeeded from being the VP |
