[guitarguy]

George W. Bush

Do you approve or diss-approve? Why? Why doesn't anybody like him? Will people ever be satisfied with who the president is. What should W do to better improve the publics preception of him.

Discuss

-Jake-

[Nate]

What the heck? What kind of a random time is this to post such a poll? Haha. Craziness.

Anyway, like a lot of people, I am completely ambivalent and apathetic when it comes to politics.

In His love,
Nate

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by guitarguy

George W. Bush

hmm.

Originally Posted by guitarguy

Do you approve or diss-approve?

disapprove.

Originally Posted by guitarguy

Why?

I don't trust him. He uses the Lord's name in vain.

Originally Posted by guitarguy

Why doesn't anybody like him?

Because he caused the deaths of many young people over false information.

Originally Posted by guitarguy

Will people ever be satisfied with who the president is.

Nope.

Originally Posted by guitarguy

What should W do to better improve the publics preception of him.

resign.

[JerryLove]

Anyway, like a lot of people, I am completely ambivalent and apathetic when it comes to politics.

Ignoring that "ambivilent" and "apathetic" are mutually exclusive, you don't care (or are of two minds) about war, security, the economy, pollution, civil rights, taxation, and support for the poor? What, exactly, do you care about (or do you have a cohesive opinion on, depending on whether you are ambevilent or apathetic).

[AlphaSigma]

I don't like Bush because he's going to do what he wants and not what his people wants. I also have to slap congress in the face for giving him power to deal with Iraq as he pleases. Stop giving the president your democratic power! What good is our congress if they give their vote to the president. That means he controls more than 60% of our goverenment. That's not what our contry was built on for one guy to control most of it.
Bush had his eyes on Iraq the day he became president. Changing his sotry several times.
1. They have weapons of mass destruction. We must protect ourselves. (FALSE!)
2. They have failed to comply with the UN. (so let the UN deal with it, it's not the US's job to govern the world!)
3. We must set the Iraqi people free from this horrible dictator. (A dictator's power who can't even match the devestation that N. Korea and Saudi Arabia's inflict on their people.)

Invading Iraq was Bush's idea and it's what he wanted to do. I bet he'd think twice if it was his daughter going over seas on the frontlines.

*Lied to us, he has my disaproval and I would rather vote for Ralph Nader.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Ignoring that "ambivilent" and "apathetic" are mutually exclusive

I am ambivalent concerning which politician I "like" or "don't like", "approve of" or "disapprove of," because I am apathetic concerning the ability of any politician to be an effective governor of our country.

you don't care (or are of two minds) about war, security, the economy, pollution, civil rights, taxation, and support for the poor?

Those are not politics. Those are government. I'm not convinced that any politician can really follow through as a governor on the numerous promises and pledges and positions he took as a politician in order to get elected. Furthermore, I am not aware of any recent governor that has taken a stance I would support on all of these issues, so I can not and do not place my "approval" on any governor.

What, exactly, do you care about (or do you have a cohesive opinion on, depending on whether you are ambevilent or apathetic).

I care about all of the issues you mentioned above. I'm just not sure that government of them is an effective way to tackle them, so I don't really care which politician happens to make it to a government position.

In His love,
Nate

[JerryLove]

Those are not politics. Those are government.

Those are issues acted upon by George W Bush, the person in question, in his role as President of the United States, the question at hand.

I don't believe the question to be "how good a politician is W", rather "what do you think if his presidency".

I care about all of the issues you mentioned above. I'm just not sure that government of them is an effective way to tackle them, so I don't really care which politician happens to make it to a government position.

Huh? The government did, in point of fact, engage in two wars. Whether you think the government is an effective way to engage in wars (does that even make sense as a sentance?) is not involved in the question.

I'll make a simpler question. Do you think that W was doing a good job as president when he invaded Iraq? Or do you not care?

[+Donny]

OneHope: Canadians should not be trusted. They refuse to move south and join the New Israel.

[Only Alive]

@ +Donny

I hate politics with a passion. People always whining about this and that, democrats and republicans biting each others heads off, people complaining about Bush (hey people, I'd like to see you do better). It's sick. Sick, but necessary, I guess.

-Nick

[Nate]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Those are issues acted upon by George W Bush, the person in question, in his role as President of the United States, the question at hand.

I don't believe the question to be "how good a politician is W", rather "what do you think if his presidency".

And my answer is still "I'm ambivalent and apathetic."

I'm sure there are things that Bush has done that I don't support, but I'm also sure that there are things he has done that I would support. More importantly, though, I'm convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that were another man in office, there would still be things that I don't support and things that I would support going on. I guess the question is "Who does more harm?" or "Who does more good?", but I really don't think those questions can be quantifiably answered. I mean, if Bush wasn't in office, we might not have thousands of people dying over a war in the Middle East, but we'd probably have thousands of people dying from legalized abortion or something of that ilk.

My apathy sets in right about now. Personally, I'd rather not have either of these options... but I'm not so sure that I like the alternatives (socialism? communism?) either. I think there are inherent flaws in all governments because all governments are run by people, who all have inherent flaws as well. "There is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin." Truth, justice, and the American way are dreams.

Huh? The government did, in point of fact, engage in two wars. Whether you think the government is an effective way to engage in wars (does that even make sense as a sentance?) is not involved in the question.

Whether the government has the power to engage in war really isn't the question to me. The question is whether governmentally-declared and governmentally-operated wars are the most effective way to wage necessary (or unnecessary) wars.

I'll make a simpler question. Do you think that W was doing a good job as president when he invaded Iraq? Or do you not care?

No, I do care. I'm not really informed enough (fault mine) to tell you whether I think he did a good thing or not. The reason I choose to be ill-informed or non-informed is because I really don't think it matters all that much in the end. There's nothing I can do about it. There's nothing that can fix the inherent flaws in the government. There's nothing that can put a righteous person in goverment, because such a person does not exist. I would rather spend my time attempting to help the people I know personally than informing myself about the activities of people I'll never meet so that I can throw my one vote in amonst millions of others and, in the end, have almost no net effect on the outcome. I'd rather do something that matters.

In His love,
Nate

[dawntreader]

i am indepedent but i support bush. its better to have a conservative in office than someone who is more liberal than TED KENNEDY! (kerry).

[JerryLove]

people complaining about Bush (hey people, I'd like to see you do better).

OK: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

I'm downright confident that, in the same position, I could do a better job. I'd like to see me do a better job too.

Whether the government has the power to engage in war really isn't the question to me. The question is whether governmentally-declared and governmentally-operated wars are the most effective way to wage necessary (or unnecessary) wars.

I doubt that's the topic though. The topical question would be "do you approve, disapprove, or not care that W invaded Iraq".

I would rather spend my time attempting to help the people I know personally than informing myself about the activities of people I'll never meet so that I can throw my one vote in amonst millions of others and, in the end, have almost no net effect on the outcome.

I've met a good number of people that Bush has sent over to Iraq, incuding some who have not come back.

Your "help only those I interact with" sentiment is something I'd call "sociopathic" and "unchristian"... but that would be another topic I suppose.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by dawntreader

i am indepedent but i support bush. its better to have a conservative in office than someone who is more liberal than TED KENNEDY! (kerry).

That's rhetoric... well the second part. "I support Bush because everyone else would have been worse" is valid, if terribly presumptious.

Me, I'm not a fan of the dishinest drunkard (to be fair, he hasn't had a DUI since his 40s... has he even driven since his 40s?); but I don't really like fundies... they kill too many people.

[Insane Drummer]

"do you approve, disapprove, or not care that W invaded Iraq."

Does it matter? What could you do about it. Sit around and be pissed and make no change?

[Only Alive]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

OK: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

I have no idea what that means.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm downright confident that, in the same position, I could do a better job. I'd like to see me do a better job too.

Do you have any idea of the sheer pressure Bush must be under every second of the day? And what would you do, anyway? Pull out the troops?

-Nick