I predict ratings going up drastically. He is finally starting to be more vocal and responsible, and I think he's a great President. His speeches and briefings/Q&As are actually a lot more interesting now.

Your opinions.

1/23/2006 1:59:05 PM

can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. i'm watching his Q&A too.

1/23/2006 2:14:24 PM

woooooo

I say we let him have a third term!

1/23/2006 2:15:37 PM

Can't you see the level of support in his session? He's coming across as an ideal goal oriented, firm, level headed, and family oriented man.

He loves to work out

He's a good president.

1/23/2006 2:21:05 PM

He has been taking more responsibility, but that's because his poll numbers started to get pathetically low.

He still comes across as an idiot.

1/23/2006 2:28:57 PM

Taking responsibility for a fuckup really only goes to far imo...he still fucked up and doesn't really seem to be doing anything to fix, make up for, or stop the situations he has created.

1/23/2006 2:47:18 PM

minus elections.

1/23/2006 3:13:44 PM

of course his ratings will go up drastically, it's almost impossible for them to do anythign else...

any president can get a 45% approval rating just by not doing anything monumentally boneheaded for a while... bush just keeps things simple and his approval rating has no choice but to go up...

1/23/2006 3:20:48 PM

Are you joking?

1/23/2006 9:38:44 PM

What can I say, the man's gifted with a mastery of oratory.

Quote :

"WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: ‘I don’t really understand. How is it the new plan going to fix the problem?’ Verbatim response: PRESIDENT BUSH: ‘Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases There’s a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to that has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It’s kind of muddled. Look, there’s a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, supposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.’"

1/24/2006 1:58:04 PM

He did very well last night

2/1/2006 3:07:35 PM

2/1/2006 3:38:59 PM

I love how all the fervent Bush supporters think the only reason his polls are down is because he isn't being bold and taking his message to the people.

Clearly, the people need to hear more of his brilliant oratory on destroying SS.

2/1/2006 3:47:59 PM

2/1/2006 3:55:18 PM

I didn't know that it was cool for liberals to compare political figures to the mentally handicapped as an insult.

Seems pretty insensitive to me.

2/1/2006 4:19:52 PM

you know what i find insensitive

nationbuilding

2/1/2006 4:32:54 PM

^^Don't you ever call me a liberal again, asshole.

Do liberals oppose taxes?

Do liberals support gun rights?

Do liberals oppose socialized health care?

No.

OMF HE SMOKES WEED!!!! HE MUST BE A LIBERAL!!!!!!!!!!11

2/1/2006 4:56:53 PM

did you make the photoshop?
if not
shut the fuck up

if so
you suck at photoshop

2/1/2006 5:35:03 PM

Quote :

"you know what i find insensitive nationbuilding "

Then move back to Europe. Afterall, we were a colony first.

2/1/2006 9:35:40 PM

colony--> nation --> empire??

2/1/2006 9:44:27 PM

you know who else doesn't like nationbuilding

george w bush

or at least he was when i voted for him

2/1/2006 10:13:29 PM

You are correct.

He was strongly opposed to Nation Building during the first election, but 911 and Paul Wolfowitz changed all that.

I do not agree with a policy of nation bulding, personally. But sometimes it is the best solution.

2/1/2006 10:19:47 PM

solution to what?

2/1/2006 10:45:24 PM

AND WHAT THE FUCK DOES 9/11 HAVE TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION?

2/1/2006 10:46:14 PM

social security is going down!!!

2/1/2006 11:00:29 PM

^^A lot of people cite 911 as what changed a lot of the policies that W believed in implementing. Prior to 911, he was strongly against nation building, now he isn't.

As far as a solution, I think that a nation building mentality in Iraq is the best path to follow. Leaving before we create a government which will be friendly and submissive to the will of the US would be a waste of time, life, and money.

Without arguing about whether we should have been there in the first place or not.

2/2/2006 10:18:02 PM

^Are you fucking serious? "Submissive" to the United States? Are you serious, dude?

2/2/2006 10:30:17 PM

MARS NEEDS WOMEN

and we need colonies

2/2/2006 10:36:38 PM

Yeah, I see no problem with installing a government that will at least comply with our economic and international policies.

I don't think we were ever really there for weapons or because anyone really cares about Saddam being a genocidal maniac.

They(Iraq) were a low hanging fruit. We needed to set up a sphere of influence in the Middle East and hopefully create a government that squashes extremism and helps prop up our oil based economy. From Iraq we can launch operations anywhere in the middle east with ease.

Sure, everything isn't perfect, but I bet in the next twenty to thirty years, Iraq will be a blooming democracy, friendly to the wishes of the US. And in the grand scheme of things, 20 to 30 years ain't bad.

2/2/2006 10:40:30 PM

George Bush is the man.

well, not LITERALLY

2/2/2006 11:10:08 PM

Quote :

"I bet in the next twenty to thirty years, Iraq will be a blooming democracy, friendly to the wishes of the US."

more like

I bet in the next twenty to thirty years, Iraq will be a blooming democracy, friendly to the wishes of the US. ELECTING THEIR OWN VERSION OF HAMAS

ps

why do we care about 30 years from now if we're supposed to reduce our dependence by 75%

literally

2/2/2006 11:14:44 PM

I missed a perfect opportunity for a "FOR ME TO POOP ON" joke.

2/2/2006 11:17:02 PM

2/2/2006 11:30:30 PM

Wow. I didn't know there were any neocons on these boards, but you proved me wrong.

Quote :

"Yeah, I see no problem with installing a government that will at least comply with our economic and international policies."

So you see no problem with destroying a legitimate government and replacing it with another? What if a group of countries got together and decided it was time for a regime change in the US? Not such a good thing when the tables are turned is it?

Quote :

"I don't think we were ever really there for weapons or because anyone really cares about Saddam being a genocidal maniac."

Agreed.

Quote :

"They(Iraq) were a low hanging fruit. We needed to set up a sphere of influence in the Middle East and hopefully create a government that squashes extremism and helps prop up our oil based economy. From Iraq we can launch operations anywhere in the middle east with ease."

How about we try and reduce our dependence on oil? How about the Republicans grow a pair, say to hell with what the stupid enviro-hippies say, and allow for the development of more nuclear power plants? If we altered our foreign policy, I'm sure alot of the anti-Americanism prevalent in the world today would just evaporate.

Quote :

"Sure, everything isn't perfect, but I bet in the next twenty to thirty years, Iraq will be a blooming democracy, friendly to the wishes of the US. And in the grand scheme of things, 20 to 30 years ain't bad."

How much you wanna bet it won't be?

2/3/2006 1:18:17 AM

Reducing dependence on middle east oil is bullshit - it is a global market - if we stop buying from there, we'll have to buy from somewhere else, meaning that the price wouldn't change and supply disruptions from the middle east would still fuck us over.

Reducing consumption would be a better alternative.

2/3/2006 1:48:59 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, I see no problem with installing a government that will at least comply with our economic and international policies."

Leave it to college students living in a fantasy world to think that a government run by non stakeholders would be better. Remember all those times countries became successful by acquiescing completely to foreign interests?

2/3/2006 1:51:19 AM

Quote :

"If we altered our foreign policy, I'm sure alot of the anti-Americanism prevalent in the world today would just evaporate."

Altered it to where we stopped invading muslim countries? How many years had it been since we invaded a Muslim country as of 2001?

2/3/2006 1:56:24 AM

Quote :

"So you see no problem with destroying a legitimate government"

No government whose power is not derived from the will of the governed is legitimate. Sorry.

And before you start, consent =/= not rising up en masse.

2/3/2006 3:00:30 AM

ok in all seriousness

everyone knows bush sucks and in 10 years when they look back on his presidency its not going to be refered to as the best in the history of all presidents

clinton was better for america than bush

and i wish hilary clinton would shut the fuck up and die because if she runs in 2008 then i'm gonna have to wait til 2012 for a democrat in office

2/3/2006 7:09:46 AM

Quote :

"Leave it to college students living in a fantasy world to think that a government run by non stakeholders would be better. "

Leave to college students to lack in reading comprehension skills. I never stated that we should directly govern Iraq, only that I don't think that we should leave until a form of government that is favorable to our government is installed and secure in their power. Just like everyone on this message board, I too have taken Western Civilization history classes. Don't forget that the only one that thinks you're special is your mother. Your contrarian attitude is indicative of someone lacking in communication skills. Sarcasm is a tool of the less intelligent.

Quote :

"ELECTING THEIR OWN VERSION OF HAMAS"

Let's see how long that lasts. I am all for Hamas being elected. At least now we have a government to deal with and/or attack if need be instead of a shadowy terrorist/freedom fighter organization. Whatever you want to call them, they now have a figure head and I think that's great.

The world now has good reason to stop Palestinian Aid, a face to confront about their(Hamas) intentions in the region, and a government for which we can begin to fund opposition. Hamas being elected is probably the dumbest thing the Palestinians could have done. If they get out of line, Israel is literally dying to attack them. If Iran finds it neccessary to become part of that equation, then let them. The Israeli military machine is brutal and they often don't follow the same rules of engagement that the US is held to in battle.

2/3/2006 9:38:19 AM

I don't think targetting women and children qualifies as freedom fighting.

2/3/2006 11:32:13 PM

I'm not saying I support it.

AT ALL.

But the simple fact of the matter is that people will do whatever they think it takes to fight an occupying power or an oppresive foreign government. People will do unimaginable, horrible things for land.

2/5/2006 3:19:45 PM