The legacy of President George W. Bush - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-10-2009, 11:08 PM   #201
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 03:20 PM
the big difference between the two approval ratings was term one, was sept 11th and people were all revengeful and it clouded their judgement on things like the war in iraq and afghanistan. Term two people went 'ooops shit, we've elected a dickhead again' and realised Bush and the whole adminstration is pretty much a liability.

GWB legacy is basically a fucked up war, acceptance and approval of torture of innocent people, the rape of another race, the death of thousands of Americans through things like wars/hurricane Katrina/shit medical system making most of the world hate the US more, running the country into the ground, letting psychological unsound people dictate laws and legislation and the death of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of other nationalities in your bid for "FREEDOM"

i fucking hate him and his administration. What a pathetic human being he is.
__________________

dazzlingamy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 12:38 AM   #202
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Wow. 6 whole days.
The polling is done over 3 day periods. I just picked one to show that each statement that Irvine made was factually incorrect. I can list all the others if you like.
__________________

Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 12:39 AM   #203
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,622
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
I can list all the others if you like.
I'm sure you can.
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 12:47 AM   #204
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
Not to mention that you can't take a statement about ratings being "consistently lower," and refute them by showing average ratings over time. Apples and oranges.
Irvine said the following:

Quote:
and he's remain consistently lower than any other president in history.
What evidence do you have that Bush's approval ratings have been consistently lower than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

I'd say the above statistics easily refutes the statement that Bush's approval rating has been been consistently lower than any other president in history.
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 01:15 AM   #205
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzlingamy View Post
the big difference between the two approval ratings was term one, was sept 11th and people were all revengeful and it clouded their judgement on things like the war in iraq and afghanistan. Term two people went 'ooops shit, we've elected a dickhead again' and realised Bush and the whole adminstration is pretty much a liability.
Most Presidents see their poll numbers drop in their second term. Most people had all the information they needed in the fall of 2004 in order to determine whether they wanted to have another full term of Bush or not and the people chose Bush. That was the last chance the Democrats had to beat Bush and they lost. The opinion polls are certainly indicators, but they are not as meaningful or descriptive of how the country feels as a national presidentional election. When it comes to those, Bush is undefeated.

Harry Truman also had a rough second term, but is now regarded as one of the greatest Presidents in US history.

Bush successfully removed two major threats to the United States and the world by removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and Saddam's regime from power in Iraq. In the future, few people will be wishing or trying to make the claim that the world and the middle east would be safer and more stable if Saddam's regime had been left in power in Iraq or if the Taliban had been left in power in Afghanistan. These actions were necessary especially when you consider the consequences in terms of human lives and the health of the global economy if these regimes had been allowed to stay in power.
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 04:57 AM   #206
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,738
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Irvine said the following:



What evidence do you have that Bush's approval ratings have been consistently lower than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?

I'd say the above statistics easily refutes the statement that Bush's approval rating has been been consistently lower than any other president in history.
It's very basic math. The word "consistently" implies ratings over time. By averaging things together, you're not only including his low trends, but his high ones also, and we all know that a few very high trends, as he had in the days post-9/11, can skew the overall numbers so that averages don't reflect the lows so much, and they turn out not looking as bad as they really are.

Irvine didn't prove it with his statement, but you didn't disprove it, either.
VintagePunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 07:43 PM   #207
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
It's very basic math. The word "consistently" implies ratings over time. By averaging things together, you're not only including his low trends, but his high ones also, and we all know that a few very high trends, as he had in the days post-9/11, can skew the overall numbers so that averages don't reflect the lows so much, and they turn out not looking as bad as they really are.

Irvine didn't prove it with his statement, but you didn't disprove it, either.
Well, the averages above come from "ratings over time". Both high, low, and mid-range numbers impact "ratings over time". If Bush had been consistently lower than ANY other President in history, it would show up in the averages. Bush's lowest approval rating ever was 25%, not as low as Nixons at 24% or Trumans at 22%.

The links to the gallup website have all of Bush's approval numbers for the entire 8 year period. Gallup put the averages together to show that when looking at ratings over time, Bush was not at the bottom but in the middle when compared to other Presidents.
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 05:06 AM   #208
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,738
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Well, the averages above come from "ratings over time". Both high, low, and mid-range numbers impact "ratings over time". If Bush had been consistently lower than ANY other President in history, it would show up in the averages. Bush's lowest approval rating ever was 25%, not as low as Nixons at 24% or Trumans at 22%.

The links to the gallup website have all of Bush's approval numbers for the entire 8 year period. Gallup put the averages together to show that when looking at ratings over time, Bush was not at the bottom but in the middle when compared to other Presidents.
Wow. Do you not get basic statistics? It's really quite simple. For example, take temperatures over two weeks. Say week one looks like this:

97 - 95 - 62 - 64 - 61 - 58 - 60 = 497/7 - Avg = 71

And week two looks like this:

67 - 70 - 68 - 70 - 72 - 71 - 65 = 483/7 - Avg = 69

So, even though week one's total and average is higher, it was driven up by the first two days, but it still has the consistently longest stretch of low numbers, and as such, looking solely at the averages is deceptive.

I'm sure parsing Bush's numbers in this manner would be interesting, but honestly, I don't care enough to take the time to do it. I already objectively know that he is, if not the worst, than one of the worst presidents in US history. I think at this point, you, AchtungBono, and maybe three other people in the entire world are clinging to the delusion that he isn't.
VintagePunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 08:15 AM   #209
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 10:20 PM
There's no point. Sting loves his fuzzy math...
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 11:37 AM   #210
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,066
Local Time: 11:20 PM
it's funny how people want to debate the fact that 24% is really not as bad as 22%, while Abu Ghraib isn't even acknowledged. but, besides the fact that the smokescreen belies an admission of being 100% wrong on absolutely everything, there's this article:

Quote:
The Enigma in Chief
We still don't know how or why Bush made the key decisions of his administration.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Saturday, Jan. 10, 2009, at 7:08 AM ET

As George W. Bush once noted, "You never know what your history is going to be like until long after you're gone." What I think he was trying to say is that, over time, historians may evolve toward a more positive view of his presidency than the one held by most of his contemporaries.

At the moment, this seems a vain hope. Bush's three most obvious legacies are his decision to invade Iraq, his framing of a global war on terror after Sept. 11, and the massive financial crisis. Each of these constitutes a separate epic in presidential misjudgment and mismanagement. It remains a brainteaser to come up with ways, however minor, in which Bush changed government, politics, or the world for the better. Among presidential historians, it is hardly an eccentric view that 43 ranks as America's worst president ever. On the other hand, he has nowhere to go but up.

In a different sense, however, Bush's comment has some validity to it. We do not know how people will one day view this presidency because we, Bush's contemporaries, don't yet understand it ourselves. The Bush administration has had startling success in one area—namely keeping its inner workings secret. Intensely loyal, contemptuous of the press, and overwhelmingly hostile to any form of public disclosure, the Bushies did a remarkable job at keeping their doings hidden for eight years.

Probably the biggest question Bush leaves behind is about the most consequential choice of his presidency: his decision to invade Iraq. When did the president make up his mind to go to war against Saddam Hussein? What were his real reasons? What roles did various figures around him—Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice—play in the actual decision? Was the selling of the war on the basis of WMD evidence a matter of conscious deception or of self-deception on their part?

Bob Woodward, Ron Suskind, and I recently debated in Slate the issue of how much we really know about Bush's biggest decision. Woodward, the author of four inside accounts of the Bush administration, believes that we do know the most important facts. He argues that Bush decided to invade Iraq in January 2003, that the reason was 9/11, and that Bush himself was the real decision-maker. Suskind and I argued that we don't know really how, when, or why the decision was made—though we suspect it was much earlier. By the summer of 2002, administration officials and foreign diplomats were hearing that Bush's course was already set.

The disputed dates and details go to the most interesting larger issues about what went wrong during the Bush years. Did Bush's own innocence and incompetence drive his missteps? Or was it the people around him, most importantly his vice president, who manipulated him into his major bad choices? On so many issues—the framing of the war on terrorism, the use of torture, the expansion of executive power—it was Cheney's views that prevailed. Yet at some point, perhaps around the 2006 election, Bush seems to have lost confidence in his vice president and stopped taking his advice.

To reckon with the Bush years, we need to understand what went on between these two men behind closed doors. Yet despite some superb spadework by journalist Barton Gellman and others, we know very little about Cheney's true role. We have seen few of the pertinent documents and heard little relevant testimony. Congressional investigations and litigation have shed only the faintest light on Cheney's role in Bush's biggest blunders.

The same is generally true of Bush's most important political relationship, with Karl Rove, and his most important personal one, with his father. Only with greater insight into these connections are we likely to be able to answer some of the other pressing historical questions. To what extent was Bush himself really the driver of his central decisions? How engaged or disengaged was he? Why, after governing as a successful moderate in Texas, did he adopt such an ideological and polarizing style as president? Why did he politicize the fight against terrorism? Why did he choose to permit the torture of American detainees? Why did he wait so long to revise a failing strategy in Iraq?

It seems unlikely that the memoirs in the works from Rove and Rumsfeld will challenge Bush's repeated assertions that he was not only in charge but in control. As for the president himself, we're unlikely to get much: Bush has a poor memory and is too unreflective to have kept the kind of diary that would elucidate matters. In time, however, other accounts are sure to emerge. Congressional investigations will shed new light. Declassified documents and e-mails may paint a clearer picture.

Once the country is rid of Bush, perhaps we can start developing a more nuanced understanding of how his presidency went astray. His was no ordinary failure, and he leaves not just an unholy mess but also some genuine mysteries.
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 12:28 PM   #211
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,066
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 12:29 PM   #212
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
Wow. Do you not get basic statistics? It's really quite simple. For example, take temperatures over two weeks. Say week one looks like this:

97 - 95 - 62 - 64 - 61 - 58 - 60 = 497/7 - Avg = 71

And week two looks like this:

67 - 70 - 68 - 70 - 72 - 71 - 65 = 483/7 - Avg = 69

So, even though week one's total and average is higher, it was driven up by the first two days, but it still has the consistently longest stretch of low numbers, and as such, looking solely at the averages is deceptive.

I'm sure parsing Bush's numbers in this manner would be interesting, but honestly, I don't care enough to take the time to do it. I already objectively know that he is, if not the worst, than one of the worst presidents in US history. I think at this point, you, AchtungBono, and maybe three other people in the entire world are clinging to the delusion that he isn't.
For starters, instead of making up statistics, why don't you take the actual data from the links above that is actually relevant to the discussion and use that!

Yes, EVERY Presidents high numbers can skew their average upwards. But if Bush had been CONSISTENTLY LOWER than any other President in history, he would not have an average that was mid-range for his entire two terms and he would not be equal to Truman and ahead of Nixon when just looking at his second term figures.

The claim was that he was consistently lower than ANY other President in history, and the data posted by Gallup in the links above, like his actual approving ratings through his entire term, refute that.



Yes, there may only be a handful of people at FYM that don't think that Bush is the worst President in history, but the only people who are deluded are those that think FYM is representive of the rest of the public and think that the publics opinion of a current President won't change over time.
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 12:36 PM   #213
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
it's funny how people want to debate the fact that 24% is really not as bad as 22%, while Abu Ghraib isn't even acknowledged. but, besides the fact that the smokescreen belies an admission of being 100% wrong on absolutely everything, there's this article:


WOW, Jacob Weisburg. What an objective and unbiased journalist to get an opinion on the Bush administration. I'm sure he is 100% right on absolutely everything.
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 01:50 PM   #214
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 08:20 PM
Quote:
Yes, there may only be a handful of people at FYM that don't think that Bush is the worst President in history, but the only people who are deluded are those that think FYM is representive of the rest of the public and think that the publics opinion of a current President won't change over time.
Keep setting that bar lower. It's not whether the opinion of the President will change, it's whether we'll see meaningful positive change in American perception of Bush. At 20-30%, we'll probably see his numbers increase a little by Republicans who simply forget all the bad things about GWB, but that doesn't suggest any meaningful shift in the public's view of his legacy.
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 02:16 PM   #215
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,066
Local Time: 11:20 PM
it's funny when people from the fringe -- and those who have a positive view of GWB are indeed part of the fringe -- criticize the FYM mainstream.

especially when some of us so-called "san francisco" liberals are called racists in other threads.
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 02:35 PM   #216
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 09:20 PM
The biggest economic mistake Bush made was to increase social spending while lowering taxes. He also showed a lack of leadership in economics because he deferred everything to economists regarding the bailouts without any critical analysis on his part. Too much reliance on experts mean you take the blame for wrong expert opinion.

Most republicans that actually are conservative look at the Bush years as a missed opportunity. Government increased in size and influence with little result. Much of Bush's claim to have a number of years with good economic times had more to do with low interest rates and people borrowing to spend which created a boom. Busts always follow booms. It would be nice to see a president in the future that is interested in real growth not inflationary growth.

The legacy for Bush on Iraq and Afghanistan won't be solidified by history until the handover is complete in those countries and some years down the line to see if democracy actually continues. If Iraq and Afghanistan have reasonably stable democracies (by mid east comparisons) Bush's policies will be looked back on by historians in this fashion:

"There may have been intelligence errors but getting rid of Sadaam Hussein and his sons was worth it in the long run." The justification would be future Iraqis living in a democracy.

If democracy is not upheld then it will be the biggest example of what not to do for future presidents just like inaction on terrorism by Bill Clinton was ineffective. (Eg. 9/11) Future presidents will have to find some middle ground tit for tat strategy in international affairs. Nothing like time passing to see how things unfold.
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 04:01 PM   #217
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
Keep setting that bar lower. It's not whether the opinion of the President will change, it's whether we'll see meaningful positive change in American perception of Bush. At 20-30%, we'll probably see his numbers increase a little by Republicans who simply forget all the bad things about GWB, but that doesn't suggest any meaningful shift in the public's view of his legacy.
Fewer people, if any, over the next few decades are going to be claiming that it would have been better for the United States and the world if Saddam's regime were left in power in Iraq. As those opposed to the removal of Saddam's regime decrease in number, its likely that Bush's approval numbers will increase as well. Exact same thing happened with Truman and the Korean War. Most Americans disaproved of the Korean War in 1952 and Trumans approval rating was as low as 22% the year he left office. Today the vast majority of Americans approve of the Korean War and think Truman was one of the greatest Presidents of all time.


Those that WANT Bush to be known as the worst President ever by history are going to be disapointed.
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 04:07 PM   #218
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
it's funny when people from the fringe -- and those who have a positive view of GWB are indeed part of the fringe -- criticize the FYM mainstream.
Its funny when people from FYM incorrectly think that FYM represents the mainstream when it in fact, overall, is on the fringe of a single political party.

The Republican party is anything but on the fringe and over 70% of registered Republicans currently approve of Bush's Job performance.
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 04:38 PM   #219
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,738
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
For starters, instead of making up statistics, why don't you take the actual data from the links above that is actually relevant to the discussion and use that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
but honestly, I don't care enough to take the time to do it. I already objectively know that he is, if not the worst, than one of the worst presidents in US history.
I don't need to sort through 8 years of data to tell me what I already know.
VintagePunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 04:40 PM   #220
Blue Crack Supplier
 
No spoken words's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Where do YOU live?
Posts: 43,247
Local Time: 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Its funny when people from FYM incorrectly think that FYM represents the mainstream when it in fact, overall, is on the fringe of a single political party.

The Republican party is anything but on the fringe and over 70% of registered Republicans currently approve of Bush's Job performance.
Then 70% of the Republican party are fucking delusional.
__________________

No spoken words is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×