Only 30% of people would disagree about Bush. He buried us in debt, led us in to a war without justification that we're really going to have trouble getting out of, alienated us from the majority of the globe, erased several of our rights to privacy in the name of counter-terrorism.

Obama hasn't had time to suck yet. He walked in to a shitstorm and is trying to figure out how to clean it up. Whether or not he will be able to remains to be seen, but at least he represents a departure from the typical shady two-faced political culture that has come to be just about everyone in Washington. I'm also impressed at how he really hit the ground running and is trying to get stuff done quickly, I just don't agree that this stimulus package will be what we need to boost the economy.

I couldn't agree more, the pressure on Obama right now is unmessurable. But with his first move as President being considered a fiasco(the stimulous package)and with everything behind him in Illinois,(Blagojevich) it's hard to say for sure what type of 'ship' he'll run. I've only voted against Bush, and I trully beleive that Obamas' 'hit the ground running' attitude will improve our economy-or totally crash it into a mountian- but who cares I love the chaos theory anyway. Everybody buy a gun!

That's a good idea regardless of what happens with the economy. Ever watch Jericho? All it would take is 1 well planned out attack on several major cities at once to descend this country in to a state of anarchy where it's more or less every man (or neighborhood or small town) for themselves. Owning a gun or two is good idea for everyone, just keep them out of reach of the children. When the shit hits the fan, it'll be too late to go out and get one (since anywhere with weapons will be the first places looted.)

That what I keep telling my wife.

you should at least glance at the real history before making bold statements.

the complaining about GB came a) after it became clear that the war in iraq was a dismal failure but not when he committed to spending the clinton surplus on the war in the first place - also the republicans stayed with him during his spending-spree and they are now the one's saying 'oh no we can't have a deficit' - freaking hypocrites; and b) when bush first came into office he was told that there was a massive need for spending on the nation's highways and infrastructure - he essentially said 'no' and put in a minimal budget. so, the fed has responsibility for much of these problems. Here's a quote from a MN state senator (dibble) on the matter:

"Our roads and bridges must be safe and structurally sound to ensure the global competitiveness of this nation," Dibble said. "This NTSB report further supports our calls for federal transportation support in any new economic stimulus package from the next administration and the next Congress. Our roads are ailing and it's time we start capital projects to fix them not only to get people back to work, but also to keep them safe at the same time."

Sure there was complaining...but it wasn't universal instantaneous complaining. Many did not not complain initially in October 2001--with the first edition of the Patriot Act. Many did not complain March 18, 2003--when the first "reports" of war were declared. There weren't many complaints in March 2004 when Bush held up that infamous sign "Mission Accomplished"--yet it's 2009 and we still have our troops there.....funny isn't it.

Sure there were complaints--but majority of them started much after all of these events unfolded. Much after Americans, and much of Congress were manipulated into increasing Bush's capital and level of patriotism and support for a war. It took us nearly two-and half years of reports of the number of deaths, propoganda, and deceit to realize all the pieces of the puzzle didn't make sense. Al Quieda and Afghanistan had direct links to the events of September 11, 2001. Yet, despite our awareness of this direct ourselves and allies to invading Iraq in March 2003. When questioned, our commander in chief attempts to connect non-existant weapons of mass destuction with Saddam Hussein and connect him as another partner of Bin Laden. Sounds like a bit of a stretch, but no problem, we'll believe it, right. It took us a long time to fathom that none of that was clear or real.


Many of those lowest approval ratings came as a conclusion of the disastrous economy, how Katrina was handled, the mismanaged war, etc. Remember despite initial criticism, he was re-elected in '04--a time where democrats were not as unified as republicans--and usually all incumbents up for re-elections win--especially when they have lots of political capital.


I'm with Zero on this one.

Doesnt matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.

What context do you mean?

Because, that's kind of the point...that's why we have government to establish and maintain order.

Its a part of a joke (think it was Bill Hicks who said it) basically meaning if party A or party B gets into power it ultimately doesnt make too much difference to us average joes. The big decisions are still made whether or not people agree with them.

Well the hope was that by at least having a representative government, the people elect officials to represent them to make the larger decisions and if big big disagreement occurs when election season rolls around, we get them out of office or if they do something unlawful get them impeached. Now sure attempts to do both occured and some had the ability or took advantage of those abilities and intercepted opportunity but as a whole for the most(excluding the past 8 years) part it's been in tact.