Poll of the Executive Branch

AuthorTopic: Poll of the Executive Branch
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #0
I've been having a fun time with all these political topics, so I thought I'd create one.

All questions regarding George Bush concern the current president of the United States. The fifth and seventh questions are asking who you supported or wanted to win, and voting means you actually went to a United States booth and voted, or did so by proxy.

Now be honest. :)

[ Saturday, February 16, 2008 10:39: Message edited by: Excalibur ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 15 question(s). 32 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

function launch_voter () { launch_window("http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=poll;d=vote;pollid=hvBLNjjDEZKW"); return true; } // end launch_voter function launch_viewer () { launch_window("http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=poll;d=view;pollid=hvBLNjjDEZKW"); return true; } // end launch_viewer function launch_window (url) { preview = window.open( url, "preview", "width=550,height=300,toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status,menubar=no,scrollbars,resizable,copyhistory=no" ); window.preview.focus(); return preview; } // end launch_window IMAGE(votenow.gif)     IMAGE(voteresults.gif)

--------------------
Decca Records - "We don't like their sound. Groups of guitars are on the way out."
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Shaper
Member # 3442
Profile Homepage #1
I motion that "impeached" by replaced with "shot in the face" for some/all of the questions.

--------------------
Nikki's Nook - La maison de mon rêve?
Posts: 2864 | Registered: Monday, September 8 2003 07:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #2
I think he did an impressive job uniting the country on the days following 9/11. His actions after that weren't all that great though. I don't think impeachment is really going to solve anything at this point. Just focus on the upcoming presidential candidates...

EDIT: Although he does have faults, remember that most of the things he's done have been initially supported by congress...

[ Saturday, February 16, 2008 11:06: Message edited by: Lt. Sullust ]

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
BANNED
Member # 13806
Profile #3
You know, for a country who's so bent on determining which other countries' leaders terms shouldn't be allowed to pass, it's strange that we might house an even bloodier dictator and give him the benefit of the doubt like a leader of the civilized world rather than the ruthless, blood-crazed psychopath he is.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #4
quote:
Originally written by Lt. Sullust:

I think he did an impressive job uniting the country on the days following 9/11.
So, he did he job then. That is the purpose of the president, so yay!
quote:
Originally written by Lt. Sullust:

Although he does have faults, remember that most of the things he's done have been initially supported by congress...
Much like any shocked body will react when presented with a choice. People make amazingly stupid decisions when under stress. It is well known and well abused at all levels of society. It is telling that someone would create that situation for the Congress. He's doing it again too, with his pressure on the Congress to re-pass the domestic spying package. He says do it, or else our spy agencies won't be able to stop another terrorist attack, and the terrorists know it!

So no, he's 11 months from the end of his terms in office, and over 6 years from the first attack. And he STILL hasn't put in place any permanent features which either protect the american people or alleviate the terrorists desire to attack us in the first place.

Bush has been, even in the minds of many conservatives, one of the most destructive and divisive presidents ever. He should have stayed in that 1st grade classroom for the rest of his presidency.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
Profile #5
On the Patriot Act, parts are probably unconstitutional so it makes the whole in need of revision.

The picture of George W. Bush when he heard about the first plane crashing into the World Trade Center summed it up, deer in the headlights without any clue on what to do. Bush screwed up from the start and has never looked back. Loyalty over competence is the key to his adminsitration so he rewards failure as long as the people are loyal and punishes dissent even when they are right.

Iraq is a distaster that won't end without changing policy to make the country fight terrorists and stop relying on the US to fix everything for them. Without pushing to fix Bush's mistakes in policy to get back on track in fighting terrorism at the source we are doomed to a hundred year war.

People think he had FEMA failed to aid New Orleans because they were black when the truth was it was because they were Democrats. Florida (his brother as governor), Alabama (former Repubilcan chairman as governor), and Texas (homestate and Republican governor) all got immediate help, but Democrat Louisianna was left to die.

Even if you think that 9/11 and its aftermath couldn't be helped, Bush hasn't done much for natural disasters likes hurricanes, repairing the nation's infrastructure (bridges and roads), secured our borders, or otherwise make us safer. These aren't things that rely on outthinking an enemy, but just problems that cost money.

[ Saturday, February 16, 2008 13:42: Message edited by: Randomizer ]
Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #6
Bush looked like he would turn out to be another Van Buren before 9/11. Now it looks more like he's going to be remembered as another LBJ. He would probably prefer to be remembered as more of an Eisenhower or Truman. Yeah, that's not gonna happen.

Impeachment: I would never support the impeachment of a sitting United States president. It would make our whole government look weak to the world. I wouldn't mind him answering for his crimes eventually, but I am patient enough to wait until the end of his term. As for Cheney, we can execute him tomorrow for treason for all I care.

2000: To young to vote at that point. I was also too pleased with Clinton's presidency to care who got elected that year. Oh, how foolish we all were.

2004: Kerry was the only Democrat I voted for that year. Also the only candidate I chose that did not win. I foresaw his defeat, so I can't say I was all that disappointed.

Patriot Act: I have a fairly unusual view regarding national security. I believe people should be able to say what they wish about the government, but in turn, the government should be able to tap people's phones and use other extreme measures as deemed necessary. Freedom of expression is a beautiful thing, but it should not be taken for granted.

No Child Left Behind: I'm not familiar with the details of this legislation. However, I have many friends and family working in the education field and they all hate it. That's quite a good enough reason for me to hate it as well.

War in Iraq: Yeah, I supported it at first and then changed my mind. So? I reserve the right to flip-flop if the issues themselves are subject to 'evolve' as this one did. I still think we should keep out troops there, however. I want Iraq to end up as another South Korea (we kept our troops there), not another North Korea (where we pulled out).

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #7
As much as Johnson is criticized for the Vietnam War, there are two mitigating factors that he has that Bush doesn't: he wasn't the only president involved in getting us into Vietnam or keeping us there (Kennedy, Eisenhower, and even Truman got us into it, and Nixon continued the war effort after Johnson), and he also had some really great domestic legislation, particularly early in his term (Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, etc.).

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #8
That's why I said 'remembered as.' People don't remember LBJ as a civil rights activist or as a brilliant behind the scenes politician. They remember him for Vietnam. People will remember Bush for Iraq.

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
Profile #9
Unless Osama bin Ladin dies before Bush leaves office, he'll be remember as the Republican Jimmy Carter. He failed in his objective to avenge 9/11 no matter how many other terrorists are killed because the snake's head is still there regenerating the rest. After all Carter is still blamed for the Iranian hostage mess.

The problem with the Patriot Act isn't that we don't have any checks on eavesdropping and other surveillence, its that the info can be used for arrests without ever having the people go to trial. You can lock them up till death without ever proving that they were guilty. If you are really careful, you can't even tell if they were arrested because the info is secret.
Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #10
quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

Idiots don't remember LBJ as a civil rights activist or as a brilliant behind the scenes politician. They remember him for Vietnam.
FYT. You're talking about the same people who say that Reagan won the Cold War.

[ Saturday, February 16, 2008 19:53: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #11
Well, of course. People are idiots.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #12
Slarty gets it. If I believed those things, I would have said 'I.'

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #13
quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

Impeachment: I would never support the impeachment of a sitting United States president. It would make our whole government look weak to the world.
Really? We already look weak, foolish, and filled with idiot bravado and bluster to the rest of the world. Maybe impeaching the symbol of rampant American arrogance would show that the rest of the government has a backbone and won't proudly stand for high crimes and misdemeanors.

I don't think anyone will suddenly forgive America for Bush if he were impeached, but I don't think we'd look weaker for acknowledging our problems. That's Bush logic. Admit anything is less than perfect and the terrorists win.

quote:
Patriot Act: I have a fairly unusual view regarding national security. I believe people should be able to say what they wish about the government, but in turn, the government should be able to tap people's phones and use other extreme measures as deemed necessary. Freedom of expression is a beautiful thing, but it should not be taken for granted.
Private communication is protected under the Fourth Amendment, so it's not a First Amendment conflict at all. And whether or not you agree with the Fourth Amendment, it is still in force and the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.

—Alorael, who of course must admit that the Fourth Amendment does not mention the telephone (or the telegraph, or the internet) because they didn't exist at the time of its framing. Katz vs. United States clarified that issue, though.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #14
Scary thing is that Bush used to be fairly sharp. Whatever you think of his policies, he could at least express them clearly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvVilAlCBYc&feature=related

I was a little shocked to see a George Bush who looked like he wasn't a gibbering retard.

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #15
Bush's image has been carefully cultivated by Rove and other neocon advisors since he first appeared as a prospective presidential candidate. There was an effort to dumb down Bush to make him more of a "common person" (there's some irony here!) and easier to relate to for the vast majority of Americans (remember, people are idiots).

I think this was pursued even more aggressively in light of his opponents. Al Gore in 2000 was often criticized for appearing "robotic", torpid, unemotional. Kerry in 2004 had an accent and manner of speaking that came off as elitist, and an "heiress" wife that completed the package.

That said, there are still some moments that really baffle me. The one that stands out for me was during the televised memorial services the afternoon of September 11, 2001. (Or maybe it was the day after; I don't remember.) At one point when the camera was on Bush, he turned away from the service, waved at the camera, and then winked.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #16
Even worse than the Iraq ordeal, is that Bush has allowed the executive branch more power over the legislative branch, not to mention appointing two supreme court justices.

--------------------
Decca Records - "We don't like their sound. Groups of guitars are on the way out."
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #17
Appointing justices is nothing new. Everybody does it. Fusses over "bad" appointments is nothing new, either. Clinton didn't have that issue with his justices, but he sure did with some of his cabinet members.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #18
My favorite was his Surgeon General.

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
Profile #19
I always liked how Republican businessmen wanted to eliminate the Commerce Department as a waste. Then Clinton appointed Ron Brown to head it and he started getting foreign countries to buy American products that couldn't get get sold under Reagan/Bush. Pretty soon they still hate Commerece, but corporations were fighting to go with Brown overseas because it meant business for them. Then they got Bush and exports dropped.

Bush appoints people that are wrong for their jobs. Rice at State studied how to deal with the Russians and isn't even doing a good job their. Penny pusher Rumsfeld at Defence couldn't send enough troops to Iraq to guard the WMD (nuclear materials) that we did know about. Brown at FEMA, well lets just say Hurricane Katrina.
Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00