home

Simple Answers To Ridiculous Questions

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:31:25 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Apologies to Atrios, via Joe Sudbay, President Bush asks:

[T]he fundamental question is, is the world better off as a result of [Bush's] leadership?”

After picking myself off the floor after reading the ridiculous question from Bush, I answer "are you freaking out of your mind?" The leadership of a newborn would have been better than Bush's. Worst President in history.

< On Iraq: Ineffective Pundits, Ineffective Activists | The Politics of Prosecution >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Simple Answers To Ridiculous Questions | 32 comments (32 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Helen Thomas was right (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Saul on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:33:28 AM EST
    when she said at the beginning of the war.  Bush is the worst president in American History.

    The mostest fundamental question here (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:02:51 AM EST
    is which one of John Travolta's film characters does Dubya remind you of the most and which one does he least remind you of?  Wake me when all these cartoons are over.

    Short Answers to Foolish Questions (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:11:45 AM EST
    [T]he fundamental question is, is the world better off as a result of [Bush's] leadership?"

    No.

    Hope you don't mind (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:17:22 AM EST
    but I threw your name around and a link at DK and talked up some of your comments the other day about net lives gained when we left Vietnam.  You were impressive and I couldn't help myself and someone was honestly wondering how to address the "lost lives if we leave Iraq and comparing that to Vietnam" rightwing argument.

    Parent
    Kind Woman (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:41:28 AM EST
    (listening to Buffalo Springfield at the moment) thank you, but I got it from historian Rick Perlstein  whose book, Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus I recommend. I am waiting on the sequel, Nixonland.

    Perlstein is right though. It is quite shameless to blame the aftermath on liberals (or DFHs if you prefer), given the preferred conservative alternative  would have continued  creating more civilian causalities on top of the hundreds of thousands we created by the Vietnam war in the first place. Is Iraq any different?

    Parent

    LOL (to keep from crying) (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by garyb50 on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:20:09 AM EST
    Exactly my feelings when I heard that quote. The other one that blew me away was him saying he was unpopular because he decided to be a leader.

    =:o

    Me too ;) (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:32:24 AM EST
    No Dubya, you're unpopular cuz you are a sociopath.

    Parent
    There went my coffee all over the screen! (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:43:12 AM EST


    Parent
    George... sigh (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:53:03 AM EST
    Don't be a fool.

    You wouldn't be asking the question if you didn't already know the answer but, like what's left of your followers, can't face it.

    wow (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by amare on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:10:12 PM EST
    Wow, that's the biggest case of denial I've seen in my life. I guess he doesn't look up his approval rating with "the Google."

    Bush is right, though (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Al on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 02:32:20 PM EST
    It is a fundamental question.

    So, Al, what's your point? (none / 0) (#13)
    by garyb50 on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 04:12:13 PM EST
    Got one?

    Parent
    That (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 04:24:36 PM EST
    Bush's characterized his question correctly as fundemental, and that is all he got right, because the answer is a resounding no.

    Parent
    Well, yeah... (none / 0) (#16)
    by garyb50 on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 04:42:14 PM EST
    ...but my question to Al is why even bother to ask the stupid question?

    Parent
    Humor Perhaps? (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 05:29:59 PM EST


    Parent
    On Al's Part (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 05:34:03 PM EST
    As for Bush who know? He is capeable of saying anything.


    Parent
    ummmmmmmmmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cpinva on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 03:17:44 PM EST
    no.

    i apologize for thinking about it so long.

    initially, i thought bush was just an idiot, but that seemed too simplistic. i then concluded that he was actually quite the devious one; he convinced us he was an idiot, so we'd be thrilled if he merely walked and chewed gum at the same time. kind of like your gf's "slow" brother.

    after long-term, careful consideration of all the facts available, i have yet again changed my mind. he is just an idiot. a wealthy, well educated idiot, but an idiot nonetheless.

    there is nothing remotely resembling an intellectual thought process going on in his brain, it functions at the most basic, life sustaining level.

    that's bad enough, for his family to deal with. what's worse is that there are millions of people who actively voted for him, twice. what does that say about the average intelligence level of the american voting public?

    Well educated? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by womanwarrior on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 04:36:39 PM EST
        Well, they may have been able to get him into what they considered "the best schools," but there is no evidence that he partook of the education offered.  Have you seen any evidence that he knows anything reliable about history, geography, knowledge of other cultures, what the Bible actually says or even how to read for content?  
        I am certain that the real educators at those schools are embarrassed that he was awarded degrees.    I may be an elitist, but my education opened my mind up to the world, and I still keep learning.  

    Parent
    sorry (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by cpinva on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 07:38:19 PM EST
    i should have clarified that:

    he attended excellent schools. it isn't at all clear he actually learned anything, certainly not how to think critically.

    Parent

    Just curious (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:29:56 PM EST
     
    I may be an elitist

    What have you done that makes you believe that you are elite??

    Parent

    Per dictionary.com (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:54:16 PM EST
    elitist

    noun
    someone who believes in rule by an elite group [ant: egalitarian]  




    Parent
    elitist? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by womanwarrior on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:01:10 AM EST
    I believe that education is to help you know how much you don't know and how to learn more and keep an open mind.  I am against dumb, uneducated, anti-intellectual people as presidents,especially if they are mean, pull wings off insects, and are arrogant enough to think they are smarter than anybody else because God talks to them directly.  And they think that their warped idea of democracy must be pushed down the throats of people who are not interested in it.  I guess I am an elitist of the educated proletariat or something.  My parents' social class was many levels below W's.    

    Parent
    The issue isn't education (1.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:03:42 PM EST
    Bush had quite a bit.

    Lincoln was largely self educated. Truman never went to college per se

    (attended night classes at the University of Missouri - Kansas City School of Law. Did not graduate.)

    Both Truman and Lincoln were involved in very controversial activities. Lincoln by suspending
    habeas corpus and Truman by dropping the atom bomb and by entering the war on the side of South Korea. The Civil war was also very unpopular among many people in the north and Lincoln's actions were directly against those people.

    (And you probably worry about GITMO? Right?)

    All three were very pro democracy. Lincoln fought a war to save the nation and free the slaves, Truman oversaw the conversion of Germany and Japan to democracies... Bush is trying to do the same in the ME in general, Iraq in particular.

    Bush had okay SAT scores...average college scores.. Proved to be smart enough to learn how to fly a jet fighter, be elected governor, President twice.... did have some business failures as did Truman and Lincoln.

    All three were in the military. Truman saw combat, Lincoln spent a very limited amount of time in a State Milita. Bush did more time in Tang.

    So you see, I don't get your point. I don't think you could call either of these three elitists... In fact, I'd guess all would take the comment in an unkindly manner.

    Oh. You are talking about you.

    Hmmmm. I think it is possible you are confusing elitist with arrogant:

    exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance in an overbearing manner


    Parent
    I misspoke... (none / 0) (#17)
    by garyb50 on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 04:53:31 PM EST
    ...not that it matters; what I should have said, AL, is "why make your pointless/idiotic STATEMENT ?

    BTW, is there any way here to revise posts/comments after the fact?

    Yes (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:33:56 PM EST
    Write: Ooooops in the subject block

    ;-)

    Parent

    Bush's tragic flaw (none / 0) (#21)
    by diogenes on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 08:06:42 PM EST
    Jimmy Carter had large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and ended up with stagflation, Russians in Afghanistan, and Iranian hostages, setting the stage for Reagan's election and the loss of the Senate to the GOP for the first time in decades.  Decades from now historians will say that Iraq was a minor (from American standpoint) war with lives and money lost on the scale of a few months of Vietnam, and will say that Bush's tragic flaw was his idealistic hubris: if he had simply overthrown Saddam Hussein and replaced him with a pliable Hosni Mubarak of Iraq (friendly dictator), then all would have been peachy.

    In the words of McEnroe (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 08:24:17 PM EST
    "You can NOT be serious!"

    Parent
    Serious? I don't know. (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:13:28 PM EST
    Good point? Yes.

    Parent
    a little late but.. (none / 0) (#23)
    by jennifer7 on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:10:42 PM EST
    The one positive thing we can take from our experience with Bush is the fact he has made it so glaringly obvious that our political system is run by high-class good old boys that have the interest of their class in mind and no other. At least more of us are waking up to the fact that there are no real candidates in the present state.

    To expand on this interesting thought (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:22:48 PM EST
    Maybe Americans in a way have been inoculated by 8 years of Bush ridiculously "clearing Brush" and walking around in flight suits, cowboy costumes, etc.  

    Maybe, for example, Fred Thompson the High Dollar Lobbyist won't fool anybody this time around just because he shows up at events in a red pickup truck.  

    Maybe.

    Parent

    Actually, a whole bunch of us understood (1.00 / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:17:22 PM EST
    that years ago.

    The question becomes:

    Which of the bad will best for the country.

    Which of the bad will best for me or mine.

    You can straighten out the personal-family-clan-nation altruism thing yourself.

    Parent

    Too cyncial and self-centered for me. (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by womanwarrior on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:10:23 AM EST
       Well, I have to say, that I don't rule somebody out merely because they have money.  Otherwise, I could never vote, in a system that depends on money.  
       I always hope to find somebody that cares about others besides themselves and their inner circle.  I still believe FDR was a good president, and he was one rich guy.  
        I also think that John Edwards remembers where he came from.  He got his money from hard work and talent.  I am not bothered that he got a lot of money representing people against corporations that couldn't spend a little on safety parts so some little girl wouldn't get killed by being sucked into a drain of a pool.  
        I think in neighborhoods, people can care about each other and watch out for their neighbors.  I've been to lots of fundraisers for people who were self-employed without insurance and got cancer.  
        I think we can all make sure that all of us have access to good medical care, and not just rich people and not just through beef and beer.      
        This country used to work together for the common good.  We can be that way again, if we can throw out lots of the self-interested cynics, Republican and Democrat, from their exalted offices.  

    Parent
    Simple Answers To Ridiculous Questions | 32 comments (32 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment