I have long felt that our great and glorious *hakkaf* President, Mr. George W. Bush, was THE person putting our nation (and others) at greatest risk. Whenever I've stated this publicly, there immediately follows a long protracted howl of outrage from the Bushites.

BUT, it would seem that I'm not alone in this belief...

Britons wary of Bush more than Kim Jong-il: poll (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2625760)
Reuters

LONDON - The United States is seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbors and allies, with Britons saying President George W. Bush poses a greater danger than North Korea's Kim Jong-il, a survey found on Friday. A majority of people quizzed in three out of four countries polled also rejected the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The findings came just days before the U.S. mid-term congressional elections, with a growing number of U.S. voters wanting their troops in Iraq to be brought home.

Britain's Guardian newspaper said it carried out the survey along with Israel's Haaretz, La Presse and Toronto Star in Canada and Mexico's Reforma.

In Britain, which alongside Israel is traditionally a close Washington ally, 69 percent of those questioned said they felt U.S. policy had made the world less safe since 2001. A majority of Canadians and Mexicans agreed, with 62 percent of those polled in Canada and 57 percent in Mexico saying their neighbor's policy had made the world more dangerous.

As for Israel, just 25 percent of people asked said Bush had made the world safer, while 36 percent felt he had upped the risk of conflict and a further 30 percent said at best he had made no difference. Israelis alone were in favor of Bush's decision to invade Iraq, with 59 percent for the war and 34 percent against.

The ratio was starkly different in the three other nations.

Some 89 percent of Mexicans felt the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein was unjustified, as did 73 percent of Canadians and 71 percent of Britons, the survey said. The perceived failings of U.S. foreign policy placed Bush alongside al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a cause of global anxiety, it said.

North Korea's nuclear test last month drew worldwide condemnation, while Western powers are trying to force Iran to scale back atomic work they fear may be used to make bombs. Iran says its aims are purely peaceful.

Asked whether they thought the U.S. leader was a great or moderate danger to peace, 75 percent of British people said yes. Some 87 percent felt the same about bin Laden, while Kim scored 69 percent and Ahmadinejad clocked 62 percent. Just 23 percent of Israelis said Bush he represented a serious danger, with 61 percent disagreeing.

ICM interviewed 1,010 adults from October 27-30 in Britain. Professional local opinion polling was used in the other three countries, the Guardian said. In Israel, 1,078 people were asked, 1,007 were quizzed in Canada and 1,010 in Mexico.

http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/7/8/6/1/9961687-9961690-slarge.jpg

I don't think it's really a question, anymore...

http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/7/8/6/1/9961687-9961690-slarge.jpg

I don't think it's really a question, anymore...
What sort of person has such clairvoyance that they can assess the quality of a president's term while he is still in office?

What sort of person has such clairvoyance that they can assess the quality of a president's term while he is still in office?

And it begins.... HA!!! :cool: (Changing the subject. Soooo predictable!)

It's your prerogative to question the thesis of the Rolling Stone article, but only time will bear out its validity. We'll chat again in 30 years, ok?

Until then, do you have any comment on the actual subject of the thread? You know, the poll that says people around the world are as or more afraid of George Bush than they are of Osama, Kim, and Mahmoud?

And it begins.... HA!!! :cool: (Changing the subject. Soooo predictable!)
I'm sorry, did I get off at the wrong exit?

If you didn't want me to question the Rolling Stone cover you shouldn't have posted it. If I cared what a poll of Britons said about an American president, I would comment on that.

And it begins.... HA!!! :cool: (Changing the subject. Soooo predictable!)
....the poll that says people around the world....

No, that's actually a valid point. This is a journalism piece, not an historical one.
No person calling himself an "historian" would do an assessment of a current president within the context of history.
For more perspective look up what they said about Harry Truman when he left office.

And so I know for our future discussions, are polls considered valid methods of assessment?

George F. Bush should've been imprisoned along with Saddam, for the sake of the whole human race, and it's lesser brothers, animals and plants.

I just want to know why the hell Britains are AT ALL "afraid" or "wary" of George Bush.. last i checked, the United States is allies with them.

So.. is it that they just "know better".. like liberals on this board will tell you? Or is it slanderous media pieces day after day after day?

Saying Bush provides a "greater danger" than Kim is pretty crazy... Bush isn't flaunting Nuclear weapons, and isn't dying to use them like a little kid who just got his first bike. Am i honestly supposed to take this seriously?

George F. Bush should've been imprisoned along with Saddam, for the sake of the whole human race, and it's lesser brothers, animals and plants.
Q: What has dark hair and looks good in red?
A: A Latin hippie on fire...

That aside, who the hell is George F. Bush?

Socialist, that flag is a very powerful graphic made by some very keen observers.
I wasn't aware that President Bush was stifiling dissent.
OMG, that's so meen of him.

I just want to know why the hell Britains are AT ALL "afraid" or "wary" of George Bush.. last i checked, the United States is allies with them.

I have no idea. The Britons, on the other hand, might be leery of getting dragged into another war, or having their country associated with ours by the extremist muslim suicide bombers. Just a guess.


So.. is it that they just "know better".. like liberals on this board will tell you?

Which liberals? Got a name? A post where a liberal told you they "know better"?


Or is it slanderous media pieces day after day after day?

Please post three links to "slanderous" media pieces run on three consecutive days. Thank you. Oh, and please don't post any links to libelous media pieces, as I already have enough of those. Thanks again.


Saying Bush provides a "greater danger" than Kim is pretty crazy... Bush isn't flaunting Nuclear weapons, and isn't dying to use them like a little kid who just got his first bike. Am i honestly supposed to take this seriously?

No more seriously than that laughable tripe about "Kim" you just posted.

Socialist,

When you post intelligent arguments against our Commander In Chief like that, it just makes me all warm and squishy inside.

Really, I feel drawn to you right now.
Are you up for some Brokeback Socialist action?
PM me. (Misspellings and all, you are my hero. I may be your cowboy.)
:eek:

Sparky, I think Vince Vaughn from "Wedding Crashers" best sums up my feelings when I read your posts:

"This girl's fit for a strait-jacket. I mean she's ____ed three ways to the weekend. But you know what, Father? I dig it!"

The Threat of Bushlamic Fanaticism

Can I be the first to be notified when the Vegas odds of President Bush donning a turban and praising the holy Allah hit the books?

Welcome back.

I have no idea. The Britons, on the other hand, might be leery of getting dragged into another war, or having their country associated with ours by the extremist muslim suicide bombers. Just a guess.

That makes no sense.. why would they fear a person who is standing against the enemy more than the enemy itself?



Which liberals? Got a name? A post where a liberal told you they "know better"?

Maybe some of the ones on this board.. the ones who can't be proven wrong... it would hurt their self-esteem and ego too much.



Please post three links to "slanderous" media pieces run on three consecutive days. Thank you. Oh, and please don't post any links to libelous media pieces, as I already have enough of those. Thanks again.

Depends on what you mean by "libelous media pieces"... as that is a pretty vague description...


No more seriously than that laughable tripe about "Kim" you just posted.

How is what i said about Kim laughable? You think he's not all about using his new toys?

Who the hell is George F. Bush?

This was set just for you Prae, I knew you would ask...

Answer: George Fu.k.n' Bush

That makes no sense.. why would they fear a person who is standing against the enemy more than the enemy itself?

Perhaps they don't share your assessment of our current President.


Maybe some of the ones on this board.. the ones who can't be proven wrong... it would hurt their self-esteem and ego too much.

Maybe your suggestion would be given some credence if you had an actual example of this behavior to share.


Depends on what you mean by "libelous media pieces"... as that is a pretty vague description...

No more or less vague than your comment about "slanderous media pieces".


How is what i said about Kim laughable? You think he's not all about using his new toys?

Nope. I think he wants to be able to negotiate from a position of strength. In his mind that means having something to bargain with, and he feels that having nukes will do those things for him. Just my opinion of course.

I have long felt that our great and glorious *hakkaf* President, Mr. George W. Bush, was THE person putting our nation (and others) at greatest risk. Whenever I've stated this publicly, there immediately follows a long protracted howl of outrage from the Bushites.

BUT, it would seem that I'm not alone in this belief...



http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/7/8/6/1/9961687-9961690-slarge.jpg

I don't think it's really a question, anymore...



blame george bush? i blame the american people. they are the ones who allow him office space. he was first elected under dubious circumstances. the american election process does not give people a real choice. just a lesser of two evils or the devil you know, than the devil you don't know mentality.
give us "none of the above".
or the next time i'm "voting with a bullet".

the next time i'm "voting with a bullet".
If it winds up in your brain, I'll second it.

the american election process does not give people a real choice. just a lesser of two evils or the devil you know, than the devil you don't know mentality.
The moron says what? It's not a "real choice" because you don't like any of the candidates?
If it winds up in your brain, I'll second it.
*laughs*

In other related news....

Arrest over Cheney barb triggers lawsuit (http://insidedenver.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5039230,00.html)

By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News

A Denver-area man filed a lawsuit today against a member of the Secret Service for causing him to be arrested after he approached Vice President Dick Cheney in Beaver Creek this summer and criticized him for his policies concerning Iraq.

Attorney David Lane said that on June 16, Steve Howards was walking his 7-year-old son to a piano practice, when he saw Cheney surrounded by a group of people in an outdoor mall area, shaking hands and posing for pictures with several people.

According to the lawsuit filed at U.S. District Court in Denver, Howards and his son walked to about two-to-three feet from where Cheney was standing, and said to the vice president, "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible," or words to that effect, then walked on.

Ten minutes later, according to Howards' lawsuit, he and his son were walking back through the same area, when they were approached by Secret Service agent Virgil D. "Gus" Reichle Jr., who asked Howards if he had "assaulted" the vice president. Howards denied doing so, but was nonetheless placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County Jail.

The lawsuit states that the Secret Service agent instructed that Howards should be issued a summons for harassment, but that on July 6 the Eagle County District Attorney's Office dismissed all charges against Howards.

The lawsuit filed today alleges that Howards was arrested in retaliation for having exercised his First Amendment right of free speech, and that his arrest violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful seizure.

* More detail in this follow-up story (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5083602,00.html)...

Being falsely arrested/illegally detained for speaking against the government... isn't that the kind of thing Saddam used to do?

I guess Howards should be happy Cheney didn't whip out a shotgun and blast him in the face. :thumbs:

It's not a "real choice" because you don't like any of the candidates?

It's not a real choice because the elections are rigged.

It's not a real choice because the elections are rigged.
How many of them? All of them? I'd love to see documentation for all US elections, or much less...how about 100, or 50, being rigged.

So would I. But, if I would wager a guess, I would say that electoral fraud happens in every single national congressional election, not to mention the presidential election, and a good deal of the state elections, particularly in the urban areas. It's been that way ever since democracy was invented. Hell, it was probably invented simply so that it could be subverted, and to give more power to the dictators, who were starting to get a little antsy about rebellions.

I think corruption is the rule, not the exception.

Electoral fraud and having an election "rigged" are not the same thing in all cases. "Rigged" implies that a set candidate has been chosen to win and the election is controlled in a manner so that the candidate does win. Fraud just implies "numbers were fudged" to go in favor of one candidate or another, in hopes that they will.

Does fraud happen in large election (especially in a nation of this size)? Oh, undoubtedly. But are most elections, or even a sizable minority "fixed" Unlikely.

Does it really matter, whether the elections are simply defrauded, or rigged? Either way, it makes democracy a horrible sham, when both parties are engaged in races, not to win votes, but to only appear like they're trying to win votes when they're really just trying to rig the election better than the other team.