historians worth their weight would know we can't really begin to judge this guy for at least 10-20 years. But to ask historians our professional opinion right now...yeah he blows.
definition: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs; "the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" As in they started an illegal war expecting to profit and get away with it. They end up getting executed by the very people they tried to use. awesome.go back to college
Yeah, I'm surprised historians would even comment on the issue, unless they were commenting outside of the context of their historian role. Ever read about the last 50 years in a history book? The bottom line is basically "we have no idea what matters in the last 50 years, so here's a smattering of big things that we cannot possibly organize into a coherent framework yet."
Many of them are paid by the Bush administration via PR firms to post on sites like Digg to help do "image management". Many people who are paid to support Bush say he is wonderful but that doesn't make it the truth (and it doesn't mean they believe it either).
there are also links between bush voters and low education, high obesity and large reliance on welfare. the states that have the largest per capita wealth vote for the democrats (california and new york in particular, but other new england states and illinois with heavy saturation in the chicago area as well.) the poor and less educated states -- lots of southern states, particularly mississippi, louisiana, and alabama, have many republicans and get more financial support from the wealthier states. conclusion: the poor and uneducated are led to vote for those who do them the most harm. the more educated are more willing to "share the wealth." in all cases, the obscenely wealthy who set the agendas are able to manipulate the outcome to suit their needs and probably hide their money in the caymans anyway.
thank you for clarifying that. i always knew there were "loopholes" in how these statistics were presented. by not including the incredibly rich in the category of "wage earners" these statistics become much easier to manipulate. the incredibly rich don't earn wages because they don't need to work. their income comes from investments and they are taxed at a lower rate based on the income from the investments. it all makes so much sense when framed this way. thank you! i have wondered how limbaugh could defend such statistics when he'd post them to his site.
eyepatch100Apr 15, 2008
Good thing they polled all historians in the country, in a scientific manner. That's why these results are so reliable!
jpmagnumApr 16, 2008
There is right and wrong.Bush has nothing to do with this.
strongoApr 21, 2008
historians worth their weight would know we can't really begin to judge this guy for at least 10-20 years. But to ask historians our professional opinion right now...yeah he blows.
bfnewsApr 21, 2008
The other 2% are 'historians' such as Rush and Hannity...
Closed AccountApr 25, 2008
definition: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs; "the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" As in they started an illegal war expecting to profit and get away with it. They end up getting executed by the very people they tried to use. awesome.go back to college
jjusticeMay 1, 2008
Yeah, I'm surprised historians would even comment on the issue, unless they were commenting outside of the context of their historian role. Ever read about the last 50 years in a history book? The bottom line is basically "we have no idea what matters in the last 50 years, so here's a smattering of big things that we cannot possibly organize into a coherent framework yet."
caffeinateMay 4, 2008
Many of them are paid by the Bush administration via PR firms to post on sites like Digg to help do "image management". Many people who are paid to support Bush say he is wonderful but that doesn't make it the truth (and it doesn't mean they believe it either).
shadygroveMay 10, 2008
doctor of philosophy means you don't qualify to be doctor? are you for real?
shadygroveMay 10, 2008
there are also links between bush voters and low education, high obesity and large reliance on welfare. the states that have the largest per capita wealth vote for the democrats (california and new york in particular, but other new england states and illinois with heavy saturation in the chicago area as well.) the poor and less educated states -- lots of southern states, particularly mississippi, louisiana, and alabama, have many republicans and get more financial support from the wealthier states. conclusion: the poor and uneducated are led to vote for those who do them the most harm. the more educated are more willing to "share the wealth." in all cases, the obscenely wealthy who set the agendas are able to manipulate the outcome to suit their needs and probably hide their money in the caymans anyway.
shadygroveMay 10, 2008
thank you for clarifying that. i always knew there were "loopholes" in how these statistics were presented. by not including the incredibly rich in the category of "wage earners" these statistics become much easier to manipulate. the incredibly rich don't earn wages because they don't need to work. their income comes from investments and they are taxed at a lower rate based on the income from the investments. it all makes so much sense when framed this way. thank you! i have wondered how limbaugh could defend such statistics when he'd post them to his site.