digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at blogs.chron.com

Bush beats Harry Truman (in Presidential Unpopularity)

blogs.chron.com — President Bush has talked a lot about being a modern-day Harry Truman - a president who makes tough & unpopular decisions that will be appreciated by history. Well, now, Bush has officially passed Truman to set an ignominious record in extended presidential unpopularity!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Bukowsky, on 04/16/2008, -3/+31FTA - "At 39 months, Bush passed Truman, who was on the wrong side of the populace for the last 38 months of his presidency."

    Now that's a Mandate!

    • LukasSmith, on 04/16/2008, -9/+4This article has been posted dozens of times. Buried as spam.
      • 11oops, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Ahh, you can't bury the truth, or get it marked inaccurate this time.
    • dsmx, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Well at least bush got in the history books for something...
  • notque, on 04/16/2008, -6/+24We need popular participation in government. Real Democracy, and we must fight for it away from these war criminals.
    • sponeil, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5Before that, we need to educate the masses in the US. Whether Bush stole the election back in 2000 is a moot point because even if he did, he didn't have to steal it by much, and he didn't miss the majority of the popular vote by much. The fact that so many people actually did vote for him, twice even (three times if you count the 2000 primary), is a very large part of our problem. Nearly half the US wanted to invade Iraq, and I wouldn't be surprised if nearly half want to invade Iran (though many of that half don't seem to want to spend the money, as they also seem to be the greedier half).
    • LukasSmith, on 04/16/2008, -13/+3What I find funny is that Obama himself has stated that if elected president he would look for evidence of a crime but would not press criminal charges if all he found were bad policy mistakes. Basically he is smarter then 85% of digg libs who believe in their lynch mob mentality that Bush is the devil and needs to be be murdered in his sleep right now. Well Obama doesn't agree. Obama isn't convinced at this moment because unlike digg.com users he wants real evidence not conjecture speculation and opinion pieces from rawstory.com. I think Obama is too good for the mob of idiots that supports him on digg.com.
      • Eezyville, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4You had to bring in Obama.
        • daRoach, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Yeah man what the *****, bringing a politician into a political discussion?!?
      • LukasSmith, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

        So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it." Obama.
        http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack ...
  • BarbaraKolbe, on 04/16/2008, -5/+38Well, unlike Truman, I highly doubt history will reverse the publics' current low opinion of this president.
    • wbeavis, on 04/16/2008, -12/+1History does not shine that well on Truman.
      • Tweekster, on 04/16/2008, -1/+13yes it does
      • EtherGnat, on 04/16/2008, -1/+10In the 11 polls he's listed on on Wikipedia, Harry Truman is ranked between 5th and 9th for best Presidents, which puts him in the top 20%. In particular a poll of 846 Historians put him in 8th place. I'm confused as to how you can say history does not shine well on Harry Truman.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_o ...
        • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3wbeavis must be one of those "Truman is evil for ending WW2 with Japan by using atomic weapons" nuts
        • 11oops, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Or one of those 'research is hard, and trolling is easier' nuts.
        • card51short, on 04/16/2008, -3/+1yes you'd have to be a nutcase to be against dropping atomic weapons on civilian populations. Totally insane.

          *waits for space monkey to counter by saying IT'S THE ONLY WAY WE COULD OF ENDED THE WAR and froth at the mouth*
          • keymanjim2, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Strawman aside, the fact that we had to drop the second bomb justified the first one.
    • pintomp3, on 04/16/2008, -6/+3don't be so sure. it happened with reagan. never underestimate the amnesia of the public.
      • ZenMojo, on 04/16/2008, -4/+2Nah, we still hate Reagan. Conservatives just got really stupid.
      • fantasticFlan, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2It's still early for a historical read on Reagan.
    • LukasSmith, on 04/16/2008, -6/+10The fact is half these people commenting.... Don't even know about Truman. OH they may know he was a president but thats about it. Amnesia has happened with many presidents from Kennedy who kept us in Vietnam and messed up the bay of pigs to Lincoln who quite obviously violated the constitution. By the way Lincoln had a good level of hate leveled at him during his term in office. He was by no means loved. If I have learned anything from historians the only way to be considered the greatest president historically is to be shot. Other x presidents get more popular as time goes by merely because the American people are idiots about the past. Here's looking at you Carter.
      • oldhick, on 04/16/2008, -4/+5Kennedy who "started" our involvement in Vietnam, Kennedy who turned his back on MLK when he was imprisoned. Lincoln who is single handily responsible for slaughtering more Americans than nearly anyone else. Destroyed the constitution, and he ushered in the un-checked power of the Federal government...
        I think we now know that being a ***** president can gain respect later through revisionist history without any trouble at all...
      • philhatesyou, on 04/16/2008, -3/+3Lincoln violated The Constitution my ass. There is no clause in The Constitution allowing states to secede from the Union.
      • LukasSmith, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3two words: habeas Corpus
        http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/ind ...
        • lived666, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2The Constitution allows Habeas Corpus to be suspended in cases of rebellion.

          The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_Clause
        • LukasSmith, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Well his reasoning for suspending habeas corpus were somewhat suspicious. He even used the suspension to go after government officials who thought peace between both sides by giving the states more power was the answer. An idea Lincoln flatly rejected. There is a whole lot more to the story of the civil war then you learn in High School. No wonder why public schools suck.
      • SSCrow, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Every president (except for Bush) who has been elected on a 0 Year (1980, 1800, etc) has had an attempt on their life.(only reagan lived through his attempted assassination)
        So based on this pattern I'm still waiting for someone to assassinate Bush. But I guess no one wants Cheney to inherit the position.
    • JohnReb, on 04/16/2008, -1/+8LIncoln was so hated at the time the opposition press called the Civil War "Mr. Lincoln's War".

      Where have I heard that before?
      • ZenMojo, on 04/16/2008, -5/+1You know what pisses me off? People like you might go to the great beyond still expecting that public opinion will change. I assure you right now that the internet will NOT let that happen, it CANNOT, and as long as there is easily-accessible free information on this stupidity Bush will be remembered as an *****, and I will teach my children that he was an *****, and I will mock everyone who disbelieves it.

        By the way, Truman WAS an *****, 20 years later Eisenhower was STILL calling him an ***** and said the dropping of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an unnecessary evil. He just had really good post-mortem PR and lazy history books to cover his ass.

        But I point you, again, to the internet and the readily-accessible catalogue of Bush's idiocy and failures on monumental scales. Bush will be the guy who fought Pakistan's independence, the guy who caused the deaths and displacement of millions in Iraq, and who looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes and saw a heck of a guy.
        • HoratioHellpop, on 04/16/2008, -0/+7/Bush will be remembered as an *****, and I will teach my children that he was an *****, and I will mock everyone who disbelieves it.// Cool, then your kids will be aware of at least two assholes in their past.
        • JohnReb, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Pakistan became independent in 1947. if that is a measure of your research skills I am not surprised you are offended that I pointed out that Lincoln was hated by many Northerners during the Civil War.
    • flaknugget, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1He started with peace, prosperity, and political apathy... ended with war, recession, and political polarization.

      What other President represents a run like that?
    • MrFunions, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Don't underestimate the power of the public school system.
  • osabek, on 04/16/2008, -5/+16Our notion of popularity has become skewed... unless you have the support of more than 75% of the populace, no one should be called popular. Bush was never popular (except for right after 9/11, for a couple of months). Likewise, it's fair to say that with less than 25% of support today, Bush can be deemed a collossal failure. And don't be fooled by that 'History will judge him well.' We'll all be dead, so what good does that do for us.
    • wbeavis, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1History will not judge him well. At best, best mind you, he will simply be forgotten. Along with most Presidents that I'd have to look up the names of.
      • Tweekster, on 04/16/2008, -4/+0good old bill?
      • fulibs, on 04/16/2008, -5/+3Dugg down for being an ignorant American, and acting like you are proud of the fact you need to look up the names of previous presidents.
      • Gerz1219, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4Ha! Bush wishes he'd be forgotten. We know the names of Caesar's mistresses, there are detailed biographies of all of Charlemagne's incompetent heirs, and millions have been spent trying to trace specific Asian genetic patterns to Genghis Khan. I think future generations will remember the name of the man who caused the rapid destruction of the United States. Historians will view the 2000 election as a turning point in American history that marks the rapid decline of the empire, and they'll love that angle, because 2000 is a nice even number.
      • Kabloink, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Of course we have to look up the previous presidents. Unless your a history or political history fan, there isn't much reason for most Americans to remember presidents such as Millard Fillmore.

        Its also a safe bet that most people in other countries could not name every ruler or political leader in their history.
    • apackofmonkeys, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Except that his popularity isn't less than 25%, it's "33 percent, just 1 percent age point above his all-time low", which is statistically a big difference. Does that make him only a small failure, instead of colossal? No offense, I just get annoyed when when I see people throw around false numbers about anything. Other than that, I agree with the rest of your post.
  • ennTOXX, on 04/16/2008, -4/+13Let's not forget his Vice, Right Hand Man, Cheney. 2 peas in a pod... :||
    • yellowcakewalk, on 04/16/2008, -2/+11One is smart and evil, one is stupid and evil. Bush is Cheney's sock puppet.
  • DesertDude, on 04/16/2008, -12/+40When you're less popular than someone who nuked civilians, that's pretty bad.
    • Barbarino, on 04/16/2008, -17/+19Um, he saved lives, plain and simple. Digg needs to stop with this bs....
      • Lyph5, on 04/16/2008, -8/+7Except that Japan had been trying to surrender for months, but we refused to let them so we could drop a nuke on 'em to show Russia that we aren't to be ***** with.
        Not only did he nuke civilians but he started the goddamned cold war.
        • ClownRacer, on 04/16/2008, -5/+6oh please japan didnt want to surrender......and TRUMAN started the cold war he gave EVERYTHING to Stalin that he wanted in hopes it would lead the russians to peace.....its fun to revise history and all but at least keep it a bit believable
          • papipablo, on 04/16/2008, -3/+2Japan definitely wanted to surrender after Hiroshima and before Nagasaki.
          • ClownRacer, on 04/16/2008, -2/+5neato but the OP insinuated that they wanted to surrender before we dropped the bombs....that is not the case
          • papipablo, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Actually I have heard credible claims that that is true. Regardless, we know that one nuke for sure was dropped on Japan for no tactical reason relating to WW2.
        • solid12345, on 04/16/2008, -3/+3Right, the same Japan that fought a 15 year war throughout Asia was "conveniently" ready to surrender a few weeks before the A-bomb dropping.

          And why did Japan wait 4 days to surrender after the FIRST bomb? Why didn't they order all troops home immediately? Why did they STILL wait a week after the second bombing to surrender?

          Does logic exist anymore?
        • HoratioHellpop, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4/Except that Japan had been trying to surrender for months// Absolute *****. If that's true, why did it take the Japanese 10 months to finally surrender Iwo Jima? You have zero knowledge of the Japanese culture in the 1940s. *****.
          • solid12345, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3Yep, only the Japanese would fight and sacrifice 100,000 men to defend a crab island. People are looking through the lens of their biased anti-Americanism.
      • HanFastolfe, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5We refused to accept anything other then "unconditional surrender", same deal we offered Germany. If Imperial Japan was, trying so hard to surrender, why did we have to drop TWO atomic bombs? Didn't they get the clue after the first one? Civilians, at that time were considered legitimate targets by Axis and the Allied powers (rape of Nanking, bombing of London). The RAF and the USAF killed more at Dresden then either single atomic bomb in Japan. The fire bombing of Tokyo (March 9, 1945) killed about the same as either single atomic bomb. The methodology of using atomic bombs, or incendiaries on cities is irrelevant to those that are dead.

        Your assertion of, Truman starting the cold war, would be applicable if one is completely ignorant of the type of person Stalin was. Study Stalin at length, before making such empty contentions about how/why the cold war unfolded.
        • solid12345, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3People also forget Japan was at war for 15 years, they were damn set straight on fighting until the end until we gave them a cataclysmic blow with the A-bombs they knew they could not resist against.
    • wbeavis, on 04/16/2008, -3/+3Perhaps invading a country and killing civilians the old fashioned way had something to do with it. Not really. Most people don't give a darn about what happens outside their personal lives. Which is why Bush is unpopular. When he became President, people's lives were great. When he leaves, people's lives will be worse off. Those few people that approve or are on the fence, those are the ones who have profitted.
    • whiterice0, on 04/16/2008, -3/+13Yeah. Harry Truman wasn't unpopular because he carried out the dropping of the Atomic bomb, originally Roosevelt's idea. Read a history book. The bomb saved hundreds of thousands of American soldiers from having to invade Japan. Being a amateur revisionist historian is soo passe. Grow up.
    • Y2JCrisis, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I don't know if that's how you can sum up the Truman presidency.

      Actually, post war was probably the most important time in Truman's presidency. His popularity went down because of anti-regulation decisions made by the republican congress that led to massive inflation, and the way he dealt with unions post-war.
    • asskicker32, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1more people were killed in the fire bombings of Tokyo than in either Hihroshima or Nagasaki.
    • jjmelch, on 04/16/2008, -2/+0You can't possibly be as stupid as you sound. Read a ***** book, *****!
  • dildoolielly, on 04/16/2008, -5/+24Hey, Bush nutjobs, don't you feel embarrassed?

    Hell, I'm embarrassed for you!
    • cbrowne25, on 04/16/2008, -11/+1Hey, Liberal nutjobs, your Democrat Run Congress has a job approval rating at 22%. I'd say Bush is doing alright at 31%.
      • Kyderdog, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1don't foget how is about 40% of each house
  • dildoolielly, on 04/16/2008, -8/+26Bush is a border-line retard corporate puppet. But NEVER forget who supported this failure, don't let them distance themselves from him. Whining about Libs and Dems and Clinton and "Elitists" and gay sex, while offering nothing of substance - and most notably - no defense for the lying little sack of ***** from Texas they shackled us with!

    America's enemy is the idiot who IGNORED that Bush lied to us about Iraq, IGNORED that Bush defends treason, IGNORED that Bush was asleep at the wheel on 9/11, IGNORED that Bush had already blundered our war effort in Iraq, IGNORED that Bush still tries to link Iraq and 911, IGNORED that Bush was going to run amok with our Constitution, IGNORED his continued policy that fuels extremist groups and floods intelligence agencies with "false positives" from illegal wiretapping operations—among other things and still voted to re-elect this miserable failure.

    The enemy from within has perpetuated this death and devastation. Don't forget it.

    It is because of a bush voter that the country is in the atrocious position it is in today.
    • levelred, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5I completely disagree with you....

      He is not borderline, sir!!!
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/16/2008, -2/+8Actually, if your votes counted Bush would've never been president.
  • OstrakonX, on 04/16/2008, -11/+8Buried for the fact that this story has been submitted many, many times. We get the ***** point.
  • bobbybebob, on 04/16/2008, -10/+4Best bush picture http://uploadingit.com/view/538157_zwogs
    • whiterice0, on 04/16/2008, -3/+4He does have a great sense of humor, doesn't he. That's one of the things I like about him too.
  • whiterice0, on 04/16/2008, -21/+5What's that I hear? Could it be the soft sound of Digg whiners. Gee, this is new. zzzzzzzzzzzz. Bush is a two-term president who lead this country steadily after 9/11, and when a Democracy takes hold in Iraq, a lot of liberals will be eating crow, but that's nothing new.
    • MoralThreat, on 04/16/2008, -2/+7Yeah steadily into recession.
      • whiterice0, on 04/16/2008, -8/+2Gee. That's an intelligent statement. Let's blame every president when any part of their term happens to fall during the downturn of our economy's ebb and flow. No president would measure up by that standard. Take a look at history, there are no steady economic periods. We always experience recessions, and, not surprisingly, it's not the president's fault -- through inevitably, ignorant people blame them every time.
    • Bukowsky, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4I'm sorry, I think you wrote that last part wrong... let me correct you -

      "What's that I hear? Could it be the soft sound of Digg winners. Gee, this is new. w00000000t. Bush is a (falsely elected) two-term president who lead this country steadily into the ground after 9/11, and IF a Democracy takes hold in Iraq, a lot of conservatives will be eating crow, but that's nothing new.... that's been happening for the last 8 years."
      • whiterice0, on 04/16/2008, -6/+3"Bush is a (falsely elected) two-term president..." How was he "falsely elected"? The last time I checked, our electoral college system was still legitimate, and it wasn't even needed the second time around. He won handily.
        • Stingr, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3The electoral system is legal (unfortunately) but legitimate? ...not so much.
    • TheOmbudsman, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3I ask these questions in sincerity and in an effort to better understand - not ridicule or criticize.

      1) Could you please tell me why you support president Bush? 2) And please give me a brief list of what you feel his accomplishments have been in office.

      I would earnestly appreciate it. There's too much of one side attacking the other on Digg and not enough quantified opinion.
      • zelig, on 04/16/2008, -2/+5I always get dugg way down for this, but, here goes:
        Bush has given more money for AIDS in Africa than any president in history.
        Bush has eliminated Saddam and his 2 sons, responsible for hundreds of thousands of rapes and murders in Iraq.
        His early tax cuts actually stimulated the economy, as JFK's tax cuts did.
        The unemployment rate is very low.
        The Dow jones has reached new heights since Bush's presidency.
        True, there is a recession. This is recent news.
        • TheOmbudsman, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Okay, that's interesting.
          1) How would you compare these accomplishments with previous presidents? 2) What do you feel Bush has not done very well (if anything). 3) And lastly, how do the accomplishments you list stack up against what you feel (and or hear) that Bush's administration has less than succeeded at?
          • zelig, on 04/16/2008, -1/+41. Well, Clinton did have a surplus, but he didn't have 9/11.
            2. Bush is the worst public speaker of any president in my lifetime.
            3. What "I hear"? That's the problem. The cacophony coming from the MSM is that Bush is/was a failure. There is no sense of balance.
            That's why I don't watch network news any more FOX included.
            If you're thinking "If everyone says it, it must be true", see:

            global warming

            Get back to me in a couple years on that one, now that the global temp is dropping, after having peaked 10 years ago. You won't hear that on the Nightly News, either.
          • TheOmbudsman, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2I appreciate the info, Zelig. It seems clear to me that what you list as accomplishments and observations of the Bush presidency would sit well with most Dems, liberals - in other words, there's a lot of common ground. Of course there is the question as to accuracy of your observations, but I feel that's moot because as you rightly state, and I think everybody can agree, the media has failed us miserably and I can find as many to support as I can refute your observations and all manner in between. So I guess it's just a question of how we obtain that common ground and where the fulcrum lies in the beam of 'balance' that you mention in point (3). I may not agree with your assessment (and it appears I can find 72% of the country to share that hot tub with me) but that doesn't make us or you particularly right or wrong. What is wrong, in my opinion, is partisan sniping that does nothing to bring the truth to light so that we can all make informed decisions and meet on that common ground.
            Again, thanks for indulging my questions.
    • whiterice0, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1I'm really very dissapointed in Digg. I made a comment against the prevailing wind of mindless commentary and I've only got a -13 diggs. With more than 700 people having Dugg this broken record of a story up, I would have expected far more than that.
      • SpacePoet, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1That's what happens when you're irrelevant.
  • shyboy2008, on 04/16/2008, -20/+5bush is popular where i live. thats all that matters to me
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/16/2008, -3/+9Do you live in a mental asylum?
      • shyboy2008, on 04/16/2008, -14/+1no i live in your moms *****.
      • SketchaMPM, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3He's from Texas, so you were close
        • jcm267, on 04/16/2008, -3/+7Texas is an economic dynamo of a state that, of all places, completely avoided the stock market bubble. Looks like they were quite sane after all.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 04/16/2008, -3/+2I'm sure it has nothing to do with being the home state of the president.
          • jcm267, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2I meant to say "housing bubble"
    • Bukowsky, on 04/16/2008, -3/+8*****. Where do you live? I live in Texas... and he's not even popular down here anymore!
    • SpacePoet, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1After reviewing your comments on several threads, I have come to the conclusion that not only are you a social nincompoop, but a dangerous and retarded one at that. Please stop posting on Digg, your inane blather makes us all stupider.
  • DuffyDirect, on 04/16/2008, -0/+10give 'em hell harry!
  • nickcozy, on 04/16/2008, -14/+2He just represents all the people of America.
    Bush is idiot so are the American people.
    Bush gets angry when asked witty questions so does american people.
    Bush worries about small stupid things so do the american people.
    • santaliqueur, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2"Bush is idiot"? Sounds like you is idiot as well.
    • drmangrum, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Wow, overgeneralize much?

      Europeans are just as self-absorbed as Americans, I would even say more so. Americans are not stupid. Americans are not afraid to ask and answer tough questions.

      I don't really understand what the "small stupid things" is in reference too. Paying attention to details is usually the sign of intelligence and competence. Any idiot ( well, ok, maybe not ANY idiot ) can manage the big things, it's the little details that, when ignored, pile up and bury people.
    • Ebonsteel, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Holy crap - its Borat!
  • Barbarino, on 04/16/2008, -13/+7Yes, there is something the bash Bush crowd keeps ignoring, if Iraq turns out alright (of course that's a big if, but possible) and brings stability to the Middle East, he will be looked upon as a genius. Something most of digg can't fathom but it's true.
    • papipablo, on 04/16/2008, -2/+5Don't hold your breath. Might as well get used to calling Iraq, West Iran.
    • IdiggElvis, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1i disagree with that logic - is it ok if 100,000 people die and $1 trillion is spent to make Iraq alright? What about if 500,000 people die and $2 trillion? 1,000,000 people and $4 trillion? What if this escapade destroys our economy and military? Is that still ok as long as Iraq comes out alright?

      Anyway, since we can't know what would have happened had we not invaded there will always be legitimate debate as to whether it was the right thing to do - regardless of what happens in Iraq and the middle east republicans will say things would have been worse if we had not invaded and democrats will say things would have been better if we had not. But no matter what happens in the future Bush will never honestly be looked upon as a genius - you can take that to the bank.
      • Lyph5, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Are you weighing MONEY against WORLD PEACE?
        • pgouy, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Substitute MONEY for OIL and there you have it!
        • IdiggElvis, on 04/23/2008, -0/+0No, I am not - I am questioning the reasoning that says if it turns out ok then the means are automatically justified. If I have a termite problem I could solve it by dropping a nuclear bomb on my town but that doesn't mean it was the right solution.
      • Antimatter3009, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3In terms of history, the ends justifies the means. Look at Lincoln's trampling of the constitution during the Civil War. Everyone ignores that because he freed the slaves and saved the country. Or how about the rounding up and mass imprisonment of Japanese Americans during WW2? We just sort of ignore that little detail. All we care is that we won and saved the world from Fascism. If Iraq ends up as a success and America rebounds from any bad economic effects (or if they end up ignored, as usual), then Bush will be remembered as a success.
        • IdiggElvis, on 04/23/2008, -0/+0Bush is at 28% approval and will have left a huge mess for the next pres (and probably the pres after that) to clean up. If the next pres is a Dem and takes a new direction in Iraq he/she must position it as a way to correct the fundamental mistakes made by the bush admin. We also have to make sure that the bush cronies don't write the history books - and if they do we have to make sure their lies are exposed.
    • Metalteeth9, on 04/16/2008, -2/+8Again similar to Truman. His decision to Nuke Japan, while many were against it then, is today considered a huge decision that he most likely did correct. IF (still a HUGE if) Iraq and the middle east reaches peace within a few years, Bush will get the credit for it, and he will be viewed as a success. Current popularity means nothing if what he does is accomplished.
    • normalkid0615, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2no you dildo, iraq was not even a mistake, it was DECEIT
    • SpacePoet, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Hahaaaa, that's so fresh, are we making progress today in Iraq? Have we turned another corner? Hahahaaaa
  • mrzack, on 04/16/2008, -7/+2I would hope so. An administration of Neo-con Israli-dual citizens that were behind the planning of 9/11 of course worst ever!
    • toxicshok, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2quick hide, your antisemitism is showing
  • cusoman, on 04/16/2008, -12/+7Ok Digg, we get it, you don't like Bush and people agree with you. Now stop it. If you truly want the progress you so dearly wish for, you would stop hanging on this topic and start looking towards the future. Put your energy into something forward thinking, just please stop with the pointless, fruitless hate train.
    • Tweekster, on 04/16/2008, -5/+4the average digger isnt old enough to vote
    • TherealObadiah, on 04/16/2008, -7/+4The Digg crowd lives in a very narrow and closed echo chamber. They personally possess a strong mental firewall that prevents truth or any other opinion from entering in. They see truth as a virus to be assiduously avoided.
    • HoratioHellpop, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Digg != Intelligence
  • Scottievm, on 04/16/2008, -6/+5Except that Truman was a great president, and Bush is/was not.
    • SpacePoet, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Hell, if you look into Harding, he really wasn't that bad either, actually he was pretty popular during his presidency, it was a lot of his staff that tarnished his name, though the guy couldn't put a speech together to save his life...
  • vinnyvenus, on 04/16/2008, -24/+10Bush won in 2004 with the mandate of American people. Even Clinton didn't win his second term with fifty percent vote. More than half the people voted for him in 2004 so deal with it you libtards. He represents the will of American people.
    • Ebeach, on 04/16/2008, -4/+5Damnit, I dugg you up by mistake.
    • mikoss, on 04/16/2008, -3/+4If that was truly the will of American people, we're in seriously depressing times.

      I used to think we lived in a decent world, but now I'm finding that hard to believe.
    • mlvassallo, on 04/16/2008, -2/+6Lets look at the margin of votes, shall we? In 1996 the margin between the two party leaders was 9%. In 2004 it was 2%. I wouldn't say that is a mandate as far as squeaking out the vote with the help of the ***** ups in Ohio.
      • vinnyvenus, on 04/16/2008, -9/+3More than half the people voted for Bush in 2004. That's the fact. Deal with it you dirty Liberal.
        • mlvassallo, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3LOL, I'm a dirty liberal in this topic and a retarded conservative in a topic about evolution. I can't play on either team!
        • wjklos, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3Mandate != Majority Vote. You've got to kick someone's ass to get a mandate. Bush has never been able to kick anyone's ass.
    • Jaablaze, on 04/16/2008, -3/+2Please, don't get it twisted. Bush only won because between the 2 BAD candidates we had, most Americans chose to go with the bad candidates they already knew...
    • nickerbocker, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Keep in mind he ran against John Kerry.
  • Tweekster, on 04/16/2008, -4/+8I am not about to defend bush but seriously how many ***** times can the same god damn article end up on the front page.
    The same stupid sheep comments in every discussion. Is this going to be the topic of the week, cant we go back to marijauna legalization...or is that next week
    • SpacePoet, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1When someone bitches about the bitching, they become the bitchee. Law of bitches...
  • LiquidCure, on 04/16/2008, -7/+3"Bush's critics are far more passionate than his supporters. The number of people who strongly disapprove of Bush is three times the number who strongly approve."

    Wow. Basically that says that the ratio of well-informed, intelligent persons to uninformed, retarded persons is 3:1, respectively. So sad!
    • nekochan, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2like one of my professors said. 20% of people think the moon landing's faked. 20% of people support bush.
      • HoratioHellpop, on 04/16/2008, -3/+1Wow, that's about the dumbest statistical comparison I've seen in awhile. What community college (or liberal turd farm on the left coast) do you attend?
    • EtherGnat, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1"the ratio of well-informed, intelligent persons to uninformed, retarded persons is 3:1"

      If only that were true. If it was, Bush would have never been (re)elected.
  • tpearl, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Who gives a flying crap about his "popularity". He sucks. I get it.

    I feel like I am in high school.
    • levelred, on 04/16/2008, -2/+0Are you really that bright?

      Popularity equals power.

      If the people do not like what he is doing, Congress will feel it from the people, and will call their senators, mail letters, and make it difficult for them including being elected again. So it will it hard for Bush to pass legislation.

      Read a book please!
      • tpearl, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1"Popularity equals power."

        Not true. Bush is not popular but still has all the power.
  • joevill, on 04/16/2008, -5/+11If he is so unpopular, then we did we re-elect him in 2004?

    Even though I voted for the other guy, we the people of the united states re-elected Bush/Cheney 2004. I still see people with that sticker on their bumpers.
    • diggjcarp, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3Well, I sure didn't vote for Bush, and he sure does not represent ME. I supported every president in my life as "My President" - but Bush... he does not represent me
  • levelred, on 04/16/2008, -3/+3If people don't understand how he turned his back on all the people that helped him get elected.

    Prolifers - No new legistation to stop abortion like he said, except partial birth abortion
    Hispanics - Wants to keep them out now, when he is not up for reelection
    Christians - He tried to blend the line with church and state

    I could go on...

    Keep the Constitution alive!!!

    • drmangrum, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3-The president doesn't make laws, that's congresses job. It's the presidents job to implement and enforce those laws.
      -Nobody wanted the mass influx of illegal aliens. We've been fighting that battle for decades, Bush just ***** it up more than most.
      -He has done more to help the ultra-conservative christians than anyone could imagine. He has given them footholds into the government that will take a years correct.

      You're very confused.
      • levelred, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0-I know the president doesn't make laws, congress does. Influenced by the people.
        -I don't want the influx of illegals either but if you remember he was the one trying to get the hispanic vote by saying it will be easier for citizenship, and day laborers.
        - He as turned his back on the Christians, and number one thing was abortion that he said he was going to overturn Roe v. Wade, that is why he got the Supreme Court Judges that he did, but nothing happened.

        Sorry if you are confused.
  • usgovterrorists, on 04/16/2008, -15/+1Who would have thought the world's greatest terrorist would be unpopular?

    United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    9-11 was an inside job! 9-11 official story was a lie! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!

    The elections are rigged, unsecure voting machines & ballots!
    • slvrbullet87, on 04/16/2008, -1/+8If the government really did kill their own citizens on 9/11 then why wouldn't they just kill you for outing them?
    • usgovterrorists, on 04/16/2008, -7/+1"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"
      "Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."
      "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"
      "In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6You truthers are loonies. Go take your meds. The voices in your head are getting louder.
  • diggjcarp, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0Well, of course this surprises no one. We watch and wait as a painful time in American history comes to an end. "The waiting is the hardest part..."
  • fleischner, on 04/16/2008, -3/+6Despite the fact that if Truman didn't order the use of nukes, fewer Digg users would exist today, I still fully support his bravery and foresight...
  • TGun, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2This is news so awesome that it had to make the front page twice.
  • methos75, on 04/16/2008, -11/+5I like Bush, he is better than that beanbag Bill Clinton.
  • SketchaMPM, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Another obvious article about the fact that Bush is the worst president we've ever had. Now bring on the Bush-bots!
  • HarryTruman, on 04/16/2008, -3/+2Not on the bottom any more, suckers!
  • Spiderbrigade, on 04/16/2008, -3/+0I'm still waiting for the "dewey defeats truman" shop job...
  • stonewaljacksn, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Thank you Captain Obvious.
    Why does digg love these preaching to the choir articles?
    • Tweekster, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2group think sheep mentality.
      digg constantly switches topics, spams a set of articles for a while then moves onto something else.
      remember when marijauna legalization was all the rage
  • acitydweller, on 04/16/2008, -2/+0he and his father have used their presidency to make millions. Kharma will rule in the end.
  • ATLien74, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1I think it is quite possible that Bush just may in fact suck as president.
  • papipablo, on 04/16/2008, -6/+1We must impeach George HUSSEIN Bush.
  • jcm267, on 04/16/2008, -7/+10More from the Bush hating choir here on digg. Trust me, Bush will not be remembered as being a terrible President. The only problem that the general public seems to have with him is Iraq, and one day it will become apparent that he didn't do enough to combat Islam. He used up all of his political capital to do what he's done so far.
    • mlvassallo, on 04/16/2008, -5/+6Why are we combating Islam again?
    • Kabloink, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2I really doubt Bush will be remembered for not doing enough to combat Islam. Since, its a war on terror, not a war on Islam. Many of our allies are Islamic countries.
      • jcm267, on 04/16/2008, -4/+7Yeah. Many of our supposed allies are Islamic countries such as Pakistan, which is harboring bin Laden, or Saudi Arabia, which sells us a lot of oil and whose society bred most of the 9/11 hijackers.
        • Kabloink, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0That still does not make it a war on terror. You do realize that there are 27 countries where 90% of their population is Muslim. There about fifty countries that have at least a 50% Muslim population. Far as I know we haven't declared war on those countries such as Turkey or Egypt based on their high population of Muslims.

          I know that many countries in the middle east do share some responsibility for 9/11 and other terrorist activities, but its wrong to include all of Islam in that category.

          No, I am not Muslim.
    • Ebonsteel, on 04/16/2008, -3/+7"The only problem that the general public seems to have with him is Iraq..."
      Just Iraq? How about his actions on 9/11? His ignoring the warnings about Katrina? No Child Left a Dime? The Orwellian named "Clear Skies Initiative"? Allowing energy lobbyists to write our energy policy? What about ENRON? Tax breaks for the top 10% while the rest of us are left to swing in the wind? Suspension of Habeas Corpus? Warrantless wiretapping of US citizens? The Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper"? Advocating the use of Torture?
      I could go on, but it is pointless. For you to still be vocally supporting Bush you are either a paid GOP operative, a religious zealot, an idiot, or some combination of the three.
      • jcm267, on 04/16/2008, -5/+5I could reply to your little rant, but it's pointless. You have BDS and I would just be wasting my time.
        • markvand, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1That's lame. You have mean world syndrome because of 9/11 but that doesn't mean we've given up on you either does it?
      • methos75, on 04/16/2008, -3/+5Bush has cut ties with the UN more than any other president, as A military member IU find his 911 actions spot on, and just WTF was he suppose to do about Katrina, that is Louisiana bad. Its the state that wasted federal money meant on Levee up-keep on casino's, its the state that took weeks to ask for federal help, its the state that drooped the ball on evacuating NO, etc.
    • markvand, on 04/16/2008, -5/+6I've got some more problems with Bush for you jcm. How about leaving the border wide open, even worse nepotism than his predecessors, selling out the country to the UN and the NAU, destroying America's good name with illegal wars, destroying the bill of rights, destroying the economy, doing nothing about the current food crisis in the 3rd world that's caused by the governments subsidy of biofuels, and last but not least, vetoing a ban on mercury in vaccines. You've got to be borderline retarded if your only problem with Bush is the war in Iraq.
      • jcm267, on 04/16/2008, -5/+5Another person to not take too much time responding to. But please tell me this. How are the wars illegal and how did Bush sell out this country to the UN and the non-existent NAU?

        Your comment about Bush and the third world is laughably ignorant, BTW.
        • markvand, on 04/16/2008, -4/+4If you still don't know the wars are illegal, look up the Downing Street Memo, probably the biggest smoking gun out there. Also, try looking into what Vicente Fox said about the NAU before just denying it exists and how much the USDA subsidizes biofuels, which would otherwise be very expensive compared to fossile fuel. Land turned to biofuels in the US in the last two years alone would have fed nearly 250 million people with average grain needs. That's genocide jcm, and it wouldn't have happened without the American government paying for it. Just keep laughing and watching American idol though jcm, everything is alright.
      • Kythas, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4"leaving the border wide open"

        I have a problem with Bush on this one, too. However, he hasn't done any less than any president before him.

        "even worse nepotism than his predecessors"

        I'm not aware of any nepotism in the Bush Administration. Examples, please?

        "selling out the country to the UN and the NAU"

        Bush hardly does anything with the UN and I haven't heard anything about the supposed NAU except for here on Digg. References, please.

        "destroying America's good name with illegal wars"

        War was declared on us. We're simply responding and taking the offensive.

        "destroying the bill of rights"

        Please enumerate one right you had 8 years ago that you no longer have.

        "destroying the economy"

        The President, no matter who that is, has very little control over the economy. The economy is cyclical, as any first year Economics student can point out to you.

        "doing nothing about the current food crisis in the 3rd world that's caused by the governments subsidy of biofuels"

        I was arguing against adoption of biofuels for this very reason. I could see that it would lead to higher food prices and food shortages, but the global warming cultists insisted it was the way to go and anyone who opposed it was an enemy of the earth. Blame Gore and the Church of Global Warming for this one, though Bush does have blame for pandering to them.

        "vetoing a ban on mercury in vaccines"

        I've heard nothing about this. References, please.
        • markvand, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2"I'm not aware of any nepotism in the Bush Administration. Examples, please?"
          Here's a list with some examples:
          http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/35502_helen1 ...
          "Bush hardly does anything with the UN and I haven't heard anything about the supposed NAU except for here on Digg. References, please."
          Vicente Fox has openly admitted it. I'll look it up for you when I have some time.
          "War was declared on us. We're simply responding and taking the offensive."
          Iraq and the Taliban declared war on us?
          "Please enumerate one right you had 8 years ago that you no longer have."
          http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/us/16bar.html ...
          "The President, no matter who that is, has very little control over the economy. The economy is cyclical, as any first year Economics student can point out to you."
          Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ, that's what's wrecking the economy. The whole world is losing trust in the US economy thanks to the enormous deficit so they're dumping the dollar.
          "I was arguing against adoption of biofuels for this very reason. I could see that it would lead to higher food prices and food shortages, but the global warming cultists insisted it was the way to go and anyone who opposed it was an enemy of the earth. Blame Gore and the Church of Global Warming for this one, though Bush does have blame for pandering to them."
          Agreed.
          "I've heard nothing about this. References, please."
          Here you go:
          http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/77363.php
          • ssn697, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5Regarding your proof of what rights you have lost, are you telling us you are on welfare?
          • markvand, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1No I'm not. It's just the first example I came across.
          • markvand, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1No I'm not. It's just the first example I came across.
  • diggdanoles, on 04/16/2008, -3/+6(In Dr. Evil voice) " .... r e a l l y ........"

    Sad thing is that if Bush was able to run for a 3rd term, we would probably win again. Yes, America, we ARE that stupid.
    • BJLStorm, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Sad but true. We'd elect the village idiot before we turned over the country to the "terrist" democrats.
  • hadak, on 04/16/2008, -4/+5Who elected this joker anyway? Oh right. Florida.
  • mlvassallo, on 04/16/2008, -3/+2Bush couldn't hold Truman's jock.
  • normalkid0615, on 04/16/2008, -5/+3Have you ever spoken to a bush supporter? When I was in hicks ville talking to hicky McHick and religiously religous mcrapemary, they both supported bush and penis cheny.. michael nutter looks like a vagina face
  • pier2, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6If he were unpopular because he was making tough decisions for the long term good of our country, then history might eventually look upon him favorably. Those types of decisions would be fiscal constraint, budget balancing, fixing social security and Medicare, reining in the Fed's money printing festival that devalues the dollar, etc. He is doing nothing but making all those areas worse! He is the biggest borrow and spend President ever. In the next election I almost want to vote for the candidate I dislike the most because they will be inheriting a big pile of #*$%.
  • ralph12c41, on 04/16/2008, -3/+4buried..old news...get a life
  • damnyooneek, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1that's the only thing he could actually say he accomplished while in office.
  • roho76, on 04/16/2008, -6/+1Thank God. I was starting to think no one would believe me. I mean I was telling everyone that he is a failure and everyone was like "Naw" and I was like "Yeah" and they were like "Naw". But now that this blog says the he is a failure maybe people will start to believe me. I hope, I hope. I can't wait for Obama to get in office he's going to fix this great nation. Right after he raises taxes (and doesn't lower spending). And when his Communist health care.....I mean National health care comes out it will be a blessing for our country. I mean Canada gives 50% of their paychecks to the Government to have health care I'm sure we can do better than that. Come guys we can beat that we can give them 55%......or you know what, ***** it, let's give them 60%. Just to show them we mean business.

    Lets look at the numbers shall we:
    Say you make $500.00 a week.
    You already give away 30%, so we are left with $350.00.
    A health care plan cost me $300.00 a month.
    If the government starts a National Health care plan we will have another 20% taken out of our checks each week.
    So they take an extra $100.00 a week out of my paycheck so I can can have health insurance.
    So that equals $400.00 in a good month and $500.00 in a not so good month.
    $300.00 x 12months= $3600.00
    $100.00 x 52weeks= $5200.00
    That is a huge savings.
    • statstudent, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1"I was starting to think no one would believe me. I mean I was telling everyone that he is a failure and everyone was like "Naw" and I was like "Yeah" and they were like "Naw"."

      Apparently this is your first time on the internet.
    • libkarl2, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Conservatard!
  • andrewtwilliams, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2(quoted from the comments on the news page)
    "O well Mr. Bush your in good company Jesus was not very popular either and even the folks in his own town did not like him, personally I think you have done a fine job, it's real easy for anyone to be a Monday morning armchair quarterback."

    -I laughed my ass off.
  • daschupa, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Mission Accomplished.
  • nickels, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Let's just be grateful that this mess is almost over. Bush will be gone very soon, let's just hope he doesn't start another war on his way out.
  • cbrowne25, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Nancy Pelosi's Liberal Congress: 22% Approval
    President Bush: 31% Approval
    GO BUSH!!!
  • phycon, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0At least Dubya is #1 at some thing!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.