On a scale of one to ten , how would you rate Bush ?
- Thread starter scy12
- Start date
Fëanor;6783681 said:
This is the same sort of rhetoric that you hear that tries to absolve Hitler's guilt for the holocaust on the basis that he wasn't the one who dreamt it up, just the man who gave the nod to implement it. Sorry but they are not running the country, Bush is, if he didn't agree with anything they said or did then his is the final word. The buck stops there.
Pannonius
Reconquistador
He deserves 0.
Joe Harker
1st in the Premiership!
It would be interesting to see the difference between American and non-Americans.
Eukaryote
Deity
3. Because he hasn't commited genocide, caused mass unemployment, stolen billions of taxpayer dollars, or said the n word on national televison. 1 and 2 are extremes.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
All this poll has shown me is that most people dont really comprehend what really bad leadership is.
Or that if they do, they are somehow unable to make an honest choice in the matter.
Or that if they do, they are somehow unable to make an honest choice in the matter.
I thought my 4 was pretty fair. Puts him a notch under Clinton.
Mise
isle of lucy
Or maybe they realise that comparing him to Stalin or Pol Pot isn't very useful.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
Sorry Mise, but your earlier backpedal on "what constitutes a good leader" was not effective at trying to illustrate why you think Bush deserves a 1 out of 10.
"Rating based off what you would have done" is not really the right way and is not intellectually honest. In the olympics this summer, do you think the judges will score the high bar women based off "what they'd do"? Do you think Siskel and Ebert awarded their movie criticisms based off "what they'd do"? Do you think Standard & Poors issues credit ratings based on "what they'd do"?
I was not going to touch this again until you brought it up.
~Chris
Mise
isle of lucy
Err, it wasn't a backpedal, it was how I rate politicians... If you think it was a backpedal then there's not much to discuss.
No, of course not. What's your point?
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
I don't understand how your rating of a leader, when asked, is different than you rating of a movie you just watched. Thats all.
I suppose, in the interest of fairness, accuracy, and relativism, we should have a standardized rating of politicians the next time we have this poll. All these 1's for a guy who hasn't been that flipping horrible is ridiculous.
~Chris
I suppose, in the interest of fairness, accuracy, and relativism, we should have a standardized rating of politicians the next time we have this poll. All these 1's for a guy who hasn't been that flipping horrible is ridiculous.
~Chris
Mise
isle of lucy
I don't understand why I'd rate a politician in the same way that I'd rate a movie, when asked. I rate movies based on how much I like them. I rate politicians (particularly presidents/prime ministers) by what % of their policies I agree with. I don't always rate politicians that way, just like I don't always rate movies based on how much I like them (I can appreciate, for example, that arthouse films are "better" than sci-fi films, even though I like the latter more).
I'm not a historian, so I'm not going to compare him to historical presidents. I'm not a political scientist, so I'm not going to compare him to other world leaders. I'm an average guy with opinions on how the country should be run, so I'll rate him against that. If you stopped people on the street and asked them, their initial reactions would probably be the same: "Great President, I agree with everything he's done," or "Rubbish President, he did not one thing that I agree with". So if you want to know why so many people are voting 1 when Bush is nowhere near as bad as Pol Pot then I'd say that they were using some form of rating similar to mine (i.e. do I agree with his policies?).
So what would you rate him? Enlighten us with a common sense number. I think my 4 is currently pretty spot on. I don't see how you could currently rate him any more than a 6 without having the honesty of your choice coming into question.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Better understanding and more honesty than you clearly
Hardly.
Why isnt it useful? It simply depends on how you want to define your comparitive criteria. If its all world leaders then of course its useful. If its only US presidents then its not.
On the OP Poll I gave him a 7....but 6 to 7 is pretty fair from my point of view.
~Corsair#01~
Deity
Some seem to have the opinion that Bush can be excused because of the flaws of his minions and other reasons.
However- I, in my unlimited wisdom, see no reason why I can't assign him and everyone directly or indirectly associated with him in any and every endeavour veritable mountains of my own contempt, while still retaining more than enough anger and blame to deeply dislike everyone in America who voted for him, or who did not vote for him but failed to disembowel sufficient quantities of those who did for him, to prevent his vile eruption into the corridors of power like some sort of grotesque satanic baboon emerging from the faeces-strewn orifice that is the republican party.
However- I, in my unlimited wisdom, see no reason why I can't assign him and everyone directly or indirectly associated with him in any and every endeavour veritable mountains of my own contempt, while still retaining more than enough anger and blame to deeply dislike everyone in America who voted for him, or who did not vote for him but failed to disembowel sufficient quantities of those who did for him, to prevent his vile eruption into the corridors of power like some sort of grotesque satanic baboon emerging from the faeces-strewn orifice that is the republican party.
Mise
isle of lucy
Because when I compare him to Hitler, it's trolling.
Incidentally, I'm sure Bush, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot would all agree with the incarceration of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, or excessively curbing freedom in the name of "fighting terrorism", for example.
Similar threads
