Future approval

[Gustaf]

Bush is like Churchill in that he has been a voice telling Europeans and liberal Americans things they don't want to hear, so rather than hating those who want to attack them, they hate him.  This similar treatment of Churchill by the British people before the war ended up costing them dearly, leading to a very difficult war that they could have won easily if they had woken up sooner.

Churchill wasn't very popular before WW2 because he had been responsible for several terrible operations in WW1, he was voted out after WW2 because the war had ended and he wasn't particularly good in peace-time so Atlee replaced him. Atlee was mainly voted in because of his promises of free health-care and lots of social benefits that people could now pay more attention to since the end of WW2 and I would like to point out that Churchill became Prime Minister again in 1951.

Churchill wasn't voted in by the public in the first place, once Chamberlain resigned, the House of Commons had to choose a new leader and the only leader the Labour party would accept was Winston Churchill so he led a coalition govt.

Much of the 'mistakes' of WWI weren't really Churchill's fault. He presided over a fairly disatrous period as chancellor though. He lost in 1945 b/c Labour won for the first real time. It coincided with the creation of a welfare state in the UK. Most Tory leaders would probably have been doomed by that time.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I thought that was ended by the 1940s redistrictings?

Nah... the worst excesses were removed in 1948 (I think. It may have been 1950), but there was a slight bias towards the Tories until the 1970's.

[minionofmidas]

Well, there's a slight bias towards Labour now...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What goes around comes around

[dunn]

there has been one attack that has killed a few thousand people.

YUes, it was tragic, BUT it in no way compares to world war two.

Nowhere NEAR.

we are in 1938, and if you do not act It will be WW3

[Gustaf]

there has been one attack that has killed a few thousand people.

YUes, it was tragic, BUT it in no way compares to world war two.

Nowhere NEAR.

we are in 1938, and if you do not act It will be WW3

Against who? A terrorist network?

[dunn]

there has been one attack that has killed a few thousand people.

YUes, it was tragic, BUT it in no way compares to world war two.

Nowhere NEAR.

we are in 1938, and if you do not act It will be WW3

Against who? A terrorist network?

yes, and Islamic fondemendalists and the regims that let them flurish

[Reaganfan]

Bush will be looked down on like Reagan, Clinton like Andrew Johnson.

[Gustaf]

there has been one attack that has killed a few thousand people.

YUes, it was tragic, BUT it in no way compares to world war two.

Nowhere NEAR.

we are in 1938, and if you do not act It will be WW3

Against who? A terrorist network?

yes, and Islamic fondemendalists and the regims that let them flurish

I don't think they have that much of an interest in terrorism, is more of an insurance policy, like with the Saudis. And they won't harbour terrorist organizations anymore, like the talibans did, the issue of letting flourish is kind of vague...would it include Spain?

[dunn]

there has been one attack that has killed a few thousand people.

YUes, it was tragic, BUT it in no way compares to world war two.

Nowhere NEAR.

we are in 1938, and if you do not act It will be WW3

Against who? A terrorist network?

yes, and Islamic fondemendalists and the regims that let them flurish

I don't think they have that much of an interest in terrorism, is more of an insurance policy, like with the Saudis. And they won't harbour terrorist organizations anymore, like the talibans did, the issue of letting flourish is kind of vague...would it include Spain?

what kind of insurence?
they are harbouring terror
it's not includinf the naive, only the evil

[Gustaf]

there has been one attack that has killed a few thousand people.

YUes, it was tragic, BUT it in no way compares to world war two.

Nowhere NEAR.

we are in 1938, and if you do not act It will be WW3

Against who? A terrorist network?

yes, and Islamic fondemendalists and the regims that let them flurish

I don't think they have that much of an interest in terrorism, is more of an insurance policy, like with the Saudis. And they won't harbour terrorist organizations anymore, like the talibans did, the issue of letting flourish is kind of vague...would it include Spain?

what kind of insurence?
they are harbouring terror
it's not includinf the naive, only the evil

The Saudis are so immensely impopular that their only chance of remainign in power is keeping the fundamentalists happy. The same goes for a lot of other Arab countries. There are few who are actually theocratic. The Afghans were an example, Iran might be another one.

And I think a World War with the Muslim world doesn't look the best possible way to go about things.

[dunn]

there has been one attack that has killed a few thousand people.

YUes, it was tragic, BUT it in no way compares to world war two.

Nowhere NEAR.

we are in 1938, and if you do not act It will be WW3

Against who? A terrorist network?

yes, and Islamic fondemendalists and the regims that let them flurish

I don't think they have that much of an interest in terrorism, is more of an insurance policy, like with the Saudis. And they won't harbour terrorist organizations anymore, like the talibans did, the issue of letting flourish is kind of vague...would it include Spain?

what kind of insurence?
they are harbouring terror
it's not includinf the naive, only the evil

The Saudis are so immensely impopular that their only chance of remainign in power is keeping the fundamentalists happy. The same goes for a lot of other Arab countries. There are few who are actually theocratic. The Afghans were an example, Iran might be another one.

And I think a World War with the Muslim world doesn't look the best possible way to go about things.

Saudia is worse then Iran. they chop the hands of thieves etc.

[Gustaf]

there has been one attack that has killed a few thousand people.

YUes, it was tragic, BUT it in no way compares to world war two.

Nowhere NEAR.

we are in 1938, and if you do not act It will be WW3

Against who? A terrorist network?

yes, and Islamic fondemendalists and the regims that let them flurish

I don't think they have that much of an interest in terrorism, is more of an insurance policy, like with the Saudis. And they won't harbour terrorist organizations anymore, like the talibans did, the issue of letting flourish is kind of vague...would it include Spain?

what kind of insurence?
they are harbouring terror
it's not includinf the naive, only the evil

The Saudis are so immensely impopular that their only chance of remainign in power is keeping the fundamentalists happy. The same goes for a lot of other Arab countries. There are few who are actually theocratic. The Afghans were an example, Iran might be another one.

And I think a World War with the Muslim world doesn't look the best possible way to go about things.

Saudia is worse then Iran. they chop the hands of thieves etc.

Lol, yes, Saudi-Arabia is worse than Iran, but they're an ally whereas Iran as a member of teh Axis of Evil remember?

[dunn]

there has been one attack that has killed a few thousand people.

YUes, it was tragic, BUT it in no way compares to world war two.

Nowhere NEAR.

we are in 1938, and if you do not act It will be WW3

Against who? A terrorist network?

yes, and Islamic fondemendalists and the regims that let them flurish

I don't think they have that much of an interest in terrorism, is more of an insurance policy, like with the Saudis. And they won't harbour terrorist organizations anymore, like the talibans did, the issue of letting flourish is kind of vague...would it include Spain?

what kind of insurence?
they are harbouring terror
it's not includinf the naive, only the evil

The Saudis are so immensely impopular that their only chance of remainign in power is keeping the fundamentalists happy. The same goes for a lot of other Arab countries. There are few who are actually theocratic. The Afghans were an example, Iran might be another one.

And I think a World War with the Muslim world doesn't look the best possible way to go about things.

Saudia is worse then Iran. they chop the hands of thieves etc.

Lol, yes, Saudi-Arabia is worse than Iran, but they're an ally whereas Iran as a member of teh Axis of Evil remember?

most 9/11 terorist were saudies

[Gustaf]

there has been one attack that has killed a few thousand people.

YUes, it was tragic, BUT it in no way compares to world war two.

Nowhere NEAR.

we are in 1938, and if you do not act It will be WW3

Against who? A terrorist network?

yes, and Islamic fondemendalists and the regims that let them flurish

I don't think they have that much of an interest in terrorism, is more of an insurance policy, like with the Saudis. And they won't harbour terrorist organizations anymore, like the talibans did, the issue of letting flourish is kind of vague...would it include Spain?

what kind of insurence?
they are harbouring terror
it's not includinf the naive, only the evil

The Saudis are so immensely impopular that their only chance of remainign in power is keeping the fundamentalists happy. The same goes for a lot of other Arab countries. There are few who are actually theocratic. The Afghans were an example, Iran might be another one.

And I think a World War with the Muslim world doesn't look the best possible way to go about things.

Saudia is worse then Iran. they chop the hands of thieves etc.

Lol, yes, Saudi-Arabia is worse than Iran, but they're an ally whereas Iran as a member of teh Axis of Evil remember?

most 9/11 terorist were saudies

Don't tell me, tell Bush.

[opebo]

What's to remember about Clinton?  I can barely remember him even now.

[Reaganfan]

Opebo, he had a very RED face.

[opebo]

Opebo, he had a very RED face.

He reminded me of Tip O'Neil.

Remember that guy?

[Platypus]

What's to remember about Clinton?  I can barely remember him even now.

Better to be forgotten then despised...

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

<left-wing tinfoil hat>
By 2054, the ozone layer will have evaporated, our cities will be under the ocean, and US will be in ruins.  If the US DOES still exist, it will be a corporate-run dictatorship in which we are forced to love Bush.
</left-wing tinfoil hat>

<right-wing tinfoil hat>
By 2054, the perversion and communization of America will be so complete, what we know of as the US will no longer exist.  Clinton will be propped up as the pervert vanguard that he is, and we will be forced to love him.  George W. Bush, the last decent American, will be erased from our textbooks.
</right-wing tinfoil hat>

[ilikeverin]

<left-wing tinfoil hat>
By 2054, the ozone layer will have evaporated, our cities will be under the ocean, and US will be in ruins.  If the US DOES still exist, it will be a corporate-run dictatorship in which we are forced to love Bush.
</left-wing tinfoil hat>

<right-wing tinfoil hat>
By 2054, the perversion and communization of America will be so complete, what we know of as the US will no longer exist.  Clinton will be propped up as the pervert vanguard that he is, and we will be forced to love him.  George W. Bush, the last decent American, will be erased from our textbooks.
</right-wing tinfoil hat>

LOL!

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I'm only 13!


Real Life:
Liberal through and through

I was a die-hard liberal when I was 13, too.  Even when I was 20.  But you'll find that the more of your paycheck goes to the government, the less enthusiastic you'll be about leftist politics.  Just a heads up .

It's good that you are interested in politics at your age, though.  We need a more informed electorate, and when you get to vote in 2008, you'll be much more prepared than most people your age.

[ilikeverin]

I'm only 13!


Real Life:
Liberal through and through

I was a die-hard liberal when I was 13, too.  Even when I was 20.  But you'll find that the more of your paycheck goes to the government, the less enthusiastic you'll be about leftist politics.  Just a heads up .

It's good that you are interested in politics at your age, though.  We need a more informed electorate, and when you get to vote in 2008, you'll be much more prepared than most people your age.

Thanks a lot for the compliment  I know what you mean with the money thing.  I think.  LOL... I'm pretty uneducated when it comes to taxes  I figure if I get centrist, I'll always drift to the right once Medicare/Social Security kick in!  My dad used to be a hippie who wore his hair long.  Now he's a bald Republican salesperson

Your second paragraph is what I keep saying in my head... whenever people tell me I'm too obsessed with politics!  Seriously, though, I think some kids in my generation don't know the difference between a Democrat and a Republican... they don't even know what those are!  

Ohh well, we'll just have to see what the future holds

[Demrepdan]

Neither Clinton nor Eisenhower will be hated, but Clinton will be less highly regarded by the public because he wasn't a war hero.

Eisenhower won't be hated......but Clinton is...and will probably continue to be hated by many.

As for Bush, he like Nixon minus Watergate.  People will admire his foreign policies, but his domestic record will be seen as highly dubious.

Nixon, unlike Bush, also had his personal character exposed....people knew what he was like. I have yet to hear George W. Bush say..."You know the God damn JEWS are out to get me!!" (Nixon Watergate tapes)

[Reaganfan]

Bush is not like Nixon, he is more like Reagan except farther to the left.