If the World could vote in the US Presidential Election.....

That's very interesting!

It's very unsurprising. The current US administration has ruined the image of the US inside 4 years.

And no, 'we' even loved Reagan before you start anything. He's a hero in Germany. Clinton was mobbed with supporters everywhere he went. Bush I was a bit scary but he we liked him by and large.

Bush is a stupid, frightening gibbon and his administration are arrogant fools who won't listen to good advice. The whole tone of this administration reminds us of parts of our history from which we learned lessons.

That link aint workin'

Well, it is 'beta'

Let me put it another way.

Everyone. In. The. World. Hates. George. Bush.

Clinton is a hero in a Ireland: both Clintons got mobbed when they were in Ireland last. Clinton took a walk down the Strand to Trafalgar Square and there were crowds, behind barriers, waving the stars and bars.

When George Bush came there were protests, helicopter escorts and not one single public appearance - and all of a sudden Europe 'had a problem with anti-Americanism.'

Please pity us. More than half of us didn't vote for him. And we're subjects under a bloodless coup. With partisan courts and a brother the governor of a swing state, you can do anything.

***removed by the request of my sense of humor***




Who cares?

I'm curious, why is the self interest of America anyone else's business? When has this EVER mattered?

GWB is the CEO of America, and has SOME influence over economic policy---not very much in the grand scheme of things when you consider the influence of the legislative branch and international banking system. He does have more or less a great deal control over American foreign policy, if you dissallow for the influence of outside forces such as domestic influences and catostrophic events such as 9/11.

In the end, America gets the government she deserves, as the influences and checks-and-balances all have their play. You Americans posting here who want to blame your parking tickets on GWB sound PROFOUNDLY stupid; the international posters sound even worse: stupid remarks made out of ignorance.

This really pisses me off: if the American posters involved themselves with their political processes with half the vigor they persued thier lesbian porn and reruns of Southpark they would be too busy to make inane self-loathing posts here.



--------------------------------------
Main Entry: stu pid
Pronunciation: st(y)üpd
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): -er/-est
Etymology: Middle French stupide, from Latin stupidus, from stupre to be benumbed, be astonished, be stupefied; akin to Greek typtein to beat, strike -- more at TYPE
1 a : slow of mind : UNIMAGINATIVE, OBTUSE, INSENSITIVE <came to regard them as stupid, sensual, veritable children of Adam -- V.L.Parrington> <will defy the most phlegmatic and stupid spectator to behold it without admiration -- Tobias Smollett> <bellowed into his ear as if he were deaf instead of stupid -- Anthony Trollope> b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : UNTHINKING, IRRATIONAL <while he may be wrong ... he is never stupid -- G.W.Johnson> <consider myself at least stupid for not having profited from many opportunities -- Emery Neff> <reality is right under your stupid nose -- Lionel Trilling> c : lacking intelligence or reasoning power : BRUTISH <getting the better of stupider beasts -- G.A.Morgan>
2 a : dulled in feeling or sensation : being in a state of stupor : TORPID <stupid with drink -- Sherwood Anderson> <stupid with the lust of gain and the sloth of slavery -- Van Wyck Brooks> <let fall the stupid inanimate limbs of the gone wretch -- George Meredith> b : incapable of feeling or sensation : INANIMATE <nothing is quite so stupid as a fact -- A.L.Guérard> <the stupid rain came down in buckets -- J.W.Ellison b.1929>
3 : marked by or resulting from dullness or unintelligent thinking : SENSELESS <a stupid refusal to be realistic -- W.F.Hambly> <appalling capacity of collective man for stupid, blind, self-destructive behavior -- H.J.Muller> <takes everything seriously in a stupid and unimaginative fashion -- K.T.Bluth> <it is stupid to wait until a probable enemy has gained a foothold from which to attack -- F.D.Roosevelt>
4 : lacking interest or point : DREARY, BORING <went to an awfully stupid evening ... Monday night -- Rachel Henning> <would not have minded his going to this stupid lunch -- A.J.Cronin> <a really stupid performance>
5 dialect England : OBSTINATE, MULISH
synonyms DULL, DENSE, CRASS, DUMB: stupid applies to a sluggish, slow-witted want of intelligence or comprehension, often congenital or accustomed; it may apply to a senseless, benumbed, or dazed condition <so stupid and so obstinate that it was impossible to get him to do or understand anything -- Anthony Trollope> <stupid with liquor and unable to understand that the ambulance had already gone -- Scott Fitzgerald> <sleepy and stupid after a broken night and a hard day's work -- Dorothy Sayers> DULL strongly implies sluggish labored slowness of mind, with utter lack of quickness, brightness, or liveliness <a dull, ambitionless, vegetating individual -- J.A.Brussel> <with its impotent ruling classes and its dull and puritanical middle classes -- Edward Shils> DENSE applies to a blockheaded thick imperviousness or insensitive obtuseness <she never offered to take me over the house, though I gave her the broadest hints -- she's very dense -- Clive Arden> CRASS suggests a fatheaded grossness precluding delicacy, discrimination, or refinement <in deep disgust at the farrier's crass incompetence to apprehend the conditions of ghostly phenomena -- George Eliot> <a crass bonehead capable of sneering at the progress of the human race -- Don Marquis> DUMB may apply to an imperceptive vexatious obtuseness <that the nutmegs were easily sold and eagerly bought is beside the story; the wonder is that we Southerners were so dumb, we did not know the difference -- Erskine Caldwell> <I guess I was pretty dumb that morning, but a fellow in love never sees beyond his own nose -- Vicki Baum>

Citation format for this entry:

"stupid." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (7 Sep. 2004).

Good question.

If you want to have as your head of state a man who is considered by the rest of the planet to be short-termist, arrogant, selfish and dangerously inconsiderate then that's no-one's business but your own.

If you want to have as your face to the world, the man who represents all Americans everywhere, a man who is disliked when he is not genuinely reviled, who has all-but destroyed the reputation your nation has enjoyed for decades and frittered away any sympathy you gained after the atrocities in New York in 2001 that's your own damn business.

You want a President who can't travel anywhere in the world without a demonstration greeting him? That's your choice.

Actually, come to think of it, it is our business, directly.

If the most powerful man on the planet is a religious fundamentalist whose thinking on the environment runs contrary to scientific orthodoxy on the environment and whose foreign policy is inflammatory at best and dangerously selfish at worst, we have to live it.

Hassan, why is Bush's religion always brought up (albeit always indirectly) when people are discussing why they don't like him? What difference does it make?

See, to me that's an indicator of deep-entrenched religious bigotry. Which I think is a huge reason for GWB's unpopularity. Especially in Europe.

Yes, he references his faith. Like many other President in the past.
One could even say he uses his faith to endear him to a section of the Republican party that must turn out for him to win in November.

But to say he governs solely by his faith is ridiculous. Any president in office after Sept 11, would have used good vs evil rhetoric to rally the country, and anyone who thinks he went into Iraq on some sort of Christian Crusade is ignoring the Bible, history and the personal vendetta the Bushies had toward Hussain.

Many on this board have pointed out Cheney's ties to Haliburton, Peak Oil and many others factors that seem to be influencing White House policies. I just can't see why it's necessary to slander the man's faith to get at him.

I see it more as an indicator of distrust of deep-entrenched religious bigotry, especially the fundamentalism The scariest thing about a religious zealot is his certitude that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Or, worse yet, that he is on a holy crusade, with God On His Side.

Hmm, unless I completely misread your post, this is a new level of apologism - "he can't be on a religious crusade, because he's on a personal vendetta".

Oh, that's OK, then...

Frank777, a good question.

We don't like the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia for a very good reason. They're intolerant, they make laws on the basis of scripture and their political leaders owe allegiance first of all to religious teaching rather than the needs and rights of their own citizens.

'Religious fundamentalism' is a very different thing to 'being religious'. Religious fundamentalists see the world in terms of irreconcilable opposites; they're utterly (sometimes dangerously) convinced of the rightness of their actions and their motives; they are less interested in observable, empirically provable facts than the teachings of their book of choice. More often than not it's only a specific interpretation of their book.

Osama bin Laden is a religious fundamentalist. What he thinks, his aims, his motives and his actions have little to do with the thoughts, aims, motives and actions of the Muslim people that you and I might have as our friends or in our families.

'Religious fundamentalism' is not like 'being religious'. I wouldn't care if George Bush were a Christian, a Muslim or a devotee of Ochùn if he weren't a fundamentalist. But he is; he's possessed of a certainty that is dangerous enough for the leader of any country in the world. We should have left all that stuff behind. America left it behind once on the quay in Plymouth. Bush can reference scripture, go to church, get his sons circumsised, eat Halal meat, carry no cash on the Sabbath: I don't care. But he is a fundamentalist.

Religious fundamentalism, Christian or Islamic, always comes from exactly the same ugly place in the human psyche. It leads to bad governance and hypocrisy and eventually violence. Theocracy is terribly dangerous, backwards, and makes its citizens miserable.

I don't want the most powerful man in the world to be so certain of anything as your current President. His first obligation is to his people, who are of all faiths and hold different opinions. They elected him, not God.

Like God, I don't get a chance to vote and I wish I did because I have to live with America whatever happens.

Actually, this isn't strictly true. He wants to amend your constitution to fix a (very narrow) idea of what constitutes marriage as law; he's opposed to stem cell research; his policies on HIV/AIDS and abortion in the developing world are focussed on abstinence and favour Church-based organisations. I'm sure there are other examples.

Me.

While I find it pretty interesting to see outside opinions, I too am left with a bit of the "who cares" mentality. This is not to say I dismiss the opinions of those outside the US, but ultimately it is not up to the world to tell US citizens for whom they should be voting. Foreign citizens are no more qualified to select the leader of the US than the US citizens are to select the British Prime Minister, or Russian President, or top Pakistani General ()

I am very skeptical that the majority of those votes were earnestly from whatever country they said they were from.

there is no system of checking authenticity, I just placed a vote for john kerry in afghanistan for instance. And then another for George W. in Afghanistan.

In their FAQ they say they trust the "voters" and to "please" not vote multiple times.

Since when has anyone on the internet cared about either of those things?

We're not.

It's just when we're asked who we'd vote for if we could, it turns out that the only country on the planet that could consider voting for George Bush is America.

tell that to the Saud's who are defacto avertising for guess who? W, and his merry gang of moronic oil men...

Actually, a majority of Americans want this......

Anti-Christian bigtory aside, if your country drove the world economy you would act in your own self interest as well. This mock "concern" for mock "fairness" (while denying the right for Christian ideas to remain in play, only because they are Christian) is either profoundly intellectually dishonest, or the stupidest thing I have ever read.

That's interesting. I just clicked the link again and there isn't one single country that gave Bush 0% that had a significant number of votes. And when you weigh that against the fact that less than 30 people have placed their vote for the vast majority of those countries listed, I think you could conclude that it hardly reflects anything of significance or substance.

I made a very long, detailed post above explaining why my problem with George Bush was that he was a fundamentalist rather than a Christian.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't see it rather than that you chose to ignore it.

I have no problem with 'Christian ideas': they served Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Martin King rather well, and when I start making long diatribes at them, or at Tony Blair, for being Christians then you might have a leg to stand on.

Read my post above and then object to what I said sensibly.

On the same principle, I notice that you haven't objected yet when people call Islam a 'cult of death' or say that Islam is an inherently violent religion, and until you do, less of the accusations of bigotry and intellectual dishonesty if you please.

Was there a point to that post other than capitalizing on an opportunity to insult the administration?

I think you'll find that when I said

that I was lending no more validity to the oipinions of those nations that support Bush than I did to those who do not support him.

Yet more bigotry? -please use this on those who don't know any better. Materialism by any other name still belongs on my lawn.


Main Entry: crap Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: krap
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle Dutch crap, crappe pork chop, greaves, grain in chaff, from crappen to tear or break off
1 dialect England : residue from rendered fat -- used usually in plural
2 archaic slang : MONEY
3 a : EXCREMENT -- usually considered vulgar b : DEFECATION -- usually considered vulgar
4 slang : something deceitful, useless, or empty : NONSENSE, RUBBISH

Citation format for this entry:

"crap." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (7 Sep. 2004).

Well, yes; if I were President of the country that drove the world economy I would prevent wars by building hospitals, roads, clinics and schools in sub-Saharan Africa and Afghanistan with the money I'd save on fighting badly-planned wars prompted by polity. That would be acting in my own self interest, no?

I'd try and rebuild my nation's reputation for fairness and charity, maybe, by taking a more even hand in Israel / Palestine, for sure. That would be acting in my own self-interest. I'd write off African debts, try all my political prisoners held in detention, put my back into reform of the United Nations and then commit to it thoroughly.

I don't know. Stuff like that. I'd try and keep my country rich, though, although I might address the national debt and job creation.

Ah. You haven't read it then.

Or you can't distinguish between 'being a Christian' and 'being a religious fundamentalist.'

Incidentally: a) saying 'crap' is not the involved, sophisticated rebuttal I was expecting, and (b) I pioneered the 'post an insulting dictionary definition as a techinque of running away from an argument I can't win' on these boards and it's about as lame as it gets.

So. Actually answer the post or, well, piss off.

How's that?

GW Bush is certainly the most unpopular US president of US history for french people (me included).

According to a poll, 80 % of the voters dislike Bush. I don't know if such polls even existed before GW Bush took the presidence. I never heard someone saying something positive about Bush. Ask the same question with Clinton and you will have a much more positive answer.

GW Bush is certainly the most worldwide unpopular US president of US history. Notice that US is not in the same league as others countries, like Russia (Staline) , Germany (HItler), China (Mao), Chile (Pinochet) and many others. But US is the leader of the world, and a symbol of freedoom and prosperity.
So GW Bush is not the worst president of the history of humanity by a very wide margin, but is certainly one of the worst (I am not an expert of US history) of US.

I think that GW Bush as open a second battlefront of terrorism in Iraq, and I am very angry about that. Note also that I agreed at 100 % when he did his war in Afghanistan.

No, there was a point, and I capitalized on it by using it to insult the leaders of the administration. Nations attempt to sway the elections of all other nations all the time, it is in there interest to do so; and at this point, it is par for the course and happens more and more often as time goes on. Just because the US is "special" doesn't mean the US' tactics can't be used against the US; nor do our elections laws particularly forbid donations from multinational corporations to election campaigns or hostile governments to directly using funds to advertise for whateverthefuck they want to advertise. This case, the Saud's, is a particular egregious one, since their nation and its particular brand of cloak and dager fundamentalism gave birth to the more recent incarnation of international terrorism.

This appears to be true, but also remember that up until WWI the US was largely an isolationist country. So this world history of US involvement only spans back a mere 100 years.

But again, it's not Bush's job to make the French happy people. His job is to lead the US, and I think it's a better argument to point out his shortcomings in this area than to say he's not good because other countries don't like him.

And this relates to the topic at hand in what way?

You are right rageous it's not Bush's job to make the french happy people (or any other poeple). This is an US election, and he is in charge of US. That's clear, and I didn't see the interest of pointing the obvious.
But, being unpopular do not help US in foreign policy. The reputation has some value, even if it should not be the most important point to consider for any president.

While it may be a true statement that President Bush is unpopular in other countries, I don't believe this is the evidence to that end. There is no accountability, and it's not actually a poll since anyone can vote as many times as they wish. This dramatically skews the results and given the disproportion of votes in given categories, it doesn't create a credible argument.


Additionally, Hassan, you're equating Bush as a "fundamentalist" just as many have called the terrorists Islamic "fundamentalists." Do you really mean to make that analogy?

There was some real polls (serious one, made by professional) in europe, and the results was not famous. I never heard any positive comment around me about Bush. That's was not the case in the time of Bush senior for example (to take a conservative president).
BTW I agree that we should not give too much credit in web poll : they are unscientific and horribely biased.

Yes, I do.

I don't mean to say that George Bush is a terrorist, but he's just as much a religious fundamentalist as any Saudi Wahhabi. He's coming from the same place, he sees the world in the same way, he's just as convinced as he's right.

Ummmmmm let's see......... Okay, I've got it.

In a nutshell: For you, Hassan i Sabbah, any religion that doesn't accept the ultimate infallibility of man is "fundamentalist" for you. Hence, bad, naughty, evil, seditious, and downright wrong---making any adherent a threat to themselves and others.

no

no

no

.....this is called bigotry. You are BEING an intolerant materialist.

I can't have you ignoring the obvious OR using your rehtoric skills for nafarious purposes. Just because the intellect of man is the be-all, end-all for you, it doesn't mean that you get to indulge your prejudice.


.....Well maybe, it does, since whatever you might say would be "right".


I have a Deadline.

Alas, this is too true for all of us. We, every one of us, have a Deadline to meet.

Anyway. I didn't write anything about 'the infallibility of man' in my post. I don't believe that man is anything but fallible. I wish you wouldn't use theological terms to make an argument simply because the subject is religion; we're not discussing theology specific to any religion. We're in a thread digression about the destructive, negative qualities of religious fundamentalism. (Heavens above, I'm back in this nonsense again. I'll hate myself in the morning.)

Anyway. I like the way I'm a bigot for admiring the Christianity of Desmond Tutu and Martin King, saying I don't care if George Bush was a Christian, a Muslim or a devotee of Ochùn and criticising the theocracy of Iran.

I like the way I'm a bigot for expressing the opinion that George Bush was elected by the voters and not God, and that religious fundamentalism leads to bad governance, hypocrisy and eventually violence.

I don't get it. I don't even have spittle on my chin.

Idris Sabeh

I'd just like to add, however, that Islam is a cult of death.

Phew!

No-one'll dare accuse me of bigotry now!

I wonder if "fundamentalist" is the right qualifier. In their fundamentals, it could be argued that both Christianity and Islam are inherently peaceful. You know, love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, and all that.

I've come to believe it's the mixture of "conservative" and "religious" that's combustible. First of all, Christianity - at least in its fundamentals - is just about the least conservative religion out there, so it's just an irrational mix. Second, right-wing conservatism has a kind of authoritarianism to it that seems to bring out the worst in the religious.

I've been going to a liberal church for a while - gay marriage, historical analysis of the Bible, pro-choice on abortion, etc. There just seems to be a world of difference between liberal and conservative churches. There's a weird mix of know-it-all-ness and a tolerance for cruelty among conservative Christians that isn't in the liberal churches. I'd imagine the same is true for Islam.

Evangelical "fundamentalist" types - perhaps like Fellowship - aren't at all the conservative voting bloc in the US they're sometimes made out to be. They have a lot of liberals beliefs - like that the government should help the poor. Apparently there's a big difference between "fundamentalist" Christians and conservative Christians.

PS Yeah as other have said, this poll means absolutely nothing. I'm sure there are some real polls out there that show something similar though.