does the man make the times or

[bballny]

does the time make the man. This is a famous history question. George was give the opportunity to make the times and from my vantage point he has failed miserably. The world is basically out of control. There is nothing that he has a handle on.

[Lost4words]

1. perhaps male physically but I am sure he has never been a man.

pumkin face little sissy maybe but never a man.

[politicaholic]

2. George W. Bush is a weak man of questionable character...

he has been a horrible underachiever all of his life. I have believed since he became governor and did that character assassination on the wonderful Anne Richards that he is a vile human being and would be a vagrant if it weren't for his birth family, his wife, and his handlers.

Welcome to DU!!
:hi:

[Lost4words]

4. I disagree, he is the underachiever's underachiever!

he has brought underachievement to a new low. IMHO

[politicaholic]

5. LMAO!!

Yes, a lazy underachiever at least would have stopped at the first failure, but Bush endured and plowed on to the second grade.

And in the end he wound up unraveling 60 years of strong diplomacy and prosperity.

Definitely a man defining his time.

[SteppingRazor]

3. If Bush is the example,

I'd have to say the times definitely make the man, not the other way around. After all, who he was perceived to be before the War on Terra and who he was perceived as after it was declared are two totally different things.
So, since Bush didn't cause 9/11, the times make the man.
Unless he did cause 9/11, in which case the man makes the times. :tinfoilhat:

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please;

they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past. The traditions of the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the minds of the living."

- Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte