View Full Version : W's approval number slips lower than his waist size
lexsooner
4/24/2006, 05:11 PM
Yes, even Fox News has about the same approval numbers.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/24/bush.poll/index.html
fadada1
4/24/2006, 05:15 PM
his approval rating wouldn't be that low if he wasn't so painfully stupid.
yermom
4/24/2006, 05:16 PM
it's amazing how unAmerican Americans are
Vaevictis
4/24/2006, 05:17 PM
It wouldn't seem so bad... if he was Mangino. :D
OUinFLA
4/24/2006, 05:24 PM
If he was Mangino, they would have to seriously widen the doors in the White House, Air Force 1, Midland.............
King Crimson
4/24/2006, 05:25 PM
FOX had the shrubber at 33% last week.
usmc-sooner
4/24/2006, 05:26 PM
I guess Americans would rather have his painfully stupid unapproved of *** than a Democrat. ;)
picasso
4/24/2006, 05:30 PM
I couldn't answer if they asked me. some yes, some no.
he's catching hell for the price of gas too and I'm not quite sure he can do too much about it. nobody did 8 years prior to his being in office either.
SicEmBaylor
4/24/2006, 05:31 PM
Bush isn't stupid. He's not what one would call intellectually curious, but he's hardly in the bottom tier of your below average special ed class. And I don't even like the guy as President. Running the country doesn't require the IQ of a rocket scientist; it requires good judgement and hopefully the ability to act within the constitutional framework of the office. The latter is reason enough to have issues with the President regardless of his IQ.
In fact, a short review of the most recent Presidents and the relative perception of their intelligence shows us that IQ does not equal a successful or disasterous Presidency.
W. Bush- Not seen as intellectually curious and too early to tell how successful his Presidency will be considered in the long run.
Clinton - Intellectually curious with a successful Presidency.
Bush - Widely regarded as highly intelligent but with a mediocre-unsuccessful Presidency.
Reagan - Reagan actually was quite intellectually curious, but not seen by many as very bright (though I disagree) had a very very successful Presidency.
Carter - Perhaps one of the most intelligent Presidents had a disasterous Presidency.
Ford - Not particularily bright with a very unsuccessful Presidency.
Nixon - Highly intelligent and very intellectually curious did not have a successful Presidency.
I could keep going, but it should be obvious that intelligence or the perception of intelligence isn't an indicator of presidential success.
Quote from article: "Dissatisfaction with their leader appears to parallel Americans' unhappiness over gas prices."
Proof that most Americans are fools and have what they deserve in the White House.
picasso
4/24/2006, 05:36 PM
Proof that most Americans are fools and have what they deserve in the White House.
sincerely,
1993
I suppose the likes of Nanci Palosi, Ted Kennedy, Cynthia McKinney, et al, will make better leaders once they're in charge. A handout for everyone! All they want in return is a vote.
Democrats may have a few victories here and there, especially in the large urban states, but they will never be the overall better alternative BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS, and socialism depends on people being dependent- which Americans are not genetically disposed of being lorded over by a ruling class.
Scott D
4/24/2006, 06:41 PM
so you are saying that some nations are genetically disposed of being lorded over by a ruling class?
so you are saying that some nations are genetically disposed of being lorded over by a ruling class?
Perhaps not nations, but certain people (and I'm not singling out any race) who have an anxiety attack if they don't have a tit to suck on. (that's what libs call a "safety net")
If you think a party which is made of a coalition of radical feminists, homosexuals, unions, socialists/Marxists, and gov't workers would do any better in today's world then you are smoking dope.
soonerscuba
4/24/2006, 06:51 PM
If you think a party which is made of a coalition of radical feminists, homosexuals, unions, socialists/Marxists, and gov't workers would do any better in today's world then you are smoking dope.
So roughly 49% of the population is a feminist, homo, socialist, or gov't worker?
Perhaps some people prefer of Democratic platform for issues beyond the wedge.
Jimminy Crimson
4/24/2006, 06:52 PM
The only purpose of approval ratings are to fill air time on CNN and the like.
Manufactured news, if you will...
mdklatt
4/24/2006, 06:55 PM
Democrats may have a few victories here and there, especially in the large urban states, but they will never be the overall better alternative BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS, and socialism depends on people being dependent- which Americans are not genetically disposed of being lorded over by a ruling class.
I relize that the pubz want society to stand still, but it won't. The farther they swing the pendulum to the right, the farther back to the left it's going to swing when the 33% of us in the middle get fed up enough with this **** to vote for whatever *********s the libz offer up.
So roughly 49% of the population is a feminist, homo, socialist, or gov't worker?
Perhaps some people prefer of Democratic platform for issues beyond the wedge.
The socialists, gay rights groups, pro-abortion feminists, and unions run the democrat party. The rank-and-file are probably different - mostly comprised of the entitlement class (those who receive "aid" in exchange for votes) and also the well-to-do educated white folk who feel guilty.
mdklatt
4/24/2006, 07:05 PM
The socialists, gay rights groups, pro-abortion feminists, and unions run the democrat party. The rank-and-file are probably different - mostly comprised of the entitlement class (those who receive "aid" in exchange for votes) and also the well-to-do educated white folk who feel guilty.
The fascists and fundamentalists taking over the Republican party aren't any better. As the pubz go farther to the right they allow the libz to get away with going farther to the left, and vice versa.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/24/2006, 07:13 PM
And the dims are giddy with delight. Oh for the glory, wisdom and justice that will abound when they once again are in charge of fiscal policies, and administrators of our national security!
I agree with you about the fundamentalist part, but not the fascists.
Look, if I could have my way, the Libertarian Party would run things. All I'm trying to do now is decide who is the lesser of two evils, and the party of Cynthia McKinney and Hillary Clinton is not the best alternative to the Repubs.
I'm just trying to make a point that the dems aren't the best alternative, even though the main stream media thinks they all have little halos over their heads.
William - did you hear that stuff today on Rush's show about a 'shadow government'? That's some pretty freaky stuff. Who could have known all the connections that Valarie Plame, her husband, and the CIA leaker (who gave the European Al Quida prison info to the washington post) have? We would have never known about those connections if it weren't for Rush.
It just goes to show what I have always said about liberals - they believe that the ends justifies the means.
lexsooner
4/24/2006, 07:35 PM
Quote from article: "Dissatisfaction with their leader appears to parallel Americans' unhappiness over gas prices."
Proof that most Americans are fools and have what they deserve in the White House.
That's right. If W swung the election in his favor because the common man related to him, well, that speaks volumes of what went wrong. I mean, who in their right mind would want a person like themselves to be the Prez?
lexsooner
4/24/2006, 07:40 PM
Interesting. I see a lot of attacking the opposition, but little or no defending of W. Is the best defense a good offense, or is it just because you have no defense?
Lex, the political discourse in this country, especially over the last decade, is almost all party line based. People cheer for a party like it's a football team. Go Republicans! Go Democrats! The worst slur is to be called the hackneyed "L" word.
Part of why dissatisfaction is high with Bush is that gas prices are high. Give me a break. I don't think Bush is doing a good job myself but never blamed him for gas prices being high. You might as well blame the weatherman when it rains on the weekend.
What is sad to me is that our political system chooses a George Bush as the best it can offer as a choice. I voted for Bush by the way as I didn't see Kerry as a viable alternative.
Be critical of Bush and someone is bound to call you a "liberal". That makes a hell of a lot of real conservatives liberal then. Anyone who spends wildly like Bush and is as weak on immigration policy as he is cannot be much of a conservative. Does Bush really have a coherent political philosophy that can be defined?
soonerbrat
4/24/2006, 08:01 PM
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b274/soonerbrat/no-politics.jpg
don't you know there's a tornado going on?
I posted the rules of the Gary England drinking game..you guys should be getting drunk!
Jeopardude
4/24/2006, 08:05 PM
I suppose the likes of Nanci Palosi, Ted Kennedy, Cynthia McKinney, et al, will make better leaders once they're in charge. A handout for everyone! All they want in return is a vote.
Democrats may have a few victories here and there, especially in the large urban states, but they will never be the overall better alternative BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS, and socialism depends on people being dependent- which Americans are not genetically disposed of being lorded over by a ruling class.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Oklahoma!
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b274/soonerbrat/no-politics.jpg
don't you know there's a tornado going on?
I posted the rules of the Gary England drinking game..you guys should be getting drunk!
Great idea Brat. Freaking weekday diet blues for me, no beer until Friday :twinkies: :(
Scott D
4/24/2006, 08:10 PM
Perhaps not nations, but certain people (and I'm not singling out any race) who have an anxiety attack if they don't have a tit to suck on. (that's what libs call a "safety net")
If you think a party which is made of a coalition of radical feminists, homosexuals, unions, socialists/Marxists, and gov't workers would do any better in today's world then you are smoking dope.
Ironically you do realize that you can exchange religions views for political views and have the same slop, right?
People as a collective have an innate need to believe that they aren't in control of a lot of things and that decisions will be made easier for them by others. Americans are just as guilty as everyone else, just few people are willing to admit that it's a core trait of the species.
mdklatt
4/24/2006, 08:24 PM
And the dims are giddy with delight. Oh for the glory, wisdom and justice that will abound when they once again are in charge of fiscal policies, and administrators of our national security!
If the pubz keep up their bull**** the libz are going to get their wish.
OklahomaTuba
4/24/2006, 08:59 PM
If the pubz keep up their bull**** the libz are going to get their wish.
Agreed.
The only reason the dims would or could get ahead is the GOP shooting itself in the foot, which we have done.
I blame Bush's sagging numbers more on conservatives getting tired of the out of control spending and immigration than anything else.
Scott D
4/24/2006, 09:03 PM
Agreed.
The only reason the dims would or could get ahead is the GOP shooting itself in the foot, which we have done.
I blame Bush's sagging numbers more on conservatives getting tired of the out of control spending and immigration than anything else.
oh? I still blame it on the fact that a second term president is a lame duck for the last two years of their time in office.
mdklatt
4/24/2006, 09:30 PM
I'm just trying to make a point that the dems aren't the best alternative, even though the main stream media thinks they all have little halos over their heads.
They're the only alternative. ******* two-party politics. :mad:
The Democrats are about as appealing as shagging Oprah Winfrey, but if the Republicans offer up Linda Tripp as the only alternative I start thinking to myself, "you know, Oprah has lost some weight...."
KABOOKIE
4/24/2006, 11:32 PM
33% approval rating? BFD. The man only got what 46% of the popular vote? :D
SicEmBaylor
4/24/2006, 11:40 PM
33% approval rating? BFD. The man only got what 46% of the popular vote? :D
51%
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/25/2006, 12:52 AM
Clinton - Intellectually curious with a successful Presidency.
.
How are you figuring Clinton was successful? Was it his successful sales of US military secrets to China, or the successful deportation of Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba to please Castro, or his successful eradication of the Branch Dividian complex, etc., etc., etc....or the good economy that occurred after the dims got booted from control of Congress in '94?
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/25/2006, 12:59 AM
William - did you hear that stuff today on Rush's show about a 'shadow government'? That's some pretty freaky stuff. Who could have known all the connections that Valarie Plame, her husband, and the CIA leaker (who gave the European Al Quida prison info to the washington post) have? We would have never known about those connections if it weren't for Rush.
It just goes to show what I have always said about liberals - they believe that the ends justifies the means.It doesn't take a genius to notice there are apparently quite a few people in the US govt. that are trying to sabotage repubz-esp. Bush. If he is hugely successful in establishing a representative govt. with a somewhat free market in Iraq, it will set the dims back years, esp. after the way they have tried to bring him down.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/25/2006, 01:06 AM
Agreed.
I blame Bush's sagging numbers more on conservatives getting tired of the out of control spending and immigration than anything else.To the chagrin of the dims, I believe you are right about this. But, I hope repubz won't sit on their hands in Nov., allowing the dims to take over.
Octavian
4/25/2006, 01:35 AM
How are you figuring Clinton was successful? Was it his successful sales of US military secrets to China, or the successful deportation of Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba to please Castro, or his successful eradication of the Branch Dividian complex, etc., etc., etc....or the good economy that occurred after the dims got booted from control of Congress in '94?
Elian smack? Defending a group that worshipped a child molesting false prophet? Equating Clinton w/ a career spy inside the Federal government?
:twinkies:
there's lots of mistakes Bill made which actually concerned matters of the nation...those aren't among them.
Octavian
4/25/2006, 01:40 AM
and the day Clinton was impeached his approval ratings were in the 60% range btw...thats an awful lot of socialists, homos, and union leaders...
seriously, go easy on the Rush...the only thing profound about the man is that his fatass didn't keel over after being on a double digit pill per day diet of speed.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/25/2006, 02:05 AM
and the day Clinton was impeached his approval ratings were in the 60% range btw...thats an awful lot of socialists, homos, and union leaders...
seriously, go easy on the Rush...the only thing profound about the man is that his fatass didn't keel over after being on a double digit pill per day diet of speed.If he ate that many oxys, ya gotta applaud his stamina for surviving, and not showing any effects of the drugs while doing the show. He has supposedly quit taking them, as of several yrs. ago. Also, FWIW he's not all that fat anymore...and he IS brilliant. You really ought to listen to his show for a while. He doesn't distort facts, and has been certified by independent fact checkers to be nearly 100% correct on all the many things he discusses.
Sorry, but Clinton is/was a national disgrace.
Boffingham
4/25/2006, 02:13 AM
It is naturally inherant for humans to bitch about something.
yermom
4/25/2006, 04:07 AM
Rush is brilliant
that is funny ****
Okla-homey
4/25/2006, 05:38 AM
Just some general observations...
During most of his administration, Abraham Lincoln's popularity was lower than Bush's. In fact, the only way Lincoln was re-elected in 1864 was due almost entirely to the military vote. Most of his contemporaries considered Lincoln uncultured, dimwitted and ineffective. Lincoln also dragged the US into a very unpopular war -- at first it was about "saving the union," -- and people were okay with that. Later, it became about "freeing black folks from slavery" and that sparked horribly destructive and expensive riots and great national discord. "No blood for N-----s" was actually a very popular sentiment at the time.
I would just like to point out that presidential popularity (or "approval" or whatever the press chooses to call it) has very little to do with the way history ultimately treats him. I think the fact we have not suffered further attacks here on our soil is the best evidence the president is doing his most important job very well.
I also happen to think the immigration "problem" -- isn't. I think the administration understands as many do in Congress, its too late to do anything about the 10-15 million who are already here and our economy is too dependent on their continued presence to get rid of them even if we could -- which we can't. I think ultimately, after a great deal more demagoguery by pols on both sides of the issue, we'll see some money thrown at securing the southern US border, but hardly any deportations.
The economy is absolutely smokin'. Seriously. The numbers are scary good. As good as any numbers during the Clinton era. People don't recognize it or hail it because of high gas prices. Carter had a crappy economy and high gas prices, was too unpopular to even be re-elected and today he's considered a modern American saint in many quarters around the world.
Right now, its "cool" to consider the president "dumb" and to "hate him." The entertainment industry has helped mightily to make that so.
Speaking simply as a guy who has studied American history for most of his life, it doesn't matter much in the final analysis if people "hate" or think the president is "dumb." What matters is his steadfastness in his resolve to do what he thinks is best for ALL Americans.
Just saying.
walkoffsooner
4/25/2006, 07:37 AM
his approval rating really sucks in Florida.Oh i forgot it always did.
SOONER44EVER
4/25/2006, 08:09 AM
Why did I just read this entire thread? :eek:
sooneron
4/25/2006, 08:12 AM
Why did I just read this entire thread? :eek:
B/c you wanted to see Wm Favor refer to deomcrats as dims. It's priceless, I tell you! That guy is like Richard Pryor or something. Genius.
OklahomaTuba
4/25/2006, 08:22 AM
Just some general observations...
During most of his administration, Abraham Lincoln's popularity was lower than Bush's. In fact, the only way Lincoln was re-elected in 1864 was due almost entirely to the military vote. Most of his contemporaries considered Lincoln uncultured, dimwitted and ineffective. Lincoln also dragged the US into a very unpopular war -- at first it was about "saving the union," -- and people were okay with that. Later, it became about "freeing black folks from slavery" and that sparked horribly destructive and expensive riots and great national discord. "No blood for N-----s" was actually a very popular sentiment at the time.
I would just like to point out that presidential popularity (or "approval" or whatever the press chooses to call it) has very little to do with the way history ultimately treats him. I think the fact we have not suffered further attacks here on our soil is the best evidence the president is doing his most important job very well.
I also happen to think the immigration "problem" -- isn't. I think the administration understands as many do in Congress, its too late to do anything about the 10-15 million who are already here and our economy is too dependent on their continued presence to get rid of them even if we could -- which we can't. I think ultimately, after a great deal more demagoguery by pols on both sides of the issue, we'll see some money thrown at securing the southern US border, but hardly any deportations.
The economy is absolutely smokin'. Seriously. The numbers are scary good. As good as any numbers during the Clinton era. People don't recognize it or hail it because of high gas prices. Carter had a crappy economy and high gas prices, was too unpopular to even be re-elected and today he's considered a modern American saint in many quarters around the world.
Right now, its "cool" to consider the president "dumb" and to "hate him." The entertainment industry has helped mightily to make that so.
Speaking simply as a guy who has studied American history for most of his life, it doesn't matter much in the final analysis if people "hate" or think the president is "dumb." What matters is his steadfastness in his resolve to do what he thinks is best for ALL Americans.
Just saying.
Excellent analysis.
The media's pure unabashed hatred of GWB also hurts him a lot. I think its all finally starting to show its effects.
When it comes to the midterms, I am all for the dimz kicking the snot outta the GOP. It will help the GOP in the long term by getting rid of some of the RINO's and reminding people what the dimz stand for (liberalism, socialism, poor national security, high taxes, even more outta control spending).
OklahomaTuba
4/25/2006, 08:54 AM
Well, they are both republicans, fought unpopular but important wars, had dimz calling for us to retreat, and both had better poll numbers than Jimmy Carter.
Well, they are both republicans, fought unpopular but important wars, had dimz calling for us to retreat, and both had better poll numbers than Jimmy Carter.
I'm pretty certain Abe could read though.
OklahomaTuba
4/25/2006, 09:10 AM
I'm pretty certain Abe could read though.
Yet another thing they have in common! :D
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/25/2006, 11:14 AM
When it comes to the midterms, I am all for the dimz kicking the snot outta the GOP. It will help the GOP in the long term by getting rid of some of the RINO's and reminding people what the dimz stand for (liberalism, socialism, poor national security, high taxes, even more outta control spending).Not such a good wish. In a time of war like we have, it could be a costly setback to natl. security for those guys to be in leadership. I don't believe the throw up your hands and give up policy is ever good for anything-long or short run. A better wish, IMO, is to have the RINO's lose in the primaries to better candidates.
Harry Beanbag
4/25/2006, 12:18 PM
I'm not familiar with the RINO term yet. Who are they?
yermom
4/25/2006, 12:21 PM
Republican In Name Only
like W ;)
soonerscuba
4/25/2006, 12:28 PM
I'm not familiar with the RINO term yet. Who are they?
Moderates generally, they often come from areas that if it wasn't them it would be a Democrat and people that don't know anything about regional party discrepancies love to bitch about them.
Apply exact same logic to DINO, and reverse terms and it is equally true.
Republican In Name Only.
Examples, truly rotten bastards and banes on society such as McCain, Chaffey, Boren, Liberman, Colin Powell, Giuliani, etc.
KABOOKIE
4/25/2006, 12:30 PM
I thought Rhino was some cry baby poke fan who tipped the NCAA to OU's major-major violations?
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/25/2006, 12:32 PM
Republican In Name Only
like W ;)He's more like a KRINO? Kinda Republican, not a full-blown RINO, but certainly no fiscal conservative.
Harry Beanbag
4/25/2006, 12:34 PM
Thanks guys.
Harry Beanbag
4/25/2006, 12:35 PM
I thought Rhino was some cry baby poke fan who tipped the NCAA to OU's major-major violations?
That's Ryno. :eddie:
TexasLidig8r
4/25/2006, 12:37 PM
pish posh.
All we need to do is..
Withdraw from NATO.
Withdraw from the UN and kick the UN OUT of New York.
Give HUGE tax incentives for domestic R & D and production of petroleum.
Give HUGE tax incentives for auto producers to manufacture vehicles which get in excess of 50 miles to the gallon.
Give HUGE tax incentives for companies to develop alternative fuels not only for vehicles, but for all forms of energy.
Make the Middle East obsolete.. thank you for playing, we don't need your product any longer.. you are free to self implode and rot for all we care.. Oh... by the way... you attack one American site, we turn your sandbox into the world's largest piece of shiny glass... Now. go back to killing each other.
humph.
Veritas
4/25/2006, 12:37 PM
Republican In Name Only
like W ;)
I like PCJND for "Pretend Conservative Jesus Name Dropper".
Yeah, I know, "puhcunjundy" doesn't have the same ring as "Rino" but I think it could catch on.
Harry Beanbag
4/25/2006, 12:39 PM
pish posh.
All we need to do is..
Withdraw from NATO.
Withdraw from the UN and kick the UN OUT of New York.
Give HUGE tax incentives for domestic R & D and production of petroleum.
Give HUGE tax incentives for auto producers to manufacture vehicles which get in excess of 50 miles to the gallon.
Give HUGE tax incentives for companies to develop alternative fuels not only for vehicles, but for all forms of energy.
Make the Middle East obsolete.. thank you for playing, we don't need your product any longer.. you are free to self implode and rot for all we care.. Oh... by the way... you attack one American site, we turn your sandbox into the world's largest piece of shiny glass... Now. go back to killing each other.
humph.
Lid for President!
I feel dirty now. Hook 'em
slickdawg
4/25/2006, 12:49 PM
W's approval number slips lower than his waist size, but still well above his IQ.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/25/2006, 12:58 PM
pish posh.
All we need to do is..
Withdraw from NATO.
Withdraw from the UN and kick the UN OUT of New York.
Give HUGE tax incentives for domestic R & D and production of petroleum.
Give HUGE tax incentives for auto producers to manufacture vehicles which get in excess of 50 miles to the gallon.
Give HUGE tax incentives for companies to develop alternative fuels not only for vehicles, but for all forms of energy.
Make the Middle East obsolete.. thank you for playing, we don't need your product any longer.. you are free to self implode and rot for all we care.. Oh... by the way... you attack one American site, we turn your sandbox into the world's largest piece of shiny glass... Now. go back to killing each other.
humph.Way to go, lid! I didn't know they taught real economics at whorn law school!!!
Just some general observations...
During most of his administration, Abraham Lincoln's popularity was lower than Bush's. In fact, the only way Lincoln was re-elected in 1864 was due almost entirely to the military vote. Most of his contemporaries considered Lincoln uncultured, dimwitted and ineffective. Lincoln also dragged the US into a very unpopular war -- at first it was about "saving the union," -- and people were okay with that. Later, it became about "freeing black folks from slavery" and that sparked horribly destructive and expensive riots and great national discord. "No blood for N-----s" was actually a very popular sentiment at the time.
I would just like to point out that presidential popularity (or "approval" or whatever the press chooses to call it) has very little to do with the way history ultimately treats him. I think the fact we have not suffered further attacks here on our soil is the best evidence the president is doing his most important job very well.
I also happen to think the immigration "problem" -- isn't. I think the administration understands as many do in Congress, its too late to do anything about the 10-15 million who are already here and our economy is too dependent on their continued presence to get rid of them even if we could -- which we can't. I think ultimately, after a great deal more demagoguery by pols on both sides of the issue, we'll see some money thrown at securing the southern US border, but hardly any deportations.
The economy is absolutely smokin'. Seriously. The numbers are scary good. As good as any numbers during the Clinton era. People don't recognize it or hail it because of high gas prices. Carter had a crappy economy and high gas prices, was too unpopular to even be re-elected and today he's considered a modern American saint in many quarters around the world.
Right now, its "cool" to consider the president "dumb" and to "hate him." The entertainment industry has helped mightily to make that so.
Speaking simply as a guy who has studied American history for most of his life, it doesn't matter much in the final analysis if people "hate" or think the president is "dumb." What matters is his steadfastness in his resolve to do what he thinks is best for ALL Americans.
Just saying.
Homey, I agree with most of what you are saying, except for the part you bolded. Simply pointing to the absence of attacks does not nessecarily imply that the president is doing a good job on national security. Without further evidence, all you have is a correlation, and no indication of causation.
Now, if you had mentioned the fact that some terrorists plotting attacks on america had in fact been caught due to the actions of the president, or the fact that the president has given middle eastern terrorists a more convienient target in Iraq, etc. as evidence that he is doing a good job on national security, then you might have a case. But just stating that we have not been attacked as evidence that he is doing a good job is simply wrong. It would be like me saying that my new shoes repel tigers. I haven't been attacked by a tiger, or even seen one since I bought them. Thus they obviously repel tigers.
I know its nitpicky, but its an argument I've grown really sick of lately, especially when absolutely no other evidence presented. For the president to be doing a good job on national security, he must actively make it much more difficult for terrorists to carry out attacks on American soil. The absence of attacks does not nessecarily imply that he has done that.
yermom
4/25/2006, 01:17 PM
by that reasoning, he's the worst since the worst one was during his term
Okla-homey
4/25/2006, 01:26 PM
Homey, I agree with most of what you are saying, except for the part you bolded. Simply pointing to the absence of attacks does not nessecarily imply that the president is doing a good job on national security. Without further evidence, all you have is a correlation, and no indication of causation.
Now, if you had mentioned the fact that some terrorists plotting attacks on america had in fact been caught due to the actions of the president, or the fact that the president has given middle eastern terrorists a more convienient target in Iraq, etc. as evidence that he is doing a good job on national security, then you might have a case. But just stating that we have not been attacked as evidence that he is doing a good job is simply wrong. It would be like me saying that my new shoes repel tigers. I haven't been attacked by a tiger, or even seen one since I bought them. Thus they obviously repel tigers.
I know its nitpicky, but its an argument I've grown really sick of lately, especially when absolutely no other evidence presented. For the president to be doing a good job on national security, he must actively make it much more difficult for terrorists to carry out attacks on American soil. The absence of attacks does not nessecarily imply that he has done that.
Point taken Ike, but suffice to say, the mathematical odds that serious and substantial attacks have not been secretly thwarted are pretty compelling given the sheer number of people in the world who are given to a fanatical resolve to do us great harm.
You should also be willing to concede that thwarted attacks may not be disclosed in order to protect sensitive and vulnerable methods, operatives and sources of intelligence.
We haven't even suffered an embassy attack since 911 and those are generally pretty easy pickings for a person who doesn't mind losing his life in accomplishment of his mission.
On the whole, I can't conceive of such a postive outcome unless the administration was doing a bang-up (pardon the pun) job.
IOW, how else is such an outcome possible? I say, re sipsa loquitor.
Point taken Ike, but suffice to say, the mathematical odds that serious and substantial attacks have not been secretly thwarted are pretty compelling given the sheer number of people in the world who are given to a fanatical resolve to do us great harm.
You should also be willing to concede that thwarted attacks may not be disclosed in order to protect sensitive and vulnerable methods, operatives and sources of intelligence.
We haven't even suffered an embassy attack since 911 and those are generally pretty easy pickings for a person who doesn't mind losing his life in accomplishment of his mission.
On the whole, I can't conceive of such a postive outcome unless the administration was doing a bang-up (pardon the pun) job.
IOW, how else is such an outcome possible? I say, re sipsa loquitor.
I do concede that it is likely that there have been numerous thwarted attacks, and that this information is not usually released for public consumption. However, there are other ways for this outcome to be possible, that are not talked about much. Way the first: we hurt OBL and AQ pretty badly in Afghanistan and/or cut off a lot of their money. Being paitent little terrorists, they are spending most of their time regrouping and planning bigger attacks for thier future re-emergence that we don't know about. So while we think the Prez is doing everything hunky-dory, the real cause of the absence of attacks is that AQ isn't trying to do anything, or that the things they are trying to do are very small in magnitude.
Way the second: AQ might see kicking us out of Iraq as being much higher on its agenda than attacking us here at home, and thusly concentrate most of their resources on Iraq. Once we are out of Iraq, regardless of the state that Iraq is in at that time, its entirely possible that they will again look towards attacking us here at home more often, and when that happens, we may or may not be prepared to thwart their efforts.
Just one more point about Iraq that should have been appended to my last post:
Some will argue that the war in Iraq is helping with national security. I don't (and I argue that the average Joe Citizen doesn't either) have enough information to asses whether or not Iraq really is increasing our national security, or just temporarily delaying the question of whether or not we are secure here at home. I can certainly see it as being possible that we 'win' in Iraq, and establish a working democracy, train all their security forces and withdraw without having hidered AQ enough to prevent them from attacking us here at home once we withdraw.
OklahomaTuba
4/25/2006, 01:55 PM
I do concede that it is likely that there have been numerous thwarted attacks, and that this information is not usually released for public consumption. However, there are other ways for this outcome to be possible, that are not talked about much. Way the first: we hurt OBL and AQ pretty badly in Afghanistan and/or cut off a lot of their money. Being paitent little terrorists, they are spending most of their time regrouping and planning bigger attacks for thier future re-emergence that we don't know about. So while we think the Prez is doing everything hunky-dory, the real cause of the absence of attacks is that AQ isn't trying to do anything, or that the things they are trying to do are very small in magnitude.
Way the second: AQ might see kicking us out of Iraq as being much higher on its agenda than attacking us here at home, and thusly concentrate most of their resources on Iraq. Once we are out of Iraq, regardless of the state that Iraq is in at that time, its entirely possible that they will again look towards attacking us here at home more often, and when that happens, we may or may not be prepared to thwart their efforts.
Even though there is plenty of evidence out there that attacks have been thwrated (see the plans AQ had for LA, the shoe bomber, etc), your arguments come to the same conclusion Ike.
AQ can't attack us NOW because of the GWOT.
So, Bush's administration of the GWOT has kept America safe and allowed our economy to recover from 9/11.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/25/2006, 01:56 PM
AQ and the many other islamist terrorists could also be waiting for a change of administration to rededicate their evil efforts. However, the most LIKELY scenario,IMO, is of effective anti-terrorist activities by the Bush administration.
OklahomaTuba
4/25/2006, 01:58 PM
I think this explains why Osama endorsed Kerry.
Even though there is plenty of evidence out there that attacks have been thwrated (see the plans AQ had for LA, the shoe bomber, etc), your arguments come to the same conclusion Ike.
AQ can't attack us NOW because of the GWOT.
So, Bush's administration of the GWOT has kept America safe and allowed our economy to recover from 9/11.
no, my conclusion is slightly different. Its not that AQ can't attack us because of The War Against Terror, but that they aren't. It's a big difference, becuase the former implies that we have been able to stop them at every turn (maybe we have, maybe we haven't), but the latter implies that it is possible that they aren't really focusing on attacking us here at home.
It's an important distinction because it may in fact be that what you call 'being kept safe' by the Bush administration may very well be an illusion due to circumstances. Instead, I argue that the best one can claim is that Bush has at least distracted them for a while, and that may or may not last.
Hatfield
4/25/2006, 02:08 PM
why is it that even though we "suffered"/experienced various deliveries of anthrax through the mail and other means in the capital and other areas this isn't seen as a terrorist attack? How about incendiary letters sent to multiple gov't officials (esp. on the west coast), why aren't they seen as terrrorist attacks?
homey, i am not attacking you because I really respect your various views and input on matters, but I think you hit on a great point in that all we hear about is how we haven't been attacked since 9/11 and that isn't true. The difference is we have been allowed to forget various instances in order to be able to say we haven't been attacked.
mdklatt
4/25/2006, 02:13 PM
why is it that even though we "suffered"/experienced various deliveries of anthrax through the mail and other means in the capital and other areas this isn't seen as a terrorist attack? How about incendiary letters sent to multiple gov't officials (esp. on the west coast), why aren't they seen as terrrorist attacks?
Who were the perpertrators? Terrorism is about motivatoin as much as MO. For example, the DC sniper attacks were serial killings not terrorist incidents. We certainly haven't had a major terrorist incident since 9/11.
OklahomaTuba
4/25/2006, 02:18 PM
no, my conclusion is slightly different. Its not that AQ can't attack us because of The War Against Terror, but that they aren't.
Again, that has been proven not to be the case.
The list and details from the White House:
1. West Coast airliner plot:
In 2002 the United States disrupted a plot to use shoe bombs to hijack a commercial airliner to attack the tallest building in Los Angeles. The plot was "set in motion" by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks.
"Rather than use Arab hijackers, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed sought out young men from Southeast Asia whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion," Bush said.
2. East Coast airliner plot:
In mid-2003 the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to use hijacked commercial airplanes to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States.
3. The Jose Padilla plot:
In May 2002 the United States disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the alleged plotters, Jose Padilla, allegedly discussed the possibility of using a "dirty bomb" inside the United States. Bush has designated him an "enemy combatant."
4. 2004 British urban targets plot:
In mid-2004 the United States and partners disrupted a plot to bomb urban targets in Britain.
5. 2003 Karachi plot:
In spring 2003 the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to attack westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.
6. Heathrow Airport plot:
In 2003 the United States and several partners disrupted a plot to attack London's Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this alleged attack was undertaken by a major operational figure in the September 11, 2001, attacks.
7. 2004 Britain plot:
In the spring of 2004 the United States and partners, using a combination of law enforcement and intelligence resources, disrupted a plot to conduct large-scale bombings in Britain.
8. 2002 Persian Gulf shipping plot:
In late 2002 and 2003 the United States and a partner nation disrupted a plot by al Qaeda operatives to attack ships in the Persian Gulf.
9. 2002 Strait of Hormuz plot:
In 2002 the United States and partners disrupted a plot to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz, the entrance to the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean.
10. 2003 tourist site plot:
In 2003 the United States and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States. The White House did not list what site that was.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html
Of course this doesn't include the successful attacks on Madrid, London, Bali, etc
Again, that has been proven not to be the case.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html
Of course this doesn't include the successful attacks on Madrid, London, Bali, etc
yes, he has foiled some attacks, and I congratulate him on doing so. However, all of those foiled plots against targets on US soil came before the invasion of Iraq. Afterward, all plots that we know of (successful and unsuccessful) targeted forigen soil.
But the question remains to be asked: Does this mean that they can't attack us, or that they aren't attacking us here at home? Any answer to this question is nothing more than a guess, and more importantly, the reasons that they cant or arent can only be wild speculation on our part. Iraq? maybe. Money flow problems? maybe. Rethinking their strategy? maybe. Focusing on recruiting? could be. All the important guys got caught? maybe that too. There could be any number of reasons. But the point is that we as citizens don't get enough information to make a very informed guess as to whats going on.
Scott D
4/25/2006, 02:41 PM
Well, they are both republicans, fought unpopular but important wars, had dimz calling for us to retreat, and both had better poll numbers than Jimmy Carter.
to be fair the Republicans of Lincoln's day would be shunned as Moderate Democrats today.
Harry Beanbag
4/25/2006, 02:58 PM
no, my conclusion is slightly different. Its not that AQ can't attack us because of The War Against Terror, but that they aren't. It's a big difference, becuase the former implies that we have been able to stop them at every turn (maybe we have, maybe we haven't), but the latter implies that it is possible that they aren't really focusing on attacking us here at home.
It's an important distinction because it may in fact be that what you call 'being kept safe' by the Bush administration may very well be an illusion due to circumstances. Instead, I argue that the best one can claim is that Bush has at least distracted them for a while, and that may or may not last.
I think you're probably right just for the simple fact that our borders are wide the **** open for anybody to walk across. Osama and a herd of camels could crossover into Arizona and nobody would know it.
I envision a day when suicide bombers walk into 100 McDonald's throughout the United States and detonate simultaneously. The havoc an act like that would wreak on American society would dwarf 9-11.
Scott D
4/25/2006, 02:59 PM
I think you're probably right just for the simple fact that our borders are wide the **** open for anybody to walk across. Osama and a herd of camels could crossover into Arizona and nobody would know it.
I envision a day when suicide bombers walk into 100 McDonald's throughout the United States and detonate simultaneously. The havoc an act like that would wreak on American society would dwarf 9-11.
But at least Morgan Spurlock would be celebrating ;)
Harry Beanbag
4/25/2006, 03:07 PM
But at least Morgan Spurlock would be celebrating ;)
True.
http://www.swosu.edu/news/events/panorama/images/spurlock.jpg
I think you're probably right just for the simple fact that our borders are wide the **** open for anybody to walk across. Osama and a herd of camels could crossover into Arizona and nobody would know it.
I envision a day when suicide bombers walk into 100 McDonald's throughout the United States and detonate simultaneously. The havoc an act like that would wreak on American society would dwarf 9-11.
Thats my fear too. It's too damn hard to tell if we are really more secure because of Bush's policies and actions or if we are in reality just as vulnerable as we were on 9/10, and benifiting from other circumstances that may or may not persist. My biggest concern is that these questions, in my humble opinion, deserve far more scrutiny than the American public seems willing to give them. As much as I'd like to trust our leaders when they provide answers to these questions, its hard to trust them, becuase it's only natural for them to take credit for keeping us safe when the reality may be that our safety has absolutely nothing to do with their policies and actions.
OklahomaTuba
4/25/2006, 03:31 PM
Could something still happen? Sure.
The USA is so open anything could happen, and there is not a damn thing we could do to stop it. See the drug trade as a great example.
The fact still stands though. Since September 11th, 2001, at least 10 attacks by AQ have been thwarted and AQ is basically a shell of its former self, unable to launch a major attack on the US homeland in 5 years and stuck in a long hard war in Iraq against us knowing that if they fail to kick us out and topple the fragile Iraqi government they will be seen as weak and useless in the Arab world.
This is the beauty of Iraq and the GWOT, taking the war to them instead of sitting back appeasing them and letting them hit us over and over and over again the way Clinton did.
OklahomaTuba
4/25/2006, 03:35 PM
to be fair the Republicans of Lincoln's day would be shunned as Moderate Democrats today.
What gives you that idea??
I think the fact that Lincoln was so religious and used his Christian beliefs to guide his life and presidency would be enough for the dimz to want to impeach him.
SicEmBaylor
4/25/2006, 03:38 PM
How are you figuring Clinton was successful? Was it his successful sales of US military secrets to China, or the successful deportation of Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba to please Castro, or his successful eradication of the Branch Dividian complex, etc., etc., etc....or the good economy that occurred after the dims got booted from control of Congress in '94?
Because regardless of your position on Clinton's policies he was very very effective and the public largely approved of those policies.
Scott D
4/25/2006, 03:39 PM
What gives you that idea??
I think the fact that Lincoln was so religious and used his Christian beliefs to guide his life and presidency would be enough for the dimz to want to impeach him.
Because the charactarization base of both parties was the polar opposite in the 1860s compared to what it is today. The changeover really didn't happen until the 1920s-1940s.
OklahomaTuba
4/25/2006, 03:40 PM
Because the charactarization base of both parties was the polar opposite in the 1860s compared to what it is today. The changeover really didn't happen until the 1920s-1940s.
While thats a popular analysis, comparing the political struggles of the 1860s to that of the modern day is simply flawed IMO.
Scott D
4/25/2006, 03:42 PM
While thats a popular analysis, comparing the political struggles of the 1860s to that of the modern day is simply flawed IMO.
I didn't compare struggles, I simply said a Republican of 1860 is NOT a Republican of 2006. This isn't rocket science...they only share a common party name.
Vaevictis
4/25/2006, 03:46 PM
Personally, I think that the terrorists just aren't trying that hard.
It would be trivial for a terrorist to go to a oldish school, claim to be a parent who wants to check out the local school system, get a tour to get the layout, and come back at a later time with gobs of ammonia and bleach, and dump it into the HVAC system.
Worse, I can think of a certain regional airport that services commuter jets that is located within a few miles of a certain college football stadium... snag one of those jets, and you can crash it into about 80k people on any given Saturday with what, a minute or less of flight time? And at this particular airport, I can drive up to the hangars with zero security. For the trifecta, they could also fly one into a certain state capitol and another into a certain military AFB. *shrug*
Considering the state of security in the country, I just don't see how they haven't succeeded if they've really been trying. Maybe they only want high profile targets. That won't last forever; eventually, they'll start to settle for lower profile targets, at which point we won't be able to stop them.
SicEmBaylor
4/25/2006, 03:47 PM
To the chagrin of the dims, I believe you are right about this. But, I hope repubz won't sit on their hands in Nov., allowing the dims to take over.
I actually disagree with this approach. It appears that the only time the Republican party is serious about reducing the size of government is when they are a minority party and faced with a rapidly expanding government under Democratic control (why that is different than a rapidly expanding government under Republican control I don't know).
Therefore, I take the position that the Republican Party needs a major national electoral defeat at the ballot box in order to, hopefully, swing them back to the side of fiscal responsibility and limited constitutional government.
In either case, people need to abandon the practice of voting for the lesser of two evils. There are 3rd party alternatives and while, at the moment, it may be throwing your vote away at least you can rest better at night.
The problem with third parties these days is they focus too much on national politics, and not nearly enough on the grass roots level. They need to build their party and organization from the ground up rather than clamoring for that huge 1% of the national vote. In Oklahoma it's damned near impossible to get on the ballot as a 3rd party candidate; you have to register as an independent and then you'll be lucky to see any independent candidates on election day. I'd encourage everyone here to demand more liberal ballot access laws in the state.
But neither party is going to change until they are faced with competitive competition from within their own ideological ranks.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/25/2006, 03:49 PM
Because regardless of your position on Clinton's policies he was very very effective and the public largely approved of those policies.Please elaborate, on what those policies were, and how was he very very effective at anything except making the American people look like fools, for electing his sorry a**...twice.
SicEmBaylor
4/25/2006, 03:54 PM
While thats a popular analysis, comparing the political struggles of the 1860s to that of the modern day is simply flawed IMO.
He's right; in fact I'd be a Democrat were it 1860.
And the reason that it appears flawed to compare modern politics to the political strugges of the 1860s is because those political struggles are largely responsible for the political problems we face today. 1865 marked the death of limited constitutional government at the hands of the Republican Party and President Lincoln. The birth of the Republican Party literally killed limited government.
The two political parties have indeed shifted to a great extent which is why I am a Republican today. Although, the Republican Party has always been the party of business and industry.
Tuba, I'd encourage you to abandon your absolute loyalty to the Republican Party and model yourself as first and foremost as a conservative who hopefully believes in limited government and preserving the originalist intent of the constitution. Accept THAT about yourself first and foremost regardless of how well either party currently conforms to those principles or has in the past.
mdklatt
4/25/2006, 03:55 PM
why that is different than a rapidly expanding government under Republican control I don't know
Because it's Democrat power that's expanding. If it's Republican power that's expanding, a bigger and more intrusive government is just fine.
Buncha ****ing hypocrites.
Harry Beanbag
4/25/2006, 03:56 PM
Considering the state of security in the country, I just don't see how they haven't succeeded if they've really been trying. Maybe they only want high profile targets. That won't last forever; eventually, they'll start to settle for lower profile targets, at which point we won't be able to stop them.
And that's when WWIII will happen because Americans aren't going to stand for being blown up while buying cheap pickles at Wal-Mart. The gloves will be off, anybody looking remotely Muslim will be in big trouble in this country, and nukes will start to fall on Middle Eastern cities.
OklahomaTuba
4/25/2006, 04:03 PM
1865 marked the death of limited constitutional government at the hands of the Republican Party and President Lincoln. The birth of the Republican Party literally killed limited government.
The two political parties have indeed shifted to a great extent which is why I am a Republican today. Although, the Republican Party has always been the party of business and industry.
Tuba, I'd encourage you to abandon your absolute loyalty to the Republican Party and model yourself as first and foremost as a conservative who hopefully believes in limited government and preserving the originalist intent of the constitution. Accept THAT about yourself first and foremost regardless of how well either party currently conforms to those principles or has in the past.
I do not accept this. While 1865 is important, its not as important as 1932 was to party politics today, which was the beginning of the new deal bloat. This is the enigma we face today.
Also, while loyal to the GOP, I am Christian Conservative first and foremost. I have voted both ways and support some things the dimz want such an environmental, education, child welfare, etc.
OklahomaTuba
4/25/2006, 04:06 PM
Because it's Democrat power that's expanding. If it's Republican power that's expanding, a bigger and more intrusive government is just fine.
Buncha ****ing hypocrites.
I guess.
If you forget for a moment that the GOP expands power during war time, while dimz do it during the rest of the time.
SicEmBaylor
4/25/2006, 04:07 PM
its not as important as 1932 was, which was the beginning of the new deal bloat. This is the enigma we face today.
Aye this is true, but what you have to realize is those New Deal policies would have been impossible had the groundwork for enacting those policies not been laid in 1865. Until FDR, Presidents largely limited themselves to their proper constitutional roles (with some notable exceptions like TR) though the groundwork for centralization had already been laid.
Lincoln made FDR possible.
I think I just threw up a little in my pants.
OklahomaTuba
4/25/2006, 04:13 PM
Aye this is true, but what you have to realize is those New Deal policies would have been impossible had the groundwork for enacting those policies not been laid in 1865. Until FDR, Presidents largely limited themselves to their proper constitutional roles (with some notable exceptions like TR) though the groundwork for centralization had already been laid.
Lincoln made FDR possible.
I agree with that. Thats whats great about this experiment, it keeps moving and changing and growing.
mdklatt
4/25/2006, 04:27 PM
If you forget for a moment that the GOP expands power during war time,
When, exactly, is the Global War on Terror going to be over so we can have our civil rights back?
And if you can tell me what things like gay marriage, flag burning, and drug benefits for old people have to do with keeping us safe from terrorists I'd love to hear it.
yermom
4/25/2006, 04:31 PM
When, exactly, is the Global War on Terror going to be over so we can have our civil rights back?
And if you can tell me what things like gay marriage, flag burning, and drug benefits for old people have to do with keeping us safe from terrorists I'd love to hear it.
never.
that is the beauty of it
When, exactly, is the Global War on Terror going to be over so we can have our civil rights back?
When Americans wise up and realize this is all a profiteering effort, and vote the bastards out!
...but then again, that would be un-American...
Scott D
4/25/2006, 04:58 PM
When Americans wise up and realize this is all a profiteering effort, and vote the bastards out!
...but then again, that would be un-American...
if by vote the bastards out you mean anyone who has been a sitting politician whom has held some sort of office at a municipal, state, or federal level for more than 1 term I would concur. If you specifically mean the administration, I would tell you that'd be cutting off the tail of a gecko.
When, exactly, is the Global War on Terror going to be over so we can have our civil rights back?
And if you can tell me what things like gay marriage, flag burning, and drug benefits for old people have to do with keeping us safe from terrorists I'd love to hear it.
I'm at a loss, here. What civil rights did we lose? Please be specific.
I can still say what I want to, worship God the way I want to, own a gun if I want to, vote, cross state lines, work hard, own property, have a trial if I'm accused of a crime. Am I leaving something out? Heck, the only thing that's changed is a bunch of socialist panzies (those judges on the left) on the supreme court saying that the local gov could take my property if they could produce more tax income with it.
NormanPride
4/25/2006, 05:55 PM
I'm at a loss, here. What civil rights did we lose? Please be specific.
I can still say what I want to, worship God the way I want to, own a gun if I want to, vote, cross state lines, work hard, own property, have a trial if I'm accused of a crime. Am I leaving something out? Heck, the only thing that's changed is a bunch of socialist panzies (those judges on the left) on the supreme court saying that the local gov could take my property if they could produce more tax income with it.
OH BOY! :P
oh, and W's numbers are all about the cost of gasoline for most people.
They don't understand simple economics like supply and demand.
China uses 6 times more oil than it did a decade or so ago.
We haven't built any new refineries in 30 years.
The tree huggers won't let us drill for oil anywhere without having a hissy fit.
The oil companies make a profit of around 10 cents per galon of gas, while the government taxes each gallon around 50 cents.
OH BOY! :P
That does sound silly. I mean to say that a guy can work his way up from nothing, either in the corporate world or through his own private enterprise.
And let me say one last thing because I have come to know alot of liberals here that I consider like-able people (well, a few). I don't have anything personal against you. I understand that this is not a world with a monolithic view on how we should live our lives. I understand you want to help poor people and the disadvantaged, etc. which is noble but I disagree with letting government do it all the time. Really, this is all academic for me- perhaps just something to argue about and kill time, cuz there ain't sh** I can do about anything. I'm actually getting really apathetic because I don't think "my side" did what they said they would do in 1994, and they aren't governing very well now, either. So how can I say "don't vote for dems!" when repubs can't govern and not look like a fool? The only thing good in my view is if the repubs got outted in their primaries.
The only thing that really freaks me out is that I have about 6 or 7k dollars in guns laying around and if the dems are elected then I know that senator fienstien witch is going to try and ban them.
I also believe that Bush is getting a bad wrap on the oil price deal because he really can't control that, and not enough credit for a dam*ed good economy.
usmc-sooner
4/25/2006, 07:28 PM
Since when is gay marriage a Bush thing? What presidential administration before Bush allowed gay marriages?
Okla-homey
4/25/2006, 07:37 PM
To be clear on this Lincoln-Bush analogy, I am not implying GWB will go down in history on par with Old Abe. What I'm trying to say that if they had polling back then, Lincoln's numbers would have been in the toilet after late 1861 until the winter of 1864 when it had become obvious the Cornfeds were done.
Even then, some actor (flippin' entertainment types!) in DC still hated him badly enough to put a bullet in the back of his head after the war was won.
To put it mildly, Abe was a tremendously devisive figure.
Its also interesting to note (at least to me) Lincoln was elected in 1860 ONLY because the dem vote was split right down the middle over slavery. That left Abe to slide in and pick up the pieces as the baby Republican party's first prez. IOW, he did not win the popular vote the first time, and only barely managed to pull it off during his re-election bid.
Also, trust me, the hardliner core of the GOP in the mid-nineteenth century were radicals and were considered "out-of-step" with the rest of the country. Mostly because they believed <gasp!> black folks were human beings who deserved the benefits and freedoms granted the rest of us by the Constitution.
Octavian
4/25/2006, 09:32 PM
Since when is gay marriage a Bush thing? What presidential administration before Bush allowed gay marriages?
Actually, its not. A tape recording (which he claims he did not know about) of a conversation between him and a big time Republican funder reveals that George never wanted "to kick gays."
He says that he knows what the Christian Right wanted him to do and he didn't want that....instead he chose to court them verbally w/out ever having to implement many of their social policies. (This has never been more evident than the immigration issue...compared w/ his socially conservative base...GWB sounds like Ted Kennedy...he's a country club Republican who's team thought they could hoodwink rural churchgoers).
This was also evident in the lead-up to 2004 when he half-way "pushed" for a Const. Marriage Amendment so hard-line red-staters would see him as a god fearring zealot w/out him having to really violate the notion of "liberty and justice for all"....Thats why signs declaring "Want Gay Marriage? Vote John Kerry!" appeared in Ohio and Pennsylvania and fliers were sent out in Arkansas and Mississippi proclaiming that Democrats wanted to "make the Bible illegal" w/out Presidential pressure on rank and file GOPers to pass such a measure in Congress. He could talk the talk w/ out....well you know. (which is, not surprisingly, why some GOP strategists are concerned that Roe will actually be overturned)
Thats the genius of a Connecticut born-New England prep school-Yale graduate...PR wizards were able to convince rural voters he wasn't an elite business Republican at all....he was a *wink, wink* "compassionate conservative" that'd implement all their views.
Surprise bitches! Amnesty for All! ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.