Poll: Bush Ratings Hit New Low
- Thread starter Racingwolf
- Start date
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051008/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_ap_poll
This helps shed light on lower poll numbers, but it also shows its no gain for the Dems. Just because these people are unhappy with Bush, its because he is not being conservative enough. That just means we wish we had a stronger Republican, but those same people would never vote for a liberal.
So, they are unhappy with Bush because he is being too moderate. You think any Democrat is going to be right enough to make them happy to change their party vote?
This helps shed light on lower poll numbers, but it also shows its no gain for the Dems. Just because these people are unhappy with Bush, its because he is not being conservative enough. That just means we wish we had a stronger Republican, but those same people would never vote for a liberal.
So, they are unhappy with Bush because he is being too moderate. You think any Democrat is going to be right enough to make them happy to change their party vote?
Hey now, wait a minute there...I only voted for him because the other choices were eGore, and sKerry, respectively. Bush has never proven himself to be a true conservative. It irks me to think that an ever bigger lefty will be running the show in a few years.vraiblonde said:
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Toxick said:
Well... getting shot in the balls is better than getting shot in the head, but I really wouldn't want either.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Any talk of what...
...Kerry or Gore woulda, coulda or shoulda been is put to rest with finality by...Democrats.
After swearing up and down that Gore was our President after 2000, they wanted NOTHING to do with him in '04. Some champion. Some deep love there.
Same thing for Kerry. He is radioactive. He may run again but he is saddled with all of his unanswered questions about his military record and his zero defense of being the liberal Senator from a state whose other Senator is...
Ted Kennedy.
Al and JFK's records speak for themselves; duds. Democrats short term infatuation with both of them speaks to the tone deaf.
...Kerry or Gore woulda, coulda or shoulda been is put to rest with finality by...Democrats.
After swearing up and down that Gore was our President after 2000, they wanted NOTHING to do with him in '04. Some champion. Some deep love there.
Same thing for Kerry. He is radioactive. He may run again but he is saddled with all of his unanswered questions about his military record and his zero defense of being the liberal Senator from a state whose other Senator is...
Ted Kennedy.
Al and JFK's records speak for themselves; duds. Democrats short term infatuation with both of them speaks to the tone deaf.
Pete
Repete
:jimmycarter: Dems wants instant success, if you don't deliver you are branded a loser. Come to think of it.....they are right, too bad they wait til after the loser loses to discover it.Larry Gude said:
I think the biggest loser is going to be Edwards. When things heat up the "silky pony" of the Dems is going to be surprised at the cold embrace he gets this time around. I doubt he breaks double digits in poll numbers.
Otter
Nothing to see here
Racingwolf said:
I am so sick of hearing about Halliburton being favored by the Bush administration when they were given a ton of work by the Clinton administration in Kosovo and other places. The type of work they do is not something that many companies can handle or have expertise in. Why was it fine during the Clinton administration for Halliburton to receive billions of dollars in no-bid contracts and now it's not??
Last edited:
Because Darth Cheney wasn't VP during the Clinton Admin. His connection to Halliburton is something they can make a big deal over and accuse him of cronyism (which Clinton, of course, never did - his cousin really was a White House travel expert and highly qualified for the jobotter said:
)Remember how they went crazy trying to connect Bush to Enron, just because Bush knew Ken Lay socially? Even though this corruption ran rampant under Clinton and it got shut down under Bush?
It just doesn't make any sense.
RacingWolf? Where are you?
I find it interesting that Bush bashers come on here, drop a bomb, then refuse to participate in the discussion that ensues. Larry didn't even disagree with RacingWolf, he just asked a question and got a spew of anger and vitriol in return. Then they accuse "US REPUBLICANS" of attacking them.
Go figure.
I find it interesting that Bush bashers come on here, drop a bomb, then refuse to participate in the discussion that ensues. Larry didn't even disagree with RacingWolf, he just asked a question and got a spew of anger and vitriol in return. Then they accuse "US REPUBLICANS" of attacking them.
Go figure.
Mikeinsmd
New Member
:dummycrat-tactics:vraiblonde said:RacingWolf? Where are you?
I find it interesting that Bush bashers come on here, drop a bomb, then refuse to participate in the discussion that ensues. Larry didn't even disagree with RacingWolf, he just asked a question and got a spew of anger and vitriol in return. Then they accuse "US REPUBLICANS" of attacking them.
Go figure.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
americans like to start wars, but don't like them to last a long time so this really isn't suprising. Every extended war we have had, with maybe the exception of WWII Americans have disliked dating all the way back to the Revolutionary. The Great War (WWI) was strongly disliked and look at Veitnam and Korea.
Americans have to be forced into a war.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
That all depends on how you choose to look at it. It doesn't take much of a push. Spanish-American war shoudn't have even happened, Vietnam was someone elses war to begin with, we just bailed them out. WWI and WWII, the Rev and 1812 were right on, we had to. Mexican american war was just all about land. all I'm saying is that whenever anything happens, we look to our military first, then other roads.
Besides the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, which of these did we start? Spanish-American war was going on when we got involved, Vietnam had been raging for years, WWI and WWII we went into clawing and dragging our feet trying to avoid, the Mexian-American War was one of two new nations evolving after gaining independence for themsleves. It was more of border normalization as each nation claimed the territory for their own. Hell the US even tried to purchase the property from Mexico through diplomatic means, which failed resulting in the Mexican attack of April 25, 1946.
I think we rarely look to our military as a first option or we wouldn't have a lot of the mess we do today from years of failed and worthless diplomatic attempts like what were expended on Iraq.
I think we rarely look to our military as a first option or we wouldn't have a lot of the mess we do today from years of failed and worthless diplomatic attempts like what were expended on Iraq.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
Hey, I love war. It's the only time we in the military get the appreciation we deserve by the whole of society. During times of peace, our pay gets cut, people scorn us (not everyone obviously) or worse, feel sorry for us. For example, I find it ironic that the same people in Va Beach that screemed against the jet noise at Oceana suddenly became very quiet, even supportive after 9/11. 4 years later and the screams return. They might get thier wish now and economically it will kill them. Ultimately, I think his numbers are going down because people don't see the long term, they just see the gas prices higher, what looks like an "apparent" stalemate in Iraq (cause they don't understand the rebuilding process) and the big man on top always gets the blame, whether he deserves it or not. What he needs to do is stomp on the GOP because there is no reason what so ever that they should be making such a fuss over his new selection. Right or wrong, if they don't show a unified front behind thier candidate, things will fall appart.
War sucks and should be avoided unless there is no other option. For Iraq, I say there was no other option as we had exhausted all our dilpomatic options and something needed to be done.Bustem' Down said:
As to the quote above, I don't recall much appreciation back in the early 70s. Matter of fact it wasn't fun being in the military around our society.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
That seems to be the only exception to the rule and I blame that on drugs. Blame the government for wars you don't like, not the military. It's not our decision to go or not.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Bustem' Down said:
An "apparent" stalemate? What would you call a real stalemate... if we had to withdraw our troops to Kuwait and make cross-border assaults? We are being stalemated in Iraq and it has nothing to do with the rebuilding process. Many of the folks we are fighting today were the ones who surrendered after the RT 8 massacre in 92, after you had Apache helicopters chewing up Iraqi troops one by one, after it became apparent that Schwartzkopf would show no enemy any quarter or mercy. That got their attention. Now we shoot a few bad guys and go back to our basecamps... just like Vietnam, which does nothing but embolden the bad guys. The rebuilding process would function much better if we weren't circle jerking with the insurgents. Not only is this a distraction to the process but it's giving the Sunni minority a lot more weight than they deserve.
As for the sound of freedom debate, VA Beach isn't alone. Our pinhead Mayor Peyton just yanked Jacksonville's bid for Oceana's assets because a few dozen residents near Cecil Field were whining about the anticipated noise.