Poll: Bush Ratings Hit New Low
- Thread starter Racingwolf
- Start date
When this person can BRAG about having been here two years, makes sweeping generalizations about its participants, and gets angry when it's suggested they clarify it, because they don't know what they're talking about. Then said person shows his ignorance by disparaging the participation of the *owner*, suggesting they have nothing better to do all day.Homesick said:
This is like going to work every day for two years, and asking the security guard out front why he doesn't go get a job instead of standing around all day long. Sometimes, people need to buy a clue.
PJay
Well-Known Member
otter said:It appears to me, Homesick, that Wolf has been around since July 2003, definitely not a newcomer. Ken King said something nicely?? Could you point the thread out to me???
oops, I hadn't noticed the date. Thanks for pointing it out.Yes, his post was mature and nice, you can trust that.
Racingwolf
New Member
SamSpade said:
Well, then let the "owner" kick me off if she doesnt like my posts, but she doesnt seem like the type who can "dish it out and not take it". I am sure she will answer herself and let me have it then and that is fine with me.
I really don't have a problem with anyone on this board, and you have to admit that most of you are Republicans and when a Democrat comes on here they are at a disadvantage. Then again it would be kind of boring now, wouldnt it, if someone didnt disagree once in a while.
Hell of a job, ain't it?SamSpade said:
Homesick, the fact of the matter is that Wolf lashed out without knowing (or caring) about the facts. Quelle surprise. He made an attack, then accused ME of being the attacker. He threw it out there that Bruzilla sucks Bush-butt, obviously without reading a single word that Bruzilla has ever written.
That makes him a flamethrower and I stand by that characterization. He had no idea who or what I am, yet he accused me of being some drone who does nothing more than troll the forums all day (which is true, but not under the circumstances he thought).
I think it's sweet that you want to stick up for him, but I think your charity is misguided.
Racingwolf
New Member
'Homesick said:
Watch out Homesick, you don't want to stick up for me on here, then you will get bad karma points!
See, this is always Step 2: victim status and daring me to toss them because I disagree with their political views. And when I don't toss them, because (unlike the DU) I don't toss people for their opinions, they occasionally resort to language that WILL get them tossed, so they can then complain that I tossed them simply because the disagreed with me politically.Racingwolf said:
I've lost count of how many times this has happened over the last nine years.
Democrats are at a disadvantage nationwide, not just on this board. Maybe if they'd get off the "Bush is an evil Nazi Halliburton-sucking chimp who makes war for no reason" kick, they'd be taken more seriously and quit losing elections.
More victim...Racingwolf said:
Racingwolf
New Member
vraiblonde said:
Hmmmm, sounds like you have Bush down pat with the "evil Nazi-Haliburton sucking chimp who makes war for no reason" quote!!
If you would pull yourself out of his backside and look at what is happening, even within his own party, then maybe you would see that the polls are proving your "joke of a president" is just that..... A Joke!!!!!
We will see what happens next year when the elections come around. I think you can already see that quite a few of your fellow Republicans are distancing themselves from the President and his pack of crazies. Of course I hope he and Rove and Libby and Delay and Frist and all the rest of the traitors and crooks keep right on doing what they do best!!!! Makes it fun to watch the news again!!!! Oh yeah, did you see the PR-stunt go bad for Bush last night? Matt Laurer was oh so good!!!!!!!
See? Here we go again. Please read my posts before you make ignorant comments like that.Racingwolf said:
Racingwolf
New Member
vraiblonde said:
Please don't tell me you are offended by that?
I have read enough of your posts to see that you are a Bush fan.
Racingwolf said:
Okay....I can see where "liberal butt-licking wuss" might be considered a term of endearment for Democrats.
Last edited:
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Racingwolf said:
If you had done your homework, which you haven't, you would know the following, starting with a Mr. Peabody trip back in time to the early 1980s...
Hussein is at war with Iran, and his complete Order Of Battle (OOB) is comprised of Soviet-made equipment. No US-made arms, no US-provided arms, 100% Soviet from missiles to tanks to pistols. In short, we did not arm Iraq during this conflict. What did happen was the U.S. did not use the UN Security Council to block arms shipments to Iraq, which we also didn't do this to block Soviet shipments to Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, etc. either.
Now we go to the late 1980s. The war with Iran was Hussein's opening bid for his optimum goal: unifying the Middle East under his control. He failed with the piecemeal approach and now falls to plan B: take control of the Islamic world by taking control of Mecca - then and now controlled by the Saudis. He can take Mecca, and probably Ryadh, by land, but there's no way he can hold Saudi Arabia while reinforcements come from the ports of Jeddah and Jubail, so he must be able to wage both a land and an amphibious war if he's to win. But there's a problem: Iraq has no deep-water ports to launch an amphib force from, but Kuwait does.
Now we go to 1992, and wondering why Iraq would ever want to take Kuwait when Iraq already has tons of oil and wealth? Because Hussein needs those deep-water ports. He loses Desert Storm, and signs up to a cease fire agreement that stops the fighting. Important point here: a cease-fire is NOT a peace treaty. A cease-fire means that fighting is temporarily suspended under select conditions, while a peace treaty ends all hostilities permanently. Iraq signed the former, and the ceasefire was based on Iraq meeting several conditions, which you can research yourself, and that were consistenly violated by Iraq. That reason, and that alone, is enough to justify going to war.
Now we go to 1993-2001. Hussein's plans A and B for conquering the Middle East are gone, along with the best parts of his OOB. The Republican Guard is a shadow of its former self, most of his Class A armor and most all of his air force is destroyed or "captured" by Iran, and Hussein is now in a very weakened position. So up comes plan C, get some WMDs and use them to keep predators like Turkey and Iran at bay, and use them to force his rule onto other countries. This is why Hussein was so heavilly vested in WMD development, and also shows that Hussein never had any real interest in attacking the US militarily.
What's also going on during this time is that France, Germany, and Russia become the biggest trading partners with Iraq. They lend billions of dollars to Iraq, take oil-for-food dollars, and the GDP of these countries grows as businesses sell to Iraq. Also during this time, Iraq is under no requirement to pay reparations to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait while the restrictions on the sale of oil are in effect, and the restrictions stay in effect until all of the UN resolutions/ceasefire conditions are met. At the same time, Iraq is illegally exporting milllions of barrels of oil through Jordan, Syria, and likely Iran, and Hussein is making more millions by using oil futures to buy influence with leaders in France, Germany, Russia, and apparently the UN. So Hussein is getting to pursue WMDs, which result in violations of UN resolutions, which results in the continued official embargo on Iraqi oil, which results in Hussein not having to pay billions in reparations while selling millions of barrels of oil out the back door and the French, Germans, and Russians are all keeping their economies enriched. See what a fantastic deal this is for everyone involved? And you thought Darth Cheney was a slick operator!
Now we go to 2001, and 9/11. Bush goes into Afghanistan, and then looks to Iraq, Syria, and Iran, countries that actively support terrorism, as the next targets. Of the three, we're still at war (remember that a ceasefire is NOT a peace treaty) with one, Iraq, so it makes sense that's where we hit first.
Now we go to 2002. Thinking back on everything that's gone on over the past ten years, and the fact that most Americans don't think back past ten minutes, Bush spends many months trying to explain to people things like ceasefire violations, support for terrorists, mass murder, and no one is listening because it's too much effort for most people to understand. Then comes the topic of WMDs, and the dreaded mushroom cloud over America, and now Bush has people's attention. It's not the primary reason, and a fairly low secondary reason for going back to Iraq, but it's the only one that most Americans seem to understand and so it get's all the attention.
So, while Hussein had never had any intention of direct military attacks, WMD or conventional, against America that I've ever seen evidence of, what's more important to me is the economic and global security threat that he posed. Notice how France, Germany, and Russia all turned on the United States over a few billion francs, deutchmarks, and rubles worth of loans and oil sales with Iraq (all of which became null and void the minute Hussein was removed from power, hence the true reason for their reluctance to see Hussein removed). What would happen if Hussein did capture Saudi Arabia, Iran, and all the other Gulf States, and controlled not only 40% of our oil but major percentages of the oil going to Japan, most of Europe, etc.? Would these countries be willing to challenge Hussein on anything if he held their economies in his grip? That was the real reason he needed to be taken out.
Racingwolf said:
That was just a joke to get a rise out of Vrai. See... we poke jabs at each other all the time, not just at the new folks.
Racingwolf said:
Again, do your homework. If you'ld read my posts you would know that I was not very happy with Roberts and 100% against Miers's nomination.
Racingwolf said:
Again, do your homework. Capital gains taxes for the past two quarters are way up, which means that businesses are making more money, which means they are doing more business, which means there are more jobs and opportunities for the working class. I am the working class, and I've seen plenty of new business coming in as a result of Bush's tax cuts and Medicare Part D. Granted I didn't get an entitlement check from the government for $300,000, but I have seen my income double because I am willing to work hard and find new opportunities as a result of new business development and since I didn't pay $3,000,000 or so in taxes I don't think I deserve the same tax refund that the guy who did pay $3,000,000 or so got... but that's just me. Just because you didn't get a big entitlement check does not mean the tax cuts "didn't work."
Racingwolf said:
So what if he does? The US Government awards hundreds of contracts every single day, why is it you feel that you must focus on SEVEN that Halliburton got? Listening to you, one would think that Halliburton is cleaning up and getting a majority of the contracts awarded during the year instead of the truth which is they're getting about .01 percent of the contract awards.
Try looking at the whole truth rather than just the select truth that makes your argument... that's what really seperates folks like Vrai, Larry, Ken, Sam, and others from folks like you... no offense.
Last edited by a moderator:
Racingwolf
New Member
Bruzilla said:
Well, looks like you read your Republican handbook!!!
All that talking about what Hussein did and why we should take him out. Hmmmm I wonder why they didnt use your logic when the President gave his state of the union? IF he was saying all of this to the people, why didnt he have Powell say it to the UN in his little WMD speech? I don't seem to recall him saying anything about that. All the country heard was WMD, WMD, WMD. Al Qeada, Iraq, Al Qeada, Iraq. So keep trying to find the "good" reasons we went over there, and maybe you should remind your president of this same information so he wont look like such a JERK the next time he goes on TV and tells the country a WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY!!!!! You might have done your homework on all of this and see the reasons behind why we are there, but that is NOT the reason the American people were given for going to war. Can we say "Enriched Uranium", or how about "Yellow Cake".
Please dont give me that crap about Haliburton ONLY getting 7 contracts. It wouldnt be so bad if they hadnt CHEATED the government out of tons of money by over charging!!!! I don't know about you, but when my tax dollars go to a company that cheats, IT PISSES ME OFF!!!! Sure there are a few other companies that get a lot of contracts, but how often do you see them overcharging and getting away with it? Why would you even want to take up for a company like that?
If there are so many jobs out there right now, why is unemployment up? It is not because of Katrina, yet.
" unemployment rises to 5.1 percent. But analysts say numbers from October will give a better indication of Katrina's impact on the job market."
So? Maybe in your job market they are better, but how much do you want to bet your in a high paying job. Like i said, the richer people are not having problems with Bush's tax cut.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Racingwolf said:
If I might clear something up, that was 98% not my logic, nor did it come from a Republican document. It came from working at the Pentagon, Office of Naval Intelligence, and Naval Air Systems Command during those time periods. My "logic" only comes into play IRT my never seeing any solid documentation that Hussein ever had a goal of attacking the United States. Israel definately, other Muslim countries yes, but the US no. My experience is also why I say with a high degree of certainty that you have more nuclear weapons in your garage than North Korea has... but that's another issue.
Bush tried to use the facts that I offered you, but as I said - most Americans don't care about facts and the media doesn't care much for them either when they don't support their conclusions. We saw the same deal with Social Security reform. At stump speech after stump speech, Bush laid out the main reason for private accounts, that being that in the future politicians are going to have three choices IRT SS - Cut benefits, increase taxes, increase retirement age, and most likely all three will occur. When that happens, and your benefits are cut, what will you have to make up the difference? Right now you've got nothing. Private accounts would allow you to make up some of that difference, not all of it, but some of it. You can also will your accounts to your next of kin, another benefit. But, you probably never heard that discussion in the press. Why? Because the Democrats chose to oppose SS reform by stating, correctly, that private accounts would do nothing to improve the immediate solvency of the program. Bush and the Republicans repeatedly said "yeah, you're right. It won't effect solvency. Solvency will be improved in 20 years when taxes go up and benefits go down, because no politician today has the guts to make those decisions now and the government will wait until a crisis stage is reached. Private accounts are about helping people better deal with those cuts when they do happen." To which the Democrats and press continued saying "But, private accounts do nothing to improve solvency!" And Bush would go through the spiel again, only to have the Democrats and press saying "But, private accounts do nothing to improve solvency!"
In the end the American people didn't want to think about what's going to happen in 20 years or so, they only care about what's going on right now. The Democrats, with the help of the media, framed the debate in terms of immediate solvency, rather than dealing with the pain we're going to feel in the future. And in 20 or so years when people hear that they're SS benefits are getting whacked 25%, and they have no private account to take up the slack, they'll be wondering why nothing was done 20 years before. Now let's look at the Iraq debate. Bush talked about terrorism, he talked about cease-fire violations, he talked about mass murders, he talked about everything that I spelled out to you, and who listened? How many cared about events 10 years ago, or five years ago? All most Americans cared about were their own asses after 9/11, so the only thing that got their attention was the possibility, however remote, that the US could get attacked by Iraqi-provided WMDs. Once that issue was discussed the Democrats were trapped. There was no way they could oppose Bush when the topic was America being attacked again, so they went along. Plus all of the evidence from the 80s and 90s proved he had WMDs and a nuclear program. Those weapons didn't just disintegrate. They are somewhere, most likely Syria since Iran ripped Iraq off when they accepted Hussein's air force to protect it during Desert Storm and never returned the planes and I doubt they would make that mistake again. So in the end we had dozens of reasons to attack Iraq, but only one got any press attention, which is why it's the only one you're familiar with. "All the country heard was WMD, WMD, WMD" because that was all anybody wanted to hear about.
As for the yellow cake, that's another example of selected truth telling. For example, all Bush said was that Iraqi agents had TRIED to purchase yellow cake uranium from Africa (Niger), which is 100% true. Even Wilson acknowledged that fact in his report. But that statement has been morphed by the Democrats and the press into Bush saying "they bought yellow cake..." and "the Iraqis had yellow cake..." but that's not what he or anyone else said. He said that agents had tried to buy it... that's all. Wilson goes to Niger and files his report saying that the Iraqis never bought any yellow cake, and voila! he was right... but Bush never said they had bought any, only that agents had tried to. The forged/bogus memo that showed that Iraqis had purchased yellow cake was not referenced during the SOTU address, only the report from the Brits that agents were trying to buy some. So, what was the tag line for the Democrats, dutifully repeated by the media, that we kept hearing? "Bush lied! He said that the Iraqis had/had bought yellow cake!!!", but in reality he never said that.
Also the same deal with the myth that Republicans said that Hussein was responsible for 9/11. That all stemmed from an interview of Dick Cheney by Tim Russert, and Russert asked Cheney about how some people were believing that Hussein was responsible for 9/11, and Cheney replying that he could understand how people could think that because Hussein did have links with Al Qaeda. He never said that Hussein was behind 9/11, yet that is how the story has morphed over time, primarily by the media. The next thing know youre hearing on every newshow how Cheney said that Hussein planned 9/11 and how this IS A LIE, and do people bother to check the facts? No, they take what they hear and go on their way, blissfully ignorant of the actual truth.
Racingwolf said:
Wolf, I spent 10 years in the Navy, and another 16 as a defense contractor, and I, and I'm sure any other government contractors reading this, can tell you that what you're damning Halliburton for what goes on EVERY SINGLE DAY with contractors across the nation. When Al Gore was working to reform the government he talked to bunch of us at the Pentagon, and the example of chocolate chip cookies came up. Some contractor mentioned how it would take pages of specifications to procure something as simple as a cc cookie, and that doing away with all those specifications would streamline things, to which a government employee said that if those specifications weren't there you would end up with one cookie that has twenty chips in it and the next would have none. Every contract let by the government has multitudes of specs in it, some that make sense and some that are retarted, but it isn't until the execution of the contract that you find a lot of the retarted ones.
For example, Hallibuton is contracted to make 10 cargo deliveries a day between point a and b, but on many days there's no cargo to move. By contract, Halliburton still must make those 10 trips or risk default. And all this because whoever wrote the contract didn't take into account that 10 trips might not be needed every day and didn't write "shall make up to 10 trips" instead of "shall make 10 trips..." Same deal with the cost of gasoline people were yelling about. Halliburton's contract was that gas would be provided at $X.XX/gallon. If gas goes higher, Halliburton has to eat the cost. If it goes lower, they make out to a point (usually up to 11%) then they reimburse the government. But all of these things happen not because of corporate cheeting or lying, but because of badly written contracts.
I've also seen overcharging and cheating at every defense contracting company I've worked for... six at last count, and I know of the same issues going on at every other contractor I've ever worked with. Sometimes it's just a little cheating here and there, sometimes it's major fraud. Lockheed Martin's been convicted of defrauding the government out of far more money than Halliburton's been just accused of, yet when was the last time you heard the name "Lockheed Martin" pass through a Democrat's lips? They've been convicted of more cheating than Halliburton has been accused of. How about Boeing, General Dynamics, or Electric Boat? I missed your ranting about them in your post... did you just forget about them? How about how a front company owned by Jessie Jackson got 250,000 barrels of oil when Clinton released those 1,000,000 barrels from the SPR back in 1999, and then sold them overseas? No, we only hear ranting about Halliburton, and only because Cheney is associated with them. So... how can we take you seriously?
Last edited by a moderator:
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Racingwolf said:
Your logic escapes me. The latest numbers that showed an uptick were the September numbers, which do take into account Katrina. In fact, the Dept. of Labor reported the following: "Nonfarm payroll employment was little changed (-35,000) in September, and the unemployment rate rose to 5.1 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. The measures of employment and unemployment reported in this news release reflect both the impact of Hurricane Katrina, which struck the Gulf Coast in late August, and ongoing labor market trends. Over the 12 months ending in August, payroll employment grew by an average of 194,000 a month and the unemployment rate trended downward. " This makes sense as the 2004 annual unemployment rate was 5.4%, a bit higher than the current "high" 5.1%.
Once again Wolf... do yourself a favor and do some homework before you drink the Democratic kool-aid and embarass yourself.
Racingwolf said:
Wolf, you're still not getting it. Let me give you some numbers. In the first quarter of 2004, I made about $16,000, which was twice as much as I made for the next two quarters combined. During the last quarter, after I found a new job that had just opened, I made $21,000. My wife also was hired at a job that had just been created, and right now we're on track to make well into the six figures. And guess what? I only got a couple hundred back from the government just like you, but that's not the benefit of the tax cuts!!! Dems talked about "The Rich" getting a refund big enough to buy a car, while the poor didn't get enough to buy a muffler. Hey, given a choice between a new job making $100,000 plus a year, or a one-time check for $30,000, I'll take the job everytime!
You and most Democrats are locked into this mindset of "What's the government doing for me today" rather than looking at things long term. You see Joe Fat Cat getting a refund check for $100,000 (after paying $1,000,000 in taxes) and compare that with your paltry $300 check (after paying $3,000 or so in taxes) and say "That's not fair! Joe Fat Cat is getting more than me!!!" You don't see that Mr. Fat Cat is going to invest that $100,000, and that money will generate more jobs so that people can sell you stuff for your $300, and that in the long run the real benefit to you is not the refund check, but more and better jobs. It's the same deal with Social Security. Democrats can't see past that immediate solvency issue to the future when their benefits are going to get cut and they'll need something to take up the slack. If they could see that far they would be begging for private accounts, like I am.
Typical response.Racingwolf said:
Had you read the IWR, which I realize you never will, you'd know exactly why we went to war with Iraq. Just because James Carville says something on TV doesn't make it true.
Hello??? Are you from the moon?
5.1 is piss. Here's your chart: http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm