four more years! four more years!

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Azazel
afaik, polls show support at 53 percent. Is that considered high?

Might be enough to win if the election was today, but it has dropped tremendously and hardly anyone even knows who the challengers are.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Jesus people, you basically ran out all those who were having (except for a few rants) a rather good discussion, and turned it into a pissing contest over one of the most stupid things I have yet to read on these forums. I used to think the liberals I argue against were the most ignorant people around. I stand corrected.

You both seem to agree that you are adults, so how about after this post we just don't here anything else from either of you. Unless is is OT

The simple procedure for reasonable folks who like to have reasonable discussions that stay OT is to hit that complaint button when the thread starts to go off course. That way we can clean it up before it gets out of hand. When the first complaint I see is someone whining about someone else's signature, and the off the topic pissing match is already going full bore, then it's a little late.

At this point, talking about Bush's reelection chances is absurdly premature, even if Bush had support numbers in the Gray Davis range. There is no recall, so you have the full 16 months to go, which is virtual eternity in electoral politics. You'd be hard pressed to make intelligent predictions six months from now, and you're on pretty shaky ground right up until next summer, at least.

[Kidicious]

I got a good laugh out of the cartoon. Bush is trying to campaign, but the guys think he means they will be there for 4 more years.

[gopher]

Springer for Senate!

Edit: Jerry! Jerry!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Bieng one of those serviceman, you are hard pressed to find any who think Bush's war policy is wrong.

Currently serving, or former?

We all knew we would be there longer than he said because we know how this works, the comments were for civilian armchair generals who think everything is life is easy and free.

Actually, they're called taxpayers, and we/they foot the bills. We/they also deal with the results of overcommitment of forces, excessive focus on threats of limited immediate potential (i.e. Iraq should come behind the DPRK)

If we doing the dying can handle the casualties (not that we like it, but some things are worth dying for, and if you are not in the service don't bother adding your two cents to that comment because you have no right to. No matter how much you think you do trunst me you don't. Free speech says you can say what you want, not that you should) so can you. If we think Bush is handling things IN THIS ASSPECT of his presidency well, then you should take our enlightended word for it.

Maybe you're an O9 in CentCom, or work at ISE-McPherson, so you have a more enlightened view, but the average 11-Bravo, 11-Mike, 12-Bravo, 33, etc. on the ground has a worm's eye view at best.

You actually attacked Bush for personally going to a returning ship to welcome the boys home and give them a job well done.

On the drive home, I can generally see returning CV's when they're flying off planes and getting ready to come into port at North Island. They don't normally hang around within sight of shore (or at least elevated points on the Mexican side, so they weren't readily visible from Mt. Soledad or elevated shoreline sites in San Diego) for 3-4 days to handle all their pre-docking stuff. It's usually about 2 days, tops.

Bush could have "welcomed the boys home" in any number of ways, in any number of places, far less obtrusive (and delaying of family reunions, etc.) than a stunt landing on a carrier deck, to use it as the backdrop for a political speech. If Bush's daddy had done it, it would at least have a tinge more credibility, Bush sr. earned naval aviator's wings, but if Bush's real goal was to welcome the troops, he had dozens of other opportunities which presented at least less nominal risk to the Commander in Chief, which cost less taxpayer money, and which were less promoted as publicity seeking stunts. It's not as low as Clinton going to Walter Reed to try to get photo-ops with wounded Rangers, I'll hand you that, but it's still not particularly appropriate top-level leadership.

Because of course the leader of the nation and our Commander and Chief has no buisness doing that, right?

Considering the cost of carrier flight ops, the cost of getting the President to the opposite coast with his entourage and both security and secure Comms/CP, etc., while the budget is ass over teakettle and people are out of jobs, Bush could pick more appropriate leadership style.

That in itself is why the Bush will win, because all his opponents have a nasty habit of shooting themselves in the head.

They do that, but Bush has an as-yet untapped ability to screw up as well. The rough, tough, Sheriff George act will only take him so far. Let's see how those deficit and employment numbers shape up with the "the world is a safer place because I dusted Saddam" rhetoric.

[MichaeltheGreat]

BTW, for those wondering where two posts went, threadjack time is over.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
BTW, for those wondering where two posts went, threadjack time is over.

[Ming]

OH... I see MtG is already on the scene... never mind me

[Giancarlo]

That really hurt. I put a lot of time into that post. At least you could sent it to me via private message so I could of continued it with Evil in private messaging.

[Ming]

Stop your whining... MtG doesn't like whiners... and neither do I...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ming
Stop your whining... MtG doesn't like whiners... and neither do I...

Ban them all and let God sort it out.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ming
Stop your whining... MtG doesn't like whiners... and neither do I...

Well I am not whining, just upset as I really did put a lot of work into that post.

[Sava]

@ this thread...

good points MtG... this is a Democracy, and it's a shame to see someone who claims to be in the Armed Forces protesting against the public's right to challenge the president's policy. Patrokolos has apparantly forgotten what he's fighting for (or claims to be fighting for).

But I agree, it's too early to call the election. That's why we can only discuss current approval numbers and how current presidential hopefuls are doing. It's dangerous to even predict the outcome up until the day before the election... anyone remember, "Dewey Defeats Truman"?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Fez
That really hurt. I put a lot of time into that post. At least you could sent it to me via private message so I could of continued it with Evil in private messaging.

I didn't ban you for a week in addition, did I, ingrate?

What you do, is sit down, shut up, and don't move until I forget you exist. What you do not do is continue to say/do anything that will make me continue to notice you.

If you reply to this in any way, it will be clear you need further education. If you do not reply to this in any way, and I'm not otherwise reminded of your existence for the rest of the evening, then it will be clear we finally understand each other.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dissident
but the democrats threw away all the military votes- most of whom voted for Bush

Actually, they didn't. As soon as the Republicans started bleating about how the Dem's were trying to take away military votes, the Dem's stopped challenging the thousands of illegal absentee ballots that were coming in after the election. They were neither signed, nor witnessed, nor were they post-marked before the election. They never should have been counted. This is another place where the Republicans broke the law and the Democrats let them.

Meanwhile, 90,000 legal voters were declared ineligible by Bush, simply because they shared some data in common with a felon, including some for crimes that were aparently committed in the future.

There was nothing fair and square about it. I got stamped with the approval of SCOTUS and Congress, so it's legal, but it sure as hell shouldn't have been.

[Sava]

Good point Che... and just because the SCOTUS says so, doesn't make it right. I'm sure a lot of the same conservatives defending Bush's "legitimacy" are the same one's denouncing the court for it's ruling against the Texas sodomy laws. And the fact that Bush had Scalia and Rhenquist in his pocket helped a lot... it's a shame we have such corrupt people on the nation's highest court.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
@ this thread...

good points MtG... this is a Democracy, and it's a shame to see someone who claims to be in the Armed Forces protesting against the public's right to challenge the president's policy. Patrokolos has apparantly forgotten what he's fighting for (or claims to be fighting for).

It's a question of granularity. I agree that there's some areas that ignorant civilians, Lima Delta's that you all are , should shut the **** up and listen to the professionals.

When it gets to the level of fundamental policy issues, and/or the President specifically, that's fully game for the public to make whatever comments they want, informed, uninformed, or any shade in between. The President is a civilian, his role as CINC is only because it is a constitutionally defined role of the political office of the Presidency.

[Sava]

It's a question of granularity. I agree that there's some areas that ignorant civilians, Lima Delta's that you all are , should shut the **** up and listen to the professionals.

Perhaps in planning military strategies... but foreign policy is best left to civies... for whom military "solutions" are the last option, not the first.

And plus, the army has it's own version of white collar and blue collar. There are many "decorated" leaders that won't ever see an enemy combatant in their lives. Military experience is good, but not paramount.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually, they didn't. As soon as the Republicans started bleating about how the Dem's were trying to take away military votes, the Dem's stopped challenging the thousands of illegal absentee ballots that were coming in after the election. They were neither signed, nor witnessed, nor were they post-marked before the election. They never should have been counted. This is another place where the Republicans broke the law and the Democrats let them.

Meanwhile, 90,000 legal voters were declared ineligible by Bush, simply because they shared some data in common with a felon, including some for crimes that were aparently committed in the future.

Somebody must have done a good job mummifying this horse, for it to hold up under this much beating this long after it's dead.

Voter eligibility and registration is preliminarily handled at the county level, and you have county administrators and state officials of both parties playing games all the time, all over the country, to further the interest of their own political parties. The Democrat Cali SecState just got handslapped by an appellate court for foot-dragging and scoping games on counting whether there are enough valid signatures to recall Davis. A month or so of delay, and Davis can duck the issue until the March primary, when the liberal Dems in the state would be out in force.

Instead of *****ing past tense ad nauseum (and turning off a large portion of the electorate who is more interested in real issues than one-trick pony carping about an election which is now irrelevant), what happened to any concerted movement to enforce minimum standards for conduct of Federal elections? Why fix a problem, when it's so much easier to just ***** about it, right?

There was nothing fair and square about it. I got stamped with the approval of SCOTUS and Congress, so it's legal, but it sure as hell shouldn't have been.

The fact it's legal makes it fair and square. If you don't like the results the law allows, change the laws.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
Perhaps in planning military strategies... but foreign policy is best left to civies... for whom military "solutions" are the last option, not the first.

Foreign policy and military policy are indistinguishable, unless you want to stick with a "defend the borders" liberterarium fantasy world. Military options shouldn't be "first" (they weren't, otherwise these *******s wouldn't have been around long enough to irritate us), nor should they be "last" - it really should be a simple question of which approach will yield the best overall result.

And plus, the army has it's own version of white collar and blue collar. There are many "decorated" leaders that won't ever see an enemy combatant in their lives. Military experience is good, but not paramount.

We call those "REMFs"

[Sava]

Military options shouldn't be "first"

I agree, someone should tell Bush and the Neo-Cons, who planned the Iraqi War in the late 90's. It's too bad these morons didn't bother to plan the occupation. As evil as those guys are, I doubt the aftermath is going according to plan.

We call those "REMFs"

enlighten me please!

[Q Classic]

he might. i won't vote for him.

then again, i won't vote for any of the dems, nor would i vote for nader or the next potential green candidate, the idiot lady cynthia mckinney.

which leaves me no real person to vote for.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava
I agree, someone should tell Bush and the Neo-Cons, who planned the Iraqi War in the late 90's. It's too bad these morons didn't bother to plan the occupation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Voter eligibility and registration is preliminarily handled at the county level, and you have county administrators and state officials of both parties playing games all the time, all over the country, to further the interest of their own political parties.

This is true, but here in Florida, the county administrators were told by the Sec of State they could not do this under the law and had to accept the scrubbed lists they were handed by the contractor. Meanwhile, the State told the contract to use as wide a net as possible on the names (despite the law saying it must be as narrow as possible) telling them that the counties will fix the lists. As the same people did the communicating to both the contactor and the counties, it's not a matter of one hand not being aware of the other hand.

The Democrat Cali SecState just got handslapped by an appellate court for foot-dragging and scoping games on counting whether there are enough valid signatures to recall Davis.

At least he got handslapped before he got away with it. Despite the unethical nature of the recall campaign, it is legal and legitimate.

Instead of *****ing past tense ad nauseum (and turning off a large portion of the electorate who is more interested in real issues than one-trick pony carping about an election which is now irrelevant), what happened to any concerted movement to enforce minimum standards for conduct of Federal elections?

I'm absolutely in agreement, and I want to start a campaign here in Florida to fix out elections. I am, however, in the wrong part of the state to easily build a critical mass towards getting the necessary amendments on the ballot. But *****ing is often a necessary precursor to doing. After all, if people don't know what went wrong, they aren't apt to change it. Right now people assume it was incompetence rather than malfeasence.

The fact it's legal makes it fair and square. If you don't like the results the law allows, change the laws.

What happened in Florida was illegal under the laws of Florida. That makes it, by definition, not fair and square. However, the gutless Dems refused to challange what they did know was going wrong (the stuff about the list scrubbing didn't come out until the following February, when it was too late to do anything but drag Jeb and Kate Harris to jail).

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Might be enough to win if the election was today, but it has dropped tremendously and hardly anyone even knows who the challengers are.

Actually a far more significant poll number is that in a recent Zogby poll, "For the first time, more likely voters (47%) say it's time for someone new in the White House, compared to 46% who said the President deserves to be re-elected. "
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=721

[Giancarlo]

Zogby is not credible... it is based on a biased sample that is both inadequate and uncredible.

[Sava]

Fez: The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil and weapons and defense industries, planned the war well before Bush was elected. In 2000, they released an official document detailing the war in Iraq. D1ck Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz signed a Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with many of the other current members of Bush’s “war cabinet.”

Why roll your eyes at the truth?

[gopher]

REMF: Rear Echilon Mother F**kers

A nice way of saying Brass, Stateside, or civillian.

[Giancarlo]

I didn't roll my eyes at that. I was rolling them at you and your hatred for politicans I happen to like. In every post I see it from you.

So please don't mix things up.

[MrFun]

A debate on the use of emoticons?