| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
More meat for the whiners
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... President Bush Job Approval Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Bush Job Approval Strongly Approve 15% Somewhat Approve 21% Somewhat Disapprove 17% Strongly Disapprov 46% RasmussenReports.com Disapprove is misspelled next to the 46% - proves its inaccurate! |
More meat for the whiners
Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... President Bush Job Approval Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Bush Job Approval Strongly Approve 15% Somewhat Approve 21% Somewhat Disapprove 17% Strongly Disapprov 46% RasmussenReports.com Disapprove is misspelled next to the 46% - proves its inaccurate! How to hell does a misspelled work indicate that the poll itself is inaccurate?????? |
More meat for the whiners
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... President Bush Job Approval Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Bush Job Approval Strongly Approve 15% Somewhat Approve 21% Somewhat Disapprove 17% Strongly Disapprov 46% RasmussenReports.com Disapprove is misspelled next to the 46% - proves its inaccurate! How to hell does a misspelled work indicate that the poll itself is inaccurate?????? I dunno, but little voice says it is. Must be right! |
More meat for the whiners
Dan J.S. wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... President Bush Job Approval Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Bush Job Approval Strongly Approve 15% Somewhat Approve 21% Somewhat Disapprove 17% Strongly Disapprov 46% RasmussenReports.com Disapprove is misspelled next to the 46% - proves its inaccurate! How to hell does a misspelled work indicate that the poll itself is inaccurate?????? I dunno, but little voice says it is. Must be right! Uh......okay....... |
More meat for the whiners
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: Dan J.S. wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... President Bush Job Approval Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Bush Job Approval Strongly Approve 15% Somewhat Approve 21% Somewhat Disapprove 17% Strongly Disapprov 46% RasmussenReports.com Disapprove is misspelled next to the 46% - proves its inaccurate! How to hell does a misspelled work indicate that the poll itself is inaccurate?????? I dunno, but little voice says it is. Must be right! Uh......okay....... Poor Dubya has dropped another three percentage points on the Faux News poll, but he came up a couple points on the Rasmussen Poll. His average on the major legit polls is around 33-34%. Still too high. But his base hasn't left him. When Carter's approval dipped below 30%, even his own party disapproved of him nearly 2 to 1. Last I saw of Bush's approval rating, it was in the low to mid 70's among Republicans. |
More meat for the whiners
NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: Dan J.S. wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... President Bush Job Approval Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Bush Job Approval Strongly Approve 15% Somewhat Approve 21% Somewhat Disapprove 17% Strongly Disapprov 46% RasmussenReports.com Disapprove is misspelled next to the 46% - proves its inaccurate! How to hell does a misspelled work indicate that the poll itself is inaccurate?????? I dunno, but little voice says it is. Must be right! Uh......okay....... Poor Dubya has dropped another three percentage points on the Faux News poll, but he came up a couple points on the Rasmussen Poll. His average on the major legit polls is around 33-34%. Still too high. But his base hasn't left him. When Carter's approval dipped below 30%, even his own party disapproved of him nearly 2 to 1. Last I saw of Bush's approval rating, it was in the low to mid 70's among Republicans. NOYB and Hannity the only two people on the planet that thinks Bush is doing a good job!!!! |
More meat for the whiners
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: Dan J.S. wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... President Bush Job Approval Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Bush Job Approval Strongly Approve 15% Somewhat Approve 21% Somewhat Disapprove 17% Strongly Disapprov 46% RasmussenReports.com Disapprove is misspelled next to the 46% - proves its inaccurate! How to hell does a misspelled work indicate that the poll itself is inaccurate?????? I dunno, but little voice says it is. Must be right! Uh......okay....... Poor Dubya has dropped another three percentage points on the Faux News poll, but he came up a couple points on the Rasmussen Poll. His average on the major legit polls is around 33-34%. Still too high. But his base hasn't left him. When Carter's approval dipped below 30%, even his own party disapproved of him nearly 2 to 1. Last I saw of Bush's approval rating, it was in the low to mid 70's among Republicans. NOYB and Hannity the only two people on the planet that thinks Bush is doing a good job!!!! You must have missed the part where I stated that more than 70% of Republicans approve of the job Bush is doing. |
More meat for the whiners
"Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: Dan J.S. wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... President Bush Job Approval Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Bush Job Approval Strongly Approve 15% Somewhat Approve 21% Somewhat Disapprove 17% Strongly Disapprov 46% RasmussenReports.com Disapprove is misspelled next to the 46% - proves its inaccurate! How to hell does a misspelled work indicate that the poll itself is inaccurate?????? I dunno, but little voice says it is. Must be right! Uh......okay....... Poor Dubya has dropped another three percentage points on the Faux News poll, but he came up a couple points on the Rasmussen Poll. His average on the major legit polls is around 33-34%. Still too high. But his base hasn't left him. When Carter's approval dipped below 30%, even his own party disapproved of him nearly 2 to 1. Last I saw of Bush's approval rating, it was in the low to mid 70's among Republicans. NOYB and Hannity the only two people on the planet that thinks Bush is doing a good job!!!! You must have missed the part where I stated that more than 70% of Republicans approve of the job Bush is doing. No. Some large percentage of Repubs somewhat approve of his job performance. There's a fine line between somewhat approve and somewhat disapprove. |
More meat for the whiners
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: Dan J.S. wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... President Bush Job Approval Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Bush Job Approval Strongly Approve 15% Somewhat Approve 21% Somewhat Disapprove 17% Strongly Disapprov 46% RasmussenReports.com Disapprove is misspelled next to the 46% - proves its inaccurate! How to hell does a misspelled work indicate that the poll itself is inaccurate?????? I dunno, but little voice says it is. Must be right! Uh......okay....... Poor Dubya has dropped another three percentage points on the Faux News poll, but he came up a couple points on the Rasmussen Poll. His average on the major legit polls is around 33-34%. Still too high. But his base hasn't left him. When Carter's approval dipped below 30%, even his own party disapproved of him nearly 2 to 1. Last I saw of Bush's approval rating, it was in the low to mid 70's among Republicans. BFD. His support among the GOP is about 68% on most polls, and even on the Rasmussen poll, his strong approval rating is below 20%. So what. There's virtually no difference between "somewhat approve" and "somewhat disapprove". People in those groups change like the weather. |
More meat for the whiners
On Mon, 22 May 2006 20:16:19 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: Dan J.S. wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... President Bush Job Approval Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Bush Job Approval Strongly Approve 15% Somewhat Approve 21% Somewhat Disapprove 17% Strongly Disapprov 46% RasmussenReports.com Disapprove is misspelled next to the 46% - proves its inaccurate! How to hell does a misspelled work indicate that the poll itself is inaccurate?????? I dunno, but little voice says it is. Must be right! Uh......okay....... Poor Dubya has dropped another three percentage points on the Faux News poll, but he came up a couple points on the Rasmussen Poll. His average on the major legit polls is around 33-34%. Still too high. But his base hasn't left him. When Carter's approval dipped below 30%, even his own party disapproved of him nearly 2 to 1. Last I saw of Bush's approval rating, it was in the low to mid 70's among Republicans. BFD. His support among the GOP is about 68% on most polls, and even on the Rasmussen poll, his strong approval rating is below 20%. So what. There's virtually no difference between "somewhat approve" and "somewhat disapprove". People in those groups change like the weather. You must be referring to the political groups. I don't think anyone in *this* group has changed like the weather, although many would like to change the weather! -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
More meat for the whiners
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: Dan J.S. wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... President Bush Job Approval Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Bush Job Approval Strongly Approve 15% Somewhat Approve 21% Somewhat Disapprove 17% Strongly Disapprov 46% RasmussenReports.com Disapprove is misspelled next to the 46% - proves its inaccurate! How to hell does a misspelled work indicate that the poll itself is inaccurate?????? I dunno, but little voice says it is. Must be right! Uh......okay....... Poor Dubya has dropped another three percentage points on the Faux News poll, but he came up a couple points on the Rasmussen Poll. His average on the major legit polls is around 33-34%. Still too high. But his base hasn't left him. When Carter's approval dipped below 30%, even his own party disapproved of him nearly 2 to 1. Last I saw of Bush's approval rating, it was in the low to mid 70's among Republicans. NOYB and Hannity the only two people on the planet that thinks Bush is doing a good job!!!! You must have missed the part where I stated that more than 70% of Republicans approve of the job Bush is doing. Maybe in the hard core Republicans of your neighborhood. the only reason he survived the last election was the Democrats found the almost most unelectable candidate possible and he still came close to winning. His popularity has not increase. If he controlled spending, he would have a lot higher rating. The only pol's with a lower rating are Congress itself. The Democrats have not put anybody in charge of the DNC with a living brain. If they were to propose a valid way to control spending, excess government intrusion in to our lives, and a valid immigration reform they could sweep the elections. And if they do not come through on those promises, they should be swept out in the next election. Forget the war in Iraq, most do not like the way it is being run, but we are stuck there, and most of the people who vote realize this. The current problem with the Democratic candidates for office, are they are not addressing the above items, but promising more spending on social programs, and complaining about Bush and the war. Forget the complaining, does as much good as Harry ranting about Bush on a insignificant newsgroup. Come up with valid plans, not this crap like Kerry did last time about he has plans but they are secret until after the election. |
More meat for the whiners
Calif Bill wrote:
Maybe in the hard core Republicans of your neighborhood. the only reason he survived the last election was the Democrats found the almost most unelectable candidate possible and he still came close to winning. No, the Democrats chose the candidate that pulled in by far the most votes during the primaries. It's called democracy. ... His popularity has not increase. If he controlled spending, he would have a lot higher rating. I guess this is your not-quite-honest way of admitting that President Bush has done a lousy job? Sort of like the way a lot of people who obviously voted for him now say that they didn't? .... The Democrats have not put anybody in charge of the DNC with a living brain. If they were to propose a valid way to control spending, excess government intrusion in to our lives, and a valid immigration reform they could sweep the elections. Uh huh. That all hinges on your definition of "valid." For somebody who has claimed at times to be a centrist or moderate Democrat, you seem strangely uninformed, or just unwilling to give credit, to the Democratic Party for their positive proposals on these very issues (and more). ... Forget the war in Iraq, most do not like the way it is being run, but we are stuck there By whom? I guess we should just shrug it off. ..... Come up with valid plans, not this crap like Kerry did last time about he has plans but they are secret until after the election. ??? One of the things I have learned from this newsgroup is just exactly how far people will go to justify their extremely stupid & destructive political postures. DSK |
More meat for the whiners
"DSK" wrote in message .. . Calif Bill wrote: Maybe in the hard core Republicans of your neighborhood. the only reason he survived the last election was the Democrats found the almost most unelectable candidate possible and he still came close to winning. No, the Democrats chose the candidate that pulled in by far the most votes during the primaries. It's called democracy. ... His popularity has not increase. If he controlled spending, he would have a lot higher rating. I guess this is your not-quite-honest way of admitting that President Bush has done a lousy job? Sort of like the way a lot of people who obviously voted for him now say that they didn't? .... The Democrats have not put anybody in charge of the DNC with a living brain. If they were to propose a valid way to control spending, excess government intrusion in to our lives, and a valid immigration reform they could sweep the elections. Uh huh. That all hinges on your definition of "valid." For somebody who has claimed at times to be a centrist or moderate Democrat, you seem strangely uninformed, or just unwilling to give credit, to the Democratic Party for their positive proposals on these very issues (and more). ... Forget the war in Iraq, most do not like the way it is being run, but we are stuck there By whom? I guess we should just shrug it off. ..... Come up with valid plans, not this crap like Kerry did last time about he has plans but they are secret until after the election. ??? One of the things I have learned from this newsgroup is just exactly how far people will go to justify their extremely stupid & destructive political postures. DSK I did not vote for either Bush or Kerry. Kerry was far behind in the polls and primaries until the DNC put all their resources behind Kerry. Is part of Democracy to have a party leadership committee, but this DNC seemed to deem Kerry their person. Just like the RNC blessed Dole a few years prior. Both unelectable. If the xNC supplies you gross more resoures than any other candidate, you will get a huge leg up. |
More meat for the whiners
Calif Bill wrote:
I did not vote for either Bush or Kerry. Yeah I bet. ... Kerry was far behind in the polls and primaries until the DNC put all their resources behind Kerry. ??? No, Kerry won almost all the primaries with fairly large margins. Edwards came in second a number of times, Dean won a single early primary. Where do you get this loony-toons stuff? ... Is part of Democracy to have a party leadership committee, but this DNC seemed to deem Kerry their person. Just like the RNC blessed Dole a few years prior. Both unelectable. Why was Dole "unelectable?" DSK |
More meat for the whiners
"DSK" wrote in message .. . Calif Bill wrote: Maybe in the hard core Republicans of your neighborhood. the only reason he survived the last election was the Democrats found the almost most unelectable candidate possible and he still came close to winning. No, the Democrats chose the candidate that pulled in by far the most votes during the primaries. That Dem candidate also got more votes in the November election than any other Democrat in history. But they got beat by a Republican candidate who got more votes than *any* President ever. |
More meat for the whiners
On Tue, 23 May 2006 01:25:01 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:
Forget the war in Iraq, most do not like the way it is being run, but we are stuck there, and most of the people who vote realize this. I don't mean to jump to severely on what I am sure is an off-handed comment, but I'd point out, *we* are not stuck there. Some 140,000 odd young Americans are, and death is their daily reminder. To me, if it weren't for Iraq, Bush would be just another inept President, of which this country has a long list. However, make no mistake, the "buck" for this war stops on this Presidents desk. That buck includes 2,500 young American deaths, some 17,000 American wounded, and some 40,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. |
More meat for the whiners
No, the Democrats chose the candidate that pulled in by far the most votes
during the primaries. NOYB wrote: That Dem candidate also got more votes in the November election than any other Democrat in history. But they got beat by a Republican candidate who got more votes than *any* President ever. Then why does Calif Bill (and so many other Republicans) regret it now? Are you sure about this? My understanding is that voter turn out was very low. DSK |
More meat for the whiners
"DSK" wrote in message . .. No, the Democrats chose the candidate that pulled in by far the most votes during the primaries. NOYB wrote: That Dem candidate also got more votes in the November election than any other Democrat in history. But they got beat by a Republican candidate who got more votes than *any* President ever. Then why does Calif Bill (and so many other Republicans) regret it now? Are you sure about this? My understanding is that voter turn out was very low. DSK I am a registed Democrat. Would probably register Libertarian if they had more power, or a better platform. And you are a Yellow Dog Democrat? |
More meat for the whiners
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 May 2006 01:25:01 +0000, Calif Bill wrote: Forget the war in Iraq, most do not like the way it is being run, but we are stuck there, and most of the people who vote realize this. I don't mean to jump to severely on what I am sure is an off-handed comment, but I'd point out, *we* are not stuck there. Some 140,000 odd young Americans are, and death is their daily reminder. To me, if it weren't for Iraq, Bush would be just another inept President, of which this country has a long list. However, make no mistake, the "buck" for this war stops on this Presidents desk. That buck includes 2,500 young American deaths, some 17,000 American wounded, and some 40,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. Was not an offhand comment. Was a thoughtful comment. We are at war with Muslim extremists. Most of the country realize this. The Iraq war was as ill advised as opening up the Russian Front in the 1940's. But if we pull out now, you do not think the Muslim extremists will not only be emboldened but have a recruiting bonanza? We will be having lots of suicide bombers right here in the USA. We are stuck now, and have to figure out a way to disengage while leaving a semi-functional Iraq. If they crash in to total extremism later, will not be the disaster that just pulling out now would be. We could have won in Viet Nam in less than a year after we pulled out. The Tet Offensive decimated the VC. Thet lost 40-50 thousand. Most of their equipment, etc. But we were told we lost the Tet Offensive by Walter Cronkite, etc, and the American people had had enough. So a couple million Cambodians, and Vietnamese died in the following purges. |
More meat for the whiners
"DSK" wrote in message .. . Calif Bill wrote: I did not vote for either Bush or Kerry. Yeah I bet. Since it is a secret ballot, I can not prove it, so you get to keep your money. ... Kerry was far behind in the polls and primaries until the DNC put all their resources behind Kerry. ??? No, Kerry won almost all the primaries with fairly large margins. Edwards came in second a number of times, Dean won a single early primary. Where do you get this loony-toons stuff? ... Is part of Democracy to have a party leadership committee, but this DNC seemed to deem Kerry their person. Just like the RNC blessed Dole a few years prior. Both unelectable. Why was Dole "unelectable?" DSK http://www.boston.com/news/politics/..._kerry_debate/ Sort of explains Kerry selection. Dole was unelectable as he had no charisma, no real platform and no leadership showing. Sort of like Sen., Kerry. Senators make a poor choice for President. They are not CEO's but cogs in a big gear of the Congress. Dealmakers more than leaders. Best would be a major CEO of a large, successful company or a Governor. JFK was good on the Charisma part, but was not a real successful POTUS. Got us the Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban Missile Crises, and then died before a large legacy could be defined. And he gave us LBJ, who really screwed the pooch via Viet Nam. And JFK was only a Senator for a short time, 8 years as opposed to 20+ for both Dole and KErry. |
More meat for the whiners
I did not vote for either Bush or Kerry.
Yeah I bet. Calif Bill wrote: Since it is a secret ballot, I can not prove it, so you get to keep your money. Well, why have you been a charter member of the Bush-Cheney Cheerleaders then? Why do you go so far out of your way to defend President Bush? Why do you so blatantly despise the few relatively successful moderate Democrats? Doesn't add up! ... Kerry was far behind in the polls and primaries until the DNC put all their resources behind Kerry. ??? No, Kerry won almost all the primaries with fairly large margins. Edwards came in second a number of times, Dean won a single early primary. Where do you get this loony-toons stuff? ... Is part of Democracy to have a party leadership committee, but this DNC seemed to deem Kerry their person. Just like the RNC blessed Dole a few years prior. Both unelectable. Why was Dole "unelectable?" DSK http://www.boston.com/news/politics/..._kerry_debate/ Sort of explains Kerry selection. By ignoring the facts and concentrating on a lot of negative blather? That's not an explanation, that's spin. Kerry won the primaries. He was also the top fund-raiser, a sad comment on our current political system, but he certainly was not selected by some secret cabal of Democrat elitists. Dole was unelectable as he had no charisma, no real platform and no leadership showing. Actually Dole had a lot of leadership and probably the most real practical political experience of any recent candidate. He also had a pretty strong sense of morals, something lacking in almost all other Republicans and many Democrats. The biggest problem with Dole is that he was a throwback to a kinder, gentler, slower paced, more bipartisan era. A Republican Party which was turning to total amorality, win-at-all-costs, cut-throat partisanship, and a total abdication from any responsibility for national leadership, rejected him. ... Sort of like Sen., Kerry. Senators make a poor choice for President. Shucks, by now almost everybody except you and NOBBY agree that Kerry would have made a much better President than Bush. But then, why would a moderate centrist Democrat fellow like you see it that way? DSK |
More meat for the whiners
"DSK" wrote in message . .. No, the Democrats chose the candidate that pulled in by far the most votes during the primaries. NOYB wrote: That Dem candidate also got more votes in the November election than any other Democrat in history. But they got beat by a Republican candidate who got more votes than *any* President ever. Then why does Calif Bill (and so many other Republicans) regret it now? Are you sure about this? My understanding is that voter turn out was very low. Turn out was high. Bush got more votes (61 or 62 million) than any President in history. Kerry also got more votes than any President in history...but still lost by 3 million votes. |
More meat for the whiners
NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message . .. No, the Democrats chose the candidate that pulled in by far the most votes during the primaries. NOYB wrote: That Dem candidate also got more votes in the November election than any other Democrat in history. But they got beat by a Republican candidate who got more votes than *any* President ever. Then why does Calif Bill (and so many other Republicans) regret it now? Are you sure about this? My understanding is that voter turn out was very low. Turn out was high. Bush got more votes (61 or 62 million) than any President in history. Kerry also got more votes than any President in history...but still lost by 3 million votes. Turnout was high in that respect because there are more people of voting age in the U.S. than ever before. |
More meat for the whiners
Are you sure about this? My understanding is that voter turn out was very
low. NOYB wrote: Turn out was high. Bush got more votes (61 or 62 million) than any President in history. Kerry also got more votes than any President in history...but still lost by 3 million votes. My mistake http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html Voter turnout was high, although not dramatically so. Now we need to work on the swing year vote turnout, since that's just as important. DSK |
More meat for the whiners
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message . .. No, the Democrats chose the candidate that pulled in by far the most votes during the primaries. NOYB wrote: That Dem candidate also got more votes in the November election than any other Democrat in history. But they got beat by a Republican candidate who got more votes than *any* President ever. Then why does Calif Bill (and so many other Republicans) regret it now? Are you sure about this? My understanding is that voter turn out was very low. Turn out was high. Bush got more votes (61 or 62 million) than any President in history. Kerry also got more votes than any President in history...but still lost by 3 million votes. Turnout was high in that respect because there are more people of voting age in the U.S. than ever before. Turnout was higher in 2004 (55.3%) than at any other time since 1968 (60.8%). The highest turnout in the last 5 decades was 1960 (63.1%). Of course, in 1960 a lot of dead Democrats from Chicago managed to climb out of their graves and vote for Kennedy. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html |
More meat for the whiners
On Tue, 23 May 2006 08:34:15 -0400, DSK wrote:
I did not vote for either Bush or Kerry. Yeah I bet. Calif Bill wrote: Since it is a secret ballot, I can not prove it, so you get to keep your money. Well, why have you been a charter member of the Bush-Cheney Cheerleaders then? Why do you go so far out of your way to defend President Bush? Why do you so blatantly despise the few relatively successful moderate Democrats? Doesn't add up! ... Kerry was far behind in the polls and primaries until the DNC put all their resources behind Kerry. ??? No, Kerry won almost all the primaries with fairly large margins. Edwards came in second a number of times, Dean won a single early primary. Where do you get this loony-toons stuff? ... Is part of Democracy to have a party leadership committee, but this DNC seemed to deem Kerry their person. Just like the RNC blessed Dole a few years prior. Both unelectable. Why was Dole "unelectable?" DSK http://www.boston.com/news/politics/..._kerry_debate/ Sort of explains Kerry selection. By ignoring the facts and concentrating on a lot of negative blather? That's not an explanation, that's spin. Kerry won the primaries. He was also the top fund-raiser, a sad comment on our current political system, but he certainly was not selected by some secret cabal of Democrat elitists. Dole was unelectable as he had no charisma, no real platform and no leadership showing. Actually Dole had a lot of leadership and probably the most real practical political experience of any recent candidate. He also had a pretty strong sense of morals, something lacking in almost all other Republicans and many Democrats. The biggest problem with Dole is that he was a throwback to a kinder, gentler, slower paced, more bipartisan era. A Republican Party which was turning to total amorality, win-at-all-costs, cut-throat partisanship, and a total abdication from any responsibility for national leadership, rejected him. ... Sort of like Sen., Kerry. Senators make a poor choice for President. Shucks, by now almost everybody except you and NOBBY agree that Kerry would have made a much better President than Bush. But then, why would a moderate centrist Democrat fellow like you see it that way? DSK Doug, you seem to consider anyone who disagrees with what you call 'an argument' is a 'Bush-Cheney Cheerleader'. That's nonsense. I'm sure as hell not a 'Bush-Cheney Cheerleader', yet we disagree often. One does not have to like Bush to have voted for him. For God's sake, look at what the alternative would have been! The important thing is this: I've not yet been out fishing because I've been subbing too damn much. Luckily, school is over soon, and my last sub job will be on the 14th of June. Then I'll have a chance to get the rods rigged and do a little trolling. Or maybe I'll just get some shrimp and do a little drift fishing. It's much more relaxing. Have you done any boating yet? -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
More meat for the whiners
Calif Bill wrote: "DSK" wrote in message .. . ..Best would be a major CEO of a large, successful company Like...Dick Chaney? or a Governor. Like...GWB? |
More meat for the whiners
"DSK" wrote in message . .. I did not vote for either Bush or Kerry. Yeah I bet. Calif Bill wrote: Since it is a secret ballot, I can not prove it, so you get to keep your money. Well, why have you been a charter member of the Bush-Cheney Cheerleaders then? Why do you go so far out of your way to defend President Bush? Why do you so blatantly despise the few relatively successful moderate Democrats? Doesn't add up! ... Kerry was far behind in the polls and primaries until the DNC put all their resources behind Kerry. ??? No, Kerry won almost all the primaries with fairly large margins. Edwards came in second a number of times, Dean won a single early primary. Where do you get this loony-toons stuff? ... Is part of Democracy to have a party leadership committee, but this DNC seemed to deem Kerry their person. Just like the RNC blessed Dole a few years prior. Both unelectable. Why was Dole "unelectable?" DSK http://www.boston.com/news/politics/..._kerry_debate/ Sort of explains Kerry selection. By ignoring the facts and concentrating on a lot of negative blather? That's not an explanation, that's spin. Kerry won the primaries. He was also the top fund-raiser, a sad comment on our current political system, but he certainly was not selected by some secret cabal of Democrat elitists. Dole was unelectable as he had no charisma, no real platform and no leadership showing. Actually Dole had a lot of leadership and probably the most real practical political experience of any recent candidate. He also had a pretty strong sense of morals, something lacking in almost all other Republicans and many Democrats. The biggest problem with Dole is that he was a throwback to a kinder, gentler, slower paced, more bipartisan era. A Republican Party which was turning to total amorality, win-at-all-costs, cut-throat partisanship, and a total abdication from any responsibility for national leadership, rejected him. ... Sort of like Sen., Kerry. Senators make a poor choice for President. Shucks, by now almost everybody except you and NOBBY agree that Kerry would have made a much better President than Bush. But then, why would a moderate centrist Democrat fellow like you see it that way? DSK I am a not a Bush cheer leader. This administration sucks. No financial control whatsoever. Kerry, was proposing a couple hundred million increase in social spending. Also no financial control whatsoever. He was going to raise taxes on only the top 1%. You think his wife would like that. He was the top fundraiser as he had the DNC behind him. I voted for Badnarick. Anybody but the above. Both sides of the aisle are profligate spenders. But sides added pork, barrels of Pork, to the highway spending bill, and every other bill that came along. Anybody that opposed a spending bill, seemed to lose their chairmanship, or any other position with power. WE as a people need to vote out 90% of the incumbents and tell the ones coming in to correct their retirement plan! Why should you get a lifetime pension for 4 years of elected office, where the salary was very good? Put them on Social Security and then you would see SS fixed. DSK, you are so much a Yellow Dog Democrat, that you would never look at the candidate except for a 'D' after their name!!!! |
More meat for the whiners
wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: "DSK" wrote in message .. . .Best would be a major CEO of a large, successful company Like...Dick Chaney? or a Governor. Like...GWB? Like Chaney? Yes, but you also have to look at the business morals of the person. The POTUS is a CEO of a large, powerful corporation, so the fact is you need leadership ability. As to Governor, you also need one from a state that has a powerful governorship. Texas is not one, but you also have to look at the leadership of the person as a Governor. Clinton was also a governor, and Arkansas is a one party state, that is backwoods. He also was a crappy POTUS. He had the charisma, and brains to be a great POTUS, but he failed to use his brain, and tried to run the country like Arkansas. Surrounded himself with halfassed advisors, and looked at what a poll said instead of making an informed decision. Sort of 'Mob Rule'. |
More meat for the whiners
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... DSK wrote: Calif Bill wrote: I did not vote for either Bush or Kerry. Yeah I bet. ... Kerry was far behind in the polls and primaries until the DNC put all their resources behind Kerry. ??? No, Kerry won almost all the primaries with fairly large margins. Edwards came in second a number of times, Dean won a single early primary. Where do you get this loony-toons stuff? From the Daily Insanity, published by Zell Miller, Bill's hero. And at least Zell has a brain he uses instead of being a democratic party hack! |
More meat for the whiners
Bill , I agree with everything you said.
I voted for Chaney and GWB, and I threw that little jab in there as a saterical joke. If I could, would I vote for them again? Depends on what's on the other side of the fence[s] But regardless...You're right! Calif Bill wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: "DSK" wrote in message .. . .Best would be a major CEO of a large, successful company Like...Dick Chaney? or a Governor. Like...GWB? Like Chaney? Yes, but you also have to look at the business morals of the person. The POTUS is a CEO of a large, powerful corporation, so the fact is you need leadership ability. As to Governor, you also need one from a state that has a powerful governorship. Texas is not one, but you also have to look at the leadership of the person as a Governor. Clinton was also a governor, and Arkansas is a one party state, that is backwoods. He also was a crappy POTUS. He had the charisma, and brains to be a great POTUS, but he failed to use his brain, and tried to run the country like Arkansas. Surrounded himself with halfassed advisors, and looked at what a poll said instead of making an informed decision. Sort of 'Mob Rule'. |
More meat for the whiners
JohnH wrote:
Doug, you seem to consider anyone who disagrees with what you call 'an argument' is a 'Bush-Cheney Cheerleader'. That's nonsense. Yes, it is nonsense. The people who are avidly and unblinkingly pro-Bush/Cheney, who will make any untruthful assertion to support the current administration, and who get angry at any criticism of them no matter how truthful or justified, are Bush/Cheney Cheerleaders. You should know, you seem to be one. ... I'm sure as hell not a 'Bush-Cheney Cheerleader' Actually, you sure as hell are. For example, when asked to name a few positive accomplishments of the Bush Administration, all you could reply with was insults & abuse of any who asked such questions. This happened repeatedly. ... One does not have to like Bush to have voted for him. For God's sake, look at what the alternative would have been! Well, there you go. You are a Bush/Cheney Cheerleader. The alternative would have been much better. Have you done any boating yet? Yes I have. Why do you ask? DSK |
More meat for the whiners
Calif Bill wrote:
I am a not a Bush cheer leader. This administration sucks. It's really funny that you, who consider Zell Miller a good Democrat, and have often hurled some of the worst insults at people criticising the Bush/Cheney administration, insist that you're not a Bush/Cheney Cheerleader. Somebody call Rove, tell them he really has lost the base. ... Kerry, was proposing a couple hundred million increase in social spending. You said a few days ago that Kerry had no proposals? Which is it? .... He was going to raise taxes on only the top 1%. You think his wife would like that. I don't know; but that would be a private matter, wouldn't it? Are you insisting that relations between a President and his wife (or, as may happen, between a President and her husband) are more important to the country than that President's conduct of his professional duty? .... He was the top fundraiser as he had the DNC behind him. Yes, after he won the primaries. .... I voted for Badnarick. Funny you should say that. Baradnick got a miniscule percent of the vote, I wonder if yours was counted? In any event, all your statements tend to show that you are an avid & utterly uncritical fan of President Bush. ..... WE as a people need to vote out 90% of the incumbents and tell the ones coming in to correct their retirement plan! Agreed. They should correct their medical plan too. Another option is to simply pass a Constitutional amendment that any retirement or insurance benefit conferred upon Congress must also be applied to all citizens. I like the proposal that all Congressman have to do their own taxes, get audited every year, and pay double penalties. They would simplify the tax code very fast! .... DSK, you are so much a Yellow Dog Democrat, that you would never look at the candidate except for a 'D' after their name!!!! Do you consider that an insult? In any event, it is certainly not true. I am a registered Democrat because in the rural Southern county where I first registered to vote, there was no Republican Party. I could have registered as a Republican but I would not have had a vote in the primaries or most of the local elections. Over the years I have voted for whomever I considered the best candidate. That has included Republicans, Democrats, independents, and unaffiliated. I have never tried to justify voting for one candidate because of a public campaign of hatred & despite against the other one, and you and John H have both done just now. Maybe that's why I have never felt ashamed of how I cast my vote and tried to lie about it. And if you ever read any of my boating posts, you'll know my name. DSK |
More meat for the whiners
NOYB wrote:
snip... Of course, in 1960 a lot of dead Democrats from Chicago managed to climb out of their graves and vote for Kennedy. Just goes to show the appeal he had to the average American! |
More meat for the whiners
"Don White" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: snip... Of course, in 1960 a lot of dead Democrats from Chicago managed to climb out of their graves and vote for Kennedy. Just goes to show the appeal he had to the average American! The average American is like a dead Chicagoan? |
More meat for the whiners
NOYB wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: snip... Of course, in 1960 a lot of dead Democrats from Chicago managed to climb out of their graves and vote for Kennedy. Just goes to show the appeal he had to the average American! The average American is like a dead Chicagoan? Well...at least half of 'em. They did vote George W in for a second term...didn't they? |
More meat for the whiners
On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:22:14 +0000, NOYB wrote:
Turnout was higher in 2004 (55.3%) than at any other time since 1968 (60.8%). The highest turnout in the last 5 decades was 1960 (63.1%). Of course, in 1960 a lot of dead Democrats from Chicago managed to climb out of their graves and vote for Kennedy. Still a sore loser, and you weren't even born yet, were you? ;-) By the by, there is no doubt that Mayor Daly was a corrupt political hack, but it would have taken more than Chicago to change that election. Kennedy's EC votes were 303-219. Illinois, at the time, had 27 EC votes. Do the math. |
More meat for the whiners
"Don White" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Don White" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: snip... Of course, in 1960 a lot of dead Democrats from Chicago managed to climb out of their graves and vote for Kennedy. Just goes to show the appeal he had to the average American! The average American is like a dead Chicagoan? Well...at least half of 'em. They did vote George W in for a second term...didn't they? No. The dead Chicagoans voted as they always vote: Democrat. |
More meat for the whiners
"DSK" wrote in message . .. Calif Bill wrote: I am a not a Bush cheer leader. This administration sucks. It's really funny that you, who consider Zell Miller a good Democrat, and have often hurled some of the worst insults at people criticising the Bush/Cheney administration, insist that you're not a Bush/Cheney Cheerleader. Somebody call Rove, tell them he really has lost the base. ... Kerry, was proposing a couple hundred million increase in social spending. You said a few days ago that Kerry had no proposals? Which is it? .... He was going to raise taxes on only the top 1%. You think his wife would like that. I don't know; but that would be a private matter, wouldn't it? Are you insisting that relations between a President and his wife (or, as may happen, between a President and her husband) are more important to the country than that President's conduct of his professional duty? .... He was the top fundraiser as he had the DNC behind him. Yes, after he won the primaries. .... I voted for Badnarick. Funny you should say that. Baradnick got a miniscule percent of the vote, I wonder if yours was counted? In any event, all your statements tend to show that you are an avid & utterly uncritical fan of President Bush. ..... WE as a people need to vote out 90% of the incumbents and tell the ones coming in to correct their retirement plan! Agreed. They should correct their medical plan too. Another option is to simply pass a Constitutional amendment that any retirement or insurance benefit conferred upon Congress must also be applied to all citizens. I like the proposal that all Congressman have to do their own taxes, get audited every year, and pay double penalties. They would simplify the tax code very fast! .... DSK, you are so much a Yellow Dog Democrat, that you would never look at the candidate except for a 'D' after their name!!!! Do you consider that an insult? In any event, it is certainly not true. I am a registered Democrat because in the rural Southern county where I first registered to vote, there was no Republican Party. I could have registered as a Republican but I would not have had a vote in the primaries or most of the local elections. Over the years I have voted for whomever I considered the best candidate. That has included Republicans, Democrats, independents, and unaffiliated. I have never tried to justify voting for one candidate because of a public campaign of hatred & despite against the other one, and you and John H have both done just now. Maybe that's why I have never felt ashamed of how I cast my vote and tried to lie about it. And if you ever read any of my boating posts, you'll know my name. DSK You are such a Yellow Dog Democrat, that no matter what anyone says, you will spout a Dem line. |
More meat for the whiners
On Wed, 24 May 2006 08:20:20 -0400, DSK wrote:
JohnH wrote: Doug, you seem to consider anyone who disagrees with what you call 'an argument' is a 'Bush-Cheney Cheerleader'. That's nonsense. Yes, it is nonsense. The people who are avidly and unblinkingly pro-Bush/Cheney, who will make any untruthful assertion to support the current administration, and who get angry at any criticism of them no matter how truthful or justified, are Bush/Cheney Cheerleaders. You should know, you seem to be one. ... I'm sure as hell not a 'Bush-Cheney Cheerleader' Actually, you sure as hell are. For example, when asked to name a few positive accomplishments of the Bush Administration, all you could reply with was insults & abuse of any who asked such questions. This happened repeatedly. ... One does not have to like Bush to have voted for him. For God's sake, look at what the alternative would have been! Well, there you go. You are a Bush/Cheney Cheerleader. The alternative would have been much better. Have you done any boating yet? Yes I have. Why do you ask? DSK Your definition is also nonsense. If I had to choose between goose **** and tits on a boar hog, I'd probably choose the latter. That was the choice in the last election. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:25 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com