OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

Gallup says 42%

CNN says 42%


Two months 'til the mid-terms. Plenty of time to hit that magical 50%. ;-)

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

NOYB wrote:
Gallup says 42%

CNN says 42%


Two months 'til the mid-terms. Plenty of time to hit that magical 50%. ;-)

Couple more foolish wars, he'll be right back down again.

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:34:57 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Gallup says 42%

CNN says 42%

Two months 'til the mid-terms. Plenty of time to hit that magical 50%.
;-)

And you know what?

Nobody, and I mean nobody, cares. Everyone is sick and tired of
meaningless polls which prove nothing because the samples are so
skewed as to make them useless.

The average American could care less.

As long as he is near 50%, it makes it easier for Diebold to steal another
election without anybody getting suspicious...or at least that's what the
moonbats over at the liberal blogs think.

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

NOYB wrote:
Gallup says 42%

CNN says 42%


Two months 'til the mid-terms. Plenty of time to hit that magical 50%. ;-)

NOYB- why post this here?

Have you noticed that the anti-Bush crap has all but disappeared from
the group?
Do you want to be known as the sole remaining political rabble-rouser
in rec.boats?

Does this poll have something specific to do with recreational boating?

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:17:37 +0000, NOYB wrote:


As long as he is near 50%, it makes it easier for Diebold to steal another
election without anybody getting suspicious...or at least that's what the
moonbats over at the liberal blogs think.

And if he loses,

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/...608200322/1002

All this time, I thought Republicans believed in states rights.

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...

NOYB wrote:
Gallup says 42%

CNN says 42%


Two months 'til the mid-terms. Plenty of time to hit that magical 50%.
;-)

NOYB- why post this here?

Ignore the OT posts if you don't like 'em, Chuck.



Have you noticed that the anti-Bush crap has all but disappeared from
the group?

So? It certainly hasn't done a bit a good for maintaining harmony on the
forum.



Do you want to be known as the sole remaining political rabble-rouser
in rec.boats?

Known by whom? You?


Does this poll have something specific to do with recreational boating?


Nope, hence the "OT" in front of my thread title.

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:17:37 +0000, NOYB wrote:


As long as he is near 50%, it makes it easier for Diebold to steal another
election without anybody getting suspicious...or at least that's what the
moonbats over at the liberal blogs think.

And if he loses,

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/...608200322/1002

All this time, I thought Republicans believed in states rights.

Republicans only believe in someone's rights if it suits there M.O.

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:17:37 +0000, NOYB wrote:


As long as he is near 50%, it makes it easier for Diebold to steal
another
election without anybody getting suspicious...or at least that's what the
moonbats over at the liberal blogs think.

And if he loses,

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/...608200322/1002

All this time, I thought Republicans believed in states rights.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Bush got criticized to holy hell for not responding more quickly after
Katrina. And now you're citing an article that states unequivocally that
Gov. Blanco resisted the White House's urging to turn control of the guard
over to Federal authority!?!

I think the President ought to have the authority to take over the National
Guard during "a serious natural or man-made disaster, accident, or
catastrophe that occurs in the United States, its territories and
possessions, or Puerto Rico." Afterall, the Guard is paid for by revenue
from Federal taxes.

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/...608200322/1002

All this time, I thought Republicans believed in states rights.


NOYB wrote:
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Bush got criticized to holy hell for not responding more quickly after
Katrina. And now you're citing an article that states unequivocally that
Gov. Blanco resisted the White House's urging to turn control of the guard
over to Federal authority!?!


Why was Federal aid to the area struck by Hurricane Katrina
contingent upon turning over authority over the National Guard?

Are you saying you support this fascist power grab by the
Bush Administration, and offer up it's failure as a serious
reason why they should not have bothered sending the various
federal agencies to actually do their job?


I think the President ought to have the authority to take over the National
Guard during "a serious natural or man-made disaster, accident, or
catastrophe that occurs in the United States, its territories and
possessions, or Puerto Rico." Afterall, the Guard is paid for by revenue
from Federal taxes.


Of course. One might surmise from your attitude that you
feel President Bush ought to be declared
Dictator-For-Life... you almost certainly would not support
turning any authority over to a Democrat President.

DSK

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/...608200322/1002

All this time, I thought Republicans believed in states rights.


NOYB wrote:
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Bush got criticized to holy hell for not responding more quickly after
Katrina. And now you're citing an article that states unequivocally that
Gov. Blanco resisted the White House's urging to turn control of the
guard over to Federal authority!?!


Why was Federal aid to the area struck by Hurricane Katrina contingent
upon turning over authority over the National Guard?

Are you saying you support this fascist power grab by the Bush
Administration, and offer up it's failure as a serious reason why they
should not have bothered sending the various federal agencies to actually
do their job?

The federal agencies are incapable of handling a crisis of that magnitude
without the help of the military (active duty, reservists, or the guard).
It wouldn't be feasible to keep a federal agency of large enough size at the
ready in case of an emergency like Katrina. That's the purpose of the
Guard.

So there were two problems:

1) the posse comitatus act prevented Bush from sending US troops

2) Gov. Blanco refused to allow Bush to have authority over Guard troops.

So how was Bush supposed to handle the Katrina crisis?

I look forward to how you'd have handled things differently.





I think the President ought to have the authority to take over the
National Guard during "a serious natural or man-made disaster, accident,
or catastrophe that occurs in the United States, its territories and
possessions, or Puerto Rico." Afterall, the Guard is paid for by revenue
from Federal taxes.


Of course. One might surmise from your attitude that you feel President
Bush ought to be declared Dictator-For-Life... you almost certainly would
not support turning any authority over to a Democrat President.

After a crisis like Katrina? Of course I would...especially if the Guard is
in the hands of an inept Governor.

As long as guys like Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist are in charge down here,
there's no need for Federal control of the guard in Florida. Unfortunately
that's not the case in many states.