[quote]cancer wrote:
maybe you all don’t care about this one that much… but non-Americans have been tired of Bush gang for years.[/quote]
Thats what i’ve heard… and us by proxy right now
[quote]cancer wrote:
maybe you all don’t care about this one that much… but non-Americans have been tired of Bush gang for years.[/quote]
So–who cares
[quote]ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
His poll numbers reflect on his party, which is why they are important.
No actually they don’t “reflect on his party” as much as they do on any specific candidate who might be running and holds the same positions as the President. In short, the candidate does not have the President to rely on.
They say these are not biased polls, and I think they reflect the mood of the country. When 48% say they would rather have a Democratic congress next year, I think that is a sign.
If I were you I would be worried that with the Bush numbers so low why do only 48% of the people want a democratic congress. Historically the Presidents poll numbers go up prior to mid term elections. Hence, the 48% figure will only go down from here, most likely.
I will not debate the dominance of Conservatives in the last 20 years, you are right about that. Clinton, in his own right, was not much of a liberal. And Hillary, the cunt, is, as previously said, acting more and more like the fucking politician that she is than trying to untite the party under an anti-conservative banner.
I agree Bill Clinton governed more to the center right regarding most issues. The reason of course is the conservative trend. And let me remind you that there is no “anti-conservative” banner in which to unite the democratic party! There are however a large minority of democrats who consider themselves liberal. They do get a great deal of attention and they do harm the democrats chances of winning the White House.
But either way, I really think that times will change.
That apparently is your “hope” as there is no factual information to back it up.
A period of greed is always followed by a period of progress.
The fact you think we are in a period of “greed” tells a great deal about your political slant.
I think that if the Dems get in there, and run shit the right way, we will see a big change. Hell, its not like they can run up the debt any higher.
It is sad commentary that a republican administration could run up the national debt. However, these are unique times…
And you know, as much as I hate the bastard, I can honestly say I have never “hated” a President.I almost feel bad for W. It seems like for the first time in his career as our glorious leader, he is trying to unite more than divide.
I think he was always a uniter, but in Washington you just don’t unite. That is commentary on politics of the day.
It irritates me that his polls might only be dropping because the jesus freaks are abandoning him.
Your comment on Christians is demeaning and insulting. I wonder if you also have derogatory names for Blacks, Gays and others whom you are either not a part of or don’t understand.
His moves to the center are met with anger by Dems like me, who hate him for what he has done, and anger from the far right, who hate him for what he hasn’t. He has put himself in a hell of a position.
“Dems” like you would hate him for just about anything he does! At least that’s my feeling from reading your many posts.
[/quote]
You’re right on most of your stuff here. I will never agree that he was a uniter, of course, and I do actually hate the bastard, there’s no way I can deny that.
I don’t when anybody runs up the debt, that in itself is bad business at its best. I always think that it is odd that Clinton balanced it and Bush has racked it up, I think that is very ironic. And yea, leftists like me will hate him for anything he does by now.
As for the jesus freak comment, well, it is what it is. Being so far on the left I have very few prejudices (or try to, to the best of my abilities) based on anyone’s color or creed. But Superchristians drive me crazy, as I can’t stand anyone who tries to infuse religion with politics and, on a personal level, try to ram religion down my throat. To me, it is a personal choice, and should be kept a personal choice. If I hear one more person yell at me when I say, “Goddamn it”, I’m going to lose it. No offense to those who do actually keep it their own business. But yea, my slant is very evident from my previous posts. As is everyone else’s.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I don’t when anybody runs up the debt, that in itself is bad business at its best. I always think that it is odd that Clinton balanced it and Bush has racked it up, I think that is very ironic. And yea, leftists like me will hate him for anything he does by now.[/quote]
I give Clinton a lot of credit for his New Democrat economic policies - seriously - but never discount the fact that he had a Republican Congress to butt heads with and a surging economy.
That being said, modern Leftists like to cite Clinton’s economic policies, but if a Democrat were to go that route again, the Left would explode in fury about him being Republican-lite. Many modern Democracts’ praise of Clinton is a little disengenous.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
His poll numbers reflect on his party, which is why they are important.
No actually they don’t “reflect on his party” as much as they do on any specific candidate who might be running and holds the same positions as the President. In short, the candidate does not have the President to rely on.
They say these are not biased polls, and I think they reflect the mood of the country. When 48% say they would rather have a Democratic congress next year, I think that is a sign.
If I were you I would be worried that with the Bush numbers so low why do only 48% of the people want a democratic congress. Historically the Presidents poll numbers go up prior to mid term elections. Hence, the 48% figure will only go down from here, most likely.
I will not debate the dominance of Conservatives in the last 20 years, you are right about that. Clinton, in his own right, was not much of a liberal. And Hillary, the cunt, is, as previously said, acting more and more like the fucking politician that she is than trying to untite the party under an anti-conservative banner.
I agree Bill Clinton governed more to the center right regarding most issues. The reason of course is the conservative trend. And let me remind you that there is no “anti-conservative” banner in which to unite the democratic party! There are however a large minority of democrats who consider themselves liberal. They do get a great deal of attention and they do harm the democrats chances of winning the White House.
But either way, I really think that times will change.
That apparently is your “hope” as there is no factual information to back it up.
A period of greed is always followed by a period of progress.
The fact you think we are in a period of “greed” tells a great deal about your political slant.
I think that if the Dems get in there, and run shit the right way, we will see a big change. Hell, its not like they can run up the debt any higher.
It is sad commentary that a republican administration could run up the national debt. However, these are unique times…
And you know, as much as I hate the bastard, I can honestly say I have never “hated” a President.I almost feel bad for W. It seems like for the first time in his career as our glorious leader, he is trying to unite more than divide.
I think he was always a uniter, but in Washington you just don’t unite. That is commentary on politics of the day.
It irritates me that his polls might only be dropping because the jesus freaks are abandoning him.
Your comment on Christians is demeaning and insulting. I wonder if you also have derogatory names for Blacks, Gays and others whom you are either not a part of or don’t understand.
His moves to the center are met with anger by Dems like me, who hate him for what he has done, and anger from the far right, who hate him for what he hasn’t. He has put himself in a hell of a position.
“Dems” like you would hate him for just about anything he does! At least that’s my feeling from reading your many posts.
You’re right on most of your stuff here. I will never agree that he was a uniter, of course, and I do actually hate the bastard, there’s no way I can deny that.
I don’t when anybody runs up the debt, that in itself is bad business at its best. I always think that it is odd that Clinton balanced it and Bush has racked it up, I think that is very ironic. And yea, leftists like me will hate him for anything he does by now.
As for the jesus freak comment, well, it is what it is. Being so far on the left I have very few prejudices (or try to, to the best of my abilities) based on anyone’s color or creed. But Superchristians drive me crazy, as I can’t stand anyone who tries to infuse religion with politics and, on a personal level, try to ram religion down my throat. To me, it is a personal choice, and should be kept a personal choice. If I hear one more person yell at me when I say, “Goddamn it”, I’m going to lose it. No offense to those who do actually keep it their own business. But yea, my slant is very evident from my previous posts. As is everyone else’s.[/quote]
So, basically it’s okay to offend Christians with your language and views. However, being so far on “the left” (as you put it) you would never insult any other group. Let’s say those that espouse a more liberal philosophy for example.
In that same vein I’m guessing you think it’s fine for the many liberal groups to lobby for their interests in Washington. Perhaps you need an infusion of tolerance for ALL groups who need and want to be heard.
I don’t think the left is as much for big government spending as people seem to think…
I think society as a whole has grown to understand that something approaching a balanced budget should be ideal.
Maybe I’m wrong.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I don’t when anybody runs up the debt, that in itself is bad business at its best. I always think that it is odd that Clinton balanced it and Bush has racked it up, I think that is very ironic. And yea, leftists like me will hate him for anything he does by now.
I give Clinton a lot of credit for his New Democrat economic policies - seriously - but never discount the fact that he had a Republican Congress to butt heads with and a surging economy.
That being said, modern Leftists like to cite Clinton’s economic policies, but if a Democrat were to go that route again, the Left would explode in fury about him being Republican-lite. Many modern Democracts’ praise of Clinton is a little disengenous.
[/quote]
I give Clinton credit for balancing the budget and keeping things going. But I dont like NAFTA, I don’t like the outsourcing that has gone on. Double edged blade. And yes, the Left would lose it if someone else tried it…but I attribute that to the charisma that he had, along with a need to compromise with a Repub. congress. Either way it worked out during the 90s.
It doesnt matter who is in office, alot of non-Americans will always hate us just based on how there own country twists their view of us.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
His poll numbers reflect on his party, which is why they are important.
No actually they don’t “reflect on his party” as much as they do on any specific candidate who might be running and holds the same positions as the President. In short, the candidate does not have the President to rely on.
They say these are not biased polls, and I think they reflect the mood of the country. When 48% say they would rather have a Democratic congress next year, I think that is a sign.
If I were you I would be worried that with the Bush numbers so low why do only 48% of the people want a democratic congress. Historically the Presidents poll numbers go up prior to mid term elections. Hence, the 48% figure will only go down from here, most likely.
I will not debate the dominance of Conservatives in the last 20 years, you are right about that. Clinton, in his own right, was not much of a liberal. And Hillary, the cunt, is, as previously said, acting more and more like the fucking politician that she is than trying to untite the party under an anti-conservative banner.
I agree Bill Clinton governed more to the center right regarding most issues. The reason of course is the conservative trend. And let me remind you that there is no “anti-conservative” banner in which to unite the democratic party! There are however a large minority of democrats who consider themselves liberal. They do get a great deal of attention and they do harm the democrats chances of winning the White House.
But either way, I really think that times will change.
That apparently is your “hope” as there is no factual information to back it up.
A period of greed is always followed by a period of progress.
The fact you think we are in a period of “greed” tells a great deal about your political slant.
I think that if the Dems get in there, and run shit the right way, we will see a big change. Hell, its not like they can run up the debt any higher.
It is sad commentary that a republican administration could run up the national debt. However, these are unique times…
And you know, as much as I hate the bastard, I can honestly say I have never “hated” a President.I almost feel bad for W. It seems like for the first time in his career as our glorious leader, he is trying to unite more than divide.
I think he was always a uniter, but in Washington you just don’t unite. That is commentary on politics of the day.
It irritates me that his polls might only be dropping because the jesus freaks are abandoning him.
Your comment on Christians is demeaning and insulting. I wonder if you also have derogatory names for Blacks, Gays and others whom you are either not a part of or don’t understand.
His moves to the center are met with anger by Dems like me, who hate him for what he has done, and anger from the far right, who hate him for what he hasn’t. He has put himself in a hell of a position.
“Dems” like you would hate him for just about anything he does! At least that’s my feeling from reading your many posts.
You’re right on most of your stuff here. I will never agree that he was a uniter, of course, and I do actually hate the bastard, there’s no way I can deny that.
I don’t when anybody runs up the debt, that in itself is bad business at its best. I always think that it is odd that Clinton balanced it and Bush has racked it up, I think that is very ironic. And yea, leftists like me will hate him for anything he does by now.
As for the jesus freak comment, well, it is what it is. Being so far on the left I have very few prejudices (or try to, to the best of my abilities) based on anyone’s color or creed. But Superchristians drive me crazy, as I can’t stand anyone who tries to infuse religion with politics and, on a personal level, try to ram religion down my throat. To me, it is a personal choice, and should be kept a personal choice. If I hear one more person yell at me when I say, “Goddamn it”, I’m going to lose it. No offense to those who do actually keep it their own business. But yea, my slant is very evident from my previous posts. As is everyone else’s.
So, basically it’s okay to offend Christians with your language and views. However, being so far on “the left” (as you put it) you would never insult any other group. Let’s say those that espouse a more liberal philosophy for example.
In that same vein I’m guessing you think it’s fine for the many liberal groups to lobby for their interests in Washington. Perhaps you need an infusion of tolerance for ALL groups who need and want to be heard.
[/quote]
If it offends you I’m sorry. Just as you don’t mind pissing off liberals, I don’t mind pissing off the righteous right. As I said before, I do not like those that are trying to infuse religion with politics, and they irritate me personally with their radical views (just like I irritate you with my radical views). There isn’t much more for me to say on this.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
It doesnt matter who is in office, alot of non-Americans will always hate us just based on how there own country twists their view of us. [/quote]
That isn’t true. European relations were not nearly as stressed as they are now. Germany had been one of our closest allies before all this. France may have always hated us for reasons unbeknownst, but other countries have reason to hate us now, where they didn’t so much back in the day. If we kept our asses out of other country’s business, no one would hate us.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
cancer wrote:
maybe you all don’t care about this one that much… but non-Americans have been tired of Bush gang for years.
So–who cares[/quote]
I dont think my post was put on earlier so this is a recap but sas this is the stupidest thing i’ve heard yet today. Getting along w/ other countries is just as important as getting along w/ your friends and family. Why would anybody help us out if they hate our guts for charging into things all the time? A superpower country w/out the support of weaker countries is a dying giant.
Real conservatives don’t participate in polls, they just vote when it counts.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t think the left is as much for big government spending as people seem to think…
I think society as a whole has grown to understand that something approaching a balanced budget should be ideal.
Maybe I’m wrong.[/quote]
Uh oh, this is twice in one day… Vroom get out of my head!!!
[quote]elLoboSolatario wrote:
Real conservatives don’t participate in polls, they just vote when it counts.[/quote]
I think there’s more truth to that statement than you might have intended.
Polls are no polls, he should be Fired! 
Elk
I’ll bet you he will quit in the next 3 years, or so - Just in time to welcome in President George Allen.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
If it offends you I’m sorry. Just as you don’t mind pissing off liberals, I don’t mind pissing off the righteous right. As I said before, I do not like those that are trying to infuse religion with politics, and they irritate me personally with their radical views (just like I irritate you with my radical views). There isn’t much more for me to say on this.[/quote]
Ahh, but you don’t irritate me with your liberal views! In fact, I think it’s healthy to have two opposing sides, such as the two party system.
What offends me is that you don’t care if you berate Christians, but seem to be tolerant of other groups who are just as political.
[quote]cancer wrote:
maybe you all don’t care about this one that much… but non-Americans have been tired of Bush gang for years.[/quote]
Because Bush generally puts American interests first he has proven to be unpopular around the world.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
snipeout wrote:
It doesnt matter who is in office, alot of non-Americans will always hate us just based on how there own country twists their view of us.
That isn’t true. European relations were not nearly as stressed as they are now. Germany had been one of our closest allies before all this. France may have always hated us for reasons unbeknownst, but other countries have reason to hate us now, where they didn’t so much back in the day. If we kept our asses out of other country’s business, no one would hate us.[/quote]
How do you figure this? We haven’t gotten on well with Germany for a long time. The only thing that kept us together was the Soviet threat.
France has of course stabbed us in the back at every opportunity for decades.
French, German and Russian support of Saddam and their involvement in the incredibly corrupt oil for food programs shows they have been dealing with the devil. They are pissed because we spoiled their party. Tough shit. We are on the right side of this deal.
The fact they are pissed at Bush means he must be doing something right.
Fightin: Its not good to make fun of other people’s religions b/c they could come back and make fun of your irish heritage.