FreeDuck wrote:According to recent elections, independents vote mostly for Republicans. But I don't have percentages handy to back that up.
I do - but their vote is mostly split exactly half/half:
Exit polls for the 2004 Presidential elections
Independents (making up 26% of the electorate) voted:
48% Bush
49% Kerry
1% Nader
Exit polls for the 2000 Presidential elections
Independents (making up 27% of the electorate) voted:
47% Bush
45% Kerry
6% Nader
1% Buchanan
Exit polls for the 1996 Presidential elections
Independents (making up 26% of the electorate) voted:
43% Clinton
35% Dole
17% Perot
Cant find 'em for 1992, which is frustrating, cause that was when Perot had his best shot.
FreeDuck wrote:okie wrote:However, the term, "independent," seems to be a good cover for not admitting to be a liberal for lots of liberals.
I completely disagree. Independents have historically voted conservative and not liberal. In the current climate, however, with a "conservative" party that consistently fails to practice what it preaches and that has begun to lean extremist, anyone who no longer can stomach it is percieved as a liberal by those who are still faithful. We have discussed this curiosity of political identification here before, and when it's all said and done, independents are rarely identified as liberal, except by those who identify everyone who is "other" as liberal, as I guess they need to.
What is so extreme about Republicans? Yes, they've lost their way, but mainly they are becoming more liberal, more "moderate" if you will, with more government spending.
What is so extreme about republicans? Geeesh, where have you been living during the past five years?
There are so many whacked out opinions here, I feel like throwing up my hands, but a few comments as follows. If things are so bad, how come millions of people risk their necks to get here, and then are elated to work at or below minimum wage? Don't some of you ever get tired of whinin?
I have relatives that got thousands more than they paid in for income tax because of the earned income credits and child credits. Part of Bush's tax policy. Republican not Democrat. Many Democrats opposed it, remember?
I will marginally agree with some of you about corporate execs making way too much money. I don't like regulating it, so here again I don't like it but placing a much higher tax rate on ridiculous wage and bonus amounts could be considered.
As for vets, its easy to find testimonials of bad luck almost anytime.And we know the government is typically inefficient or incompetent, so is the vets problems any surprise? Not caused by Bush. Such stuff can probably be found and reported on if so chosen under any administration. It should be fixed, and probably will be fixed eventually.
cicerone imposter wrote:What is so extreme about republicans? Geeesh, where have you been living during the past five years?
I live right here in this country. How about you. Please do not bring up NSA if that is one of your examples of extremism. You will only illustrate yourself as a nutcase. I just looked at a recent Newsweek that included info on FDR, and he was and is of course one of the greatest, if not the greatest president ever according to libs, even though he rounded up thousands of people and threw them in concentration camps and confiscated their property during WWII for no other reason than their heredity, yet that is not extreme, instead Bush is extreme for having computers check out phone conversations with possible terrorist connections. Give me a break. Some of you have lost your ever lovin minds.
So what else might you wish to say is so extreme anyway?
Whoa! Talk about classic strawman!
How about debating the point instead of using the "strawman" accusation? Frankly, that argument is worn out. Democrats do not like the comparisons and context from history by comparisons of Bush's NSA program with what FDR did because it makes some of their accusations look silly. Has it ever occurred to you that they are silly?
Oh well, I'm calling it a day and go do something worthwhile, like read a book.
okie, You're talking history that's over 65 years ago. What has that got to do with Bush? The past is past, but righties like to bring up the past to prove their point that "Bush isn't so bad." Heck, we're talking about the here and now. Don't you still get it?
okie wrote:How about debating the point instead of using the "strawman" accusation? Frankly, that argument is worn out.
No, what is worn out is that all your "arguments" are logical fallacies.
Logical fallacies do not require rebuttal.
Secret Service to Release Logs on Abramoff Visits
Associated Press
Tuesday, May 2, 2006; A02
The Secret Service has agreed to turn over White House visitor logs that will show how often Jack Abramoff, the convicted former lobbyist, met with Bush administration officials -- and with whom he met.
U.S. District Judge John Garrett Penn approved an agreement last Tuesday between the Secret Service and Judicial Watch, a public interest group, that requires the agency to produce records of Abramoff's visits from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present.
Judicial Watch filed suit in February after the Secret Service did not respond to its request under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
Abramoff once was one of the city's most successful lobbyists. He represented Indian tribes in their dealings with Washington politicians.
He pleaded guilty in January in Washington to federal charges stemming from an investigation into his ties with members of Congress and the Bush administration. He also pleaded guilty to fraud charges in Miami concerning a multimillion-dollar purchase of the SunCruz Casinos gambling fleet in 2000.
Administration officials have refused to say how many times Abramoff, who raised at least $100,000 for President Bush's reelection, has been to the White House. Bush has said he does not know Abramoff.[\B]
The visitor logs are to be delivered to Judicial Watch by May 10.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie, You're talking history that's over 65 years ago. What has that got to do with Bush? The past is past, but righties like to bring up the past to prove their point that "Bush isn't so bad." Heck, we're talking about the here and now. Don't you still get it?
So now we are talking about the here and now, huh? I thought the stupid title of this thread was something about the worst president in history? What other presidents did, whether 65 years ago or 200 years ago seems pertinent. So the past is past now, don't bring up the past, but yet the dumb subject is the worst president in all of history, but hey, I can't mention history? Your argument is downright illogical. Some of the arguments on this forum I would have to see to believe they are so illogical.
cicerone imposter wrote:Secret Service to Release Logs on Abramoff Visits
Associated Press
Tuesday, May 2, 2006; A02
The Secret Service has agreed to turn over White House visitor logs that will show how often Jack Abramoff, the convicted former lobbyist, met with Bush administration officials -- and with whom he met.
U.S. District Judge John Garrett Penn approved an agreement last Tuesday between the Secret Service and Judicial Watch, a public interest group, that requires the agency to produce records of Abramoff's visits from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present.
Judicial Watch filed suit in February after the Secret Service did not respond to its request under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
Abramoff once was one of the city's most successful lobbyists. He represented Indian tribes in their dealings with Washington politicians.
He pleaded guilty in January in Washington to federal charges stemming from an investigation into his ties with members of Congress and the Bush administration. He also pleaded guilty to fraud charges in Miami concerning a multimillion-dollar purchase of the SunCruz Casinos gambling fleet in 2000.
Administration officials have refused to say how many times Abramoff, who raised at least $100,000 for President Bush's reelection, has been to the White House. Bush has said he does not know Abramoff.[\B]
The visitor logs are to be delivered to Judicial Watch by May 10.
And now lobbying is automatically the worst crime in all of this century. Another example of liberal logic. Chinese arms dealers, foreign campaign contributors, and Indonesian crooks linked to the White House a few years ago were of no interest. Just the kook right wing Republicans throwing around baseless accusations a few years ago, right? Some of you libs are the biggest hypocrits of all time. I am not defending Abramoff, but how many lobbyists visited the White House, visited Congressional offices, and visited lots of places? Last I checked, lobbying was legal. Being a congressman is still legal, much to my chagrin, and some are crooks while others are not. I am simply providing some historical context here, since that is part of the subject.
Thanks for those numbers, nimh. I clearly had the wrong impression, though 1992 (Perot) was what I had in mind. Still, the last few elections seem to show a more even split than I thought.
okie wrote:
What is so extreme about Republicans? Yes, they've lost their way, but mainly they are becoming more liberal, more "moderate" if you will, with more government spending.
Out of control government spending is not something I would call moderate. It's not liberal either because they are not spending it on social programs. And no attempt is made to bring in more money to cover the expenditures but the opposite, tax cuts for the top earners (which take the biggest chunk out of the treasury). I would propose that attempting to bankrupt the federal government is extremist.
Under that definition, we've had extremists in government for a long long time. And would you also say that the programs that cause the over spending are therefore extremist policies? After all, when you overspend, there is a root cause of the spending. Entitlement programs are gobbling up much of the money now? Are Social Security and Medicare extremist programs?
okie, You are behind the times on the available media concerning Bush as the worst president. Here's one you should enjoy.
http://www.siena.edu/SRI/results/2006/PresBushPoll.htm
okie wrote:Under that definition, we've had extremists in government for a long long time.
Bullshit. This is the first time in the history of civilization that a government has drastically cut taxes during a time of war.
Did you see that? Bush is rated the worst in American history by historians.
I know approval ratings and opinion polls mean nothing to the right these days when we discuss the impotence of this administration, but they certainly meant something when the drums were beating for the preemptive strike against Iraq.
But for the record, can someone tell me if any other president has had a lower approval rating?
