I mean, to a considerable extent, I judge W. by the kinds of stuff I HAVEN'T seen in the news in the last six years. That would include news stories about an American president:
- Porking a teenage intern (and a fat ugly one at that) in the oval office during working hours while keeping visiting dignataries waiting in the outer office.
- Bombing an innocent Christian nation to dust for 80 days and nights to take a rape allegation against himself off the front pages of our own newspapers.
- Selling H-Bomb secrets to the chicoms for DNC cash.
- Allowing/causing rogue govt. agencies to firebomba religious community and killing 80 innocents in lieue of simply nabbing the one guy they wanted on his daily trip to the 7/11.
- Closing off a trillion-dollar US coal asset for the benefit of his LIPPO buddies who owned the world's only other such asset.
- Making up and keeping a database of raw FBI files on all American political figures.
- Appointing a lunatic like Janet Reno as AG of the United States to play the role of "goalie" at DOJ.
- Selling off US military equipment and assets to such an extent that we needed to rebuild for two years before we could attack Iraq after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks which followed it and which had the clear trademark of Saddam Hussein.
- Conducting a fire sale of presidential pardons just prior to going out the whitehouse door including sale of a pardon to ultra-criminal Mark Rich, who is largely responsible for the grief which Russia experienced in the 90s.
I mean, how much do you need? Who do you think you're going to fool with this bullshit about W. being more impeachable thatn SlicKKK?
Nobody's going to impeach W., now or ever, and you stupid rats need to get used to that. SlicKKK KKKlintler was our worst president by a gigantic margin over whoever or whatever is in second place, which is probably Jimmy Carter, and W. is nowhere even close to any of that.
And your list is not even near complete, gunga. To add a couple, don't forget IRS auditing of your political enemies as a way to silence them? That should have been enough as well. Nobody cared. They still don't. They want to elect one of the partners in those crimes. And how about personal threats to those women that reported rape?
Can you imagine the media hysteria now if any of those things had happened with George Bush? The best they can dream up is to rewrite history as it unfolded in regard to the sorry CIA and what it told the administrations about Saddam Hussein, not just Bush, but Clinton as well. Remember, Clinton was preaching the danger of Hussein before Bush even got to Washington. I say again, the last 15 years has to be the most bizarre in all of American political history.
Do me a favor and save the Clinton hating for another thread.
You fellows should realize that for all the problems you have with Clinton, the rest of the country did not. He enjoyed a high approval rating his entire time in office.
To get back on track,
Bush is engaging in the worst sort of Sophistry these days. His logic, and the Republicans' logic, is completely circular.
When asked 'why haven't we caught Bin Laden?' Bush answers, 'because he's hiding!' No ****, sherlock. Circular answer.
When asked 'why should Americans trust you, as you have lost credibility?' Bush responds, 'because I read the intelligence reports.' A misleading answer, because he doesn't follow any of the recommendations of the intelligence reports.
Al Qaeda invading Iraq in the numbers it has represents a
failure of Bush's policy in Iraq, a complete failure. Yet he never addresses this fact at all, and isn't ever questioned on it. AQ is in Iraq because we let them in.
Americans realize this, and are repudiating the lines of though that lead to our current problems:
Quote:CBS News/New York Times Poll. May 18-23, 2007. N=1,125 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"
23 Approve
72 Disapprove
5 Undecided
"Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq?"
Republican 33
Democratic 51
Both (vol.) 2
Neither (vol.) 4
Unsure 10
"Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?"
Yes 63
No 34
Unsure 3
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
The modes of thought supported by your leaders are being repudiated. The warnings of doom for purusing these courses are being ignored, and rightly so; they come from the fools who got us in this mess in the first place, and have no validity whatsoever.
Cycloptichorn
Rewriting history does not change the fact that George Bush is a very decent man. You can't change it, cyclops. How high was Truman's polls during his presidency? The only poll that counts is an election.
More patent crapola from gunga and okie. The only charge that might have some validity is the one concerning the pardons.
Looking back about 50 years, I can't think of a single positive contribution to the country by the Reps. Sad!!!
okie wrote:Rewriting history does not change the fact that George Bush is a very decent man. You can't change it, cyclops. How high was Truman's polls during his presidency? The only poll that counts is an election.
That's a nice opinion you have. You may say that your opinion of the man is 'all that matters,' but it isn't all that matters.
What matters more is that he and his policies are sinking your party. Remember Rove's bragging about the '30-year majority' that Republicans were going to hold? Turning out great.
Cycloptichorn
I do not believe he is sinking the party. I do think conservatives are frustrated in terms of finding a true conservative to vote for. The war is a drag, and people grow tired of wars, I won't deny that. But people know deep down that Bush is a decent man. Even if they don't agree with the direction of things, no amount of Democratic spin can change reality.
But the fact remains that 30 days can make a drastic difference in polls. Nobody can predict what the public opinion will be when the next election rolls around. You may think the Democrats have it sewn up already. You do have the press, and you have more illegal immigrants voting, and you have a younger generation coming up that has been indoctrinated by a liberal education system. I will grant you all of that. What you don't have is a set of strong candidates. You have a Clinton that brings tons of baggage and is a person that people do not trust. Plus an Obama that has little experience and is an unknown quantity. He is a rising star, but his star could fade quickly, and I think it is beginning already. It remains to be seen if he can muster the current star quality into anything much a year from now. Beyond that, you don't have much. Edwards could come out of 3rd, but he has many vulnerabilities, and little credibility in my opinion. In contrast, it depends who comes out of the Republican field, but it is loaded with many choices, with more than one having quite a bit of potential, McCain not being one of them.
okie wrote:But people know deep down that Bush is a decent man.
As Habibi once pointed out, you're voting for President of the United States, not guest at a barbeque.
Quote:But people know deep down that Bush is a decent man. Even if they don't agree with the direction of things, no amount of Democratic spin can change reality.
NO, people don't know that. I don't know where you are getting this line from, that 'people know Bush is decent, down deep.' Where is your evidence to support this contention?
Bush's favorability ratings - NOT his job performance ratings - are terrible. Basically, Conservatives such as yourself consider him a 'decent man' and noone else.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm
Forget the 'decent man' mistake you are making, who cares? He's doing a terrible job. And the Republicans in Congress are sticking right by his side while he makes these mistakes. And you don't think that's sinking the party? The numbers for the Republicans haven't been lower in two decades. And you think that isn't Bush's fault?
You say that:
Quote:The war is a drag, and people grow tired of wars, I won't deny that.
But Bush and the Republicans
are the war. They started it, they screwed it up, they won't end it. There is no separation in the minds of the public between the two. It is intrinsically connected to the unpopularity of the party who promoted it ceaselessly and denounced anyone who spoke against it - who were all correct, by the way, about the lack of WMD and the disaster that invading Iraq would be - as traitors or at least UnAmerican. You think people forget being called unAmerican, for being correct?
Cycloptichorn
How can you say that Bush is a 'decent guy?' He lies, and is so far removed from reality, that he can't even be judged in the same way as a normal person.
(btw, K, nice picture! But you left me out!)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070528/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_s_reality;_ylt=AkZiLrK_nZ909N8Mp3IWwYmyFz4D
Bush uses the phrase 'most Americans' in the same way, Okie, as you use the phrase 'people know that Bush is decent, deep down.' Both of you are ignoring all available data, and that's not a good thing.
Cycloptichorn
okie wrote:
...And how about personal threats to those women that reported rape? ...
...Can you imagine the media hysteria now if any of those things had happened with George Bush?.....
No need for imagination. Clarence Thomas told one or two dirty jokes in mixed company and the dems treated that like it was the crime of the century. No republican would ever live long enough to rape anybody at that rate.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Do me a favor and save the Clinton hating for another thread.....
Why? I mean who do you think is stupid enough not to grasp that this whole stupid impeach W. Schtick is about SlicKKK having sole ownership of only elected president to be impeached?
gungasnake wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Do me a favor and save the Clinton hating for another thread.....
Why? I mean who do you think is stupid enough not to grasp that this whole stupid impeach W. Schtick is about SlicKKK having sole ownership of only elected president to be impeached?
I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to, discussing the impeachment of either Bush or Clinton. But we aren't talking about impeachment here, just the falling fortunes of the Republican party.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:How can you say that Bush is a 'decent guy?' He lies, and is so far removed from reality, that he can't even be judged in the same way as a normal person.
(btw, K, nice picture! But you left me out!)
sacrifices had to be made.
<burp>
if you know what I mean :wink:
Setanta wrote:okie wrote:But people know deep down that Bush is a decent man.
As Habibi once pointed out, you're voting for President of the United States, not guest at a barbeque.
If I wouldn't even invite somebody for a barbecue, I wouldn't vote for them either. Not a great analogy, Setanta.
okie wrote:Setanta wrote:okie wrote:But people know deep down that Bush is a decent man.
As Habibi once pointed out, you're voting for President of the United States, not guest at a barbeque.
If I wouldn't even invite somebody for a barbecue, I wouldn't vote for them either. Not a great analogy, Setanta.
Very telling both about you and about how you vote. Sad really. I assume when you need heart surgery your barbecue buddy is good with a knife.
If you had an acquaintance and would not invite him to a barbecue because of what you know about him personally, would you vote for that acquaintance, dyslexia? Yes or No?
If you would not buy a used car from someone because of what you know about them, would you vote for that person, Yes or No?
Maybe you would be trusting enough to vote for a crook or a sleezebag, but I would rather not.
I've searched the net for the article:
WHY I AM A REPUBLICAN, by DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, published in the Saturday Evening Post in 1964.
I could not find a link to a full transcript. But here are a few key quotes:
In speaking about the 1964 election, Ike said
"There you will help decide the future direction our national government will take. Will it be a main road which maintains and strengthens the United States as a model of the free way of life? Or will it be a route which veers toward centralized rule and loss of individual responsibility and liberty, with the consequent weakening of America's strength - moral, economic and military - at home and abroad?
He goes on to explain that country is more important than party, that the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and so on are so important, and then he says:
That is why I am increasingly disturbed by the steady, obvious drift of our nation toward a centralization of power in the Federal Government. And in this fact is found the primary reason why I sincerely urge all voters, no matter what their present political affiliations, to take a fresh, thoughtful look at the basic Republican philosophy and Republican performance as compared to that of the Democrats. For the hard fact is that under many years of Democratic Party leadership our country has been lured into the "easy way," a path of federal expediency which, like a narcotic, may give a false sense of well-being, but in the long run is dangerous to our future, our basic rights, our moral fiber and our individual freedom."
I assure you that I am not being an alarmist for partisan purposes. I do not fear that the United States faces any immediate threat or moral or financial bankruptcy or a political tyranny. However, it seems all too clear that in many significant ways we have headed away from self reliance on individual common sense and toward a "Poppa knows best" federal rule. Perhaps more than many of us realize, we are now suffering the cloying effects of federal subsidies which invariably are accompanied by an overbearing federal bureaucracy that seems unchecked in both size and power. To attempt to detail, item by item, the many areas in which Democratic regimes have concentrated political, social, and economic power in Washington would require an encyclopedia, but let me offer a few representative examples:
And then he talked about those examples. Later, he said:
Republican aims are positive. They have been positive and forward-looking since the party was founded 110 years ago to preserve the Union. Starting with the Civil War and the dedication of Abraham Lincoln to the ideal of national unity, Republican doctrines always have sought to guide our nation away from federal domination on one hand and perilous division on the other. To me the key items of political faith that should always continue to be an inspiring guide to sound political action for any thoughtful citizen are:
1. Abiding faith in the individual. To believe that the essential unit in our democracy is the individual, not any group or class, and that the preservation of our form of government depends in the final analysis on respect of the individual's rights, initiative, judgement and opportunities.
Then the other main points are listed but because of length, I do not include all the discussions of them:
2. Limited powers of government.
3. Freedom and Equality.
4. National Unity
5. World Responsibility
To provide my summary of his article, he outlined his philosophy of government and why the Republican Party best embodied that philosophy. Among the main points was his firm belief in de-centralization of government as close to the people as possible, and an emphasis on individual responsibility and individual rights rather than that of groups or classes.
I think we still see those differences in the parties today, with the Democrats continuing to pull for more centralization, more federal power, and an emphasis on groups and classes of people, in several respects, to include racial and economic. Unfortunately, even in the Republican ranks, there are few true conservatives that still preach the principles that Eisenhower laid out, but at least the Republican Party still comes the closest to at least giving some lip service to wanting to hold to those principles.
So this thread, "Repudiating Republicanism," is basically hogwash. True Republicanism helped make this country great, starting at the first with Abraham Lincoln. And Ike was another great man of American history. Another was Ronald Reagan, who once was a Democrat, but said he did not leave that party, that party left him. And it is still leaving on a tangent to who knows where? Is the country going with it? I hope and pray it never will, but if this forum is any measure, I'm not sure.
And, you're RIGHT to not be sure!
Noone knows where we are going. That's the beauty of it. That's the evolution of our society.
You are correct that we have undergone a steady, liberalizing influence during our brief tenure as a Nation. You are incorrect that this is a bad thing.
Cycloptichorn
