Bush should fire himself

[Badmojo1006 0]

Insults and name calling make legitimate debate more difficult.

 

BTW - It's okay for me to disagree with you, right?

 

Ty, even though we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, I feel I could have a decent dialouge and/or debate with you...

 

But with fastfish,gocolts, etal when one of them has "Liberal is a mental disorder" as his mantra, there is no talking to them...

 

So, yeah, I resort to insults and name calling with the likes of them...not proud of it, but

[TyCobb 0]

Ty, even though we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, I feel I could have a decent dialouge and/or debate with you...

 

But with fastfish,gocolts, etal when one of them has "Liberal is a mental disorder" as his mantra, there is no talking to them...

 

So, yeah, I resort to insults and name calling with the likes of them...not proud of it, but

 

I understand. Emotions run strong on these issues. I'm cool with you.

 

I just find it amusing that some libs on this board regard me as stupid because I don't agree politically with them. Ironically, that's the attitude that keeps getting conservatives elected.

 

The country wants ideas and solutions and plans, not Bush-bashing.

[torridjoe 48]

I understand. Emotions run strong on these issues. I'm cool with you.

 

I just find it amusing that some libs on this board regard me as stupid because I don't agree politically with them. Ironically, that's the attitude that keeps getting conservatives elected.

 

The country wants ideas and solutions and plans, not Bush-bashing.

 

You're not stupid, no way. I think you have a strong resistance to contradictory information, however.

[TyCobb 0]

You're not stupid, no way. I think you have a strong resistance to contradictory information, however.

 

Touche.

[MDC 7,422]

Ever heard of the 9/11 Commission?

No, there's not. He authorizes it to be shared ... that makes it declassified. By the very nature of being the President, he cannot leak classified information.

Again, he said he would fire someone who intentionally leaked the name of a covert agent. That didn't happen, there was no covert agent, thus the only ones wasting taxpayer time and money are the left and the media. IMHO.

Please refer to the frequent posts by Recliner and others replete with dozens of quotes from nearly ever leading Democrat in the country citing the same evidence and coming to the same conclusion about Iraq.

 

Bush as an incompetent liar is the media's template by which events are interpreted and regurgitated these days in the news. You don't have to limit yourself to that template, however. You're smarter than that.

 

Ty, you are lying to yourself.

 

I don't know what the formal process for declassification is, but let's just assume for a second that Bush as President can selectively "declassify" portions of the NIE any time he feels like it. You are probably correct on that count.

 

So assuming Bush did declassify Plame's identity days before it was leaked to the press, aren't you the least bit curious about why he spent two years fuming about the "leakers" and getting to the bottom of it? He let investigators waste taxpayer time and money while he put on a big focking charade for the purpose of covering his own ass, and deep down you know it.

 

Congress absolutely did not have the same info as Bush, and we know this because most of the NIE is still classified. For some crazy reason, the portions that Bush decided to quietly declassify were only those parts that supported his case for war in Iraq or punished his critics.

 

As far as the "media template," it's reality. Bush has spent us into a generation of debt and even if you support the war in Iraq, it's been a tactical blunder from the beginning. His presidency has been an utter failure.

[TyCobb 0]

Ty, you are lying to yourself.

 

assuming Bush did declassify Plame's identity days before it was leaked to the press, aren't you the least bit curious about why he spent two years fuming about the "leakers" and getting to the bottom of it? He let investigators waste taxpayer time and money while he put on a big focking charade for the purpose of covering his own ass, and deep down you know it.

 

There was nothing to cover. He didn't leak her name. He declassified documents which show Joe Wilson to be a liar and a political hack looking to create a lib+media circle-jerk for the express purpose of undermining the President during a time of war.

 

Congress absolutely did not have the same info as Bush, and we know this because most of the NIE is still classified. For some crazy reason, the portions that Bush decided to quietly declassify were only those parts that supported his case for war in Iraq or punished his critics.

 

Well, if they're still classified, what makes you so sure they will vindicate your view? They could just as easily bolster Bush's viewpoint, no?

 

And BTW - Did President Bill Clinton have limited access when in office? Cause he sure as heck perceived Saddam as a direct threat.

 

As far as the "media template," it's reality. Bush has spent us into a generation of debt and even if you support the war in Iraq, it's been a tactical blunder from the beginning. His presidency has been an utter failure.

 

It's been a tough war, as Bush & Co. said it would be from the start. Rome's not built in a day. And at some point they must step up and take over, which they seem to be doing.

 

Only the media relishes in every defeat. I doubt you do personally, but I wonder if you've made a single post regarding the incredible success stories we've had in Iraq so far. Have you? Or are you just focusing on the negative? Honestly, I'm wondering.

[torridjoe 48]

actually, the "& Co." part of that DID say it would be easy. They said it would take weeks and we'd be greeted as liberators.

 

What incredible success story in Iraq? It's a miserable failure through and through.

 

He didn't declassify the document; he leaked selected parts of it to selected media.

 

The NIE is still classified, but it's now public knowledge, because it was leaked by other sources.

 

The NIE doesn't show Wilson is a liar; it proves he was right. There was no attempt to purchase uranium; that's a known fact, and it was known by the White House for almost a YEAR before they began slamming Wilson.

[phillybear 366]

Bush should set himself on fire.

[TyCobb 0]

Best economy in 20 years.

 

How do you figure?

 

Well, here's a few recent headlines ... maybe you missed em.

 

243,000 new jobs ... more than expected!

 

Not just jobs ... GOOD PAYING JOBS!

 

Consumer confidence up

 

Hope this helps.

 

Here's a few more for you.

 

Home sales up

 

Consumer confidence at 4 year high

 

Hope these help too. I'm sure there will be more in the coming months if the Dems don't get in Bush's way.

[torridjoe 48]

Here's a few more for you.

 

Home sales up

 

Consumer confidence at 4 year high

 

Hope these help too. I'm sure there will be more in the coming months if the Dems don't get in Bush's way.

 

Yes, the Dems have really been the problem. They are so VERY powerful in Congress. If only the GOP had a majority in Congress and a Republican President! Then they could get things done!

[TyCobb 0]

Yes, the Dems have really been the problem. They are so VERY powerful in Congress. If only the GOP had a majority in Congress and a Republican President! Then they could get things done!

 

Hehe. Yeah, I threw that part about the Dems in for fun.

[torridjoe 48]

Hehe. Yeah, I threw that part about the Dems in for fun.

 

Call them spineless and disorganized if you wish. But "responsible for our current problems" is not on their plate.

[TyCobb 0]

243,000 new jobs ... more than expected!

 

Not just jobs ... GOOD PAYING JOBS!

 

Consumer confidence up

 

Home sales up

 

Consumer confidence at 4 year high

 

Dow Jones nearing all time high!

 

And it just keeps rolling along.

 

BTW - Is this enough, hoytdwow, or do you need some more?

[Soonerman 0]

243,000 new jobs ... more than expected!

 

Not just jobs ... GOOD PAYING JOBS!

 

Consumer confidence up

 

Home sales up

 

Consumer confidence at 4 year high

 

Dow Jones nearing all time high!

 

And it just keeps rolling along.

 

BTW - Is this enough, hoytdwow, or do you need some more?

 

But none of this matters, because Bushitler is pulling the secret presidential "Raise Gas Prices" lever as we speak.

[TyCobb 0]

But none of this matters, because Bushitler is pulling the secret presidential "Raise Gas Prices" lever as we speak.

 

Ah. Right.

[MDC 7,422]

Bush is now polling under a 50% approval rate in every state in the union.

[torridjoe 48]

But none of this matters, because Bushitler is pulling the secret presidential "Raise Gas Prices" lever as we speak.

 

Actually, none of it matters because it now means Bush is back to even ground. So in 5 years he's been able to move the economy zero steps forward. That's aces, George!

[TyCobb 0]

Actually, none of it matters because it now means Bush is back to even ground. So in 5 years he's been able to move the economy zero steps forward. That's aces, George!

 

Spin it that way if you want, but I think it's pretty dang impressive considering all that's happened during the last 6 years. And it's on the upswing, as opposed to what he inherited from his predecessor.

[Soonerman 0]

Actually, none of it matters because it now means Bush is back to even ground. So in 5 years he's been able to move the economy zero steps forward. That's aces, George!

 

I don't think many people are going to listen to someone who prefers Rove's scalp to Osama's.

[torridjoe 48]

Spin it that way if you want, but I think it's pretty dang impressive considering all that's happened during the last 6 years. And it's on the upswing, as opposed to what he inherited from his predecessor.

 

Why is it impressive to screw things up, then try to fix it by borrowing money, so that things are much worse down the road?

 

As for "upswing," he inherited an economy on the upswing. The economy peaked in March 2001. Even considering the shortest, mildest recession in history, we had a strong fiscal picture for the first time in decades. And Bush squandered every last penny, and trillions of pennies we don't have (and got from China).

 

A record deficit, flat wages and poor employment penetration are not impressive, sorry.

 

I don't think many people are going to listen to someone who prefers Rove's scalp to Osama's.

 

Ha. The people who aren't being listened to, are the people in government saying the economy's going well.

[brinett9 0]

He'd prolly have to declassify himself first.

[What is the deal? 1]

Why is it impressive to screw things up, then try to fix it by borrowing money, so that things are much worse down the road?

 

As for "upswing," he inherited an economy on the upswing. The economy peaked in March 2001. Even considering the shortest, mildest recession in history, we had a strong fiscal picture for the first time in decades. And Bush squandered every last penny, and trillions of pennies we don't have (and got from China).

 

A record deficit, flat wages and poor employment penetration are not impressive, sorry.

Ha. The people who aren't being listened to, are the people in government saying the economy's going well.

The bubble economy blew up in March 2001. If you think that is Bush's fault you are confused

[torridjoe 48]

The bubble economy blew up in March 2001. If you think that is Bush's fault you are confused

 

Who said anything about blame? I said he inherited an economy on the upswing; the economy peaked in March 2001, and then suffered a recession almost not worth talking about, it was so mild. And yet it took more than triple the usual time to restore it back to pre-recession levels.

[Ravens 03 0]

Bush is now polling under a 50% approval rate in every state in the union.

 

He's not runing for anything.

[MDC 7,422]

He's not runing for anything.

 

This is true, so since there's nothing at stake he can continue to disgrace himself and America and forge a legacity of failure and incompetence. Great point.

 

Bush is polling sub-50% in Texas. That is just focking sad.

[torridjoe 48]

He's not runing for anything.

 

but hundreds of people who were banking on basking in his glow come election time are. And they are getting VERY nervous. Cook's Political Report today is pointing towards a perfect storm of Republican flameout in November.

[Franknbeans 46]

and the Katrina ball is still dropped

[What is the deal? 1]

Who said anything about blame? I said he inherited an economy on the upswing; the economy peaked in March 2001, and then suffered a recession almost not worth talking about, it was so mild. And yet it took more than triple the usual time to restore it back to pre-recession levels.

The recession was mild because the tax cuts helped.

 

Ask college graduates between 2002 and 2005 if the recession is worth talking about.

 

The economy on the upswing was fake. Projections were out of control there was no way to sustain that amount of growth. This happened during the Clinton years.

 

Now we are back to where we should be chugging along at a realistic pace.

 

but hundreds of people who were banking on basking in his glow come election time are. And they are getting VERY nervous. Cook's Political Report today is pointing towards a perfect storm of Republican flameout in November.

Last I checked the approval ratings for democrats weren't all that great either.

[D_House 0]

not for nothing, but isn't it kind of weird to be posting about a dead sibling on a fantasy football website's message board?

[Franknbeans 46]

not for nothing, but isn't it kind of weird to be posting about a dead sibling on a fantasy football website's message board?

 

no weirder than posting about it in a Bush thread

[torridjoe 48]

The recession was mild because the tax cuts helped.

 

Ask college graduates between 2002 and 2005 if the recession is worth talking about.

 

The economy on the upswing was fake. Projections were out of control there was no way to sustain that amount of growth. This happened during the Clinton years.

 

Now we are back to where we should be chugging along at a realistic pace.

Last I checked the approval ratings for democrats weren't all that great either.

 

The tax cuts didn't even go into effect before it was over.

 

"the economy on the upswing was fake"--so that was fake money that paid down the debt and all our bills? Those 33 million people didn't actually get jobs?

 

Approval, shmapproval. Ask Americans who they want running Congress, and it's Democrats in a walk. Significantly, they also favor the Democrat in their own district, overall. And regardless of approval ratings, Democrats are significantly more fired up about the election than Republicans. Midterm elections are all about turnout.

[What is the deal? 1]

The tax cuts didn't even go into effect before it was over.

 

"the economy on the upswing was fake"--so that was fake money that paid down the debt and all our bills? Those 33 million people didn't actually get jobs?

 

Approval, shmapproval. Ask Americans who they want running Congress, and it's Democrats in a walk. Significantly, they also favor the Democrat in their own district, overall. And regardless of approval ratings, Democrats are significantly more fired up about the election than Republicans. Midterm elections are all about turnout.

sounds almost like what I heard in '04.

 

They got jobs, but should they have? That money paid off the debt, but should it have even been there? Companies projections where through the roof they continued to spend, invest, and hire like that pace was going to continue, once they realized it wasn't it all came to a screeching halt.

 

Newt is going to be Prez in '08 regardless

[torridjoe 48]

sounds almost like what I heard in '04.

 

Newt is going to be Prez in '08 regardless

 

whatever you heard then, the numbers are totally different now. And the people I'm referring to (Cook, Rothenberg, Pew, the bipartisan RT Strategies) weren't saying any of these things in 1994:

 

It is clear that these issues have taken a toll. RT Strategies, headed

by Thom Riehle, a veteran Democratic pollster, and Lance Tarrance, one

of the pioneering pollsters on the Republican side, found that when

respondents were asked which party they would like to see in control of

Congress after these elections, Democrats had an advantage of 11 points

among all adults, 48-37 percent, 12 points among registered voters,

49-37 percent, and 17 points among the most likely voters, 53-36 percent.

 

In the other variation of what has come to be known as the generic

congressional ballot test, when people were asked whether they planned on

voting for the Democratic candidate for Congress or the Republican,

Democrats led by 12 points among adults, 44-32 percent; by 13 points among

registered voters, 45-32 percent; and by a whopping 18 points among

those most likely to vote, 50-32 percent.

 

===========================================================

Don't keep Charlie's insight all to yourself!

Please forward the following link to friends and colleagues.

 

Sign up:

http://nationaljournal.com/about/cookcolumn.htm

===========================================================

 

Simply put, there are a lot of Republicans who are showing little

interest in this election, which matches a downward trend that has been seen

in party identification over the last two years. The two parties are no

longer evenly matched.

 

"Most likely voters" were those who, when asked on a scale of one (low)

to 10 (high) how interested they were in the November midterm

elections, selected nine or 10. Among all registered voters, 50 percent

described their level of interest as 10, but there was a huge discrepancy

between the parties, with 54 percent of Democrats and 42 percent of

Republicans choosing the highest number. Among independents, 47 percent chose

10. This double-digit intensity disparity between the two parties was

also found in the March and April NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls.

 

Counting those who rated their interest as nine or 10 in our poll, 60

percent of Democrats and 51 percent of Republicans qualified as very

likely voters; those levels are generally more reflective of a

presidential race rather than turnout for a midterm election. If someone was

looking for the best possible warning sign of a voter turnout problem for

Republicans, the level of interest would be it. These numbers amount to a

sharp departure from the last two elections, when Republican voters

were more motivated than Democrats, and, in fact, turned out in higher

numbers.

[What is the deal? 1]

whatever you heard then, the numbers are totally different now. And the people I'm referring to (Cook, Rothenberg, Pew, the bipartisan RT Strategies) weren't saying any of these things in 1994:

maybe we should let the Polls answer the questions rather than some sample size of far less greater in a before campaigns have even started.

[footballpowers 0]

 

 

http://img275.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bush35dy.jpg

[torridjoe 48]

maybe we should let the Polls answer the questions rather than some sample size of far less greater in a before campaigns have even started.

 

translate into english please?

And weren't you "out"?

[What is the deal? 1]

translate into english please?

And weren't you "out"?

I can't stay away, lol, now i really need to get some work done....

 

I am saying that the sample size that those people use to conduct those polls is miniscule when compared to the number of people that vote. I'd like to know how the random sampling was devised in order to know whether it was accurate or not.

 

In addition, the Republicans like usual will gain steam going into Novemeber, just wait and see...

 

None of it matters because Newt is going to Prez in '08 mark it down.

[torridjoe 48]

I can't stay away, lol, now i really need to get some work done....

 

I am saying that the sample size that those people use to conduct those polls is miniscule when compared to the number of people that vote. I'd like to know how the random sampling was devised in order to know whether it was accurate or not.

 

In addition, the Republicans like usual will gain steam going into Novemeber, just wait and see...

 

None of it matters because Newt is going to Prez in '08 mark it down.

 

1,000 people is a very strong sample. The error rate is very low with that many.

 

If you want to believe in a political miracle, go right ahead.

[MDC 7,422]

1,000 people is a very strong sample. The error rate is very low with that many.

 

If you want to believe in a political miracle, go right ahead.

 

I think the GOP will maintain Congress, but it will be close. The public has really soured on the Republican party, but most voters hate Congress but like their representatives. It's an odd kind of disconnect. Democrats who want to unseat GOP incumbents should really be hammering home the point that you may love your rep, but your only hope to curtail spending and hold the White House accountable is a Democratic Congress. Maybe some Dems are playing that tune but I haven't heard it yet.

 

And What is the deal?, you are utterly clueless. The Republican candidate in '08 could be a few different people but Newt Gingrich isn't one of them. It's 2006, not 1994. Tool.

[What is the deal? 1]

I think the GOP will maintain Congress, but it will be close. The public has really soured on the Republican party, but most voters hate Congress but like their representatives. It's an odd kind of disconnect. Democrats who want to unseat GOP incumbents should really be hammering home the point that you may love your rep, but your only hope to curtail spending and hold the White House accountable is a Democratic Congress. Maybe some Dems are playing that tune but I haven't heard it yet.

 

And What is the deal?, you are utterly clueless. The Republican candidate in '08 could be a few different people but Newt Gingrich isn't one of them. It's 2006, not 1994. Tool.

You must be inside the GOP party to claim that I am clueless.

 

Get your facts straight before you start calling people out jacka$$. Newt's the best the GOP will have to offer.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6803474/site/newsweek/

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143771,00.html

 

Gingrich said he would determine if his message was resonating with voters before making a decision to seek the GOP presidential nomination in 2008.

 

http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2006/04/29...4e092597427.txt

 

Ames, Ia. — Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Friday in Iowa that if enough people supported his solutions for government reform, he would run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

 

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll...90327/1001/NEWS

 

OWNED!!