The VP is....

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2739565
Well according to this article, 61% of historians rank Bush as the worst pres. of all time and 98% rate his presidency as a failure.
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804

Let me go poll a bunch of republicans then use that as a "serious poll"

With lines like
Bush has established himself as the torture president, the basis for his invasion of Iraq has been exposed as a fraud, the Iraq War itself has gone disastrously, the nation’s network of alliances has faded, and the economy has gone into a tailspin–not to mention the bungled handling of relief for victims of hurricane Katrina. In 2004, only 12 percent of historians were ready to place Bush dead last.- sure sounds "unbiased" to me.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2739564
Yawn, yeah, hey do me a favor and study the balance of powers, then come back to me and tell me bush some how messed up katrina. The simple fact is the way it was set up, the state has to ask the feds, and they never did. I live in houston, I have first hand experience. Bush didn't

[hr]
up.
I'm failing to see how Iraq is a debacle.

Afganistan? Wire-tapping?
You realise Clinton fired EVERY ATTY IN THAT DEPARTMENT go look it up.
Widely maybe in liberal circles, maybe in classrooms taught by terrorists like ayers, in churches where American soldiers are called terrorists, where poets write about the wonders of socialism.
But not where us bitter clingers cling to our guns and religion. And to be blunt, the white man is the group you have to win to win the election
the fact that Bin Laden is no where to be found... a good line "We'll chase Bin Laden to the gates of He ll ... but not to the cave he is hiding in"
As far as white men... McCain just ailenated them with this pick... His pick was chosen to gain media attention and most importantly women voters...
Be real... you aren't a little dissappointed with this pick... I know you want to be optimistic.... but I'd be worried. This could be a spark... more likely a boneheaded decision.
As a democrat I am happy.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2739568

Let me go poll a bunch of republicans then use that as a "serious poll"

With lines like
Bush has established himself as the torture president, the basis for his invasion of Iraq has been exposed as a fraud, the Iraq War itself has gone disastrously, the nation’s network of alliances has faded, and the economy has gone into a tailspin–not to mention the bungled handling of relief for victims of hurricane Katrina. In 2004, only 12 percent of historians were ready to place Bush dead last.- sure sounds "unbiased" to me.
Find that poll, lets see if it exists? The fact is, when ever you disagree with something you simply toss out that it's liberal bias and bunk. Why don't you find out who they polled and lets see if they were all liberals

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2739565
Well according to this article, 61% of historians rank Bush as the worst pres. of all time and 98% rate his presidency as a failure.
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804
thanks for looking that up... I just don't see how people can argue Bush as being a good or even decent pres... the debate of worse, worser, worsest is a more logical debate. Clinton in most regards is looked at as being good to very good.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2739574
Find that poll, lets see if it exists? The fact is, when ever you disagree with something you simply toss out that it's liberal bias and bunk. Why don't you find out who they polled and lets see if they were all liberals

It would seem, the vast majority of Americans disapprove of the job he is doing. Last I looked it's anywhere from 61% to 78% of Americans disapprove of the job he has done. I guess they are all liberals too and if that's the case the election will be a landslide.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2739569
the fact that Bin Laden is no where to be found... a good line "We'll chase Bin Laden to the gates of He ll ... but not to the cave he is hiding in"
As far as white men... McCain just ailenated them with this pick... His pick was chosen to gain media attention and most importantly women voters...
Be real... you aren't a little dissappointed with this pick... I know you want to be optimistic.... but I'd be worried. This could be a spark... more likely a boneheaded decision.
As a democrat I am happy.
I'm actually very happy. She is a strong conservative

. Not a washington insider. (Like some veeps) And a self made woman.
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2739574
Find that poll, lets see if it exists? The fact is, when ever you disagree with something you simply toss out that it's liberal bias and bunk. Why don't you find out who they polled and lets see if they were all liberals

Read the article and the comments made by those polled. They sure sound "conservative and objective" to me. And you want me to accept this at "legit?" Come on seriously?
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2739575
thanks for looking that up... I just don't see how people can argue Bush as being a good or even decent pres... the debate of worse, worser, worsest is a more logical debate. Clinton in most regards is looked at as being good to very good.
The simple fact is Bush has been villified for things clinton would have been praised for (like firing some lawyers). Basically Bush has been cleaning up Bills problems from North Korea, Africa, to Osama. And yet Bush is the failure. riight.
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2739577
It would seem, the vast majority of Americans disapprove of the job he is doing. Last I looked it's anywhere from 61% to 78% of Americans disapprove of the job he has done. I guess they are all liberals too and if that's the case the election will be a landslide.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Well using that argument, what does it say about the around 90% disapproval rating of the democraticly controlled congress?

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2739588
I'm actually very happy. She is a strong conservative

. Not a washington insider. (Like some veeps) And a self made woman.
Read the article and the comments made by those polled. They sure sound "conservative and objective" to me.
The simple fact is Bush has been villified for things clinton would have been praised for (like firing some lawyers). Basically Bush has been cleaning up Bills problems from North Korea, Africa, to Osama. And yet Bush is the failure. riight.
Well using that argument, what does it say about the around 90% disapproval rating of congress?

I could care less, we are not talking about the congress we are talking about Bush. I actually thought you'd blame the "liberal" media for the low approval rating

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2739592
I could care less, we are not talking about the congress we are talking about Bush. I actually thought you'd blame the "liberal" media for the low approval rating

But it does, we could look at it this way. Bush's approval rating is 20 points higher than the highest branch of government that the dems control...

Seriously Bush's biggest failing was his PR. I do think you and the people libs get their thought from, are missing why bush's numbers are low. They aren't that low because people all agree with you about why he is bad. But because he wasn't as conservative fiscally and monetary as he should have been. Like bailing out banks, like the stimulous checks, like him working with Ted K on education. Spending money like a democrat. He didn't shrink govt. I don't think those #'s are all on board with the I hate Bush/Iraq incompetent whatever else you guys can gin up bus. A part yes, I do think (in my opinion) those numbers would have been SIGNIFICANTLY lower if he had stayed totally true to his conservative roots. And stood up for his conservative principles.
I'd say I wasn't because when the democrat head hunters came a howling for people like Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Libby Ect, he didn't stand up for him and fed them to the dems.

 

[jdl]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2739592
I could care less, we are not talking about the congress we are talking about Bush. I actually thought you'd blame the "liberal" media for the low approval rating

the low approval rating is simple. Things arent great, bush is president, blame bush. Now as things are getting better, whoever is elected will be a hero, yet they will have done NOTHING but step in at the right time. Polling the american public and expecting to get valid results?

 

[1knight164]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2739569
the fact that Bin Laden is no where to be found... a good line "We'll chase Bin Laden to the gates of He ll ... but not to the cave he is hiding in"
I don't think any General in their right mind would dare challenge Bin Laden or the Taliban on their home turf. Those mountains and caves are death traps for any invader no matter how formidable. Ask the Russians. Even our biggest, baddest bombs (short of nukes) can damage their lair let alone trying to attack by ground. Can't get tanks or armored vehicles up their so you're stuck by fighting on foot. Not good tactics. Better to draw them out and fight on more advantageous terms. I just can't believe Clinton didn't get him when he had the chance. That still bothers me.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1knight164
http:///forum/post/2739613
I don't think any General in their right mind would dare challenge Bin Laden or the Taliban on their home turf. Those mountains and caves are death traps for any invader no matter how formidable. Ask the Russians. Even our biggest, baddest bombs (short of nukes) can damage their lair let alone trying to attack by ground. Can't get tanks or armored vehicles up their so you're stuck by fighting on foot. Not good tactics. Better to draw them out and fight on more advantageous terms. I just can't believe Clinton didn't get him when he had the chance. That still bothers me.
You wouldn't think they would challenge us on ours... we have the best trained and best equipped military... if we want him... we have to go get him... it should bother you more that Bush hasn't gotten him ...because now he is public enemy#1.
Isn't this why they developed those bunker busters?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2739331
I believe that was like in '88 or so.... i'd give him a good bill since its been 20 years.
Who would you trust more as a #2 ... Biden or Palin
I would settle for skippy the wonder beagle as #2 if it meant Obama wouldn't be #1.
You really goona talk smack about the #2's experience when her political resume is longer than Obama's and includes executive experience?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by spanko
http:///forum/post/2739372
I think McCain is truley a maverick and able to work across party lines. That said he is also a long time politician and will do what he has to to get elected. I believe some of the changes he has made, flip flops if you will, have been soley to appeal to the ultra conservitive republicans who he needs to get elected. This pick of Gov. Palin fits into his maverickness (hee hee) as she looks to be of the same cloth. I think if elected he will go back to his old ways and do what he believes to be right, not what he needs to be elected.
Let's face it, it is all about getting elected no matter who you are. Look at Barak's speech last night and tell me he can get the things he said done, he is just saying what people want to hear to get in. The person you see afterwords is not the person you elected. With the exception of maybe Ronald Regan.

Excellent observations.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2739629
You wouldn't think they would challenge us on ours... we have the best trained and best equipped military... if we want him... we have to go get him... it should bother you more that Bush hasn't gotten him ...because now he is public enemy#1.
Isn't this why they developed those bunker busters?
Think of all the lives that wouldn't have been lost had clinton, found something to hold him on...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2739424
Clinton didn't have a lot of experience when we became our pres and he was hands down the best president we've had over the last 30-40 years.
Might wanna review the first two years of Clinton. It went so well that in 1994 the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress erasing significant Democrat majorities in both in a swing of historic preparations.

 

[1knight164]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2739629
You wouldn't think they would challenge us on ours... we have the best trained and best equipped military... if we want him... we have to go get him... it should bother you more that Bush hasn't gotten him ...because now he is public enemy#1.
Isn't this why they developed those bunker busters?
Bunker busters aren't mountain busters. They can only penetrate 100 feet of earth or 20 feet of concrete.
They haven't challenged us on our turf mano-y-mano but instead had to use terrorists. Haven't seen them around lately, but let's not get complacent. They may "sneak" in and try again. But going after him in the mountains is going to take some creative Special Ops. Going full force would mean thousands and thousands of US deaths. Is it worth the risk for getting one man who, IMO, really hasn't been much of a factor? I'd rather fight the Taliban or Al Qaida in the open.
So why didn't Clinton take Bin Laden when it was offered to him? I'm asking because I don't know the answer.

 

[1knight164]

Here's a poll taken from 78 scholars in history, political science, and law, but it doesn't include GW. Doesn't look like either Clinton or Carter are in last place, but they're definitely not first.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/rankings.html

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2739565
Well according to this article, 61% of historians rank Bush as the worst pres. of all time and 98% rate his presidency as a failure.
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804
I wouldn't give any credibility to any "historian" who would make such a judgement on any president while still in office. Got a news flash for you, if Democracy takes hold in the middle east W could end up being talked about as one of out greatest presidents 20 years from now. Go back and read some of the politicians statements about Reagan while he was in office and what they say now, Nixon as well. For all his other faults tricky ---- had one of the best foreign policy administrations.

 

[squidward]

lmao!!! What a STUPID choice! You mcwar supporters should be pissed! haha talk about a DESPERATE cheap attempt to get the hilary voters lol! hahahaha man this is pathetic!

This is the best mcwar can do?!!?? Man that's sad. Can't wait to see Biden OBLITERATE her in the debates.

 

[1knight164]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2739664
I wouldn't give any credibility to any "historian" who would make such a judgement on any president while still in office. Got a news flash for you, if Democracy takes hold in the middle east W could end up being talked about as one of out greatest presidents 20 years from now. Go back and read some of the politicians statements about Reagan while he was in office and what they say now, Nixon as well. For all his other faults tricky ---- had one of the best foreign policy administrations.
Add Lincoln to that list. He pissed off a lot of people in his day but now he's one of the greatest presidents ever. Future historians will eventually make the call, but I agree 100% with you on what Democracy in the middle east would do.