Of this I have no doubt of his capabilities to make himself lord and ruler over all if that is what he really wants...no need to be afraid now but when it happens, I bet you will be one of the first to shake in your shoes!

You are obviously in a position to overlook the people in this country who benefitted by the Clinton administration so I'll just ignore your Clinton remarks.

<font color = lightgreen>Things will begin to turn around--I agree with you there, Attalus--but not because of Bush. As with natural systems, economic systems will seek their own equilibrium (give or take a certain percentage for our knowledge of the system and some established controls); the economy will recover as consumers and investors begin to regain some confidence.

As I have stated in other threads, this "war or terrorism" (a handy thing for boosting approval ratings) cannot and will not be won, because acts of terror are (statistically) random. Like Moni, I am wary of some of the ideas being proposed (a national military police [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] or Operation TIPS). Responsible and prudent vigilance is the key, not hyserical paranoia.

No President should ever be President-for-Life because that would be a limited dictatorship and thus contrary to the principles upon which the country was founded.

Anyway...getting back to the point about Bush's approval ratings. Honestly, those numbers come from public opinion polls. Public opinion shifts with the wind and can be swayed by events, rhetoric, and slanted news coverage. Were I President, I wouldn't pay any attention to approval ratings whatsoever--if you don't like my policies then vote against me. However, you'll never see any politician be that straightforward; I think the job forbids it.

Four Texas posts in a row. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

[ 07-24-2002, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Azred ]

Moni, if you can ignoore my anti-Clinton comments, I'll ignore your anti-Bush comments. :D Five Texas posts in a row, Azred.

Not a problem my friend!

Oh, and I know "President for Life" is an impossibility in this country (I woke up from that dream in the election of 2000 lol) but I do believe that if people would stick with a working program into the next administration with only little tweaks and adjustments for smoother operations that we wouldn't find ourselves in such precarious economic situations as what have been occurring in the national markets lately.

Six. ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D

[ 07-24-2002, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Moni ]

http://salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/07/22/tomo/story.jpg

BTW I thought Gore was up for re-election in 2004 ;)

[ 07-24-2002, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

Clinton rules. Bush drools....sorry had to break up the Texas posts :D

[ 07-24-2002, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: caleb ]

<font color="#00ffcc"> Yep they have dropped, rated at only 60% this morning...of course Bill Clinton never got that high so Im sure old GWB is shakin in his shoes. ..... How come no one here is outraged that the democruds are refusing to allow any work to be done to help the economy untill after the elections? Gephardt and tricky Dick Army have been a little too vocal in cheering on economic problems and blocking any actions to alleviate the problems untill after the september elections...I would think that would piss some people off.....people...go figure </font>

<font color = lightgreen>It's called an intelligent political strategy. If the economy/business accounting practices were to be fixed before the election, then Democrats could not take credit for the solution. They are banking on the current situation to make some gains in both houses and then try to patch the leaky boat.

This, of course, is not news to anyone.

When you're a politician, it doesn't pay to ruffle the feathers of Big Business. They'll soft-money your opposition and remember the transgression for years.

On a lighter note, I was hoping I wasn't going to have to separate you two Texans. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

NEVER? Hmm....I seem to remember old Bubba's exit approval ratings being in the high 60s, higher than Reagan's, even....in any event, at least Clinton didn't need a war to bolster his approval ratings.

Feel free to retract that statement before I inundate you with dozens of polls which will prove you wrong and make you look like an idiot.

First of all, I would appreciate some sort of respect for my party - I at least have the maturity and decency to refer to the Republicans without butchering the party's name in a pathetic attempt to be funny.

Second, last time I checked, the Republicans were in control of the House - meaning that Mr. Gephardt can't really set the agenda yet, since he is the Minority Leader.

Hmm....you mention Dick Armey but still blame everything on the Democrats. Since you mentioned him, do you think people should be angry with the Congressional Republicans as well (there are more of them, after all)? That would be a first, I think...

<font color="#00ffcc"> Inundate me puhlease!!! :D

Actually Im pissed off that the DNC chairman and Gephardt are lobbing accusations at Bush and Cheney about their stock deals that were all done within the bounds of the rules that were in place at the time and yet refuses to explain how his bestest buddy at World Com. Managed to make him a cool 18,000% windfall from his $100,000 stock investment taking home $18,000,000 while the company is now in Bankruptcy.....and Im still waiting to see clinton approval numbers that ever showed him as a 59% or better for reelection.

Im am against any politician who uses the economy as an election time toy, anyone who abuses the peoples security for their own short term political gains needs to be run out of office...and as I have said before...I am NOT a member of the GOP. I am a Libertarian...I just share more views in common with the GOP than with the Dems. </font>