http://msnbc.com/news/784014.asp?0dm=V21FN

About time, I say. I predict staggering defeats for the Republicans in 2002 and 2004.

And yes, I know, I haven't been here in a while. Think of it as an extended vacation or something.

Thank God, thank God, thank God..... No more Bush in a while..... :D Yay! That'll be cause for celebration [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color = lightgreen>This certainly does resemble a case of "like father, like son".

Unless the market begins to turn itself around, Bush's popularity is going to keep dropping like a rock. Of course, most people think that the Dow average is the be-all and end-all of the American economy, which it isn't. It is, at best, a leading economic indicator when the market is functioning normally, which it isn't right now--too much concern over possibly shady accounting practices at large companies is focusing too much attention on the stock averages. Anyway....

I, also, predict dramatic losses for Republicans in the upcoming elections, both 2002 and 2004. Thier stigma of being cronies with Big Business will give them a black eye; however, I don't see the Democrats cleaning up, either, but I could be wrong. I see more Independents getting elected, especially since this is a non-Presidential year.

I wonder what stunt he may try to pull to bolster his falling number? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] </font>

<font color=FFFFFF>What is so cool about that?? He still have 47 percent and i dont se anything wrong with this guy in my eyes, so tell me what YOU could do better than him guys? since most of you dont like him i think he is pretty cool! [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

<font color = lightgreen>Personally, I think he's all-right. At the very least, I don't have any complaints. I was just speculating about his falling popularity numbers and the fickle nature of the American public.

The only things I would do differently right now would be to scale back the military operations in Afghanistan (honestly, I think any sane person would conclude that we're not likely to capture bin Laden in the near future) and stop trying to construct a National Military Police. There is nothing anyone can do to stop the economy except recover their own sense of security; corporations have been using any accounting trick to make their results better for centuries and will continue to do so, so "shaky" investors should get over it.

Good times make good Presidents; bad times make bad ones. Historically, this is true. Many political scientists state that Carter was an excellent President, but he was in office during a really bad time (just after Vietnam, signed away the Canal, the hostages were taken in Iran, and the economy was in really poor shape).</font>

I suppose that's as good a reason as any. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I predict you will go on a long journey,
You will meet a dark and mysterious stranger,
You will eat much cheese (possibly Stilton)
And In the End you shall be crowned Grand High Panjandrum of restrooms,
You rule shall by long and mighty.
and all shall hail you as lord of Soap Dispensers.

LOL Melusine!

As much as this might look like reason to celebrate, remember we actually have to get through a fair election for things to change...this guy could very well become America's first dictator.

But of course Moni!

To quote the Big Dubya:

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Mark

In my opinion, he already has become the nation's first dictator, but let's not go there...

Hey bush is fantastic he give the rest of the world such a laugh....i mean the american dream right?....how can someone so thick be come the most powerfull man on the planet....fanny tastic

Errr, invade Iraq?? :confused:

kinda funny that the vast majority of the people who are opposed to Bush, arent even involved in America or Bush. hmmm, kinds funny i say.

Yeah, we (well, at least I) don't feel pressured into having to get along with the administration as it does not govern the land in which we/I live in. Foreigners get a less personalized yet also more objective viewpoint when it comes to politics; except when concerning foreign policy, which arguably effects us (the dark, brooding, barbaric masses of non-Americans worldwide) more than it effects Americans [img]smile.gif[/img]

I wonder why it is, that it was ok to bash Clinton, but it's not ok to Bushwhack?

Mark

[ 07-24-2002, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

<font color="lightblue">Now if only it was Howard... </font>

Actually, I retract the statement I posted above, it was just plain silly.

But, Morgan, here's something that may explain the ill will toward Bush.

I think that people outside this country can see things differently, because they are on the outside looking in and are not blinded by Patriotism or love of country. They are certainly influenced by foreign policy as The Hierophant posted. Mr. Bush is considered by many as the most powerful man on Earth (shudder) and some people outside the US (and many inside, too) do not agree that he is doing a great job. That is bound to happen in any administration.

On the obverse side many Americans "hate" Bill Clinton, but there are many countries whose leaders feel nothing but respect for him and the work he did while he was President.

Don't kid yourself, everyone in the world is involved by what George Bush and America does. There is definitely a Domino Effect going on in the World regarding US Presidential Policy.

Mark

That's because we are interested in what goes on in the rest of the world. And we don't have to ask your permission to have an opinion. Not yet anyway!

Well I, for one, would have liked to have seen a "President For Life" clause established during the Clinton administration. He would not have had to force a dictatorship in order to continue as our president. IMO he was the best thing that has happened to this country (leadership-wise) since JFK.

And, Skywalker, your statement is not at all silly...we could eventually be arrested for Bushwhacking and have our rights stripped simply because we don't like him or the way he runs things...it makes us "terrorists" and the war against terrorism in the Homeland has yet to begin.

You guys just wait. W. will turn things around. Clinton, President-for-Life? Shudder at the thought. Most loathesome President? Certainly.

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>

<font color = lightgreen>I think most sane people agree with you on this one. Now if only all politicians would resist the urge to use the economy for their own short-term political gains we might all actually get somewhere. [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] </font>

moni,please tell us about these wonderful things that clinton did.

and while it's true carter wanted to do the right thing,his natural incompetence just got in the way.

Well, okay, I can't be on long, so I will throw one poll at you. That alone should do it, but I have a feeling that you'll need more polls to satisfy you, so I'll come back later and give you more.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...in265224.shtml

Well, as I said, if and when a Democrat is guilty of wrongdoing, I don't defend him. I didn't shed a tear today when I read that that crook Traficant was expelled. However, I wish that some of my more conservative counterparts would fess up to Republican wrongdoing.

And I suppose Bush selling 2/3 of his Harken stock just before it tanked when he was director, consultant, and company auditor doesn't look suspicious in the least to you? Or how about when he sold 10% of Arbusto (his first company, a total failure), which was worth $38,237.60, for 1 million dollars?? I wish the rest of us had it so good when our businesses went belly-up!

Well, hmm....you've just changed the topic, here. There is a difference between "Re-election numbers" and "Approval rating". To date, Clinton was elected with 43% of the vote and re-elected with 49%. Bush was elected with not quite 48% of the vote, and his numbers now (which I just showed you) say that only 47% want him re-elected. That doesn't top Bubba's 49%.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about job approval ratings, then right now, Bush is at 60% - Clinton left with 68%, and had some very high points, such as 81% after his State of the Union speech in 1999. I'll show you more of these later. In any case, Bush's current numbers don't top Clinton's by any stretch of the imagination.

I'd have to agree, I really didn't care for the recent pay increase in the House which no one even questioned and Dick Armey defended. I mean, c'mon, guys, the minimum wage is so low that you can't hear the pennies hit bottom, and here these guys are, voting to give themselves an extra $5K a year. By the way, this was a bipartisan thing, so I'm not in any way only blaming the Republicans for this.

I have to wonder why you don't vote Libertarian, then. Or do you? I don't think you ever mentioned voting for a Libertarian before.

In any event, I hope the new Campaign Finance Reform Bill will work the way it's supposed to, so that third-party candidates are given more of a chance and more politicians actually have to stand up for what they believe in or risk getting unhorsed by a Libertarian or a Green or somebody.

Here are some, just in the first term.

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

Here are some more.

http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Clinton.html

As I told MagiK, I can't be on long, so that's just a taste of his accomplishments (for those people who were living on Mars during his administration and don't remember any accomplishments).

He's certainly done more wonderful things than either of the Bushes or Reagan.

Not necessarily - he was handed a lousy economy, OPEC had raised its prices, Watergate was fresh in everyone's minds, hostages were taken in Iran, and Congress was in no mood to deal with any president, regardless of party. Of course, just before Carter left office the hostages were returned and the economy was starting to improve once again, but I guess no one remembers that.

If Reagan - or just about any other president, for that matter - were elected in 1977, I'm sure they would have been a one-termer.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Alexander,
Thank you very much for posting those links! I had not checked this thread but once after I posted here and had not at that time been questioned about my comment(s).

Really, anyone wondering if Clinton did anything good for this nation just has to look at the national deficit's standing when he came in to office and again when he left...impressive improvement to say the least...and that isn't even with mentioning the jobs, the Welfare reform (making people obtaining welfare actually look for and get jobs or stop receiving benefits), available health benefits, economic improvements, etc. etc. etc.

Had it not been for Clinton, national emergency rooms would still be able to literally shove people out their doors without medical aid if they did not have insurance...I was one of those people (literally pushed but not quite shoved) denied emergency medical help because at that time I did not have medical insurance and I am lucky to be alive...even the Dr who pushed me thought I was going to die.

[ 07-26-2002, 05:25 AM: Message edited by: Moni ]

if regular people had the help and "luck" some politicians or sons of politicians had when starting their businesses, everybody would be rich!!! you could be totally incompetent and a complete f***up and still manage to make a lot of money! ahh... the beauty of equality... :D

As sarcastic as your comment looks (to me) there is a lot of truth in it.
I know a few self-made millionaires who came from dirt-poor families and started out with nothing more than the shirts on their back.
They weren't totally incompetent or complete f***ups either (those are the rich folk's kids lol).
God Bless America. [img]smile.gif[/img]

As sarcastic as your comment looks (to me) there is a lot of truth in it.
I know a few self-made millionaires who came from dirt-poor families and started out with nothing more than the shirts on their back.
They weren't totally incompetent or complete f***ups either (those are the rich folk's kids lol).
God Bless America. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]lol... you may be right. i wasnt referring only to a certain son a an american expresident though. in argentina the son of ex president fernando de la rua is a "succesful" enterpreneur thanks to his dad connections. he even ventured into politics with his own group (they called them sushi, for their tendency to eat it) until they failed miserably like the rich kids sons they are. [img]tongue.gif[/img]