Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Mission AccomplishedFollow

#1 May 01 2006 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Happy Anniversary.
Three years ago this day, Bush made his now-infamous announcement. For those of you already forming the phrase "liberal bias" in the back of your throat, the article shows many viewpoints from the actual date of press coverage.

As we all know, support for Bush as a President and the War in Iraq have both dropped sharply since those days. Those who would want to question past decision aside, what, in any kind of practical manner, can Bush hope to do to regain his standing in the eyes of the public? With Congressional elections just around the corner and the 2008 Presidential already on everyone's mind, is there any stance he could take that would, in your mind, cause an upswing in his approval ratings and a turn in public opinion?
#2 May 01 2006 at 8:30 AM Rating: Default
he could resign.

that in itself would be a testament to his desire to HELP this country.

he could get out of Iraq, a place we had no bussiness being in.

he could actually capture or kill osama bin laudin.

he could find a way to fix the "no kid left behind" policy that is destroying education.

he could fix social security.

he could fix the hemoraging deficit.

he could come up with a health care plan that didnt sell out americans to HMO,s.

basically, he could find a way to UNDO almost every thing he has done in the last 6 years.

or just resign. the only thing i am greatfull for is the national no-call list. he gets 1 point for that. coarse butchering a defenseless country without a valid reason is minus 100 points, allowing the torture of U.S. prisoners is a minus 200, and sitting by while genocide is committed in the sudan is a minus 300 on teh humanity scale.

resign or be impeached. either would give him a higher approval rating for me.
#3 May 01 2006 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
shadowrelm wrote:
he could actually capture or kill osama bin laudin.
Doesn't he wish! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 May 01 2006 at 8:53 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
shadowrelm wrote:
he could resign.

That would put Mr. shoot-from-the-flask Cheney in the big seat. Shall we get into that discussion?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#5 May 01 2006 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Debalic wrote:

That would put Mr. shoot-from-the-flask Cheney in the big seat. Shall we get into that discussion?

That's kind of my point. I think a lot of people can agree on what he has done wrong, but seem to flounder on what he could possibly do to fix it. For me, resigning is not an option for the reason Debalic mentioned. It seems that Osama's capture could turn the tides for the party as a whole, but I'm not sure what he could do that would regain the standing that he had post 9/11 short of making sure Iraq is stable and pulling the troops out with some tangible evidence that linked the entire debacle to the War on Terror, but that seems less and less likely every day.
#6 May 01 2006 at 9:11 AM Rating: Good
*****
14,454 posts
From my own personal standpoint, there isnt much Bush could do to make himself look better. There are a few things he could do that may help lessen the loathing focused on him, but the man is too wishy washy. Perfect example is the immigration issues going on. Whether or not you agree with his stance, the man has been forcing down our throats the fact that terrorists are trying to come after us again and they will do it. So we have to protect ourselves by going after Middle East targets that "harbor" terrorism. But when it comes to protecting our own borders, hes ready to wave his hand and legalize all those who have come here illegally. While Im not saying all are terrorists, wouldnt this be the perfect time for someone with thoughts on terror to come prancing in with less to worry? It doesnt fit with his ideology of protecting the US.

He's left so many messes behind, its like the guy has ADD> He can not finish one project before jumping into the next. If Bush had followed through with Afgahnastan before pulling into Iraq, instead of thinning the troops out to cover more, we wouldnt have such a mess on our hands today. Whether or not he lied about Iraq is moot. It was not nearly as clear of a danger to us than Afghanastan and Obama was at that point in time.

#7 May 01 2006 at 9:13 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,784 posts
shadowrelm wrote:
he could resign.

that in itself would be a testament to his desire to HELP this country.

he could get out of Iraq, a place we had no bussiness being in.

he could actually capture or kill osama bin laudin.

he could find a way to fix the "no kid left behind" policy that is destroying education.

he could fix social security.

he could fix the hemoraging deficit.

he could come up with a health care plan that didnt sell out americans to HMO,s.

basically, he could find a way to UNDO almost every thing he has done in the last 6 years.

or just resign. the only thing i am greatfull for is the national no-call list. he gets 1 point for that. coarse butchering a defenseless country without a valid reason is minus 100 points, allowing the torture of U.S. prisoners is a minus 200, and sitting by while genocide is committed in the sudan is a minus 300 on teh humanity scale.

resign or be impeached. either would give him a higher approval rating for me
.


he should resurrect shadowrelm's little dog, Fala.

he should fix shadowrelm's shift key.
#8 May 01 2006 at 9:20 AM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
The only solution I can see for Bushes ratings to go up, is if he went hunting with Cheney and was mistaken for a Quail by the VP.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#9 May 01 2006 at 9:36 AM Rating: Decent
I started looking around on wikipedia about presidential polls/rankings and found this.

I wonder how a poll like this would turn out today. It has only been a little more than 1 year since this one:

Quote:
A Gallup poll about presidential greatness, taken 7-10 February 2005, asked 1008 adults nationwide, "Who do you regard as the greatest United States president?" This poll had a margin of error of plus or minus three percent.

1. Ronald Reagan (20%)
2. Bill Clinton (15%)
3. Abraham Lincoln (14%)
4. Franklin D. Roosevelt (12%)
5. John F. Kennedy (12%)
6. George W. Bush (5%)


I guess the other 95% of people could have thought that Bush was the worst president ever.
#10 May 01 2006 at 9:47 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
George Bush should become a full-fledged Bush-basher because it seems to be the popular thing. His approval ratings will sky-rocket.

#11 May 01 2006 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Professor CrescentFresh wrote:
I wonder how a poll like this would turn out today.
Gerald Ford!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 May 01 2006 at 9:54 AM Rating: Excellent
My income has risen and my taxes have gone down over the last 5 years. I don't have a single problem with us being occupiers in Iraq. Bin Laden's holding his **** in a cave in the Afghan mountains. Unemployment is at 4.6%. Tell me again why I should think Bush is doing such a bad job? Seriously. I want to know. With all of the great things happening to the economy right now, with the fact that anyone who wants to work in this country can have a job any time they want it, what's the big beef you people have?

Is it the war? F'uck off and get over yourselves.
Is it the response to Katrina? F'uck off and get over yourselves.
Is it gas prices? F'uck off, get over yourselves and learn a little bit about Market Economies.

The President is responsible for 1 of the things listed above. That's it. The rest of it is all Congress, and if the Democrats really wanted to fix any of them, there are ways. **** poor leadership on the liberal side of the aisle is much more to blame than the President.
#13 May 01 2006 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
if the Democrats really wanted to fix any of them, there are ways.
I'm curious to hear what you think they are because, from what I've seen, any time the Democrats try to prevent a measure or change a measure the Republicans instantly accuse them of being unconstitutional obstructionists.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 May 01 2006 at 10:11 AM Rating: Good
****
5,311 posts
Murder suicide with D1ck Cheney?
#15 May 01 2006 at 10:11 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
I'm curious to hear what you think they are because, from what I've seen, any time the Democrats try to prevent a measure or change a measure the Republicans instantly accuse them of being unconstitutional obstructionists.

Anyone with half a brain knows it not to be true though.

When I talk about the absence of leadership, I mean the kind of leadership Reagan showed. If the Democratic party had any sort of effective leadership, they could take their case to the American people and force a response. As it is today, the "leadership" of the Democratic party is as fractured as the party itself, split in to a number of different constituencies all fighting for their "issue". The only thing they seem to be able to agree on is that GWB is t3h debil.

Watch the news for any length of time and that is the ONLY message that the left, as a whole, can seem to focus on. Everything that happens in world effecting America is brought back eventually to "George W. Bush is to blame" and that just won't cut it. The Democrats will have to find an issue (they need simply take their pick of the many that are apparantly out there) and make it their focus and fix it, without blaming the Republicans for it being that way. DO something. Don't just talk about it. Make a change if you don't like something, and if you get blocked, take it to the people. Take it to them without blaming the other party for it. Make the people aware of the issue and what you're trying to do to make it better, not what other people are doing to make it worse. Lead.

The old race saying is absolutely true in this case, "Lead, follow, or get the f'uck out of the way."

The Democratic party, as a whole, seems to have adopted the policy of getting out of the way and commenting from the grandstands.
#16 May 01 2006 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
Is it the war? F'uck off and get over yourselves.

Tell that to the countless broken families


Quote:
Is it the response to Katrina? F'uck off and get over yourselves.

Tell that to the countless broken lifes

Quote:
Is it gas prices? F'uck off, get over yourselves and learn a little bit about Market Economies.

No




Quote:
**** poor leadership on the liberal side of the aisle is much more to blame than the President.


Very very true. Before Bush I still hated and mistrusted all polititans and I still do, nothing has changed there. This president just happens to be the poster-child for "bad PR" wehn it comes to those like me.

There are ways to solve alot of our problems.... pretty simple ones too... if you remove the obstacle of people getting their nuts in a wad if they have to lose something in order for everyone else to gain.

For that reason alone I will not concede and say waht a great job our government is doing.... EVEN IF unemployment went to 0% and the terrorists were stopped, and we all got fee college and healthcare.... there will STILL be problems in the world that we should be working harder to fix...... and UNITL this world is made into the BEST PLace that it could be I will NEVER be content with a few meager morsels of progress. I want the whole deal.... So though some things may be improved.. that is no reason to slow down the train and sit back and suck each others ******** there will always be work to do.. and it is the job of our elected leaders to do it. It's their job to fix things and it's my job to hate them and hate them until the worlds problems are solved.

Harsh and unrealistic? maybe.. but it is not supposed to be the job of our leaders of smile and wink and make pretty speeches about how much worse it could be.. but about how much better it should be. It is their jobs.

So until I see a nearly perfect society, no politician shall ever get a thumbs-up from me. They must keep rolling the boulder of that steep hill of progress.. and I shall hold the flame to their feet forever and until I die. That's their job.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#17 May 01 2006 at 10:18 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Tell that to the countless broken families

You mean the broken families of the men and women who signed up to be soldiers? Thanks, next.

You mean the broken families of the people who expect a city to be rebuilt 9 months after it was destroyed when it takes 9-18 months to build an average house properly and the citizens of the city can't even shut the f'uck up long enough to let the people who need to be doing the work plan what the rebuild should look like? Thanks, next.

As to the rest of your political world view, it is indeed unrealistic. I wouldn't characterize it as harsh, just completely mis-informed and ill-founded. As to holding the fire to their feet, what have you done to make it better today?
#18 May 01 2006 at 10:29 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
As to holding the fire to their feet, what have you done to make it better today?


I didn't throw my trash out the window of my car while on my to work. It's not my profession to wield the power over the cahges of society like "those people" do, nor is it in my nature to run for office.. nor is it in the nature of the office to have people like me runnning for it.


as far as the American Warrior who must let his blood for the good of the country as IS thier job.... I would comment that one should be able to assume that wehn our soldiers are asked to BLEED for the country, that they are doing just that.... for the DEFENSE of our nation.. not for some frivilous Crusade.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#19 May 01 2006 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
as far as the American Warrior who must let his blood for the good of the country as IS thier job.... I would comment that one should be able to assume that wehn our soldiers are asked to BLEED for the country, that they are doing just that.... for the DEFENSE of our nation.. not for some frivilous Crusade.

And that is where the difference of opinion lays. I, and many like me, do consider a strong presence in the middle east in defence of our nation, our values and our way of life.
Quote:
I didn't throw my trash out the window of my car while on my to work

So, passive "inaction" and stage side commentary then?
#20 May 01 2006 at 10:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
DO something. Don't just talk about it. Make a change if you don't like something, and if you get blocked, take it to the people.
Isn't that when the Pubbies start crying about the Democrats 'politicizing' the issues? Smiley: laugh

I won't argue that the Democratic party needs a shake-up or a make-over or whatever you want to call it to get them organized. I've said the same myself numerous times. But there's not much that I personally can do about it aside from voting for people I hope will do the best job and who best meet my desires. But, really, that's neither here nor there towards why I disagree with the president and his policies.

I disagree with Iraq. I've posted a bajillion times about it so I don't see a need to elaborate further.
I disagree with the administration policies in regards to detainment and torture. Again, I've posted numerous times.
I disagree with the Federal response to Katrina. Regardless of what should have happened at a local & state level, the response showed a massive federal ineptness to handle a large-scale emergency. The sub-agency directly responsible for a federal response was led by a Bush appointee who was grossly unqualified for the position. I've posted in detail on this numerous times.
I disagree with the administration's stance on stem-cell research. I've posted in detail on this numerous times.
I disagree with the administration's stance on gay marriage. I've posted in detail on this numerous times.
I disagree with the administration's attempts to block OTC access to the morning-after pill despite its proven safety.
I disagree with many of the administration's environmental policies.
I disagree with the administration's go-around of the FISA court. I've posted in detail on this numerous times.


That's all off the top of my head. I'm sure I could come up with more if I felt like brainstorming. And all of those are direct results of the President and his political appointees that he has chosen to help direct policy. I left out things such as deficit spending or the Patriot Act which are more in the hands of Congress than directly with the White House. While you may feel free to disagree with my stance on some or all of those issues, they are still all issues in which I feel the President is either in error or is underperforming for the task.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 May 01 2006 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts

Quote:
And that is where the difference of opinion lays. I, and many like me, do consider a strong presence in the middle east in defence of our nation, our values and our way of life.



That difference in oppinion is indeed the "order of the day".

We have our big stick, how do we walk with it?

I have a part in me that recognizes that we must do waht we must do.... and the a location like Iraq and the Middle-East is strategic and beneficial to the Western world..... for some reason
.... but..
this reminds me of a conversation my roomate and I had last night... involving Darfur.
We saw some George Cluny ad about it.. I asked him "Waht do you think of all that?"
he replied: "Fu[Aqua][/Aqua]ck'em, what does that have to do with us? We have our own problems to worry about. How will helping those people benifit our country?"

I really couldn't argue with him.. it is all opinion. I told him that YES, we have the power and we should help people.. but I still couldn't convey any good "logical reason" for helping anyone!
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#22 May 01 2006 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Tell me again why I should think Bush is doing such a bad job? Seriously. I want to know.

No one is telling you you should. Your special unique flower status aside, the majority (and we do love us a majority) of the current populace think the President is doing a bad job.
#23 May 01 2006 at 10:52 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
  • I disagree with Iraq. I've posted a bajillion times about it so I don't see a need to elaborate further.
  • I disagree with the administration policies in regards to detainment and torture. Again, I've posted numerous times.
  • I disagree with the administration's go-around of the FISA court. I've posted in detail on this numerous times.

  • We'll call this the war on terror, security, defense of freedom, whatever. I lump them all together. True, all of these have been largely driven by the president. We can leave it at dimetric opposition, as I simply don't see it the same way.
    Quote:
  • I disagree with the administration's stance on stem-cell research. I've posted in detail on this numerous times.
  • I disagree with the administration's stance on gay marriage. I've posted in detail on this numerous times.
  • I disagree with the administration's attempts to block OTC access to the morning-after pill despite its proven safety.

  • We'll call these moral issues. I would have to say that on 2/3 of them I am in agreement with you, but how do they make him the worst president ever?
    Quote:
  • I disagree with many of the administration's environmental policies.

  • What specific environmental policies? I'm genuinely curious. How are many of his policies effecting your quality of life? Which policies are pushing him towards terrible president?
    Quote:
  • I disagree with the Federal response to Katrina. Regardless of what should have happened at a local & state level, the response showed a massive federal ineptness to handle a large-scale emergency. The sub-agency directly responsible for a federal response was led by a Bush appointee who was grossly unqualified for the position. I've posted in detail on this numerous times.

  • I fail to see how you can disagree with a federal response. Disapprove, perhaps, but disagree? Also, if you believe that the federal response would have been better and more effective with a Democratic administration you really do lose a notch or two in my estimation. That may very well mean nothing to you, and that's ok with me.

    EDIT:
    Kelv wrote:
    I really couldn't argue with him.. it is all opinion. I told him that YES, we have the power and we should help people.. but I still couldn't convey any good "logical reason" for helping anyone!

    We can, and we should do something about it because liberty and freedom are not qualities on which we hold exclusive rights to. The defense of freedom in the world at large is the defense of same on in our own land.

    And, Flea, the majority of Americans, regardless of who they vote for, are retarded, so numbers on an approval rating pole simply show which side is doing a better job of holding something shiny in front of them. It would be the same if bush had an 80% approval rating.

    Edited, Mon May 1 12:02:58 2006 by MoebiusLord
    #24 May 01 2006 at 10:55 AM Rating: Good
    ***
    1,863 posts
    The killing or capture of Osama bin Laden would not have a dramatic effect on the president's poll numbers. Two to three years ago, it would have, but now it would be too little, too late. America has had enough time to realize that Al-Qaeda is nearly a generic label applied to all sorts of terrorists and insurgents these days. The various cells have separate funding, separate leadership, separate everything -- all they share is a broad, amorphous sort of goal, each of which they pursue in a different manner.

    Stopping Osama won't matter any more than killing an endless string of Number 2 guys all throughout the middle east has. He's a convenient figurehead. The movement doesn't need him to survive, now; might be it never did.



    I can't really add to the laments above about the pres and the job he's doing; the good and bad are adequately covered. I just wish this country had something more like a choice between well-qualified candidates.

    The people running for the office of the president are supposed to be our best and brightest, the select-men, the ones we can trust and can follow. Our last three candidates have been George W. Bush, John Kerry, and Al Gore. If those are the best this country can provide, it's no wonder things are in such a state of disarray.
    #25 May 01 2006 at 11:04 AM Rating: Excellent
    Liberal Conspiracy
    *******
    TILT
    His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
    but how do they make him the worst president ever?
    When did I say he was "Worst ever"? I was just saying why I don't like the guy in the office of president. If you want "worst ever", I'd have to sit down with a history book and a set of the Encyclopedia Britainnica or something to give you a fully informed opinion.
    Quote:
    What specific environmental policies? I'm genuinely curious. How are many of his policies effecting your quality of life? Which policies are pushing him towards terrible president?
    I disagree with drilling in ANWAR. We can debate it but the short answer is that, for the likely impact in oil supply vs. the environment, I disagree. I disagree with the administration's stances on global warming. I disagree with the placement of corporate shills on federal environmental panels such as mercury waste and forest management. Regardless of any direct impact on me, my own sense of beliefs are that Bush is taking a path that I don't agree with.
    Quote:
    I fail to see how you can disagree with a federal response. Disapprove, perhaps, but disagree?
    Poor wording on my part.
    Quote:
    Also, if you believe that the federal response would have been better and more effective with a Democratic administration you really do lose a notch or two in my estimation.
    You're welcome to your opinion, although FEMA received wide, bipartisan praise under Clinton.
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #26 May 01 2006 at 11:11 AM Rating: Good
    *****
    18,463 posts
    MoebiusLord wrote:
    And, Flea, the majority of Americans, regardless of who they vote for, are retarded, so numbers on an approval rating pole simply show which side is doing a better job of holding something shiny in front of them. It would be the same if bush had an 80% approval rating.
    I'll make sure to remind you of this any time a Pubbie gets elected to office or any decision you disagree with is taken by someone who got there via a majority vote. Unusually weak sauce, Moe.
    « Previous 1 2 3
    Reply To Thread

    Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

     

    Recent Visitors: 235 All times are in CST
    Anonymous Guests (235)