RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll

RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Sanity -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 7:35:41 AM)
In the only polls that matter, he's always been more popular than the Left - and that says it all, right there! Why can't you guys ever nominate someone who can beat George Bush? What's the matter with you... you say he's not bright, but you can't beat him. Bottom line!

Owner59 -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 7:40:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity In the only polls that matter, he's always been more popular than the Left - and that says it all, right there! Why can't you guys ever nominate someone who can beat George Bush? What's the matter with you... you say he's not bright, but you can't beat him. Bottom line! Bwahhh! If bush had higher numbers,ya`ll would be mentioning that.As ya`ll did,when his numbers were high. Anything to offer,besides sour grapes?

mnottertail -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 7:41:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity In the only polls that matter, he's always been more popular than the Left - and that says it all, right there! Why can't you guys ever nominate someone who can beat George Bush? What's the matter with you... you say he's not bright, but you can't beat him. Bottom line! Bottom line is that ANYONE can beat George Bush for the presidency now. Stay with it, buddy. Ron

Sinergy -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 9:14:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity In the only polls that matter, he's always been more popular than the Left - and that says it all, right there! Why can't you guys ever nominate someone who can beat George Bush? What's the matter with you... you say he's not bright, but you can't beat him. Bottom line! Guess you didnt bother to read about the widespread voter fraud in the last election, as well as the fact that the Supreme Court handed him the first election. How is that Kool-Aid tasting these days? Sinergy p.s. Tell ya what, let us all know after the next election whether the Dimocrats can field a candidate that can beat the succession of mental midgets that the Retardlicans keep nominating.

mnottertail -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 9:20:26 AM)
LOL, Sinergy---- What distresses me with the lengthening of the presidential parade shit is that the fuckers go off too early there is no finger on the button feel to it anymore, they crack up way before the last week or so. Submitted for your approval, dennis the menace and rudy toodie........ More to come, stay tooned!!!! Ron

slaverosebeauty -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 9:25:05 AM)
Ok... and is ANYONE really surprised??? {only hears silence} My family still supports him {only related by blood, NOT by opinions, beliefs,policitical preferances, etc}; Thanksgiving is only 2 weeks away, I'm gonna have to print that and leave it out where my family is bound to 'find' it {evil look} by the chips and chili dip.

Phoenix2raven -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 10:38:12 AM)
quote: The President of the United States, and the Congress of the United States have been elected, some of them multiple times, and the voters (electorate) has no more intelligence than to consider what got us here, and how to avoid this in the future, how to make more informed and far reaching and noble decisions for the leadership of our republic. Republic Exactly we are not a democracy we are a republic. Until we change our current way of voting we are fucked.

Sanity -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 10:53:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity In the only polls that matter, he's always been more popular than the Left - and that says it all, right there! Why can't you guys ever nominate someone who can beat George Bush? What's the matter with you... you say he's not bright, but you can't beat him. Bottom line! Guess you didnt bother to read about the widespread voter fraud in the last election, as well as the fact that the Supreme Court handed him the first election. How is that Kool-Aid tasting these days? Sinergy p.s. Tell ya what, let us all know after the next election whether the Dimocrats can field a candidate that can beat the succession of mental midgets that the Retardlicans keep nominating. Yeah, I know, I know... the only reason you keep losing is "voter fraud". Or because (you claim) Americans are stupid... well, all I have to say to that horse shit is who are you sending up to bat next. Hillary? Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

philosophy -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 10:56:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity In the only polls that matter, he's always been more popular than the Left - and that says it all, right there! Why can't you guys ever nominate someone who can beat George Bush? What's the matter with you... you say he's not bright, but you can't beat him. Bottom line! Guess you didnt bother to read about the widespread voter fraud in the last election, as well as the fact that the Supreme Court handed him the first election. How is that Kool-Aid tasting these days? Sinergy p.s. Tell ya what, let us all know after the next election whether the Dimocrats can field a candidate that can beat the succession of mental midgets that the Retardlicans keep nominating. Yeah, I know, I know... the only reason you keep losing is "voter fraud". Or because (you claim) Americans are stupid... well, all I have to say to that horse shit is who are you sending up to bat next. Hillary? Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! ...........shouldn't the real bone of contention be the paucity of candidates on both sides? i'm not sure crowing about the other sides inability to beat your moron is exactly something to be proud about.........

Sanity -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 11:11:24 AM)
Edited to delete repetition

Sinergy -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 11:16:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...........shouldn't the real bone of contention be the paucity of candidates on both sides? i'm not sure crowing about the other sides inability to beat your moron is exactly something to be proud about......... I agree completely, philosophy. I only went Dimocrat in 2004 to vote against AnencephalyBoy and Harmon. Went back to the Greens a week later. I tend to identify more with a party that is pro health care, pro labor pro environment, pro choice, pro women, pro humanity, etc., than the corporate whores that keep getting the nod from the Republicrats. I became disenchanted with the Dimocrats when, while they had a lock on Congressional politics, could not pass a vote to sign the Equal Rights Amendment into law. Screw them and the horse they rode in on. I have maintained elsewhere on these forums numerous times that the Republicans and Democratic parties will merge soon enough to battle the rise of a third party. Sinergy p.s. As far as the comments about the Dimocratic congress not doing what they were elected to do, but this is a media creation to throw negative light on the Dimocrats. They do not have enough of a control over Congress to overthrow a presidential veto, and the way that budgetary laws are written if Congress does nothing (read: cannot get enough support to pass a new budget) the previous year's budget is used. Blather Faux News talking points about how awful the Dimocrats are because they are not doing anything, but this is more indicative of one's own ignorance of Congressional policies and the structure of the US Government than a realistic analysis of what is actually taking place. As my special ed professor pointed out to my grad level class: "I offer anybody in this class $200 if they can fly around the room." Then he waited to see if anybody would fly around the room to earn the money. Failure of a person to do something is not indicative of a lack of motivation to do that thing. edited to add Jane Harmon to my list of people I voted against.

Sanity -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 11:19:07 AM)
I'm not "crowing" Canada. Just pointing out the facts... the Left can't beat someone who they try to label a "moron" out of desperation, even when he keeps out debating them and out thinking them at each and every turn

luckydog1 -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 11:20:09 AM)
If bush had higher numbers,ya`ll would be mentioning that.As ya`ll did,when his numbers were high. Yes that would be called being positive. Why aren't you excited that you are going to ride the Impeachment into the white house? Why aren't you all talking that up? Why aren't you trumpeting Hillaries plan to end the war? There have been quite a large number unpopular people who were later looked at as great. And sometimes those who ride hard. Who cares, history will be written after we are gone. And the election will happen in a year.

FirmhandKY -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 11:42:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy As far as the comments about the Dimocratic congress not doing what they were elected to do, but this is a media creation to throw negative light on the Dimocrats. They do not have enough of a control over Congress to overthrow a presidential veto, and the way that budgetary laws are written if Congress does nothing (read: cannot get enough support to pass a new budget) the previous year's budget is used. ... Failure of a person to do something is not indicative of a lack of motivation to do that thing. Sinergy, I'm not sure I agree. In fact, I'd take exactly the opposite position: If motivated sufficiently, then the Democrats had and still have enough power and control to stop the Administrations policies in Iraq. I may be wrong, but I believe you are incorrect about the budget laws. I don't believe that the previous years budget is used when or if no agreement is reached between the Administration and Congress. Pretty sure this is not the case, but am willing to entertain the possibility that I am incorrect, if you can provide a reliable source. There are several procedural methods that the Democrats could use to bollock up the Administrations efforts in Iraq, such as simply not allowing any of the military budget resolutions to come out of committee. It would be the reverse of Teddy Roosevelt's trick of sending the US Navy around the world, when it only had funding for the first half of the trip. The reason that the Democrats fail to take substantial action is because they are afraid of the political damage they would likely encounter, and the likelihood that they would lose seats during the next elections. In other words, they are putting their own narrow personal and party interest above the lives of the soldiers in Iraq. Contrast this with the President's solid insistence that he is in the war for honorable and just reasons, and his willingness to back up his commitment and beliefs by standing by them through several US election cycles. No, I really don't think I'd be comfortable giving the Democrats a pass on this subject. Firm

oreogirl -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 11:53:57 AM)
One more year, one more year!

Crush -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 12:40:48 PM)
Popcorn...I want a popcorn smiley.... or maybe the beating a dead horse smiley.....

subfever -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 2:31:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Bush is a fucking stooge; agreed...the best part of congress is even of lesser mein... but they are just names............ Yup... he's just a figurehead/operative for the PTB. quote: The fuckin' shit is broke, bankrupt, koiinasquatsi; and there is no groundswell of people in this republic that are gonna change this fetid situation. Polarization to the lowest common denominator. Ahh... polarization... how easy it is to keep the masses divided and conquered.

slaverosebeauty -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 3:22:58 PM)
Who is hosting the party next November?? Then in January again when he moves out??

Sinergy -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 3:23:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I may be wrong, but I believe you are incorrect about the budget laws. I don't believe that the previous years budget is used when or if no agreement is reached between the Administration and Congress. Pretty sure this is not the case, but am willing to entertain the possibility that I am incorrect, if you can provide a reliable source. I have posted links before, including links to various Congressional pages; presumably you read and understood them when I did. Nevertheless, I will give you some insight into doing your own research should you decide to educate yourself on how Congress approaches the national budget. The administration has no say in passing budgets. The agreement has to be between both houses, the past 6 years the Republicans relied on previous years budgetting (i.e. not actually pass a new budget and let last years funding carry over) to shoot down any new proposals (by not funding them) by AnencephalyBoy (No Child Left Behind, etc) as well as keep old proposals afloat (Strategic Defense Initiative) years after they have been determined to be pointless and unworkable. But if you look up CAR and congressional budgets, it will give you insight into laws governing Congressional budgetting. The Democrats have a simple majority in both houses of Congress. This is not enough to override a veto, or pass a budget that involves cancelling things like funding for the Idiocy in Iraq. I tend to think most of the Democrats proposals put forth for veto are simply to allow the Moron in Chief to pound more coffin nails into the Republican party, as opposed to hoping that they actually pass muster in the two houses and get put into place. The Republicans under Clinton had enough of a plurality of votes in both houses to do whatever they hell they felt like doing, regardless of what the Democrats did. With the Republicans in both houses still walking lock-step like a bunch of mentally challenged lemmings behind their village's lost idiot into the sea, change cannot really happen. Yet. To claim that the Democrats were given a golden opportunity to make things happen in 2006 and have squandered it is an ignorant claim to make. Throw in the idea that the Democrats deserve to be blamed because they cannot control the idiocy of the Republicans is simply breathtakingly disingenuous. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

TreasureKY -> RE: bush,now the least popular president,in history of the Gallop Poll (11/8/2007 5:13:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy p.s. As far as the comments about the Dimocratic congress not doing what they were elected to do, but this is a media creation to throw negative light on the Dimocrats. They do not have enough of a control over Congress to overthrow a presidential veto... Seems they do. House Votes to Override Bush's Veto of Water Projects Senate Overrides Veto On Water Bill I wonder what excuse will be made next? quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy But if you look up CAR and congressional budgets, it will give you insight into laws governing Congressional budgetting. I did a quick google for CAR and the only link I could find that remotely discussed budgeting and the US Congress was one for the US Agency for International Development. They do, by the way, have a program called CAR. It concerns the Central Africa Region. Somehow I doubt that is what you are talking about. I do know that in a previous thread you mentioned that you believed CAR stands for Capital Acquisition Request. I'm not sure where you got that idea either, but the Government Printing Office, the US Government Accountability Office, the US Department of the Treasury, and the White House websites all came up with nothing in a search for either CAR or Capital Acquisition Request. In any event, should you wish to brush up on your knowledge of the budget process, there is a wonderful explanation published by the US Senate and available online: The Congressional Budget Process: An Explanation It can be a bit difficult to read and is rather lengthy, though. For the average Joe, there's a shorter explanation of the process published by the Government Printing Office complete with color charts and illustrations and in layman's terms. It's also available online. A Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget If you get really ambitious, you can even check out the actual budgets from 1996 to the present here. I didn't take the time to do a detailed analysis, but a cursory review was enough to indicate that the budgets from 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 were hardly identical. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy The Democrats have a simple majority in both houses of Congress. This is not enough to override a veto, or pass a budget that involves cancelling things like funding for the Idiocy in Iraq. Oh, again... check out where congress overrode Bush's veto today. [;)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125