• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

It's gone further than I thought

O

OkeeDon

New member
I'm watching cable news. I switch around to try to get various perspectives, and tonight it's MSNBC. Joe Scarbourough and Tucker Carlson are obviously biased to the right. I get a kick out of Tucker even though I rarely agree with him, because he's a character, and more articulate than many. Usually, Joe Scarborough just makes me angry.

So, what's going on? Joe Scarborough says, "What's going on with this President? Doesn't he get it?" One of Tucker Carlson's guests suggests that Bush should make certain changes; Tucker guffaws loudly and says, "Fat chance of that happening!" These guys are questioning and laughing at the President even more than Michael Moore!

It's gone a lot further than I thought. Polls show around 33% approval rating for Bush; listening to these guys (they're even criticising Bush on Fox News!), my guess is that approval rating is very, very optimistic. I'd say the only reason polls are showing as high as 33% approval is because a lot of the people who think they approve of Bush simply haven't been paying attention.

This Presidency is effectively over. I suggest that it will go down in history as the worst presidency in the last 100 years, if not ever. This poor, befuddled, lost, clueless little man should just quit and crawl under a mesquite bush in Crawford, Texas.

The only question that remains is how big the Democrats are going to win in the 2006 mid-term congressional election. Bookmark this message so you can look back 10 months from now and say, "he told us so..."
 
Don't underestimate the Republicans. They have pulled it out in the past when things didn't look good for them. I don't see the Democrats getting there act together anytime soon. They seem to be a ship at sea without a captain. As bad as the Presidency is, I have to believe that the congressional members are going to work there asses off to hold onto the congress. They might realize that Bush is a buffoon, but they also realize that with any luck they can get someone in the next time that has a lot more smarts and knows enough to be able to think on his own...... or maybe on her own....
 
I suggest that it will go down in history as the worst presidency in the last 100 years>>>>>>>

with the possible exception of ole, blow me off clinton. He has NO respect! Wonder if "she" wins the WH, will she get to blow off some steam in the oral office.................
 
OkeeDon said:
So, what's going on? ... These guys are questioning and laughing at the President ... This Presidency is effectively over. I suggest that it will go down in history as the worst presidency in the last 100 years ... Bookmark this message so you can look back 10 months from now and say, "he told us so..."
Click to expand...
Don, I already called the moment that the tide turned! At the time I was hopeful I had seen a significant sign, and now I'm certain I nailed the moment precisely.

Look back at the thread I started 10-27-2005 "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation" ..."... that government becomes a government that preys on the people." Statement by Joseph Wilson, the ambassador who was sent to check out nuclear preparation in the mideast then blew up and went public, after his report was twisted and misrepresented by the Bush adminstration.

On 10-29 I added for someone who obviously didn't understand: "The US is at a turning point this week, like when Kennedy was shot or the day Nixon resigned."

Mark my words, the historians will cite that point as the end of Bush's unchecked effectiveness.

There was no successful opposition to anything Bush did until then. Now four months later everyone in the country is beginning to realize the dam has burst and even the conservatives are laughing at Bush.

I'll never understand why it took 6 years for the country to wake up and recognise what a disaster this presidency has been.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Danny what is it about you and blowjobs?

No matter how unrelated to the topic it is, at some point in every thread you holler Blowjob!!! and crow that you have trumped the discussion.

Tell us which is really a worse symptom of how the US is led:

Monica goes home with a stain on her dress that she proudly and foolishly saves as a trophy. She thinks she is Bill's special friend. He later is evasive trying to protect his, and her, personal honor. The country goes nuts.

Or - A bunch of old farts go out to play with guns. 78 year old Whittington gets shot in the face and goes home with inoperable birdshot lodged in his heart muscle. There is no way Cheney can avoid looking like he irresponsibly shot without considering the injury it would cause. Political commentators note this seems to be his political style as well.

Is there really that much difference in relevancy between those two episodes? All over the world there is a long history of leaders with mistresses. Bill owes a big time apology to his wife, but I don't think that is anyone's business but theirs. I'm sure you will reply that he lied about it afterwards but is that really a clear indictment that he was not capable to govern the nation, compared to the Cheney that is revealed by his irresponsible shooting?



I think what bothers me most every time I see Blowjob!!! thrown into a thread is that it is an attempt to derail the topic that the original poster started with.

Don wasn't trying to reopen an old issue, he was, correctly in my opinion, pointing out that the forward direction that our country is headed toward has shifted slightly, or perhaps significantly. I would like to see that topic explored here, ie where we are headed now. I think the future looks different now compared to before Ambassador Wilson's speech.
 
Last edited:
I was amazed Bush won a 2nd term. If the Democrats had a real plan they could have won in 2004. I'm not so sure they will even win in 2008. The only thing we know for sure is that GW won't be in the White House any longer. :applause:

off topic but ....does anyone seriously believe that Bill got the first BJ in the oval office? He was merely the first to get caught.
 
This country has a long way to go before the Dems will get control of anything. After the last election CNN published a county map of the US colored red/blue. The results were startling to say the least. Just about the entire country, save for the big cities, was red. The blue Dems won the big cities and nothing more. They got a long way to go to get their message, whatever it is, out to the average Joe. The only core group the Dems have is the big city gimmie girls and boys who want everything handed to them for free.
 
Well Don, I'll have to agree with you that the Bush admin. has a huge issue on their hands with this rather questionable port deal. Since I got to sit in airports quite a bit yesterday, I got to watch the Communist News Network quite a bit. (which makes me wonder, does anyone actually think that CNN is not simply an arm of the Democrat media machine?!) Anyway, in spite of being annoyed at the obvious HUGE left slant, I was able to gather some actual facts between the partisan positioning. I'll admit, I'm not really keen on this port deal from what appears to be the facts I saw yesterday. I don't know what the real "deal" is with this port thing, and I doubt any of us will ever know, but it will hurt the Republican party if people there don't do the right thing. Although I'm certain they can and will. They are not like the Democrats who blindly play follow the leader no matter what the facts are. That being said, Bush is not making it easy for them with this very questionable deal that just doesn't seem to smell right.

I also got to watch the Hillary spin machine in high gear. Holy crap, she has CNN doing everything but running her election campaign for her! I've never seen a network that is so controlled by a (very dirty and vile) politician in my life! They don't even remotely try to hide the fact that they are backing the carpet bagging wench without regard to any issue. I guess she has been blowing Ted Turner. (yes, I'm aware that Turner sold to Time Warner and supposedly ole Teddy isn't on the board any longer, but with him owning 32 million TW shares we know that it will stay the Communist News Network and will back the Communist wench who couldn't tell the truth is it were written on the teleprompter in front of her).
 
This news certainly does not sound good...


Feb. 28, 2006 2:55 | Updated Feb. 28, 2006 14:08
Exclusive: Dubai ports firm enforces Israel boycott
By MICHAEL FREUND



The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The firm, Dubai Ports World, is seeking control over six major US ports, including those in New York, Miami, Philadelphia and Baltimore. It is entirely owned by the Government of Dubai via a holding company called the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation (PCZC), which consists of the Dubai Port Authority, the Dubai Customs Department and the Jebel Ali Free Zone Area.

Complete story
 
Back in 1946, Republicans won a mid-term congressional election with the campaign phrase, "Had enough?" They had no substantive program to offer; all they promised was whatever they did, it would be different and better than what had previously been happening. It worked.

Today, that's all the Dems have to do, also. Every time someone points out the weakness of the GOP, someone trots out the tired old argument (that I first heard coming from the Bush folks) that the Dems don't have a plan. So what? You think the GOP has had a plan so far? If they have, I hope to hell the Dems DON'T have a plan, because what we've been seeing is that a BAD plan is much, much worse than no plan at all.

Proof: the man considered to be one of the architects of neo-conservatism, Francis Fukuyama, now says that the philosophy has been so mis-used by the Bush people that the doctrine "is now in shambles" and that its failure has demonstrated "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes". Neo-conservatism is a philosophy of vigorous government intervention in foreign affairs, such as applied in Iraq.

The Bush presidency has been defined by National Security, and it is becoming obvious to even the most dense voters that the Bush "plans" have not worked, are not working and are likely to never work. We are no safer, we are worse off in the Middle East, there are more terrorists than ever, and the rest of the world has not respect for us.

The rest of his agenda has largely been tax cuts, tax cuts and tax cuts, and the nation will some day wake up to the folly of this. When your social security no longer exists and medicare has been cut so much that you won't have any coverage, and when corporate pensions and medical plans have all been wiped out, I hope you all will have saved up the milliions you'll need to pay for your own.

Someone else mentioned in one of these threads that he thought Bush had "done pretty good" with the rest of his efforts. Which are?

Nope, the Dems won't have to do anything except say, "Had enough?" Sufficient of the public will answer with their vote.

Remember, it won't take much -- the Congress is pretty well balanced with only a slight GOP majority, and the Presidency was won by a whisker in 2004, and stolen in 200.
 
Dargo said:
They are not like the Democrats who blindly play follow the leader no matter what the facts are.
Click to expand...
You have GOT to be kidding! NO ONE has marched in lockstep like the GOP! Dems cross over the line and support the other party all the time, if the program has any merit. But, for example, not one single Republican voted for the 1993 Budget that set up the greatest economy this nation has ever known, until the Bush folks dismantled it.

You could take a lesson in party power with the vote a couple of years ago on Medicare reform. This was a poor substitute for a good program that would really provide what was needed, and there were several Republicans who tried to vote against it. In an unprecedented move, the GOP leadership kept the 15 minute vote open fort 4-1/2 hours until they had finally twisted enough arms to make it pass. The moment they had a 1 vote majority, they closed the voting. It was one of the worst displays of party force ever exhibited. The Dems have never come close!
 
OkeeDon said:
"Had enough?" They had no substantive program to offer; all they promised was whatever they did, it would be different and better than what had previously been happening. It worked.

Today, that's all the Dems have to do, also.

Nope, the Dems won't have to do anything except say, "Had enough?" Sufficient of the public will answer with their vote.
Click to expand...
Do you now concede that the Dems don't have any plans? Just vote for us if you want a change (but shhhhh, we don't have a clue as to what the change will be).
 
Dargo said:
This news certainly does not sound good...
Click to expand...
Dargo,

I read that.
From the same site comes this article.

It basically says that this boycott was established by the Arabs in 1951 but only Syria, Iran and Lebanon only follow it anymore. Heck, the "Office of the Arab Boycott" (the controlling group of the Israel boycott) hasn't even convened since 1996.
 
The problem goes deeper than just George Bush - frankly I wonder how much of the decisions that he makes are really "his". Whenever I see GW on the news he turns me off. To me at least he comes off as way too cocky for somebody who has nothing to be cocky about. The people that he has surrounded himself with - the so called "neoconservatives" are the ones running the show. I consider myself a conservative and much if not all of what these people do and stand for turns me off and I think they are really bad for the country.

Up until recently I really didn't know what "neoconservatism" really was. After Mohammed cartoons episode and now this ports thing I have started to dig in and read a little more. From all I can gather (do a google search for neoconservatism and you will come up with a lot) the philosophy of neoconservatism actually evolved from people who were liberals and sometimes almost communist in their philosophies. Once you read this what the Bush administration has done: (excess govt. spending, the war in Iraq, inexplicable support of foreign govts., etc.) - starts to make a lot more sense.

They really aren't 'conservative' in the traditional american understanding of the word. They are basically liberals in disguise. From everything I have read there is a split within the Republican party over this thing and much of the military - who are probably more traditionally conservative and real patriots to boot - disagree pretty drastically with the neoconservative agenda.

I am hoping that the whole Iraq war debacle has the power to really do in the neoconservative movement. My only hope is that this doesn't turn into blowback on conservatives in general and the country doesn't go and elect somebody like Hillary - which probably be just as bad just in a different way.

This page is a good read on neoconservatives:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north180.html
 
California said:
Is there really that much difference in relevancy between those two episodes? All over the world there is a long history of leaders with mistresses. Bill owes a big time apology to his wife, but I don't think that is anyone's business but theirs. I'm sure you will reply that he lied about it afterwards but is that really a clear indictment that he was not capable to govern the nation, compared to the Cheney that is revealed by his irresponsible shooting?
Click to expand...

You are correct on the long line of leaders with mistresses thing. I always heard people defend Clinton by saying stuff like - "Well Kennedy did it too". The thing is that Kennedy (allegedly) messed around with Marilyn Monroe - Clinton messed around with Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones. There is a difference - to me at least. Marilyn = movie star and grown woman not under John F's power. Paula and Monica - women working for and/or under the spell of powerful man that took advantage.

This may sound perverse but I always thought that if the President of the US was going to screw around on the side he should be going a little more upscale than Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones. :5boobs:
 
Lets keep the time line straight. Paula Jones came before Clinton was President. Personally, I don't care one bit who screws whom sexually, but I do care when the President or any other political figure screws the American public the way that Good Ole Tom Delay did with Jack Abramoff. Seems that the story has gone cold and the politicians on both sides of the isle are happy about that. Seems that politicians today are all dirty, but only some get down and dirty in the pig pen. Those are the ones we need to weed out now, and then go after the lesser pigs later on. Although I don't like term limits, I believe that is the only way that we can keep the politicians honest. We also need to dismantle the perks that they have given to themselves through the years, such as spend one term in office and get a lifetime pension.
 
Junkman said:
...We also need to dismantle the perks that they have given to themselves through the years, such as spend one term in office and get a lifetime pension.
Click to expand...

Hell, I want to run just for that reason! I would have no care about any re-election. Just give me the obscene lifetime pension and benefits and I'll go away quietly. :thumb:
 
Dargo said:
Hell, I want to run just for that reason! I would have no care about any re-election. Just give me the obscene lifetime pension and benefits and I'll go away quietly. :thumb:
Click to expand...

I read an article recently that tracked the expansion of the US goverment over the years. It pointed out that Washington DC was built on a swamp - and it was built there intentionally so that the legislators would not be inclined to spend too much time there. The original intent was the the so-called representatives of the people should be forced somehow to go back and actually spend time with the people they allegedly represent. Over the years the goverment grew incrementally larger but this article pointed out that the goverment really started to expand with the advent of air conditioning. Once the goverment offices were air conditioned all of a sudden all of these legislators had no real reason to go back home. Being in goverment became a profession - not something you did because you felt a duty.

Maybe the quickest way to solve the big goverment problem would be to outlaw air conditioning in all goverment offices.
 
Junkman said:
Lets keep the time line straight. Paula Jones came before Clinton was President. Personally, I don't care one bit who screws whom sexually, but I do care when the President or any other political figure screws the American public the way that Good Ole Tom Delay did with Jack Abramoff. Seems that the story has gone cold and the politicians on both sides of the isle are happy about that. Seems that politicians today are all dirty, but only some get down and dirty in the pig pen. Those are the ones we need to weed out now, and then go after the lesser pigs later on. Although I don't like term limits, I believe that is the only way that we can keep the politicians honest. We also need to dismantle the perks that they have given to themselves through the years, such as spend one term in office and get a lifetime pension.
Click to expand...

True - Paula Jones was before Clinton was president. I was just trying to use her as an example of the type of women he felt was worthy of him.

That whole Jack Abramoff thing really burns me up too. This guy was just an arrogant corrupt jackass and apparently nobody really cares. The problem I see here is that all of this stuff just gets swept under the rug. I have always thought that the best way to get something really fixed is to basically just let the whole thing go to shit. The problem lies in human nature is because when things are broken people tend to want to just patch things 'good enough' and move on. If there are systemic problems the core problems never get addressed with this approach.

I notice this with people I know that smoke, or are overweight, or gamblers, etc. They are allowed to continue their vices as long as everything just sort of flows along smoothly. A lot of this happens because the people around them enable them in some fashion to do this. Ever seen any of the documentaries about these people who get to be like 700 - 800 pounds? They are lying on a mattress in the middle of a room saying they don't know how this happened. They havent moved in 2 years and the people around them say " he just kept eating" - well you kept feeding him too. Finally what happens is the person's body can't take it any more and something starts shutting down and then a 'crisis' is reached because they just can't continue on like this any more. Basically the crisis snaps everybody's heads up out of their respective asses.

The crisis could have been forced if you just stopped feeding the person.

The same principle applies to the goverment - we keep allowing this crap to happen and the 'crisis' point is never forced - so things just keep getting worse and worse incrementally. Sooner or later the fat person (govt. in general) is going to go into shutdown and we will all run around going "oh my god - how did this happen?".
 
People get shot all the time, some presidents even engaged in duels.

I believe the BJ was a first for the White House, which is why some people are hung up on it. When your first with some good dirt, expect to get muddy.
 
Last edited:
riptides said:
People get shot all the time, some presidents even engaged in duels.

I believe the BJ was a first for the White House, which is why some people are hung up on it. When your first with some good dirt, expect to get muddy.
Click to expand...
The "shooting" I don't see as relevant either way [a stupid accident; not like a duel]. Wild Bill's extra curricular activties, while I do think left a small stain on the white house, I doubt made him anywhere near the first sexually over-ambitious president. I will fault the guy [or perhaps his followers?] for taking [giving?] credit for an ecomomy he didn't create [if you insist upon that logic: actually destroyed].

Maybe six years after his presidency we'll have a better take on Bush; I won't question the guy has done some controversial things, but none of the theories questioning his intentions make sense: greedy oil buddies? too obvious and I don't think he has to appease any Arab organizations to make out there anyway. politics? he just threw that out the window. picking up the things "Daddy left off"? as much as I think Sr. stays out of GWs affairs, he's enough of a patriot, that he would have pointed GW other directions if that were the driving force.

I'm just hoping the white house can make its direction a little more clear before the next election; else we'll have the Democrats find someone even worse than last election, but actually get elected on the mistakes of the current administration.
 
Doc said:
I was amazed Bush won a 2nd term. If the Democrats had a real plan they could have won in 2004. I'm not so sure they will even win in 2008. The only thing we know for sure is that GW won't be in the White House any longer. :applause:

off topic but ....does anyone seriously believe that Bill got the first BJ in the oval office? He was merely the first to get caught.
Click to expand...


Republicans dont have a prayer for 2008, unless of course Hillary runs on the dems.

And yes Bill got caught, and Hell no, he was not the first and wont be the last.

Sorry if I ticked everyone off on this, it is just a dig.
 
OkeeDon said:
and stolen in 200.
Click to expand...


See this is what gets me going. Stolen, no he won it, fair and square by a shard. (where did that term come from anyway) The recounts proved it. I know depends on who's recounts you go by, but Don, your personal counts dont count.
 
Dargo said:
Hell, I want to run just for that reason! I would have no care about any re-election. Just give me the obscene lifetime pension and benefits and I'll go away quietly. :thumb:
Click to expand...


I dont think you even have to show up to get paid. I know in the town I live in, if you are elected there is a check each month for you...........whether or not you voted or showed up, or got your lazy ass out of bed.

As for the pension, that is the biggest joke ever. When we get rid of PAC's, soft money, hard money, spending MILLIONS on a 1/4 mill job for 4 years, and make these people use THIER own money to get elected, we will have the good ole boys back, not the millionaires spending someone elses money.

Where is Robin Williams, I need to bring this up to him also. When he is elected, he can stop all the fringe benefits, make these buttheads work for it.
 
ddrane2115 said:
See this is what gets me going. Stolen, no he won it, fair and square by a shard. (where did that term come from anyway) The recounts proved it. I know depends on who's recounts you go by, but Don, your personal counts dont count.
Click to expand...
It was "chads", but shards is close enough -- I knew what you meant. They're the little pieces of voter card that should be popped out when the pin is pushed through the voter card, but which don't always work.

And, no, the recounts didn't prove anything. The Supreme Court stopped the recounts before they could prove anything. The Supreme Court -- the ones who knew that several of them would be stepping down during the next presidency, and who wanted a Republican president to be the one doing the picking. No bias there, nope, that's the ticket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top