[art_director]

WASHINGTON - President Bush’s job approval has dipped below 40 percent for the first time in the AP-Ipsos poll, reflecting widespread doubts about his handling of gasoline prices and the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Nearly four years after Bush’s job approval soared into the 80s after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Bush was at 39 percent job approval in an AP-Ipsos poll taken this week. That’s the lowest since the the poll was started in December 2003.

The public’s view of the nation’s direction has grown increasingly negative as well, with nearly two-thirds now saying the country is heading down the wrong track.


SOURCE: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9279799/

-----

Going from having 'political capital to spend' to being bankrupt in the 'political capital' department, Mr. Bush seems to be on the ropes.

How will this impact his second term agenda?

Will it impact the next election in 2006?

How about 2008?

Are Democrats intelligent enough to capitalize on Bush's low approval ratings or will they drop the ball in typical form?

Does the miserable failure of Katrina open the door for third party candidates?

[cavepainter]

This number will be his high-water mark thru Jan '09. (No pun intended; Katrina is no joke.)

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Hey you crumbbums voted for him, you get to deal with the crap for the next few years.

[iDriveX]

My dad who was a hardline republican came up to me and said "You were right....I can't stand George Bush right now" and I just looked at him and said "Great, well you're about 6 years too late"

That little anecdote was just put in there to show even the most wealthiest, small hearted conservatives (like my father) are starting to dislike President Bush.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by iDriveX

My dad who was a hardline republican came up to me and said "You were right....I can't stand George Bush right now" and I just looked at him and said "Great, well you're about 6 years too late"

That little anecdote was just put in there to show even the most wealthiest, small hearted conservatives (like my father) are starting to dislike President Bush.

I live in a Republican stronghold and even people here are unhappy with Bush.

[Wiskedjak]

Does it matter how low his numbers go? It's not like he needs to worry about re-election, or anything.

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

Hey you crumbbums voted for him, you get to deal with the crap for the next few years.

I think you posted in the wrong thread...you are looking for this thread, titled:
"communicating with primates" (the non-human kind)

[Maflynn]

How low, lets wait and see, its sinking pretty quikly

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Does it matter how low his numbers go? It's not like he needs to worry about re-election, or anything.

No, re-election isn't a concern, but his legacy and his second term agenda are important to him.

I should also mention that Congress has extremely low approval ratings as well – both Dems and Reps. Guess America is tired of Washington politicians and their BS.

[iDriveX]

I predict: Bush & Company under the leadership of Karl Rove will have a wonderfully orchestrated campaign that will save their butts right around mid-term elections next year and then again during the presidential election two years later.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

So what does it take to force him out of office early?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by iDriveX

My dad who was a hardline republican came up to me and said "You were right....I can't stand George Bush right now" and I just looked at him and said "Great, well you're about 6 years too late"

That little anecdote was just put in there to show even the most wealthiest, small hearted conservatives (like my father) are starting to dislike President Bush.

I've seen some of this too, but not in the way you portray.

For one, these conservatives still cannot stand whiny, do-nothing liberals. They also want Bush to shove his fist up the liberals' asses while carpetbombing Syrian border towns that host Iraqi insurgents.

Many conservatives feel that they've worked hard to achive the majorities they have now, and the refusal of Republicans to truly use their power to push through their platform is frustrating to many. And it's not just Bush. Senate Republicans are also being scrutinized.

It's not a movement of conservatives to the liberal side; it their desire for Republicans to move more to the right.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

I've seen some of this too, but not in the way you portray.

For one, these conservatives still cannot stand whiny, do-nothing liberals. They also want Bush to shove his fist up the liberals' asses while carpetbombing Syrian border towns that host Iraqi insurgents.

Many conservatives feel that they've worked hard to achive the majorities they have now, and the refusal of Republicans to truly use their power to push through their platform is frustrating to many. And it's not just Bush. Senate Republicans are also being scrutinized.

It's not a movement of conservatives to the liberal side; it their desire for Republicans to move more to the right.

No way. First of all, there are *far* more Americans with moderate ideological viewpoints than there are extremists. This has always been the case.

Secondly, citizens who have consistently voted conservative have worked hard? How so? The population of ideologues in this country is generally around 10%. The other 90% are not "hard working registered Republicans".

Thirdly, it is very dangerous to want a government to be able to do whatever the hell they want without some sort of check or balance. The fact that these checks and balances exist is a good thing, it is how democracy was designed. They were not designed simply to create a roadblock so that a party cannot have free unfettered access to do what they want, but also to ensure that the best interests of the American public are being represented.

You are *way* *way* *way* too partisan, Spacefreak. Politics are not supposed to be like a football game where the winner takes all, and where teams aggressively work together to defend themselves against their opponent carefully abiding by the rules of the game. This may often seem what politics are about, but only at their ugliest and most corrosive moments. Politics are basically about making decision about who gets what, and how. There are many interests and considerations which need to be contemplating before making these decisions. The "winnar" doesn't simply build themselves gold houses and gloat over their victory, they still need to work together with whomever represents the issues on the minds of the public. Often times, this means crossing party lines. This is a good thing. Do you care about what is best for America, or do you simply want to be the "winner"?

The population of card carrying extremist Republicans like yourself is *far* smaller than you may think, just like the percentage of extremist Democrats is likewise small.

Put simply, most of the population consists of people with "sh*t to do" that are too busy to be intensely immersed in politics, or people who flat out choose to keep politics at at least an arm's length.

[besson3c]

Spacefreak,

So many issues have a sort of ying/yang balance to them. Look at the Republican core values:

- pro-business
- (right now) pro family values
- pro small government
- pro conservative spending

If not for the Democrats, who would stand up for the little guy? If you're an atheist, don't believe the government should be involved with these issues, or otherwise don't side with the Christian right, who will represent the opposition to these social/family values issues? Who ought to help undo the growing divide between the extreme rich and poor?

Regardless of how you feel about these issues, surely you can see how both sides need to be discussed?

I know I'm stating the obvious here, but I'm not sure this is stuff you understand. Several of your posts seem ridiculously far right/pro single party, or something. Maybe you can better explain what it is that you mean.

[iDriveX]

That all depends on how you define those things though:

-Pro-Business - Pro-Business by keeping their hands away from it? But at the same time they're also rewarding Katrina clean-up contracts to Halliburton subsidiaries and other companies that Bush has his hands in.

- Pro Family Values - You should have said "Pro Their-idea-of-an-ideal-family values", research has shown time and time again that gay marriage and allowing gays to adopt does not self-destruct a family unit or screw up a kid. Also their attempt to only teach sexual abstinence in school for sex education does not advance the family unit but only helps to breed sexual psychological issues.

- Pro Small Government - The Bush Administration has one of the largest governments to date (excepting of course the FDR Government)

- Pro Conservative Spending - Do I even have to go into how this administration has been anything but conservative in spending? Might have something to do with that fact that Bush has not veto'd ONE bill yet put on his desk.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by besson3c

If not for the Democrats, who would stand up for the little guy?

Um... the Republicans will.

My father is the owner of a small business. Small businesses are the backbone of America. Republican tax cuts help small businesses. Sure, big time coporations don't mind either. But I can tell you this--the raised up taxes the Dems want hurt the economy, and they hurt the "little guy." They may hurt the corporations a bit, but when corporations get hit, so do the millions they employ. (aka, the little guy)

[cavepainter]

I thnk the hard work referred to is how many far-right people are now grassroots elected officials. This was the plan. Start small. School boards/committees (ID being taught w/evolution?). City councils. Groom for State Rep/Senate. Pass laws statewide. (Abortion, etc.) Gerrymander districts. Appoint judges. Activist judiciary. Federal benches. Supreme Court seats.

Good bye, Bill of Rights. Hello 1984. (w/Christian theocracy thrown in)

[cavepainter]

Oh, I forgot the famous back door -- term limits.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by loki74

Um... the Republicans will.

My father is the owner of a small business. Small businesses are the backbone of America. Republican tax cuts help small businesses. Sure, big time coporations don't mind either. But I can tell you this--the raised up taxes the Dems want hurt the economy, and they hurt the "little guy." They may hurt the corporations a bit, but when corporations get hit, so do the millions they employ. (aka, the little guy)

Picture the logic. How can anyone ever be satisfied with the fact that whenever you have a system where the little guy has opportunity- the rich automatically will have it good also? And worst of all, that there is no possible way to ever separate this!??

This just somehow can’t be! Surely there must be a way to reverse engineer this bizarre quirk of fate! Can’t the poor have it good, but the rich be endlessly screwed?

And lo and behold, there is a way! You just have to define (way) down your definitions of “having it good” (for the poor), and “screwed” for the rich.

It’s the pursuit of a system whereby the little guy will accept and be endlessly happy that he’s completely screwed (the new definition of ‘having it good’), but the rich guys are fewer and far between and just a little bit less rich than they used to be (the new definition of ‘screwed’.)

[art_director]

Originally Posted by loki74

Um... the Republicans will.

My father is the owner of a small business. Small businesses are the backbone of America. Republican tax cuts help small businesses. Sure, big time coporations don't mind either. But I can tell you this--the raised up taxes the Dems want hurt the economy, and they hurt the "little guy." They may hurt the corporations a bit, but when corporations get hit, so do the millions they employ. (aka, the little guy)

I own a small business. The president and the Republican Congress have made their tax cuts and they've done little to nothing to help me or my business. Their (Rep) claims simply don't hold true regarding help for the 'little guy.'

I also live in a Republican community. My local officials have hosted Dick Cheney, George Bush and a number of other Republicans for fundraisers. During and after each of these events they've echoed the party line about cutting taxes – income, sales and property. That all sounds good when you're looking for votes, but I can tell you, that my property taxes have doubled in four years. Yes, I said doubled – a fact. Thanks, Mr. and Mrs. Republican leaders.

In all fairness, there are several reasons property taxes increase but the weight falls on local government – again, mine is 100% Republican.

In Minnesota we presently have a Republican governor. What did he run on? You guessed it, cutting taxes. So far he's raised taxes three times in a round about way. Again, Republican lies.

My observations and experiences with Republican tax cuts are not good. In fact, I'm convinced they're full of $hit. I know because I watch that tax money leave my bank accounts every month and I've watched it rise steadily.

[art_director]

Also, on the matter of income taxes...

The president and Congress have rallied on income tax cuts. The subject played a major role in their ascent to their present power. I submit that it's complete fooking bull$hit.

I make a good living – enough to vote Republican. As a result I pay, along with my wife, many tens of thousands of dollars in income tax each year to the federal government. Two years ago, the Bush ( and Republican ) tax cut we received amounted to $1,100. That amount is so insignifigant in comparison to what we pay that it can hardly be called a 'tax cut.' Yes, it's a break, but hardly commensurate with their claims.

Before anyone asks, I use a reputable accounting firm for my business and income tax preperation. I also make use of any and all legal deductions every year.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by loki74

Um... the Republicans will.

My father is the owner of a small business. Small businesses are the backbone of America. Republican tax cuts help small businesses. Sure, big time coporations don't mind either. But I can tell you this--the raised up taxes the Dems want hurt the economy, and they hurt the "little guy." They may hurt the corporations a bit, but when corporations get hit, so do the millions they employ. (aka, the little guy)

The tax cuts benefit the rich more than the poor (esp. the poor who don't even own businesses). Bush seems to be into Reagan style trickle-down economics.

I'm not convinced that putting more money in the pockets of big business benefits people at the bottom of the food chain. It may create more jobs, but probably jobs at minimum wage (if the business can get away with this), or jobs overseas.

Regardless of what economic model you buy into, the Republicans have historically been pro-business and somewhat disconnected from the poor and non-white Christian. Take a look at the miniscule population of blacks that support the president to see what I mean.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Picture the logic. How can anyone ever be satisfied with the fact that whenever you have a system where the little guy has opportunity- the rich automatically will have it good also? And worst of all, that there is no possible way to ever separate this!??

This just somehow can’t be! Surely there must be a way to reverse engineer this bizarre quirk of fate! Can’t the poor have it good, but the rich be endlessly screwed?

And lo and behold, there is a way! You just have to define (way) down your definitions of “having it good” (for the poor), and “screwed” for the rich.

It’s the pursuit of a system whereby the little guy will accept and be endlessly happy that he’s completely screwed (the new definition of ‘having it good’), but the rich guys are fewer and far between and just a little bit less rich than they used to be (the new definition of ‘screwed’.)

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying, but I agree that the rich will also benefit from any changes designed for the poor. However, I also see a growing gap between the extreme rich and poor. I don't see how putting more money into the rich (by tax cuts and/or other economic changes that are based on a percentage of income that will always put more money in the pockets of the rich than the poor) contributes to his gap in a positive way.

[art_director]

From the Wall Street Journal today:

Poll Finds Bush's Approval
At a Record Low of 40%
By JOHN HARWOOD
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
September 14, 2005 7:48 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- Dissatisfaction with the administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina has helped drive President Bush's poll rating to its lowest level so far.


A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed that just 40% approve Mr. Bush's job performance, down from 46% in July. The proportion disapproving the president's performance has risen to 55% from 49% in July.

As for the response to Hurricane Katrina, 58% of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the Bush administration's performance, while 38% are satisfied. The survey of 1,013 adults, conducted Sept. 9-12, has a margin for error of 3.1 percentage points.

Mr. Bush's loss of support may be particularly troublesome for his attempt to maintain support for the Iraq war. By a margin of 60%-5%, Americans said rebuilding the Gulf Coast should be a greater national priority than establishing democracy in Iraq.

Some 58% say they disapprove of Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq; 55% say the U.S. should begin reducing troop levels there. Indeed, reducing spending on Iraq is Americans' top choice for financing the recovery from Katrina, with 45% pointing to that option.

At the same time, Katrina may have left the public feeling slightly more nervous about security at home. Fully 75% of Americans now say the U.S. isn't adequated prepared for a nuclear, biological or chemical attack, up from 66% who expressed that concern in 2002.

[cavepainter]

Yes. I bet most people now just hope to get thru the next 3 yrs.
Start over w/next Pres. (no matter if you vote left/right).
Hope that one's better.
It's kinda like being a Windows user.
Do YOU feel optimisitic or pessimistic about the world? this country? your situation?
Like RWR asked, "Are you better off than you were 5 (sic) yrs ago?"

[Don Pickett]

This is one of the current $64,000 political questions: what are Bush's baby eating numbers? Before you ask the question, you have to remember that without 9/11 artificially inflating his popularity – without it he would very probably have been a one termer – Bush has rarely had approval numbers above the mid 50s. If you look at the trend over the five years of his presidency, the overall trend is down.

If I had to guess, his baby eating number is probably around 25%. I had seen earlier suggestions that it was around 40%, but as he's already below that in several polls, that can't be right. It's very difficult to get below 25% for a sitting president. The only one I can think of, off hand, is Truman after Korea turned into a quagmire. Nixon was close right before he resigned, and Carter was somewhere in that region with the combo of inflation, gas prices and Iran.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

If not for the Democrats, who would stand up for the little guy?.

The Democrats have ruled Louisiana for 60+ years. How are those "little guys" doing?

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by cavepainter

Yes. I bet most people now just hope to get thru the next 3 yrs.
Start over w/next Pres. (no matter if you vote left/right).
Hope that one's better.
It's kinda like being a Windows user.
Do YOU feel optimisitic or pessimistic about the world? this country? your situation?
Like RWR asked, "Are you better off than you were 5 (sic) yrs ago?"

^^Speak for yourself. 100 years have not gone by; therefore, every impulsive opinion one may have at this moment hasn't been substaniated by how history plays out. If folks judged Abraham Lincoln in the 1860's "most people" would have negative thoughts, like yourself. I'm sure people did judge him and their knee jerk opinions have only proved to be wrong when comparing his radical changes at the time to the benefits enjoyed by future generations. By mentioning Lincoln, I'm not implying that Bush may go down as one of the greatest presidents of all time, nor am I implying that he won't, but the formation of an opinion that stands the test of time is not fully based on what is happening in the now. Not enough time has gone by for you to hint that Bush is a waste. It's okay to have an opinion; I just don't understand how you can be so absolute in regarding Bush as a failure...at least that's what i think you imply when stating, " I bet most people just hope to get thru the next 3 years," and the windoze comparison.


To put things in perspective:

"During Lincoln's presidency, he was criticized for taking what were considered "extra-constitutional measures." But in the end, the verdict of history is that Lincoln's use of power did not constitute abuse since every survey of historians ranks Lincoln as number one among the great presidents.

Far harsher would have been his denunciation if the whole American experiment of a democratic Union had failed--as seemed possible given the circumstances. If such a disaster occurred, what benefit would have been gained by adhering to a fallen Constitution? It was a classic example of the age-old conflict in a democracy: how to balance individual rights with security for a nation."

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

You are *way* *way* *way* too partisan, Spacefreak.

If knowing one's values and positions is being partisan, then so be it.

[johnnyJihad]

this is bad news for the Bush Dynasty

Jeb Bush won't be happy about it!!

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

No way. First of all, there are *far* more Americans with moderate ideological viewpoints than there are extremists. This has always been the case.

Who said anything about extremists? That term wasn't used once in my post. I was simply stating some ways in which conservatives are displeased with Bush.

When you can debate my actual words, let me know. Otherwise, make up your own mythological users and debate yourself.

[cavepainter]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

^^Speak for yourself. 100 years have not gone by; therefore, every impulsive opinion one may have at this moment hasn't been substaniated by how history plays out. If folks judged Abraham Lincoln in the 1860's "most people" would have negative thoughts, like yourself. I'm sure people did judge him and their knee jerk opinions have only proved to be wrong when comparing his radical changes at the time to the benefits enjoyed by future generations. By mentioning Lincoln, I'm not implying that Bush may go down as one of the greatest presidents of all time, nor am I implying that he won't, but the formation of an opinion that stands the test of time is not fully based on what is happening in the now. Not enough time has gone by for you to hint that Bush is a waste. It's okay to have an opinion; I just don't understand how you can be so absolute in regarding Bush as a failure...at least that's what i think you imply when stating, " I bet most people just hope to get thru the next 3 years," and the windoze comparison.


To put things in perspective:

"During Lincoln's presidency, he was criticized for taking what were considered "extra-constitutional measures." But in the end, the verdict of history is that Lincoln's use of power did not constitute abuse since every survey of historians ranks Lincoln as number one among the great presidents.

Far harsher would have been his denunciation if the whole American experiment of a democratic Union had failed--as seemed possible given the circumstances. If such a disaster occurred, what benefit would have been gained by adhering to a fallen Constitution? It was a classic example of the age-old conflict in a democracy: how to balance individual rights with security for a nation."

hmmm...
altho I do think he IS going extra-constitutional (see: Patriot/Eric Blair Memorial/Act)
I didn't mention that in post quoted. You seem to need to defend it.
LBJ could have, what w/rioting etc. (what was he polling in 1968?)
RMN DID (what was HE polling in 1974?)
RWR DID (Iran/Contra) (Anyone have a number post-1986?)

today's guests are:

Iraq.
Katrina
Supreme Court
not to mention housing costs, daycare costs, health insurance costs, off-shoring, environment, education....
Oh, how much was gas/oil in 2001?
How much will it be in Nov. 2006 thru Nov. 2008?

Those are the US$64k questions.

[Mark Larr]

Originally Posted by cavepainter

Do YOU feel optimisitic or pessimistic about the world? this country? your situation?
Like RWR asked, "Are you better off than you were 5 (sic) yrs ago?"

The rebuilding of the Gulf Coast is going to be a boon to the economy.

Tens of thousands of houses are going to be built, just as many vehicles are going to be bought, people will need to be hired to do these jobs to produce all of the products.

From the looks of things, the moonbat liberals are going to have to conceide to the construction of new refineries to fuel this boom of construction and accelerating economic growth.

Am I better off than I was 5 years ago?

Big time yes! My income has steadily increased, I was finally financially able to sell my house in the city for which I owned for 6 years for $30,000 more than I paid for it and move into a nice quiet safe neighborhood.

My wife literally doubled her income this week by leaving Cintas Uniforms to go to work at the Forestry Service. They have a huge management task at hand now with the demand on the lumber industry.

Things have never been better.

[cavepainter]

Artful Dodger:

How long do you suggest is required to make a judgement? Surely not 100 yrs? I don't know about you, but I don't think I have that long.

"We have to destroy the village to save it."

Of course, I'm more inclined to agree with this one, nowadays:
"Extremism in defense of LIBERTY is no vice."

and backing up a bit, I guess FDR's rounding up Japanese-Americans into camps on the West Coast mighta been xtra-constitutional, too.

Lincoln was in Civil War.
FDR was in WWII

this war on terror is a bit too close to Emmanuel Goldstein for my liking.

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by cavepainter

hmmm...
altho I do think he IS going extra-constitutional (see: Patriot/Eric Blair Memorial/Act)
I didn't mention that in post quoted. You seem to need to defend it.
LBJ could have, what w/rioting etc. (what was he polling in 1968?)
RMN DID (what was HE polling in 1974?)
RWR DID (Iran/Contra) (Anyone have a number post-1986?)

today's guests are:

Iraq.
Katrina
Supreme Court
not to mention housing costs, daycare costs, health insurance costs, off-shoring, environment, education....
Oh, how much was gas/oil in 2001?
How much will it be in Nov. 2006 thru Nov. 2008?

Those are the US$64k questions.

^^I'm not sure I understand what you wrote. I'm used to sentences.....I know...I'm weird.

My basic point was that I don't think polls/ratings about Bush or any president while they are in office serve any purpose. Bush's high ratings meant nothing to me post 9/11 and his low ratings mean nothing to now. I don't think people should take these polls seriously, whether or not one is for or against Bush. They are primarily emotionally driven by the latest breaking news. I'm not going to form my opinion as absolute based on the context of the moment. Then again, to each his/her own. I was just wondering how you were so absolute, that's all. There is no disrespect intended to your pov, just curiosity.

On a side note, I will vote for Condi when she runs for president in 2008. I never thought I'd say this but, I think the USA would benefit from having a woman president. Hillary's sex has yet to be determined.

Birdie num num to all

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by cavepainter

Artful Dodger:

How long do you suggest is required to make a judgement? Surely not 100 yrs? I don't know about you, but I don't think I have that long.

Good question. I don't really have a benchmark, but I'd say until maybe 4 or 5 (perhaps more) presidents have served office. Then the cause and effect phenomenon will have had some time to actually play out.

But, who says one needs to make a judgement in the first place? Aren't we to judgemental already?

And where is one getting his/her information from? MSNBC, FOX, CNN? ...only the TV? If that's the case, then that person is not worthy of having an opinions....or a brain for that matter.

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by cavepainter

Lincoln was in Civil War.
FDR was in WWII

this war on terror is a bit too close to Emmanuel Goldstein for my liking.

So are we not in war?

Corley was held for a little more than 30 hours. He was released and charged with disorderly conduct. Later, all charges were dropped. He lived happily ever after. You are reading to much hacker quarterly. That in no way compares to anything remotely close to anything anyone has ever experienced in any war at any time.

[cavepainter]

I don't know who Corley is. Never heard the name. Curly, Moe, Larry is as close as I know. Or Jim "Last Hurrah" Curley.

Your basic point is the polls are a worthless waste of time.

Why do ya need to comment more? Just say "I don't believe in polls or their importance."

I'm glad Corley was released so quickly tho. Justice at work. Why was he held? Is he the one heckling Cheney? Is so, he's due US$1 mil or so damages.

I've never seen the publication you refer to, which I think might be called "Hacker Quarterly".

Tell me how the legislation referred to as "Patriot Act" (but which I refer to, perhaps stubbornly, as the "Eric Blair Memorial") furthers constitutional liberty?

I don't buy "We have to destroy the village to save it." A concept made famous in VietNam circa 1966-68.

IF we ARE at war (is that terror or Iraq,or both?) then this polling indicates the public does not have much confidence in Bush's ability in that venue.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

So what does it take to force him out of office early?

he'd have to be caught snorting crack off the saggy belly of a cheap prostitute in the Lincoln bedroom?

[cavepainter]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

he'd have to be caught snorting crack off the saggy belly of a cheap prostitute in the Lincoln bedroom?

Well, revisit Clinton.

The House Judiciary Committee would have to draft articles of impeachment alleging 'high crimes and misdemeanors." The House would have to approve. Sending it to a trial in the Senate, presided by the Chief Justice (John Roberts). To convict, and remove, the Senate would need 2/3. Is that 67?

Good luck.

[cavepainter]

This guy has some expeience in these sorts of things:

http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=1

Of course, some claim the 'short form' was executed (sic) in Dealey Plaza, Nov. 22, 1963

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by cavepainter

I don't know who Corley is. Never heard the name. Curly, Moe, Larry is as close as I know. Or Jim "Last Hurrah" Curley.

Your basic point is the polls are a worthless waste of time.

Why do ya need to comment more? Just say "I don't believe in polls or their importance."

I'm glad Corley was released so quickly tho. Justice at work. Why was he held? Is he the one heckling Cheney? Is so, he's due US$1 mil or so damages.

I've never seen the publication you refer to, which I think might be called "Hacker Quarterly".

Tell me how the legislation referred to as "Patriot Act" (but which I refer to, perhaps stubbornly, as the "Eric Blair Memorial") furthers constitutional liberty?

I don't buy "We have to destroy the village to save it." A concept made famous in VietNam circa 1966-68.

IF we ARE at war (is that terror or Iraq,or both?) then this polling indicates the public does not have much confidence in Bush's ability in that venue.

Try to see past your political bias just a little. What the hell are you talking about? I don't espouse to the "we have to destroy the village to save it" concept at all. Don't confuse what I'm writing with the apparent voices you seem to be hearing.

If you aren't doing anything illegal and maintain a low profile, then the patriot act won't infringe on your rights. I'm originally from the middle east...I haven't had any of my rights violated or infringed upon.

My questoin, which you seem to have forgetten all about, amidst your sad attempts at humor is how the hell can you be so absolute? Don't confuse your emotions with fact. You are myopic and your posts do nothing but exemplify your inability to to see past the cave you live in. Go make yourself useful and paint a fresco honoring how stupid your parents were to have you. Your are just as off as the exteme right.

[cavepainter]

Message to Jack Dawkins:

It's (still) a free country. I can be absolutely insufferable, if I so chooose.
It's seems you already have.
and, "I didn't worry when they came for the Jews. I'm not a Jew."
I didn't worry when they came for the homosexuals, I'm not gay..."
etc.

Maybe being from the middle east means you don't quite 'get' the importance of the Bill of Rights, or Patrick Henry saying "Give me liberty, or give me death."

Some folks are kinda 'absolute' about those kinds of things and don't take kindly to having ad-hoc legislation (see Patro...I mean "Eric Blair Memorial" Act) take it down the tubes.

Some of those documents are kinda absolute. "Congress shall make NO LAW...."

You say you've not had your rights infringed. How do you know you're e-mail and postings aren't being hacked by the Feds as you type? Answer: you don't. I don't either. That's unconstitutional.

Some folks are a bit particular about these kinds of things. I'm one of them.

I'll send my parents your regards. They're in what my best sense could be called heaven.

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by cavepainter

Message to Jack Dawkins:

It's (still) a free country. I can be absolutely insufferable, if I so chooose.
It's seems you already have.
and, "I didn't worry when they came for the Jews. I'm not a Jew."
I didn't worry when they came for the homosexuals, I'm not gay..."
etc.

Maybe being from the middle east means you don't quite 'get' the importance of the Bill of Rights, or Patrick Henry saying "Give me liberty, or give me death."

Some folks are kinda 'absolute' about those kinds of things and don't take kindly to having ad-hoc legislation (see Patro...I mean "Eric Blair Memorial" Act) take it down the tubes.

Some of those documents are kinda absolute. "Congress shall make NO LAW...."

You say you've not had your rights infringed. How do you know you're e-mail and postings aren't being hacked by the Feds as you type? Answer: you don't. I don't either. That's unconstitutional.

Some folks are a bit particular about these kinds of things. I'm one of them.

I'll send my parents your regards. They're in what my best sense could be called heaven.

That's all I wanted. I understand where you are coming from so I fully grasp your point. It's useless to be a bitch when someone asks you a follow up question. Glad to see you have caught on to how a forum works. And regarding your bill of rights delusion, I've had too many relatives as US soldiers to take you seriously. Go start your rebel army. I'll make sure to be there at your defeat.

[cavepainter]

Mr. Dawkins:

Last I checked, soldiers (going back to the Minutemen and Patriots) fought (and sometimes died) for a piece of paper (more specifically, the words written on it) it seems you have no regard for.

Well, Patton said, "Your job isn't to die for your country, it's to make sure the other poor bastard dies for his."

I know how forums work.
It's certain participants that seem questionable.

So, why post in a thread about polls you don't believe in?
Why 4 cycles to decide whether Busch was good/bad?

Oh, and please enlighten the ignorant:
Exactly how DOES the 'Pat/riot (Eric Blair Memorial) Act" advance constitutional liberty, again?

[Artful Dodger]

Your revisionist history is so off. Keep doing the drugs. You are radical to a flaw. Stop fabricating my position as you go along. Try reading what's actually there. Best of luck to you and your sad view. Most likely you are just one of those people who is really 'gifted' at being critical. Yet, you just sit there idle, doing nothing about it, anticipating the next current event you can bitch about. Get a life, bitch...and get off your knees.

[cavepainter]

" Most likely you are just one of those people who is really 'gifted' at being critical. "

Let's see, ya called me a 'bitch' in 2 seperate posts.
Ya insulted my family.
Ya forgot to mention C-Span.
Three examples should suffice.

Me? Let me count the ways...oh, wait civililty prevents.
Damn, I'm still confused...why post in a thread about polls when ya don't beleve in them. (Which IS a valid take.)
It must take 4-5 cycles of elections so we can FORGET this guy.
But why does the constitution force a new choice 3 yrs from now?

And, lastly, HOW DOES THE "PAT/RIOT (Eric Blair Memorial) ACT FURTHER THIS SOCIETY'S LIBERTY?

damn right I'm radical. proud of it too.

"The whole world is watching!"

ARE YOU PROUD?

[Spliffdaddy]

suck it up.

I had to suffer through 8 years of Clinton.

What comes around, goes around.

[cavepainter]

oh, yeah, well....

I had to suffer thru 6 yrs. RMN.

wtfc?

Republicans controlled both houses of Congress in the last 6 of those 8.

CLINTON? YOU suck it up. get OVER it.
he's been out 5 f/ing yrs.
today; tomorrow...who's yo daddy?

and just for good measure...the impeachment was such a kangaroo court; you all left your slips showing.

LYING to the people about a war....THERE'S A 'HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR'.

[spacefreak]

Yawn...