[Scientist]

Do you think he'll make it through 4 more years without being assassinated or otherwise removed from office?

[typoon]

Originally posted by Scientist:
Do you think he'll make it through 4 more years without being assassinated or otherwise removed from office?

Yes.

[christ]

irrelevant

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Scientist:
Do you think he'll make it through 4 more years without being assassinated or otherwise removed from office?

Of course. Unless you are calling leftist extremists assassins.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Of course. Unless you are calling leftist extremists assassins.

I'm sure that there are more than a few would be assassins among that crowd. Bush has a lot to fear from conservatives as well.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by christ:
irrelevant

let us hope

[BlackGriffen]

As long as he keeps Cheney, or whoever he picks makes sure to make himself more odious to a would-be assassin than Bush, he'll be fine.

BlackGriffen

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Scientist:
I'm sure that there are more than a few would be assassins among that crowd. Bush has a lot to fear from conservatives as well.

Explain

[vmpaul]

I think speculating on any harm coming to the President is distasteful. I won't even go there.

I DO think it's reasonable to speculate on what policies we might see in a 2nd term.

Off the top of my head:

Foreign policy:
1) possible military action against Syria, Iran or North Korea. Although I would think NK would be the least likely because the potential fatalities in SK would be too severe.
2) if another front is opened, i would expect to see a draft re-instituted in some form. We're stretched too thin not to attempt this.
3) wild card here is another attack happens on American soil: then who knows where we might retaliate

Domestic:

1) attempt to make tax cuts permanent
2) attempt to make the Patriot Act stronger
3) another push to cut Capital Gains tax (always a STD GOP staple)
4) further roadblocks to stem cell research enacted
5) 2 Supreme Court appointees

peripheral:
6) No Powell
7) No Rumsfeld


That's all I can think of at the moment. Like to hear what others think might be the priorities (especially the conservatives).

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Scientist:
Bush has a lot to fear from conservatives as well.

Heh

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Scientist:
Do you think he'll make it through 4 more years without being assassinated or otherwise removed from office?

The Dems have been preparing for this scenario. Watch for an attempted impeachment over Abu Graib.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by christ:
irrelevant

indeed, all the people who are good with guns are voting for Bush.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by Scientist:
Do you think he'll make it through 4 more years without being assassinated or otherwise removed from office?

It's been a while since we have had a good political assassination.
If anyone is up to get shot by a sniper, it would be Bush. I don't see him getting removed, though if he rides out this mess for another 4 years that means 4 more years of guaranteed debt and poor economic growth, 4 more years of school budgets being gutted and tuition rising, and 4 more years of American troops dying in foreign countries.

Eventually even ardent Republicans will be pushed over the edge and he'll leave office with a 0% positive rating instead of the 50%ish one he has now.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Beewee:
I don't see him getting removed, though if he rides out this mess for another 4 years that means 4 more years of guaranteed debt and poor economic growth, 4 more years of school budgets being gutted and tuition rising, and 4 more years of American troops dying in foreign countries.

Eventually even ardent Republicans will be pushed over the edge and he'll leave office with a 0% positive rating instead of the 50%ish one he has now.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Foreign policy:
1) possible military action against Syria, Iran or North Korea. Although I would think NK would be the least likely because the potential fatalities in SK would be too severe.

Finally... some talk about actual issues.

I think Syria is a bit scared, which is a good thing, but something's gotta be done about Iran. They just announced that the have all the goods to enrich 40 tons of uranium, and they said nothing is going to stop them. They are also the primary funders of what's left of the insurgency in Iraq (al Sadr).

Domestic:
1) attempt to make tax cuts permanent
2) attempt to make the Patriot Act stronger
3) another push to cut Capital Gains tax (always a STD GOP staple)
4) further roadblocks to stem cell research enacted
5) 2 Supreme Court appointees

Tax cuts permanent: Some or most, yes. Kill the estate tax as well. If you die tomorrow (heaven forbid), I don't want the government sweeping in and taking half or more of your possessions. I want your kids and wife to get your stuff.

Patriot Act: Congress has approved and renewed the act by overwhelming margins. If the section(s) that are of issue to the left are so troublesome, I challenge the Democrats to get together and craft a proposal to modify these sections. Overall, however, the act has been used appropriately and effectively.

Stem Cell: Federal funding on research using existing lines will continue, as will funding of international research. Advances made will be reviewed, and the issue revisited, just like Bush said in 2001.

Capital Gains Tax: I think taxing monies once is enough. There is no need to tax them again. I'd like to see a surge in R & D investments. The last great surge in R & D was later in the Reagan years, and the results or that R & D really helped propel medical, technological, agricultural, and other significant advances over the following decade.

Look for Social Security reform, and look for Bush to more aggressvely push for his heath care initiatives to lower the cost of health care and/or slow the increase in costs.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

So simple and yet it says so much, see its a smiley face that I guess is supposed to represent Zimphire and as you all can see it appears to be pointing...and laughing at another smiley face, my post is also in it so I assume that we are to believe that the other smiley face is me...wow...so enlightening, bet it took you at least an hour to think up that response.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Beewee:
So simple and yet it says so much, see its a smiley face that I guess is supposed to represent Zimphire and as you all can see it appears to be pointing...and laughing at another smiley face, my post is also in it so I assume that we are to believe that the other smiley face is me...wow...so enlightening, bet it took you at least an hour to think up that response.

It was about as enlightening as your negative nanny post was. Which BTW is far from reality.

THAT is why I was laughing.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It was about as enlightening as your negative nanny post was. Which BTW is far from reality.

THAT is why I was laughing.

Yes, and instead of arguing it you just post those delightful animated gifs that don't say anything, lack substance...two dimensional, as it were, similar to your above statement.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Finally... some talk about actual issues.

I think Syria is a bit scared, which is a good thing, but something's gotta be done about Iran. They just announced that the have all the goods to enrich 40 tons of uranium, and they said nothing is going to stop them. They are also the primary funders of what's left of the insurgency in Iraq (al Sadr).

Tax cuts permanent: Some or most, yes. Kill the estate tax as well. If you die tomorrow (heaven forbid), I don't want the government sweeping in and taking half or more of your possessions. I want your kids and wife to get your stuff.

Patriot Act: Congress has approved and renewed the act by overwhelming margins. If the section(s) that are of issue to the left are so troublesome, I challenge the Democrats to get together and craft a proposal to modify these sections. Overall, however, the act has been used appropriately and effectively.

Stem Cell: Federal funding on research using existing lines will continue, as will funding of international research. Advances made will be reviewed, and the issue revisited, just like Bush said in 2001.

Capital Gains Tax: I think taxing monies once is enough. There is no need to tax them again. I'd like to see a surge in R & D investments. The last great surge in R & D was later in the Reagan years, and the results or that R & D really helped propel medical, technological, agricultural, and other significant advances over the following decade.

Look for Social Security reform, and look for Bush to more aggressvely push for his heath care initiatives to lower the cost of health care and/or slow the increase in costs.

Unbelievable. A response on issues! spacefreak

I should've mention I thought those were things I think Bush will touch on if re-elected. Not that I necessarily disagree with what his position might be. Some I agree with, some I disagree with.

Foreign:
Looks like we agree Iran could be a prime target. Question is are they in line for a strategic strike or something similar to Iraq?

Domestic:
Patriot Act: It was approved by overwhelming margins but that was right after 9/11 and Bush got almost everything his way. That's not likely to happen now. I forget whether the PA is something that needs to be renewed to continue or not. It might be continued but it won't be strengthened.

Social Security: Good catch. I'm sure this is going to come up in the next 4 years. Who knows what the resolution will be.

I take it you agree with no Powell and no Rumsfeld?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Social Security: Good catch. I'm sure this is going to come up in the next 4 years. Who knows what the resolution will be.

I take it you agree with no Powell and no Rumsfeld?

Bush wants to push for personal Social Security accounts - where we individualy would manage our own Social Security. I think it's a good idea, and we need to get this in front of the nation to get the debate going. I really hope the debate doesn't get political, but I've wished that before on other issues.

Rumsfeld and Powell - I don't know what the cabinet will be, but it's likely there will be changes. I'd guess that Rumsfeld steps down in 2005, but I don't see Bush forcing him out. Rumsfeld's a tough cookie, however.

As for Powell, I think that's a little less certain. I think if he's asked back, or to serve in a different capacity, he would do so. The sad thing is that I think he's grown into his role over the past year. During the buildup to the war in Iraq, I thought that he may have been overmatched in a way - not within the administration, but rather on the world stage (UN).

Regardless, for the most part, I think Bush staffed his first cabinet well. I'd only expect a better assemblage of talent in the second term. You may not agree with each member's philosophy, but they are a hard working, principled bunch that enjoys challenging each other on critical issues. They know that their debate can greatly affect the President's eventual decision on any given issue, and I think that's the way it should be. I don't want a bunch of "yes-men", and neither does Bush. Loyalty - yes. Blind obediance - no.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by Scientist:
Do you think he'll make it through 4 more years without being assassinated or otherwise removed from office?

Congratulations, you have now been flagged by homeland security

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Yes, and instead of arguing it you just post those delightful animated gifs that don't say anything, lack substance...two dimensional, as it were, similar to your above statement.

Some things aren't worth responding to in a serious matter. I believe your post was one of them.

[kjb]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Bush wants to push for personal Social Security accounts - where we individualy would manage our own Social Security. I think it's a good idea, and we need to get this in front of the nation to get the debate going. I really hope the debate doesn't get political, but I've wished that before on other issues.

I'd be really interested to hear everyone's opinions on how to solve this. I'm under thirty, and my wife and I aren't planning on drawing any social security. If we do get some, I'm guessing the age for no-penalty withdrawals will be over 70.

Do you think they cut off all of us under, say, 40 or something, and flat out tell us there just isn't going to be any for us?? Then what? Do they come up with a tax credit or deduction for X% of your salary (up to $XX,XXX like they do with FICA now) that you put into a retirement savings account?

I do think this is something we all should be talking about. Not just the political geeks here at MacNN, but America, as a whole.

Kevin

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by kjb:
I'd be really interested to hear everyone's opinions on how to solve this. I'm under thirty, and my wife and I aren't planning on drawing any social security. If we do get some, I'm guessing the age for no-penalty withdrawals will be over 70.

Perhaps it would be best to open a new thread about this? It doesn't have much to do with Bush or Kerry, I don't see it as a partisan issue at all.

I'm 34 and don't expect to see any SS.

[kjb]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Perhaps it would be best to open a new thread about this? It doesn't have much to do with Bush or Kerry, I don't see it as a partisan issue at all.

I'm 34 and don't expect to see any SS.

Good idea. Here

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by kjb:
Do you think they cut off all of us under, say, 40 or something, and flat out tell us there just isn't going to be any for us?? Then what? Do they come up with a tax credit or deduction for X% of your salary (up to $XX,XXX like they do with FICA now) that you put into a retirement savings account?

I posted info about the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security report in the new thread started to discuss Social Security reform.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Some things aren't worth responding to in a serious matter. I believe your post was one of them.

Yet apparently it was worth responding to. I have watched you for a while Zim and you have a habit of not responding to any post that you can't make a snappy comeback to, or that you don't have anything to argue against it with.

And my post seems to be the latter of the two... (lets all give ourselves thumbs up, huh Zim?)

[Zimphire]

I think I explained myself thoroughly. If you cannot accept that I am sorry.

If you want to continue to whine about how you don't like me, please take it in private.

[Jansar]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Yet apparently it was worth responding to. I have watched you for a while Zim and you have a habit of not responding to any post that you can't make a snappy comeback to, or that you don't have anything to argue against it with.

And my post seems to be the latter of the two... (lets all give ourselves thumbs up, huh Zim?)

Your post was really lame.

I commended Zim for giving you a penalty kick in the ass.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I think I explained myself thoroughly. If you cannot accept that I am sorry.

If you want to continue to whine about how you don't like me, please take it in private.

Another fanboy, zimph?

[djohnson]

I find it funny that these anti-Dush people find every fault with his Presidency, yet say nothing of the positives... Pretty sad if you think about it.

Oh and here is what I think will happen in the next 4 years, after Bush is re-elected:

Foreign policy:
1) Military action is always a possibility. I think that Iran should be more worried about Israel then the US at this time...
2) A draft will not be reinstated. End of discussion.
3) Another attack on US soil? Doubtful at this time. Maybe if Iran creates the nukes and then tries to use them against us, but I dont think they are that stupid.

Domestic:

1) More tax cuts are always good.

3) Of course on the Capital Gains tax. Why pay taxes when it has already been taxed?

5) 2 Supreme Court appointees - We can only hope!

peripheral:
6, 7) No clue on these.

[UR-20]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Yet apparently it was worth responding to. I have watched you for a while Zim and you have a habit of not responding to any post that you can't make a snappy comeback to, or that you don't have anything to argue against it with.

And my post seems to be the latter of the two... (lets all give ourselves thumbs up, huh Zim?)

More accurately it goes in stages.

1. If he has points to argue, or finds flaws he can pick at in your arguement,
then he will argue.

Example
In the above link he gets into a heated discussion with Logic about Israel, terrorists, etc. So long as Logic continues to use phrases like "Israeli pigs" he's imbuing every post with over emphasized emotions, which don't help his argument, but make it ripe for the picking. Notice Zim not backing down once.

2. If he doesn't have facts handy he'll use sources that are either not credible, or no one can prove one way or the other of their validity. ie: My college professor from 6 years ago in my economics class. Or even better, eye witness accounts.

Example

In this thread, he explains how his uncle regrew an appendage from a stump, using the power of prayer. However, all we have to go on is his word. He offers no proof scientific or other wise. I continue to discuss it with him, and try to convince him it should be SIMPLE to provide something..ANYTHING to prove what he claims he saw. But the only thing I get is, "I don't care what you say, it happened" and "I'm Christian, and I do not lie" in short I'm still waiting on those pics I'll never get.

3. The only..ONLY way to not get a response is if you make a post that is 100% rock solid. When he's not responding, that's when you know that you're right.

Example

In this thread I make a post that 'in my mind' is correct.
I simply state that he made an error in not including ALL relevant information
to the arguement, which in logical terms is correct. And what happens....Nothing.
No "thanks I'll keep that in mind" or "yeah I'll be sure to do that from now on"
Nothing. That my friends, is when you know that you've made an impression.
When there is nothing but silence.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I think I explained myself thoroughly. If you cannot accept that I am sorry.

If you want to continue to whine about how you don't like me, please take it in private.

Zimphire, that's just it, you didn't. All you stated, as eliquently as possible (for you) was: I'm right and you're wrong. (So wrong that it's funny )
That's not a debate tactic it's a cop out. All you do when posting only gifs, is show the other person exactly what you think of them and their argument.
I know that respect would be something new and innovative to the lounge,
but for once in your life, put down your smilies, put down your stupid pot and kettle pic, and argue the freakin points.

I fail to see what PMing you would accomplish, in that you "know" you're right and you "know" he's wrong.

Phew, I feel better.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by UR-20:
Zimphire, that's just it, you didn't. All you stated, as eliquently as possible (for you) was: I'm right and you're wrong. (So wrong that it's funny )

I said I explained WHY I posted the way I did. FOLLOW ALONG. I didn't tell him to PM about why he was wrong. I told him to PM if he has anymore complaints about the way I handled it.

If you are going to bitch about me, AT LEAST FOLLOW A LONG.

The post, as others said, was a piece of poop. Wasn't worth responding to in a serious matter.

This is the 4th time I have said this.

And I will say this again to you. If you don't like it. Too bad. Don't flood this thread with whining about me. Take it to private. Or put me on ignore.

Got it? Cool.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Jansar:
Your post was really lame.

I commended Zim for giving you a penalty kick in the ass.

Had I known it would have started a thread full of whiners complaining about how they don't approve of the way I responded I probably wouldn't have done it.

People need to get a grip.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

I said I explained WHY I posted the way I did. FOLLOW ALONG.

The post, as others said, was a piece of poop. Wasn't worth responding to in a serious matter.

This is the 4th time I have said this.

And I will say it again. If you don't like it. Too bad. Don't flood this thread with whining about me. Take it to private. Or put me on ignore.

Got it? cool. [/B]

Let's see...

It's been a while since we have had a good political assassination.
If anyone is up to get shot by a sniper, it would be Bush.

One person advocates assassinating the President of the United States and the other person posts a finger pointing, laughing smiley. I don't think anyone who thinks a person derserves to be shot by a sniper deserves anything more.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I think I explained myself thoroughly. If you cannot accept that I am sorry.

If you want to continue to whine about how you don't like me, please take it in private.

#1. Excuse me? Could you please point out the part in ANY of my posts where I state that I "don't like you." Don't put words in my mouth.

#2. If you have nothing of substance to say that pertains to the arguement why did you post in the first place? (laughing at the poster of the argument just shows disrespect.) It is possible to dislike someone and still respect them but it doesn't work the other way around, so, the better question would be, what have I done to make you dislike me so much?

Now, if you want to argue these points...be my guest or feel free to take it up in private.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Beewee:
#1. Excuse me? Could you please point out the part in ANY of my posts where I state that I "don't like you." Don't put words in my mouth.

#2. If you have nothing of substance to say that pertains to the arguement why did you post in the first place? (laughing at the poster of the argument just shows disrespect.) It is possible to dislike someone and still respect them but it doesn't work the other way around, so, the better question would be, what have I done to make you dislike me so much?

Now, if you want to argue these points...be my guest or feel free to take it up in private.

You don't garner respect by advocating the assassination or murder of W.

[Zimphire]

Beewee. I have answered your asinine question 4 times now as to WHY I did what I did. If you don't like that answer. TOO BAD.

You made a idiotic post. I laughed at you for it. Don't like being laughed at? Don't make idiotic posts.

Surely don't flood the thread with you whining about how you didn't like my response.

I asked you twice now to take it to private. You didn't.

Anymore posts you make about your obsession with me will be reported as off topic rambling and attempting to derail.

Got it?

[Beewee]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Let's see...

One person advocates assassinating the President of the United States and the other person posts a finger pointing, laughing smiley. I don't think anyone who thinks a person derserves to be shot by a sniper deserves anything more.

Please show me in my post where I advocate assassinating the President.
I said: "It's been a while since we have had a good political assassination."
Political not Presidential

and "If anyone is up to get shot by a sniper, it would be Bush."
Stating that many people are upset with the job Bush is doing as President

Don't put words into my mouth, please read my posts carefully before making ugly accusations.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Beewee. I have answered your asinine question 4 times now as to WHY I did what I did. If you don't like that answer. TOO BAD.

You made a idiotic post. I laughed at you for it. Don't like being laughed at? Don't make idiotic posts.

Surely don't flood the thread with you whining about how you didn't like my response.

I asked you twice now to take it to private. You didn't.

Anymore posts you make about your obsession with me will be reported as off topic rambling and attempting to derail.

Got it?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Please show me in my post where I advocate assassinating the President.
I said: "It's been a while since we have had a good political assassination."
Political not Presidential

and "If anyone is up to get shot by a sniper, it would be Bush."
Stating that many people are upset with the job Bush is doing as President

Don't put words into my mouth, please read my posts carefully before making ugly accusations.

It's been a while since we have had a good political assassination.

As oppossed to a bad assassination. Your sentence gives the impression that you long for a good assassination...then you go on t say that:

If anyone is up to get shot by a sniper, it would be Bush.

Is this as oppossed to being down to get shot by a sniper?

Your words assassination - good
Bush - up to get shot by a sniper

Apparantly, you aren't against the ideal but try to justify it by playing the word game, substituting political for presidential. Shame on you for having such a vile demeanor and zero respect for life in general and my nation's Commander in Chief

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Beewee:

You shouldn't use another person's personal server.

[Sven G]

Man, what do you see in Bush? It's not that he's something exceptional: is he a spirtual leader? no! is he an expert in international questions? no! is he an enlightened politician? no! Etc. etc.

What the fsck is he? Someone who just happened to be there, due to some strange circumstances, probably.

Zimphire could really be a much better "conservative" president than Bush, IMHO!

[gorgonzola]

meh.