At the time of his resigning, Nixon's rating was 24%. So Bush isnt that far off.
Personally I love the philipino view on election officials. They dont pretend or expect much from them. They know anyone willing to run for an office isnt doing it because they want to "Make things better". Its a pure power trip and they know it. And they treat it as such. Basically voting for the lesser of two evils and hoping the guy or girl might get at least one thing done the country or people need while they are there.
Originally posted by ValiumSummer Just wish his approval waiting had been this low last election. It is going to take alot of years to undo what he has done in terms of our country's reputation abroad. I just hope the next president learns from Bush's mistakes.
Oh my god! why? We would have Kerry in office. Then we would be closing the borders and then reopening them and then we would withdraw from Iraq and then go back.
Don't you love the sound that flip-flops make in the sand at the beach?
There's a reason his poll numbers are in the dumps other than a bunch of musicians or any other pop culture phenomenons. It's because he sucks as a President.
He's done so much to tear the Constitution to shreds since he got into office that is going to take years to repair. That is if we get a candidate willing to repair it from one of the two major parties.
Might I recommend a good book by Judge Napolitano?
<<You are correct sir in stating people have a choice to not buy or listen to the Dixie Chicks because of what they might say. I honestly think it to be very silly to not support or to choose not to listen to a group you may have loved for years all of a sudden because you find out that their political stance differs from yours. I can understand people choosing to not listen to them and trashing their CDs if they never really liked their music, but for someone to love the Dixie Chicks music and then suddenly stop listening to something they love over their stance is really silly imo. I think they have paid dearly to express them selves just in revenues. I am a democrat for the most part, however I will still listen to a group (especially if I like their music) even if I find out they are staunch Bush supporters. Same with a game. If I find out ravid Bush supporters make a great mmo, I am not about to not play that game based on political differences, heh. But that is indeed what most of the country has done simply because Natalie Maines said at her own London concert that she is embarrassed to be from the same state as GW Bush. I can understand radio stations not playing their music for maybe one year. But 3+ years and counting now? It's a little ubsurd is just my thinking.>>
I don't think most people stopped listening to the Dixie Chicks or had their opinion of them changed because they differ politically. I feel it was more the fact that what Miss Maines said was disrespectful and the fact that she was on foreign soil at the time on the eve of war. What she said was silly and juvenile and designed to get a little applause from a foreign audience. There was nothing of substance to her comments.
There are some artists and actors I choose not to give my money to. I've never bought a Dixie Chicks album, and am not really inclined to do so. I do conitnue to buy Sheryl Crow albums, as I enjoy her music more than I care about her political statements. But I can see a point where she might cross the line to where I find her too repugnant to support any longer. For now though, I will continue supporting her. Another reason I think I give her credit is that she still goes and performs for our troops in spite of her stance. I respect her for that, far more than I respect Natalie and her band. I believe that country radio would have welcomed them back had they let the issue be and make music people could enjoy without an agenda. They chose to continue the silliness, and it turns people off. I think we would like our entertainment stars to entertain, not spout politics at us. We can watch cable news for that, or listen to talk radio. We want an escape from things when listening to a cd, or watching a movie, not being sucked back into all of that. but that's just my opinion.
Natalies statement that she takes back her apology and is willing to accept a smaller audience of, as she put it, 'cool people' (no need for me to even comment on her lack of deep thoughts, I suppose) would mean more had she not continued to go on TV talking about G-Dub all over again. It seems that she is riding his coattails to try and help album sales. If she really believed in her stance, she wouldn't have apologized in the first place, and would have taken the consequences and continued on. I guess we will have to disagree on our level of respect for her. but that's ok.
<<There's a reason his poll numbers are in the dumps other than a bunch of musicians or any other pop culture phenomenons. It's because he sucks as a President.
He's done so much to tear the Constitution to shreds since he got into office that is going to take years to repair. That is if we get a candidate willing to repair it from one of the two major parties.
Might I recommend a good book by Judge Napolitano?>>
LOL, I doubt we're going to get much from either party. Look at the joke that is the 'immigration reform bill'that came from the Senate. Both parties are destroying this country in their own special ways. But I don't see anything about that changing. No third party candidate is going to win, at least not yet. So we end up having to take the lesser of two evils. Kerry would have been a nightmare, so we settled for Bush and hoped he would live up to expectations. So in the next presidential election it will be some combination of Hillary, Al Gore, John McCain, and a bunch of other less than desirable candidate. We can't elect hillary or that lunatic Al Gore, so does it end up being McCain??!! Geez, I hpe not. I wouldn't mind seeing Senator Allen make a run for it, but even then you have Congress filled with a bunch of crooks who are more interested in covering for each other (see Hasterts comments on the FBI siezure of congressman Jeffersons documents from his offices or the Cynthia McKinney debacle of last month) than doing what is right for the country. And any president we elect has to work with those numbskulls to get anything done. We're in trouble. That's the simple truth.
Originally posted by honzolo <<There's a reason his poll numbers are in the dumps other than a bunch of musicians or any other pop culture phenomenons. It's because he sucks as a President.
He's done so much to tear the Constitution to shreds since he got into office that is going to take years to repair. That is if we get a candidate willing to repair it from one of the two major parties.
Might I recommend a good book by Judge Napolitano?>>
LOL, I doubt we're going to get much from either party. Look at the joke that is the 'immigration reform bill'that came from the Senate. Both parties are destroying this country in their own special ways. But I don't see anything about that changing. No third party candidate is going to win, at least not yet. So we end up having to take the lesser of two evils. Kerry would have been a nightmare, so we settled for Bush and hoped he would live up to expectations. So in the next presidential election it will be some combination of Hillary, Al Gore, John McCain, and a bunch of other less than desirable candidate. We can't elect hillary or that lunatic Al Gore, so does it end up being McCain??!! Geez, I hpe not. I wouldn't mind seeing Senator Allen make a run for it, but even then you have Congress filled with a bunch of crooks who are more interested in covering for each other (see Hasterts comments on the FBI siezure of congressman Jeffersons documents from his offices or the Cynthia McKinney debacle of last month) than doing what is right for the country. And any president we elect has to work with those numbskulls to get anything done. We're in trouble. That's the simple truth. H.
I didn't take the lesser of the two evils for the last two presidential elections.
Originally posted by porgie Originally posted by honzolo <<There's a reason his poll numbers are in the dumps other than a bunch of musicians or any other pop culture phenomenons. It's because he sucks as a President.
He's done so much to tear the Constitution to shreds since he got into office that is going to take years to repair. That is if we get a candidate willing to repair it from one of the two major parties.
Might I recommend a good book by Judge Napolitano?>>
LOL, I doubt we're going to get much from either party. Look at the joke that is the 'immigration reform bill'that came from the Senate. Both parties are destroying this country in their own special ways. But I don't see anything about that changing. No third party candidate is going to win, at least not yet. So we end up having to take the lesser of two evils. Kerry would have been a nightmare, so we settled for Bush and hoped he would live up to expectations. So in the next presidential election it will be some combination of Hillary, Al Gore, John McCain, and a bunch of other less than desirable candidate. We can't elect hillary or that lunatic Al Gore, so does it end up being McCain??!! Geez, I hpe not. I wouldn't mind seeing Senator Allen make a run for it, but even then you have Congress filled with a bunch of crooks who are more interested in covering for each other (see Hasterts comments on the FBI siezure of congressman Jeffersons documents from his offices or the Cynthia McKinney debacle of last month) than doing what is right for the country. And any president we elect has to work with those numbskulls to get anything done. We're in trouble. That's the simple truth. H.
I didn't take the lesser of the two evils for the last two presidential elections.
Originally posted by qotsa Cheney is an even bigger dick than Bush.
Right, as in DICK Cheney. And I didn't know that Bush had a dick btw. Isn't a "bush" kinda the opposite of a dick.
Oh btw, speaking of musicians, I am and always have been 110% behind the Dixie Chicks. Anyone who stopped listening to a great musical group because they bashed Bush in March of 2003 should be ashamed of your selves. They certainly have as much freedom of speech as you and I.. expecially at their own friggin' concert. I feel badly for the abuse, loss of sales because of radio stations refusing to play their music and mostly for all their letters of death and hatred they recieved for only voicing their freedom of speech.
- Zaxx
Why are we talking about 60 year old men's penis's?
<<I didn't take the lesser of the two evils for the last two presidential elections.
I voted Libertarian. ??
LOL, and that worked out really well for you.
The point is that doing that resulted in nothing substantial, which was what I was trying to say. We are stuck, no matter what we do, at least until enough people are ready for change. I don't think we're there yet, unfortunately.
Originally posted by honzolo <<I didn't take the lesser of the two evils for the last two presidential elections.
I voted Libertarian. ??
LOL, and that worked out really well for you. The point is that doing that resulted in nothing substantial, which was what I was trying to say. We are stuck, no matter what we do, at least until enough people are ready for change. I don't think we're there yet, unfortunately.
I don't think my vote was insubstantial. I think that the more people see people voting for Libertarians the more they are going to get curious and then more people will find out about us. Then the party will grow.
We're already the largest third party in the country. And growing each election period. We have people in office all over the country. You have to start somewhere.
And if enough people voted Libertarian then the vote count would cross the threshold to get us into the next Presidential debates. And if there were a Libertarian in the Presidential debates, buddy we would see some changes come REALLY quick.
I would be so excited to see both of those two major parties sweat it out. Because there are so many American's that are ready for our party.
You know, I heard some guy on the radio the other day talking about a question asked of one of our founding fathers. Forgive me and my memory because I can't remember which one it was. I want to say Franklin, but I could be wrong. Anyways, they asked him how long he predicted our reperesentative republic form of government to last. He said 150 years tops. Because he didn't think people could hold it together that long until they would start to use government to their personal gain. His prediction is pretty much right on the target. Look at how our country is now. But if a Libertarian were president we could prove that founding father wrong. And I think he would smile down on us for it.
Too bad without a stronger representation of Libertarians in the House or the Senate, a Libertarian President would be a lame duck on taking office. There is what, one Libertarian in office now? Several states have legislatures with stong Libertarian representation though, and on the rise IIRC. Can't count the party out in 2008. However, if it turns out to be H. Clinton vs. John McCain, I don't think they will have a chance.
Originally posted by daeandor Too bad without a stronger representation of Libertarians in the House or the Senate, a Libertarian President would be a lame duck on taking office. There is what, one Libertarian in office now? Several states have legislatures with stong Libertarian representation though, and on the rise IIRC. Can't count the party out in 2008. However, if it turns out to be H. Clinton vs. John McCain, I don't think they will have a chance.
I want Rudy Giuliani to run. I might actually consider voting Republican. Yeek!
Originally posted by honzolo <<I didn't take the lesser of the two evils for the last two presidential elections.
I voted Libertarian. ??
LOL, and that worked out really well for you. The point is that doing that resulted in nothing substantial, which was what I was trying to say. We are stuck, no matter what we do, at least until enough people are ready for change. I don't think we're there yet, unfortunately.
And your ONE vote resulted in something substancial as well, right?
A Libertarian Presidency would destroy the nation, that isn't a shot at the Libertarians or their policies, it's just the fact that the way the nation is setup, that having a true libertarian in power would rumble things up so signifcantly that the economy would collapse, and any other form of stability.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
Originally posted by Aldaron A Libertarian Presidency would destroy the nation, that isn't a shot at the Libertarians or their policies, it's just the fact that the way the nation is setup, that having a true libertarian in power would rumble things up so signifcantly that the economy would collapse, and any other form of stability.
Yeah, right.
A Libertarian being in party, lowering your taxes, doing away with big government federal programs, and giving the rights to make personal decisions back to the people would collapse the nation.
Originally posted by gnomexxx Originally posted by Aldaron A Libertarian Presidency would destroy the nation, that isn't a shot at the Libertarians or their policies, it's just the fact that the way the nation is setup, that having a true libertarian in power would rumble things up so signifcantly that the economy would collapse, and any other form of stability.
Yeah, right.
A Libertarian being in party, lowering your taxes, doing away with big government federal programs, and giving the rights to make personal decisions back to the people would collapse the nation.
Explain yourself on that one.
Gotta remember who your arguing with, conservative republicans still think bush is doing a smashingly good job, 30% in fact, only 1 out of 3, but still that represents a hundred million people.
Of course, every other form of government to them is the coming of the apocalypse. Its not a party of ideas, its a party of panic mongers, scare the crap out of people as much as you can and then talk as tough as you can. Sad part is it works, peoples stupidity have no bounds.
A Libertarian being in party, lowering your taxes, doing away with big government federal programs, and giving the rights to make personal decisions back to the people would collapse the nation.
Explain yourself on that one.
Lowering your taxes: It's rumored that the national debt is actually closer to 50,000,000,000,000 instead of 9 trill, and the way they skewer the accounting to what lowers it so much is ignoring the obligation of social security that they will have to end up paying to the future retiree's that are paying social security at this point in time.
So let's say you obliterate all income tax - which a true libertarian would do - What then? You have 8-10 trillion noticed debt to pay off, and 40 trillion obligated debt.
Cut off social security, and tell everyone to take a hike? But yet the government for the past 60 or so years has promised a national, governmentally funded, retirement savings plan - Even to the extent of later making it mandatory to pay up!
So then you infuriate countless people; "We're not receiving our social security! We earned this! We paid for this!" Another group saying, "We've been paying social security for decade(s), promising that we'll get a return when we are retired."
And then of course if you're a libertarian you're taking away welfare as well, so you have another group on your hands. They aren't working, they aren't getting paid...uh oh. I sense a mob.
So what do you do? Utterly piss off social security payers and receivers - not to mention "ex" welfare receivers - to the highest extent; risking - almost assuring - riots and violent upheavals over the money the government of yesteryear promised them?
But then what about the other debt owed to corporations and other nations? Going to tell them to pike off and suck it up, because the nation isn't making the inflow of cash it needs to, to delay judgment on the promised debts?
I mean hey, I'm all for some of the things a Libertarian stands for - although a bit of their policies is too anarchist for my tastes - I just know that Libertarian changes while our nation is in the shape it is, would create a snowball effect that would topple empires.
Originally posted by Scorpes Gotta remember who your arguing with, conservative republicans still think bush is doing a smashingly good job, 30% in fact, only 1 out of 3, but still that represents a hundred million people. Of course, every other form of government to them is the coming of the apocalypse. Its not a party of ideas, its a party of panic mongers, scare the crap out of people as much as you can and then talk as tough as you can. Sad part is it works, peoples stupidity have no bounds.
Gotta remember who your arguing with, conservative republicans still think bush is doing a smashingly good job, 30% in fact, only 1 out of 3, but still that represents a hundred million people.
Of course, every other form of government to them is the coming of the apocalypse. Its not a party of ideas, its a party of panic mongers, scare the crap out of people as much as you can and then talk as tough as you can. Sad part is it works, peoples stupidity have no bounds.
It's amazing that one will make such brazen and asinine assumptions out of ignorance.
Here's a tip - Re-read what I originally said, then further read my response to "gnomexxx", and in the future refrain from making foolish assumptions based on the fact that I do not think that your party, or any other party can miraculously save this nation like some holy grail, and restore it to it's former glory.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
A Libertarian being in party, lowering your taxes, doing away with big government federal programs, and giving the rights to make personal decisions back to the people would collapse the nation.
Explain yourself on that one.
Lowering your taxes: It's rumored that the national debt is actually closer to 50,000,000,000,000 instead of 9 trill, and the way they skewer the accounting to what lowers it so much is ignoring the obligation of social security that they will have to end up paying to the future retiree's that are paying social security at this point in time.
So let's say you obliterate all income tax - which a true libertarian would do - What then? You have 8-10 trillion noticed debt to pay off, and 40 trillion obligated debt.
Cut off social security, and tell everyone to take a hike? But yet the government for the past 60 or so years has promised a national, governmentally funded, retirement savings plan - Even to the extent of later making it mandatory to pay up!
So then you infuriate countless people; "We're not receiving our social security! We earned this! We paid for this!" Another group saying, "We've been paying social security for decade(s), promising that we'll get a return when we are retired."
And then of course if you're a libertarian you're taking away welfare as well, so you have another group on your hands. They aren't working, they aren't getting paid...uh oh. I sense a mob.
So what do you do? Utterly piss off social security payers and receivers - not to mention "ex" welfare receivers - to the highest extent; risking - almost assuring - riots and violent upheavals over the money the government of yesteryear promised them?
But then what about the other debt owed to corporations and other nations? Going to tell them to pike off and suck it up, because the nation isn't making the inflow of cash it needs to, to delay judgment on the promised debts?
I mean hey, I'm all for some of the things a Libertarian stands for - although a bit of their policies is too anarchist for my tastes - I just know that Libertarian changes while our nation is in the shape it is, would create a snowball effect that would topple empires.
Originally posted by Scorpes Gotta remember who your arguing with, conservative republicans still think bush is doing a smashingly good job, 30% in fact, only 1 out of 3, but still that represents a hundred million people. Of course, every other form of government to them is the coming of the apocalypse. Its not a party of ideas, its a party of panic mongers, scare the crap out of people as much as you can and then talk as tough as you can. Sad part is it works, peoples stupidity have no bounds.
Gotta remember who your arguing with, conservative republicans still think bush is doing a smashingly good job, 30% in fact, only 1 out of 3, but still that represents a hundred million people. Of course, every other form of government to them is the coming of the apocalypse. Its not a party of ideas, its a party of panic mongers, scare the crap out of people as much as you can and then talk as tough as you can. Sad part is it works, peoples stupidity have no bounds.
It's amazing that one will make such brazen and asinine assumptions out of ignorance.
Here's a tip - Re-read what I originally said, then further read my response to "gnomexxx", and in the future refrain from making foolish assumptions based on the fact that I do not think that your party, or any other party can miraculously save this nation like some holy grail, and restore it to it's former glory.
And thats why we're stuck in this hole, its because people like you not only expect, but demand mediocity. You accept the status quo, because why, the alternative is to hard? Go cry a river, the founding fathers and other men of great acclaim and deeds are know because it was difficult to impossible. We should not only demand, but expect excellence and nothing but excellence from our public officials.
But do continue telling everyone and convincing yourself the hardest path isnt the right path, and that mediocrity is "close enough".
And thats why we're stuck in this hole, its because people like you not only expect, but demand mediocity. You accept the status quo, because why, the alternative is to hard? Go cry a river, the founding fathers and other men of great acclaim and deeds are know because it was difficult to impossible. We should not only demand, but expect excellence and nothing but excellence from our public officials. But do continue telling everyone and convincing yourself the hardest path isnt the right path, and that mediocrity is "close enough".
And here you are again - Assuming.
Either grow up, and quit assuming, or I will not make a third response, even if need be made - I feel no desire to discuss anything with a *person* that is plagued by making stochastic statements.
In closing -- My posts were made in observation, with the latter of them as an answer to a question. Your retorts - that were made in an obvious air of defensive feelings - only speak of a nescience posessing yourself when it comes to the knowledge revolving around my character, as well as my political agenda.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
Originally posted by Aldaron Originally posted by Scorpes
And thats why we're stuck in this hole, its because people like you not only expect, but demand mediocity. You accept the status quo, because why, the alternative is to hard? Go cry a river, the founding fathers and other men of great acclaim and deeds are know because it was difficult to impossible. We should not only demand, but expect excellence and nothing but excellence from our public officials. But do continue telling everyone and convincing yourself the hardest path isnt the right path, and that mediocrity is "close enough".
And here you are again - Assuming. Either grow up, and quit assuming, or I will not make a third response, even if need be made - I feel no desire to discuss anything with a *person* that is plagued by making stochastic statements. In closing -- My posts were made in observation, with the latter of them as an answer to a question. Your retorts - that were made in an obvious air of defensive feelings - only speak of a nescience posessing yourself when it comes to the knowledge revolving around my character, as well as my political agenda.
Do you even know what the word assumption even means?
"assumptions based on the fact that I do not think that your party, or any other party can miraculously save this nation like some holy grail, and restore it to it's former glory."
How is it my assumption that you dont accept mediocrity, you just said flat out that no party can save this nation? Thats not an assumption, that is a fact, that you stated. clearly you do not demand more because your resigned to accept less. That is calling you on your argument.
As for making assumptions, you also assume a libertarian run government would ruin the nation. Guess what, thats an ASSUMPTION, yet, you then accuse me of using assumptions?
You dont know jack, a Libertarian has never been president, has never been a policy making body in this country, so all you have are "assumptions" of what they might do. They do not have a track record to base current or future performance on. The only thing your using to judge that the liberatian party would destroy the country is your biased opinion, and scare mongering.
"Oh no dont vote liberatian, they'll destroy the nation, why? well ummm cause i say so, yeah!! cause i say so!"
Hey guys, I don't want to get entangled into the argument too much, but I have read all the pages and I just needed to get a laugh at this:
I love the people who are so far into the bush bull(add your own word here) that you cannot even point out ONE mistake Bush has made (not to mention the countless others) without them screaming at you and saying that no one could do better, and that you need to get a grip on life.
People that are just hilarious.
Viva Canada
EDIT: I did live in Florida for a large majority of the Bush term, and I can tell you as soon as his "war on terror" started lots of things changed around the country. Many people lost their rights, because police would tell you that it was in their jurisdiction to shut you up.
Comments
Personally I love the philipino view on election officials. They dont pretend or expect much from them. They know anyone willing to run for an office isnt doing it because they want to "Make things better". Its a pure power trip and they know it. And they treat it as such. Basically voting for the lesser of two evils and hoping the guy or girl might get at least one thing done the country or people need while they are there.
kai
Just wish his approval waiting had been this low last election.
It is going to take alot of years to undo what he has done in terms of our country's reputation abroad.
I just hope the next president learns from Bush's mistakes.
Don't you love the sound that flip-flops make in the sand at the beach?
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
of musicians or any other pop culture phenomenons. It's because he
sucks as a President.
He's done so much to tear the Constitution to
shreds since he got into office that is going to take years to repair.
That is if we get a candidate willing to repair it from one of the two
major parties.
Might I recommend a good book by Judge Napolitano?
The Constitution In Exile - Judge Naplitano
<<You are correct sir in stating people have a choice to not buy or listen to the Dixie Chicks because of what they might say. I honestly think it to be very silly to not support or to choose not to listen to a group you may have loved for years all of a sudden because you find out that their political stance differs from yours. I can understand people choosing to not listen to them and trashing their CDs if they never really liked their music, but for someone to love the Dixie Chicks music and then suddenly stop listening to something they love over their stance is really silly imo. I think they have paid dearly to express them selves just in revenues. I am a democrat for the most part, however I will still listen to a group (especially if I like their music) even if I find out they are staunch Bush supporters. Same with a game. If I find out ravid Bush supporters make a great mmo, I am not about to not play that game based on political differences, heh. But that is indeed what most of the country has done simply because Natalie Maines said at her own London concert that she is embarrassed to be from the same state as GW Bush. I can understand radio stations not playing their music for maybe one year. But 3+ years and counting now? It's a little ubsurd is just my thinking.>>
I don't think most people stopped listening to the Dixie Chicks or had their opinion of them changed because they differ politically. I feel it was more the fact that what Miss Maines said was disrespectful and the fact that she was on foreign soil at the time on the eve of war. What she said was silly and juvenile and designed to get a little applause from a foreign audience. There was nothing of substance to her comments.
There are some artists and actors I choose not to give my money to. I've never bought a Dixie Chicks album, and am not really inclined to do so. I do conitnue to buy Sheryl Crow albums, as I enjoy her music more than I care about her political statements. But I can see a point where she might cross the line to where I find her too repugnant to support any longer. For now though, I will continue supporting her. Another reason I think I give her credit is that she still goes and performs for our troops in spite of her stance. I respect her for that, far more than I respect Natalie and her band. I believe that country radio would have welcomed them back had they let the issue be and make music people could enjoy without an agenda. They chose to continue the silliness, and it turns people off. I think we would like our entertainment stars to entertain, not spout politics at us. We can watch cable news for that, or listen to talk radio. We want an escape from things when listening to a cd, or watching a movie, not being sucked back into all of that. but that's just my opinion.
Natalies statement that she takes back her apology and is willing to accept a smaller audience of, as she put it, 'cool people' (no need for me to even comment on her lack of deep thoughts, I suppose) would mean more had she not continued to go on TV talking about G-Dub all over again. It seems that she is riding his coattails to try and help album sales. If she really believed in her stance, she wouldn't have apologized in the first place, and would have taken the consequences and continued on. I guess we will have to disagree on our level of respect for her. but that's ok.
<<There's a reason his poll numbers are in the dumps other than a bunch of musicians or any other pop culture phenomenons. It's because he sucks as a President.
He's done so much to tear the Constitution to shreds since he got into office that is going to take years to repair. That is if we get a candidate willing to repair it from one of the two major parties.
Might I recommend a good book by Judge Napolitano?>>
LOL, I doubt we're going to get much from either party. Look at the joke that is the 'immigration reform bill'that came from the Senate. Both parties are destroying this country in their own special ways. But I don't see anything about that changing. No third party candidate is going to win, at least not yet. So we end up having to take the lesser of two evils. Kerry would have been a nightmare, so we settled for Bush and hoped he would live up to expectations. So in the next presidential election it will be some combination of Hillary, Al Gore, John McCain, and a bunch of other less than desirable candidate. We can't elect hillary or that lunatic Al Gore, so does it end up being McCain??!! Geez, I hpe not. I wouldn't mind seeing Senator Allen make a run for it, but even then you have Congress filled with a bunch of crooks who are more interested in covering for each other (see Hasterts comments on the FBI siezure of congressman Jeffersons documents from his offices or the Cynthia McKinney debacle of last month) than doing what is right for the country. And any president we elect has to work with those numbskulls to get anything done. We're in trouble. That's the simple truth.
H.
I voted Libertarian.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
I voted Libertarian.
Right, as in DICK Cheney. And I didn't know that Bush had a dick btw. Isn't a "bush" kinda the opposite of a dick.
Oh btw, speaking of musicians, I am and always have been 110% behind the Dixie Chicks. Anyone who stopped listening to a great musical group because they bashed Bush in March of 2003 should be ashamed of your selves. They certainly have as much freedom of speech as you and I.. expecially at their own friggin' concert. I feel badly for the abuse, loss of sales because of radio stations refusing to play their music and mostly for all their letters of death and hatred they recieved for only voicing their freedom of speech.
- Zaxx
Why are we talking about 60 year old men's penis's?
-Cloudoffire-
<<I didn't take the lesser of the two evils for the last two presidential elections.
??
I voted Libertarian.
LOL, and that worked out really well for you.
The point is that doing that resulted in nothing substantial, which was what I was trying to say. We are stuck, no matter what we do, at least until enough people are ready for change. I don't think we're there yet, unfortunately.
We're already the largest third party in the country. And growing each election period. We have people in office all over the country. You have to start somewhere.
And if enough people voted Libertarian then the vote count would cross the threshold to get us into the next Presidential debates. And if there were a Libertarian in the Presidential debates, buddy we would see some changes come REALLY quick.
I would be so excited to see both of those two major parties sweat it out. Because there are so many American's that are ready for our party.
You know, I heard some guy on the radio the other day talking about a question asked of one of our founding fathers. Forgive me and my memory because I can't remember which one it was. I want to say Franklin, but I could be wrong. Anyways, they asked him how long he predicted our reperesentative republic form of government to last. He said 150 years tops. Because he didn't think people could hold it together that long until they would start to use government to their personal gain. His prediction is pretty much right on the target. Look at how our country is now. But if a Libertarian were president we could prove that founding father wrong. And I think he would smile down on us for it.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
And your ONE vote resulted in something substancial as well, right?
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
A Libertarian being in party, lowering your taxes, doing away with big government federal programs, and giving the rights to make personal decisions back to the people would collapse the nation.
Explain yourself on that one.
===============================
A Libertarian being in party, lowering your taxes, doing away with big government federal programs, and giving the rights to make personal decisions back to the people would collapse the nation.
Explain yourself on that one.
Gotta remember who your arguing with, conservative republicans still think bush is doing a smashingly good job, 30% in fact, only 1 out of 3, but still that represents a hundred million people.
Of course, every other form of government to them is the coming of the apocalypse. Its not a party of ideas, its a party of panic mongers, scare the crap out of people as much as you can and then talk as tough as you can. Sad part is it works, peoples stupidity have no bounds.
It's amazing that one will make such brazen and asinine assumptions out of ignorance.
Here's a tip - Re-read what I originally said, then further read my response to "gnomexxx", and in the future refrain from making foolish assumptions based on the fact that I do not think that your party, or any other party can miraculously save this nation like some holy grail, and restore it to it's former glory.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
It's amazing that one will make such brazen and asinine assumptions out of ignorance.
Here's a tip - Re-read what I originally said, then further read my response to "gnomexxx", and in the future refrain from making foolish assumptions based on the fact that I do not think that your party, or any other party can miraculously save this nation like some holy grail, and restore it to it's former glory.
And thats why we're stuck in this hole, its because people like you not only expect, but demand mediocity. You accept the status quo, because why, the alternative is to hard? Go cry a river, the founding fathers and other men of great acclaim and deeds are know because it was difficult to impossible. We should not only demand, but expect excellence and nothing but excellence from our public officials.
But do continue telling everyone and convincing yourself the hardest path isnt the right path, and that mediocrity is "close enough".
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
Do you even know what the word assumption even means?
"assumptions based on the fact that I do not think that your party, or any other party can miraculously save this nation like some holy grail, and restore it to it's former glory."
How is it my assumption that you dont accept mediocrity, you just said flat out that no party can save this nation? Thats not an assumption, that is a fact, that you stated. clearly you do not demand more because your resigned to accept less. That is calling you on your argument.
As for making assumptions, you also assume a libertarian run government would ruin the nation. Guess what, thats an ASSUMPTION, yet, you then accuse me of using assumptions?
You dont know jack, a Libertarian has never been president, has never been a policy making body in this country, so all you have are "assumptions" of what they might do. They do not have a track record to base current or future performance on. The only thing your using to judge that the liberatian party would destroy the country is your biased opinion, and scare mongering.
"Oh no dont vote liberatian, they'll destroy the nation, why? well ummm cause i say so, yeah!! cause i say so!"
Hey guys, I don't want to get entangled into the argument too much, but I have read all the pages and I just needed to get a laugh at this:
I love the people who are so far into the bush bull(add your own word here) that you cannot even point out ONE mistake Bush has made (not to mention the countless others) without them screaming at you and saying that no one could do better, and that you need to get a grip on life.
People that are just hilarious.
Viva Canada
EDIT: I did live in Florida for a large majority of the Bush term, and I can tell you as soon as his "war on terror" started lots of things changed around the country. Many people lost their rights, because police would tell you that it was in their jurisdiction to shut you up.