|
|
|
|
|
| | How Bad is it for Republicans?Page 4 of 68 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41) | Well exactly how do you get rid of the party without eliminating those who adhere to it's creed? How exactly does a party itself do all of the things serendipitee wishes upon them without it happening to those involved with said party?
Don't answer those questions. Instead, direct me to some of those calls Republicans made for these terrorist attacks upon newspapers and lefties, Charles, I've never heard of any of them. I'd be interested in reading about them.
EDIT:
And this post was a reply to Charles, not you Barbe, you slipped that post in there on me! | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/1/2008 1:26:15 PM |
Well exactly how do you get rid of the party without eliminating those who adhere to it's creed? How exactly does a party itself do all of the things serendipitee wishes upon them without it happening to those involved with said party?
Well my friend the answer to your question is quite easy. They disband the old party and start a new one based on a more perfect form of their ideals. I do not think that the poster you refer to wishes ill will upon the individual republicans their post at least to me is quite clear. She wishes the party to go the way of the dinosaur though I would not say I agree with the spirit of the wording myself.
Don't answer those questions. Instead, direct me to some of those calls Republicans made for these terrorist attacks upon newspapers and lefties, Charles, I've never heard of any of them. I'd be interested in reading about them.
Though the right wing HAS committed, condoned and sponsored terror attacks on many leftist nations via CIA back coups of leftist governments where right wing despots were put into power whom equally terrorized the populations of those once left leaning or left wing nations. See Pinochet, Saddam, Trujillo, and a long list of others.
To see issues as merely democrat and republican fails to see the whole picture.
I do not hate anyone. Much less republicans not only because I do not believe in hating but because, I see past political affiliations and beliefs to the whole person. A great many of my friends and family are also conservatives, some even are staunch supporters of the republican party and I have no less love for them because of this. We all support what we feel is correct.
What I do not care for is Rovian tactics of trying to claim that a person whom loves their country is somehow a traitor or hates their country because they may disagree with something the nation is doing or protests a war for example.
We all love our country but, we also have different views of what would work best, what we should and should not be doing, etc.
We need each other both dem and rep especially these days... | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/1/2008 1:38:09 PM |
do not hate anyone. Much less republicans not only because I do not believe in hating but because, I see past political affiliations and beliefs to the whole person. A great many of my friends and family are also conservatives, some even are staunch supporters of the republican party and I have no less love for them because of this. We all support what we feel is correct.
We all love our country but, we also have different views of what would work best, what we should and should not be doing, etc.
We need each other both dem and rep especially these days...
Couldn't agree more. | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/1/2008 1:56:28 PM | As usual, I agree with points in your post, Kabiosile, but the attacks Charles mentions are supposedly attacks here against newspapers and individuals (at least he made no specification otherwise). And if that is indeed the case, I'd like to see when and where they took place.
If the right wing put Saddam in power, then didn't the right wing also take him out? I have a hard time with placing the blame on either party for these types of things, as I think sometimes these people were misjudged (meaning--not throughly vetted so to speak) before they got the power and/or the power itself tended to corrupt. As a person much wiser than myself once said, "Hindsight is 20/20."
But while the above is an arguement that could be debated for days, contrary to popular belief, I don't hate anyone either based on their political beliefs. I don't think disagreeing on a particular topic with someone should form the basis of any relationship, in and of itself. I guess at some point when you disagree on enough it might be time to find better company. But when the rhetoric they spew lends itself to hateful diatribe, I find myself on the defense of that. I refuse to believe that it has to come to that to get a point across. And I will point it out, if for no other reason than to expose the hypocriscy of the "spewer".
What I do not care for is Rovian tactics of trying to claim that a person whom loves their country is somehow a traitor or hates their country because they may disagree with something the nation is doing or protests a war for example.
Although they are called "Rovain" tactics, both sides are guilty of using them to sway opinion. It says something about the person who coined the phrase doesn't it? | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/4/2008 10:21:02 AM |
Although they are called "Rovain" tactics, both sides are guilty of using them to sway opinion. It says something about the person who coined the phrase doesn't it?
ready, I'd really like to know who the equivalent democrats are that compare to Shawn Hannity, Rush Limpballs, or Carl Rove.
I have to agree, I think it's rich of Rovians to call someone unpatriotic, simply because they believe we should leave Iraq, or that we didn't support that occupation. That's the whole iron-fisted reputation of the Bush dynasty......if you're not with us you're against us - mentality. That doesn't leave much room for alternate opinions. | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/4/2008 10:53:45 AM | " Sean Hannity is the only living person I've EVER qheard refer to Obama as "The Messiah" if that tells a person ANYTHING!!!"
Hannity was quoting Louis Farrakhan from a sermon he gave this past summer another of Obama's neighbors in Chicago. | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/4/2008 11:13:39 AM |
Sean Hannity is the only living person I've EVER qheard refer to Obama as "The Messiah" if that tells a person ANYTHING!!!"
Hannity was quoting Louis Farrakhan from a sermon he gave this past summer another of Obama's neighbors in Chicago.
Well, if Hannity didn't want to give Obama more power, he might have reconsidered calling him "The Messiah" every time he went on the air. | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/4/2008 1:41:16 PM |
Well, if Hannity didn't want to give Obama more power, he might have reconsidered calling him "The Messiah" every time he went on the air.
Too bad that this medium doesn't convey nuance the way radio does. Hannity's sarcasm isn't evident when the words are put into print. | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/4/2008 8:12:37 PM | "Too bad that this medium doesn't convey nuance the way radio does. Hannity's sarcasm isn't evident when the words are put into print."
Some people don't understand sarcasm.You have to have certain abilities and the ability to see the other side. | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/4/2008 9:50:29 PM | I know my sarcasm is frequently misunderstood here.
But as far as Hannity being the only one to call Obama "the Messiah", I think actually Limbaugh did it first. And I've heard Neil Boortz (sp?) do it on occasion (but I think he and Hannity are friends and Neil picked it up from Sean).
And as far as democrats who use Rovian tactics, off the top of my head, I'd have to say Michael Moore, Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton (at least in the primary election), and any number of them who use the same type of fear mongering slurs and tactics that republicans are often accused of. Basically give me the name of a democrat in a heated election and I'm sure we can dig a couple Carl Rove maneuvers up. It's just a part of the game. Weather or not you like his style, it's fairly apparent it works, and not many are above using it.
But why I think the democrats don't see their own Rovian tactics as such is because they tend to believe them as fact (as does the Republican side with theirs), so usually only the opposing side can easily point them out. | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/6/2008 9:39:49 AM | Michael Moore, Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton (at least in the primary election), and any number of them who use the same type of fear mongering slurs and tactics that republicans are often accused of. Basically give me the name of a democrat in a heated election and I'm sure we can dig a couple Carl Rove maneuvers up. It's just a part of the game. Weather or not you like his style, it's fairly apparent it works, and not many are above using it.
OK, OK.
Whatever.
IF you think Pelosi, Franken, Clinton or Moore... somehow compare to Rove, Limpballs, Hannity, Boortz, et al, that's your prerogative.
Yet, there's been substancial evidence to support democratic think-tanks.... and there's insurmountable evidence that disproves what these neocons spew. That's why the Fairness Doctrine has been proposed. It's not an attempt to hush a bunch of sound political pundits, it's that their messages are baseless.... strawmen/red herring arguments, with no basis in fact; it's heresay, garbage, made-up rhetoric... that a massive amount of neo's buy into, they cling to it....even though it's nothing but dunge. Trust me, I listen to them all too often.... and I hear what's being said.
Obama's (for instance) not an Arab, nor a Muslim; yet those neo's love repeating that garbage......and millions of others love repeating the same garbage. See, this is why republicans need to really-- R-E-A-L-L-Y --- start to rethink what they're saying, where they're going to place emphasis, and this is precisely why republicans are facing political extinction. IF Chambliss had lost to Martin, in GA, you could have essentially kissed the republicans good-bye. That would have been the fateful blow, yet they're really grasping at a slender rope right now, hanging on for dear life, and time will tell if their fate is to be resurrected (No pun intended) or if we'll see them vanish over the course of the next few years. With the trend moving as it is, I'd say the latter is far more likely. | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/6/2008 9:26:53 PM |
Yet, there's been substancial evidence to support democratic think-tanks.... and there's insurmountable evidence that disproves what these neocons spew.
Well that's your perogative to buy into that, too. I rarely base my beliefs on anything Hannity or Limbaugh have to say without confirmation, let's just say I take them with a grain of salt (or several), same as I do Franken (three grains for him) and Moore (the whole shaker). To be perfectly honest, once I hear a bunch of nonsense being spewed by anyone (and I don't think that many of us, myself included, weren't guilty of spewing a bit of nonsense) , I tend to take what they say purely as entertainment. I actually tend to gravitate toward more towards libraterian guys like Neal Boortz (who leans toward repub but often calls them out on nonsense) and Mike McConnell (who leans differently based on the subject and is on target more than any of 'em) who really do disspell myths instead of perpatrating them.
And I really don't think a party that still has at least a 46% base (at least according to the popular vote in the presidental election) is going to dry up over one election. I agree with many that it may be time to look into a different direction, as many people did this election. Just because a lot of people voted for a different party doesn't always mean they have completely abandoned their party. In some cases it just may be a wake up call to that party.
For example, many times you and I couldn't be more opposed in ideology, but on illegal immigration we are both on the same page. That doesn't mean either of us say, "Hey, he must be right about everything!!!". Just because many republicans feel that their candidate this time wasn't the right man and would continue the downslide, doesn't mean that they suddenly feel wholehearedly aligned with the democratic party. It just means they felt an area of importance (the economy) would be best served by democrats this time out. Or they feel, as I stated above, that the republican party needs some retooling.
But I've said it before and I stick by it---if things don't get better under this party, or they get worse, we'll be right back to republicans in 2012. Many people who vote based solely on change don't really care WHAT the change is, just that it is change. | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/7/2008 10:10:45 AM | Well that's your perogative to buy into that, too. I rarely base my beliefs on anything Hannity or Limbaugh have to say without confirmation, let's just say I take them with a grain of salt (or several), same as I do Franken (three grains for him) and Moore (the whole shaker).
Michael Moore has been labeled so controversial..... but his comments are fact based, his movies are documentaries, and a lot of people who doubted him before are now starting to realize the truth in his message. So, please, enlighten me.....how is his message controversial? What does he say that strikes you as unqualifiable? He exposed the Bush families close ties to the Saudi Royal Family, to wit, the Bin Laden Family (which includes Osama Bin Laden). Give me an example of why you feel he needs the whole salt shaker>?
I tend to take what they say purely as entertainment. I actually tend to gravitate toward more towards libraterian guys like Neal Boortz (who leans toward repub but often calls them out on nonsense)
Surely you gest. Boortz is one of those I listen to, not because I think his posture is accurate, but because I like to keep up with what's being said behind "enemy" lines. (I'm exaggerating that, you know). But, you'd be hard pressed to ever convince me that he's a moderate, centerist, or anything other than a died-in-the-wool-republican. He was at the GOP Convention, but he was not at the Democratic Convention.....he "claims" to be independant, but his every word runs lock-step with republican platforms. Rarely have I heard him say anything against republican dogma....but he loves to hate the democratic views.....calling Obama socialist....I mean....his claim of independance to either party is shortlived as soon as he utters a word. He's just not as heavily absorbed as Limbaugh or Hannity seem to be. He sponsors big business (republican), he sponsors tax breaks to the wealthy (republican) - so if you seem to think he's middle-of-the-road....give me a few (ok, Ill settle for two) agendas that he supports that the democrats support. Then I'm amused, at least. Anyone who knows him knows he's a highly paid pundit for republicans....only his shirt says he's an independant/libertarian...... and I'm looking forward to the Fairness Doctrine being implemented..... 
For example, many times you and I couldn't be more opposed in ideology, but on illegal immigration we are both on the same page. That doesn't mean either of us say, "Hey, he must be right about everything!!!". Just because many republicans feel that their candidate this time wasn't the right man and would continue the downslide, doesn't mean that they suddenly feel wholehearedly aligned with the democratic party. It just means they felt an area of importance (the economy) would be best served by democrats this time out. Or they feel, as I stated above, that the republican party needs some retooling
Just what retooling do you feel republicans need to make?
I do find I'm in agreement with you and many republicans on illegal immigration...moreso than some of the liberals I see here.....and it's too bad neither party seems to embrace that concept very well.....we do see eye-to-eye on that subject..... and I think we both agree, it's bringing ou Country down rapidly. If anything, I'd say Obama is making his admin picks with that topic in mind. | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/7/2008 11:30:03 AM | I never said I didn't believe anything Michael Moore said, but, there are plenty of sites that expose his "restructuring" of facts. I won't bother repeating them, but if you google it, you'll find plenty. He uses sensationalism and bends facts to support his way of thinking. There are "documentaries" and books about the "facts" he manipulates to make his facts seem to hold water. I don't consider Moore's "movies" to be documentary because often many parts of them can be disproved. I won't say I haven't been swayed on opinion by things Moore has said, and I won't say there aren't times I do agree with him. But I will say before I accept anything he says as fact, I do a bit of research.
I did say Boortz leans toward the republican side, and although I don't get to listen to him as much as I used to, maybe he's not as middle of the road as he used to be. When I do get a chance to listen, I tend to listen more to McConnell who is on at the same time on a different channel. He's views are more centrist and, since he isn't a retired attorney, I find his show to be more enjoyable. I do know Boortz used to follow the libratarian party's line pretty closely. So I will have to take your word on Boortz.
Honestly, I don't feel the republicans need to do anything except go back to the ideals they once held, for example, smaller government, stay out of people's lives, and protect our borders.
And the main problem I see with liberals (and even a large portion of conservatives) with illegal immigration is the fact that so many of their livelihoods depend on careers illegals don't have a chance in hell of suceeding in. It's a sad case of not being able to see the forest because of the trees. Until their livelihoods are threatened by those illegals, most of whom at this point don't even have a firm grasp on the language, let alone any chance of becoming a professional of any type, schoolteacher, lawyer, or dare I say politician, they won't feel or be moved to do anything about this situation. And they don't seem to be able to grasp the fact the country is being hurt in so many ways that will eventually affect them (if they aren't already being affected, but just not badly enough to notice it).
I hope you are right about Obama and illegal immigration, but to be honest, he comes off to me as one of those white collar college educated types that thinks there's room for everyone here because they pose no immediate threat to the way he earns a living. But if I am wrong, I will happily eat crow and wholeheartedly agree with you when and if you get the chance to say "I told you so!". | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/8/2008 11:03:24 AM | I never said I didn't believe anything Michael Moore said, but, there are plenty of sites that expose his "restructuring" of facts. I won't bother repeating them, but if you google it, you'll find plenty. He uses sensationalism and bends facts to support his way of thinking. There are "documentaries" and books about the "facts" he manipulates to make his facts seem to hold water. I don't consider Moore's "movies" to be documentary because often many parts of them can be disproved.
Ready, I dont' know if you missed Moore being interviewed recently on Larry King, but I've listened to him before, seen several of his movies, and I don't agree with your assertion that he "bends' or sensationalizes facts. That's Boortz and Hannity's and Limbaughs style.
Interestingly, the discussion arose about Moore's "controversialness", which was discussed at length. And quite honestly, people have tried to demonize him, and call him controversial for years. The problem is - he speaks in truths and facts, something those other "pundits" have a hard time grasping. I've followed Moore and he's not as "controversial" as he's "made out to be". People start to try and befall him because they aren't happy with what he says.
However, there's a quote from Vaclav Havel, Polish Revolutionist, that's fitting here:
"A single, seemingly powerless person, who dares to cry out the words of truth, and to stand behind it with all his power and all his might, ready to pay a high price, has surprisingly greater power, though formerly disfranchised, than do thousands of annonymous voters."
Moore's one of those who's taken the risk of being ridiculed, but his message is fact filled and truth-based. Like him or not, the sensationalism is not in his message, it's in his critics words. I'd be happy to entertain discussing whatever skewing of facts you seem to find with regard to him. I don't see it, nor do I agree, and I'm fairly open-minded in that regard.
Honestly, I don't feel the republicans need to do anything except go back to the ideals they once held
I think at some point in the past, republicans were known for smaller gov't and more conservative spending. Yet, since Reagan, that's changed. Reagan quintupled the national debt, from 900 billion under Carter to 4.3 trillion after his 8 yrs. This escalating debt continued under Bush 41, and of course, under Bush 43. The only time in the past 28 yrs, that a President actually reduced the debt/deficit and balanced the budget, was Clinton.
10 billion a month, for what- 6-7 yrs.... in Iraq.... is h-a-r-d-l-y thought of as conservative thinking. That's but one aspect that needs change. Another is the evangelical bases dogma, that there's but one religion in the world (Christianity) and that every other religion need tow the line or be demonized. They've tried forcing their will on US for some time now, trying to make this Country follow their doctrines. And quite frankly, people are tired of it. McCain wanted to outlaw birth control and roll back Roe-v-Wade, making abortions illegal. Palin (Gawd Help US) and her ultra-conservative religious right dogma.... was just too much to bare.
I know there's some good people on the right, aND I'm sure you're one. But we're going to have to start dealing with facts, stop ignoring Global Warming, even though that's most likely past the point of rectification, and start addressing real issues, rather than special interest.
Cheers Bro
 | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/12/2008 8:32:13 AM | Well, I think this may be a much needed rallying cry for those on the right to examine their party during this long night of the soul that's inevitably going to follow their dramatic fall from power across the board, on almost every level. Bush and his cronies have effectively (at least temporarily) destroyed the Republican brand in this modern era.
A party which so often identifies itself with personal responsibility on an individual level seems to have ironically ursurped that same responsibility on a group level. The right, in power, has been in charge in a time when it's failed to provide solutions and answers to the problems faced by the USA - and it's paid the very heavy cost for that failure.
A party which had no money for the poor, or had no money for the sick, now has endless piles of it for foreign wars and corporate bail outs. There's no end to the money that's available, for the rich and powerful, who were ironically being paid top salaries to manage companies and be good shepherds for their investors.
Why is that again ?
Why is pouring an endless river of taxpayer money into the top of the economy so valid, and pouring a small stream of it to those who need it far more such a bad one ?
After eight years of the direct "golden shower" of trickle down economics, why is the economy so shattered ?
Isn't all this cash going to make these corporate CEO's lazy, and isn't it against the spirit of capitalism that made America such a great place to live in ? You know, all those reasons why welfare and Medicare are not good things....
Actually, no one seems to mention that in this debate, do they ?
Ironically, to have lost their power to another party which was lead to victory by a man from the same state as Abraham Lincoln, with the name of Hussein, makes one look over at the karma/irony gauge and to see it's needle bending against the limiter.
A party , which spent much of it's time under Clinton being Chicken Little, has produced the greatest economic turkey in modern history - and that's even more irony for you.
My hope is that the Republican party will now inevitably have to look at itself in the mirror, as the Democratic party had to after Carter (and the defeat against Reagan) , and try to re-brand itself far better in a way that can reach out to those critical independent voters - who are critical to winning elections. It needs to return itself to the party of people like Barry Goldwater, in many of it's base issues.
"I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process." (in a 1994 Washington Post essay)
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others"
"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right."
"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's a**."
"A woman has a right to an abortion."
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Goldwater.html
For far too long, the Republican party has taken the easy way out with the evangelists , and used them rather cynically in their pursuit of power. It paid off in the short term, but left them out of power in the long term, once people saw though the game being played.
In the interim, it's helped to divide the country even more, and turned people away while doing so.
Back to Goldwater :
"If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet," he told U.S. News & World Report in 1994, "they could do us in." In an interview with The Post that same year, Goldwater observed, "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
"Well, I've spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the 'Old Conservatism.' And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength." Insisted Goldwater, "Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. . . "By maintaining the separation of church and state," he explained, "the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars . . . Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?"
Goldwater concluded with a waming to the American people. "The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others," { he said,} "unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. . . We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now" { he insisted}. "To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic."
- Ibid
It seems Goldwater's warning were not heeded, and the inevitable occurred, as it was foreseen well over a decade ago.
At the same time, the Republican party has to rid itself of the demons of the neocons, AEI, and PFNAC that have infiltrated it's leadership, as well as it's corporate/aristocratic owners (a fault also shared by it's political opponent, to be fair here).
It also has to find charismatic and youthful leaders, another of it's great faults. Since Reagan's charisma, the party has not found another like him worthy enough to lead it forward - which is a sad commentary in a political party where inspiration of people is so critical.
IF these demons can be successfully purged, better candidates found, and the party reborn in a modern version that respects it's historical roots, they could be a serious contender for power in four years. | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/14/2008 8:21:11 PM | How bad is it?
It's so bad, Republicans have finally realized what dogs have always known... Bushes, there only good for one thing... psssssssss tinkle tinkle
 | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/14/2008 8:48:53 PM | As usual, I agree with points in your post, Kabiosile, but the attacks Charles mentions are supposedly attacks here against newspapers and individuals (at least he made no specification otherwise). And if that is indeed the case, I'd like to see when and where they took place.
Ann Coulter
My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.
* New York Observer article; August 26, 2002
also an example of a party being eliminated would be the Whigs.
Hey bush is hitting record lows. 23% approval? Wooooh. Stinky. | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/14/2008 9:14:13 PM | How bad is it?
Hmmm, the POTUS was pelted with shoes on national television today.
That can't be good... or can it?  | |
|
| |
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/15/2008 3:58:43 PM | ^^^We can guess he's been practicing with the expectation that a veritable cornucopia of flying objects may be heading his way... another six weeks and he'll walk among us.
Then again, that would suggest he had the capacity to understand cause effect relationships which we've had ample evidence he does not... must have been just a lucky dodge.
Unfortunately, my aim isn't that good so I'd likely miss. No shoes for me though, my dogs have been busy making "little presents" for him. More fitting, don't you think?
 . . . . | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/15/2008 4:30:17 PM |
Ann Coulter
My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.
That's calling for an attack? Oooookkkkaaaayyyy. Can't you do any better than that?
Hey bush is hitting record lows. 23% approval? Wooooh. Stinky.
Have you checked out the hosue/congress ratings lately? Woooh. Stinkier!! And they are the democrat majority that is supposed to save this once great country. | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/15/2008 4:43:14 PM |
That's calling for an attack? Oooookkkkaaaayyyy. Can't you do any better than that?
I don't need to, I have a case where a person who is on the new york times best sellers list is stating that she'd like it if domestic terrorists hit newspapers they didn't like.
Have you checked out the hosue/congress ratings lately? Woooh. Stinkier!!
"Congress" isn't a person I'm afraid. You're trying to compare a group of people to an individual, compare individual congressmen to the President THEN we can talk about popularity.
And they are the democrat majority that is supposed to save this once great country.
Once again why you can't make a comparison. Groups are not the same as individuals.
Or compare Bush with Obama if you prefer.
Otherwise it shows a complete lack of understanding about statistics. | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/15/2008 8:05:54 PM | compare individual congressmen to the President THEN we can talk about popularity
Knowing what I do about statistics would tell me the stats would be skewered because most people don't have opinions on individual congressmen, because most people outside of their areas have no idea who they are. The stats available for most of those in congress are limited to their constituancy and therefore wouldn't be a valid comparison EITHER.
Here's one: As far as Bush compared to past presidents his approval is one of the lowest.
This congress compared to past congress' approval is nearly bottom of the barrel.
I have a case where a person who is on the new york times best sellers list is stating that she'd like it if domestic terrorists hit newspapers they didn't like.
Another quote taken out of context is not an example of anything but a quote taken out of context. I've seen worse threats implied on these forums. Can you find an example of someone who matters actually making a valid threat? A threat, not a proclaimation of disappointment it never happened, a wish, or an off the cuff comment. | |
|
| How Bad is it for Republicans?
Posted: 12/15/2008 10:20:08 PM |
Knowing what I do about statistics would tell me the stats would be skewered because most people don't have opinions on individual congressmen, because most people outside of their areas have no idea who they are.
Well then a simple measure would be to have people rate their own congressmen, in a similar maner as you have Americans rate their own president.
Here's one: As far as Bush compared to past presidents his approval is one of the lowest.
It's lower than Nixon at the time of impeachment.
This congress compared to past congress' approval is nearly bottom of the barrel.
The unhappyness with the Democratically controled congress was expressed by voting more Democrat's into congress. I suspect your assesment about why it's unpopular is flawed, thus the request for individual congressmen's popularity.
Another quote taken out of context is not an example of anything but a quote taken out of context.
Prove it was taken out of context. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
4
of
68 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
|
|
Home
login 
. I just have to wonder what he uttered to make the man lose his grip all of a sudden. 
