Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

bush only just below Osama bin laden

Bush 2006 Public Opinion UK

  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#21 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 05 November 2006 - 03:17 PM

View PostG1223, on Nov 5 2006, 12:11 PM, said:

We have not been asleep for six years we have simply gotten tired of rant and have you on ignore.

a) I was right - about the war in Iraq, certainly - and I said so before we went

b)you must not have me on ignore ;)
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#22 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 05 November 2006 - 03:48 PM

I guess rationality is in the eye of the beholder. I honestly--and I mean no disrespect if this applies to anyone here--find it amazing that there are still people in this country who are willing to stand behind Bush and smile and nod and clap while he speaks. Ardently supporting a president who has gotten us into a hellacious, costly, apparently-no-exit war in Iraq is baffling to me. His rhetoric is so far removed from reality that even a conservative like Andrew Sullivan wonders if he hasn't "lost his mind" (Sullivan's words after Bush pronounced this past week that Rumseld has done "a fantastic job.")

So, while some of the fear and loathing of Bush may be over-the-top, indeed irrational (I don't think he's worse than Kim Jong-Il and assorted other despots), so is the cheerleading of a president whose incompetence has damaged this country. In fact, I suspect that if a Democrat had gotten us into the position we're in in Iraq, squandered the surplus, grown the size of the federal government and increased spending, presided over a Democratic Congress beset with scandals and corruption, some who defend Bush for these results would be horrified and concerned about the direction this nation is headed if a Democrat had done these very things.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#23 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 05 November 2006 - 04:44 PM

If a Democrat had managed to foul up as much as Bush, this Congress would have impeached him.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#24 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 05 November 2006 - 05:12 PM

View PostCait, on Nov 5 2006, 01:44 PM, said:

If a Democrat had managed to foul up as much as Bush, this Congress would have impeached him.

Heh, ayup!

Clinton has a fling with an intern and gets impeached.

Bush screws over the entire nation, runs up the deficit, and botches up a war, and he serves out his second term without question. :rolleyes:
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#25 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 05 November 2006 - 05:55 PM

View PostRhea, on Nov 5 2006, 01:11 PM, said:

View PostLost Cause, on Nov 4 2006, 07:18 AM, said:

^Got a point. At least this country isn't like Talibani Afghanistan. Has anyone seen public executions of women for infidelity?

Perhaps, but I'm not sure we owe Bush any kudoes for that. We owe the Founding Fathers and the structure of our government for that - it certainly has nothing to do with Dubya. That, and the fact that this isn't a fundamentalist Muslim country. ;)


I love what the Founders gave us.  However, it is up to us to see the maintaining of it.  We can look to the Founders for inspiration and advice (they left plenty of it), but if we fail to act on their advice, the advice of the men who framed it and know the true intentions for how they created what they created, who is really to blame?  Let's face it, the majority of modern Americans are too lazy to vote and therefore they are too lazy to care to know why and how the U.S. Governmental structure has evolved.  

(RED ALERT!!  General rant to follow; not directed at anyone.) Now, while Bush has eroded the Bill of Rights in the past 6 yrs (as have previous administrations with various acts of Congress), he hasn't completely destroyed it.  It's been undermined badly, but the death knell of the Republic hasn't been dealt by him or his administration, yet.  (He still has 2 years to go. . .)   To assume that Bush has single-handedly managed to destroy the fabric of the United States is being pantently blind to the actions of such people as Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, TR, and FDR, for starters.

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."


#26 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 05 November 2006 - 09:56 PM

View PostSpidey, on Nov 5 2006, 05:12 PM, said:

Clinton has a fling with an intern and gets impeached.


No it was lying under oath. The lie was by deliberate omission.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#27 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 05 November 2006 - 10:11 PM

View PostG1223, on Nov 5 2006, 06:56 PM, said:

View PostSpidey, on Nov 5 2006, 05:12 PM, said:



Clinton has a fling with an intern and gets impeached.


No it was lying under oath. The lie was by deliberate omission.

And yet you seem to think nothing of Bush lying to Congress and the American people in order to take us to war in Iraq.  A war that has killed 2000+ of our own troops, 500K+ Iraqies, and who knows how many wounded.

Yep, I see how one lie is impeachable and the other is just a misunderstanding.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#28 Bobby

Bobby

    FKA LiberalBob

  • Islander
  • 4,369 posts

Posted 05 November 2006 - 10:13 PM

View PostG1223, on Nov 5 2006, 08:56 PM, said:

View PostSpidey, on Nov 5 2006, 05:12 PM, said:



Clinton has a fling with an intern and gets impeached.


No it was lying under oath. The lie was by deliberate omission.

Weren't you the one in the outing thread claiming it was wrong to be in people's sex lives?  What right did they have to ask the question?  He lied, nobody died.  That's the one cliche you can't escape.  A dress did get stain though.   But they did the Christian thing and made their marriage work.   Seems like the right would love them.  Stand by your man.   I say we bring them all in and ask them who they are screwing under oath.

#29 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 05 November 2006 - 10:17 PM

It was testimony in a SEXUAL harassment suit. So asking about his possible sexual acts with an employee is a valid in that case.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#30 Bobby

Bobby

    FKA LiberalBob

  • Islander
  • 4,369 posts

Posted 05 November 2006 - 10:28 PM

How was it relevant to that case?  Unless Monica filed the charges, which I don't think ever happened.  It's not sexual harassment if you are doing it of your own free will.   No, they just saw a chance to ask a question because they wasted millions of dollars trying to get at the Clintons every other way but couldn't.   Bill Clinton is a liar and cheated on his wife, but he was a damn good president.    But what he lied about pales in comparison.  And Bill Clinton's been out of office for over six years, Bush has been doing a piss poor job all on his own.  So please quit using Billy boy as a means of deflection because George is worse.

Edited by Life for Rent, 05 November 2006 - 10:32 PM.


#31 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 05 November 2006 - 10:36 PM

The case was by Paula Jones and the question was about him having sexual relatiosn with other people than his wife.   It was a sexual harassment case were they suppose to not ask such questions?

That would be like man convicted of physical assualt being asked if he had ever struck another person. It is so that past acts can be admitted to show where they had either lied or down played their behavior.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#32 Bobby

Bobby

    FKA LiberalBob

  • Islander
  • 4,369 posts

Posted 05 November 2006 - 10:59 PM

View PostG1223, on Nov 5 2006, 09:36 PM, said:

The case was by Paula Jones and the question was about him having sexual relatiosn with other people than his wife.   It was a sexual harassment case were they suppose to not ask such questions?

That would be like man convicted of physical assualt being asked if he had ever struck another person. It is so that past acts can be admitted to show where they had either lied or down played their behavior.


From the hellspawn's site:

http://www.anncoulte...ials/today2.htm

Quote

At 1:22 P.M., the House of Representatives approved, 228 to 206, the first article of impeachment, accusing Mr. Clinton of perjury for misleading a Federal grand jury last Aug. 17 about the nature of his relationship with a White House intern, Monica S. Lewinsky. Roll call, page 36.



Quote

A second article of impeachment, charging Mr. Clinton with obstruction of justice, passed on a narrower vote of 221 to 212. It accused him of inducing others to lie in order to conceal his affair with Ms. Lewinsky. This time 12 Republicans voted no, while 5 Democrats voted yes.


Quote

Two more charges against Mr. Clinton were defeated. An article accusing the President of perjury in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit was rejected, 229 to 205, with 28 Republicans breaking ranks.

And the House overwhelmingly rejected, 285 to 148, an accusation of abuse of power stemming from Mr. Clinton's legalistic answers to 81 questions put to him by the House Judiciary Committee. Eighty-one Republicans defected from their party. Only one Democrat deserted his.


The House acted on a crisp pre-Christmas Saturday when American politics seemed to be descending into the very cannibalism that Speaker Newt Gingrich had warned of when he was toppled a month ago.

Hours before Mr. Clinton was impeached for his efforts to cover up his affair with Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Livingston, who had been chosen to succeed Mr. Gingrich, shocked the House by announcing he would leave Congress because of revelations of his own adulterous affairs.


Quote

With a sex scandal now consuming one of their own, the House's impeachment debate turned more than ever into a discourse on sin and morality in politics.  

Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority whip, who had helped make Mr. Livingston the Speaker-designate and has been one of the fiercest critics of Mr. Clinton, choked back tears as he praised Mr. Livingston. He said his friend "understood what this debate was all
about."

"It was about honor and decency and integrity and the truth," Mr. DeLay said, his voice breaking, "everything that we honor in this country. It was also a debate about relativism versus absolute truth." He charged that the President's Democratic defenders would lower the standards of
society.



They didn't just ask about affiars in general, they asked about Monica Lewinsky.  What happened to the it's their private life mantra.  Well, that was her business but that didn't seem to stop Republicans.  The Republican Party really has itself to blame for all this because the door was opened once you went after Clinton for something so  many in the Republican party are doing themselves.  Then trying to drum up faux moral outrage.  And I can only thank what ever gods there may be that Tom Delay is getting what he so richly deserves.  

Like I said, Clinton lied, nobody died.  George Bush is a liar as well but thankfully for him the Senate and House of Representative has been stacked in his favor.  Why, if god would get George Bush infront of a congressional committee under oath with a Democratically controlled Congress, I might have to return to the land of believers.

Edited by Life for Rent, 05 November 2006 - 11:04 PM.


#33 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 06 November 2006 - 09:36 AM

View PostLife for Rent, on Nov 5 2006, 07:59 PM, said:

View PostG1223, on Nov 5 2006, 09:36 PM, said:

The case was by Paula Jones and the question was about him having sexual relatiosn with other people than his wife.   It was a sexual harassment case were they suppose to not ask such questions?

That would be like man convicted of physical assualt being asked if he had ever struck another person. It is so that past acts can be admitted to show where they had either lied or down played their behavior.


From the hellspawn's site:

http://www.anncoulte...ials/today2.htm

Quote

At 1:22 P.M., the House of Representatives approved, 228 to 206, the first article of impeachment, accusing Mr. Clinton of perjury for misleading a Federal grand jury last Aug. 17 about the nature of his relationship with a White House intern, Monica S. Lewinsky. Roll call, page 36.



Quote

A second article of impeachment, charging Mr. Clinton with obstruction of justice, passed on a narrower vote of 221 to 212. It accused him of inducing others to lie in order to conceal his affair with Ms. Lewinsky. This time 12 Republicans voted no, while 5 Democrats voted yes.


Quote

Two more charges against Mr. Clinton were defeated. An article accusing the President of perjury in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit was rejected, 229 to 205, with 28 Republicans breaking ranks.

And the House overwhelmingly rejected, 285 to 148, an accusation of abuse of power stemming from Mr. Clinton's legalistic answers to 81 questions put to him by the House Judiciary Committee. Eighty-one Republicans defected from their party. Only one Democrat deserted his.


The House acted on a crisp pre-Christmas Saturday when American politics seemed to be descending into the very cannibalism that Speaker Newt Gingrich had warned of when he was toppled a month ago.

Hours before Mr. Clinton was impeached for his efforts to cover up his affair with Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Livingston, who had been chosen to succeed Mr. Gingrich, shocked the House by announcing he would leave Congress because of revelations of his own adulterous affairs.


Quote

With a sex scandal now consuming one of their own, the House's impeachment debate turned more than ever into a discourse on sin and morality in politics.  

Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority whip, who had helped make Mr. Livingston the Speaker-designate and has been one of the fiercest critics of Mr. Clinton, choked back tears as he praised Mr. Livingston. He said his friend "understood what this debate was all
about."

"It was about honor and decency and integrity and the truth," Mr. DeLay said, his voice breaking, "everything that we honor in this country. It was also a debate about relativism versus absolute truth." He charged that the President's Democratic defenders would lower the standards of
society.



Given Tom DeLay's conduct, that little speech is the ultimate in irony.  :p  Talk about pot, kettle.  :whistle:
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#34 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 06 November 2006 - 09:53 AM

Bin Laden is dangerous because he's evil.  He intends to do harm to the world.  That's his goal.

Bush is dangerous because he's incompetent.  He enacts poor policy and is then inflexible about it.  He may mean well, but... so did Gilligan.

Both are delusional people acting in accordance with a superstitious, faith-based world-view that doesn't change even when it crashes up against reality.   Both are so focused on their unworkable goal that they're not even interested in the actual results they're getting.  They do not let the actual consequences of their actions deter them from doing the same thing over and over again.

Both are dangerous to the world: Osama by design and malevolent intent, and Bush because too much power has been put into the hands of someone who's too blundering and bumbling to properly weild it.  Power to Osama is a knife in the hands of a murderer; power to Bush is a gun in the hands of a toddler.  Both can kill us even though only one will intend to.

One is definitely more evil than the other... but, in terms of actual results, neither is doing the world - or their own causes - much good.

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#35 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 06 November 2006 - 09:56 AM

Let's just face it: If we were to start impeaching, trying, etc., all the friggin' politicians, we'd be starting with a clean slate.

Wikipedia said:

In April 1999, Judge Wright found President Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay Jones $91,000 for the expenses incurred as the result of Clinton's evasive and misleading answers. [3] Wright then referred Clinton's conduct to the Arkansas Bar for disciplinary action, and on January 19, 2001, the day before President Clinton left the White House, Clinton entered into an agreement with the Arkansas Bar and Independent Counsel Robert Ray under which Clinton consented to a five-year suspension of his law license. [4]

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Paula_Jones

Just because Clinton wasn't impeached does not make the tactic of evading the truth in the Paula Jones lawsuit any less reprehensible.  It just means that the standard of evidence necessary to impeach (or indict, which is what it is) wasn't met. However, if a Fed'l Judge cited Clinton for contempt of court because he perjured himself, that's still a crime.  Now, he was cited for contempt 6 months after the impeachment articles went through the House.  While the impeachment may have been ill-advised, Clinton wasn't all roses in the whole affair either.  

Whether the man is a boorish philander is only an outward symptom of the man's sense of morality and ethics.  There are plenty of those in this world, even some in my extended family, and I'm can't find an ounce of care in my bones for them.  However, if Clinton lied on the stand, that's a totally different matter to me.  He was the Chief Executive Officer of the United States in 1998 when he swored to tell the truth in his depositions.  He was under two oaths and he broke both of them.  He lied; he undermined the very basis of the legal system in giving false testimony.  

He's not the first; he ain't the last.

Edited for spacing issues.

Edited by Lost Cause, 06 November 2006 - 09:57 AM.

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."


#36 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 06 November 2006 - 10:09 AM

Quote

Let's just face it: If we were to start impeaching, trying, etc., all the friggin' politicians, we'd be starting with a clean slate.

Amen.

Republicans are actually lucky that they didn't succeed in removing Clinton from office.  Clinton was already on his last term, so if they'd removed him, we'd have had President Gore and they'd have been facing an incumbent in the 2000 election.  Incumbents are always harder to beat.

I think Bush is deserving of being removed from office, but at this point it would be counterproductive.  Hopefully he's going to end up a lame duck.  But in any case, it's his last term.  If we remove him, we'll have President Cheney (officially, that is - I think we've had President Cheney with-a-handpuppet all along, anyway)... and would be facing an incumbent in '08.  Not good strategy, especially since Cheney has no intention of running... but, if it were a matter of being president and keeping a job he's already got, then he might run.

Having Bush censured might be productive, but having him impeached, eh, I don't see much upside to it beyond people probably throwing a few really good parties...

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#37 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 06 November 2006 - 10:12 AM

View PostZwolf, on Nov 6 2006, 08:53 AM, said:

Bin Laden is dangerous because he's evil.  He intends to do harm to the world.  That's his goal.

Bush is dangerous because he's incompetent.  He enacts poor policy and is then inflexible about it.  He may mean well, but... so did Gilligan.


That's a good way to put it.

But I know that the information we get passes through so many filters -- many of them ideological in nature -- that the picture we have of what's going on is most likely quite far removed from the truth, and the media on both sides slips into easy labelling of the President and his administration.

I've never been one to read Presidential Biographies, but some years from now, when the definitive and exhaustive insider book about the Bush years is written (by a neutral party, please) I'm snapping up a copy. That's going to be some fascinating reading, sure to upset both his supporters and detractors when the image doesn't match up with the one they've already built up over the years. Our presidents are that upon which we project all that we uphold or despise (depending on whether you supported or opposed him). But I doubt any of those projections are close to the truth.

And an aside: why a lame duck, I wonder? Why a duck?
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#38 veganmom

veganmom
  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 06 November 2006 - 10:12 AM

Osama, Kim and Bush.
They are all very similar because they are all very (and irrationally) single-minded.
They all see the world as black and white.
No considerations for changing data, changing circumstances, the "grey" that is reality.
No compromise.
Nothing at all can make any of them change their course.
That is why they get lumped together. If they see the world as that black-and-white, you're-either-with-us-or-you're-our-enemy, then they get judged the same, simplistic way.
Bad. Bad. and Bad.

#39 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 06 November 2006 - 10:30 AM

Quote

But I know that the information we get passes through so many filters -- many of them ideological in nature -- that the picture we have of what's going on is most likely quite far removed from the truth, and the media on both sides slips into easy labelling of the President and his administration.

This is true.  I tend to think that most media (with exceptions) strives to be neutral, but, given the fierce competition between the parties, they tend to swing (or be pushed) one way or another, so some bias or agenda is probably inevitable...

Quote

I've never been one to read Presidential Biographies, but some years from now, when the definitive and exhaustive insider book about the Bush years is written (by a neutral party, please) I'm snapping up a copy. That's going to be some fascinating reading, sure to upset both his supporters and detractors when the image doesn't match up with the one they've already built up over the years. Our presidents are that upon which we project all that we uphold or despise (depending on whether you supported or opposed him). But I doubt any of those projections are close to the truth.

Could be.  It'd definitely be a good read. :)

Quote

And an aside: why a lame duck, I wonder? Why a duck?

Good question.  I've never known that either.  I did a quick look-up and found this and this, but neither are really satisfying.  

I kinda like "wind-swept potato."  There's more of an image of helplessness to it... :)

Cheers,

Zwolf

*edited 'cuz the quote-thingies did funny

Edited by Zwolf, 06 November 2006 - 10:31 AM.

"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#40 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 06 November 2006 - 10:56 AM

View PostZwolf, on Nov 6 2006, 09:09 AM, said:

Republicans are actually lucky that they didn't succeed in removing Clinton from office. Clinton was already on his last term, so if they'd removed him, we'd have had President Gore and they'd have been facing an incumbent in the 2000 election. Incumbents are always harder to beat.


No arguing that.  If Gore had been the incumbent, the odds would've been heavily in his favor going into the 2000 cycle.  Not sure I want to imagine a President Gore.  :crazy:

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Bush, 2006, Public Opinion, UK

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users