• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

And another

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
My emphasis and link to full article below. Enjoy.

"Bush honesty rating drops to lowest point"


“…Furthermore, only 41 percent give Bush good marks for being “honest and straightforward” — his lowest ranking on this question since he became president. That’s a drop of nine percentage points since January, when a majority (50 percent to 36 percent) indicated that he was honest and straightforward. This finding comes at a time when the Bush administration is battling the perception that its rhetoric doesn’t match the realities in Iraq, and also allegations that chief political adviser Karl Rove leaked sensitive information about a CIA agent to a reporter. (The survey, however, was taken just before these allegations about Rove exploded into the current controversy.)”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8561443/
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Disagreeable,

I was just wondering why you have such a hard-on for Bush. I mean, did this guy kill your puppy or something? :???: :lol: I can understand not liking him, but you and others on the left have a virulent hatred for him that reminds me of the way right-wingers despised Clinton for giving Ms. Lewinsky that cigar. You hate Bush for neglecting terrorism for the first few months of his presidency, but the 9/11 plot was hatched during the Clinton days, and I don't see you blaming him.

The fact that he's down in the polls doesn't mean anything. Lincoln had half the country secede, what does that prove? I'm not saying Bush can compare to Lincoln, but I'd advise against messing your pants in euphoria every time he's down in the polls because at this point it makes no difference :roll: . Not like Cheney's up for the presidency, so what difference does it make?
 

Sierraman

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
299
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
mp.freelance said:
Disagreeable,

I was just wondering why you have such a hard-on for Bush. I mean, did this guy kill your puppy or something? :???: :lol:

Maybe it would help you to know Disagreeable, that I saw who killed your puppy. It wasn't Bush though. He got his tongue jammed in Hussein's mustache, and starved to death. Getting a little friendly with the terrorists. :wink: Hope Bush will punish that bad man.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
Disagreeable,

I was just wondering why you have such a hard-on for Bush. I mean, did this guy kill your puppy or something? :???: :lol: I can understand not liking him, but you and others on the left have a virulent hatred for him that reminds me of the way right-wingers despised Clinton for giving Ms. Lewinsky that cigar. You hate Bush for neglecting terrorism for the first few months of his presidency, but the 9/11 plot was hatched during the Clinton days, and I don't see you blaming him.

It took a generation for the US Army to regain the trust and respect of the American people after Vietnam. You may not remember the soldiers being spit on, insulted. GIs couldn't even wear their uniforms downtown after work because of the anger of the American people. I'm disgusted and angry that it's going to happen again. The politicans won't take the blame for Iraq; the military will (mainly the Army).

The fact that he's down in the polls doesn't mean anything. Lincoln had half the country secede, what does that prove? I'm not saying Bush can compare to Lincoln, but I'd advise against messing your pants in euphoria every time he's down in the polls because at this point it makes no difference :roll: . Not like Cheney's up for the presidency, so what difference does it make?

Oh, I disagree and think the fact that his poll numbers are falling has already had an effect. Would there be a stem cell research bill up for consideration if politicans thought the American people supported Bush's agenda? Would there have been a call from Republican legislators to set guidelines for the pullout from Iraq if they though the voters supported Bush? I almost feel sorry for Bill Frisk. He's damned if he does (support Bush's unpopular agenda) and damned if he doesn't. For a man with aspirations to be President, that's a tough spot to be in.
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Ordinary Americans weren't the ones spitting on soldiers, it was hippie scum.

And if Americans are going to turn tail and run from this war, then it's just a sign of the emasculation of this country, which is also primarily due to hippie scum.

The sad fact of the world is that war is a necessity in and of itself. It's one of the phenomena that makes us human. Either you defeat others or you are defeated, and peace is nothing more than the interlude between wars.

This isn't pretty, but reality rarely is. Pretending like the world is all sugar drops and candy canes, where war and violence aren't necessary, is nothing more than self-delusion. Unfortunately, the pervasive liberality in Western culture, where everybody wants to make believe and hold hands, is what's isolating us from the cold hard truth.

Do you think the terrorists who bombed London really care about anything but carnage? Do you think giving them counseling and improving their self esteem would have prevented the attacks? You have a right to your opinion, but I believe killing them is a hell of a lot more effective.
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Just as an afterthought on the polls you rely on:

According to exit polls, Kerry won the election. Gee whiz, why isn't he the one in the oval office?

My fiance is a psychology major, so I hear about how easily it is to distort poll results. Everything depends on how you phrase the question and who you choose to target. When people are asked whether they support executing people who have been found guilty of murder, most say no. But when asked whether people who wantonly murdered others should face capital punishment, most say yes.

Go ahead and hate Bush, regardless of poll numbers. But how can you explain the fact that turnout in the Iraqi elections earlier this year was better than our own? If they hate democracy so much, why didn't they stay home?
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Im not American but would John Kerry have been any better? Its like up here in Canada our choices for leaders are limited. :???:
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Im not American but would John Kerry have been any better? Its like up here in Canada our choices for leaders are limited. :???:

Who knows? Bush won; Bush is responsible for the 12 children who died in the bombing yesterday. Do you think the parents of those children love Americans?
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
Just as an afterthought on the polls you rely on:

According to exit polls, Kerry won the election. Gee whiz, why isn't he the one in the oval office?

My fiance is a psychology major, so I hear about how easily it is to distort poll results. Everything depends on how you phrase the question and who you choose to target. When people are asked whether they support executing people who have been found guilty of murder, most say no. But when asked whether people who wantonly murdered others should face capital punishment, most say yes.

Go ahead and hate Bush, regardless of poll numbers. But how can you explain the fact that turnout in the Iraqi elections earlier this year was better than our own? If they hate democracy so much, why didn't they stay home?

Yawn. Is that the best you can do? Yes, how you frame the question can skew polls. I've posted polls by major polling organizations. You choose to discount them, then you show me a poll by any respected polling agency that shows support for this war is increasing or that Bush's popularity rating is going up.

The Iraqi people want peace and democracy; that's why they turned out. What have they gotten in the interim since the election? Absolutely nothing. They still are without electricity, running water and human sewage runs in the streets. Their children are still being blown up in the streets. Their elected "leaders" are still squabbling about who will write the constitution that's supposed to be ready mid-August. The Sunnis didn't bother to vote, but they just added a dozen or so Sunnis to the group writing the constitution. So what does that tell you about the validity of the vote?

And on top of that, they have a constitution. While Paul Bremer was there, they spent millions of dollars writing a constitution and getting it "ratified". So why is it not any good anymore? Why are we spending millions more dollars writing another? This place is a sinkhole and the Bush Bunch is dropping our money in it day after day.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
Ordinary Americans weren't the ones spitting on soldiers, it was hippie scum.

It was "ordinary" Americans who refused to rent apartments to military couples, that charged higher rates of interest on car loans. It was the mayor, not a long haired hippy, who went to the post commander and said "the business owners in my town don't want your people in their stores in uniform. They say it's "disruptive." Disruptive. :mad: They wanted our money. The town couldn't have survived without the GI's money, but they didn't want to see the uniform. So the young soldier couldn't stop by the store on his way home and get a gallon of milk for his kids. He had to go home, change clothes, and go back to the store! That's one of the intersting things about this turn of opinion on the Iraqi war: there's no leader, no long haired hippies, popular movie stars, leading the way. It just seems to be a realization, finally, by people that things are not going well for this country.

And if Americans are going to turn tail and run from this war, then it's just a sign of the emasculation of this country, which is also primarily due to hippie scum.

No, it's a sign of realizing that we were lied to about the need for this war. It's a sign that we understand it was unnecessary and badly managed. The Bush Bunch sent our soldiers into harms way without body armor, without armored vehicles. And we have those vehicles; they just chose to leave them in the parking lots because it cost too much to ship them!! How many young people are mained for life because of this war on the cheap?

The sad fact of the world is that war is a necessity in and of itself. It's one of the phenomena that makes us human. Either you defeat others or you are defeated, and peace is nothing more than the interlude between wars.

When are you joining up to fight one of these "necessity" wars?

This isn't pretty, but reality rarely is. Pretending like the world is all sugar drops and candy canes, where war and violence aren't necessary, is nothing more than self-delusion. Unfortunately, the pervasive liberality in Western culture, where everybody wants to make believe and hold hands, is what's isolating us from the cold hard truth.

The cold hard truth is that we were attacked by Osama Bin Laden from Afghanistan. The world rallied to our side and went into Afghanistan with us to catch/kill Bin Laden. Bush turned the world against us by choosing to lie and attempt to mislead the world into another war in Iraq. The world didn't buy into it, but many Americans did. I didn't. Sometimes violence is necessary; it wasn't necessary to attack Iraq.

Do you think the terrorists who bombed London really care about anything but carnage? Do you think giving them counseling and improving their self esteem would have prevented the attacks? You have a right to your opinion, but I believe killing them is a hell of a lot more effective.

You're pretty pitiful. No, I don't want to give them counseling. I want to leave them alone to live in their world and them leave me alone to live in mine. George W. Bush thinks it's his responsibility to bring peace and democracy to the world. Of course, he's pretty selective to which parts of the world he starts in. He chooses a part that's rich in oil.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
16,256
Reaction score
41
Location
northern Nebraska Sandhills
Disagreeable: "No, I don't want to give them (the terrorists) counseling. I want to leave them alone to live in their world and them leave me alone to live in mine."

That is pretty typical Liberal La-La Land philosophy, but unfortunately La-La Land is far removed from the real world. The liberals think terrorists, timber wolves, mountain lions, grizzly bears, and rattlesnakes will live their own peaceful lives if the rest of the world just doesn't bother them. The fact is that all of these destructive animal species plain and simple just have an innate "thrill to kill" born and bred into them.

Shoot first and ask questions later. It tends to nip the problem in the bud.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Soapweed said:
Disagreeable: "No, I don't want to give them (the terrorists) counseling. I want to leave them alone to live in their world and them leave me alone to live in mine."

That is pretty typical Liberal La-La Land philosophy, but unfortunately La-La Land is far removed from the real world. The liberals think terrorists, timber wolves, mountain lions, grizzly bears, and rattlesnakes will live their own peaceful lives if the rest of the world just doesn't bother them. The fact is that all of these destructive animal species plain and simple just have an innate "thrill to kill" born and bred into them.

Shoot first and ask questions later. It tends to nip the problem in the bud.

Yeah, that sure worked in Vietnam and seems to being just as well in Iraq. :roll: So explain to me again why we're not invading North Korea, a country that actually has WMDs, a country that is no friend to the US, a country that poses a direct threat to South Korea, an ally. I'm anxious to see your take on that situation....
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Soapweed said:
Do you ever have any fun, Disagreeable? Or are you just grouchy and out of sorts all the time? :) :wink: :???: :mad: :p :evil: :twisted: :shock: :wink: :lol:

This is fun....
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
"You're pretty pitiful. No, I don't want to give them counseling. I want to leave them alone to live in their world and them leave me alone to live in mine. George W. Bush thinks it's his responsibility to bring peace and democracy to the world. Of course, he's pretty selective to which parts of the world he starts in. He chooses a part that's rich in oil."

Do you have a car? If not, do you ride the bus? Ever take a plane?

Even you refuse to do anything but walk or ride in a van fueled with Biodiesel, you're still eating food, wearing clothes, and using other products that rely on interstate commerce. I wonder how they'd from place to place without oil.

The fact of the matter is, oil fuels the economy, and we rely on it for everything. Even if we were going to war just for oil, it's still a valid cause because we need it to survive.

I believe we should be looking at alternatives - that's pretty obvious. But trashing oil as the cause of the world's problems is nonsensical. Trade has always been an instigator for war - that's the way the world works.

But whatever... Neither one of us is very persuasive. Nothing you've said has made me change my mind or the mind of anyone else, and obviously nobody's getting through to you, so what's the point? I think this will be my last post on the subject.

Good luck on your Quixotic quest to convince everyone on a ranching website that Bush is evil! I'm sure he's sweating bullets. :roll: :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
I want to leave them alone (radical Islamic Terrorists) to live in their world and them leave me alone to live in mine.

What are you really that STUPID? have you completely forgotten Sept 11 ?

They have no intention of leaving you alone, or any one else that doesn't believe in thier false Allah,

Thank GOD that you and you flower sniffing wackos are to scared to really say what you want, but your views and stupid ideas always show through, just as you can't hide your anti- military feelings niether can the likes of Hanoi Jane and that has been that lost the last election.

One thing is appearrant, Those that always supported our troops still do, and those that did it because it was politacally correct thing to do after 9-11, are using the war to say that they are losing support never really did. .....
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
"You're pretty pitiful. No, I don't want to give them counseling. I want to leave them alone to live in their world and them leave me alone to live in mine. George W. Bush thinks it's his responsibility to bring peace and democracy to the world. Of course, he's pretty selective to which parts of the world he starts in. He chooses a part that's rich in oil."

Do you have a car? If not, do you ride the bus? Ever take a plane?

Even you refuse to do anything but walk or ride in a van fueled with Biodiesel, you're still eating food, wearing clothes, and using other products that rely on interstate commerce. I wonder how they'd from place to place without oil.

The fact of the matter is, oil fuels the economy, and we rely on it for everything. Even if we were going to war just for oil, it's still a valid cause because we need it to survive.

I believe we should be looking at alternatives - that's pretty obvious. But trashing oil as the cause of the world's problems is nonsensical. Trade has always been an instigator for war - that's the way the world works.

But whatever... Neither one of us is very persuasive. Nothing you've said has made me change my mind or the mind of anyone else, and obviously nobody's getting through to you, so what's the point? I think this will be my last post on the subject.

So your final word is that it's ok that 25,000 Iraqi civilians have died along with 1700 Americans because we have the right to the oil in Iraq? There are dozens of other things we need in this country that we trade for and buy. Why don't we attack the countries that produce those and just take them?

good luck on your Quixotic quest to convince everyone on a ranching website that Bush is evil! I'm sure he's sweating bullets. :roll: :lol:

Well, I ran you off, so I can say there's one less blabbermouth supporting Bush. Bush may not be sweating (you know he doesn't bother to read the papers), but his "handlers" know there's a problem with the American people. The Republicans that will be up for re-election next year for sure know there's a problem.
 

Latest posts

Top