ok ok i give
 

My two-part plan to "fix" you is almost complete. Now about those tacos....

as if you would even consider given me up.:rolleyes:


i wish i could quit you.

For the record, while I do not consider myself to be blindly supporting the President (on those issues that I do support him, being the majority of issues), I hope no one here expects me to follow the lead of this traitorous, blasphemous, and obviously unAmerican person I used to call a friend. :)

(just to make sure everyone - particularly ML knows - I'm joking about the adjectives.)

I'm like crack, baby.



Actually, I'm like Sam the butcher bringing Alice the meat, but you get the idea.

i like crack and DONT call me Alice:mad:

Arrrrrgh I'm having flashbacks to my "Reagan moment"

MAKE IT STOP!!!!

Care for a taco, Sam?

Hmmm Maybe a corndog ;)

Whenever I feel like this, ML, I go on a politics and media diet. No GOP, no Dems, no TV news, no Google News, no NPR... just fun stuff and escapist doings.
I'm on a politics and media diet right now. When I feel less overwhelmed, I resume my normal watchdoggery.
:)

been doing this diet myself. going on ...........must be 10 years now.
not sure I feel better but at least I dont feel worse

You have an excuse though. All that time at sea...
:D

Ugh - while I used to consider myself more conservative certain issues, I've decided (especially after 3 semesters in a row with economics up the A$$) that I'm not Republican (I knew that already), I'm not really Conservative... Sometimes, just sometimes, I'm not even Fiscally Conservative.... I'm an Economist. I've met economists (good ones, not economists that make me look like I got my PhD in Economics) from both sides of the political tracks, and they all say "I'm an Economist first, and a <Name Your Political Party> Second." And I find that I agree with them on so much, even if some of the other stuff (the morality crap I don't care for) I don't agree with.

If everyone would take macro and micro economics, the world would be a better place.

Sadly, GWB was never an economist.

GWB isn't any kind of 'ist'. Ooops, I take that back. He is a very successful elitist.


Scrooge, what is this "Reagan moment"??????:eek:

Mickey, once again I owe you mojo.

The Republican party is bad for this country.

The Democratic party is bad for this country.

What we need is a good ol' fashioned revolution.

I nominate € to lead our country (I just can't decide on what title to give him).

he strikes me as an el presidente'!

No, he's more of 'His Swankiness' kind of guy.

We saw a table in Belmont Shore tonight selling "WORST PRESIDENT EVER" shirts. Crazy times.

I still think Coolidge might have an edge

Oh yeah, that was a grea response. Something about talking about Teapot Dome in Belmont Shore was funny.

There was a period in my past when I supported Reagan.:blush:

My "Reagan Moment" was the instant I realized how wrong I had been (See first post in this thread for comparison).

My mom loooved Reagan and couldn't stand Carter. So, naturally, I loved Carter and couldn't stand Reagan. And I was only 10 when Reagan took office. Even at a young age I instinctively disagreed with her far right fundie-osity. We sure have had some lively conversations over the years.



Her Bush moment came about 18 months ago.

Bush's numbers are once again falling, and more and more GOP leaders are jumping ship. Now, a videotaped meeting pre-Katrina that shows he was made fully aware of the likelihood of a catastrophe, and Brown is appearing to be less of an ignorant weasel as he's been made out to be- I really think the guy was cannon fodder for the admin, and he's not going down without a fight: Bush video

Fully prepared my Wobblebottom, Mr. Hail To The Chief Nibbles His Nuts.

Numbers falling - surprise visit to Afghanistan today with renewed resolve to get Bin Laden.

Coincidence? :)

Am I the only one who thought, "Gee, well then isn't it convenient that you hadn't caught him yet?" when Bush said that Bin Laden's taunting probably helped him in the election?

No, not at all- I thought the very same, as I'm sure some of his (cringing) apologists did as well.

But you know....they're gonna get him now!:rolleyes:

Crazy times indeed....I was surfing around cafepress.com and noticed just how many anti-Bush shirts there are...and other angry political shirts in general.....

I also discovered that there are 8 different designs that say RFID tagging is evil. :rolleyes:

India ( a country that is quite near Afghanistan I believe ) has been planned for quite a while....and I bet Afghanistan had also been planned for quite some time too but would have been very foolhearty to annouce it in advance:)

I don't pay much mind to polls, especially not this one. I really don't think his numbers are that bad, but they are certainly not good. In the polling sample of this particular poll, there was a full third more democrats polled than republicans (I had read the data, but can't seem to find the link).

If that margin was equalized and only half the republicans said they approved, it would have been 40%.

Now, I am not saying that 40% is anything to write home about. But it isn't 34%.

When CBS was questioned about the polling sample, they said that it was valid because people were changing their party affiliation because of the posts deal. People may be pissed about the ports deal, but they aren't switching party affiliation.

So your saying that Bush not catching bin Laden was more effective than bin Laden's taunting and threats to the American voter? I do believe that the taunting helped Bush and always have beleived it. But I would have helped him more to catch bin Laden.

How did you get that out of GD's post?

It seemed to me - and I certainly could be reading what he wrote incorrectly - that he was suggesting some sort of conspirac, that Bush intentionally hadn't caught him yet so that the threat of terror would be more in the front of the minds of American voters. If my interpretation of what he is writing is correct, I think it is wrong. Catching bin Laden would of course been a bigger boost to his candidacy than threats from bin Laden.

Stunning, ain't it? Three years after promising to get Bin Laden (Dead or Alive!), dude gets a bump for being taunted by his sworn enemy.


It's as staggeringly unbelievable today as it was 16 months ago.

What would be the use of polling political affiliations in equal numbers when they are not equal IRL?

Do you realize that people claiming to be democrat outnumber those claiming to republican by between 7 and 9 percentage points, and that further 34% percent of the population claim to be independent?

This is the reason the poll was conducted with 28% republican participation, 37% democratic participation and 34% independent participation.

Equalizing the poll to 50% republican and 50% democratic would serve only to falsely inflate Mr. Bush's numbers. But of course, if that's all you're after... ;)

Now, there is the point to be made that little can be gleaned from this concerning future elections, since not all people vote, and those that do are fairly evenly divided here lately.

THAT I haven't heard. Could you link that article when you find it?

damn- guess I can't vote for him in '08..shucks ;)

WTF:confused:

hello?!! didn't we learn anything?


so now we let the Chinese guard the hen house.


good thing i rike beef and brocorri.




MickeyRumbo