five-point political agenda
 

uh, i brain-farted... *gore* should be *kerry*...the gore argument was
with my friend lane at the same bar 4 years earlier.

jeff (it's monday morning g...and, yes, i note the irony)


Jeff Miller wrote:

rw wrote:

daytripper wrote:


Whadaya mean "we", Kimosabe?



You didn't vote for him, and I didn't, but Mark F. has a point.

What could have persuaded people to vote for this transparently
loathsome creep? And what's with the thirty-something percent who
still approve of what he's done? What planet are they living on?

Something is very wrong with this country.


as is quite apparent in this little corner of america, most humans are
very, very defensive when challenged about their choices or decisions -
even those demonstrably wrong. frankly, given this oddity of human
nature, i'm a bit surprised the percentage is that low. of course, it's
still most of those who have consistently expressed approval, isn't it?

during the last run-up to national elections, on occasions, i
intentionally argued with an old retired fella from pennsylvania who
regularly came to the bar that my fishing crowd attends every wednesday
after work. we argued about his announced decision to vote for the
shrub. he couldn't articulate a single rational independent reason to
vote for bush (did mouth some of the rove-ian election slogans and
mantras), but primarily he felt **gore** was going to raise his taxes. i
tried to suggest how bush's decisions were going to increase his cost of
living and ultimately affect him more than any democrat's decision about
raising taxes...couldn't pierce the armor of his individual decision.
soon after the elections, he quit talking much with me, and for the last
6 months, he's sat at the opposite end of the bar obviously avoiding
conversations. however, i noticed that instead of his usual order of the
higher-priced bottled beer, he now orders the cheap pitcher of nasty
draft beer that's on sale. he won't admit his error, & will find a way
to justify it, but i suspect he regrets something about his vote. he
might simply regret having ever sat near me.

in matters of politics, as well as other issues in life, most people
simply find reasons go on believing what they already believe rather
than confront their errors and chart a new course.

jeff

five-point political agenda
 

Stan Gula typed:
riverman wrote:
I'd take NIXON over Bush.

I'd take 6 feet of dirt over Bush.

Now THAT'S funny!
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

five-point political agenda
 

"Tim J." wrote in message
...
Stan Gula typed:
riverman wrote:
I'd take NIXON over Bush.

I'd take 6 feet of dirt over Bush.

Now THAT'S funny!
--

Hopefully.

--riverman

five-point political agenda
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:03:07 -0600, rw
wrote:


You didn't vote for him, and I didn't, but Mark F. has a point.

What could have persuaded people to vote for this transparently
loathsome creep? And what's with the thirty-something percent who still
approve of what he's done? What planet are they living on?

Something is very wrong with this country.


We've been over this before. And you know the answer; as long as the
Democrat Party puts forth a candidate like Kerry, or Gore, the
Republicans, or the Greens, or the Independents will win the WH.
Hell, that was easy.

Who do you think would win if the election were held today?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

five-point political agenda
 

"Tim J." wrote in message
. ..
rw wrote:
What could have persuaded people to vote for this transparently
loathsome creep?

The other two even more transparently loathsome creeps? Just a guess. .
.
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------

No. Near as I can figure many of the Bush voters like to play dress-up. So
when Bush staged the landing on the carrier, after having the carrier turn
so the camera shots were seaward, and did the costume change to the leather
jacket, it spoke directly to that part of the pocket-poolsters that prefer
dress-up to real life people with real life experiences like Kerry and Max
Cleland.

Some feel that it was a mistake for Kerry not to target ads with Kerry
dressed like Jesus' brother, directed to that segment of the population. Or
maybe to have dressed-up like a cowboy or a fireman. Focus groups tested
post election showed that nearly 40% of male Bush voters would have been
twice as likely to have voted Democratic if Kerry had dressed up as a
pirate, been coached to speak a little NASCAR, or hosted a campaign summit
meeting with a snake handler church.

Dave

five-point political agenda
 

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:30:11 -0600, rw
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:03:07 -0600, rw
wrote:


You didn't vote for him, and I didn't, but Mark F. has a point.

What could have persuaded people to vote for this transparently
loathsome creep? And what's with the thirty-something percent who still
approve of what he's done? What planet are they living on?

Something is very wrong with this country.


We've been over this before. And you know the answer; as long as the
Democrat Party puts forth a candidate like Kerry, or Gore, the
Republicans, or the Greens, or the Independents will win the WH.
Hell, that was easy.

Who do you think would win if the election were held today?

Kerry had no new ideas. Period. He said he would remain in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The only difference is that we would now have more
taxes. It would be worse today if Kerry was in office.

The economy is going along great with no unemployment, low interest
rates, and low inflation. The market is doing well. No one has
invaded us since 9/11.

I don't know about you, but I am far better off today than I was eight
years ago, and much safer too.

Gas prices are high, but they are high worldwide. Get the Dems to
allow drilling off of California and Alaska and the price of gas would
go down. Take away the last fed gas tax ($.50/gallon) voted in by Al
Gore when the Senate was dead-locked at 50/50, and your gas would be
alot cheaper. I don't know about your math, but that would be $12
less a tank where I buy gas. Ya think those folks at WM you are so
concerned about could find something to do with that $12?

If the Dems win in 08, and I hope they do, you will see the tax cuts
cancelled and new taxes across the board. Inflation will go up (and
that is the worse tax for someone on a fixed income - read poor folks)
and the economy will crumble. But fear not. You'll blame that on
Bush.

If you continue to run bozos like Kerry and Gore, you will *never* win
the WH. And if by chance they *do* win, God help us.

Dave

five-point political agenda
 

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:30:11 -0600, rw
wrote:

Who do you think would win if the election were held today?

McCain-Gephardt. Or, if you perfer, Gephardt-McCain (although
McCain-Gephardt would probably do better than the other way around).

If Kerry had won, I'd offer that things would be a whole lot worse for
and in the US overall. I'd also remind you that Clinton saw his
approval rating in the mid-to-low 30s - and his highest, the mid 60s,
came in the same year, whereas Bush has seen his in the mid 80s.

HTH,
R

five-point political agenda
 

David Snedeker wrote:

... Focus groups tested
post election showed that nearly 40% of male Bush voters would have been
twice as likely to have voted Democratic if Kerry had dressed up as a
pirate, been coached to speak a little NASCAR, or hosted a campaign summit
meeting with a snake handler church.

SPLORK

Too funny.

I must be feeling better, I can laugh again.

Got a letter in the mail today from the state of Illinois
that said my daughter is deceased but I can appeal the
decision. I had to laugh.

--
Ken Fortenberry

five-point political agenda
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:

Kerry had no new ideas. Period. He said he would remain in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The only difference is that we would now have more
taxes. It would be worse today if Kerry was in office.

The economy is going along great with no unemployment, low interest
rates, and low inflation. The market is doing well. No one has
invaded us since 9/11.

I don't know about you, but I am far better off today than I was eight
years ago, and much safer too.

People at the top of the economic ladder are doing well (the fat-*******
CEO of Exxon just got a $400M retirement benefit), but the middle class
is hurting. Real wages have fallen since 2000, even through productivity
is up:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...g_real_wa.html

That's why the polls show strong disapproval of the Bush
administration's handling of the economy. The benefits of the economic
growth are going to the very wealthy.

Gas prices are high, but they are high worldwide. Get the Dems to
allow drilling off of California and Alaska

How about Florida? Jeb doesn't like that idea.

and the price of gas would
go down. Take away the last fed gas tax ($.50/gallon) voted in by Al
Gore when the Senate was dead-locked at 50/50, and your gas would be
alot cheaper. I don't know about your math, but that would be $12
less a tank where I buy gas. Ya think those folks at WM you are so
concerned about could find something to do with that $12?

I support a steep INCREASE in the gasoline tax, with the revenue going
to support research and development in alternative fuels. Brazil, of all
places, is on the verge of energy independence because they've invested
in renewable fuel sources. If they can do it, so can we.

If the Dems win in 08, and I hope they do, you will see the tax cuts
cancelled and new taxes across the board. Inflation will go up (and
that is the worse tax for someone on a fixed income - read poor folks)
and the economy will crumble. But fear not. You'll blame that on
Bush.

That sounds exactly like what the wingnuts were saying when Clinton was
elected in 1992 and he raised taxes. The actual result, as we now know,
was eight years of nearly zero inflation, the largest economic expansion
in history, and budget surpluses.

I support an increase in the income tax rates, and specifically a
roll-back of the Bush tax cuts that went overwhelmingly to the wealthy.
I believe that we should balance the federal budget and not finance huge
debt by borrowing from the Chinese, among others. I believe we have to
start living within our means and stop pushing the ruinous consequences
of lavish spending on to our children.


If you continue to run bozos like Kerry and Gore, you will *never* win
the WH.

I'd like to remind you that Gore WON the popular vote in 2000, and the
vote in 2004 was Bush 50.7%, Kerry 48.3% -- a very close election. A few
thousand votes in Ohio would have given Kerry the electoral-vote win.
(And BTW, when are we going to fix this stupid, antiquated electoral
college system?)

And if by chance they *do* win, God help us.

You just wrote above that you HOPE the Democrats win in 2008. Why do you
hate America?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

five-point political agenda
 

David Snedeker wrote:
"Tim J." wrote in message
. ..

rw wrote:

What could have persuaded people to vote for this transparently
loathsome creep?

The other two even more transparently loathsome creeps? Just a guess. .
.
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------


No. Near as I can figure many of the Bush voters like to play dress-up. So
when Bush staged the landing on the carrier, after having the carrier turn
so the camera shots were seaward, and did the costume change to the leather
jacket, it spoke directly to that part of the pocket-poolsters that prefer
dress-up to real life people with real life experiences like Kerry and Max
Cleland.

I have to believe that the people who still approve of Bush, despite the
abundant evidence of his bumbling incompetence and mendacity, are the
people who wouldn't mind if he ate their children.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.