or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Bad Intelligence. Uh oh
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bad Intelligence. Uh oh - Page 7  

post #241 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
It was actually the....*cough*...other side of the aisle that made it into a circus.

jimmac: You should really read Ann Coulter's book "Treason". You'd cringe at her references to liberals, but in the book she claims that nearly everything we think we know about McCarthy is a lie. I was totally with you on this until reading some of the chapters. They're eye-opening in the least.

BTW, McCarthy didn't blacklist anyone. He actually resisted disclosing names. It turns out that he was correct about a great many high-ranking government officials being communists, and Soviet Agents! The Democratic Party actually mocked McCarthy for NOT disclosing the names in a timely manner.

But you won't listen, because to liberals, McCarthyism is the ultimate example of Republican fascism. Without it, liberals would be vulnerable to actual attacks on their patriotism. Imagine...

giant:

You can post until your fingers fall off. I don't care. Your notion that you personally know all that our government knows is not just flawed, it's patently absurd. It is, and I do not exaggerate here, the most arrogant and illogical premise I have ever heard, anywhere... at any time. You can mock me, put me down...whatever. It won't change the basic level of absurdity in your assumption. The think that you know about every piece of intelligence, every secret military project, every war plan, every covert op, etc...it's just funny!


There is no defense for what McCarthy was. I don't care what some fanatic has made up to sell her books. Looks like she was able to unload her crap on some suckers though. However some people find something that they want to hear easier to believe.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #242 of 272
Quote:
Looks like she was able to unload her crap on some suckers though

At $25 bucks a book to boot!
post #243 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
At $25 bucks a book to boot!


I went to a couple of her web sites. What a bunch of horse sh8*!

But it looks like she found some people to line up at the trough!

Really disgusting.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #244 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
I went to a couple of her web sites. What a bunch of horse sh8*!

But it looks like she found some people to line up at the trough!

Really disgusting.

With every post you prove yourself a perfect example of close-minded LIBERAL fascism. I am assailed here for my "closed-mindedness and partisanship", yet you and others can post such things. Amazing.

BTW, I didn't expect Coulter to be so focused on McCarthy (I actually too much of the book is devoted to him). You should try and ignore some her comments about liberals and read through the facts she presents. You may not believe me, but I was VERY skeptical about her premise that "everything" we think we know about McCarthy is a lie.
She makes her point saliently though.

Now, on Coulter herself:


Quote:
I don't care what some fanatic has made up to sell her books

Bingo. There it is. People like Coulter are "fanatics" while the super-liberal extemeist Maureen Dowd is "mainstream and moderate". Seriously, the more you post, the more you prove my point that what liberals really want is to label Conservative views as such (or even "right-wing extremeist") and to label liberal views as...nothing. This way, such liberal views are implicitly called mainstream. It is so unbelieveably ironic then, when liberals start screaming about the "majority" pushing through its agenda without time for "dissent".
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #245 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Seriously, the more you post, the more you prove my point that what liberals really want is to label Conservative views as such (or even "right-wing extremeist") and to label liberal views as...nothing. This way, such liberal views are implicitly called mainstream.

This is what Reagan did for conservatives.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #246 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
With every post you prove yourself a perfect example of close-minded LIBERAL fascism. I am assailed here for my "closed-mindedness and partisanship", yet you and others can post such things. Amazing.

BTW, I didn't expect Coulter to be so focused on McCarthy (I actually too much of the book is devoted to him). You should try and ignore some her comments about liberals and read through the facts she presents. You may not believe me, but I was VERY skeptical about her premise that "everything" we think we know about McCarthy is a lie.
She makes her point saliently though.

Now, on Coulter herself:




Bingo. There it is. People like Coulter are "fanatics" while the super-liberal extemeist Maureen Dowd is "mainstream and moderate". Seriously, the more you post, the more you prove my point that what liberals really want is to label Conservative views as such (or even "right-wing extremeist") and to label liberal views as...nothing. This way, such liberal views are implicitly called mainstream. It is so unbelieveably ironic then, when liberals start screaming about the "majority" pushing through its agenda without time for "dissent".



Listen bucko if you support the ideals of Joseph McCarthy and want to go back to that parinoid time where there was a communist under every bush and people were accused at the expense of their freedoms you're the fascist.

There's an old movie I love to watch from that time " The Day The Earth Stood Still ". While SciFi in nature it's really an antiwar film that portrays the parinoia of the time in a true light. As a matter of fact shortly after the film was made Sam Jaffee who portrayed Dr. Bernhard in the film was forced to go before McCarthy's grilling team.

Another good movie is " The Majestic ". A fantasy and a more modern film it gets the point across about those times with a moving speech at the end.


People just want to live their lives. They don't need to be poked and prodded by a guy who thinks he's god.

This man was more of a threat to freedom and individuality than the overblown imagined threat he was chasing.


As to Coulter why are you so willing to believe her? Facts like statisics can be altered to lean one way or another ( especially when a lot of time has pasted and most of the people are dead ). I've watched interviews with people ( victims ) that went through McCarthy's inquisition. It wasn't pretty.


We simply can't allow something like this to happen again.


McCarthy was a slime. If Coulter believes the stuff she pedals then she is also.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #247 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
the super-liberal extemeist Maureen Dowd is "mainstream and moderate".

Maureen Dowd? Maureen Dowd is a "super-liberal extremist"? I'm getting the distinct impression that if you ever actually ran across a "super-liberal extremist" you wouldn't know what to do.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #248 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
This is what Reagan did for conservatives.

Two Words: Silent Majority.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #249 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Maureen Dowd? Maureen Dowd is a "super-liberal extremist"? I'm getting the distinct impression that if you ever actually ran across a "super-liberal extremist" you wouldn't know what to do.

You have GOT to be kidding me.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #250 of 272
Quote:
Listen bucko if you support the ideals of Joseph McCarthy and want to go back to that parinoid time where there was a communist under every bush and people were accused at the expense of their freedoms you're the fascist.

Never said that. I agreee McCarthy was over the top. He was also an alchololic, BTW What I'm saying is that "McCarthyism" was blown way out of proportion. He was not the only Congressional investigator of such things. Many reports falsely attribute inquiries and such to him, when in fact much of it involved the House "UnAmerican Activities" affair. McCarthy was in the Senate.




Quote:
People just want to live their lives. They don't need to be poked and prodded by a guy who thinks he's god.

That's your impression of him, and until recently, it was mine. Coulter's point was that McCarthy was assailed by the media and and liberals in general, many of whom have now been proven to be Soviet Agents.



Quote:
As to Coulter why are you so willing to believe her? Facts like statisics can be altered to lean one way or another ( especially when a lot of time has pasted and most of the people are dead ). I've watched interviews with people ( victims ) that went through McCarthy's inquisition. It wasn't pretty.


We simply can't allow something like this to happen again.


McCarthy was a slime. If Coulter believes the stuff she pedals then she is also.

I'm willing or unwilling. I thought her premise was orginal and one I hadn't heard before. Her point is that we THINK we knwo a lot about him, but we don't. I've seen interviews too, and many of them are superb actors. Many were legitimately upset. But, McCartthy was mocked and assailed for investigating a very real threat to the national security of the United States.

By clinging to your impression of McCarthy it is you who are close-minded. 'm not saying he was a great guy. I am saying it is possible that there was a large attempt to discredit him by turing him into a Demagogue. It seems to me that liberals love to question things until it comes to their pre-concieved notions.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #251 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You have GOT to be kidding me.

No, I'm not. Is Dowd a liberal? Sure. Is she a "super-liberal extremist"? Are you kidding me?

I've been reading her for years, and not once have I ever seen her advocate the abolition of private property. Nor have I ever seen her advocate the relinquishing of private responsibilities (like the rearing of children) to the state. Nor have I ever seen her advocate state-controlled businesses. I've never seen her advocate am increasingly centralized government, either.

I think that overexposure to folks like Coulter is resulting in a distorted notion of what it means to be a liberal (or a conservative, for that matter).

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #252 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
It seems to me that liberals love to question things until it comes to their pre-concieved notions.

Oh no. We really like to question those, too. Conservatives just tend to call it "revisionist history," which is what Coulter's trying to do with McCarthy, BTW.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #253 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Never said that. I agreee McCarthy was over the top. He was also an alchololic, BTW What I'm saying is that "McCarthyism" was blown way out of proportion. He was not the only Congressional investigator of such things. Many reports falsely attribute inquiries and such to him, when in fact much of it involved the House "UnAmerican Activities" affair. McCarthy was in the Senate.






That's your impression of him, and until recently, it was mine. Coulter's point was that McCarthy was assailed by the media and and liberals in general, many of whom have now been proven to be Soviet Agents.





I'm willing or unwilling. I thought her premise was orginal and one I hadn't heard before. Her point is that we THINK we knwo a lot about him, but we don't. I've seen interviews too, and many of them are superb actors. Many were legitimately upset. But, McCartthy was mocked and assailed for investigating a very real threat to the national security of the United States.

By clinging to your impression of McCarthy it is you who are close-minded. 'm not saying he was a great guy. I am saying it is possible that there was a large attempt to discredit him by turing him into a Demagogue. It seems to me that liberals love to question things until it comes to their pre-concieved notions.



What makes you think she's got the inside scoop? You said yourself she's a fanatic. Fanantics are very seldom right. Like one in a million. No better make that a billion. Everybody who worked with the man, everyone who was a victim ( and you'd be surprised at the list of well known people ) says his methods were crude and he was out of line most of the time. He was stopped by the other senators who worked with him. Some of the film of his sessions I've seen would go along with that. so here comes this young girl ( who wasn't even close to being alive then ) who says she knows better?

Try this

http://www.foxvalleyhistory.org/mccarthy/

or

http://www.webcorp.com/mccarthy/mccarthypage.htm

or

http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities...re/McCarthyism

McCarthy is the type of government we should stay away from at any cost.

So does this fanatic know something we don't ( it's pretty well documented )? I don't think so. Hell they were still talking about it when I was growing up in the 50's and 60's.I was born in 1953 remember.

The scary part is there are some similarities drawn between the way McCarthy operated and the way our current government is leaning today. Just replace the name Communist with Terrorist.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #254 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
The scary part is there are some similarities drawn between the way McCarthy operated and the way our current government is leaning today. Just replace the name Communist with Terrorist.

Or "unpatriotic."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #255 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Or "unpatriotic."


Yup!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #256 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Two Words: Silent Majority.

One word: Fantasy.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #257 of 272
When my paranoia about the US gets too strong, I remind myself that in McCarthy's day, they actually executed innocent people on suspicion of communism, under trumped up charges.

At least that isn't happening these days, so maybe things have improved a little bit.

Of course, Coulter would have you believe that whole period was horrible misrepresented, eh SDW? What's a couple of executions here and there; you don't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

The Rosenbergs ... he might have been guilty, sod it, let's kill the missus as well.

Anne Coulter, who can claim with a straight face that the US is an exporter of democracy and nothing else ... when asked about the toppling of Allende in Chile said she'd not heard of it, would have to look it up.

Horrible woman.
meh
meh
post #258 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
No, I'm not. Is Dowd a liberal? Sure. Is she a "super-liberal extremist"? Are you kidding me?

I've been reading her for years, and not once have I ever seen her advocate the abolition of private property. Nor have I ever seen her advocate the relinquishing of private responsibilities (like the rearing of children) to the state. Nor have I ever seen her advocate state-controlled businesses. I've never seen her advocate am increasingly centralized government, either.

I think that overexposure to folks like Coulter is resulting in a distorted notion of what it means to be a liberal (or a conservative, for that matter).

Cheers
Scott

The kind of views you are talking about aren't liberal extremism, they're socialism. I didn't say she was a socialist or communist per se. She is an extreme liberal though. There is no question about that.

jimmac:



Quote:
The scary part is there are some similarities drawn between the way McCarthy operated and the way our current government is leaning today. Just replace the name Communist with Terroris

The scary part is that some people actually think this. The situations are completely different, yet the Left would LOVE to draw parellels.

midwinter:


Quote:
Oh no. We really like to question those, too. Conservatives just tend to call it "revisionist history," which is what Coulter's trying to do with McCarthy, BTW.

No. Not true. Liberals in general love to question authority and scream about freedom of speech and civil rights. Don't try and put a nativity scene on public land, though, or you'll go "ape shit". Don't try and oppose affirmitive action, or you'll start screaming "racist! bigot!". In fact, don't try and present a conservative view on, well, anything...or one will be labeled with the appropriate liberal's term....such as "Hate Radio".

As far revisionist history, it's a perfectly appropriate term. The academic world is unquestionably liberal, is it not? Who do you think writes "history"? (I can't wait to hear your response to this one, jimmac!). Liberals are now saying Reagan didn't win the Cold War. They're blaming Nixon for Vietnam. They've portrayed Clinton as one of the finest Presidents in history (giving him credit for the accomplishments of the Republican Congress...such as Welfare Refrom and a balanced budget) even though he may have been one of our most corrupt and incompetent ever. They're calling the 1980's a hell-hole of an economic time, equivalent to the anemic 1970's. They're calling the 1990's the greatest economic decade in history (engineered by Clinton;s confiscatory tax policies, btw) even though it was only the latter half of the decade that was particularly good. Revisionist history? Yes, I think so. You disagree? How about Jimmy "We have to accept the Soviets" Carter winning the Nobel Peace Prize!!

On questioning patriotism: One of the points Coulter makes is this issue. Why can't I question one's patriotism? Are liberals as patriotic as conservatives? The answer is "no", and I'd like to see someone disagree with me on it. If one looks at history, one can easily see that liberals have consistently rooted against this country, derided patriots as "flag-waivers", and opposed the national interest of the United States at nearly every turn. Whether it was calling Stalin "Uncle Joe", praising Castro, calling Reagan a stupid simpleton war monger, opposing his military buildup, etc, etc, etc.....liberals root against this nation and often openly support enemies of the United States. If Iraq War II happened in the late fifties, they'd be calling Saddam an "agrarian reformer" as Coulter puts it.

BTW, this is the first thing I've read from Coulter. Her entire point is the reaction I'm getting here! People (including the vast majority of conservatives) have simply accepted the image of McCarthy the extreme liberals of the time created. The image may not be entirely true, and people REFUSE to challenge their original perceptions. To refuse to acknowledge this possibility would show one to be so polarized, it would approach the point of disbelief. I'm not necessarily saying she's right...I'm saying it's POSSIBLE she's right. She doesn't just come out and make unsupported charges. Her stuff is well-decumented.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #259 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
The kind of views you are talking about aren't liberal extremism, they're socialism. I didn't say she was a socialist or communist per se. She is an extreme liberal though. There is no question about that.

jimmac:





The scary part is that some people actually think this. The situations are completely different, yet the Left would LOVE to draw parellels.

midwinter:




No. Not true. Liberals in general love to question authority and scream about freedom of speech and civil rights. Don't try and put a nativity scene on public land, though, or you'll go "ape shit". Don't try and oppose affirmitive action, or you'll start screaming "racist! bigot!". In fact, don't try and present a conservative view on, well, anything...or one will be labeled with the appropriate liberal's term....such as "Hate Radio".

As far revisionist history, it's a perfectly appropriate term. The academic world is unquestionably liberal, is it not? Who do you think writes "history"? (I can't wait to hear your response to this one, jimmac!). Liberals are now saying Reagan didn't win the Cold War. They're blaming Nixon for Vietnam. They've portrayed Clinton as one of the finest Presidents in history (giving him credit for the accomplishments of the Republican Congress...such as Welfare Refrom and a balanced budget) even though he may have been one of our most corrupt and incompetent ever. They're calling the 1980's a hell-hole of an economic time, equivalent to the anemic 1970's. They're calling the 1990's the greatest economic decade in history (engineered by Clinton;s confiscatory tax policies, btw) even though it was only the latter half of the decade that was particularly good. Revisionist history? Yes, I think so. You disagree? How about Jimmy "We have to accept the Soviets" Carter winning the Nobel Peace Prize!!

On questioning patriotism: One of the points Coulter makes is this issue. Why can't I question one's patriotism? Are liberals as patriotic as conservatives? The answer is "no", and I'd like to see someone disagree with me on it. If one looks at history, one can easily see that liberals have consistently rooted against this country, derided patriots as "flag-waivers", and opposed the national interest of the United States at nearly every turn. Whether it was calling Stalin "Uncle Joe", praising Castro, calling Reagan a stupid simpleton war monger, opposing his military buildup, etc, etc, etc.....liberals root against this nation and often openly support enemies of the United States. If Iraq War II happened in the late fifties, they'd be calling Saddam an "agrarian reformer" as Coulter puts it.

BTW, this is the first thing I've read from Coulter. Her entire point is the reaction I'm getting here! People (including the vast majority of conservatives) have simply accepted the image of McCarthy the extreme liberals of the time created. The image may not be entirely true, and people REFUSE to challenge their original perceptions. To refuse to acknowledge this possibility would show one to be so polarized, it would approach the point of disbelief. I'm not necessarily saying she's right...I'm saying it's POSSIBLE she's right. She doesn't just come out and make unsupported charges. Her stuff is well-decumented.

-------------------------------------------------------------
" The scary part is that some people actually think this. The situations are completely different, yet the Left would LOVE to draw parellels. "

-------------------------------------------------------------

There is NO difference. The use of paranoia for control is the same. You're just in denial.

Of course people who eat this up would say something like that.


About her stuff being " well documented ". The gernerally held opinions about McCarthy are also well documented by many people.

Not just someone trying to sell a book. I'm not surprised you're getting the same reaction she does. Any thinking person would react the same way!

Yes well documented by many people and over a much longer period of time to boot.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #260 of 272
One more thing.......

-------------------------------------------------------------

" Liberals in general love to question authority and scream about freedom of speech and civil rights. "

-------------------------------------------------------------


Gee what a surprise! As americans it's only what we hold most dear!

As far as revisionist history goes were you even alive in the 50's? You forget I was alive in much of the 50's. Even as a child I remember how people talked and acted. No I don't remember McCarthy as he died when I was about 1 year old. However it didn't stop even when McCarthy did. This paranioia carried on well into the 60's until people decided to begin challenging it's stupidity. Take my word for it. We don't want to go back to that!

Don't you just love people who can convince other people that what they're really looking at isn't black it's white!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #261 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
One more thing.......

-------------------------------------------------------------

" Liberals in general love to question authority and scream about freedom of speech and civil rights. "

-------------------------------------------------------------


Gee what a surprise! As americans it's only what we hold most dear!

No, it's what liberals hold most dear.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #262 of 272
Quote:
"Liberals in general love to question authority and scream about freedom of speech and civil rights.

Yeah! Stupid things like those!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #263 of 272
Okay, I've rethought how I'm taking my stance on this. This is the way I see it. Even if the buck stops at the White House on this controversy, Bush will still come out unscathed by this. Blair is pretty much screwed I think, the Brits are a different people. But Bush has (I'm stating this again) made too many people happy over the Iraq war(too many thought things were left undone back in 91), he still holds a fairly high approval rating despite controversy. Also, he has so much money that is backing him, more than any Democrat could ever hope to raise, even Clinton. As it is now the Dems don't stand a chance in the presidential run. What they need to do is to take a hard stance on issues that matter to the American people, start an aggressive policy stating how they are going to handle the issues, bring real leaders in their party to the forefront and focus on regaining seats in Congress. Personally I'd like to see both parties just disappear.

Bottomline, whether you like it or not Bush for 4 more.
"Beware the Jabberwock , my son! The jaws that bite, the claw that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the the frumious Bandersnatch!"

from Jabberwocky, excerpt from Alice through the looking...
"Beware the Jabberwock , my son! The jaws that bite, the claw that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the the frumious Bandersnatch!"

from Jabberwocky, excerpt from Alice through the looking...
post #264 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by LiquidR
Okay, I've rethought how I'm taking my stance on this. This is the way I see it. Even if the buck stops at the White House on this controversy, Bush will still come out unscathed by this. Blair is pretty much screwed I think, the Brits are a different people. But Bush has (I'm stating this again) made too many people happy over the Iraq war(too many thought things were left undone back in 91), he still holds a fairly high approval rating despite controversy. Also, he has so much money that is backing him, more than any Democrat could ever hope to raise, even Clinton. As it is now the Dems don't stand a chance in the presidential run. What they need to do is to take a hard stance on issues that matter to the American people, start an aggressive policy stating how they are going to handle the issues, bring real leaders in their party to the forefront and focus on regaining seats in Congress. Personally I'd like to see both parties just disappear.

Bottomline, whether you like it or not Bush for 4 more.

We'll see.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #265 of 272
50% or higher at this point has usually meant re-election in the past.

Bush's job ratings

They have been falling but the Bush team is smart and some have been in politics since Kennedy, they know the game and how to win.

plus who do the Dems have that is a strong leader right now that appeals to the public? I don't see any. I wish Wesley Clark would have run when the DNC called him.
"Beware the Jabberwock , my son! The jaws that bite, the claw that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the the frumious Bandersnatch!"

from Jabberwocky, excerpt from Alice through the looking...
"Beware the Jabberwock , my son! The jaws that bite, the claw that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the the frumious Bandersnatch!"

from Jabberwocky, excerpt from Alice through the looking...
post #266 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by LiquidR
50% or higher at this point has usually meant re-election in the past.

Bush's job ratings

They have been falling but the Bush team is smart and some have been in politics since Kennedy, they know the game and how to win.

plus who do the Dems have that is a strong leader right now that appeals to the public? I don't see any. I wish Wesley Clark would have run when the DNC called him.

1) Thanks for the link to pollingreport.com. I'd never seen it before.

2) I think you give the "Bush team" too much credit. Bush has Karl Rove, and right now, that is all he needs. As much as I despise Rove and his tactics, he's probably the most incredible political strategist in recent history. What is unfortunate is that so much of what he's good at is simply strategy, and the Bush admin needs policy if it's going to cinch the win.

3) Wesley Clark could, I think, mop the floor with just about anyone, including Bush and Rove, if he has the right political strategist. It'd be interesting to see him teamed up with someone like Carville (who I think is just about as brilliant as Rove). Unfortunately, I think Clark will be tapped as a VP candidate and that's all. Maybe Dean or Kerry will give him the nod. He'll tip the scales for the Dem nominee, and right now they need help, since a) they're all pretty lackluster, b) they can't criticize Bush without getting labeled as unpatriotic, and c) Bush is a fundraising MACHINE.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #267 of 272
originally posted by bunge
Quote:
No, it's what liberals hold most dear

I sure hope not. I know I'm not a liberal by most liberals' values and I'm not conservative by their standards. But I do hope that free speech and civil rights are major concerns of all Americans, liberal, conservative or sane.

originally posted by midwinter
Quote:
3) Wesley Clark could, I think, mop the floor with just about anyone, including Bush and Rove, if he has the right political strategist.

Yes, I believe his military creds would give him the right pull with conservatives even though he'd be running on a Dem ticket. As for the other choices, they maybe strong and smart, but I don't see any real leaders. Plus as you said Bush is a fundraising machine, makes Clintons astronomical fundraising abilities look like nickels and dimes.
"Beware the Jabberwock , my son! The jaws that bite, the claw that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the the frumious Bandersnatch!"

from Jabberwocky, excerpt from Alice through the looking...
"Beware the Jabberwock , my son! The jaws that bite, the claw that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the the frumious Bandersnatch!"

from Jabberwocky, excerpt from Alice through the looking...
post #268 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by LiquidR
50% or higher at this point has usually meant re-election in the past.

Bush's job ratings

They have been falling but the Bush team is smart and some have been in politics since Kennedy, they know the game and how to win.

plus who do the Dems have that is a strong leader right now that appeals to the public? I don't see any. I wish Wesley Clark would have run when the DNC called him.

You could look at it that way or you could look at it like all they have to do is keep tripping up like they have.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #269 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter

3) Wesley Clark could, I think, mop the floor with just about anyone, including Bush and Rove

I couldn't agree more. I'm extremely disappointed he didn't run. However, I'm sure his hands are dirty anyway. People cite criticisms of his Kosovo campaign and possible involvement in waco.
post #270 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001

Bingo. There it is. People like Coulter are "fanatics" while the super-liberal extemeist Maureen Dowd is "mainstream and moderate".

Coulter is a fanatic. And guess what...I don't even know who Maureen Dowd is.
post #271 of 272
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
SDW, listen to me here. I'm begging you. Ann Coulter is NOT an historian.

You put it perfectly

Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001

You can post until your fingers fall off. I don't care. Your notion that you personally know all that our government knows is not just flawed, it's patently absurd. It is, and I do not exaggerate here, the most arrogant and illogical premise I have ever heard, anywhere... at any time. You can mock me, put me down...whatever. It won't change the basic level of absurdity in your assumption. The think that you know about every piece of intelligence, every secret military project, every war plan, every covert op, etc...it's just funny!

Sorry, kiddo, but the only thing that's absurd here is you rediculous insitance on commenting on something you've never spent any time whatsoever studying. The fact that you sprinkle this paragraph with james bond fantasy is actually kind of cute, like how it's cute when a retard kid has a crush on one of his teachers.
post #272 of 272


How in the hell did you kids get on to McCarthy?


No matter.

Lock.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Bad Intelligence. Uh oh