Bush' approval ratings down. I guess we're in for another war.
We've seen Wag the Dog. We've seen the silence after Afghanistan swiftly redirected into hate mongering against Iraq. And now approval for the Iraq initiative, and the continuing thereof, is at an all time low. Approval for the home-ec. of Mr. B. is even lower, though that's hardly a surprise. I wonder who'll he go after now. That question, paraphrased: "who can the average brainless American be riled up against the quickest?" Maybe France? The usual suspects are such a boring lifeless bunch anyways, aren't they? Taking on France... a country with some real defense. Oh! The effects that will have on the world, the biggest schism we've seen since, since Hastings, 1066 maybe. That might save Mr. Jekyll's hide.
Comments
- France does posses nuclear weapons,
- all treaties and contracts of the NATO would be broken up leading to the rest world vs. the USA - you could basically say good bye to all your friends and family once the first missile is on the way.
My guess - although this is a horrible thought - is that George W. would go after Kim Jong Il (sp?) of North Korea for developing weapons of mass destruction and being a totalitarian socialist dictator. And the US government obviously laid the reason themselfes in pushing all "hostile" countries back against the wall by their first-strike doctrine.
And one of the worst moves that George W. ever made, in my opinion, is that he led his Nation to war against Iraq in the name of God - so do all the Islamic terrorists.
I would be pleased if we can speak of something positive.
Nick
The approval ratings of both Reagan and Clinton were significantly lower at this point in their first terms...both won reelection.
Though we certainly have our share of morons in this country, I still find it amusing that der kopf clings to the old tradition: Anyone who disgarees with his liberal anti-war views is a simpleton fool. Classic!
I asked for another thread. I got it!
The approval ratings of both Reagan and Clinton were significantly lower at this point in their first terms...both won reelection.
Yes, but both Clinton and Reagan had good things to show for their work at this point in their first terms as well. Bush won't be re-elected simply for his handling of 9/11, it's just not enough.
Originally posted by Fran441
Yes, but both Clinton and Reagan had good things to show for their work at this point in their first terms as well. Bush won't be re-elected simply for his handling of 9/11, it's just not enough.
Fran, the economy isn't in recession. It is starting to even generate jobs again. It will be very hard to have credibility on Monday Morning Quarterbacking Iraq.
The Democrats have started making some moves of fair trade. That could get them a few more votes. Likewise for how terrible I have "heard" the economy is, I have yet to hear a comprehensive economic plan from ANY of the Dems.
Most of them have simply said, take back the tax cuts (most of which still haven't even gone into effect yet) and give everyone medical care. They claim this will fix the economy?!?
Ummmm... yeah .....sure...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Fran, the economy isn't in recession. It is starting to even generate jobs again.
Last I heard the only jump in jobs creation was because people who had previously been looking for full-time employment finally gave up. Thus, unemployment numbers went down because the number of people looking for full-time employment went down, not that more jobs were created.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Hé Ho, i am french, i don't like at all these type of speculation. Just saw a terrible movie about the end of humankind on TV yesterday. It drove me and my wife in a terrible mood.
I would be pleased if we can speak of something positive.
A good movie about nuclear holocaust is "The Day After" starring John Lithgow.
Originally posted by bunge
Last I heard the only jump in jobs creation was because people who had previously been looking for full-time employment finally gave up. Thus, unemployment numbers went down because the number of people looking for full-time employment went down, not that more jobs were created.
New numbers were out yesterday. It is estimated that 57,000 new jobs were created. I bet it has more to do with seasonal hiring than anything else.
Anyone?
Bueler?
Can we talk of the quality of the jobs?
More highpaying tech jobs or WALL MART NATION!!!
yeh hah...
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Is it posssible this will start a net trend? UBER1337YTREXC!YFT@!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Originally posted by rageous
OMG A BUSH BASHING THREAD!!!!!
Is it posssible this will start a net trend? UBER1337YTREXC!YFT@!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
God I hope so!
Originally posted by BR
A good movie about nuclear holocaust is "The Day After" starring John Lithgow.
Just make the mistake to see one last evening. In the final every human die in huge pain. I will not watch nuclear holocaust movie for a long time.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose?
A good movie about nuclear holocaust is "The Day After" starring John Lithgow.
They showed us that movie when I was in elementary school. It was in 5th or 6th grade I think. Scared the crap out of me.
Originally posted by rageous
Well how exactly would you make a movie about nuclear holocaust without having most people suffer and die?
Doesn't that defeat the purpose?
Here it's not most, it's every people. It's the end of humankind.
You are right anyway, why did i watched this one. Probabily because i was interested by the storie of a group of marine trying to reach an sanctuary in order to save the human specie. But the movie turned in an another way.
Generally i watch movie for entertainement, not to for masochism. I don't need movie to know that a total nuclear war will means for our planet.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Though we certainly have our share of morons in this country, I still find it amusing that der kopf clings to the old tradition: Anyone who disgarees with his liberal anti-war views is a simpleton fool.
Of course I need to reply to anything that has my handle in it. I am fairly convinced that aggressive tendencies and stupidity go hand in hand. Someone should find some scientific evidence to that effect, or if it doesn't exist, execute a study. Don't get me wrong, SDW, (you don't seem to, but I'll reiterate it in any case), the US certainly has no monopoly on cretinity.
One question I do have: why is this liberal? It's more of an elitist stance I'm taking here, criticizing the masses in general, implying they have no common sense, and need amusement above all, no matter what cost. For all intents and purposes, I'd think I'm speaking for the blue-blood constipated nose-in-the-air golfstick-up-the-bum conservative side of the fence, but I may be wrong (although I seldom am).
You do have to imagine the marketing angle: embedded journalists accompanying (y)our boys in besieged France, focal point on the axis of evil. Some nice fighting, interspersed with the lovely sights France is so filled with. Now try and figure what ratings that would spawn. What top network exec wouldn't kill for that?
And to Powerdoc: you know I'm as near France as it gets. It's less than 50 minutes drive from my door, maybe 30 if I'd start on the highway. That's about half a minute in one 'o them fighter jets. I'd get mine soon enough. But hey, I have no problems stepping back in favor of the GREATER GOOD.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Just make the mistake to see one last evening. In the final every human die in huge pain. I will not watch nuclear holocaust movie for a long time.
This is actually well done though.