No - actually I was saying YOU thought only you held the truth -

Moderates never got anything done in this world - your UN example is perfect for that - close to worthless.

Quote:

as for what news I watch... well, canadian news...which they often highlight other countries top news.... As oppose to the ever so patriotic CNN, abc, nbc... As for your other recent messages... can we stick to the present here?? DEmocrate are not an extreme pro-war party and are much more moderate than the republicans... their views are more similar... to UN, g8 countries...

You know so little - the news here is always been a thorn in the side of the government - they'll go after anything they can find -
CNN totally fucked up reporting about the cell-phone deal during the gulf war - to say they are in the government's pocket foolish - they have a serious lean toward anti-Buch if anything.

but if you really think your news in Canada is better - all righty.

Quote:

Hey by the way... you seem to be a good conservative christian republican... what do you run.. any porn site...? or just that "delete the porn on your computer" software....!???

You maybe shouldn't make assumptions.....

Every President and Congress inhierits a swath of problems and every President and Congress has delt with the problems (the way the problems are delt with is always debatable). It is not unusual and probable that in dealing with existing problems new problems are created that in turn have to be delt with. The world is complicated, problems are not a new phenom, and problems will always exist. The sky is not falling, the end is not near, the world will still turn and the sun will still rise. Will there be continued military conflicts, death, destruction, mayhem...yes.

haha... ofcourse... republicans are right and the rest of the world is not.... is the word propaganda ring a bell???
Muslims countries are very good at that... you sounds like them!





yeah yeah.. whatever... ofcourse...
If you cannot see that cnn, nbc , etc.... are there for the ratings then you are one damn fool... and what sells right now is patriotism....
actually...most americans are pro war... and dont want to see stories that might suggest that the French and Germans have some good points....

dont you find strange that alot of stories regarding the war in Iraq make th headlines of every major countries... but no mention on CNN, NBC, etc.... mmmh... strange??

I'm out.... peace..... (oops... thats an offensive word for republicans...)

Actually I don't think going to war will effect Bushes ratings much either way at this point, those that are for it will think its good and those that are against it will think its bad, people have pretty much already made up their minds on it.

Bush being re-elected will depend on a few things. If the economy is better, which I think it should be somewhat better then he has a good chance, and who is running against him. Right now I don't see any dems that excite anyone.

I think that if there is another major terrorist attack it will severely hurt Bush and have the opposite effect that 9/11 did.

mmmh... depends...

if after a war... yes it will hurt him.. because people might think it is a consequence of the war... if it is before the war... nope...
because the Bush administration is considered as the best party to protect and defend the united-states...
hell... they put so much emphasis on the army... it can just turn into their favor...
The more America feels fear... the more the support for Republicans will be high....
Code orange anyone...?
:1orglaugh

republicans will see next US president from their party in 2 decades

I was inferring that in the same way that Bush gets blamed for the economy now, popularity after the war and the '04 election is going to depend on a swathe of issues being created and dealt with now.. Nothing to do with the sky falling, we're talking politcal popularity here and the effects of the war on it. I actually believe the Democrats have a better shot in '08 at the moment but i'd be stupid to put money on it until 6 months after any Iraq action.

Well...my post was more for general consumption than directed at you. I wouldn't put my money on the next election even six months prior to the election. Anything can happen that would sway public opinion and often does. I do not see any powerful opponents from the Democrats at this point in time, but I certainly do not see Bush as having a lock on being the next President at this point in time.

That is a key issue. Even some of the noises of note that would benefit from an anti-war swing have been from opponents that were unviable... Someone like Robert Byrd may have prestige and influence, but isn't likely to become president :)

Byrd is old and he has some bad shit in his background, he could never be president. To his credit, he's one of the few Democrats who will actually stand up to Republicans without fear. When he leaves, the Senate Democrats will have even less spine than they do now. Where is the next Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan? Neither party has anyone who inspires people these days.

exactly, he's a dinosaur, if not THE dinosaur being the longest serving senator, hence the smiley at the thought of it :) He had to be mentioned though as one of the only democrats with a spine.

We are facing an almost parallel situation here, the only reason the leader of the federal "liberal" opposition is still leader is that they're waiting till after the state election is over, as a change at federal level would impact the current state office holder "liberal" government's campaign during the current election.

currently the federal government is conservative and the state governments are liberal.. it tends to happen that way.. I think the public hedge their bets that way.

there are only 3 concievable replacements, one is a former opposition leader that lost the last two elections by slim margins but would be perfect to mop up our current mess, but he has ruled out coming back to the front bench.
Another who is probably the most realistic chance is not populist enough and doesn't have the profile and the third is a loudmouth member of the right side of the party that has poisoned his chances by being too brutal, if only honest.
so theres really only one possibility and I don't think he's going to be able to do it as the conservative replacement is more liberal that the current leader and will benefit from a "softly softly" approach back to centre politics

Dubya will be re-elected.. Nobody else has a candidate!

My poor misinformed friend. I live in West Virginia - We are the state that had kept Byrd in office for the last 50+ years.

So trust me on this one.... There was a day, many many years ago, that Byrd was a saint to the people here.

Over the last 10-12 years - the ol boy has pretty much lost his mind. He pissed off everyone in this State when he started in on Bush and the war a month or so ago. West Virginia was overwhelmingly for Bush. It's a sad fact - Byrd does not represent the people here when it comes to Bush or the war.

West Virginia had more men, per capita, than any other state in Korea. - You won't see any "peace demonstrations here".

The only person that compares to Byrd is Kennedy - and there's another one who's time has come and gone.

But it's funny you picked a former KKK leader to stand behind.

:thumbsup doesn't suprise me a bit.

You must not be talking about the same West Virginia because Byrd keeps getting re-elected and everything I've seen says he's extremely popular locally. :1orglaugh

Here is a quote about Byrd:

Senator Byrd has carried all 55 West Virginia counties three times (1970, 1994, and 2000), making him the first person to do so in contested statewide general elections.

In the most recent election he was in, he carried every county in the state. That's a lot more than Bush can say about his election situation.

I did a search on Google and found plenty of anti-war stuff about West Viriginia, including a small peace protest on the day when the other anti-war protests were going on.

Maybe you're just out of touch? :1orglaugh

Allow me to explain...

As far as the "peace march here".... 18 people standing in front of the courthouse isn't really a movement.

The reason Byrd keeps getting relected is the same as Kennedy - it's called power and money - so much power and money you run basicly un-opposed.

I wonder myself... but this is one of those cases where it's power and money - he hasn't campaigned in 20 years - no one here knows or cares what he stands for.

He is what we call a yellow-dog democrat - he votes 100% democratic without regard to one other single factor.

I realize a google search makes you an expert on West Virginia politics - but respectfully - take my word on this one.

I think I heard on Larry King one night that some poll said that the only democrat that a possible chance of beating Bush was Hillary Clinton, and she says she doesn't want to run.

But Bill Clinton ran the Government by polls. :1orglaugh and if anyone think's he didn't just ask him.:Graucho

I stand corrected.....


:winkwink:

Ok n/p:thumbsup

Actually, Hillary ran the Gevernment by polls - the pole she had rammed up Bill's ass.....

But that was when it was verified that it should never be run that way....

:winkwink: