Republicans Want Party To Be Like Palin

Good Lord Please say it isn't so.

A new Rasmussen poll further demonstrates that the GOP could be in for a long stretch in the wilderness: A majority of GOP voters now say that the party should be more like Sarah Palin.

The numbers: 55% of Republicans say the party should be like Palin, compared to 24% who say they should be like John McCain.

As I've previously noted, poll data like this could indicate that the Republican Party is getting ready to relive the classic cycle of ruling parties who get turned out of power in a landslide: With the party base itself shrunk down, the people who are still around are the most hard-line members, and are really the least fit people to fix the situation.

Hmmm...the Palin Party. lol

That'd be interesting to watch.

Its like a self-inflicted death spiral that can only further alienate the Independent swing voters who are key to electoral success.

Crunch the numbers....most polls put about 40% of the voters as self-identified Republican or "leaning Republican" (the number is at an all time high for Dem/leaning Dem -over 50%).

Of that 40% of the US electorate who are Republican, just over half say the party should be like Palin. So...about 20% of the total electorate are Palinists. That is not a winning number!

If I were a Republican, I would be seriously concerned by this recent Gallup poll:
[indent]

The...map shows party strength by state for 2008, ranging from states that can be considered solidly Democratic (a Democratic advantage in party identification of 10 percentage points or more) to those that can be considered solidly Republican (a Republican advantage in party identification of 10 percentage points or more). States in which the partisan advantage is less than 5 points in either direction are considered "competitive."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/State-States-Political-Party-Affiliation.aspx
[/indent]
But as for me, in the words H.L. Mencken, "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. "

I said this earlier last year. Republicans need to change. Maybe the majority of Republicans want the party to be more like Palin, but no Democrats will accept a Palin-like president and that will take away independents as well.

Interesting Statistics


Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law,

St. Paul, Minnesota, points out facts of 2008 Presidential election:


Number of States won by:

Democrats: 19

Republicans: 29


Square miles of land won by:

Democrats: 580,000
Republicans: 2,427,000


Population of counties won by:

Democrats: 127 million
Republicans: 143 million


Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Democrats: 13.2
Republicans: 2.1


Professor Olson adds:

"In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won by Republicans

was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.


Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in
government-owned tenements and living off various forms of

government welfare.



Professor Olson believes the United States is now somewhere

between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's

definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's

population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.



If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal
invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to

the USA in fewer than five years

Thats funny...the electoral map I have seen has Obama winning 28 state and McCain winning 22. I would like see where he got the D-19, R-29 number.

And with the largest percentage win (52%) since Reagan' second term (and more than Reagan's first term)

There are also currently 28 Democrats and 22 Republicans serving as governors.

BTW, square miles dont vote.

And Congress doesnt have to provide a path to citizenship to change the face of the electorate....it will happen either way within the next 40-50 years....The white face of American will no longer by the majority.

Thank God for the electoral college eh?

Actually, I would like to see a Constitutional amendment to change the electoral college system so that a state's electoral votes can be divided and more representative...rather than winner take all (except for Maine and Nebraska)

Screw that.

Redux;529867 wrote:

Actually, I would like to see a Constitutional amendment to change the electoral college system so that a state's electoral votes can be divided and more representative...rather than winner take all (except for Maine and Nebraska)

Interesting concept, I wonder if that would get more of the "minority party" to vote in a stat that has a vast majority party?

Like Texas, which has a handful of very blue counties in a sea of red.

classicman;529815 wrote:

As I've previously noted, poll data like this could indicate that the Republican Party is getting ready to relive the classic cycle of ruling parties who get turned out of power in a landslide: With the party base itself shrunk down, the people who are still around are the most hard-line members, and are really the least fit people to fix the situation.

Watch this space. You just predicted the fate of my own party.

The righty blogs seem to believe that the R party has lost its way by not being Conservative enough. Unfortunately only a third of them think this means they should push for less spending, and two-thirds of them think this means a return to moral/culture war issues.

I think that this is a losing idea, and I predict that, barring terror attack, the Rs will have to face an even bigger election loss before they find any traction. I believe the Terri Schaivo bumblefuck had more of an effect on the 2006 and 2008 elections than people think.

I just dont get how some Republicans can believe that this is the way to restore the party's national credibility:

Joe the Plumber advises GOP-ers

WTF are they thinking? Palin and the Plumber (aka war correspondent and now political consultant/strategist)?

[INDENT][/INDENT]

The Republican Party deep thinker and spokesmodel in authentic Mexican black velvet

Who wouldnt want that hanging on their wall!

Redux;529999 wrote:

I just dont get how some Republicans can believe that this is the way to restore the party's national credibility:

WTF are they thinking? Palin and the Plumber (aka war correspondent and now political consultant/strategist)?

I couldn't agree more.

Undertoad;529978 wrote:

The righty blogs seem to believe that the R party has lost its way by not being Conservative enough. Unfortunately only a third of them think this means they should push for less spending, and two-thirds of them think this means a return to moral/culture war issues.

I think that this is a losing idea, and I predict that, barring terror attack, the Rs will have to face an even bigger election loss before they find any traction. I believe the Terri Schaivo bumblefuck had more of an effect on the 2006 and 2008 elections than people think.

After this huge financial mess caused by greedy people on Wall Street, I think they will turn even more to the democratic party, especially if this administration stands up to those Wall Street pirates.

All the republican party wants to do is cut taxes even more for corporations/rich people and capital gains taxes. It simply doesn't work.

They have forgotten the true meaning of the word conservative which was originally about being fiscally conservative. They have turned it into a war against the American people, if you don't buy into to their particular brand of religion, or morals, or ethics, etc. And they have been such beacons of moral superiority... :headshake

Numerous factions are vying to manipulate the Republican party. You can bet the wacko extremists are using Limbaugh to promote their new party agenda. However McConnell is the party leader. Either he will define the new Republican party or first be deposed.

Just because one faction got their new political agenda published does not mean that is the party agenda. It will take at least one year to see where the party intends to go. Currently we only have people shooting sky rockets to see how the crowd oooohs and aaaahs.

Palin ... Joe ... you are making this up, right? :lol2:

Redux;529867 wrote:

Actually, I would like to see a Constitutional amendment to change the electoral college system so that a state's electoral votes can be divided and more representative...rather than winner take all (except for Maine and Nebraska)

The day we erase the lines of states it the day that will happen. It is obvious you don't care for the issues of states rights, because if you did you would consider that population statistics do not trump borders. The purpose of the Republic and the electoral college was to prevent that very thing. Democratic voting is just that, a winner take all majority rules. That is a dangerous thing because one day the tables may be turned and you might be on the other end of that pointed stick.

TheMercenary;530393 wrote:

The day we erase the lines of states it the day that will happen. It is obvious you don't care for the issues of states rights, because if you did you would consider that population statistics do not trump borders. The purpose of the Republic and the electoral college was to prevent that very thing. Democratic voting is just that, a winner take all majority rules. That is a dangerous thing because one day the tables may be turned and you might be on the other end of that pointed stick.

In fact, I think it would be very supportive of states rights.

It would allow a state to chose whether all its electoral votes should go to the winner of that state's overall popular vote or to allocate the electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district which is how Maine and Nebraska do it now and I havent heard complaints from either party in those states.

In fact, if you want to look at it in a partisan manner, it would probably benefit the Republicans more - giving them electoral votes in large states (CA, NY, PA, MI, etc) that are traditionally Democratic....and you could include FL and OH this year.

But I should have said that I would like to see such an amendment introduced and debated. I cant say for certain that I would support it until hearing more on pros and cons.

No, winner takes all is majority rule. Mob rule is not a good thing. Sounds just like Congress.

TheMercenary;530414 wrote:

No, winner takes all is majority rule. Mob rule is not a good thing. Sounds just like Congress.

Are you suggesting that the presidential electoral process in Maine and Nebraska is by mob rule?

No, I am suggesting that those states with winner take all are a flawed means to an end.

classicman;529815 wrote:

Good Lord Please say it isn't so.

A new Rasmussen poll further demonstrates that the GOP could be in for a long stretch in the wilderness: A majority of GOP voters now say that the party should be more like Sarah Palin.

The numbers: 55% of Republicans say the party should be like Palin, compared to 24% who say they should be like John McCain.

As I've previously noted, poll data like this could indicate that the Republican Party is getting ready to relive the classic cycle of ruling parties who get turned out of power in a landslide: With the party base itself shrunk down, the people who are still around are the most hard-line members, and are really the least fit people to fix the situation.

Yep. This also happens to small parties. The Libertarians, for example.

Rog, been there done that! Watched the "purists" take over, walked away. Watched the "purists" walk away for "purity" reasons. Laughed.

Undertoad;530759 wrote:

Rog, been there done that! Watched the "purists" take over, walked away. Watched the "purists" walk away for "purity" reasons. Laughed.

Just because the 3rd parties are FUNNIER, doesn't make them BETTER.

Yes, it was a lesson hard learned.

classicman;529815 wrote:

The numbers: 55% of Republicans say the party should be like Palin, compared to 24% who say they should be like John McCain.

John McCain is an honorable man but I did not and would not vote for him. Why? I'm a conservative. He's not.

Palin is often mocked for interviews that she's done during the election. When I have seen her on TV it's understandable. Those that watch think that she's the dumbest ass on planet earth, except for W. ;)

Glenn Beck has had her on his radio program long before, during and after the election. She's a conservative. Not a Rino, a conservative.

This perception of being a complete idiot will probably follow her with most viewers. Those of us that have heard her speak without her McCain handlers like what we heard and her record is consistent.

This past election I did not vote because "my guy" McCain didn't deserve to get my vote. Many conservatives that I've spoken to either held their nose and voted for him or didn't vote at all.

Those 24% should just slide on over to the Democratic party. The coming cycles will not garner huge support and more importantly more money for campaigns. That money will most likely come from conservatives for a real, honest to goodness conservative. Sarah Palin is one.

Those Rinos in office now are seeing the tide change and acting or speaking like they are not Dems. They know where the money is. The same as those hard lefty groups and their incredible ability to raise money to get Obama elected.

The thing I don't understand about conservatives - what are they conserving?

HungLikeJesus;531642 wrote:

The thing I don't understand about conservatives - what are they conserving?

Ammo.

Might need it in the future. :D

HungLikeJesus;531642 wrote:

The thing I don't understand about conservatives - what are they conserving?

15th century values.

HungLikeJesus;531642 wrote:

The thing I don't understand about conservatives - what are they conserving?

The ability to protect us from becoming a quasi-socialist country. Other than that, not much.

tw;530268 wrote:

Just because one faction got their new political agenda published does not mean that is the party agenda. It will take at least one year to see where the party intends to go. Currently we only have people shooting sky rockets to see how the crowd oooohs and aaaahs.

This is a very interesting time for the Republicans. The Neo-conservatives have destroyed the parties credibility. Which faction has values which appeal across the center of the electorate? The religious right are always organized but that is their only appeal. The libertarian wing is inconsistant on the social issues which have broader appeal than the free market message especially in a down-turn. The money crowd had their run and managed to smear the free marketers in their recent crime wave. Right now, their best shot may be the moderates. People will tire of the Pelosi crowd, so there is an opportunity a few years out.

TheMercenary;531880 wrote:

The ability to protect us from becoming a quasi-socialist country. Other than that, not much.

That ended in 1932.

Griff;531886 wrote:

This is a very interesting time for the Republicans. The Neo-conservatives have destroyed the parties credibility. Which faction has values which appeal across the center of the electorate? The religious right are always organized but that is their only appeal. The libertarian wing is inconsistant on the social issues which have broader appeal than the free market message especially in a down-turn. The money crowd had their run and managed to smear the free marketers in their recent crime wave. Right now, their best shot may be the moderates. People will tire of the Pelosi crowd, so there is an opportunity a few years out.

The money crowd ARE the free marketers.

The dems won nothing. The GOP has managed to smear itself with its own shit to the point where nobody but the hard core religious nuts will go anywhere near them...and they are still hooting and throwing poop as if there was nothing wrong, as if they hadn't been trounced in an election. They are, in fact, still jabbering about running Palin in 2012, despite the fact that she basically sank McCain.

So now it's a race to the bottom. On one hand, you have the congressional dems, acting like they did in the old days, the days before Newt Gingrich handed them their collective arses, and on the other hand, you have the GOP reassuring themselves that they don't need to change a thing.

But here's the deal...everyone in the middle already knew what Pelosi was, and they still voted against McCain/Palin, and they still threw the GOP out of congress by the truckload.

The GOP had better unfuck themselves. And they'd better do it fast. 2010 will be here before you know it.

TGRR;531930 wrote:

The GOP has managed to smear itself with its own shit to the point where nobody but the hard core religious nuts will go anywhere near them...and they are still hooting and throwing poop as if there was nothing wrong, as if they hadn't been trounced in an election. They are, in fact, still jabbering about running Palin in 2012, despite the fact that she basically sank McCain.

They are still touting her and doing damage control.

The GOP had better unfuck themselves. And they'd better do it fast. 2010 will be here before you know it.

This won't help.

TGRR;531930 wrote:

The GOP had better unfuck themselves. And they'd better do it fast. 2010 will be here before you know it.

That leaves plenty more time for the Dems to fuck it up.

TheMercenary;532018 wrote:

That leaves plenty more time for the Dems to fuck it up.

Which is the GOP's only hope because they apparently have nothing to add to the conversation. This rooting against America bit by party partisans gets very old.

TheMercenary;532018 wrote:

That leaves plenty more time for the Dems to fuck it up.

See above. The Dems don't have an image problem with most of the electorate, truth notwithstanding.

And the GOP refuses to take advantage of what weaknesses the dems ARE showing, because they're too busy living in denial over the last election.

Griff;532026 wrote:

Which is the GOP's only hope because they apparently have nothing to add to the conversation. This rooting against America bit by party partisans gets very old.

On top of that, I think the republican partisans seriously underestimate how much America as a whole hates GWB...and since they cannot seem to separate themselves from his memory, and make no effort to try, they will lose against the wimpiest collection of Dems in living memory.

TGRR;532033 wrote:

On top of that, I think the republican partisans seriously underestimate how much America as a whole hates GWB...and since they cannot seem to separate themselves from his memory, and make no effort to try, they will lose against the wimpiest collection of Dems in living memory.

You got it right. It is about Bush Hate. Nothing more, nothing less. They are blinded by their hate like whites hating blacks in the 30's or Nazi's hating Jews in the 40's.

TheMercenary;532044 wrote:

You got it right. It is about Bush Hate. Nothing more, nothing less. They are blinded by their hate like whites hating blacks in the 30's or Nazi's hating Jews in the 40's.

There is no comparison between hating Bush and hating Blacks or Jews. The very implication is offensive, unless you also believe that the people who hate Bush also hate all white people or all people from CT.

Since this is patently bullshit, your analogy is utterly worthless.

Fact: I have nothing against fake Texans or people from rich families on the East coast (in general), but I do hate Bush. I'm proud to hate Bush. My whole family hates Bush. It brings us together, you know?

And none of us are "blinded" by hate. We hate Bush because of what we saw him do...we don't hate what he did because he did it. And we don't vote GOP, because the GOP still thinks we want Bush's policies. The very same policies that made us hate him in the first place.

TheMercenary;532044 wrote:

You got it right. It is about Bush Hate. Nothing more, nothing less. They are blinded by their hate like whites hating blacks in the 30's or Nazi's hating Jews in the 40's.

Most Americans dont hate Buish.

They simply lost confidence is his policies and practices as they saw how it impacted them personally and the country as a whole.

And the Republican party is the embodiment of those policies....so rigid in its ideology, particularly among the social conservative base that dominates the party at the grass roots, that it is not very welcoming to the vast majority of Americans who are in the center politically.

TGRR;532047 wrote:

I do hate Bush. I'm proud to hate Bush. My whole family hates Bush.
And none of us are "blinded" by hate. We hate Bush because of what we saw him do...we don't hate what he did because he did it. And we don't vote GOP, because the GOP still thinks we want Bush's policies. The very same policies that made us hate him in the first place.

Based upon the above quote, you are certainly filled with enough of it as the bitterness is leaking out.

Redux;532052 wrote:

Most Americans don't hate Bush.

They simply lost confidence is his policies and practices as they saw how it impacted them personally and the country as a whole.

And the Republican party is the embodiment of those policies....so rigid in its ideology, particularly among the social conservative base that dominates the party at the grass roots, that it is not very welcoming to the vast majority of Americans who are in the center politically.

I think the party is monetarily dominated by those right wing extremists, not the grassroots.

TGRR;532047 wrote:

There is no comparison between hating Bush and hating Blacks or Jews. The very implication is offensive, unless you also believe that the people who hate Bush also hate all white people or all people from CT.

Since this is patently bullshit, your analogy is utterly worthless.

Fact: I have nothing against fake Texans or people from rich families on the East coast (in general), but I do hate Bush. I'm proud to hate Bush. My whole family hates Bush. It brings us together, you know?

And none of us are "blinded" by hate. We hate Bush because of what we saw him do...we don't hate what he did because he did it. And we don't vote GOP, because the GOP still thinks we want Bush's policies. The very same policies that made us hate him in the first place.

Hey that is your opinion. I don't give a shit if you find it an utterly worthless analogy. It is a fact. People hate Bush that much. You think Bush is a Fake Texan? Please. Who says you get to make that judgement? You are as blinded by the hate the rest of the haters are. No big deal, just admit it. Much of the GOP distanced themselves from Bush long before the election of recent. This is about perception.

Redux;532052 wrote:

Most Americans dont hate Buish.

Keep on believing that, sunshine. What was his approval rating at the end? Or even during his last 3 years? And all those people jeering at the inauguration - the first public event which Bush had no control over - were just taking the Mickey.

classicman;532059 wrote:

Based upon the above quote, you are certainly filled with enough of it as the bitterness is leaking out.

Yes, I believe I made that quite clear. I think the part where I said "I hate Bush" might have been a dead giveaway.

That dog won't hunt over here pal.

TGRR;532066 wrote:

Keep on believing that, sunshine. What was his approval rating at the end? Or even during his last 3 years? And all those people jeering at the inauguration - the first public event which Bush had no control over - were just taking the Mickey.

Approval ratings are a judgement of competence and confidence.

Hate is an irrational emotion.

Redux;532052 wrote:

Most Americans dont hate Buish.

They simply lost confidence is his policies and practices as they saw how it impacted them personally and the country as a whole.

And the Republican party is the embodiment of those policies....so rigid in its ideology, particularly among the social conservative base that dominates the party at the grass roots, that it is not very welcoming to the vast majority of Americans who are in the center politically.

IMHO I would call bull shit on that as well. The electorate drank the Koolaid and equated the GOP with Bush. Come on now, it is not rocket science. They equated the extremist views that were exploited by Daily Kos and Huffington. Obama made promises he can never keep, imagine that, and now I will be one to hold his feet to the fire. Obama made promises that the poor folk sucked up to like a starving child in Darfur. Where's the beef? I'll give you a year and we will begin to list the excuses as to why we still have few of the things promised by the Demoncrats, Congressional and Presidential.

Redux;532072 wrote:

Approval ratings are a judgement of competence and confidence.

Hate is an irrational emotion.

Ratings are polls and have little statistical significance.

TheMercenary;532065 wrote:

Hey that is your opinion. I don't give a shit if you find it an utterly worthless analogy. It is a fact. People hate Bush that much.

Sure they do. But comparing that hate to the people who hate based on race or religion is laughable.

TheMercenary;532065 wrote:

You think Bush is a Fake Texan? Please. Who says you get to make that judgement?

The fact that he's from Conneticutt.

TheMercenary;532065 wrote:

You are as blinded by the hate the rest of the haters are.

No, I hate him with my eyes wide open. In fact, that's WHY I hate him.

TheMercenary;532065 wrote:

No big deal, just admit it.

What, the hate? Did. The blindness? No blindness is required.

TheMercenary;532065 wrote:

Much of the GOP distanced themselves from Bush long before the election of recent. This is about perception.

You haven't spent much time listening to the new RNC chair, have you? Steele?

TheMercenary;532075 wrote:

Ratings are polls and have little statistical significance.

HAR! Tell it to McGovern.

TheMercenary;532075 wrote:

Ratings are polls and have little statistical significance.

Polls are a fairly reliable (within a few percentage points) and statistically valid snapshot of public opinion at any given time.

classicman;532071 wrote:

That dog won't hunt over here pal.

Which dog, chum?

TGRR;532078 wrote:

Sure they do. But comparing that hate to the people who hate based on race or religion is laughable.

Politics is religion in the US.

The fact that he's from Conneticutt.

Big fucking deal. And most blacks in the US are not from Africa. Most Americans can claim that they were born in another state than the one they currently reside in, it does not make them not from that state. I was born in Ill. Now I live in GA, should I say that I am not from here, even though I have lived here for over 10 years? You get to make that judgement? I don't think so.

No, I hate him with my eyes wide open. In fact, that's WHY I hate him.

Bush hate. Thanks for proving my point.

What, the hate? Did. The blindness? No blindness is required.

More Bush hate.

You haven't spent much time listening to the new RNC chair, have you? Steele?

Fuck the RNC.

Redux;532081 wrote:

Polls are a fairly reliable (within a few percentage points) and statistically valid snapshot of public opinion at any given time.

Bull shit. Never studied stats did ya. The freaking Z would need to be so big. Go ahead, hit me.

So we polled via telephone, 1000 voters.

The questions are so easily picked apart.

They are so easily directed to get results.

So what about all the people without telephones, they get left out?

So what time of day?

How many people hung up on you?

What demongraphic did you capture?

How many blacks, whites, mexicans?

How many housewifes who were so freaking bored at home they wanted to spend time talking to you?

I love polls because I always say something different every time they calll just to screw them up. How many other people do that? Who can prove it?

Polls are the weakest form of statistical measure.

TGRR;532083 wrote:

Which dog, chum?

Bill Clinton.
:p

TheMercenary;532085 wrote:

Big fucking deal. And most blacks in the US are not from Africa. .

And they are not African. What's your point?

TheMercenary;532088 wrote:

Bill Clinton.
:p

Oh, he hunts just fine. There isn't a safe fat woman in New York City.

TheMercenary;532087 wrote:

Bull shit. Never studied stats did ya. The freaking Z would need to be so big. Go ahead, hit me.

Actually, I have a MPM degree (Masters of Political Management) and studied political polling far more than I suspect you have.

I interned with a polling consultant...I know about polling. You, sir, dont know shit :)

TheMercenary;532085 wrote:

Politics is religion in the US.

No, politics is a sport in the US.

And your analogy is still dishonest.

Redux;532094 wrote:

Actually, I have a MPM degree (Masters of Politial Management)

I know a little about polling. :)

BFD. Then you should know better. I have a Masters as well and have done original research. Polling it only one step behind the survey as the weakest form of statistical reference regardless of what Pew Research wants you to believe.

TGRR;532093 wrote:

Oh, he hunts just fine. There isn't a safe fat woman in New York City.

Hopefully he shots better than Cheney. Wait, he is only shooting the pearl necklace.

TGRR;532096 wrote:

No, politics is a sport in the US.

And your analogy is still dishonest.

Your opnion, not in the case of Bush Hate. It is so obvious it is nothing short of my analogies in todays society. People hate Bush, they wish him dead. It is sickening and has polarized our society.

As a famous poster here once said, "Politics makes otherwise normal people turn into fucktards." Or something to that effect. He was right.

I don't think it's that extreme (about Bush). I'm definitely glad he's out of office, but I don't want him to be dead.

Of course, I'm not an American, so what does it matter what I think?

TGRR;532092 wrote:

And they are not African. What's your point?

Cool agreed. Why call them African Americans when they are not? Why give anyone who is anything other than white a hand up on anything other than merit? I say erase all color and gender from every job application, scholarship application, NCO/Officer evaluation report, eliminate all pictures and let people achieve purely on merit. Then we will truely have equality.

TheMercenary;532102 wrote:

Your opnion, not in the case of Bush Hate. It is so obvious it is nothing short of my analogies in todays society. People hate Bush, they wish him dead. It is sickening and has polarized our society.

And people hating this one politician is the equivalent of the Nazis shoveling Jews into the ovens?

:lol:

TheMercenary;532105 wrote:

Cool agreed. Why call them African Americans when they are not? .

I don't. Hyphenating America is of no help to anyone.

TGRR;532106 wrote:

And people hating this one politician is the equivalent of the Nazis shoveling Jews into the ovens?

:lol:

No, they only wish to shove one person in. Not thousands. Principle is the same.

Aliantha;532104 wrote:

I don't think it's that extreme (about Bush). I'm definitely glad he's out of office, but I don't want him to be dead.

I can wait. I will still need to take the occasional crap when he keels over, and I can make a trip to Crawford then.

Ugg, why bother, Crawford is a asshole on the side of Texas. Nothing there but Bush and no reason to go. Other than to piss on where Cindy Sheehan protested. That might be a good reason.

TheMercenary;532113 wrote:

Ugg, why bother, Crawford is a asshole on the side of Texas. Nothing there but Bush and no reason to go. Other than to piss on where Cindy Sheehan protested. That might be a good reason.

Naw. When the time eventually comes, I'm going to go leave a big, steaming pile of "respect" on Bush's grave.

TGRR;532110 wrote:

I can wait. I will still need to take the occasional crap when he keels over, and I can make a trip to Crawford then.

Actually, upon short reflection, I think all Bush did was inspire apathy in most people. They just couldn't be bothered with him anymore. No one hated him enough to try and knock him off, so I really don't think anyone hates him that much.

Aliantha;532119 wrote:

Actually, upon short reflection, I think all Bush did was inspire apathy in most people. They just couldn't be bothered with him anymore. No one hated him enough to try and knock him off, so I really don't think anyone hates him that much.

Oh, I hate him enough to crap on his grave. Trust me on that one.

And I am not alone. Something tells me that for 20 years after he dies, Crawford will be famous for its green, healthy grass.

Uhuh. Well I don't think you're doing yourself any favours with that kind of attitude, but that's just my opinion.

Personally, I don't think too many people who didn't support Bush will be bothered making the trip.

I'd even go so far as to think that it's highly unlikely you will either. ;)

Redux;532094 wrote:

Actually, I have a MPM degree (Masters of Political Management) and studied political polling far more than I suspect you have.

I interned with a polling consultant...I know about polling. You, sir, dont know shit :)

...

TheMercenary;532098 wrote:

BFD. Then you should know better. I have a Masters as well and have done original research. Polling it only one step behind the survey as the weakest form of statistical reference regardless of what Pew Research wants you to believe.

I have 3 PhDs and a double Nobel Prize in Internet Scatology, and I think both of you are well within my narrow field of expertise, if ya know what I mean.

TGRR;532127 wrote:

...



I have 3 PhDs and a double Nobel Prize in Internet Scatology, and I think both of you are well within my narrow field of expertise, if ya know what I mean.

BFD, doesn't change the facts. :lol2:

TGRR;532127 wrote:

I have 3 PhDs and a double Nobel Prize in Internet Scatology, mean.

lol - mail order doesn't count.

classicman;532142 wrote:

lol - mail order doesn't count.

My point exactly.

TGRR,
Makes a note not to employ satire around the few remaining Bush fans.

Come on now, satire is good and healthy. Like a Snickers Bar.

Aliantha;532126 wrote:

Uhuh. Well I don't think you're doing yourself any favours with that kind of attitude, but that's just my opinion.

Personally, I don't think too many people who didn't support Bush will be bothered making the trip.

I'd even go so far as to think that it's highly unlikely you will either. ;)

Your opinion on the matter has been noted.

TheMercenary;532149 wrote:

Come on now, satire is good and healthy. Like a Snickers Bar.

Around Classicsman?

:lol:

Okay.

TGRR;532153 wrote:

Around Classicsman?

:lol:

Okay.

Around anyone. Why hit him up? Because you disagree on something. Pleasee.:neutral:

TheMercenary;532149 wrote:

Come on now, satire is good and healthy. Like a Snickers Bar.

What's so healthy about a snickers bar? lol

TheMercenary;532157 wrote:

Around anyone. Why hit him up? Because you disagree on something. Pleasee.:neutral:

Maybe he doesn't like classic? ;) I can't see why though. I reckon he's alright even if he does have a few weirdo ideas about politics. :D

TheMercenary;532157 wrote:

Around anyone. Why hit him up? Because you disagree on something. Pleasee.:neutral:

Meh. He's the one who wanted to make it personal.

TGRR;532161 wrote:

Meh. He's the one who wanted to make it personal.

Come on, lighten up. Let's continue to have a respectful discussion. Please.

TheMercenary;532166 wrote:

Come on, lighten up. Let's continue to have a respectful discussion. Please.

There can always be a first :eyebrow:

My hopes have slipped numerous rungs.

TheMercenary;532098 wrote:

BFD. Then you should know better. I have a Masters as well and have done original research. Polling it only one step behind the survey as the weakest form of statistical reference regardless of what Pew Research wants you to believe.

Well then you really should tell that guy at fivethirtyeight. com because he has been predicting things with incredible accuracy, based on polls. He predicted the electoral college results, among other things.

TGRR;532125 wrote:

Oh, I hate him enough to crap on his grave. Trust me on that one.

And I am not alone. Something tells me that for 20 years after he dies, Crawford will be famous for its green, healthy grass.

Dubya is moving to North Dallas, right by Perot and the other rich folk.

I have no idea what's to be done with the Crawford place. But feel free to send the fertilizer down this way.

TheMercenary;532102 wrote:

Your opnion, not in the case of Bush Hate. It is so obvious it is nothing short of my analogies in todays society. People hate Bush, they wish him dead. It is sickening and has polarized our society.

As a famous poster here once said, "Politics makes otherwise normal people turn into fucktards." Or something to that effect. He was right.

I admit I wished many times that something would happen to get his ass out of office, or that someone would wipe that smirk off his face. I can't stand him either. Him or any of his little posse. And he is the one who polarized the country, by his egomaniacal attitude. Good fucking riddance.

TheMercenary;532166 wrote:

Come on, lighten up. Let's continue to have a respectful discussion. Please.

Merc! Asking for respectful debate! I am truly flabbergasted... and pleased, with this new turn of events. :) rock on dude.

TheMercenary;532073 wrote:

Obama made promises he can never keep, imagine that, and now I will be one to hold his feet to the fire.

That's certainly fair... as long as you're holding him the promises he made, and not your interpretation of what you think he meant.

I think Obama has been doing very well in keeping his promises so far. Hell, the man hasn't been in office for a month yet. Some of those promises will take time. But from the looks of it, he intends to keep as many of them as he can.

Hell it would be hard not to be doing ok since "the man hasn't been in office for a month yet." But he has broken two minor ones already. Like I said before, not a big deal but....

Which ones has he broken?

sugarpop;532256 wrote:

Merc! Asking for respectful debate! I am truly flabbergasted... and pleased, with this new turn of events. :) rock on dude.

Yea, this is a new place and time. :D

TheMercenary;532421 wrote:

Yea, this is a new place and time. :D

Wow. I will have to come up with some kind of reward system for you, so you keep it up. hmmmmmm..... :idea:

meph;532251 wrote:

Dubya is moving to North Dallas, right by Perot and the other rich folk.

I have no idea what's to be done with the Crawford place. But feel free to send the fertilizer down this way.

Will do.

TGRR,
Will crap all over Texas if necessary.

classicman;532401 wrote:

Hell it would be hard not to be doing ok since "the man hasn't been in office for a month yet." But he has broken two minor ones already. Like I said before, not a big deal but....

Who cares if he's been in office a year or a day? His cabinet picks alone condemn him. I mean, I understand Clinton, he had to keep a third of the Democratic Party happy, but DASCHLE? TOM FUCKING DASCHLE? What the hell is THAT?

And then this stimulus thing.

Nope. Obama is the same old face.

sugarpop;532415 wrote:

Which ones has he broken?

I said they were minor, but since you asked. He broke his "five-day pledge" twice with SCHIP and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in the same week.

Obama’s 5 p.m. signing came barely three hours after the House approved the bill, breaching Obama’s promise to have a five-day period of “sunlight before signing,” as he detailed on the campaign trail and on his website.

“The Obama-Biden campaign website states. “As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act only two days after it received final passage last week, and it wasn’t posted on the White House website until after it became law.

Politifact.com, a project of the St. Petersburg Times that tracks Obama’s campaign promises, says the five-day rule is the only pledge he has broken outright.

On the Ledbetter Act, the website wrote: “We recognize that Obama has been in office just a week, but he was very clear about his plan for a five-day comment period, and we can’t see why this one needed to be rushed. It is somewhat ironic that with the same action, Obama both keeps and breaks a campaign promise.”

A White House spokesman refused to comment on the matter.

classicman;532580 wrote:

I said they were minor, but since you asked. He broke his "five-day pledge" twice with SCHIP and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in the same week.

OK. But I would say, since that legislation has been waiting to be signed for years, I won't be upset because he didn't wait to sign them. (I didn't even realize he had made that pledge... *scratches head*)