During some procrastination from work, I happened by Real Clear Politics' web site, [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html[/url] which has a snapshot of current opinion polls for political issues around the country.

Bush's numbers are about the same they've been for the last new months -- hovering around equal numbers approving and disapproving, with the current average spread favoring disapproval by 1.7%.

Here's the interesting thing -- the average poll numbers for Congress' job approval favors disapproval by 26%. Moreover, 60% of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction, compared to 35.3% who think it is on the right track -- a spread of 24.7%.

What the hell does this mean? People think things are fucked up, but they blame Congress more than Bush? And people called Clinton, "Slick Willie" -- Bush is like friggin' Teflon. Crazy...

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

clinton was slick willie. reading the truth about hillary and there is some serious shit that the clintons pulled off. people like bush because he doesnt bullshit when he talks, he comes out like a normal person who is opinionated and doesnt cater to bullshit. remember, there is a lot of space between the coasts, and most of it is right wing.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=thesightless]remember, there is a lot of space between the coasts, and most of it is right wing.[/quote]

tell me about it -- I'm swimming in it. Thankfully, St. Louis city is an oasis of rational thought.

[quote=thesightless]people like bush because he doesnt bullshit when he talks[/quote]

I'd say that people like bush because he doesn't [b]sound[/b] like he's bullshitting when he talks -- but he spews as much BS as anyone, ever. He just isn't good at doing it on his feet, as Clinton was, and speaks only in carefully constructed sound bites. There's a reason he's given less press conferences than any other president.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=thesightless]clinton was slick willie. reading the truth about hillary and there is some serious shit that the clintons pulled off. people like bush because he doesnt bullshit when he talks, he comes out like a normal person who is opinionated and doesnt cater to bullshit. remember, there is a lot of space between the coasts, and most of it is right wing.[/quote]

just because they don't care or don't speak up doesn't automatically make them right wing.

but there are quite a lot of them. and i guess it's ok to get wasted and beat your wife as long as you go to church on sundays, right?

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

oh i hate the far left and far right. they are all morons.

i keep it to this

we need conservatives on anything financial, spending or security related. i also back the idea of smaller gov't.

we need liberals on social policy, citizen rights, and foreign relations. basically anything that involves mutual communication. however, some social policies are retarded when you think about it. i.e. welfare needs a limit, and thier ideas about schools are plain stupid. make school tougher, not easier, we wont compete worldwide if we follow the trends that started in the early 90's and gained steam under bush.

i cant justify either party doing anything i described the opposite party doing.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=toasty]I'd say that people like bush because he doesn't [b]sound[/b] like he's bullshitting when he talks -- but he spews as much BS as anyone, ever. He just isn't good at doing it on his feet, as Clinton was, and speaks only in carefully constructed sound bites. There's a reason he's given less press conferences than any other president.[/quote]

Well, you may be right, but it seems like to me BS artist are good at it because they are smooth and convincing. People loved Clinton because he could act the part, and be the guy they liked. I think Bush is loved by so many because he is sincere. I don't buy it that he is BS'ing to cover his ass, as Clinton did many times. If Bush is BS'ing, it is because he doesn't have an answere to give us. Maybe his lack of ability to communicate well, or he simply can't relay everything to us that we want to know at a specific time. I guess I relate to Bush somehow. I have spoken in front of people and got nervous, and lost my thought.

Funny story, I had a TV reporter interview me while I was observing a fallen tree on someones house. He asked me to relate what I thought about the fallen tree. I bumbled some stupid stuff, and went blank. That night I had a second of fame. One second on TV, they relayed my saying 'pretty incredible'. One second - fast. I guess I was poor in front of the camera.

I really feel Bush is true. I trust the man Bush, forgetting about the President. Clinton was a scumbag, the kind of guy I probably would not want to hang aroung with, but everyone else would want to be his best friend because of his personality. I think Bush has a personality that is somewhat easy to pick on, and he catches a blank mind sometimes, or he loses his train of thought. Another one of my issues too.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=toasty][quote=thesightless]remember, there is a lot of space between the coasts, and most of it is right wing.[/quote]

tell me about it -- I'm swimming in it. Thankfully, St. Louis city is an oasis of rational thought.[/quote]

Damn. Here in Houston almost every person would practically pay to kiss Bush's feet just because he's "from Texas" and Republican. Worse yet, even when I try to ask them to ponder the possibility that Bush had ulterior motives for going into Iraq, they give me a look as if I just fucked their dog, and they spew out some mindless remark questioning my patriotism.

It's really quite sad/disgusting to know that no matter what somebody does that people still blindly vote for/agree with someone purely based on political party.

I didn't write my sig for nothing. :lickmyha:

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

i personally like bush, i find him pretty funny and open. he doesnt come off like a backstabber. when he says something bad, he says it to the targets face. outside of the war and parts of the patriot act, i find he has some pretty good ideas, for instance, social security deffo needs a revamp. i also admire that he forces the issue of freedom and worldwide aid a lot more. people can say they want to see these hotspots get better, at least he tried. too many politicians just talk.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=toasty]During some procrastination from work, I happened by Real Clear Politics' web site, [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html[/url] which has a snapshot of current opinion polls for political issues around the country.

Bush's numbers are about the same they've been for the last new months -- hovering around equal numbers approving and disapproving, with the current average spread favoring disapproval by 1.7%.

Here's the interesting thing -- the average poll numbers for Congress' job approval favors disapproval by 26%. Moreover, 60% of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction, compared to 35.3% who think it is on the right track -- a spread of 24.7%.

What the hell does this mean? People think things are fucked up, but they blame Congress more than Bush? And people called Clinton, "Slick Willie" -- Bush is like friggin' Teflon. Crazy...[/quote]

Im not sure where those poll numbers came from, but here are numbers from the last several days which show Bush's numbers in the low 40's- hardly "hovering around equal numbers approving and disapproving"

[url]http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1005[/url] [url]http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/[/url]

Bush's numbers are in freefall because he does not have a single successful policy.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

"You can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent - 40% of people know that"

• Homer Simpson

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=eye-p] Im not sure where those poll numbers came from[/quote]

It's the average of all the national polls taken over the last couple of weeks. I'm a big Zogby fan, just trying to be objective and take them all into account.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

The approval numbers for both Bush and Congress are and should be low. Neither Bush nor Congress has done anything significant to help Americans unless you're really wealthy.

Most Americans are sick of the partisanship and want to see positive changes happen in Washington and stop the fighting. I really believe the greatest enemy this country faces is itself not Iraq, social security, or terrorism. I wish the Dems and Repubs would work together to solve the problems of America instead of constantly bickering and posturing for power.

Hear here, superbrutha. :RockOn:

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=superdave]The approval numbers for both Bush and Congress are and should be low. Neither Bush nor Congress has done anything significant to help Americans unless you're really wealthy.

Most Americans are sick of the partisanship and want to see positive changes happen in Washington and stop the fighting. I really believe the greatest enemy this country faces is itself not Iraq, social security, or terrorism. I wish the Dems and Repubs would work together to solve the problems of America instead of constantly bickering and posturing for power.[/quote]

Excuse me, but without going back and making a list, the Bush admin has done more to help the American than Clinton ever did. Did you not get a tax rebate check. How about the Social Security debate, if that is not for the people, I don't know what is. Dude your just wrong!

On the issue of fighting and partisian politics, you can only blame the dems. If you look at the party who is on a constant attack mode using lie and slander to gain supporters it is clearly the demo party. So much of what they say, is not justified, some are very clear lies. They have the mentality of hurting George Bush not matter what it takes.

As far as fighting goes, if the demo party would stop the slander and drumbeat of attack on Bush and his administration, they would begin to get along. The Rep party hardly fights back really. Bush hardly addresses the issues they bring up to defend himself or his decisions, he just clearly states his reasons and goals. That is truly not a fight. Show me which Rep sided poeple are actually fighting. All the fight is on the left, from the left, in many different forms all saying the same BS, almost to brainwash the masses of ignorant forgetful Americans who lazily only listen to CNN and watch the Locals.

It takes 2 to fight, if this is a fight, it is one or two fighting on the Rep side, against a well orchestrated and planned out strategic ploy to undermine the majority, and the majority party hardly says a word. That is not a fight my friend.

Stop the left and the slander, and you will stop the fight.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=robprunzit][quote=superdave]The approval numbers for both Bush and Congress are and should be low. Neither Bush nor Congress has done anything significant to help Americans unless you're really wealthy.

Most Americans are sick of the partisanship and want to see positive changes happen in Washington and stop the fighting. I really believe the greatest enemy this country faces is itself not Iraq, social security, or terrorism. I wish the Dems and Repubs would work together to solve the problems of America instead of constantly bickering and posturing for power.[/quote]

Excuse me, but without going back and making a list, the Bush admin has done more to help the American than Clinton ever did. Did you not get a tax rebate check. How about the Social Security debate, if that is not for the people, I don't know what is. Dude your just wrong!

On the issue of fighting and partisian politics, you can only blame the dems. If you look at the party who is on a constant attack mode using lie and slander to gain supporters it is clearly the demo party. So much of what they say, is not justified, some are very clear lies. They have the mentality of hurting George Bush not matter what it takes.

As far as fighting goes, if the demo party would stop the slander and drumbeat of attack on Bush and his administration, they would begin to get along. The Rep party hardly fights back really. Bush hardly addresses the issues they bring up to defend himself or his decisions, he just clearly states his reasons and goals. That is truly not a fight. Show me which Rep sided poeple are actually fighting. All the fight is on the left, from the left, in many different forms all saying the same BS, almost to brainwash the masses of ignorant forgetful Americans who lazily only listen to CNN and watch the Locals.

It takes 2 to fight, if this is a fight, it is one or two fighting on the Rep side, against a well orchestrated and planned out strategic ploy to undermine the majority, and the majority party hardly says a word. That is not a fight my friend.

Stop the left and the slander, and you will stop the fight.[/quote]

Rob- you are truly a moron.

We went from a budget surplus in 2000, to the LARGEST DEFECIT EVER- for the last 3 years in a row. How does your tax cut feel now?

How about the price of gas? The day Clinton left office, oil was $27 a barrel, today oil closed at over $60 a barrel.

How about health care? Bush has done real well on healthcare.(not)

How about social security? Well, since Bush himself admits that privatization will not help SSI, how is his plan good? Remember, the program will pay full benefits until 2041 as it sits now.

How about how well Bush has protected us? He hasnt. 9/11 happened on HIS WATCH. Period! Not the day he took over, 9 months into his term, 1 month after he recieved a memo that was titled; "Bin Laden determined to attack in US". That same memo contained the phrase, "planes could be used as weapons". It in the 9/11 commission report, have a look.

How about those WMD's? How about that $300,000,000,000 price tag for the Iraq war? That was a smart move right?

As for the dems screwing everything up- since the republicans control the House, Senate, and White House, as well as having 5 of 9 on the Supreme Court, exactly what should the dems do? Exactly what legislation could they get passed being a minority in every branch of government?

Turn off Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, and join the reality based community.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote] How about the Social Security debate, if that is not for the people, I don't know what is.[/quote]

Well, some might say that an approach that undermines the core principle behind social security (i.e. defined benefit) isn't really an approach that is looking out for the people that it is meant to serve, but maybe that's just me.

[quote]On the issue of fighting and partisian politics, you can only blame the dems. [/quote]

Actually Rob, a more accurate statement might be "People like me [meaning Robprunzit] can only blame the dems." If you really think that the dems are the only ones to blame in this equation, you clearly have been listening to far too much talk radio. Both sides are to blame because both sides are after one thing: power. Republicans play the same game the dems do...they just tend to play it far better.

[quote]Excuse me, but without going back and making a list, the Bush admin has done more to help the American than Clinton ever did.[/quote]

Ahh yes...my guy: all good, their guy: all bad. The one thing that Clinton can certainly be accused of is not sponsoring the type of large and sweeping legislation that Bush has. After health care, he was gun shy. That being said, he passed the Family Medical Leave Act, Welfare Reform, balanced budget, etc., etc...all with the help of (and a bit of consternation from) republicans. Both administrations have done things that have both helped and hurt the American people...the stark lines you try to draw truly reveal your partisanship.

[quote]If you look at the party who is on a constant attack mode using lie and slander to gain supporters it is clearly the demo party.[/quote]

Ahh yes, the republican party is the nice/cuddly party, who only attracts supporters through rational reasoned debate...that's why Ann Coulter and Tom Delay are such luminaries among conservatives. You need to stop sniffing the shit that Hannity and Co. are cutting up in front of you. Both parties are in constant attack mode...in fact, if anything, the republicans are more often in attack mode and are a hell of a lot better at it than the dems. The republicans have mastered the "only defense is a good offense" approach to politics. That's why the dems look like such pussies these days.

[quote]So much of what they say, is not justified, some are very clear lies.[/quote]

In that sentence, "they" is really interchangeable between the parties.

[quote]As far as fighting goes, if the demo party would stop the slander and drumbeat of attack on Bush and his administration, they would begin to get along. [/quote]

Funny, I don't really remember the republicans doing the same during Clinton's tenure...9/11 changed everything, though, right...at least, until the next dem administration.

[quote]The Rep party hardly fights back really. [/quote]

Rob...what planet are you living on? You listen to talk radio, right? You watched the republican convention last summer, right? You paid attention to that little thing called an election we had last year, didn't you? And you think that the Republican party hardly fights back? That's so unbelievably out of touch, I don't know where to being. But, why don't we start with Karl Rove's speech last week...surely you heard about that...do you consider that fighting back? You're in Atlanta, right...remember the ads that Chambliss ran against Cleland? If you think that the republican party is not incredibly adept at attacking, I really have to question your knowledge of our political process and/or connection with reality. I don't think that it is a negative, but they are fucking masters at attack politics...in a way that the democrats have never been able to replicate.

[quote]Bush hardly addresses the issues they bring up to defend himself or his decisions, he just clearly states his reasons and goals.[/quote]

I hate to break it to you Rob, but Bush isn't the republican party. The reason that Bush doesn't engage in the attack politics is that it isn't his role. The president is above the fray and gets to keep his hands clean...it's folks like Cheney or Rove or Card or Delay that do the attacking...that's their role.

[quote]Show me which Rep sided poeple are actually fighting.[/quote]

Take a look at how conservative republicans feel about John McCain. Grover Norquist, a prominent republican support of Bush's and the head of one of the tax reform groups whose name escapes me, recently called John McCain the "nut-job from Arizona" during a speech to college republicans. Later, he clarified his comments to say that he meant to say that John McCain was a "gun-grabbing, tax-increasing Bolshevik." There's one.

And how about Mike DeWine...there are some bad feelings about him these days among conservatives.

And how about George Voinovich...his expressing doubts about John Bolton made him a huge target among conservative republicans.

There are plenty of others...and those are just intra-party fights. If you want to talk about republicans attacking democrats...well, I don't have enough time to even begin to address that...but for starters turn on Hannity or Rush tomorrow...that's a good place to start.

[quote] That is not a fight my friend. [/quote]

Sorry Rob, but republicans make very poor victims these days.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote]How about the price of gas? The day Clinton left office, oil was $27 a barrel, today oil closed at over $60 a barrel. [/quote]

Sorry man, but the pres doesn't control gas prices...that doesn't count.

[quote]How about health care? Bush has done real well on healthcare.(not) [/quote]

Neither did Clinton...he tried, but failed miserably.

[quote]How about social security? Well, since Bush himself admits that privatization will not help SSI, how is his plan good? Remember, the program will pay full benefits until 2041 as it sits now.
[/quote]

And 70% thereafter...not really a crisis.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

this is the dumbest arguement ever.

the prior 4 presidents have done great and terrible things.

but one thing. clinton related. he did focus more on other countries than he did here. and his welfare act was a few steps short of what it needs to be.

but to be fair. bush took us into a war we didnt need to get into, but again, he did a great thing in the long run.

oh yeah, clinton is playa. MACK

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=robprunzit]what robpruznit wrote[/quote]

dude, I don't even know where to begin with this. I understand that we disagree on a number of things from an ideological standpoint, but much of what you're saying here is just factually incorrect or reflects such blind ideology that it undermines the credibility of what you say in a general sense -- not just in this post, or even this thread, but in this entire forum.

A couple of specific points:

[quote=robprunzit]Did you not get a tax rebate check. [/quote]

The only thing $300 does is remind me how little difference $300 makes in my life. Seriously, if $300 really makes or breaks you, I'm not sure what you're doing in the Republican party in the first place. That's your call, though.

[quote=robprunzit] It takes 2 to fight, if this is a fight, it is one or two fighting on the Rep side, against a well orchestrated and planned out strategic ploy to undermine the majority, and the majority party hardly says a word.[/quote]

:shock: Holyfuckingmoses.

I ask you, what about the democratic party is "well orchestrated" or "strategic?" The dems got themselves into this mess by being a disorganized jumble of knuckleheads with no clear plan or message.

I don't like the neocon -- note I didn't say republican -- policies on most everything, but if there's one thing they are great at, it is attack politics; they are extremely adept at controlling their message, and generally keeping the dems on their heels from a political standpoint. I hate the guy, but I've got to give Rove the nod for being an absolutely genius when it comes to politics.

If you really think the neocons are the victim of the democrats' propaganda machine, pass me some of what you're drinking, because I'd love to live in a world so disconnected from reality myself.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

the democratic party does have a plan. it just doesnt relate to the citizens of the USA. it relates only to thier party vs the other party. they attack and attack the people of the republican party rather than pushing for better things in congress and senate and letting the people choose them. thats is why i have tended toward the repub party as of late. at least they are trying. noth parties are like little retarded kids in school, but one is at least trying. republicans are the ones working at Mcdonalds while democrats are the ones that just stay home and read the phone book. they really havent a big moment other than john kerry calling manny ramirez "manuel ortiz" on TV during a game just after he said he was the biggest sox fan in mass. oh yeah, and having howard dean yell a lot.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=thesightless]the democratic party does have a plan. it just doesnt relate to the citizens of the USA. it relates only to thier party vs the other party. they attack and attack the people of the republican party rather than pushing for better things in congress and senate and letting the people choose them. thats is why i have tended toward the repub party as of late. at least they are trying. noth parties are like little retarded kids in school, but one is at least trying. republicans are the ones working at Mcdonalds while democrats are the ones that just stay home and read the phone book. they really havent a big moment other than john kerry calling manny ramirez "manuel ortiz" on TV during a game just after he said he was the biggest sox fan in mass. oh yeah, and having howard dean yell a lot.[/quote]

One of the problems facing the dems is that they are so weak right now that if they even try, their attempts get turned around against them. As the social security battle heats up in the Congress, we are going to hear the following refrains from the republicans: (1) the need for bipartisanship and (2) the democrats refuse to participate in the process. Now, the Rob's among us will say this is a function of the democrats' innate nature as obstructionist jackasses. The reality is that in order to protect their position, the dems have to NOT participate. If the dems participated in "bipartisan" social security reform legislation, they would be excluded from the conference committee on the legislation and would end up in a position of voting for or against a bill that reflects all of the legislative items that are antithetical to their agenda. If they vote for the bill, social security is done for. If they vote against the bill, they get hammered politically. Their best bet is to sit it out and not participate. They've participated before and gotten burned bad by procedural maneuvering.

I do agree that the dems have incredibly serious message problems these days. It is baffling to me why they can't get their act together.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

yeah, but they are weak because if what they stand for and where they are going, while some people want to be liberal, the country is a more conservative people. from what i have seen, the people who just want it all without circumstances are the ones who lean to the left. most of america, outside of the coasts are simple people who want to be left alone and not have to deal with gov't. you have to admit, the DPty introduces a lot of legislation for the sake of just doing it, and quite often, doing it to protect a minority of people while stepping on the majority. at least that is how it is played more often than not. and they also comeoff as weak spirited and two faced(clinton lying, kerry BS'ing, Gore and the lawsuits, hilllary doing nothing but ruinning her mouth, barak proud of being a drug abusing criminal, dean just acting silly) these are the faces of the party and people with an iota of morals or, even worse, people llike me who hate them all, see this and dont even want to be proud that these people are our elected officials. again i will take it to hillary, she is so blatently hungry for power, she moved out of a state that hated her and found a hole to fill here in NY b/c it is a liberal state by far and the republican candidate(lazio) was a complete moron.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=toasty][quote=robprunzit]It takes 2 to fight, if this is a fight, it is one or two fighting on the Rep side, against a well orchestrated and planned out strategic ploy to undermine the majority, and the majority party hardly says a word.[/quote]

:shock: Holyfuckingmoses.

I ask you, what about the democratic party is "well orchestrated" or "strategic?" The dems got themselves into this mess by being a disorganized jumble of knuckleheads with no clear plan or message.

I don't like the neocon -- note I didn't say republican -- policies on most everything, but if there's one thing they are great at, it is attack politics; they are extremely adept at controlling their message, and generally keeping the dems on their heels from a political standpoint. I hate the guy, but I've got to give Rove the nod for being an absolutely genius when it comes to politics.

If you really think the neocons are the victim of the democrats' propaganda machine, pass me some of what you're drinking, because I'd love to live in a world so disconnected from reality myself.[/quote]

Well, they are organized. How come when one of the dems says something, it is echoed by at least 3 others the same or next day. There is a constant drumbeat of attack from the left, and it is very well orchestrated. If you cant recognize that, your either blind, or you don't want it to be noticed. MoveOn.org helps in this propaganda machine tactic attack dog drumbeat by even sending out emails listing the 'key' points to bring up in debate. The democratic party actually started that email method of spreading the 'talking points'.

You just simply wrong about this. Sure the RepParty does defend themselves to some degree, but for the most part, they are quite. Ann Colter is not a politician, shes a talking head. That is not the same as the big guys like Kerry, and Kennedy, and so many others who are elected politicians speaking up and all saying the same propaganda. Hannidy, and Ann Colter are answering them, because frankly the Reps are quite. These talk heads are paid to do so, the big head dems are starting the verbal fights in almost every case. Oh, and isn't Carl Rove a democrat? How about Zell Miller?

Your just wrong, which is usually the case, coming from the liberal side. Alot of words, and no facts to back it up.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote="eye-p"][quote=robprunzit][quote=superdave]The approval numbers for both Bush and Congress are and should be low. Neither Bush nor Congress has done anything significant to help Americans unless you're really wealthy.

Most Americans are sick of the partisanship and want to see positive changes happen in Washington and stop the fighting. I really believe the greatest enemy this country faces is itself not Iraq, social security, or terrorism. I wish the Dems and Repubs would work together to solve the problems of America instead of constantly bickering and posturing for power.[/quote]

Excuse me, but without going back and making a list, the Bush admin has done more to help the American than Clinton ever did. Did you not get a tax rebate check. How about the Social Security debate, if that is not for the people, I don't know what is. Dude your just wrong!

On the issue of fighting and partisian politics, you can only blame the dems. If you look at the party who is on a constant attack mode using lie and slander to gain supporters it is clearly the demo party. So much of what they say, is not justified, some are very clear lies. They have the mentality of hurting George Bush not matter what it takes.

As far as fighting goes, if the demo party would stop the slander and drumbeat of attack on Bush and his administration, they would begin to get along. The Rep party hardly fights back really. Bush hardly addresses the issues they bring up to defend himself or his decisions, he just clearly states his reasons and goals. That is truly not a fight. Show me which Rep sided poeple are actually fighting. All the fight is on the left, from the left, in many different forms all saying the same BS, almost to brainwash the masses of ignorant forgetful Americans who lazily only listen to CNN and watch the Locals.

It takes 2 to fight, if this is a fight, it is one or two fighting on the Rep side, against a well orchestrated and planned out strategic ploy to undermine the majority, and the majority party hardly says a word. That is not a fight my friend.

Stop the left and the slander, and you will stop the fight.[/quote]

[quote=eye-p]Rob- you are truly a moron.[/quote] Why call me names, because you can't stand to think a little, only bathe in your bubble bath of emotions.

[quote=eye-p]We went from a budget surplus in 2000, to the LARGEST DEFECIT EVER- for the last 3 years in a row. How does your tax cut feel now?[/quote] A budget surplus Clinton took credit for but the Republican pushed first to the floor. Funny how noone remembers that, why, because the president always take the credit or the blame. Clinton took the credit for the force which came from a majority Republican party at that time. Today Bush takes the blame for the weak responces to Terrorism during Clinton's 8 years in office prior. Remember the 'USS COLE', or the World Trade Center -1st bombing, or the US Embassy in Africa? How did Clinton respond to those small scale attacks? With weakness!!! And Bush caught the result of 3 years of planning by Al Qaida. Oh, and not to mention, we are fighting and funding a war on 2 fronts, Iraq and Afghanastan, as well as who knows what in secret ways all around the globe. That cost money, and it will cost alot more, but it has to be done, or we will live in fear on our own soil.

[quote=eye-p]How about the price of gas? The day Clinton left office, oil was $27 a barrel, today oil closed at over $60 a barrel.[/quote]
Its simply ignorant to believe Bush made the Oil Crisis. If it were up to Bush we would explore more for oil on our own land, where it would ours to use, but the Dems only lie about the landscape of Alaska to make it seem like this frozen tundra would somehow be damaged. Don't complain about Bush on that one. Also, think about how much Oil is used today in all the world, say China for example, a country where almost noone drove 30 years ago, now millions are buying and driving in that country alone. And we drive monster Hummers and Yukons, which drink gas like water. Point is... Oil is used more today. Where have you been?

[quote=eye-p]How about health care? Bush has done real well on healthcare.(not)[/quote] You can thank Lawyers, and every stupid American who sues for every reason under the sun, whether right or wrong. Burn you crotch with hot coffee, and sue McDonalds for a million ... AND WIN!?!!!

[quote=eye-p]How about social security? Well, since Bush himself admits that privatization will not help SSI, how is his plan good? Remember, the program will pay full benefits until 2041 as it sits now.[/quote]
Now you prove my point. You liberal simply LIE. Prove what you have stated here. Show a source that Bush ever said 'privatization will not help SSI', or are you only trying to pull a little play on words to sneak a misconception passed the nonthinking readers. Bush has not backed down at all on what he has said about privatilization, and number crunchers have proven that if you only took 2 percent of what you put into SS, and invested it at 8%, and forgot about the rest of SS, you would have several million in the bank at retirement. You need to study this one a bit more, and get out of the AARP's back pocket.

[quote=eye-p]How about how well Bush has protected us? He hasnt. 9/11 happened on HIS WATCH. Period! Not the day he took over, 9 months into his term, 1 month after he recieved a memo that was titled; "Bin Laden determined to attack in US". That same memo contained the phrase, "planes could be used as weapons". It in the 9/11 commission report, have a look.[/quote]
Well, read what I said above. This is just simple minded ignorance.

[quote=eye-p]How about those WMD's? How about that $300,000,000,000 price tag for the Iraq war? That was a smart move right?[/quote] Good job, I know Bush was a liar. Right?

And I guess, France as well as the rest of the world including the UN were Liars too.

As far as WMD's go. Saddam had them, he never showed where they went or that they were destroyed. So where are they? How come just because we couldn't put our hands on them, that means they were not moved to Syria for example, or Iran, or just buried in the sand, or an underground bunker, like one the found a couple weeks ago. Stupid logic. Kind of like, since my mom never actually caught me smokin pot, it means I never did it. :roll:

[quote=eye-p]As for the dems screwing everything up- since the republicans control the House, Senate, and White House, as well as having 5 of 9 on the Supreme Court, exactly what should the dems do? Exactly what legislation could they get passed being a minority in every branch of government?

Turn off Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, and join the reality based community.[/quote]

Well, the courts passing the bill where any private developer can convince city officials to take my land to build a shopping mall so more tax revenue can be collected is the biggest 'eye opener' we have seen yet come from the left. We are moving in the wrong direction under the guide of liberals. Its just too bad some of you want think for a minute, get your head out of the sand, stop bathing in your bubble baths of emotions, and realize that our future relys on good decisions based on pure thought, not emotional responces.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=eye-p]We went from a budget surplus in 2000, to the LARGEST DEFECIT EVER- for the last 3 years in a row. How does your tax cut feel now?[/quote] A budget surplus Clinton took credit for but the Republican pushed first to the floor. Funny how noone remembers that, why, because the president always take the credit or the blame. Clinton took the credit for the force which came from a majority Republican party at that time. Today Bush takes the blame for the weak responces to Terrorism during Clinton's 8 years in office prior. Remember the 'USS COLE', or the World Trade Center -1st bombing, or the US Embassy in Africa? How did Clinton respond to those small scale attacks? With weakness!!! And Bush caught the result of 3 years of planning by Al Qaida. Oh, and not to mention, we are fighting and funding a war on 2 fronts, Iraq and Afghanastan, as well as who knows what in secret ways all around the globe. That cost money, and it will cost alot more, but it has to be done, or we will live in fear on our own soil.

[quote=eye-p]How about the price of gas? The day Clinton left office, oil was $27 a barrel, today oil closed at over $60 a barrel.[/quote]
Its simply ignorant to believe Bush made the Oil Crisis. If it were up to Bush we would explore more for oil on our own land, where it would ours to use, but the Dems only lie about the landscape of Alaska to make it seem like this frozen tundra would somehow be damaged. Don't complain about Bush on that one. Also, think about how much Oil is used today in all the world, say China for example, a country where almost noone drove 30 years ago, now millions are buying and driving in that country alone. And we drive monster Hummers and Yukons, which drink gas like water. Point is... Oil is used more today. Where have you been?

[quote=eye-p]How about health care? Bush has done real well on healthcare.(not)[/quote] You can thank Lawyers, and every stupid American who sues for every reason under the sun, whether right or wrong. Burn you crotch with hot coffee, and sue McDonalds for a million ... AND WIN!?!!!

[quote=eye-p]How about social security? Well, since Bush himself admits that privatization will not help SSI, how is his plan good? Remember, the program will pay full benefits until 2041 as it sits now.[/quote]
Now you prove my point. You liberal simply LIE. Prove what you have stated here. Show a source that Bush ever said 'privatization will not help SSI', or are you only trying to pull a little play on words to sneak a misconception passed the nonthinking readers. Bush has not backed down at all on what he has said about privatilization, and number crunchers have proven that if you only took 2 percent of what you put into SS, and invested it at 8%, and forgot about the rest of SS, you would have several million in the bank at retirement. You need to study this one a bit more, and get out of the AARP's back pocket.

[quote=eye-p]How about how well Bush has protected us? He hasnt. 9/11 happened on HIS WATCH. Period! Not the day he took over, 9 months into his term, 1 month after he recieved a memo that was titled; "Bin Laden determined to attack in US". That same memo contained the phrase, "planes could be used as weapons". It in the 9/11 commission report, have a look.[/quote]
Well, read what I said above. This is just simple minded ignorance.

[quote=eye-p]How about those WMD's? How about that $300,000,000,000 price tag for the Iraq war? That was a smart move right?[/quote] Good job, I know Bush was a liar. Right?

And I guess, France as well as the rest of the world including the UN were Liars too.

As far as WMD's go. Saddam had them, he never showed where they went or that they were destroyed. So where are they? How come just because we couldn't put our hands on them, that means they were not moved to Syria for example, or Iran, or just buried in the sand, or an underground bunker, like one the found a couple weeks ago. Stupid logic. Kind of like, since my mom never actually caught me smokin pot, it means I never did it. :roll:

[quote=eye-p]As for the dems screwing everything up- since the republicans control the House, Senate, and White House, as well as having 5 of 9 on the Supreme Court, exactly what should the dems do? Exactly what legislation could they get passed being a minority in every branch of government?

Turn off Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, and join the reality based community.[/quote]

Well, the courts passing the bill where any private developer can convince city officials to take my land to build a shopping mall so more tax revenue can be collected is the biggest 'eye opener' we have seen yet come from the left. We are moving in the wrong direction under the guide of liberals. Its just too bad some of you want think for a minute, get your head out of the sand, stop bathing in your bubble baths of emotions, and realize that our future relys on good decisions based on pure thought, not emotional responces.[/quote]

Rob, you are delusional. This will be the last time I respond to any of your political posts because clearly you are a wingnut.

Here we go.

1. You just blamed Clinton for not doing anything about the first trade center bombing, the Cole, and the Embassy bambings. Well the 1st Trade Center bombing happened within 30 days of Clinton's inauguration, so how did Bush Sr. let those people operate and plan that bombing? And what happened to those who did it? We captured everyone involved. They are all serving life sentences.

We retaliated for the Cole, and the Embassy bombings with a heavy bombing campaign which Newt Gingrich called "Wag The Dog". Hannity and Ann Coulter claimed that he was trying to deflect attention away from Monica. Where is Bin Laden exactly?

2. The budget- $285 billion of the $475 billion defecit last year was the Bush tax cut. Oh BTW, Republicans control congress, the house, the white house, and the SCOTUS. Thats right, 6 of the 9 justices are republicans.

3. I wont bother to look up the SSI info. This is common knowledge. It doesnt work. Your assumed growth rate is dependant on exceptional market growth. If the market grows at a fast enough pace for your 8% return, there will be NO NEED to fix SSI in the first place. This is a dead horse.

4. WMD's. So your theory is that if we cant find them, its proof he hid them? Are you this stupid?

Lastly, if you think that liberals control the media, how do you explain all the republicans with their own shows?

Wolf Blitzer Tim Russert Bob Scheifer Lou Dobbs Judy Woodruff Paula Zahn Tucker Carlson Joe Scarborough Hannity O'Leilly Brit Hume Dennis Miller Kudlow

This is just off the top of my head.

Rob- you have been brainwashed. Have you read 1984?

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

OK, here is some SSI stuff:

Topic: Social Security

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 4/16/2001

Quote/Claim: "Members of Congress could take some lessons from Chile, particularly when it comes to how to run our pension plans. [Source: White House Web site] "

Fact: "Chile's Retirees Find Shortfall in Private Plan. - NY Times Headline, 1/27/05"

Reference Reference

Topic: Social Security

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 2/8/2005

Quote/Claim: "A personal account would be your account, you would own it, and the government could never take it away.? [Source: White House Web site]"

Fact: "Bush?s Social Security plan is a far cry from the private ownership he?s touting, however. For example, instead of private plans that let Americans control their own investments, there are tight restrictions on which conservative stocks and bonds the public will be allowed to buy. And, as the New York Times reports, the more restrictions there are, the harder it would be for people to achieve the outsized returns the administration has generally promoted to sell the public on private accounts.? - NY Times, 2/6/05"

Reference Reference

Topic: Social Security

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 2/8/2005

Quote/Claim: "Best of all, the [private] accounts would be replacing the empty promises of government with the real assets of ownership.? [White House Web site] "

Fact: "Social Security trust funds hold nothing but U.S. Treasury securities,? recognized as the safest, most reliable investment worldwide.? - Century Foundation, 1/26/05"

Reference Reference

Topic: Social Security

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 2/4/2005

Quote/Claim: "I think it?s important for people to be open about the truth when it comes to Social Security.? [Source: White House Web site] "

Fact: "The Wall Street Journal reports the White House is quietly assembling a coalition of deep-pocketed allies that will privately raise $35 million for an advertising and lobbying effort to push the politically risky measure through Congress.? - WSJ, 2/4/05

The Bush administration has lobbied hard for privatization while being notably closemouthed about the details. - Washington Post, 2/6/05 "

Reference Reference Reference

Topic: Social Security

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 2/4/2005

Quote/Claim: "The role of a President is to confront problems ? not to pass them on to a future President, future Congress, or a future generation.? [Source: White House Web site] "

Fact: "Dick Cheney admits trillions of dollars in future borrowing will be necessary to cover the cost of establishing private accounts. This deficit would have to be repaid by today?s younger workers. - NY Times, 2/6/05 "

Reference Reference

Topic: Social Security

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 2/2/2005

Quote/Claim: "Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century.? [Source: White House Web site]"

Fact: "Conservatives have been trying to gut Social Security since its inception. Both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan endorsed privatization in 1964. In 1983, the Cato Institute laid out a privatization plan similar to President Bush?s, stating, We will meet the next financial crisis in Social Security with a private alternative ready in the wings.? - Miami Herald, 2/7/05"

Reference Reference

Topic: Social Security

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 2/2/2005

Quote/Claim: "By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt.? [Source: White House Web site] "

Fact: "In 2042, enough new money will be coming in to pay between 73-80 percent of promised benefits. Even with this reduction, new retirees will still receive more money, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than today?s beneficiaries. - WP, 2/5/05"

Reference Reference

Topic: Social Security

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 2/2/2005

Quote/Claim: "As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts.? [Source: White House Web site] "

Fact: "Analysis of the plan so far does not prove the accounts would be a better deal for anyone not working on Wall Street. Workers who opt for the private accounts would recover forfeited benefits through their accounts only if their investments realized a return equal to or greater than the 3 percent earned by Treasury bonds currently held by the Social Security system.? But CBO factors out stock market risks to assume a 3.3 percent rate of return. With 0.3 percent subtracted for expected administrative costs on the account, the full amount in a worker?s account would be reduced dollar for dollar from his Social Security checks, for a net gain of zero.? - Washington Post, 2/4/05"

Reference Reference

Topic: Social Security

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 2/2/2005

Quote/Claim: "You?ll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren.? [Source: White House Web site] "

Fact: "Most lower-income workers will be required to purchase government lifetime annuities, financial instruments that provide a guaranteed monthly payment for life but that expire at death. Money in these annuities cannot be passed on to heirs. - NY Times, 2/3/05"

Reference Reference

Topic: Social Security

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 2/2/2005

Quote/Claim: "We must pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security once and for all.? [Source: White House Web site]"

Fact: "A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity [said] that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system?s long-term financial problems.? The long-term gap in revenue would have to be closed through benefit cuts that have yet to be detailed.? - LA Times, 2/3/05; Washington Post, 2/5/05"

Reference Reference Reference

Topic: Social Security

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 12/11/2004

Quote/Claim: "In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes.? [Source: White House Web site]"

Fact: "In 14 of the past 47 years, including 1975 to 1983, Social Security paid out more in benefits than the government collected in payroll.? - MSNBC, 1/14/05

Under Bush?s plan, expenditures will begin to exceed revenues even earlier, in 2012. - NY Times, 2/4/05"

Reference Reference Reference

Topic: Social Security

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 1/27/2005

Quote/Claim: "Under the current system, today?s 30-year old worker will face a 27% benefit cut when he or she reaches normal retirement age.? [Source: GOP Guide to Social Security Reform]"

Fact: "According to the Congressional Budget Office, younger workers would receive better benefits from Social Security as it exists now, even if nothing changes, than from President Bush?s private accounts plan. - EPI, 2/05"

Reference Reference

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

hey eye, just to be fair, if you looked hard enoiugh you would find facts to support what you went against. they are all out there. some peoeple use some figures to shoot down the GOP, and others use other figures to support him. be fair, dont be mr. moore. examine it all.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

My god so much drivel to sort through where to start? I like to keep informed but almost hate to get involved in politics because it becomes so consuming. I?m only going to go into a few things as I?ve actually got other things to do today.

[quote=robprunizit]You can thank Lawyers, and every stupid American who sues for every reason under the sun, whether right or wrong. Burn you crotch with hot coffee, and sue McDonalds for a million ... AND WIN!?!!! [/quote]

I?m going to steal this one from someone else (but everything here applies): [quote] Okay, have you even seen the whole case of the hot-coffee lawsuit? Or checked the facts [lawandhelp.com]?

That was an old woman, and the coffee was spilled down her lap and other surrounding areas causing third degree burns on that required skin grafts and a hospital stay for seven-days.

She had approached them first for medical compensation and was refused, at which point she sued them. And incidentally, a judge later lowered the awarding amount to merely $480,000, which the media never publicized.

And btw, McDonalds serves their coffee at 185 degrees, a good 20 degrees more than other restaurants - there have been cases of folks with first degree burns because of that.

At the temperature that McDonalds serves their coffee, it just takes about five seconds for first degree burns to occur - which would require skin grafting.

Next time you shoot off your mouth without knowing the facts, you might want to look at the reasons why some lawsuits may have been won. I hate frivolous lawsuits too, but that doesn't mean I walk around talking nonsense.[/quote]

I?ll steal this from another site to make my life easier: [quote] According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), costs from malpractice lawsuits represent less than 2%[3] of the nation's total health care spending, and the tort reform legislation pushed by President Bush would reduce health insurance premiums by less than one-half of one percent.[4] While President Bush has claimed that lawsuits cause "docs to practice medicine in an expensive way[5] in order to protect themselves in the courthouse," a study by the Harvard University School of Public Health "did not find a strong relationship between the threat of litigation and medical costs." Additionally, a study in the Journal of Health Economics[6] compared medical costs in states with limits on lawsuits to states without limits and found only tiny savings - less than three-tenths of one percent. In all, CBO reported "no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts."[7] [/quote] [url]http://www.ppipes.org/?q=node/view/1301[/url]

[quote=robprunizit]Bush has not backed down at all on what he has said about privatilization, and number crunchers have proven that if you only took 2 percent of what you put into SS, and invested it at 8%, and forgot about the rest of SS, you would have several million in the bank at retirement. You need to study this one a bit more, and get out of the AARP's back pocket.[/quote]

That?s complete BS. Here?s a link to a now retired MIT grad who did the math and determined had he invested privately and got market returns he would have about 5 grand less than with SS. [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html[/url]

I?ve been investing since I was 19, putting more into my 401k than what SSI takes out and also have my company matching 75% of up to 8% of my gross income (which I take full advantage of). My annual return has been at the lowest is 17% my highest at 60%. Even with what I?ve been putting away if I project out 8% gains from here on out I end up with ~ 2 mill at 60, adjust for inflation and that equates to about 800k real money. Your math is seriously askew.

[quote=robprunizit]Well, read what I said above. This is just simple minded ignorance.[/quote] Only in the literal sense: [quote]Early 2001: Clinton and Bush staff overlap for several months while new Bush appointees are appointed and confirmed. Clinton holdovers seem more concerned about al-Qaeda than the new Bush staffers. For instance, according to a colleague, Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, had become ?totally preoccupied? with fears of a domestic terror attack. [Newsweek, 5/27/02] Brian Sheridan, Clinton's outgoing Deputy Defense Secretary for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, is astonished when his offers during the transition to bring the new military leadership up to speed on terrorism are brushed aside. ?I offered to brief anyone, any time on any topic. Never took it up.? [Los Angeles Times, 3/30/04] Army Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick, Deputy National Security Adviser and manager of Clinton's NSC (National Security Council) staff, still remains at the NSC nearly four months after Bush takes office. He later notes that while Clinton's advisers met ?nearly weekly? on terrorism by the end of his term, he does not detect the same kind of focus with the new Bush advisers: ?That's not being derogatory. It's just a fact. I didn't detect any activity but what [Clinton holdover Richard] Clarke and the CSG [Counterterrorism and Security Group] were doing.? [Washington Post, 1/20/02] Kerrick submits a memo to the new people at the NSC, warning, ?We are going to be struck again.? He says, ?They never responded. It was not high on their priority list. I was never invited to one meeting. They never asked me to do anything. They were not focusing. They didn't see terrorism as the big megaissue that the Clinton administration saw it as.? Kerrick adds, ?They were gambling nothing would happen.? [Los Angeles Times, 3/30/04] Bush's first Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Henry Shelton, later says terrorism was relegated ?to the back burner? until 9/11. [Washington Post, 10/2/02][/quote] [url]http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=300[/url]

[quote=robprunizit]As far as WMD's go. Saddam had them, he never showed where they went or that they were destroyed. So where are they? How come just because we couldn't put our hands on them, that means they were not moved to Syria for example, or Iran, or just buried in the sand, or an underground bunker, like one the found a couple weeks ago. Stupid logic. Kind of like, since my mom never actually caught me smokin pot, it means I never did it.[/quote]

Typically though, if someone makes a claim the liability is on them to prove it, not the other way around, i.e., if I say I?m physic its not believed by default that I am, leaving others to disprove it. Bush and co. made that claim, but no one has backed it up.

[quote=robprunizit]Remember the 'USS COLE', or the World Trade Center -1st bombing, or the US Embassy in Africa? How did Clinton respond to those small scale attacks? With weakness!!![/quote]

Almost forgot this one: [quote]January 27, 2001: Al-Qaeda's Role in USS Cole Bombing Triggers No Immediate Response

The Washington Post reports that the US has confirmed the link between al-Qaeda and the October 2000 USS Cole bombing. [Washington Post, 1/27/01] This conclusion is stated without hedge in a February 9 briefing for Vice President Cheney. [Washington Post, 1/20/02] In the wake of that bombing, Bush stated on the campaign trail, ?I hope that we can gather enough intelligence to figure out who did the act and take the necessary action. ... There must be a consequence.? [Washington Post, 1/20/02] Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz later complains that by the time the new administration is in place, the Cole bombing was ?stale.? Defense Secretary Rumsfeld concurs, stating that too much time had passed to respond. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (B)] The new Bush administration fails to resume the covert deployment of cruise missile submarines and gunships on six-hour alert near Afghanistan's borders that had begun under President Clinton. The standby force gave Clinton the option of an immediate strike against targets in Afghanistan harboring al-Qaeda's top leadership. This failure makes a possible assassination of bin Laden much more difficult. [Washington Post, 1/20/02] [/quote] [url]http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=300[/url]

And more importantly: [quote]Within days of the US African embassy bombings, the US permanently stations two submarines, reportedly in the Indian Ocean, ready to hit al-Qaeda with cruise missiles on short notice. Missiles are fired from these subs later in the month in a failed attempt to assassinate bin Laden. Six to ten hours' advance warning is now needed to review the decision, program the cruise missiles, and have them reach their target. However, in every rare opportunity when the possibility of attacking bin Laden occurs, CIA Director Tenet says the information is not reliable enough and the attack cannot go forward. [Washington Post, 12/19/01; New York Times, 12/30/01] At some point in 2000, the submarines are withdrawn, apparently because the Navy wants to use them for other purposes. Therefore, when the unmanned Predator spy plane flies over Afghanistan in late 2000 and identifies bin Laden, there is no way to capitalize on that opportunity. [Clarke, 2004, pp 220-21] The Bush administration fails to resume the submarine patrol. Lacking any means to attack bin Laden, military plans to strike at him are no longer updated after March 2001. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (B)][/quote] [url]http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=100[/url]

The only people who seemed not to be taking action were Bush and co.

Note Articles linked to [url]http://www.cooperativeresearch.org[/url] also have the cited articles cached at the site.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote]You can thank Lawyers, and every stupid American who sues for every reason under the sun, whether right or wrong. Burn you crotch with hot coffee, and sue McDonalds for a million ... AND WIN!?!!![/quote]

Straight from Fox News to your ears to your keyboard. Sorry Rob, but lawyers ain't the problem. And you clearly know nothing about the McDonald's coffee case...perhaps you should read a little more about it. Perhaps you would feel differently if your wife suffered third degree burns on her genitals from coffee that was heated beyond the point of safety so that the smell would permeate the store and induce more people to buy coffee.

Anyway, recent studies have shown that verdicts in medical malpractice actions have not been driving the rise in health care. Part of my practice is defending doctors in medical malpractice actions and, from experience in my state, I can tell you that verdicts in medical malpractice actions have no correlation to the steady increase in the cost of healthcare in my state. We have been seeing far more defense verdicts than plaintiffs verdicts these days and yet health costs continue to increase. Sorry, but in this instance lawyers ain't the problem...even though the republicans have worked mightily to convince you otherwise.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=pacific493][quote]You can thank Lawyers, and every stupid American who sues for every reason under the sun, whether right or wrong. Burn you crotch with hot coffee, and sue McDonalds for a million ... AND WIN!?!!![/quote]

Straight from Fox News to your ears to your keyboard. Sorry Rob, but lawyers ain't the problem. And you clearly know nothing about the McDonald's coffee case...perhaps you should read a little more about it. Perhaps you would feel differently if your wife suffered third degree burns on her genitals from coffee that was heated beyond the point of safety so that the smell would permeate the store and induce more people to buy coffee.

Anyway, recent studies have shown that verdicts in medical malpractice actions have not been driving the rise in health care. Part of my practice is defending doctors in medical malpractice actions and, from experience in my state, I can tell you that verdicts in medical malpractice actions have no correlation to the steady increase in the cost of healthcare in my state. We have been seeing far more defense verdicts than plaintiffs verdicts these days and yet health costs continue to increase. Sorry, but in this instance lawyers ain't the problem...even though the republicans have worked mightily to convince you otherwise.[/quote]

The point is she wasn't willing to take responsibility for putting hot coffee next to her crouch in the car. Always someone elses fault for stupidity.

And my coffee always brews past the point of boiling at home. That the way its made ... hot. So at Starbucks, I put 3 ice cubes in it with milk and its perfect for me.

It was her fault, not McDonalds.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=neoee]My god so much drivel to sort through where to start? I like to keep informed but almost hate to get involved in politics because it becomes so consuming. I?m only going to go into a few things as I?ve actually got other things to do today.[/quote]

I can appreciate that and the time you put in, and others to respond to my 'drivel'. Sadly, I hardly have the time to respond to all here or all of you. But, I really do appreciate your time to respond to what I have posted.

First, as far as McDonalds and coffee go, its a responsibility issue for me. I'm personally sickened by the lessons being taught today to blame someone else first for our mistakes. The lady may be old, who cares, she was stupid. It was really her fault for putting the coffee between her legs and driving away. Everyone with half a brain should know coffee is hot, and its possible to spill it driving.

Second, on the SS and privatization. It just doesn't add up. You can run the #'s in many ways, and I'm sure someone can find a way to make you lose, but excuse me, but stock market returns just don't add up to lose in the long run. Most young people today agree.

The govt only wants to keep it so they can use it for their own spending, and its going to run out. Soon enough, 2 to 1 will not pay for you and me when we are old enough to draw on it. And it wasn't meant to be an investment anyway, and never intended to be kept as long as it has now. We could do better with our money, thats all I'm saying.

And good that your invested since 19, you will do well, but not because of the SS. My numbers are not askew, your changing the subject.

Third, all your quotes from the Wash Post and Newsweek. I simply don't believe half of what they write. Sorry, I don' follow that garbage and the slant they write.

[quote=neoee][quote=robprunizit]As far as WMD's go. Saddam had them, he never showed where they went or that they were destroyed. So where are they? How come just because we couldn't put our hands on them, that means they were not moved to Syria for example, or Iran, or just buried in the sand, or an underground bunker, like one the found a couple weeks ago. Stupid logic. Kind of like, since my mom never actually caught me smokin pot, it means I never did it.[/quote]

Typically though, if someone makes a claim the liability is on them to prove it, not the other way around, i.e., if I say I?m physic its not believed by default that I am, leaving others to disprove it. Bush and co. made that claim, but no one has backed it up.[/quote]

Forth, I had to follow this one up because its so far off base.

I suppose you have forgotten that Saddam himself said he had them, he used them to kill 300,000 kurds, and the whole world community including the UN said he had them. Where is your thinking? If this is an example of how you come up with all the 'facts' you post here, I don't even want to waste my time. Clear example of re-writting history to change facts to make a false story and manipulate peoples thought process. Typical left-sided trickery, and you all do this all the time. So I personally struggle to take time away from spending time with my children to respond to this garbage.

[quote=robprunizit]Remember the 'USS COLE', or the World Trade Center -1st bombing, or the US Embassy in Africa? How did Clinton respond to those small scale attacks? With weakness!!![/quote]

[quote=neoee][9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (B)] [url]http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=100[/url]

The only people who seemed not to be taking action were Bush and co.

Note Articles linked to [url]http://www.cooperativeresearch.org[/url] also have the cited articles cached at the site.[/quote]

Thats just plain ridiculous. Clinton cut the military so much that it could hardly respond to any major action needed. Bush stepped into a mess and had to deal with it quickly. Again, re-writting history to change the facts, and misguide the public for the sake of protecting your god, the liberal side of our political structure.

The 9/11 report was so afraid to lay blame that it is almost worthless, but is good to have anyhow.

As far as the rest of what you have here, I simply cant read it all now. At 10pm after working a 12 hour day and not seeing my kids, I really cant spend all night here too.

So you guys who want to blame me for not responding to everything you have all posted, sorry, I only have so much time. So kiss my butt, and thanks for the post. The debates are fun, whether anyones mind is changed or not.

I just wish people would think in a larger scale about issues, and not respond to emotional issues without thinking first and researching from both sides for a fully balance view. To many liberal have come over to a more middle of the road view and some to a more right of center view for a reason. But the educators, media, over zealous politicians, and liberal deadhead bluehairs want to make us a 'socialized' country.

Socialism is not the way for me. We are headed in that direction even though much of the country is red. Thats scary for our future in my opinion, if we want to stay an economic powerhouse and lead this world in the ways that we have in the past 150 years. In ways like hitting meteors 80 million miles away with a copper projectile. We are incredible because of our democracy, not the democratic or republican party. We are bound to lose that edge over the world if we don't wake up and see what is happening here. :cry:

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=eye-p]Lastly, if you think that liberals control the media, how do you explain all the republicans with their own shows?

Wolf Blitzer Tim Russert Bob Scheifer Lou Dobbs Judy Woodruff Paula Zahn Tucker Carlson Joe Scarborough Hannity O'Leilly Brit Hume Dennis Miller Kudlow

This is just off the top of my head.

Rob- you have been brainwashed. Have you read 1984?[/quote]

Well, as I've said I appreciate your time here, and I cant spend much more time here. So I will only waste more time on the above to further prove my points mentioned so many times before.

You did good to come up 13 names. Thats great. But where are all the Republican Politicians? You just don't hear much from them. They really are not the attack dogs like the left, and they can't even defend themselves or their side well. I am ashamed and frustrated by that fact.

But think about those 13 names. I could add another 13 probably, so that would make 26, give or take.

Now compare that with, ...

1. all the democratic politicians everyday saying something.
2. all the newspapers across the country, most of which have a slant. Whether or not you want to admit it.
3. all the local news outlets, city to city, state to state, across the nation, most of which have a leftish slant. Whether or not you want to admit it.
4. NPR, the govt funded and nationally recognized radio outlet. Again, left sided. Whether or not you want to admit it.
5. CNN. Broadcasted worldwide. I don't have to say it, ... do I?
6. Al Jazira, forgive my spelling. You ever heard anything pro-american come out of that one. Fuel on the fire, and left sided.
7. Socialist govts like Germany, France, now Spain, etc, etc. But funny how the post Communist countrys are on the Free Iraq and Pro American side.

Thank you for your list of 13. There are so many against the truly LOUD voices of the world wide media today. Glad you could give them credit for their jobs well done. :)

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=robprunzit][quote=pacific493][quote]You can thank Lawyers, and every stupid American who sues for every reason under the sun, whether right or wrong. Burn you crotch with hot coffee, and sue McDonalds for a million ... AND WIN!?!!![/quote]

Straight from Fox News to your ears to your keyboard. Sorry Rob, but lawyers ain't the problem. And you clearly know nothing about the McDonald's coffee case...perhaps you should read a little more about it. Perhaps you would feel differently if your wife suffered third degree burns on her genitals from coffee that was heated beyond the point of safety so that the smell would permeate the store and induce more people to buy coffee.

Anyway, recent studies have shown that verdicts in medical malpractice actions have not been driving the rise in health care. Part of my practice is defending doctors in medical malpractice actions and, from experience in my state, I can tell you that verdicts in medical malpractice actions have no correlation to the steady increase in the cost of healthcare in my state. We have been seeing far more defense verdicts than plaintiffs verdicts these days and yet health costs continue to increase. Sorry, but in this instance lawyers ain't the problem...even though the republicans have worked mightily to convince you otherwise.[/quote]

The point is she wasn't willing to take responsibility for putting hot coffee next to her crouch in the car. Always someone elses fault for stupidity.

And my coffee always brews past the point of boiling at home. That the way its made ... hot. So at Starbucks, I put 3 ice cubes in it with milk and its perfect for me.

It was her fault, not McDonalds.[/quote]

I see, so responsibility always falls on the shoulders of the injured party and not the corporate party that contributed to the injury??? If the coffee had not been heated beyond the point of safety, she would not have suffered third degree burns on her genitals.

You do realize that at the start of that case her lawyers contacted McDonalds and offered to settle for her medical expenses which were around $20,000. McDonalds said no and the case ensued.

Even if she bears some amount of responsibility for the accident (a premise which I can accept), McDonalds is not without liability.

Have you read any of the articles about that case or are you continuing to bury your head in the sand like you do with everything else?

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote]The lady may be old, who cares, she was stupid. It was really her fault for putting the coffee between her legs and driving away. [/quote]

That's a myth...she wasn't driving.

[quote]Second, on the SS and privatization. It just doesn't add up. You can run the #'s in many ways, and I'm sure someone can find a way to make you lose, but excuse me, but stock market returns just don't add up to lose in the long run. Most young people today agree.
[/quote]

But you're not looking at the whole picture. Social security is a money in-money out system where money going in today is used to pay the money going out today. After the reform in the 1980s, the surplus money was put into the "trust fund" to fund the inevitable shortfall in money coming in when the boomers retired. Now, if we follow Bush's plan and start to take some of that money coming in and divert it to private accounts, that money will not be available to go out today...when the boomers hit, there will be an increased shortfall because Bush has said that the system will not change for them. So you have the same amount of money going in, the same amount of guaranteed benefits, but less money to go out. That's the fundamental problem I have that no one has explained. There will be a period of time when there will be massive shortfalls...that's not a recipe for solvency.

Also, do you know how the "private accounts" work? They are sold in a way that makes it seem like you and I will get a private bank account that we can do what we want with when the time comes, but it is not so simple. We will continue to get a defined SS benefit and the private account will be used to top that benefit off. I've read about the proposed structure and it's just plain stupid. If it were really structured as a private account whereby you and I would be guaranteed to receive a bank account with X amount of dollars in it when we retire, I would be more on-board with that.

Rob, one other problem with Bush's plan is that he argues that SS will go bust based on pessimistic economic projections, but that private accounts will "save" SS based on optimistic economic projections. You can't have it both ways.

[quote]We could do better with our money, thats all I'm saying.
[/quote]

Problem is, you will not have the option to do anything with your own money. The government will still control it and will only give you a few options of how you can invest it...and those options will be conservative.

[quote]Third, all your quotes from the Wash Post and Newsweek. I simply don't believe half of what they write.[/quote]

Even if you only believe half, that half is enough to show that Bush's SS plan is not all it's cracked up to be.

[quote]I suppose you have forgotten that Saddam himself said he had them, he used them to kill 300,000 kurds, and the whole world community including the UN said he had them.[/quote]

He actually killed around 5000 and that was in 1988. I think the point is whether he had them in the lead up to war.

[quote]Clear example of re-writting history to change facts to make a false story and manipulate peoples thought process.[/quote]

You're doing a bit of the same. Whether Saddam had chem weaps in the 1980s really has no bearing on whether we should go to war in 2003.

[quote]Thats just plain ridiculous. Clinton cut the military so much that it could hardly respond to any major action needed. Bush stepped into a mess and had to deal with it quickly. Again, re-writting history to change the facts, and misguide the public for the sake of protecting your god, the liberal side of our political structure. [/quote]

Typical conservative BS...Clinton: all bad; Bush: all good. Both bear blame Rob and you lack credibility because you fail to recognize that neither is the angel or devil that the other side tries to portray them as.

[quote]So you guys who want to blame me for not responding to everything you have all posted, sorry, I only have so much time. [/quote]

Your decisions on what to respond to are very telling.

[quote]I just wish people would think in a larger scale about issues, and not respond to emotional issues without thinking first and researching from both sides for a fully balance view. [/quote]

You're joking right??? Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote that?

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=pacific493] Even if she bears some amount of responsibility for the accident (a premise which I can accept), McDonalds is not without liability. [/quote]

Indeed, she was found largely responsible -- 80% -- and her recovery was reduced accordingly. That, by the way, happened after the judge reduced the amount of the verdict as disproportionate to the evidence, so she really didn't end up clearing all that much at all. In other words, the system worked as it should have, but that's not particularly sensational or newsworthy, so nobody ever hears about what happened after the jury rendered its verdict.

There's so much about the McDonald's case that never made its way into the public eye. For christ's sake, that coffee was only about 30 degrees from being coffee vapor, and was well over the recommended drinking temperature contained in McDonald's own documents. The end result is actually not all that outrageous at all.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=toasty][quote=pacific493] Even if she bears some amount of responsibility for the accident (a premise which I can accept), McDonalds is not without liability. [/quote]

Indeed, she was found largely responsible -- 80% -- and her recovery was reduced accordingly. That, by the way, happened after the judge reduced the amount of the verdict as disproportionate to the evidence, so she really didn't end up clearing all that much at all. In other words, the system worked as it should have, but that's not particularly sensational or newsworthy, so nobody ever hears about what happened after the jury rendered its verdict.

There's so much about the McDonald's case that never made its way into the public eye. For christ's sake, that coffee was only about 30 degrees from being coffee vapor, and was well over the recommended drinking temperature contained in McDonald's own documents. The end result is actually not all that outrageous at all.[/quote]

I forgot about that little tidbit of the case. Thanks filling that in.

The reason why the McDonalds case gets so much attention is that it makes a great soundbyte for folks like Rob. It just sounds so ridiculous that someone sued over coffee being too hot. When you scrape the surface off of the soundbyte, though, it has a lot more substance.

A similar thing happened with the fast food lawsuits. Everyone raised a huge fuss about how ridiculous those lawsuits were (there was even legislation introduced to exempt fast food makers from liability). What was overlooked was the fact that the suits were thrown out of court at the first available opportunity. So, again, the system worked as it should have.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=robprunzit]

Now compare that with, ...

1. all the democratic politicians everyday saying something.
2. all the newspapers across the country, most of which have a slant. [b]Whether or not you want to admit it.[/b]
3. all the local news outlets, city to city, state to state, across the nation, most of which have a leftish slant. [b]Whether or not you want to admit it.[/b]
4. NPR, the govt funded and nationally recognized radio outlet. Again, left sided. [b]Whether or not you want to admit it.[/b] [/quote]

In a discussion about whether or not the media is liberal, isn't it circular to support that argument by asserting that the media is liberal, "whether we want to admit it or not?" Kinda defeats the purpose of even having the discussion, if we are to presuppose that the media as a whole is liberal, doesn't it?

We've had this discussion a million times before on this board, and I doubt that any minds have been changed, so I'm not going to rehash my thoughts on the fallacy that is the idea of a "liberal media." Clearly, though, an argument that "the media is liberal because, look, whether or not you think it is, the media is liberal" will not carry the day.

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote=robprunzit] Oh, and isn't Carl Rove a democrat? How about Zell Miller? [/quote]

:CrackUp:

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

[quote]But where are all the Republican Politicians? You just don't hear much from them.[/quote]

Rob, what planet do you live on? Republican politicians are all over the news. Turn on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc., rep pols are all over the place.

[quote]They really are not the attack dogs like the left, and they can't even defend themselves or their side well. I am ashamed and frustrated by that fact. [/quote]

Again, what planet are you on? Republicans are far superior in defending their positions and advancing their point of view than democrats/liberals are. They're also a heck of a lot better at attacking dem/lib positions. J.D. Hayworth, J.C. Watts, McCain (although I'm sure you're in the McCain ain't no republican camp), Santorum and any number of other republicans kick the shit out of the lefties on a regular basis.

You may have a point that there are more outlets that slant left, although you use so many generalities, you really are just speculating rather than stating facts, but in terms of quality, the republicans win almost every time. Who do you think is more effective Alan Colmes or Sean Hannity?

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

Since there's been some discussion in this thread about how rising health care costs are all the fault of lawyers, I thought I'd share this recent study that found that insurers are basically gouging doctors and vastly overcharging them relative to the amount actually paid out:

[url]http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/68006B01AFE5741586257038001A0688?OpenDocument[/url]

Highlights:

[quote]Malpractice insurers are inflating rates, study says By Michael Sorkin Of the Post-Dispatch 07/07/2005

A new study by Missouri's former top insurance regulator concludes that insurers are vastly overcharging physicians for malpractice premiums.

Doctors readily agree they are being overcharged. Many blame juries in malpractice cases for causing the cost of insurance to go so high that some physicians have gone out of business.

Jay Angoff blames insurance companies.

His study found that medical malpractice insurers paid out just 30 cents of every dollar that doctors paid in premiums last year.

"That is shockingly low," said Angoff, an attorney who was Missouri insurance commissioner from 1993 to 1998.

Insurers say such studies are worthless because they often don't take into account estimated future claims.

Angoff said his study did take those into account.

He found that insurers paid out just 40 cents of every dollar they expected to pay out in the future.

"That is unconscionably low," Angoff said.

In March, Angoff was examining one insurer's annual statement. He said he found that claims were heading dramatically down at the same time premiums were shooting up.

...

The leading malpractice insurers took in three times as much in premiums last year as they paid out in claims.

Among the insurers that substantially increased premiums was Medical Assurance Inc., with regional offices in Missouri. It increased premiums 89 percent, while claims fell by a third. It paid out 10 cents in claims for each premium dollar collected. A company official did not return calls for comment.

...[/quote]

This adds yet further support to my position that insurance companies are taking advantage of a perceived but nonexistent "malpractice litigation crisis" as justification for gouging doctors on their med malp premiums.

I'd love to see some legislation that made insurers justify their rates. Odd, but predictable, that with all the legislation that has been bandied about for the last few years designed to help keep doctors' premiums low, none of it has placed any restrictions on the insurance industry at all or even breathed the word "insurance."

All smoke and mirrors...