Bush approval lowest ever
The previous item about President Bush finally taking action against high gas prices might have something to do with a CNN poll released yesterday showing him with a 32 percent job approval rating -- his lowest ever. 60 percent said they disapprove of his performance.
Dissatisfaction with their leader appears to parallel Americans' unhappiness over gas prices. More than two-thirds of Americans (69 percent) said recent increases in the cost of gasoline have caused them hardship, with 28 percent saying they have not, and 1 percent saying they have no opinion.
Only two other presidents in the last 50 years have had a 60-percent disapproval rating: Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush.



Comments
Maybe House Manager Hutchinson will ask W to come to Arkansas and campaign for him and Andy. Bush's latest approval rating in Arkansas is 38%, most of which must be in Benton and Sebastian counties. This could give Hutchinson a boost there.
Posted by: Catfish | April 25, 2006 12:14 PM
Even if The Decider's numbers continue to plummet and he starts foaming at the mouth and chewing the carpet, do you think that our Marky-Mark and Miss Blanche would even HESITATE to hand him a blank check to invade Iran? If you do, give yourself a colonoscopy while you're up there.
Posted by: But Maybe Vic Would Vote 'No'...Quietly | April 25, 2006 12:51 PM
Like father, like son.
Posted by: an observer | April 25, 2006 12:54 PM
What's the average IQ of that 32%?
Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2006 01:08 PM
Mrs. Clinton will proably approve an invasion of Iran if she thinks that it will get her elcted to the Presidency.
Posted by: Gary from Little Rock | April 25, 2006 01:16 PM
Well, you're wrong, Gary. She'd do it for a lot less than that.
Posted by: What Do You Get When You Cross A Donkey With An Elephant? | April 25, 2006 01:22 PM
I agree with you. She married Bubba.
Posted by: Gary from Little Rock | April 25, 2006 01:31 PM
Would you rather
a) Have the gas prices follow W's approval rating or,
b) Have W's approval rating follow the gas prices
Posted by: rrizzardi | April 25, 2006 01:45 PM
The Post Turtle
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Texas rancher,
whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor
struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic
got around to former Texas Governor, George W. Bush, and his
elevation to the White House.
The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Bush is a 'post turtle.'"
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a
"post turtle" was.
The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road,
and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top,
that's a post turtle."
The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he
continued to explain . . . "You know he didn't get there by
himself, he doesn't belong there, he doesn't know what to do while
he's up there, and you just want to help the dumb shit get down."
Posted by: mojo | April 25, 2006 02:02 PM
Think about it. If it were not for all the stupid decisions leading to such disasterious consequences for this nation, this president would actually be fun to watch every day. Think of the unintended comedy emitting from his speeches, his gestures, his reasonings. It would be so funny the evening tv news would garnish huge audience ratings as they covered the finger gestures, the hunting episodes, the attack of the pretzels, the bicycle accidents, and so forth. Too bad we don't have the time nor the inclination to laugh at Goober.
Posted by: Cato | April 25, 2006 02:14 PM
Anyone hear the retired generals and John Kerry on "Talk of The Nation" today? It seems there are a couple of warmongering bloggers here who should order a transcript...
Posted by: rosso | April 25, 2006 02:20 PM
I blame it all on the Democrats. If they had offered up something better than Gore and Kerry, we wouldn't have this goober. If you can't run the Texas Baseball Rangers, you can't run the United States of America.
Posted by: Odell Goodrum | April 25, 2006 02:23 PM
I ASK ALL THE LIBERALS WHO WRITE THESE STUPID REMARKS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, ANSWER THIS ONE QUESTION....DIDN'T YOU KEEP THE TAX BREAK MONEY HE GAVE YOU SINCE 2001? COME ON NOW YOU LIBS...YOU KEPT THE MONEY DIDN'T YOU? DID ANY OF YOU SEND THE TAX BREAK MONEY BACK TO THE IRS? OF COURSE NOT...SO SHUT UP AND SET DOWN AND SUPPORT HIM SO HE WILL CONTINUE THE TAX CUTS. ARE YOU IDIOTS HEARING ME?
Posted by: Rick | April 25, 2006 02:38 PM
Warmongers. No, I think we should sit on our collective butts and wait for the inevitable. If we do nothing than nothing will happen to us or, we could 'dialogue' with them. Talk them to death---it's the liberal way.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2006 02:40 PM
"Warmongers. No, I think we should sit on our collective butts and wait for the inevitable. If we do nothing than nothing will happen to us or, we could 'dialogue' with them. Talk them to death---it's the liberal way."
Yeah, because sending soldiers over there to get blown up by roadside bombs and RPGs has accomplished so much.
Posted by: JG | April 25, 2006 02:42 PM
The Republicans are in deep doo doo, as Papa Bush used to say.
As Ark Blog noted, only three presidents in modern history have had 60 percent disapproval ratings.
Moreso, at this point in modern history (late April in the sixth year of a second term president), only Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal had a lower approval rating (26%) than Dubya. Tricky Dick had the same disapproval rating as Dubya (60%)
The others?
Eisenhower (1958), 54% approval, 31% disapproval.
Reagan (1986) 62% approval, 29% disapproval
Clinton (1998) 67% approval, 25% disapproval (so Clinton was 35% points more popular than Dubya at the same point in their respective terms, even though Clinton's fling with Monica Lewinsky had recently been revealed).
In every case but Clinton's, the party of the president went on to lose seats in Congress in the November elections in that year.
In 1958, the Republicans lost 49 House seats and 15 Senate seats. The economy was in a recession at the time.
In 1974, the Republicans lost 49 House seats and 4 Senate seats. The economy was in a recession at the time and, needless to say, after Nixon's resignation the Republicans took a pasting.
In 1986, the Republicans lost 8 Senate seats (and control of the chamber) and 5 House seats. The day before the election, the Iran-contra scandal broke.
In 1998, the Democrats gained four House seats and the Senate stayed the same.
Sure, six months to go until Nov. 7, and lots can change. But the 1994 polls for Clinton indicate that if a president starts out the year in the toilet popularity-wise, it's awfully hard to pull back up.
Clinton in late April 1994 had a 49% approval rating, 40% disapproval.
In the last poll before the November 8, 1994 elections, Clinton had 44% approval & 44% disapproval.
The Republicans gained 54 seats in the House and 9 in the Senate to gain control of Congress.
Absent capturing Osama bin Laden or gas falling below $2 a gallon, the Republicans' political goose looks cooked.
Posted by: history bodes ill for dubya | April 25, 2006 02:50 PM
YES I HEAR YOU RICK!! The shrub's tax cuts tossed shiny new dimes to the middle class and gave Ft. Knox to the fat cats. Dick Vader got a two million dollar tax refund this year. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROTTEN RAT'S ASS BUCKO!!
Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2006 02:59 PM
Pretty hard to defend those fabulous Bush tax breaks when you pump 90% of your refund check into your gas tank on your way home from cashing it. Face it, Bush has done absolutely nothing right up until now, and there is nothing that he can do to make things any better. Does anyone remember when presidents were smarter than the "average" American?
Posted by: nonameicus | April 25, 2006 03:02 PM
Anonymous - "Talk them to death. That's the liberal way."
The Neo-con way:
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/sure.jpg
Posted by: Cato | April 25, 2006 03:03 PM
"I ASK ALL THE LIBERALS WHO WRITE THESE STUPID REMARKS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, ANSWER THIS ONE QUESTION...."
Heard you the first time, by the way...FYI, I didn't really get anything from ol' Bushie except a headache...every night when I watch the news, every morning when I read the papers, and every time I have a conversation with my Grandma about Medicare Part D. What little I did get back this year went to the pot for gas money...
Posted by: rosso | April 25, 2006 03:04 PM
Well, if you can find any war that people don't get hurt or killed, I would like to hear about it. In 1864 during the 'War Between the States' people in the North were ready to capitulate and oust Lincoln for McClellen. The only thing that saved Lincoln was a last minute reversal of the Yankee's losing streak. People don't tend to support wars that go on very long. Our enemies know this and exploit it.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2006 03:05 PM
To the person who asked about what Democrats did with their tax cut
Do you ever drive down a federally funded highway? Will you not sign up for Medicare when you're over 65? Do you ever use the US Postal Service to mail a letter? Do you let security screen/protect you when you fly on an airline? Would you want a FEMA that could help if a natural disaster took away everything you had?
Or do you think we should provide these crucial services and just put them on the credit card for our children? You're just not going to accept these services from the federal government if you need them are you?
Now think about it. Your question really was sophmoric.
RE:
I ASK ALL THE LIBERALS WHO WRITE THESE STUPID REMARKS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, ANSWER THIS ONE QUESTION....DIDN'T YOU KEEP THE TAX BREAK MONEY HE GAVE YOU SINCE 2001?
Posted by: Thinking Dem | April 25, 2006 03:06 PM
The Neo-con way:
On one hand you accuse 'neo-cons' of being blood thirsty and then you characterize them as talkers. I doubt if you have any idea what a 'neo-con' is. Most conservatives are not 'neo-cons'. These are the 'wall street' conservatives. You need to brush up on your political science.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2006 03:10 PM
"People don't tend to support wars that go on very long. Our enemies know this and exploit it."
Except for wars like WWII, you know, the one where we had a just, legitimate reason for fighting the war, one where we had enough troops on the ground to actually win and then keep the peace. Unlike this so-called war that we went into under false pretenses and the powers that be didn't have enough sense to listen to the commanders on the ground and give them the troops and equipment they needed to keep things under control.
Posted by: JG | April 25, 2006 03:19 PM
I ASK ALL THE LIBERALS WHO WRITE THESE STUPID REMARKS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, ANSWER THIS ONE QUESTION....DIDN'T YOU KEEP THE TAX BREAK MONEY HE GAVE YOU SINCE 2001?
Since you love the tax cuts, read this and see how long they will last, bubba.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/world/middleeast/25pipeline.html
When Robert Sanders was sent by the Army to inspect the construction work an American company was doing on the banks of the Tigris River, 130 miles north of Baghdad, he expected to see workers drilling holes beneath the riverbed to restore a crucial set of large oil pipelines, which had been bombed during the invasion of Iraq.What he found instead that day in July 2004 looked like some gargantuan heart-bypass operation gone nightmarishly bad. A crew had bulldozed a 300-foot-long trench along a giant drill bit in their desperate attempt to yank it loose from the riverbed. A supervisor later told him that the project's crews knew that drilling the holes was not possible, but that they had been instructed by the company in charge of the project to continue anyway.
A few weeks later, after the project had burned up all of the $75.7 million allocated to it, the work came to a halt. ..
Posted by: docholliday | April 25, 2006 03:27 PM
So far not one of the libs who responded to my comment about keeping bush's tax cut money have said they mailed it back to the IRS.....'nuff said...ha..gotcha! George Allen and more tax cuts in '08...YESSS..it feels good to p.o. a liberal!!!
Posted by: Rick | April 25, 2006 03:30 PM
"Except for wars like WWII: It wasn't 'except for wars like WWII' it was the only war that we have supported. Korea and Vietnam were fought without popular support. The 'War Between the States' was not popularly supported. The Revolutionary War was not popularly supported. If you mean that WWII was the exception then you are correct.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2006 03:32 PM
Wasted tax money: Obviously you weren't around for the 'Great Society' of Lyndon Johnson. Those of us old enough to remember are still paying for that debacle.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2006 03:36 PM
LISTEN UP YOU LIBS. HERE IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE....NO IRS, NO INCOME TAX, NO STATE INCOME TAX, NO TAX LAWYERS, NO TAX CHEATERS AND NO DEDUCTIONS...ALL FUNDING TO RUN THIS COUNTRY SHOULD BE A CONSUMPTION TAX...NO LIBERAL CAN REALLY FAULT THAT. THE PEOPLE WHO WORK HARD AND MAKE A LOT OF MONEY WILL PAY MORE BECAUSE THEY WILL BUY MORE. THIS IDEA IS ON THE WAY UP. AS SOON AS SNYDER AND HIS TYPES ARE VOTED OUT IT WILL HAPPEN. READ ABOUT IT ON THE WEB.
Posted by: Rick | April 25, 2006 03:40 PM
Face it righties - Bush Co. is the most-incompetent, least-qualified presidential administration in this nation's history ... and you picked them ... twice! Nuff said. BTW I'm not liberal, and I'm not conservative - I'm just right.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2006 03:41 PM
Somebody needs to restrict Rick's kool-aid intake. It seems somewhat fair for people to criticize the President over the war, tax policy, gas prices, etc. All pretty siginificant issues when you are talking about a President's job description. Presidents have been criticized over less pertinent issues, e.g., the GOPpers hammering Clinton over lying about a BJ.
Posted by: Odell Goodrum | April 25, 2006 03:56 PM
"I'm not liberal, I'm not conservative, I'm just right".
Yea, sure. I would hate to support a political philosophy that I had to deny affiliation with.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2006 04:01 PM
Consumption taxes hit the poor hard, because their entire income goes to consuming. I'm a liberal, and I think that's one of the dumbest ideas I've heard.
Why don't you neocons worry about how you're going to balance the budget and repay all the billions you've borrowed? When you get that figured out, then get back to us with your economic theories.
All you neocons know how to do is spend more than you take in, and your plan is to take in even less. WTF?
Posted by: Roland | April 25, 2006 04:03 PM
Roland, please tell me what you mean by a 'neo-con'?
Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2006 04:07 PM
"Except for wars like WWII: It wasn't 'except for wars like WWII' it was the only war that we have supported. Korea and Vietnam were fought without popular support. The 'War Between the States' was not popularly supported. The Revolutionary War was not popularly supported. If you mean that WWII was the exception then you are correct."--anonymous
Huh oh. Revision of history taking place to suit a premise. WW II an exception? Erased from the pages of history go World War One, the Spanish-Am. War, the Mexican War, the War for Southern Independence, and the Indian wars. Opposition? Certainly. But they all had popular support. Even Vietnam had popular support at first, until the public found out they had been lied to by the LBJ regime about the causes and results.
Posted by: Cato | April 25, 2006 04:11 PM
Viet Nam war support---yea, they supported it for a very short time until the body bags, bad press and the price tag became apparent. People have absolutely no staying power. I was around during the Viet Nam war and knew it well.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2006 04:26 PM
IF LIBERALS LIKE BRANTLEY AND DUMAS AND BRUMETT WOULD WORK FOR A LIVING AND TRY TO MAKE MORE MONEY AND ACTUALLY PAY SOME TAXES THEY WOULD WANT A CONSUMPTION TAX AND GET RID OF THE INCOME TAX TOO.
GET A JOB...ESPECIALLY DUMAS WHO BLASTS PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GET RID OF THE HORRIBLE DEATH TAX. IF HE WOULD WORK HARDER HE MIGHT LEAVE SOMETHING FOR HIS FAMILY TO INHERIT...WRITING FOR 30 MINUTES A WEEK FOR THE ARKANSAS TIMES WON'T GET IT...
Posted by: Rick | April 25, 2006 04:29 PM
"I'M MELTING!!!!"
The Wicked Witch at the end of the Wizard of Oz
and
the Republican congressional majority after Nov. 7.
Posted by: burnin' down the house (republican majority) | April 25, 2006 04:34 PM
Anonymous, I googled this:
"But it is not really domestic policy that defines neoconservatism. This was a movement founded on foreign policy, and it is still here that neoconservatism carries the greatest meaning, even if its original raison d'être -- opposition to communism -- has disappeared.
Pretty much all conservatives today agree on the need for a strong, vigorous foreign policy. There is no constituency for isolationism on the right, outside the Buchananite fever swamps. The question is how to define our interventionism.
One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests, narrowly defined. They believe that we should remove, or at least disarm, Saddam Hussein, but not occupy Iraq for any substantial period afterward. The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view, which goes under the somewhat self-congratulatory moniker of "realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III.
Many conservatives think, however, that "realism" presents far too crabbed a view of American power and responsibility. They suggest that we need to promote our values, for the simple reason that liberal democracies rarely fight one another, sponsor terrorism, or use weapons of mass destruction. If we are to avoid another 9/11, they argue, we need to liberalize the Middle East -- a massive undertaking, to be sure, but better than the unspeakable alternative. And if this requires occupying Iraq for an extended period, so be it; we did it with Germany, Japan and Italy, and we can do it again.
The most prominent champions of this view inside the administration are Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Their agenda is known as "neoconservatism," though a more accurate term might be "hard Wilsonianism.""
Posted by: Roland | April 25, 2006 04:35 PM
"So far not one of the libs who responded to my comment about keeping bush's tax cut money have said they mailed it back to the IRS.....'nuff said...ha..gotcha! George Allen and more tax cuts in '08...YESSS..it feels good to p.o. a liberal!!!
our country."
Dear Rick,
To call you a birdbrain is a gross overstatement [not to mention an insult to the birds of the world.] Jefferson wrote that our democracy depends on an educated citizenry. You are a poster child for an uneducated, ignorant, narrow-minded, one-issue troll. Surely you cannot believe the tripe you are writing here?
There have been scores of people throughout history who believed that one issue trumped all others. The Medieval princes of the Church thought it was religion. After a few centuries of wars, including the 100 Years War, folks gave up on that concept as the organizing principle of the world. Another great example would be Karl Marx [one of your friends I'm certain] who believed the central idea in the world was economics. We all saw what happened to the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and now China. [Now I know how your little brain must be running overtime thinking you have me - because you believe Capitalism is the core idea for the world --- WRONG.] If you understood history you would understand that the world and the human beings in it are extremely complex and evolving [except for you of course.] No one concept can encompass the rich diversity, creativity and adaptability of the human species. So, for you to pin the hopes of your world on tax cuts just demonstrates your silly little trivial mind. I guess you like the fact that FEMA does not work, that our children's and grandchildren's personal debt is over $20,000 a head and rising, that we can't fight a war with what our military professionals say is necessary, that we have been lied to and manipulated consistently, that the middle class [the necessary ingredient for a healthy democratic republic] is shrinking and getting angry, that corporations and politicians are enriching themselves and their friends, and ....
No, for you it's that puissant tax cut you received that is the be all and end all. But you don't make me angry. You make me sick. You have betrayed the great principles upon which this country was founded for a piece of silver.
Posted by: Janus | April 25, 2006 04:35 PM
Rick, you're an idiot.
I didn't mail my tax refund back, because I didn't get one, and unless you're a lot richer than your rhetoric indicates, you didn't get one either.
Posted by: 70%er | April 25, 2006 04:38 PM
Rick,
Typing in all caps like that is NOT going to make you feel any better about your small penis, so give it a rest.
Posted by: caps lock | April 25, 2006 04:45 PM
Hey folks. let it go
Rick is TROLLING
(no one is that stupid)
Posted by: LWood | April 25, 2006 04:55 PM
"(no one is that stupid)" --LWood
Apparently 32% of the population is that stupid.
Posted by: Archaeopteryx | April 25, 2006 05:28 PM
...ESPECIALLY DUMAS WHO BLASTS PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GET RID OF THE HORRIBLE DEATH TAX. IF HE WOULD WORK HARDER HE MIGHT LEAVE SOMETHING FOR HIS FAMILY TO INHERIT...WRITING FOR 30 MINUTES A WEEK FOR THE ARKANSAS TIMES WON'T GET IT...
Boy are you clueless...Ernie Dumas is one of the best journalists and teachers I've ever met. And, we should all be gifted enough to turn out the quality of work he does in thirty minutes.
Posted by: suzie | April 25, 2006 05:29 PM
HEY JANUS...YOU DID'NT SEND YOU TAX CUT BACK DID YOU..? HEY 70%...I PAID $86,740 IN 'O5. HOW MUCH DID YOU PAY LAZY BOY? HOW 'BOUT YOU CAPS LOCK? YOU PAY MORE THAN THAT?....UNTIL YOU COMMIES START PAYING SOME BUCKS TO PAY THE BILLS THEN SHUT THE F--- UP....
Posted by: Rick | April 25, 2006 05:30 PM
HEY SUZIE...WHAT DID DUMAS TEACH YOU? MARX & LENIN ? SOAK THE RICH?
WHY DON'T YOU GET A JOB AND PAY SOME TAXES YOURSELF. JUST WHERE DOES DUMAS TEACH? I HOPE MY TAX MONEY DOESN'T GO TO PAY FOR HIS VENOM.....I LOVE IT WHEN I CAN P.O. A LIBERAL
Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2006 05:39 PM
Nancy Pelosi hit the nail on the head today when she called George W. Bush a criminal. She said 3 buck a gallon gas is no mistake, it's the cause and effect you get when we have 2 oilmen in the White House. Our President is a big oil criminal and it's amazing he has 32% of the people supporting him.
Does Ken Lay have 32% supporting him? Does Jack Abramoff have 32%? Does the BTK serial killer have 32% screaming for him to be set free?
Crooks and liars control our country. Rick is not real, he's Rove. Riots should be springing up in every city. How dare a group of thugs kidnap our government! Revenge is in order! Now and this November. Vote the lying crooks (read Republicans) out of office and never ever let them return.
Stand up for America! Break up the big oil companies now! Pull the wool out of your eyes! Think and then ACT!
Posted by: Deathbyinches | April 25, 2006 05:43 PM
Come on, folks. Please don't respond to that imbecile who keeps posting with his caps lock key on. You're lowering yourselves to his level, and you're better than that.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2006 06:22 PM
Now would be a good time for Cheney to release the records of those private meetings he had with all those oil people to develop an energy policy for the country. He could show us how wrong we (a.k.a. tree-hugging libs) are because we think they (he and his oil cronies) got together to screw us and fatten their wallets, not help us.
Posted by: suzie | April 25, 2006 06:23 PM
WHY DON'T YOU GET A JOB AND PAY SOME TAXES YOURSELF.
Anyone with a 3 digit IQ won't work when the repugs under Regan started running the gov. on labor taxes. Thanks stupid!
Posted by: Phaedrus | April 25, 2006 07:31 PM
hahaha. Wow. Republicans ARE stupid. What can I say?
Well, at least the ones who come onto this forum are. ...
Posted by: JD | April 26, 2006 01:46 AM
"Mrs. Clinton will proably approve an invasion of Iran if she thinks that it will get her elcted to the Presidency."
Posted by: Gary from Little Rock | April 25, 2006 01:16 PM
"Well, you're wrong, Gary. She'd do it for a lot less than that."
Posted by: What Do You Get When You Cross A Donkey With An Elephant? | April 25, 2006 01:22 PM
"I agree with you. She married Bubba."
Posted by: Gary from Little Rock | April 25, 2006 01:31 PM
I was just wondering what y'alls stellar history in relationships might be? And why we're on the subject of hypocisy, how about the war uniforms worn?
Posted by: Gaytlord | April 26, 2006 02:06 AM
"Mrs. Clinton will proably approve an invasion of Iran if she thinks that it will get her elcted to the Presidency."
Posted by: Gary from Little Rock | April 25, 2006 01:16 PM
"Well, you're wrong, Gary. She'd do it for a lot less than that."
Posted by: What Do You Get When You Cross A Donkey With An Elephant? | April 25, 2006 01:22 PM
"I agree with you. She married Bubba."
Posted by: Gary from Little Rock | April 25, 2006 01:31 PM
I was just wondering what y'alls stellar history in relationships might be? And why we're on the subject of hypocisy, how about the war uniforms worn?
Posted by: Gaylord | April 26, 2006 02:10 AM
"Warmongers. No, I think we should sit on our collective butts and wait for the inevitable. If we do nothing than nothing will happen to us or, we could 'dialogue' with them. Talk them to death---it's the liberal way."
Posted by: Anonymous (or Anyass)
'Warmongers' is way too kind. WhoreWarPigs suits better.
No, don't 'dialogue' with the enemy, just for a change, try talking straight to the ones who brung ya. Leave the closeted lies with Gannon back in the rented room, he'll appreciate the duplicity.
"it's the liberal way" you say? Talking them into submission, if it works, and it has. Yet rarely has a Democratic occupant of the White House shown more bluster than club. With the repubs it's been mouth over substance and matter.
And this national disgrace of a little man has shown less substance that matters than any President since I've been around. That goes back to Ike and Ike would prolly kick this boy in the nuts, or peas.
Posted by: Gaylord | April 26, 2006 02:51 AM
"IF LIBERALS LIKE BRANTLEY AND DUMAS AND BRUMETT WOULD WORK FOR A LIVING AND TRY TO MAKE MORE MONEY AND ACTUALLY PAY SOME TAXES THEY WOULD WANT A CONSUMPTION TAX AND GET RID OF THE INCOME TAX TOO.
GET A JOB...ESPECIALLY DUMAS WHO BLASTS PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GET RID OF THE HORRIBLE DEATH TAX. IF HE WOULD WORK HARDER HE MIGHT LEAVE SOMETHING FOR HIS FAMILY TO INHERIT...WRITING FOR 30 MINUTES A WEEK FOR THE ARKANSAS TIMES WON'T GET IT...
Posted by: Rick
Hey Ricky,
There is a calmer life than ALL CAPS! Take a sedative of choice. The one that seems to work the best for rabid repubs is a self-inflicted, hard, cold-cock to the chin. Fear not, all shrubbies must walk thru this lonesome valley.
But your first step of survival must be to avoid, upon the pain of death, those AT demons that you spoke of. My mere mention of those names might send you into further fits of CAP LOCK and you'll descend back into the hellish pit of incurable repubism.
I bless you now....kiss the ass of a donkey....kick your sorry ass good-bye....and repeat after me....
DOMINY, DOMINY, DOMINY, I'M A DEMOCRAT NOW!!!
Posted by: Gaylord | April 26, 2006 03:17 AM
Why, THANK YOU SWEETIE SUSIE,
Nobody, but a single soul, much higher than I, could say it better than you...
"Now would be a good time for Cheney to release the records of those private meetings he had with all those oil people to develop an energy policy for the country. He could show us how wrong we (a.k.a. tree-hugging libs) are because we think they (he and his oil cronies) got together to screw us and fatten their wallets, not help us."
Posted by: suzie
Hmmmmmmm......Damndest thang I ever heard!
Posted by: Gaylord | April 26, 2006 03:36 AM
"Viet Nam war support---yea, they supported it for a very short time until the body bags, bad press and the price tag became apparent. People have absolutely no staying power. I was around during the Viet Nam war and knew it well." Some moron whose name escapes history and time.
Well, I was about to hang it up as I scrolled up, then the blasphemy of infamy made me decide on one last assault on the red tide of idiocy.
So, dumb-bunny Ass-Non, we supported the war in 'Nam "FOR A VERY SHORT TIME", huh? Does your memory measure longer than your penis?
"BODY BAGS, BAD PRESS AND THE PRICE TAG". Dismissive bits of triva, huh?
"PEOPLE HAVE NO SENSE OF STAYING POWER." So your staying power trumped the dead, in particular my two childhood friends and my cousiin. 18, 18 and 18 years old respectfully, with total respect, where you show them none. WHERE WERE YOU THEN AND WHERE ARE YOU NOW?
How "WELL" did you know that war in 'Nam sir? Better answer 'intimately' or you aint shit.
If you aint got the gonads to uniform up and fight the selective, elective war in Iraq, then small chance you got the shiver-quivers to attack the ones who attacked us. They are still there, after almost five years. Just waiting around for the chicken-hawks to make good on the phony-balogna threats.
All three of my dead buds joined up for lies. Two Marine Corp, one for Army. Another jar-head friend of mine got his in multiple cancers from agent orange exposure in 'Nam. That 19 year old draftee got his purple lie at 52 when VA spit in his eye.
You wanna talk patriotism Bucko? You wanna talk sacrifice? Those boys did it, I'm here to tell it, you're here to match it or STFU!!!!!!!
Another proud Vet.
Posted by: Gaylord | April 26, 2006 04:42 AM
I served in the Viet Nam War.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2006 06:57 AM
Pfc. Anon?
Posted by: Gaylord | April 26, 2006 07:21 AM
No, just another proud vet.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2006 07:26 AM
Hmmmmmmm......Damndest thang I ever heard!
Ah, I'm blushing Gaylord...though damnation is a word that's been thrown my way before ha!
Posted by: suzie | April 26, 2006 09:20 AM
From Editor&Publisher:
Bush Says He Tried to Avoid War 'To The Max,' Explains How God Shapes His Foreign Policy
By E&P Staff
NEW YORK President Bush today said he had tried to avoid war with Iraq "diplomatically to the max."
Speaking to a business group in Irvine, Ca., he admitted mistakes were made in planning for the Iraq invasion, but he defended the troop level, saying "it was the troop level necessary to do the job," and he would commit the same number if given a second chance.
The remarks came as another former general joined seven others who in recent days have called for the resignation of Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, saying he had mismanaged the planning and execution of the war.
Bush also explained, in unusually stark terms, how his belief in God influences his foreign policy. "I base a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I think are true," he said. "One, I believe there's an Almighty. And, secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody's soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free...
And by God the USA is going to free you Iraqis even if we have to kill most of you to get the job done!
Just when I think our idiot president couldn't slip further into his own fantasies, out pops proof that he can. First, all the mistakes in Iraq are attributed to the nature of fighting a war...to 'it's easy in hindsight to see things clearly'; then Bush says (without specifics) there were mistakes but the number of troops originally sent in wasn't one of those mistakes.
He should start drinking again.
Posted by: suzie | April 26, 2006 10:16 AM
Hi! http://www.ringtones-dir.com/get/ ringtones site. Free nokia ringtones here, Download ringtones FREE, Best free samsung ringtones. From website .
Posted by: ringtones free | June 8, 2006 07:11 AM