Lame Duck President

[PW2]

Re: Lame Duck President

I'm curious. What does Rosie have to do with what liberals think?
Does David Duke speak for all conservatives?

 

[QC]

Re: Lame Duck President

David Duke speaks for no main stream conservatives, would not get a major network TV deal, and other than connecting one idiot to another has nothing to do with Rosie and her consistent lock step with the major Democrat players . . .

In other words, give me one Rosie position that is not also held by the three Dem pres nominee candidates.

 

[ob]

Re: Lame Duck President

Better question : How do you correlate David Duke as he may or may not have any affect on the current political arena to Rosie.I mean he isn't on a major network daytime talk show pounding his rhetoric down the throats of millions of misguided viewers 5 days a week.While her blather may not have any effect on some liberals or yourself,doesn't mean that it doesn't carry a lot of weight with most if not all of her viewers as is evidenced from the standing ovations she recieves from these overtly misguided souls.

 

[treedancer]

Re: Lame Duck President

Quote OB


Your party has a lot more baggage than just Rosie.

You diffidently don’t want to get into that do you? Best let that dog lay.



Quote OB

I mean he isn't on a major network daytime talk show pounding his rhetoric down the throats of millions of misguided viewers 5 days a week.

Kinda reminds me of an overweight daytime radio talk show host ,the only difference is you have the unfortunate task of having to view Rosie as apposed to listening to Rush.

 

[PW2]

Re: Lame Duck President

Rosie, for better or worse, is an entertainer, not a political pundit. Entertainers want ratings, and controversy generates ratings which is what networks want.

How else are Bill O'Reilly and Rush as successful as they are?

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Lame Duck President

QC, I won't necessarily disagree with what you have said. This is political, and as politics go, can you be absolutely sure the right side of the fence would not be doing the same if we had a democrat in the WH right now as well as for the past 6 years(assuming the war and all other events stayed the same).

I tend to believe the biotching, posturing and grandstanding would continue....just with a new set of cheerleaders.

Announcing a withdrawal date, highly illogical, and stupid all together. Setting one......another story and a bit more logical given the state of Iraq and the division of its people.

You have a point there. If it had been a dem in the White House on 9-11, there would be no war on terror. And therefore no wars in Afganistan or Iraq. Simply put, there would not have been a tough response to 9-11. I don't think I need to list all the attacks on the US during the 90's and the responses or lack there of.
Just my .02

 

[QC]

Re: Lame Duck President

PW,

My point is that they are not analogous to which I think you agree, however she is working hard to close the gap. I found out today that Rosie is now a 9/11 conspiracy fool, so I take back my comment about her consistency with the Dem candidates . . . :=

 

[PW2]

Re: Lame Duck President

She's an idiot. No question. Apparently, her show gets ratings--who knows why.
Oh, well. American Idol is the most popular show on TV, I'm told. Go figure.
It can shake a person's faith in democracy, until you realize that more than half the people don't vote, which I suspect we should all be thankful for.

 

[Gabby]

Re: Lame Duck President

My figures may be of a hair, but If memory serves, of those that DO exercise their constitutional right to vote, roughly 80% vote party, and they're split, 50% D / 50% R. The remaining 20% decide the election adn cause us all the pain and suffering of the political ads. Maybe we should snuff out the 20% and pay of 1% of the oppostion?

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Lame Duck President

GW, got my attention because of his traits as a person. His presidency has been a series of very high and very low marks. As a man, I see him as one of our better presidents, as a president I think he will go down in history as controversial but about average.

Funny, I see Clinton as a very disgusting man and also to be seen as an average president. As long as Sandy Burgler is allowed to stuff classified documents down his shorts and destroy them, who will really know. I think his administration will mark a turning point in politics when dirty tricks and personal destruction have become the norm. If Nixon had the plumbers, then the Clintons have the carpenters, electricians, masons, roofers, drywallers, carpetlayers. etc.

Where is the dynamic leader who will step up and galvanize this country on some level. Clearly the field for 2008 isn't inspiring anyone to any great degree. Outside chance for Rudy, Fred Thompson if he runs, and perhaps Obama.

I agree with PW, Rosie is a disgusting, smelly pile of ..............(fill in the blank).

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Lame Duck President

[colour=blue]Ya know folks: either Presidents Bush or Clinton would be fun to have dinner with, IMHO. In his younger days Mr. Bush would have been fun to party with as well, (probably a li'l straight laced now a days). Mr Clinton would be fun to party with then or now. That all said, Mr Bush had the correct response after 9/11, IMHO, and the real tragedy is the modern, (mainly) baby boomer, (the worst n' most self absorbed n' selfish generation in history), Democrats want to return to their glory days of the early to mid seventies, where they scored the Presidency in 1976 at the cost of America's honor when they brought all of us to our knees. They just forgot the 3 million people they happily sacraficed to the Communists. President Carter set the stage for the WAR with radical Islam we have happining right now, (sorry TG: Sadat is just a foot note to the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian Revolution in 1979 THANK YOU: PRESIDENT CARTER). The illogic of pouring all our resources into Afganistan, (all Dem leaders repeat this totally illogical and assinine junk today), or they really wish to destabilize a nuclear dictatorship ally by attacking Pakistan n' chasing OBL, (as if that would make any difference other then hurt America and the world), or attacking another ally: Saudi Arabia. All very stupid illogical moves, unless the goal is: YOU GUESSED IT: THE DEMISE OF THE GOOD OLD USA, no other goal would seem to fit the present direction they (Dem leaders) have chosen. Until the rank and file Democrats stop putting up with this very distructive behavior and flush the toilet we are in real trouble. We did survive a defeat in 1975 that they engineered that was unecessary IMHO, and 20% + interest rates and very high inflation, and a military that could not launch ships or fly planes, (those were the good ol days, [where the Dems held all the power]: my friends). Ronald Reagan came along just in time to prevent Russian from being everyone's language under the Soviet Masters the Dems were working to arrange. We can probably survive the humiliating defeat the Democrats are trying to impose on us now as well. Once radical Islam is bombing our cities and the Democrat media has no choice but to eventually identify the perps, (BTW, they will try to blame Right wingers n' Christians), we may be able to save the world from living under Muslim masters if the Left either loses power or allows us to, ('course the World will really hate our guts for savin' 'em as NO GOOD DEED GOES WITHOUT PUNISHMENT IN TODAY'S UPSIDE DOWN WORLD, dominated by Left wing media n' Left wing govenments). The losses will likely be great, and the future of Europe looks like a Muslim one, (very sad). America is the only real hope for the world, and we must overcome the enemies from within before we can do what very likely must be done. Hope I'm wrong: but it does not look that way. My $.02 Respectfully, (this rant may hurt 'feelings' which I can't help as these are one person's opinions, [based on many years of history n' facts]: nothing more), JR[/colour]