http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/12/27/124023.shtml

Like Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Koch is a liberal democrat who supports our president.

Many democrat 'leaders' talk a good game.

But Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Koch are the real deal.

The bulk of democrat 'leaders' are as anti-choice as they come.

Witness their silencing of pro-life democrats and pro-choice education supporters who support vouchers.

The spineless democrat party cannot handle diversity of opinion.

They never will until they free themselves from the oppressive yoke of shreiking union lackeys, abortionists and trial attorneys.

Herb

Well I can't really refute very much of that article as stated. It's true - Bush does all those things listed. And while if pressed, I would give the President relatively high marks for having the courage to try some different things ( although the article seems to read like " He sticks to his guns - no matter what." ) frankly, effort counts infinately less than results. Yes, he has courage to try things. All of those things are things he willingly did without a shred of compromise and a great amount of stubbornness. It's not like he had to dig very deep and come up with a new way of looking at the world. He merely implemented his current world view and made it into policy for Earth.

Sorry, but that does not constitute someone being a hero for me. And the fact that he is positioning himself to respond to critics NOW, only proves my point even more.

Yes, he tried many things. None of them seemed to have worked to the degree in which we were promised. And for THAT, I pass judgment on his Presidency as not good at all.

"The spineless democrat party cannot handle diversity of opinion."

That's one way to look at it. Or you could also say that we gave him plenty of time to produce results. MORE time than he even asked for. And money. And blood. And lives. And trust. And " political capital." And look where we are now;

Back to square one - completely overhauling the agenda.

He tried SO hard in SO many areas. He was given EVERY chance to succeed. And the fact that he has not, to me, proves just how bad of a President he is.

" A " for effort though. Neat.

Yeah, and we'll never, ever have a Democratic Senate leader who is pro-life because...oh, wait, we already have one. Never mind. Do you think the Dems voted for that pro-lifer Harry Reid for Senate Majority leader to silence him? Only in Herb's world...

Andrew

Gosh, now how did that spineless political party manage to give the President of the United States the Mother of All Political Whippings?

Here's more evidence that the Dems got voted into office on the intensity of anti-Iraq War opinion.

The most hawkish presidential possibility in '08, John McCain, has seen a drop in his poll numbers vs. Hillary.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/12/27/war_weighs_down_mccain.html

I have a ton of respect for Sen. McCain, but the public wants the Iraq situation dealt with competently and with a fresh mindset.

"All of those things are things he willingly did without a shred of compromise and a great amount of stubbornness."

In other words, just like Winston Churchill.

Herb

>>>"All of those things are things he willingly did without a shred of compromise and a great amount of stubbornness."

>>>In other words, just like Winston Churchill.

Just like Churchill, only incompetent.

Right.

That's why he was elected TWICE.

That's why he beat the 'competent' Mr. Kerry.

That's why Mr. Bush's test scores were higher than the brainiac Mr. Kerry.

What a joke.

Spin on.

Herb

Good god!

Selected the first time, by the Supreme Court, who ruled on a states right issue. They went so far as to state clearly that opinion was not to be used to set legal preceident. (however you spell it)

Second time, 30 percent of our vote was cast on electronic voting machines where the validity of said vote can never be established. We honestly don't know if he were elected or not. It was no mandate, that's for sure given the small numbers of the win.

Selected, not elected Herb.

Oh, and please detail how he is such a great leader, in light of getting his own sack handed to him on a plate this last election?

What has he done that sees universal (or near universal) American support.

Finally, detail what we have gotten from this President, besides the mere perception of greater security, that makes the crap worthwhile.

What spin?

Can you name any endeavor he ever entered into that could be classified a success in any way? Every business he was handed he drove into the ground. That's counting an oil business AND a baseball team. A baseball team with SAMMY SOSA on it. He couldn't manage 26 dudes spitting and holding their jock but somehow he's supposed to manage the country?

He left Texas with the worst education in the country on a level far beyond what people thought you could bottom out on--and to add to that, he popularized EXECUTING RETARDED PEOPLE, going so far as to mock at least one person on death row.

He ruined a couple businesses, a baseball team, a state, and now the presidency. Let's not even point out that he ruined his own MILITARY ENLISTMENT by just sorta walking off halfway through to get drunk.

The only constant in this man's background is that he constantly FAILS AT EVERYTHING HE'S CHARGED WITH DOING. Whether or not he tries hard. He tried hard at that first Oil business he was handed over. Still failed. Tried hard at being Governor. Failed. He's a good try-er. He's also never had to really go out and GET something from the ground up. It's always handed to him, so he can play with it, break it, get bailed out and toddle over to the next shiny object that captures his attention.

And double-spacing all of your mindless spin doesn't make it any more effective. It's not like the voice of the gods thundering down at the liberal plebes because you hit the enter key twice. All it does is make your post about 3 times more obnoxious.

And stop signing em, too. It's ridiculous.

Also, don't think that people don't notice you regularly only grabbing the ONE sentence you think you can successfully spin to prove your point and ignoring the other 300 that you could intelligently address. But there's no partisan hackery to be had by seriously considering intelligent counterpoints, is there? So why put that idea forward?

Let's just

instead

find one sentence

that makes it possible

to compare Bush to

Winston

Churchill,

and then Spin On,

Badly.

Fatboy.

500,000 more American voters voted for Gore in 2000 than for Bush, Herb, so stop pretending Bush was somehow the popular choice to be president that year. Bush was elected because of the Electoral College and through the good graces of the US Supreme Court. And every study done after the 2000 election shows that had the State of Florida been allowed to carry out the state supreme court's ruling to re-count every vote in the state, Gore would have won. Obviously the US Supreme Court gave Bush the presidency.

Bush won in 2004 because he scared the American people to death about terrorist threats and successfully fooled Americans into believing Kerry was weaker on terrorism than he was - obviously events since then have proven him wrong. And Kerry clearly was a lousy candidate; a good candidate could have beaten him easily. Bill Clinton would have beaten Bush in a landslide in 2004.

Andrew

Right.

That's why he was elected TWICE.

That's why he beat the 'competent' Mr. Kerry.

That's why Mr. Bush's test scores were higher than the brainiac Mr. Kerry.

What a joke.

Spin on.

Kerry, schmerry. What does he have to do with this? Bush earned the "worst president ever" title all on his own. He's not dumb; he's just really bad at being president. Hopefully, he'll redeem himself in the future like other bad presidents have (ie, Jimmy Carter).

Even people on Bush's team are admitting that the plan for the Iraq war was either badly-thought-through ... or completely mismanaged. Years of zero meaningful results for the USA are the proof.

As would Edwards, had he been on the top of the ticket!

(He announced today --sweet!)

Let's see:

MissingKSKD
Fatboyroberts
Sutton
Andrew2

All democrat fans.

And all allied against Mr. Bush.

So even though I'm mainly a Nixon man, it's basically 4 against old Herb here.

I'll take those odds anyday.

"Selected, not elected."

Face it. As Mr. Clinton would say 'that dog won't hunt.'

Who's in the oval office?

Mr. Bush.

You wanna contest that?

As Doug Llewelyn would say:

"Don't take matters into your own hands.
You take 'em to court."

You guys did AND LOST!

Anything else is sniveling.

Herbert Milhous Nixon VI

Wow

What

a bunch

of total

deflection and obfuscation,

that absolutely avoids any

point

or

contestation

that was actually brought up and thought out

in the above

posts.

Anything else would,

of course,

approximate real conversation,

and lord knows

when dealing

with Herbert Milhous Nixon VI

the last thing you want

is honest

conversation.

spin on,

badly.

Fatboy

"Selected not elected?"

Talk about obfuscation.

And P.O.W.

Plain Old Whining.

With 4 to 1, surely you guys can do better than that.

Spin on.

Herbert Milhous Nixon VII

I totally understand why he was elected the first time. I had a harder time understanding how it happened again though. The second time REALLY stung.

But I take a certain amount of comfort in knowing that at least TODAY, more people have come around and looking back, deeply regret voting for him.

I'm not one to gloat or rub it in your face with an " I told you so." Just as long as we get to the truth together. Which is, for the record: He's not producing the results he promised in the first or second election.

So yes, he won both elections. Too bad he blew it - according to the majority TODAY. Not two years ago, not six. Today.

If asked if they would vote for him again, the majority would not.

Spin THAT.

"So yes, he won both elections."

No spin necessary.

Mr. Bush indeed has a low poll number right now.

You are correct and speak the plain truth.

Herb Milhous Nixon II

But "winning" isn't what it is ALL about, for me.

That's where you and I differ. I look for the reasons/promises he got elected to come to fruition. You are content with the power of victory itself.

Actually Bush stole the first election and Kerry lost the last one.

Bush won by default both times.

Blame it on the conservative Supreme Court and the stupidity of democrats to pick Kerry.

I'm right-handed, so I must have been holding my nose with my left hand while I voted for Kerry in '04

Actually, there weren't any great Dem candidates running in 2004. Kerry probably was the best of those running. Howard Dean just wasn't the kind of guy who could have gotten elected, as much as I liked (still like) him.. I don't blame the Dems for nominating Kerry - I blame other Dems for not having the courage to run.

Had Al Gore run in 2004 he might have had the best chance to beat Bush, but he didn't have enough core support in the party. Pity, considering how close the 2004 election was in the electoral college! Flip 70,000 votes from Bush to Kerry in Ohio and Kerry would have won. Gore could have done better.

In 2008 it's already looking like a much better crop of candidates, with Hillary and Obama possibly running plus Edwards who is a good guy too. All three are now nationally known. Should be a good race!

Andrew

If Hillary, Obama or Edwards gets the nomination, expect to see another Republican president. Hell, Cheney could beat those three losers.

C'mon, Geekster, take a stand! I'm tired of people being so NEUTRAL around here!!!

Andrew

OK, I'm a McCain guy.

"Had Al Gore run in 2004 he might have had the best chance to beat Bush, but he didn't have enough core support in the party."

Not only did Mr. Gore not have enough core support in the party, as I recall, Mr. Gore didn't even win his home state of Tennessee.

In other words, those who knew him best voted for his opponent.

Herbert M.

That stuff works both ways.

Had W had any level of competence and regard for the American people, he would not have seen such a rejection this recent election.

The GOP took it in the sack Herb. How's that working for you?

All I can say is that if Hillary gets elected, there go our 2nd Amendment Rights that have been so well fought for by the NRA and other groups.

If I see that it looks like she is, you had better believe that I'll start stockpiling. And I won't be buying from stores or gun dealers that keep records. I'll buy from private individuals (NO, not guys selling stolen guns out of the trunk of their cars)

As the bumper sticker I have says "There Wouldn't be a First Without The Second".

Remember, the best defense is a well armed society.

Fortunatley, I don't think there is any chance of her getting elected. A democrat, maybe, even probably seeing how things are going, but not her (Thank goodness).

Actually, the paranoia about the Democrats' supposed desire to wipe out the 2nd amendment would be amusing if some of you didn't take it so seriously. First of all, no president can change an amendment to the US Constitution. Secondly, Hillary has never said she wanted to roll back the 2nd amendment - in fact, I'll doubt you can find any mainstream or even left-of center Democrats (except for some very fringe leftists) who have ever suggested getting rid of guns in America. On the contrary, the soon-to-be-sworn Democratic Congress is full of blue dog Democrats who are pretty moderate if not downright right-of-center on gun control. Then again, I suppose some of you think the slightest gun control law is an attempt to "take our guns away."

Andrew

Andrew,

You are correct; the Democrats are not trying to do away with the 2nd amendment per se.

However, they are trying to make regulations/laws so constricting that only the criminals will be able to get guns (from the guy selling stolen guns out of his trunk).

If our liberal judges would simply enforce the gun laws that are in effect right now there would be a lot less criminals using guns. But that would mean more people in jail and that would not make the ACLU (Atheists, Communists and Liberals United) happy.

Look at these sites (scroll about 1/2 way down) for what the illustrious Nancy Pelosi has to say about gun control. (There are a lot of other dismal facts on her voting record here too!)
http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Nancy_Pelosi.htm

http://www.newsunfiltered.com/archives/2006/05/concerns_about.html

It's a proven fact that crime rises in countries that have restrictive or prohibitive laws. England and Australia are good examples of this.

A criminal would much rather know that their victim is unarmed that have to wonder if they might be.

Anyway, we could go on and on about this and turn it into a Pro Gun/Anti Gun thread and that's not what this thread is about. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one!


Remember; Good Gun control is hitting what you aim at!

All good points, Andrew ... and let's not forget what it takes to amend the Constitution, which is what we're talking when it comes to repealing the 2nd Amendment. Big votes in congress, widespread ratification throughout the states.

Getting rid of guns is just a tbreat that political opportunists use to raise money and power.

Sutton,

We must have been typing at the same time!

I don't think that even the most radical anti-gunner is trying to do away with the 2nd amendment.

I do think they are trying to redefine what it says so that law abiding citizens either can't buy guns (especially hand guns) or it's so difficult and costly to get them that most people won't go through all the hassles.

SkyBill writes:
However, they are trying to make regulations/laws so constricting that only the criminals will be able to get guns (from the guy selling stolen guns out of his trunk).

LOL! Yep, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, since there is absolutely nothing beyond paranoia and wild speculation to support this idea!!

Andrew

If the whole point of this thread is to convince me that I should like Bush, then why don't I?

Have I not given him enough time or something?

I feel as though I have pretty valid reasons for not liking him one bit. Am I being blinded by something? Has someone fed me a line to which I bit and believed and just haven't questioned enough?

Why don't I like our President, what he has accomplished or the way he leads?

The GOP actually took the guns from Americans in recent times. Katrina.

I don't think its paranoia and wild speculation when you look at all the laws that the politicians are trying to pass or have already passed;

Such as no citizen owned guns allowed in Washington D.C., although on 29-SEP the House of Representatives voted to do away with this one. (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/dcguns.htm)

Plus there are hosts of others that are reported on the news.

One of the silliest things the anti-gunners tried was to pin it back on the gun manufacturers when some crook uses a gun to commit their crime. Their hopes there were to bankrupt the gun manufacturers. That's kind of like getting a speeding ticket while riding in a taxi cab! Thank goodness that one didn't pass.

Hey, we're turning this into a gun thread. We can continue this, but let's start a thread called Gun Control For Or Against (or something to that effect)

"...the paranoia about the Democrats' supposed desire to wipe out the 2nd amendment would be amusing if some of you didn't take it so seriously."

It's NOT paranoia.

Look at the leftist strongholds of D.C. and New York City.Handguns are banned from both, which by the way have higher gun crimes than cities where guns are legal.

Anytime some democrat says 'don't worry about the second amendment,' IT'S TIME TO WORRY ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

Herb

I honestly did not know that handguns were banned in DC and NYC.

Guess I'd better do some more reading.

Portland also has banned guns in the open.

One can no longer walk down the street with a sidearm on your hip.

Used to be legal. Unless you're a police officer, it's no longer allowed in Moscow on the Willamette.

Of course the bad guys don't obey the laws, leaving innocent, law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage.

Herbert M.

Wait - did NYC and DC ban handgun ownership? Or just wearing them in public?

We have freedom of speech, but there are laws against slander and libel.

We have freedom of religion, too. Still, you can't sacrifice virgins even if it's part of how you practice your faith.

We have freedom of public assembly. That doesn't mean that you can stand around with friends in the middle of the Banfield.

Our constitution guarantees a right to bear arms. Not being able to visibly pack heat at Pioneer Square doesn't violate that right.

Put simply, freedom is constrained by harm.

Herb, the Iraqies are all allowed to be armed, which is why it is harder to tell the insurgents form the friendlies.

England's ban on arms has kept the number of murders by guns down.

"Wait - did NYC and DC ban handgun ownership?"

Unless you're a police officer, it is all but impossible to legally carry a handgun in those two cities. Permits to do so are virtually always turned down.

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/NYSL.pdf

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/DCCL.pdf

Herb

If I live in NYC, and am not a police officer, can I legally own a handgun?

Nevermind. I found it.

Handgun ownership ( which was what Herb was claiming? I think he was. ) is not banned in NYC.

I haven't looked at DC. I don't think I need to.

Not formally banned.

Essentially banned.

Good luck getting a handgun license in either place. It won't happen.

Herb

Herb;

Not formally full of Sh*t,
Essentially full of Sh*t.

Herb said>>>
That's why Mr. Bush's test scores were higher than the brainiac Mr. Kerry.

That's WHY DUHbya's IQ is 91 and Clinton's was...... 153???? Huh???

Mine was 116 back in 90' my senior year at U of O....

No wonder they call him DUHbya....

IQ hoax?

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

This is for Herb.....

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_12_06/feature.html

I guess we sometimes post the RIGHT side of the fence too....

"Not formally banned. Essentially banned."

Yeah. I see what you are saying now. And I believe you. But there is a big difference. I don't care that you were wrong about it - I care that I was out of the loop about something that seemed like such a big deal as " ...D.C. and New York City.Handguns are banned from both..." But they aren't.

I'm glad I pressed the issue to find out what was formally true. Otherwise, if I had taken it as stated, I'd look like a fool when talking to my imaginary frined Toby who lives in my eyebrow.

So, uhhh, LOOP MAINTAINED!! Yahoo for ME! ( That sarcasm is pointed at myself in an attenpt to keep it in perspective and not take myself too seriously ).

The bottom line:

You cannot get a gun permit in either city unless you are a police officer. Perhaps if you're a judge, you'd approve one for yourself. That's about it. It's insane.

You guys on the left-prove me wrong here if you can. Maybe you can also explain why gun crimes go up when gun laws get stricter. Gee, could it have something to do with the fact that innocents cannot then defend themselves with a firearm?

Naw.

Of course not.

Spin on.

Herb

I have a friend in NYC who legally owns a handgun. He's a realtor.

They are not banned.

That looks like enough proof for me. Maybe not you and I accept that. But it is for me. That's the only bottom line I was looking for.

Admittedly though, he could be lying to me.

Spin on Herbaroni!!!

Spin was made for you...

Chickenjuggler-

Find out for us if he lives inside NYC or a neighbouring borough.

Herb

Here's a question I've always had for guntards who shit their pants at the idea of "home defense."

If there's a bad guy, and he's coming at me with a gun, and I'm in my house, and I'm going to assume he's going to shoot me with my gun--what DEFENSIVE good is me PULLING A GUN GOING TO DO?

Can I block his bullet with my gun?
Can I shoot his gun out of the air?

Not unless I'm freaking Neo McKeanu in a black leather trenchcoat who learned Kung Fu in a pointy dentists chair. So if he's got his gun, and he's threatening me--pulling my gun isn't defending anything, it's EXACERBATING THE SITUATION and I'm probably going to get SHOT.

How is a gun, in any way, a defensive weapon? You POINT IT AND SHOOT IT. A SHIELD is a defensive weapon. Guns are for KILLING THINGS.

Now, I know that's over-exaggerating, but it's an honest response to the frightening scenario always spelled out when this tired argument is trotted out: "Say the bad man has a gun and is facing you--but now you don't have a gun!"

Well, in that situation, even if you DID? You'd still probably get shot. 21st Century Man isn't exactly Wild Bill Hickok. I understand the arguments for owning a gun--I just don't agree with them. And the 2nd Amendment, as it was drafted and written, was rendered obsolete long ago. Unless people wanna start lobbying for the right to drive tanks and own F-14's, the obsolescence of the 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere any time soon.

Herb, stop signing your fucking posts. We know who you are. Your name goes right above the mindless garbage you crap out in a strange sadomasochistic fetish on this board for absolutely zero good reason.

And has anyone else noticed that when Herb gets involved in a thread (even the ones he starts) they invariably become these giant turdy messes? Look at what the thread is called...

...and Look what it's devolved to.

Yet another patented collection of cliches, tropes, sloganeering, half-thought out arguments, incendiary phrases, half-truths (if not outright lies) masked by obfuscation and equivocation, and each time it's because he strides in with nothing worth saying

and then double

spaces every thing

he has to say, as if that

makes it extra important, then he

drops one phrase ,

to highlight how condescending and snotty he's being

almost perfectly engineered to rile

and then jumps out of the way while people crawl all over themselves to prove him "wrong" as if that's going to make any semblance of a dent in a guy who goes online to argue with radio people on an obscure messageboard about politics, and SOLELY about politics, while signing his posts with something as absurd sounding

as Herbert Milhous Nixon VI

And not only does he EXPECT you to take his shit seriously, YOU COMPLY. Me included. Which I'm sure warms the cockles of his Nixonian heart, but again, look up at the top of this thread, and now look at what it is, and note that EVERY SINGLE off-topic, mean-spirited and mildly ignorant fork this conversation has taken, he steered that way.

That's not accidental.

Juggler pointed it out in the thread earlier: "Winning" is what it's about on Herb's side. That's the end result, the justification for the equivocation and the bullshit. Trying to make any sort of difference, even superficially, on a mindset that narrow, IS FUTILE. It's like trying to convince a Packers fan that he should be rooting for the Cowboys. It's not an accident that I'm using sports teams, because politics, for people like Herb, have been reduced to nothing more complex than a beer-soaked fat man in the stands enjoying his favorite spectator sport.

I'm telling you fats, you missed your calling!

Nah, I'm just well practiced in spotting and breaking down bullshitters

If deconstructing assholes on the internet was my true calling, I'm glad I've missed it. The pay isn't so great. And if a job in RADIO pays better than your "calling" then you KNOW it's a bad calling

That is the truth. Well, at least it has serious thearaputic value!

Is Manhattan a surrounding borough? That's where he lives and works.

Can't deny that. This whole exercise is providing some sort of therapy to Herb/Wayne as well, I'm sure. There's gotta be, at some level, a positive benefit in openly CHOOSING to politically troll a Portland Radio messageboard, especially for as long as he's done it.

I'm not entirely sure I know what that benefit could be, but I doubt that "herb" would ever open up and be honest enough to drop the facade and honestly speak on why he chooses to do the crap he does on this board. So much like the great unanswered question of our times, "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop,"

...the world may never know.

Yunno what sucks? at some point Herb was given cache by people here as the "right winger you can talk to" and that's bullshit. If there's ANYONE here who leans right that isn't about the sort of confrontational, mean-spirited sloganeering that Herb/Wayne indulges in, I find that it's Deane Johnson.

And that's not just because we both are Home Theater nuts. Firstly, I at least know he's a REAL PERSON and not a fake persona. And secondly, he's always been able to find a way to express himself without having to rely on annoying internet tropes, condescending tone, empty sayings and general bullshit.

He also doesn't sign his posts like a goob and knows how to communicate via the written word effectively.

Why HERB got the pass from posters here, I'll never know. Makes absolutely no sense. Then again, look how long everyone put up with Wayne.

Juggler: Manhattan IS NYC. NYC is made up of 5 boroughs. I don't know what Herb was trying to do by asking if he lived in a "Neighbouring Borough" because the city is MADE OF NEIGHBOURING BOROUGHS. FIVE of them.

Oh shit, wait, no, I DO know what he was trying to do. Split hairs and parse words and manipulate terminology in an effort to further shit all over the thread he started and mask the emptiness of the rhetoric he's spouting for reasons still unknown.

Maybe my friend had some sort of granfather cluase that allowed him to legally own a handgun and reside in the city.

Or maybe it's just that they are not banned.

I'm going with the latter for now.

I think it's all really simple, and I agree with you regarding Deane as well. Hope he's well.

Any affirmation of views that do not directly support his priorities, clearly expressed here; namely, fighting terror and getting rightie court appointments, is seen as a clear and present threat, with actual correctness or truth not being a significant consideration. --It's simply not a priority.

It can go three ways from there:

-debunk the threat, thus scoring one for his ideology,

-muddy the threat, thus denying the point for other ideologies,

-surrender, thus putting the potential for a point in favor of other views on the table, thus advancing a threat.

Win, lose or draw. Herb will, win or draw at all costs. A loss is simply not recognized for a variety of self-justifications.

That leaves debunking and muddying the discussion as the primary tools, and that brings us full circle to your observation here.

For me personally, it's no biggie though. It is what it is.

"...warms the cockles of his Nixonian heart..."

At least you acknowledge Mr. Nixon had one.

Herbert M.

FatboyRoberts, I put the check in the mail in the amount agreed on.