Easily Jimmy Carter, all he did was sent us into recession and our kidnapped soldiers had to spend 400+ days in captivity if any president serves his soldiers up as appetizers to the enemy is not fit to hold the office of president.  And he has the guts enough to criticize President Bush on the war Carter is such a hypocrite

 

I bet Carter knew how to use periods.

I bet Carter knew how to use periods.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Typical liberal response attack the messenger and not the message. The liberal tatics of whining and complaining isn't getting it done, the evidence is in the election results. Bush might have only won by 34 but there is were far more "blue" states in play than "red" states. The '06 elections will continue this trend.

The '06 elections will continue this trend.

 

The early stuff I am reading indicates otherwise. There was just a poll reported recently that pointed out that many Republicans running in the midterms are having to distance themselves from the Prez, for fear of what he will do to their campaigns (anyone have a link? It was reported here too, but I can't find it). I think you'll see a shift back to the left, to some extent (history says thats likely anyway, all being equal). But we'll have to see.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 01:22 PM)

Typical liberal response attack the messenger and not the message.  The liberal tatics of whining and complaining isn't getting it done, the evidence is in the election results.  Bush might have only won by 34 but there is were far more "blue" states in play than "red" states.  The '06 elections will continue this trend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've seen this post before, and I saw a a pretty good visual representation of how pointless your post is.

 

Courtesy of heads

 

 

Here's a map that is colored due to the amount that corresponds to how much the candidate won a county won by, as well as the population of the county. Really red, huh?

 

What's the first result from google of the word "failure?"

What's the first result from google of the word "failure?"

Are you familiar with the term "Google Bombing"?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 12:55 AM)

Are you familiar with the term "Google Bombing"? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes.

I've seen this post before, and I saw a a pretty good visual representation of how pointless your post is.

 

Courtesy of heads

 

What's the first result from google of the word "failure?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ok here is the proof: Democratic vote totals

 

2000 2004

IA 49% 47%

NM 48% 45%

MN 50% 48%

WI 50% 48%

 

 

I could keep going but it pointless Liberals don't understand that the public doesn't want to hear blame they want an actual answer and the republicans are the only one giving it. It is very easy to sit and blame the president for every little thing that goes wrong. The Iraq war is great example all of the liberals vote for it then as soon it hits a rough patch the liberals duck and run and critize the president for supporting the war. The fact is the liberals attacking Bush now after voting for the war are nothing but a bunch of cowards.

You're wrong about Wisconsin. Al Gore got 48%, John Kerry got 49.7%.

New Hampshire Al Gore got 47, John Kerry got 50.

Ohio Al Gore got 46, John Kerry got 48.

Colorado Al Gore got 42, John Kerry got 47.

Nevada Al Gore got 46, John Kerry got 48.

You're wrong about NM too. Al Gore got 48. John Kerry got 49.

 

What does that mean? A whole lot of nothing. It means that a relatively small number of people (with the exception of Colorado) voted more in one direction than the other. 2 percentage points doesn't consist of a seismic shift of anything.

 

It might also be explained by the power of incumbency on the side of the Democrats in 2000 and on the side of the GOP in 2004. It might also be explained by the fact that more people liked Al Gore than John Kerry. Or it might be explained by the fact that the GOP really really turned out. Elections are won on the ground. And turning out your base which is what the GOP does is the key to winning. When the Democrats come back to that, they'll start winning too.

 

I'm waiting to hear the Dems have lost 5 of the last 7 elections again. Conveniently forgetting that more people voted for Democrats in three of the last four elections.

 

This bulls*** polemic is still bulls***.

 

Oh yeah and the "liberals attacking Bush for something they supported" is not a very good argument either. Because you're saying the Democrats are cowards for taking the President at his word, and getting angry when the President was wrong - and possibly on purpose.

 

Please.

You're wrong about Wisconsin. Al Gore got 48%, John Kerry got 49.7%.

New Hampshire Al Gore got 47, John Kerry got 50.

Ohio Al Gore got 46, John Kerry got 48.

Colorado Al Gore got 42, John Kerry got 47.

Nevada Al Gore got 46, John Kerry got 48.

You're wrong about NM too. Al Gore got 48. John Kerry got 49.

 

What does that mean? A whole lot of nothing. It means that a relatively small number of people (with the exception of Colorado) voted more in one direction than the other. 2 percentage points doesn't consist of a seismic shift of anything.

 

It might also be explained by the power of incumbency on the side of the Democrats in 2000 and on the side of the GOP in 2004. It might also be explained by the fact that more people liked Al Gore than John Kerry. Or it might be explained by the fact that the GOP really really turned out. Elections are won on the ground. And turning out your base which is what the GOP does is the key to winning. When the Democrats come back to that, they'll start winning too.

 

I'm waiting to hear the Dems have lost 5 of the last 7 elections again. Conveniently forgetting that more people voted for Democrats in three of the last four elections.

 

This bulls*** polemic is still bulls***.

 

Oh yeah and the "liberals attacking Bush for something they supported" is not a very good argument either. Because you're saying the Democrats are cowards for taking the President at his word, and getting angry when the President was wrong - and possibly on purpose.

 

Please.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well put.

It might also be explained by the power of incumbency on the side of the Democrats in 2000 and on the side of the GOP in 2004. It might also be explained by the fact that more people liked Al Gore than John Kerry. Or it might be explained by the fact that the GOP really really turned out. Elections are won on the ground. And turning out your base which is what the GOP does is the key to winning. When the Democrats come back to that, they'll start winning too.

 

I'm waiting to hear the Dems have lost 5 of the last 7 elections again. Conveniently forgetting that more people voted for Democrats in three of the last four elections.

 

This bulls*** polemic is still bulls***.

 

 

You're also convieniently forgetting that the GOP also got more votes in those same elections and thats how they not only hung onto power but expanded it. The fact that you have consistiently lost elections and that the GOP has the strongest majorities its had in I dont know how long is very telling. Despite all the bad things that have happened in the last 5 years ( war, terrorism, defecits ) you people cant even so much as pick up a Senate seat let alone unseat a President.

 

Your party is in sorry shape to say the least. As long as your leadership continues to let the Ted Kennedy's of the world decide your strategy you wont ever sniff power again.

 

Bill Clinton understood this and thats why he was so successful.

What's the first result from google of the word "failure?"

 

 

The REAL failure is that of the Democratic party to forment any kind of opposition. If their message was more substantive and less shrill in their criticism they might actually get somewhere.

Just for Giggles....

 

1) JFK

2) Jefferson

3) Nixon

4) F.D.R.

5) LBJ (because he used to pull his pants down at public events and named his pecker "jumbo")

 

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you. what is your source to call lincoln a racist? stop smoking meth. and the president who was in office during the height of the cold war (and came within inches of f***ing it up during the cuban missile crisis; due to luck alone there was not mutually assurred destruction) who was shot before he could really do much of anything? i agree that JFK COULD have been a great president, but he didnt have the chance. what did JFK do that was so good for the US? oh and he also continued to escalate the vietnam war while giving that b.s. lip service about it being "their war to fight".

Edited February 16, 200620 yr by Rex Kickass

... what is your source to call lincoln a racist? stop smoking meth. and the president who was in office during the height of the cold war (and came within inches of f***ing it up during the cuban missile crisis; due to luck alone there was not mutually assurred destruction) who was shot before he could really do much of anything? i agree that JFK COULD have been a great president, but he didnt have the chance. what did JFK do that was so good for the US? oh and he also continued to escalate the vietnam war while giving that b.s. lip service about it being "their war to fight".

 

Take it easy, there.

Edited February 16, 200620 yr by Rex Kickass

Take it easy, there.

 

Yeah, consider this a warning. name calling is not permitted and will be met with a suspension next time.

You're also convieniently forgetting that the GOP also got more votes in those same elections

Not in the Senate.

whoa, sorry about that. felt like i was sort of on the bandwagon there, but i see where the line is now. sorry, wont happen again.