Is Pres. Bush on crack?

That's not entirely accurate...

The university of Chicago conducted a study in which they recounted the votes in 6 different scenarios, which is what most newspapers used as their sources. In 3 Bush won, and in 3 Gore won. However, in all of the situations in which the votes were counted in the manner that Gore advocated, and appealed to the Supreme Court for, he would have lost. Which means that if the Supreme Court had upheld the Florida Supreme Court, he still would have lost.

What keeps the "Gore won" mentality alve, is that the studies found that if ALL the votes in the entire state had been counted, then Gore would have won by 100 or so votes. However, Gore never asked for this to be done, so it was a non issue. He probably thought that a statewide recount would not have favored him, but if he had tried, it would have made him look more fair, and like he really did want a true winner. That may have swayed the court, and got him the win.

A fact that Gore no doubt cries himself to sleep every night thinking about...

 

Now onto the subject at hand...

Isn't Bush acting weird lately? The Republicans are scratching their heads. He wants the US to move to alternative sources of renewable energy, which puts the oil companies at odds end, making the members of his party forced to act in a way that won't show disloyalty to the President, or jeapordize oil company campaign contributions.

Now this action has both parties in an uproar. Things like this will probably not help the Republicans in 2006....


Unless of course the Democrats continue to stand their doing nothing to delier a knockout blow...

 

It seems as the actual facts are getting out people are moderating a lot.


I do find it funny that all of a sudden we have enemys in the eyes of the Dems. And I didnt realize all Arabs were bad, but I guess Hillary and Chucky cleared that up. Are these not the same people that said we couldnt profile in airports, so we have to screen babies and old grandmas?

What has happened here is there are Republicains that are scared of losing power and the typical oppurtunist democrate response.

Does anyone know why we have to go outside the US to get this done? Because Unions have run everyone else out of business. Plain and simple. Not saying they are all bad, but my experience with the Teamesters in the Trucking industry was not pleasent. They head of operations spent more time dealing with Union BS than running the dock. Not saying a fella doesnt need to make a buck, but these guys made WAY more than they were worth in the market, and that is why places like GM are in such trouble.

Just my thoughts...could/have been wrong before..



As for the Florida election. Bush won as long as Gore wasnt allow to change the rules of the game after the fact. Exactly my point. I honestly hate to say it, cause i hate more govt, but there should be a nationalized election system to ensure fairness. If the dems couldnt vote dead people and dogs just think of home many more seat teh republicains would have....You know the Dems election day motto "Vote Early, Vote Often"

 

Sigh

Don't you just love election years?

No one in the press, or Congress for that matter, seems to have the least understanding of what is actually going on here.

I spent about three years at sea and in commercial and military ports in my mis-spent youth, both Navy and Merchant Marine, and I learned a little bit about Port operations. This is what everyone seems not to understand:

-Ports are PUBLIC PROPERTY. The real estate, wharves, rail and road access, utilities, cranes, warehouses, drydocks, machine shops, all that stuff belongs to the public and is administered through a public body called a Port Authority or Port Commission (often elected).

-NO ONE is selling any part of any Port.

-Operators of steamship lines and others lease the right to use portions of a Port for their operations. An operator might restrict his activities to loading and unloading cargo and embarking and debarking passengers from his own line's vessels or he might serve all comers.

-An operator leases wharf space, a warehouse, cranes perhaps, space at a fuel pier, office space, whatever the operator needs for his particular business.

-It is these leases that P&O owns and that are being sold to the Arabs.

-Operators are not now, nor have they ever been, in charge of Port security.

-Homeland Security, the Coast Guard, Customs and Immigration, Department of Health, all these agencies are deeply involved with every aspect of a Port operation. A change of operator affects this not one whit.

 

Re: Sigh

Seems like the Port Authorities would agree with you then, but they don't seem to. Seems they were kept out of the loop:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/24/port.security/index.html

 

As I said, the news media has no clue. Take a look at the Port of New Orleans site under press releases (it takes a bit of finding but ports in general are like that):

www.portno.com

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/01/news/ports.php

Umm.... Apparently the parent company that owns the company involved in the deal participates in the Arab boycott of Israel.

Doesn't that go against the U.S. (and Bush's) principle of not partiticpating with groups or nations hostile to Israel?

 

Oops!


Abner

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/09/news/ports.php

Well that's that!

 

Yeah, makes me wonder if the Republicans (some) would have rebelled against Bush if his poll numbers were not so low. Oh, well, at least Baby Bush didn't get his way on this one.

Take care,


Abner

 

Its really a great example of how slimey all of those clowns over there really are. They all were right in step while things are good and jumping ship when they get alittle hairy. If his poll number were higher this would have gone through. And with the great sampleing practices of folks like CBS news, they have greated an exagerated low in the polls. Im not saying his number should be high, Im just saying I dont think they are that low. Everyone has an agenda....

 

Lou and Bink:


Check out this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_ap_poll


Abner

 

Ouch...

You know,

Bush and the Republicans are going down regardless, and it's not necessarily because of the Dems.

History shows that no matter what, whenever a political party takes control of the government, there will be a period of overwhelming victory followed by internal crumbling. Ususally factions within the party start fighting each other, and they collapse as the opposing party comes back to power.

Carl Rove has said this over and over almost like a prophet. I would suspect that in 15 years we'll be talking about how the Democrats are falling over themselves and losing their control of the government back to the republicans.

 

Exactly! I agree. I have been saying this for the last couple of years! The average man is starting to see this party is just not for them.

I suppose If you own a huge corporation and are looking for welfare, join up!!!! Line up folks. We will give you a huge tax break, and you can outsource your social security information to India to boot!!

Just my two centavos!!!


Good luck on your dissertation!! Someday maybe I will do one.


Abner

 

I agree too. Everything runs in cycles. I am curious on how November goes and if a change of the guard happens over the next two years what will happen on the terrorism front.

I suspect that of we get a Dem president next time around it will be follow up with an attack. Not because a dem is in charge, it will be too soon to take advantage of some of their nutty ideas, but to undermine our confidence in the newly elected president. If it is a republicain they will appear internationally as a bush lackey and will probably assume they will continue his ideas and policies so I doubt it is as probable.

I still wouldnt count on a Dem win in 08. If the republicians can distance themselves from Bushs number rights now (that another debate) they could still be a probable win in 08 with no sensible Democratic plans to deal with terrorist. Thats another poll that is real clear and it is still a high issue. Also, if the Senator from NY takes the bit its almost a sure lose. People just dont seem to like her enough for her to win.

 

lsphan,

Just to play devil's advocate here...

How much would a terrorist attack play towards ruining a president's credibility on fighting terrorism?

I mean, Bush was president when 9-11 happened, yet the republicans did everything they could to convince the public that it was Clinton's fault.

Following that logic, when the next attack occurs (and it will eventually) and if it occurs after 2008, then wouldn't Bush be at fault??

How much would that be emphasised if a Republican was president?

 

Thats a good point Bink. It funny how when Bush does something, it is everybody elses fault. The bottom line is he is in Capitains chair RIGHT NOW. The problem with the "blame everybody else" approach is people eventually see through it.

Baby Bush will go down with a bad legacy. I believe his biggest mistake was refusing to listen to any of his fathers advice. Then to top it off, he surrounding himself with a bunch of questionable characters, much to the discontent of Bush Sr. Oh well, this will all be past history soon enough. Life goes on.

Take care,


Abner

 

Thats a good question, im not sure who it would work for and against. I thnk the dems lack credibility when it comes to waging war, period. BUT, if we had another attack a the next president candidate could have time to make a case and establish credibility. Remeber people are down on bush, but they are even more down on the congress too, so that could be a general opion all around and thats why its hard for the dem to totally capalize on...

 

Yup.