NCclimber 0 #51 November 10, 2006 QuoteThe war was the biggy. Even w/o all the republican child mollesters, gay clergy, etc..... the war would have turned the house and maybe the senate. This economy BS is baffling. The economy is crappy for me and lok at the local help wanted. I think there are a lot of unemployed and low paid workers out there, but this is not a booming job market and I think the people said that with their votes. All the Republican child molesters? I didn't know there was one? A lot of unemployed out there? According to the Labor Dept. numbers released last Friday, unemployment is at a five year low and wages are up. Hmm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #52 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote Hey, I mostly got laid by a supermodel too I got laid by nearly more than one! You're nearly bragging a bit too much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #53 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe war was the biggy. Even w/o all the republican child mollesters, gay clergy, etc..... the war would have turned the house and maybe the senate. This economy BS is baffling. The economy is crappy for me and lok at the local help wanted. I think there are a lot of unemployed and low paid workers out there, but this is not a booming job market and I think the people said that with their votes. All the Republican child molesters? I didn't know there was one? A lot of unemployed out there? According to the Labor Dept. numbers released last Friday, unemployment is at a five year low and wages are up. Hmm. Jesus, wasn't Foley and a handful of Catholic Priests? Wages are up? I haven't seen that, but as opposed to 6 years ago, a house costs twice as much and gas is twice as high, so it must be a paycut. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #54 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuote All the Republican child molesters? I didn't know there was one? Jesus, wasn't Foley and a handful of Catholic Priests? Foley is a child molester? What's your definition of child molester? Mine is pretty simple - inappropriate touching of a child. Are catholic priests representatives of the GOP? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,138 #55 November 10, 2006 QuoteAre catholic priests representatives of the GOP? Well, DUH!!!! All catholic priests are child molesters and so are all GOP members.....come on get with the program!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #56 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote All the Republican child molesters? I didn't know there was one? Jesus, wasn't Foley and a handful of Catholic Priests? Foley is a child molester? What's your definition of child molester? Mine is pretty simple - inappropriate touching of a child. Are catholic priests representatives of the GOP? It appears that Foley had illicit communications with minors, probably had contact. If we want to talk strict proof, all that has been proven is that he used his position to coerce communications with young guys, is it probable that he used it for sex with young guys? Sure. Virtually all men of the cloth, I'd say easily 90% vote Republican which is what put the Repubs in power for so long, also all the followers. Now hat they have slimed the Christian vote, they are no longer in total power. To disconnect religious leaders from the Republicans is nuts. Christians are very politically procative people and bet that most vote. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #57 November 10, 2006 QuoteIt appears that Foley had illicit communications with minors, probably had contact. If we want to talk strict proof, all that has been proven is that he used his position to coerce communications with young guys, is it probable that he used it for sex with young guys? Sure. Virtually all men of the cloth, I'd say easily 90% vote Republican which is what put the Repubs in power for so long, also all the followers. Now hat they have slimed the Christian vote, they are no longer in total power. To disconnect religious leaders from the Republicans is nuts. Christians are very politically procative people and bet that most vote. Why rely on facts when unsupported assertions will do? In this last election 55% of Catholics voted Democrat as did over 40% of Evangelical/Born Agains. While I find what has been disclosed about Foley's behavior to be disgusting, I have not read anything that has shown him to be a child molester. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #58 November 10, 2006 QuoteJeez, guys! GWB is the living, breathing epitome of the Peter Principle in action. I'm sure that there are many others in politics, but right now he is the poster child. And I ask again...Would you say the same of Democrats like Kerry? Pelosi? Clinton? If not then your bias is showing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #59 November 10, 2006 QuoteWages are up? Yes and so is the stock market, home ownership and aslew of other things you ignore since you don't like them even if most economists think they are good indicators of the economy. QuoteI haven't seen that, but as opposed to 6 years ago, a house costs twice as much and gas is twice as high, so it must be a paycut. Total BS, use facts to support your economic rants, not just personal opinion. FACT: Home ownership is higher than EVER. FACT: stock market is higher than ever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,643 #60 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteJeez, guys! GWB is the living, breathing epitome of the Peter Principle in action. I'm sure that there are many others in politics, but right now he is the poster child. And I ask again...Would you say the same of Democrats like Kerry? Pelosi? Clinton? If not then your bias is showing. You might try reading what I wrote.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #61 November 11, 2006 QuoteYou might try reading what I wrote. I did, you migt try answering questions asked instead of avoiding them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zach 0 #62 November 13, 2006 Could someone clarify for me? I thought the Peter Principle said that a person will rise to the level of their incompetence. If that is the case, then doesn't it apply to everyone? In that case then yes it would apply to Clinton, Pilosi, and Kerry. (Of course, their levels of incompetence may be higher or lower than George Dub's) Again, I could be wrong about the Peter Principle thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #63 November 13, 2006 QuoteCould someone clarify for me? I thought the Peter Principle said that a person will rise to the level of their incompetence. If that is the case, then doesn't it apply to everyone? In that case then yes it would apply to Clinton, Pilosi, and Kerry. (Of course, their levels of incompetence may be higher or lower than George Dub's) Again, I could be wrong about the Peter Principle thing. Didn't you get the memo? Dems can do no wrong... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #64 November 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteCould someone clarify for me? I thought the Peter Principle said that a person will rise to the level of their incompetence. If that is the case, then doesn't it apply to everyone? In that case then yes it would apply to Clinton, Pilosi, and Kerry. (Of course, their levels of incompetence may be higher or lower than George Dub's) Again, I could be wrong about the Peter Principle thing. Didn't you get the memo? Dems can do no wrong... Don;t worry about us, it's you. As even Bill Maher said, the Dems didn;t win this, the Repubs list it. I totally agree, the Dems need to start unfucking the corruption the Repubs have laid and maybe they can win the White House on 08 and deepen their hold of COngress. But the Repubs need to quit looking the other way, IT'S THEM. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #65 November 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteCould someone clarify for me? I thought the Peter Principle said that a person will rise to the level of their incompetence. If that is the case, then doesn't it apply to everyone? In that case then yes it would apply to Clinton, Pilosi, and Kerry. (Of course, their levels of incompetence may be higher or lower than George Dub's) Again, I could be wrong about the Peter Principle thing. Didn't you get the memo? Dems can do no wrong... Don;t worry about us, it's you. As even Bill Maher said, the Dems didn;t win this, the Repubs list it. I totally agree, the Dems need to start unfucking the corruption the Repubs have laid and maybe they can win the White House on 08 and deepen their hold of COngress. But the Repubs need to quit looking the other way, IT'S THEM. Sorry - can't blame the Reps for what goes wrong anymore, when the Dhims hold Congress. Nice try, though. I'm still waiting for that plan, though... something besides "Change the course" or a "retrograde deployment to Taiwan" (the Murtha Gambit) would be nice... something to reassure the people that the Dhim actually HAD a plan other than "get the Reps out of office but keep blaming everything wrong on them".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #66 November 13, 2006 QuoteCould someone clarify for me? I thought the Peter Principle said that a person will rise to the level of their incompetence. If that is the case, then doesn't it apply to everyone? In that case then yes it would apply to Clinton, Pilosi, and Kerry. (Of course, their levels of incompetence may be higher or lower than George Dub's) Again, I could be wrong about the Peter Principle thing. You're not so much wrong as you are overly-broadening the definition of the Peter Principle. The Peter Principle is that in a bureaucracy, a person of limited capabilities tends to keep getting promoted until he gets one-too-many promotions, to a level just beyond his level of competence. Then, politically, the bureaucracy tends to keep him in place (because the upper manager who unwisely promoted the middle manager doesn't want to admit his own mistake) rather than fire or demote him...so he just stays at his position, wallowing along in his incompetence. But the Peter Principle doesn't necessarily apply to all people or situations. On the one hand, in reality, some people do get fired, demoted or transferred to remedy their incompetence. And on the other hand, some people are so competent that they handle every position they've ever occupied competently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Samurai136 0 #67 November 14, 2006 There's also the Cornell University study that suggests incompetent people are less able to recognize competence in others. http://www2.lingsoft.fi/~reriksso/competence.html This tends to explain a lot of the discourse in SC."Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #68 November 14, 2006 QuoteCould someone clarify for me? I thought the Peter Principle said that a person will rise to the level of their incompetence. If that is the case, then doesn't it apply to everyone? In that case then yes it would apply to Clinton, Pilosi, and Kerry. (Of course, their levels of incompetence may be higher or lower than George Dub's) Again, I could be wrong about the Peter Principle thing. Nope, thats it. Some only want it to apply to others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #69 November 14, 2006 QuoteDon;t worry about us, it's you. As even Bill Maher said, the Dems didn;t win this, the Repubs list it. I hope you meant "lost". I agree, the problem is if the best you can do is not be the other guy, thats pretty sad. And that can only get you so far...And into office was that distance. So now the Dems have been saying about how much better they could do since they are not the Repubs. Now they have to put up, or they also will fall since the next group will not be them as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #70 November 14, 2006 QuoteSorry - can't blame the Reps for what goes wrong anymore, when the Dhims hold Congress. Nice try, though Yes, you can. The actions put into effect will have lasting results. I am looking forward to seeing if the Dems can do anything they promised. Some of it could be OK, but now it seems hunting season has changed from Repub being in season to Dems coming into season. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #71 November 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteSorry - can't blame the Reps for what goes wrong anymore, when the Dhims hold Congress. Nice try, though Yes, you can. The actions put into effect will have lasting results. I am looking forward to seeing if the Dems can do anything they promised. Some of it could be OK, but now it seems hunting season has changed from Repub being in season to Dems coming into season. I agree, that the current policies will have longer lasting effects - but that's not how I saw his post. It seemed to me to be more of a "it'll still be the Republican's fault" spew that Dean was trying to pass off on the news shows this weekend. My point was, you can't have it both ways - if you're going to say that the Dems got Congress because of the "failed policies of the Republicans" (and let's face it - there were plenty), then you can't keep blaming those policies once the Dems are in charge and start setting policy of their own.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #72 November 14, 2006 QuoteMy point was, you can't have it both ways - if you're going to say that the Dems got Congress because of the "failed policies of the Republicans" (and let's face it - there were plenty), then you can't keep blaming those policies once the Dems are in charge and start setting policy of their own. Agreed, but they will try it. One of the first steps is to blame the last guy. And in some cases it is true. For example there is almost no way the Dems can get the US out of Iraq. However they made the claim they would. So, they will turn and blame Bush (He did get us there so that is fair). But they will do it to try and get a Dem in the White House and to try and protect their jobs. So right now, unless the Dems screw up, I see a Dem winning the WH in 08. But some of the voters that voted "against" (not for) them will become disenfranchised and look for other answers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #73 November 14, 2006 QuoteAgreed, but they will try it. One of the first steps is to blame the last guy. And in some cases it is true. For example there is almost no way the Dems can get the US out of Iraq. However they made the claim they would. So, they will turn and blame Bush (He did get us there so that is fair). But they will do it to try and get a Dem in the White House and to try and protect their jobs. So right now, unless the Dems screw up, I see a Dem winning the WH in 08. But some of the voters that voted "against" (not for) them will become disenfranchised and look for other answers. Possibly so - just like with this election, it's going to depend on how well the Dem's do their jobs (or SHOULD work that way - too bad it so seldom does).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Lucky... 0 #53 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe war was the biggy. Even w/o all the republican child mollesters, gay clergy, etc..... the war would have turned the house and maybe the senate. This economy BS is baffling. The economy is crappy for me and lok at the local help wanted. I think there are a lot of unemployed and low paid workers out there, but this is not a booming job market and I think the people said that with their votes. All the Republican child molesters? I didn't know there was one? A lot of unemployed out there? According to the Labor Dept. numbers released last Friday, unemployment is at a five year low and wages are up. Hmm. Jesus, wasn't Foley and a handful of Catholic Priests? Wages are up? I haven't seen that, but as opposed to 6 years ago, a house costs twice as much and gas is twice as high, so it must be a paycut. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #54 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuote All the Republican child molesters? I didn't know there was one? Jesus, wasn't Foley and a handful of Catholic Priests? Foley is a child molester? What's your definition of child molester? Mine is pretty simple - inappropriate touching of a child. Are catholic priests representatives of the GOP? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,138 #55 November 10, 2006 QuoteAre catholic priests representatives of the GOP? Well, DUH!!!! All catholic priests are child molesters and so are all GOP members.....come on get with the program!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #56 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote All the Republican child molesters? I didn't know there was one? Jesus, wasn't Foley and a handful of Catholic Priests? Foley is a child molester? What's your definition of child molester? Mine is pretty simple - inappropriate touching of a child. Are catholic priests representatives of the GOP? It appears that Foley had illicit communications with minors, probably had contact. If we want to talk strict proof, all that has been proven is that he used his position to coerce communications with young guys, is it probable that he used it for sex with young guys? Sure. Virtually all men of the cloth, I'd say easily 90% vote Republican which is what put the Repubs in power for so long, also all the followers. Now hat they have slimed the Christian vote, they are no longer in total power. To disconnect religious leaders from the Republicans is nuts. Christians are very politically procative people and bet that most vote. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #57 November 10, 2006 QuoteIt appears that Foley had illicit communications with minors, probably had contact. If we want to talk strict proof, all that has been proven is that he used his position to coerce communications with young guys, is it probable that he used it for sex with young guys? Sure. Virtually all men of the cloth, I'd say easily 90% vote Republican which is what put the Repubs in power for so long, also all the followers. Now hat they have slimed the Christian vote, they are no longer in total power. To disconnect religious leaders from the Republicans is nuts. Christians are very politically procative people and bet that most vote. Why rely on facts when unsupported assertions will do? In this last election 55% of Catholics voted Democrat as did over 40% of Evangelical/Born Agains. While I find what has been disclosed about Foley's behavior to be disgusting, I have not read anything that has shown him to be a child molester. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #58 November 10, 2006 QuoteJeez, guys! GWB is the living, breathing epitome of the Peter Principle in action. I'm sure that there are many others in politics, but right now he is the poster child. And I ask again...Would you say the same of Democrats like Kerry? Pelosi? Clinton? If not then your bias is showing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #59 November 10, 2006 QuoteWages are up? Yes and so is the stock market, home ownership and aslew of other things you ignore since you don't like them even if most economists think they are good indicators of the economy. QuoteI haven't seen that, but as opposed to 6 years ago, a house costs twice as much and gas is twice as high, so it must be a paycut. Total BS, use facts to support your economic rants, not just personal opinion. FACT: Home ownership is higher than EVER. FACT: stock market is higher than ever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,643 #60 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteJeez, guys! GWB is the living, breathing epitome of the Peter Principle in action. I'm sure that there are many others in politics, but right now he is the poster child. And I ask again...Would you say the same of Democrats like Kerry? Pelosi? Clinton? If not then your bias is showing. You might try reading what I wrote.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #61 November 11, 2006 QuoteYou might try reading what I wrote. I did, you migt try answering questions asked instead of avoiding them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zach 0 #62 November 13, 2006 Could someone clarify for me? I thought the Peter Principle said that a person will rise to the level of their incompetence. If that is the case, then doesn't it apply to everyone? In that case then yes it would apply to Clinton, Pilosi, and Kerry. (Of course, their levels of incompetence may be higher or lower than George Dub's) Again, I could be wrong about the Peter Principle thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #63 November 13, 2006 QuoteCould someone clarify for me? I thought the Peter Principle said that a person will rise to the level of their incompetence. If that is the case, then doesn't it apply to everyone? In that case then yes it would apply to Clinton, Pilosi, and Kerry. (Of course, their levels of incompetence may be higher or lower than George Dub's) Again, I could be wrong about the Peter Principle thing. Didn't you get the memo? Dems can do no wrong... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #64 November 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteCould someone clarify for me? I thought the Peter Principle said that a person will rise to the level of their incompetence. If that is the case, then doesn't it apply to everyone? In that case then yes it would apply to Clinton, Pilosi, and Kerry. (Of course, their levels of incompetence may be higher or lower than George Dub's) Again, I could be wrong about the Peter Principle thing. Didn't you get the memo? Dems can do no wrong... Don;t worry about us, it's you. As even Bill Maher said, the Dems didn;t win this, the Repubs list it. I totally agree, the Dems need to start unfucking the corruption the Repubs have laid and maybe they can win the White House on 08 and deepen their hold of COngress. But the Repubs need to quit looking the other way, IT'S THEM. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #65 November 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteCould someone clarify for me? I thought the Peter Principle said that a person will rise to the level of their incompetence. If that is the case, then doesn't it apply to everyone? In that case then yes it would apply to Clinton, Pilosi, and Kerry. (Of course, their levels of incompetence may be higher or lower than George Dub's) Again, I could be wrong about the Peter Principle thing. Didn't you get the memo? Dems can do no wrong... Don;t worry about us, it's you. As even Bill Maher said, the Dems didn;t win this, the Repubs list it. I totally agree, the Dems need to start unfucking the corruption the Repubs have laid and maybe they can win the White House on 08 and deepen their hold of COngress. But the Repubs need to quit looking the other way, IT'S THEM. Sorry - can't blame the Reps for what goes wrong anymore, when the Dhims hold Congress. Nice try, though. I'm still waiting for that plan, though... something besides "Change the course" or a "retrograde deployment to Taiwan" (the Murtha Gambit) would be nice... something to reassure the people that the Dhim actually HAD a plan other than "get the Reps out of office but keep blaming everything wrong on them".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #66 November 13, 2006 QuoteCould someone clarify for me? I thought the Peter Principle said that a person will rise to the level of their incompetence. If that is the case, then doesn't it apply to everyone? In that case then yes it would apply to Clinton, Pilosi, and Kerry. (Of course, their levels of incompetence may be higher or lower than George Dub's) Again, I could be wrong about the Peter Principle thing. You're not so much wrong as you are overly-broadening the definition of the Peter Principle. The Peter Principle is that in a bureaucracy, a person of limited capabilities tends to keep getting promoted until he gets one-too-many promotions, to a level just beyond his level of competence. Then, politically, the bureaucracy tends to keep him in place (because the upper manager who unwisely promoted the middle manager doesn't want to admit his own mistake) rather than fire or demote him...so he just stays at his position, wallowing along in his incompetence. But the Peter Principle doesn't necessarily apply to all people or situations. On the one hand, in reality, some people do get fired, demoted or transferred to remedy their incompetence. And on the other hand, some people are so competent that they handle every position they've ever occupied competently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #67 November 14, 2006 There's also the Cornell University study that suggests incompetent people are less able to recognize competence in others. http://www2.lingsoft.fi/~reriksso/competence.html This tends to explain a lot of the discourse in SC."Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #68 November 14, 2006 QuoteCould someone clarify for me? I thought the Peter Principle said that a person will rise to the level of their incompetence. If that is the case, then doesn't it apply to everyone? In that case then yes it would apply to Clinton, Pilosi, and Kerry. (Of course, their levels of incompetence may be higher or lower than George Dub's) Again, I could be wrong about the Peter Principle thing. Nope, thats it. Some only want it to apply to others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #69 November 14, 2006 QuoteDon;t worry about us, it's you. As even Bill Maher said, the Dems didn;t win this, the Repubs list it. I hope you meant "lost". I agree, the problem is if the best you can do is not be the other guy, thats pretty sad. And that can only get you so far...And into office was that distance. So now the Dems have been saying about how much better they could do since they are not the Repubs. Now they have to put up, or they also will fall since the next group will not be them as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #70 November 14, 2006 QuoteSorry - can't blame the Reps for what goes wrong anymore, when the Dhims hold Congress. Nice try, though Yes, you can. The actions put into effect will have lasting results. I am looking forward to seeing if the Dems can do anything they promised. Some of it could be OK, but now it seems hunting season has changed from Repub being in season to Dems coming into season. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #71 November 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteSorry - can't blame the Reps for what goes wrong anymore, when the Dhims hold Congress. Nice try, though Yes, you can. The actions put into effect will have lasting results. I am looking forward to seeing if the Dems can do anything they promised. Some of it could be OK, but now it seems hunting season has changed from Repub being in season to Dems coming into season. I agree, that the current policies will have longer lasting effects - but that's not how I saw his post. It seemed to me to be more of a "it'll still be the Republican's fault" spew that Dean was trying to pass off on the news shows this weekend. My point was, you can't have it both ways - if you're going to say that the Dems got Congress because of the "failed policies of the Republicans" (and let's face it - there were plenty), then you can't keep blaming those policies once the Dems are in charge and start setting policy of their own.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #72 November 14, 2006 QuoteMy point was, you can't have it both ways - if you're going to say that the Dems got Congress because of the "failed policies of the Republicans" (and let's face it - there were plenty), then you can't keep blaming those policies once the Dems are in charge and start setting policy of their own. Agreed, but they will try it. One of the first steps is to blame the last guy. And in some cases it is true. For example there is almost no way the Dems can get the US out of Iraq. However they made the claim they would. So, they will turn and blame Bush (He did get us there so that is fair). But they will do it to try and get a Dem in the White House and to try and protect their jobs. So right now, unless the Dems screw up, I see a Dem winning the WH in 08. But some of the voters that voted "against" (not for) them will become disenfranchised and look for other answers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #73 November 14, 2006 QuoteAgreed, but they will try it. One of the first steps is to blame the last guy. And in some cases it is true. For example there is almost no way the Dems can get the US out of Iraq. However they made the claim they would. So, they will turn and blame Bush (He did get us there so that is fair). But they will do it to try and get a Dem in the White House and to try and protect their jobs. So right now, unless the Dems screw up, I see a Dem winning the WH in 08. But some of the voters that voted "against" (not for) them will become disenfranchised and look for other answers. Possibly so - just like with this election, it's going to depend on how well the Dem's do their jobs (or SHOULD work that way - too bad it so seldom does).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
