Prediction, Bush poll numbers go up due to Reagans death!

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:02 pm

That's right, barring any major events, either good or bad, that would otherwise move the polls, I bet after about a week of the press reviewing all the positives of Reagans presidency we will find voters looking favorably on Bush and seeing things like the Abbu Grabass "scandal" and other minor setbacks in proper perspective.

Look for the left to panic at the first sign of this and try to either take Reagan down or try to define Bush as 'Un-Reagan like'.

Ain't politics grand? And it only cost's a quarter billion to play along

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:28 pm

reviewing all the positives of Reagans presidency we will find voters looking favorably on Bush

Unless, of course, you frequent the Democratic Underground. I just had to see what they were saying over there. Contrary to what you said, I don't think the Lefties will call Bush "un-Reagan like", they seem to hate (and I mean hate) both pretty equally.

If anyone wants to tiptoe through the sewage and see their response to Reagan's death, here ya go. Please note: the language is often as vapid and crude as their politics.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:40 pm

heh....

I'd bet the farm that that board gets more hits from conservatives then liberals.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:57 pm

You just can't buy the sort of bad publicity they give leftists. I'm surprised the DUMBies haven't accused themselves of being an invention of the VRWC.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 12:37 am

Thatâ??s a shame, www.democraticunderground.com doesn't accept new registrations. That explains alot though...

I had a good thread typed out too for there, woulda pissed both sides off and such

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 12:45 am

yeah, i have the same feeling will.

bash... "dumbies"? watch it.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:22 am

He's just using the acronym for 'democratic underground message board'. Like I said, I'm sure more conservatives visit that place them liberals for their daily 'hidden truth'.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:27 am

I think it's usually telling when someone is "sure" of something when they don't have any evidence from which to judge.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:13 am

"I bet after about a week of the press reviewing all the positives of Reagans presidency we will find voters looking favorably on Bush"

"Look for the left to panic at the first sign of this and try to either take Reagan down"

Heaven forbid the left seek a balance between media coverage of the positives and negatives of Reagan's political life. You show me a person that thinks Reagan was the best leader ever, and I'll show you a person that thinks Reagan is a war criminal.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:33 am

Ummm Vander, to be judged a war crimminal doesn't there has ta be a war...as in a declared war? As for being a great leader whose to judge?:

"Final results showed Ronald Reagan won 489 electoral votes against the Democrats' 49.
Reagan's two term total of 94.23% of electoral college votes from his two successful elections make him number 2 in the Presidential listings with only George Washington being ahead"

Not even slick willie comes close

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 9:41 am

You mean to tell me that you're judging greatness by electoral college % votes?

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 10:19 am

There was a war. It was between Iran and Iraq. And Reagan's administration sold arms to both sides during that war. I would accept "war crime" as a fitting description of those actions. If I had sold missles to Iran in the 80's they'd have shot my a$$ for treason. He either knew or should have known.

He wasn't all bad. But he was definitely no saint.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 12:23 pm

I think it's usually telling when someone is "sure" of something when they don't have any evidence from which to judge.

Bash is the one that made me first aware of that place. Index then brought it up in this thread. Both conservative. Another conservative friend of mine mentioned it the other day. No one on the left has ever brought that place up here at the dbb, (that i know of, and if so it was probably not in a positive light), no one I know in real life has mentioned it to me who is on the left. Bottom line is they accept no registrations from new liberals to criticize them!

That makes me personally not want to go there at all. I get nothing from it but, 'sigh,' and I can't even tell them that! While conservitives get fuel for their fire. As index said,

" I just had to see what they were saying over there."

I'm not criticizing him for feeling that way, just noting that he does, and that I have no incentive to go. I don't even take offence to index_html's comments, because their politics are not my politics. Even though the agenda may be similar.

The "liberals" who post there are locked in. Whats the incentive for others to come and read?

'no evidence' is a bit naive. It has been my personal experience in its entirety.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:24 pm

Bottom line is they accept no registrations from new liberals to criticize them!

Good point. It's not exactly a bastion of free speech, leaving a stagnant consensus with little challenge. And I don't intend to lump all liberals together. I guess I possess a distinction in my head between traditional liberals and Leftists. In relative terms, most Americans are liberal compared to much of the world (conservative in the democratic world is an ideological ocean away from conservative in the Middle East or China, for example).

The Leftists, however, while claiming to be benevolent open-minded liberals, are in fact a hateful, self-loathing, defeatist, self-absorbed bunch that seem to want nothing short of the collapse of the U.S. (perhaps democracy in general). Their endless conspiracy theories, hyper-partisanship, apocalyptic declarations, and superficial rage far too often comes across as support for the very tyranny liberals traditionally deplore. Which would be fine if it was publicized and rejected overtly in places like the main stream media or the DNC. But it's not. Maybe one day Michael Moore, Ted Rall, John Pilger, Maureen Dowd, Susan Sontag, and their ilk will lead the nutty Left straight into marginalized irrelevance with their hyperbole and Utopian psychosis, where they can duke it out with the KKK over who are the most narrow-minded, hateful pinheads. We all win the day that happens.

Maybe it's started. At least some people are now asking questions like this:

Just before the war against Iraq I began to receive strange calls from BBC journalists. Would I like information on how the leadership of the anti-war movement had been taken over by the Socialist Workers Party? . . .

The anti-war movement wasn't a simple repetition of the old story of the politically naive being led by the nose by sly operators. The far left was becoming the far right. It had gone as close to supporting Ba'athist fascism as it dared and had formed a working alliance with the Muslim Association of Britain, which, along with the usual misogyny and homophobia of such organisations, also believed that Muslims who decided that there was no God deserved to die for the crime of free thought. In a few weeks hundreds of thousands of people, maybe millions, would allow themselves to be organised by the opponents of democracy and modernity and would march through the streets of London without a flicker of self-doubt. Wasn't this a story?

It's a great story, I cried. But why don't you broadcast it?

We can't, said the bitter hacks. Our editors won't let us.

Link

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:54 pm

The Leftists, however, while claiming to be benevolent open-minded liberals, are in fact a hateful, self-loathing, defeatist, self-absorbed bunch that seem to want nothing short of the collapse of the U.S. (perhaps democracy in general).

Good post. You completely summed up the thread that I had planned on starting over there. What they do is the exact opposite of 'open-minded'. They practice the complete opposite of what they preach.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 8:46 am

I think index_html brings up a good point.

I think Pat Buchanan is right wing. But he does not characterize the entire Republican party. Therefore, he is "rightist" as opposed to "conservative" by index_html's logic.

Similarly, that dorky DUMB forum hardly characterizes liberal thought. Just a bunch of angry leftist geeks with nothing better to do.