On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:06:40 +0100, scott wrote:

>> That's skirting about the point. Even if he technically lost both
>> elections, the fact remains that it would have been a very near loss.
>>
>> Roughly half of the voters voted for him.
> 
> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
> for McCain.
> 
> From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions,
> and I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician
> would sound like that.  I'm going to wait to see how he tackles
> environmental issues, although judging by the size of his car he's not
> setting a very good example :-)  (yes I know it's armour plated etc, but
> still...)

The President doesn't get a choice on things like that - the Secret 
Service takes care of things like transportation details because it 
becomes a safety issue.

That said, I read something recently about them retiring the existing 
fleet of 747s that are "Air Force One" and that the USAF is looking to 
contract for some new planes for that purpose.  They actually are 
considering Airbus.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle escreveu:
> Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> 
>> Bush may have been the worst President in my lifetime.   Nixon screwed 
>> up,
>> was paranoid, etc.  Carter just didn't seem to know what to do.  But 
>> Bush seemed to do whatever the **** he wanted, and never bothered to 
>> explain why to anyone, least of all the American people.  World 
>> opinion could have been swayed to some extent if he had given it a 
>> reasonable attempt, but he never did.
> 
> Perhaps he noted that they hated the US before any American presently 
> alive was born, and decided that courting their opinion was a waste of 
> time.  Perhaps he noted that courting world opinion required the chronic 
> habit of making unrewarded sacrifices and unreciprocated concessions. 
> Perhaps he noted that the press had made a habit of distorting anything 
> he said, so he decided that saying nothing was the wisest course of action.

are you from Texas? ;)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
> for McCain.

	Yes, but your point is...?

	I was merely pointing out that the notion that not that many were
supporting Bush because the elections may have been rigged is pretty
weak ground to stand on.

-- 
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> As has been mentioned the simple fact that he's not Bush will endear him
> to the world regardless of what he does next, the bonus that he's young

	For a year or so. People here are notoriously amnesiac when it comes to
political issues.



-- 
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> As has been mentioned the simple fact that he's not Bush will endear him
> to the world regardless of what he does next, the bonus that he's young

	For a year or so. People here are notoriously amnesiac when it comes to
political issues.



-- 
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:57:51 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> scott wrote:
>> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
>> for McCain.
> 
> 	Yes, but your point is...?
> 
> 	I was merely pointing out that the notion that not that many were
> supporting Bush because the elections may have been rigged is pretty
> weak ground to stand on.

It's a starting point.  Then you have the bad decisions, bad presentation 
to the world as a leader, and so on and so forth.

The fact that he had the lowest approval rating of nearly any President 
since that's been tracked speaks volumes to his effectiveness as a leader 
as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>  From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions, 
>> and I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician would 
>> sound like that.  I'm going to wait to see how he tackles environmental 
>> issues, although judging by the size of his car he's not setting a very 
>> good example :-)  (yes I know it's armour plated etc, but still...)
>>
>>
> armour plating does not make it more fuel efficient.

No, but it provides a reasonable explanation of why it has to be so big and 
heavy.

Post a reply to this message

>> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
>> for McCain.
>
> Yes, but your point is...?

It's often quite close to 50/50 (for the raw number of votes) even though 
the media make it out to be a massive victory or loss for one side.

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> I think a rude awakening is in store for a lot of his supporters.

I'm some how reminded of this:

http://picturesforsadchildren.com/index.php?comicID=203

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions, and 
> I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician would sound 
> like that.

  "How can you tell when a politician is lying?"

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message