Xtisme… why would Bush be smoothing things during his second tenure ? He can’t reelect himself and congress is republican. I think he will run loose instead.
Iran might be too big to chew… but he can play bomber boy too.
If Bush does get elected don’t expect much “liberal” riots… its the conservatives who go out and do something. Shoot abortion doctors… hang niggers… etc… Liberals don’t.
Is ‘shooting niggers’, as you so quaintly put it, a common post-election event in Brazil? Given your crime rates, I wouldn’t be suprised. But just to let you know, our post-election festivities don’t involve shooting anyone.
RM, because he has too…unless he has no interest in ever having another Republican elected to government again. Basically IF he’s re-elected he needs to be able to show his plans were long term. To do that he needs to have, by the end of his next term, things pretty well smoothed out, with a democratically elected government in Iraq, a full or at least partial withdrawl of our forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan, and a well running (even booming) economy. If he fails to do this the Republicans will certainly lose the whitehouse next term…and it may be a LONG time before they win it back. In addition, if he doesn’t do that the Republicans will continue to lose in the house and senate.
Remember RM, Bush isn’t a king who can do as he pleases. The factors that let him get away with what he did in Iraq were VERY unusual and I seriously doubt they will be repeated. Bush has to work with his party (many of who in the house and senate would like to be re-elected as well, yes?) and even with the opposition or he will get exactly nothing accomplished at all.
Yes, like Clinton he most certainly can…and probably WILL…do this. But tossing a few tomahawks at Iran or Syria is not on the same level with a full blown invasion and occupation, is it? Again, Bush isn’t king, so he has to work within the system…and I’d say that tossing a few tomahawks are about ALL he will be able to do, barring another major attack on US soil of course.
RM, thats total bullshit and you know it. CONSERVATIVES don’t do those things, fanatics and racists do, and you are trying to paint ‘conservatives’ with a ridiculously broad brush…while giving left wing fanatics and nutjobs a pass. 
There are fanatics willing to kill or destroy on BOTH sides of the isle at the extremes. Conservatives didn’t run riot when Billy boy got elected NOR when he got re-elected.
-XT
I am not a Democrat, and I see nothing but disaster if Bush succeeds in usurping another term. When Nixon was in office, “liberal” had not yet become a dirty word, and even people as young as the OP knew what freedom was. Now, the populace is complacent and fearful, and young people have never witnessed the overthrow of oppression that we witnessed in the 60s. This is how freedom is lost in a place like America. It is an Elliotish end. No one recalls where the parafin comes from, and so the candle just burns out.
Which are we? Complacent or fearful? You can’t be both complacent and fearful.
Complacent about the loss of liberty but fearful of those who are taking it. Consider the man who is paranoid of the shadowy figure approaching him while unaware that his pocket is being picked from behind.
Rashak Mani
[Moderator Hat ON]
Referring to “niggers” is needlessly inflammatory; and really, if you just want to bash conservatives with such unlikely and offensive assertions, do it in the Pit. Understood?
[Moderator Hat OFF]
I have a problem with “the polls”. On the few (three I believe) occasions when I have been “polled” I have intentionally lied. Anybody work with a polling outfit? Any idea on the number of folks out there who lie when polled?
It would be presumed that liars are randomly distributed among the polling sample, and thus cancel each other out, unless there was reason to believe that partisans of one candidate are more likely to lie than other people.
And for what reason were you lying to the poll taker? If you don’t want to participate in a poll honestly, than don’t participate at all. No one is forcing you.
Are you saying that there is something “wrong” with lying to a poll taker?
The first time I lied was an election right after I voted. The idea of exit polling affecting those who have yet to cast their vote was disturbing to me. And some poll takers are a bit pushy.
So, I will continue to lie when polled.
Except that in the last several elections, exit polling results haven’t been used until after the polls are closed. (Admittedly, there was a bit of a violation of that in Florida where a small part of the state was in the Central Time Zone.) Such polling is more used to predict results in the short time period between polls closing and votes being counted AND to study the demographics to understand who voted for who, what issues were most important to them, etc.
But exit polling provides a check on the official vote tally – if the exit-poll results differ from the official results, a red flag should go up. We need that, especially if we’re going to be using touchscreen voting machines with no paper trail.
Yep, this was many elections ago, but it soured me on the concept of polling.
Let me see if I get his right: You strongly dislike polls so you consciously work to make them worse? You might want to get out and smell the roses more often… 
hehehe…I smell plenty of roses.
In my 40 years I have had strangers approach me a few times and ask personal questions. Thinking this a rude behavior, I have intentionally given answers that were not true. I have also had others tell me they do the same thing.
The reason for this hijack was just curiousity over the effect this may have. I do not know if I am a tiny minority or if many others do this.
Instead of engaging in such childish behavior, why not just say you’re not interested, bye. No one is forcing you to answer.
I believe that this country will be in big trouble if Bush wins. There will most likely be many riots and other things opposing King George’s reign of power. Lets just hope we’re not in for a Bush dynasty.
If, in 1999, you had tried to explain the last 3+ years of the Bush presidency to somebody … they would have said things like:
“Yeah right, nobody would be dumb enough to turn away from a fight in progress and start a war unnecessarily. Not even the greedheads are that dumb.”
“Who would try to actually amend the Constitution to deny people rights? No president has ever tried that. Unamerican.”
“Oh come on. You expect me to believe that any leader would cut taxes at a time of war? You’re hysterical!”
This is how so many of the posts in this thread sound to me: “Our military can’t invade and occupy any more countries right now.” That may be true, but I hesitate to say the truth of it would stop this administration from doing anything that comes to mind. After all, we know they just have to launch a media campaign and say “We can do it! And Cheap!” enough times, and the sheep will turn. People are assuming logic or reality apply in some way to what they are doing to this country. Looking at how we got where we are, it obviously does not.
I expect only the worst from 4 more years…