NationStates Jolt Archive

To put this in perspective, this is 3 points lower than Nixon's approval rating during the height of Watergate. Also note that Clinton's approval rating was 72% on the day he was impeached.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

In other words, if you speak out against Bush, you are a uniter, not a divider, since you will be joining the great majority.

People can only be lied to for so long, until they begin to get annoyed.

More like 46%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

When Bush's approval rating stops him from making progress in his goals (it hasn't), he can worry about it then.

But it won't stop judge Roberts, and it didn't stall his energy bill, or his military cuts/expansions, or anything else.

More like 46%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

When Bush's approval rating stops him from making progress in his goals (it hasn't), he can worry about it then.

But it won't stop judge Roberts, and it didn't stall his energy bill, or his military cuts/expansions, or anything else.


Just a guess...

This site is a wee bit right leaning?

God, I miss the Clinton Years....

God, I miss the Clinton Years....


agreed.

Just a guess...

This site is a wee bit right leaning?

They were the closest of any major polling company in 2004 for the general election.. and they use robotic polling, which I trust better than human interaction, for a few reasons. People pay good money for their polling data, so I would think accuracy would be their first concern. Polls conducted by newspapers, on the other hand, tend to support a "shocking" (read: newsmaking) conclusion.

They were the closest of any major polling company in 2004 for the general election.. and they use robotic polling, which I trust better than human interaction, for a few reasons. People pay good money for their polling data, so I would think accuracy would be their first concern. Polls conducted by newspapers, on the other hand, tend to support a "shocking" (read: newsmaking) conclusion.



Thats all well and good, but all of the articles on the site you posted were all of a Conservative air.

Wich makes me suspicious of their legitamacy.

The other poll, would be more in keeping with other polls who had Bush's rating at 38% a week or two ago.
Its not hard to belive it slipped a point or two.

agreed.
You know we're the new Reagonites? I dub thee "Squatches of the Clintonites"

You know we're the new Reagonites? I dub thee "Squatches of the Clintonites"


Well..there are worse alternatives....

I could be a "Bushie".

Thats all well and good, but all of the articles on the site you posted were all of a Conservative air.

Wich makes me suspicious of their legitamacy.

The other poll, would be more in keeping with other polls who had Bush's rating at 38% a week or two ago.
Its not hard to belive it slipped a point or two.

I'm not sure what Scott Rasmussen's affiliation is, but I'm sure it's public record. He founded the ESPN sports network, I believe, and has given interviews. When I load the page, I get an advertisement for "Democrat Wristbands," so they must have some kind of liberal readership. Not sure about the articles you mean though, other than the (universally, among pollsters it seems) obsession with Hillary and Cindy Sheehan. Also, apparently 1/3 of those polled think we're in recession.. dunno.

I'm not sure what Scott Rasmussen's affiliation is, but I'm sure it's public record. He founded the ESPN sports network, I believe, and has given interviews. When I load the page, I get an advertisement for "Democrat Wristbands," so they must have some kind of liberal readership. Not sure about the articles you mean though, other than the (universally, among pollsters it seems) obsession with Hillary and Cindy Sheehan. Also, apparently 1/3 of those polled think we're in recession.. dunno.


Yah, thats why I asked...Ive never heard of him before.

I would also wonder what Gallup has Bush's ratings at.

As soon as I read the title this ( http://rapidshare.de/files/4383364/sound.mp3.html) popped in my head. :rolleyes:

Gee, thanks for killing my thread. :D

The downward slide continues. And W has 3 more years to try to crack 20%. He might just make it.

No wonder his supporters are soundinging so desperate. They're feeling isolated and surrounded, largely because they are.

:p

I'm sure the Republicans could have found someone with more brains then him, he's a liabilty. He'd certainly get eaten at Prime Minister Question time at the house of commons.

God, I miss the Clinton Years....
x2

I'm sure the Republicans could have found someone with more brains then him, he's a liabilty. He'd certainly get eaten at Prime Minister Question time at the house of commons.Oh you could bet your last dollar he would get eaten. He wouldn't even think about becoming prime minister because of that alone.

Question period. Now THATS what democracy is all about. Damn I'm proud to be canadian.

To be brutally honest most american politicians would be annhillated in British parliment (Reagan, Kerry, even Kennedy), since American politicians are mroe figureheads for an electoral team, and given that Bush barely won the election, and probably won it by electoral fraud anyway, I'm not surprised. Furthermore, Bush, in his attempts to improve his appeal to the "average" american, has contrived to alienate the remainder of the electorate. A surprise no, more an inevitability.

God, I miss the Clinton Years....

Ah yes, that long-ago time when unemployment reached historic lows, the budget was balanced, and the world loved us. How un-American can you get?

And then came Bush, saying "Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over." Now we have an unwinnable war, an unpayable national debt, and and the world hates us. Trust the Republicans to set America on the right track again.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

To put this in perspective, this is 3 points lower than Nixon's approval rating during the height of Watergate. Also note that Clinton's approval rating was 72% on the day he was impeached.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

In other words, if you speak out against Bush, you are a uniter, not a divider, since you will be joining the great majority.
This is just like LBJ's approval rating when he decided not to run for office again. The only opinion poll that mattered was taken in November, 2004.

This is just like LBJ's approval rating when he decided not to run for office again. The only opinion poll that mattered was taken in November, 2004.
So when a politician wins an election, public opinion ceases to matter on that day.

Pfft. Does it matter then, what the politician says to get elected? With that attitude, we may as well go with the communists. :rolleyes:

You're not much of a guy for democracy and accountability, are you? :rolleyes:

I'm sure the Republicans could have found someone with more brains then him, he's a liabilty. He'd certainly get eaten at Prime Minister Question time at the house of commons.
Yeah I watched that last time round … man that would be vicious … its nothing like the week debates that the show here

(I have a feeling lots of American politicians would get eaten alive … they spare no punches)

Ah yes, that long-ago time when unemployment reached historic lows, the budget was balanced, and the world loved us. How un-American can you get?

And then came Bush, saying "Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over." Now we have an unwinnable war, an unpayable national debt, and and the world hates us. Trust the Republicans to set America on the right track again.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
To be fair they were not THAT buddy buddy with us before bush … not for a while …

They are just MORE unhappy with us now lol

This is just like LBJ's approval rating when he decided not to run for office again. The only opinion poll that mattered was taken in November, 2004.

Yes, I hope these wonderful neo-cons keep thinking that way. It'll make 2006 and 2008 very interesting.

Way to proudly display the short-sighted tradition of neo-conservatism!

To put this in perspective, this is 3 points lower than Nixon's approval rating during the height of Watergate. Also note that Clinton's approval rating was 72% on the day he was impeached.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

In other words, if you speak out against Bush, you are a uniter, not a divider, since you will be joining the great majority.


Well said Gymoor, but Bush's approval rating is hardly surprising-there isn't anyone or anywhere that he can shift his attention to. Like from Afghanistan to Iraq..

So when a politician wins an election, public opinion ceases to matter on that day.

Pfft. Does it matter then, what the politician says to get elected? With that attitude, we may as well go with the communists. :rolleyes:

You're not much of a guy for democracy and accountability, are you? :rolleyes:
The only way that politicians are held accountable is on election day. I guess I am against democracy in that sense. If popular opinion ruled the day, there would be no rule of law, would there?

Yeah I watched that last time round … man that would be vicious … its nothing like the week debates that the show here

(I have a feeling lots of American politicians would get eaten alive … they spare no punches)
I'd like to see that in American politics. It would certainly be more entertaining than CSpan is now.

Yes, I hope these wonderful neo-cons keep thinking that way. It'll make 2006 and 2008 very interesting.

Way to proudly display the short-sighted tradition of neo-conservatism!
Why? Have the Democrats finally come up with a platform that consists of more than "I hate Republicans" and "Bush is stupid"?

Ah yes, that long-ago time when unemployment reached historic lows, the budget was balanced, and the world loved us. How un-American can you get?

Yes, but all of those gains in unemployment and balanced budget were driven by the dot-com bubble; Clinton deserves credit for the welfare reform, 1993 Tax Act, FMLA Act, Telecommunications Act, and the multilateral trade agreements and gains in diplomacy (amongst other smaller things)

Trying to debate his second term economic record doesn't work very well, even from someone who isn't paritcularly close to the Republican party.

God, I miss Clinton. :(

The downward slide continues. And W has 3 more years to try to crack 20%. He might just make it.

No wonder his supporters are soundinging so desperate. They're feeling isolated and surrounded, largely because they are.

:p

time for another attack on america?

God, I miss the Clinton Years....

Yes I miss them too.

The lies
The scandals
The civil rights violations
The terrorist attacks going unpunished
The letting go of Osama
The impeachment hearings
The stealing of military secrets by the Chinese
The bowing down to the UN
The ass kissing of Europe
The assistance to N Korea in its Nuke technology
The WTO riots in Seattle
Al Gore

Need I go on?

Yes I miss them too.

The lies
The scandals
The civil rights violations
The terrorist attacks going unpunished
The letting go of Osama
The impeachment hearings
The stealing of military secrets by the Chinese
The bowing down to the UN
The ass kissing of Europe
The assistance to N Korea in its Nuke technology
The WTO riots in Seattle
Al Gore

Need I go on?

Have a cookie. The fact that the percentage of people who approved of Clinton on the day he was impeached is twice the percentage of people who approve of Bush right now is completely lost on you, isn't it?

Let make a comparable list for Bush:

The lies
The scandals
The civil rights violations
Terrorist attacks going unpunished (where's Osama?)
The letting go of Osama (see above)
The 9/11 hearings
The Downing Street Memos
Plamegate
The Alienation of Europe
The Alienation of most of the Rest of the world
Doing nothing about N Korea
Allowing 9/11 to happen
The stagnant job market
No minimum wage increase
Attackinbg a foreign country on what can generously be describes as exaggerated intelligence.
The greatest simultaneous protest in human history
Sending troops into a war without proper protection and without a post-war strategy.
Oil prices skyrocketing
The biggest deficit in history
Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo

Why? Have the Democrats finally come up with a platform that consists of more than "I hate Republicans" and "Bush is stupid"?

At this point, they could be the BTK killer and do okay.

Allowing 9/11 to happen
The stagnant job market
Oil prices skyrocketing
The biggest deficit in history

I generally agree with the rest of the stuff.

9/11 was a failiure dating back far beyond Bush. Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan all share some responsibility for this.

However, the job market is doing well with low unemployment (even after the dot-com collapse, recession, Enron/Worldcom, and the 9/11 shock) and solid participation rates. The economy will do even better when oil falls again.

Bush has nothing to do with oil prices (unless you argue that his deficits have weakened the dollar which has driven up oil prices, but that only explains $35-40 dollar a barrel oil).

The biggest dollar deficits, but not the biggest as % of GDP. Those were incurred by Reagan, Johnson, Ford, Bush Sr, and FDR. I still blame him for not stopping spending after he cut taxes. That medicare bill, energy bill, and highway bill should have been vetoed until revenues recovered.

Good luck with putting your house back in order, fellas. I also miss the Clinton-era America. Calm before the storm, I suppose. Anyway, it was a time when we had leaders who genuinely liked each other, then, which is a bit of a rarity in Canadian-American relations, all in all.

Can I just ask a question, out of curiousity? In your two-party system - is it not supposed to be encumbent upon a President, in the face of such polarization within his nation, to be inclusive whenever possible - as bipartisan as possible, not treading too heavily on the political landscape? I just can't wrap my head around the Bush administrations particular bents. The closest I can relate is this excerpt from Canadian Federal politics.

Back in '79 Pierre Trudeau got trounced by Joe Clark and the Progressive Conservatives - well, nearly trounced, anyway: they won a minority government. But rather than build a coalition, which you'd need to do in order to remain in power, Joe Clark decided they could do it without the support of a third party; basically, act as though he had a political majority instead of a minority, as was the case. And he got his ass handed back to him in a vote of non-confidence just a few months into his mandate. Ding dong! Election time. Trudeau was swept back in with a solid majority (and made repatriation of the Constitution his outgoing mandate).

I know it can be a bitch hearing people from other places talking about the ongoing situation (or should that be pluralized?) in the US. I've heard some American NSers saying there ought to be viable options other than two right-wing parties, I've heard others wish for electoral reforms of all shapes and sizes, and I wonder when sufficient will will come into play to accomplish either of these things.

All I do know for sure, from my limited perspective as a non-American NSer is that it's got to be totally wrong that a seated President, any President, not just George Bush per se, but any duly elected President, should choose not to act according to the full views of the people of his nation (to as great an extent as possible, natch), but instead to act only according to the views of those who voted him in - given that opinion is so incredibly divided, with no apparent hope of reconciliation.

Can I just ask a question, out of curiousity? In your two-party system - is it not supposed to be encumbent upon a President, in the face of such polarization within his nation, to be inclusive whenever possible - as bipartisan as possible, not treading too heavily on the political landscape? I just can't wrap my head around the Bush administrations particular bents.


It was, during the Clinton years; that's why there was so much progress made on a lot of issues. The government actually started working together beyond party politics, as crazy as that sounds today. This deep seated partisanship is alarming, even when compared to the Vietnam era or the McCarthy era.

However, the Iraq war and 2004 election are mostly responsible for this environment; even after 9/11 we were still incredibly bipartisan. When Iraq began, it all went down hill; once it's over, the divide will begin to mend again.

Yes I miss them too.

The lies
The scandals
The civil rights violations
The terrorist attacks going unpunished
The letting go of Osama
The impeachment hearings
The stealing of military secrets by the Chinese
The bowing down to the UN
The ass kissing of Europe
The assistance to N Korea in its Nuke technology
The WTO riots in Seattle
Al Gore

Need I go on?

The Clinton era saw...
More than 22 million new jobs
Highest homeownership in American history
Lowest unemployment in 30 years
$360 billion of the national debt paid off
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Converted the largest budget deficit, up to that time, in American history to the largest surplus.
Had the lowest government spending in three decades
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years

As for your BS here's my BS...
The liesRead my lips...
The scandalsBush's presidency is a scandal.
The civil rights violationslol?
The terrorist attacks going unpunishedAnd today is different I suppose?
The letting go of OsamaThey didn't let him go. They did not allow Sudan to keep him in their country financing his terrorist training camp. There's a subtle difference there.
The impeachment hearingsThe impeachment hearing is an historical reference of repbulican self ridicule. The Rebpulican Party was the laughing stock of the rest of the western world.
The stealing of military secrets by the ChineseThe US military has secrets?
The bowing down to the UNBush's sodomization of the UN and violation of the UN charter.
The ass kissing of EuropeThat did not happen.
The assistance to N Korea in its Nuke technologyIran Contra Affair anyone?
The WTO riots in SeattleWTO riots happen anywhere the WTO goes.
Al GoreWould've been a great president.

Need I go on?Please do.

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." Colin Powell. circa February 2001.

We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. Condoleezza Rice. Circa July 2001

The Clinton era saw...
More than 22 million new jobs
Highest homeownership in American history
Lowest unemployment in 30 years
$360 billion of the national debt paid off
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Converted the largest budget deficit, up to that time, in American history to the largest surplus.
Had the lowest government spending in three decades
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
.

There has to be a line drawn between the period of 1993-1997 (even that is somewhat late) and 1997-2000. The later period was the dot-com bubble, which saw economic gains built entirely on paper wealth, and jobs in companies that had never made a profit. The lower than 4.5% unemployment is also attributable to this dot-com frenzy.

Clinton still created around 18 million jobs, lowered the unemployment rate steadily throughout his term, and did pursue a strong commitment to budget balance. Home ownership and labor participation, along with GDP and productivity, were also strong. He deserves credit in these sectors, but not all of it.

God I can't wait till 2006, the republicans are gonna take it in the ass for this.

I generally agree with the rest of the stuff.

9/11 was a failiure dating back far beyond Bush. Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan all share some responsibility for this.

True, but I was usuing the same criteria the previous poster was.

However, the job market is doing well with low unemployment (even after the dot-com collapse, recession, Enron/Worldcom, and the 9/11 shock) and solid participation rates. The economy will do even better when oil falls again.

Actual earning of a typical American have gone down though while costs have gone up. While all of this isn't directly attributable to Bush, the lack of a minimum wage increase and massive handouts/pork to the rich haven't helped.

Bush has nothing to do with oil prices (unless you argue that his deficits have weakened the dollar which has driven up oil prices, but that only explains $35-40 dollar a barrel oil).

I would disagree. The current turmoil in the middle east and agression towards Venezuela, plus the lack of any serious attempt to curtail oil usage have directly contributed to the oil prices, though of course this doesn't account for all the rise in price.

The biggest dollar deficits, but not the biggest as % of GDP. Those were incurred by Reagan, Johnson, Ford, Bush Sr, and FDR. I still blame him for not stopping spending after he cut taxes. That medicare bill, energy bill, and highway bill should have been vetoed until revenues recovered.

I can't understand why people (not you) accept borrow and spend but criticize tax and spend. They're both irresponsible...with the added drawback that borrowing incurs interest.

To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.

George H.W. Bush circa 1998

To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.

George H.W. Bush circa 1998

...and the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon, little boy blue and the man in the moon. When ya coming home son? I don't know when...

True, but I was usuing the same criteria the previous poster was.

Now I understand. Thanks for clarifying.

Actual earning of a typical American have gone down though while costs have gone up. While all of this isn't directly attributable to Bush, the lack of a minimum wage increase and massive handouts/pork to the rich haven't helped.

This is where it gets very strange. Bush's salary gains are occuring in the middle-upper middle/upper class, while the lower class wages are stagnant. This is most likely due to the fact that companies aren't giving lower level employees wage hikes, and inflation from oil prices are seeping through. The economy's great if you are mid to upper middle class or higher, and not so if you're not.

Minimum wage should at the very least be tied to inflation although it's actual buying value is debatable.

I would disagree. The current turmoil in the middle east and agression towards Venezuela, plus the lack of any serious attempt to curtail oil usage have directly contributed to the oil prices, though of course this doesn't account for all the rise in price.

The terror premium isn't that large, pushing oil to at most $50 if there were attacks against actual oil infrastructure. There is a very large speculative bubble element that will not burst until demand starts to fall, which will institute a panic mode for the oil prices and they will fall.


I can't understand why people (not you) accept borrow and spend but criticize tax and spend. They're both irresponsible...with the added drawback that borrowing incurs interest.

Too many people don't understand that that money is being borrowed by other countries, and we have to pay interest on it. The more we borrow, the more tax money that is thrown down the drain on interest payments with no benefit.

Personally, I support a balanced budget and a pay as you go system. It keeps both spending and reckless tax cuts in line, and makes a surplus much easier to attain. That surplus needs to be used to shore up Social Security and Medicare.

Another thing: Bush let the pay-as-you go system remain for spending hikes, but got rid of it for tax cuts. In other words, he could cut taxes to zero and they are effectively rubber-stamped in to effect. Reckless fiscal policy is very dangerous at this juncture in our economy.

Have a cookie. The fact that the percentage of people who approved of Clinton on the day he was impeached is twice the percentage of people who approve of Bush right now is completely lost on you, isn't it?

Let make a comparable list for Bush:

The lies
The scandals
The civil rights violations
Terrorist attacks going unpunished (where's Osama?)
The letting go of Osama (see above)
The 9/11 hearings
The Downing Street Memos
Plamegate
The Alienation of Europe
The Alienation of most of the Rest of the world
Doing nothing about N Korea
Allowing 9/11 to happen
The stagnant job market
No minimum wage increase
Attackinbg a foreign country on what can generously be describes as exaggerated intelligence.
The greatest simultaneous protest in human history
Sending troops into a war without proper protection and without a post-war strategy.
Oil prices skyrocketing
The biggest deficit in history
Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo

Lies -well what has he lied about? Seriously...

scandals? Really? What?

Civil rights violations? Where?

Osama is hiding like a little bitch, Afghanistan was invaded. Hordes of terrorists killed.

9/11 hearings.... So far looks as if Clinton is to blame for alot of this.

Downing Street? You still think that bs is real?

Plamegate? First I heard of that. Will check it out though.

Alienation of Europe. A few countries inside Europe alienating themselves isnt the US's fault.

Alienation of the rest of the world? Hardly, only our enemies hate us.

Doing nothing to N Korea. Yeah the diplomatic process is getting old isnt it.

Allowing 9/11 to happen. You cant be serious now can you? Did FDR allow Pearl Harbor to happen. Did the French allow the Germans to overrun them in WWII. Did the Chinese allow the Japanese to take Manchuria? Cmon now...

Stagnant job market, Dot com bust and lets see we are at war and been at war for a few years now. The economy is recovering.

Attacking Iraq. Yes we should not have relied on intel from several nations including but not limited to. Germany, UK, France, Russia and of course Iraq's neighbors. Other than that I would have still invaded.

Lack of postwar strat. Yes I agree this should have been handled better.

Oil prices skyrocketing. Well last time I checked Bush didnt set the oil prices. The producers and speculators do. Maybe we should drill in Anwr to ease up on the pressure. Maybe ask India and China to cut there demand? Who knows?

Biggest deficit. Yes I am worried about this also.

Abu grab. This was found by the army itself. Im glad they police themselves well. Offenders are being punished. Guantanamo, your right. These pukes imprisoned there have it to good. I say send them to Moroccan prisons or maybe the Egyptians or Saudis could take them for us.

God I can't wait till 2006, the republicans are gonna take it in the ass for this.

I think your in for a suprise then.

I think your in for a suprise then.

I don't know, a lot of people are blaming the Republicans for problems, and they aren't getting much credit for improvements. Congress will become more equal partywise in 2006, and the 2008 presidential election is up in the air based upon who runs.

Lies -well what has he lied about? Seriously... WMD's.

scandals? Really? What?Like where do I start.

Osama is hiding like a little bitch, Afghanistan was invaded. Hordes of terrorists killed.Apparently not enough of them where killed.

9/11 hearings.... So far looks as if Clinton is to blame for alot of this.Since 9/11 was revenge for American presence in Iraq and particularly Saudi Arabia in the Gulf War... I'd say Bush Sr. is a helluva lot more responsible.

Downing Street? You still think that bs is real?LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL republicans...

Alienation of Europe. A few countries inside Europe alienating themselves isnt the US's fault.You'd be surprised to find that they are quite united in their stance towards the Iraq Invasion.

Alienation of the rest of the world? Hardly, only our enemies hate us.LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL that's two laughs...

Allowing 9/11 to happen. You cant be serious now can you? Did FDR allow Pearl Harbor to happen. Did the French allow the Germans to overrun them in WWII. Did the Chinese allow the Japanese to take Manchuria? Cmon now...So Bush allowed it then.

Stagnant job market, Dot com bust and lets see we are at war and been at war for a few years now. The economy is recovering.It would be pretty dificult to fall any further given the record budget deficits and all. :rolleyes:

Attacking Iraq. Yes we should not have relied on intel from several nations including but not limited to. Germany, UK, France, Russia and of course Iraq's neighbors. Other than that I would have still invaded.Yes the PNAC would've still invaded. They looked for excuses didn't find them made up a few others lied to the UN about it and still invaded.

Oil prices skyrocketing. Well last time I checked Bush didnt set the oil prices. The producers and speculators do. Maybe we should drill in Anwr to ease up on the pressure. Maybe ask India and China to cut there demand? Who knows?yes who knows... the shadow knows...

Abu grab. This was found by the army itself. Im glad they police themselves well. Offenders are being punished. Of course after a media circus the army polices and punishes extremely well I'd gather. :rolleyes:

Guantanamo, your right. These pukes imprisoned there have it to good. I say send them to Moroccan prisons or maybe the Egyptians or Saudis could take them for us. They have a right to a fair trial every single one of them.

I think your in for a suprise then.
So you're saying Bush's(being the symbol of the republican party right now) low as hell approval ratings won't affect the Republican party? That's pretty naive.

Lies -well what has he lied about? Seriously...

scandals? Really? What?

Civil rights violations? Where?

Osama is hiding like a little bitch, Afghanistan was invaded. Hordes of terrorists killed.

Downing Street? You still think that bs is real?

Alienation of Europe. A few countries inside Europe alienating themselves isnt the US's fault.

Alienation of the rest of the world? Hardly, only our enemies hate us.

Abu grab. This was found by the army itself. Im glad they police themselves well. Offenders are being punished. Guantanamo, your right. These pukes imprisoned there have it to good. I say send them to Moroccan prisons or maybe the Egyptians or Saudis could take them for us.
Lies- let's start with lying about the WMD's and work from there.

scandals- the Rove controversy, anyone?

Civil Rights- first off, the detainment of prisoners in Cuba and the treatment of prisoners in other camps. Then let's look at the attempted censorship he has endorsed, as well as cutting down on protest with things like "protest zones" which inhibit free speech.

Osama's still not dead, and the insurgants in Iraq gun down American troops daily.

Europe- the average European has a bad view of the US right now, because we're seen as all loving Bush (see the "I hate the USA" thread)

Although soldiers did the deeds, the treatment is a result of Bush himself. Those orders came from someone high up, and they gave those orders most likely after being told to use whatever tactics necessary to get information. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, and he makes the policy.

Lies -well what has he lied about? Seriously...

You want some wood? :D

scandals? Really? What?

Are you serious?

Civil rights violations? Where?

Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo. "Free Speech Zones." What were the civil rights violations under Clinton? (from your own post.)

Osama is hiding like a little bitch, Afghanistan was invaded. Hordes of terrorists killed.

And more terrorists are being made than killed. Osama is hiding like a little bitch...and yet seems healthy and well and continues to make videos

9/11 hearings.... So far looks as if Clinton is to blame for alot of this.

Gee, I wish you had been this critical of your own points

Downing Street? You still think that bs is real?

The English government said it's real, and they wrote it.

Plamegate? First I heard of that. Will check it out though.

I hope the rock you live under is air conditioned.

Alienation of Europe. A few countries inside Europe alienating themselves isnt the US's fault.

You realize that public opinion is against the US in almost every country, right? Sometimes when the world tells you you smell, it's time to check your pitts.

Alienation of the rest of the world? Hardly, only our enemies hate us.

See above.

Doing nothing to N Korea. Yeah the diplomatic process is getting old isnt it.

And what exactly have we done?

Allowing 9/11 to happen. You cant be serious now can you? Did FDR allow Pearl Harbor to happen. Did the French allow the Germans to overrun them in WWII. Did the Chinese allow the Japanese to take Manchuria? Cmon now...

Again, I wish you had been so critical of your own points

Stagnant job market, Dot com bust and lets see we are at war and been at war for a few years now. The economy is recovering.

Slowest recovery ever. Widening gap between the rich and the poor.

Attacking Iraq. Yes we should not have relied on intel from several nations including but not limited to. Germany, UK, France, Russia and of course Iraq's neighbors. Other than that I would have still invaded.

They didn't feel their intel was strong enough to attack, and they were right. Kinda puts the kibosh on your point there.

Lack of postwar strat. Yes I agree this should have been handled better.

Thank you.

Oil prices skyrocketing. Well last time I checked Bush didnt set the oil prices. The producers and speculators do. Maybe we should drill in Anwr to ease up on the pressure. Maybe ask India and China to cut there demand? Who knows?

YOu can argue that Bush didn't cause it, but you have to admit he's done nothing to stop it.

Biggest deficit. Yes I am worried about this also.

Abu grab. This was found by the army itself. Im glad they police themselves well. Offenders are being punished. Guantanamo, your right. These pukes imprisoned there have it to good. I say send them to Moroccan prisons or maybe the Egyptians or Saudis could take them for us.

Nice. As the moral leaders of the world, we're free to send anyone we'd like, without hearing or trial, off to get tortured. And yet, we don't have the balls to do it ourselves, so we contract it out. Wow, what a paragon of virtue. I sure hope the rest of the world likes the freedom we're spreading, since they have no choice.

I think your in for a suprise then.
No I think you'll be in for a surprise when Republicans lose their majority in the Senate.

Slowest recovery ever. Widening gap between the rich and the poor.


I do have to take issue here (I agree with the rest). You can't really compare this recovery to the recent ones because so much is different. Yes, it is a slower recovery, but the recession was one of the mildest on record, and even in the depths of it the unemployment rate didn't break 6.8%. There were a lot of problems that happened outside of the business cycle that depressed job growth, most notably 9/11 and Enron/Worldcom collapse (that nuked around 150,000 jobs). The dot-com bubble started the entire collapse, and these just worsened it.

Secondly, the rich-poor divide grew very rapidly under Clinton as well, because much of the prosperity was in sectors helped by the stock market, which is predominantly a middle/upper class investment. Same with much of the job growth. This is a trend caused by competition with foreign countries in manufacturing predominantly.

all you lame ass losers and your "not my presidant shirts." i hated clinton with a passion but i still respected him because he was the G-DAMMED PRESIDENT! bush has forgotten more about how this counrty works then more of you will ever learn, and you still smack him around. if gore had been eledted, do you know what would have happened on 9/11? he would have crawled under his desk in the oval office and pissed his pants, thats what. you may not like the fact that we're at war now, but deal. we cant just leave. also, you all assume that afghanistan was connected to iraq in the first place. yes, it may have been because of his daddy, but saddam had been at the top of his lbush's list and all this bs by the associated press about it being bush's fault that gas prices are so high. him using air force one, traveling around in an armored car, using helicopoters...what a gas guzzler. who does he think he is, the preside..OH WAIT! HE F-ING IS!

bush has forgotten more about how this counrty works then more of you will ever learn
What the fuck does that mean?


And no, nobody knows what Gore would have done. We can only speculate.

What the fuck does that mean?


And no, nobody knows what Gore would have done. We can only speculate.
George McGovern made a good joke the other day. He was at Hunter Thompson's funeral and he saw John Kerry in the crowd. He mentioned that we would be calling him President Kerry if the 2004 election hadn't been rigged. Then he went on to say that might not have been the case at all because we might have been calling Al Gore, Mr. President, if the 2000 election hadn't been rigged.

I think George is catching on. The Democrats just can't bring themselves to admit their own shortcomings. Seems like avoiding responsibility is a liberal disease.

all you lame ass losers and your "not my presidant shirts." i hated clinton with a passion but i still respected him because he was the G-DAMMED PRESIDENT! bush has forgotten more about how this counrty works then more of you will ever learn, and you still smack him around. if gore had been eledted, do you know what would have happened on 9/11? he would have crawled under his desk in the oval office and pissed his pants, thats what. you may not like the fact that we're at war now, but deal. we cant just leave. also, you all assume that afghanistan was connected to iraq in the first place. yes, it may have been because of his daddy, but saddam had been at the top of his lbush's list and all this bs by the associated press about it being bush's fault that gas prices are so high. him using air force one, traveling around in an armored car, using helicopoters...what a gas guzzler. who does he think he is, the preside..OH WAIT! HE F-ING IS!

Wait wait wait. You're saying George-did whatever he could possibly do to avoid Vietnam-Bush who stood petrified for 7 minutes on 9/11 is braver than Gore? Gore who actually went to Vietnam as a reporter?

Besides, the whole point of having a President is that he isn't a King, unless you'd like to insult the troops that fought in the Revolutionary war by treating the President like a King. So your vitriol filled diatribe at the end there doesn't mean much. Thanks for playing though.

Seems like avoiding responsibility is a liberal disease.
And it seems like refusal to accept new facts is a conservative one.

Seems like avoiding responsibility is a liberal disease.

Let's see, Clinton f-ks up (which he admittedly did) and he apologizes to America.

Bush f-ks up, and anyone who says so hates America.

hmmmmm...

God I can't wait till 2006, the republicans are gonna take it in the ass for this.

That's where you're wrong, they might take a pounding in the Senate, but with the way the congressional districts are cut up it's almost impossible for them to lose. On the other hand it's possible that the end of the Republican party is here and it's going to be supplanted by the Libertarians(we can only hope). 2008 is going to see Hilary Clinton the new president, and that will be hell on earth, let's just hope she doesn't get ideas of grandure and go for a new new deal or anything of that nature.

As far as polls go I think all of the negative war press has finally gotten to the unthinking masses and that explains the sudden flop in the polls. Bush has exemplified pretty much everything that is bad about republicans and almost nothing that is good(besides his tax cut). Even today I would have picked him over Kerry, but I would have voted Badnarik.

If you guys are going to rely on one poll for your flawed logic (by the way, I checked the history of this poll.. it was totally wrong in the 2004 election)... then you have bigger problems.

Like?

36% on a particular issue =/= 36% overall.

To put this in perspective, this is 3 points lower than Nixon's approval rating during the height of Watergate. Also note that Clinton's approval rating was 72% on the day he was impeached.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

In other words, if you speak out against Bush, you are a uniter, not a divider, since you will be joining the great majority.

Clinton was a better president, that's why his rating was higher. Plus, I hated Bush all along and I knew this would happen, also considering they aren't telling the American people anything about when they're going to pull out of Iraq or anything like that.... it's understandable.

Like?

Overconfidence.

Considering how bad this poll is I wouldn't trust it.

36% on a particular issue =/= 36% overall.


George W. Bush's overall job approval ratings have dropped from a month ago even as Americans who approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president are turning more optimistic about their personal financial situations according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 33% approve and 62% disapprove.

Emphasis mine.

Continue on to the "biased poll" defense.

Emphasis mine.

Continue on to the "biased poll" defense.

I quote (rasmussenreports.com) often because it is based on a better sample and it is based on likely voters, not registered voters. ARG was in fact wrong about the 2004 election.

So please, get something better. You people should stop putting all your eggs in one basket based on one historically unreliable pollster.

To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.

George H.W. Bush circa 1998


omg - wow he had great insight. back then. :rolleyes:

omg - wow he had great insight. back then. :rolleyes:

That was Daddy Bush. Shrub of course thought he could do Daddy one better and avenge his honor by invading Iraq. And ignored the lesson.

That was Daddy Bush. Shrub of course thought he could do Daddy one better and avenge his honor by invading Iraq. And ignored the lesson.


I know it was but his father is behind the Iraq war all of a sudden now.

Has a president ever had an approval rating this low? If so, who was he?

2008 is going to see Hilary Clinton the new president...

It'll never happen. She can't make it out of the primaries.

Back on topic, it's good to see the approval ratings are finally in reasonable proportion. I approve of about 36% of Bush's work too.

If you guys are going to rely on one poll for your flawed logic (by the way, I checked the history of this poll.. it was totally wrong in the 2004 election)... then you have bigger problems.

well, rassmussen seems to be the outlier here, since most of the other polls are within calling distance of the one I posted. But hey, keep arguing things and then make conclusions contrary to the point you yourself bring up.

well, rassmussen seems to be the outlier here, since most of the other polls are within calling distance of the one I posted. But hey, keep arguing things and then make conclusions contrary to the point you yourself bring up.

Rasmussen isn't the only correct one and is not an outlier. Many agree wtih it. You need to get yourself pass the same old stupid polls that were proven to be totally wrong. I think this 36% one is more of an outlier.

it is incredible how some people harp on polls. I don't really care much for them.. as I know they aren't representative. The last poll I really trust is rasmussen. I don't really trust the others as they were wrong in 2004, and they will make more critical errors of using shitty sampling.

Has a president ever had an approval rating this low? If so, who was he?

All I know for sure is that even when Nixon was getting kicked out of office he still had a better approval rating than Bush has now. Unfortunatly for Nixon he had one serious weakness that Bush doesn't have. He was in a Republican party that had a sense of honor.

I think Harry S. Truman may have sunk a bit lower, but I'm not certain off hand.

So..it seems as though we have two polls quoting different figures.

Im personally betting on the 38%....but can anyone find two seperate polls that have the same numbers, or close to them?

To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.

George H.W. Bush circa 1998
Father knows best but the wisdom was lost on Bush the Lesser. Such a shame. :(

Emphasis mine.

Continue on to the "biased poll" defense.



Touché, but there are kajillions of polls out there, and taking the one with the lowest ratings does not equate to accuracy. I'm sure there are polls putting him at well above 50%.

Touché, but there are kajillions of polls out there, and taking the one with the lowest ratings does not equate to accuracy. I'm sure there are polls putting him at well above 50%.


Show me TWO.

Of either side, or outlook.

I want to see two respected polling sources, that have roughly the same numbers.

Touché, but there are kajillions of polls out there, and taking the one with the lowest ratings does not equate to accuracy. I'm sure there are polls putting him at well above 50%.

The highest poll I've seen has him at 48%.

Show me TWO.

Of either side, or outlook.

I want to see two respected polling sources, that have roughly the same numbers.



How do you define respected? If by respected you mean "If it includes the letters 'F' 'O' and 'X' then I won't accept it" then I'm afraid I won't be able to do much.

So..it seems as though we have two polls quoting different figures.

Im personally betting on the 38%....but can anyone find two seperate polls that have the same numbers, or close to them?

Oh yes, pick the one that fits your personal wanting. The one with the crappy sampling too... the one done by a partisan organization.. go ahead.

How do you define respected? If by respected you mean "If it includes the letters 'F' 'O' and 'X' then I won't accept it" then I'm afraid I won't be able to do much.


If Rupert Murdoch has any association with it...its not respectable, in my opinion.

I would prefer two seperate independant polling institutions, not affiliated with any major news networks.

Oh yes, pick the one that fits your personal wanting. The one with the crappy sampling too... the one done by a partisan organization.. go ahead.


Youre supposed to be ignoring me, remember?

Did you miss me or something?

Oh yes, pick the one that fits your personal wanting. The one with the crappy sampling too... the one done by a partisan organization.. go ahead.

Pot, kettle? Ringing any bells?

"Originally Posted by Rotovia-
God, I miss the Clinton Years.... "




"agreed. "

Ya reckon that would fix Bush ?

Reminds me of Good Morning Vietnam, "man most in dire need of a blowjob" or whatever the actual phrase was. :eek:

Bottom line though is, Bush was never wanted as president by the majority in first , rigged. But then that is what American politics has become.

Personally I agree with taking out So Damn Insaine. But thats about all I agree with in his actions.

To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.

George H.W. Bush circa 1998
That was Daddy Bush. Shrub of course thought he could do Daddy one better and avenge his honor by invading Iraq. And ignored the lesson.
I know it was but his father is behind the Iraq war all of a sudden now.
Father knows best but the wisdom was lost on Bush the Lesser. Such a shame. :(

I dissagree on many if not most issues with the Bushes but I do acknowledge that G.H.W.B actually knows what he's doing, writing and saying. Shrub on the other hand doesn't haven't a clue whatsoever. He sold out the country and it's people to the PNAC. It's a very sad story.