NationStates Jolt Archive

The link ('http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003585195)

NEW YORK After a surge of support earlier in the year after the Democrats took control, public approval of the job Congress is doing has slid again, and now stands even lower than President Bush's weak 33%.

A Gallup poll released today pegged the approval rating for Congress at 29%. This is down from last month's 33% and well below the year's high of 37%.

I thought it took a lot of effort to have people think you suck more than Bush, but it looks like they've pulled it off.

And now, for the usual arguments that polls are bullshit, or that the questions weren't phrased right, or the sampling was bad, or it doesn't reflect reality, blah blah blah...

Congress' approval rating is rarely above 30%.

This is hardly news.

and yet, here's the funny thing. You assume "congress" means "democrat".

How many of those unapprove votes are from people dissatisfied with the war and mad at the republican congressmen for not voting for withdrawl?

Remember, the question is "do you approve of what congress has done" not "do you approve of how the democrats have run it?"

Frankly I'm not surprised with these results. Many people are getting angrier and angrier with the republican party for stonewalling progress in Iraq, and that's beginning to show.

The link ('http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003585195)



I thought it took a lot of effort to have people think you suck more than Bush, but it looks like they've pulled it off.

And now, for the usual arguments that polls are bullshit, or that the questions weren't phrased right, or the sampling was bad, or it doesn't reflect reality, blah blah blah...

Next you'll tell me Reagan saved the Iranian hostages . . . :rolleyes:

and yet, here's the funny thing. You assume "congress" means "democrat".

How many of those unapprove votes are from people dissatisfied with the war and mad at the republican congressmen for not voting for withdrawl?

Remember, the question is "do you approve of what congress has done" not "do you approve of how the democrats have run it?"

Frankly I'm not surprised with these results. Many people are getting angrier and angrier with the republican party for stonewalling progress in Iraq, and that's beginning to show.

Democrats control Congress. Sorry.

Democrats control Congress. Sorry.

Do they control every seat? No. Congress is not a bunch of Democrats sitting around flipping off Bush. It is comprised of members of *shock* both parties. God forbid you realize facts in the face of adversity. Congress != Democrats.

Congress usually has an approval rating around 30%, as you can see here (http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm). Nothing new, there.

In fact, this number is still higher than the approval ratings of the Republican Congress for the entirety of 2006.

Do they control every seat? No. Congress is not a bunch of Democrats sitting around flipping off Bush. It is comprised of members of *shock* both parties. God forbid you realize facts in the face of adversity. Congress != Democrats.

Sure it is. They should be able to pass anything they like through the House.

Oh, they can't override a veto. But other than that.

Next you'll tell me Reagan saved the Iranian hostages . . . :rolleyes:

Oh, do you think it was just an enormous coincidence that the hostages were liberated exactly on Reagan's inauguration day?

Sure it is. They should be able to pass anything they like through the House.

Oh, they can't override a veto. But other than that.

Nice try to deflect your wrong assumption.

Oh, they can't override a veto.

Oh, yes, now let's think about this.

Now, WHICH party voted AGAINST the withdrawl? Was that the democrats? no, no I don't believe it was.

No, that's right, it was the republicans wasn't it? Yes, I do believe so. So if "congress" did not pass a withdrawl bill, and the people wanted a withdrawl bill, they will be displeased with "congress" as an entity.

That being said, those who are displeased because congress did NOT vote for withdrawl....who do you think they're going to vote for?

Really, this is pathetic, even for you. Take a statistics class, then try to tell us what they mean. I'm not saying the poll is off. I'm sure it's perfectly accurate. You're just being dishonest, or plain foolish, in trying to argue that approval "of congress" is the same as approval "of democrats"

Democrats control Congress.

Now that would be of some relevance if the poll asked do you approve of those who control congress. It didn't. So that's not really relevant.

Sorry.

Yeah...yeah you are.

Next you'll tell me Reagan saved the Iranian hostages . . . :rolleyes:

Well he did. He did it by illegally selling weapons to Iranian terrorists and funding Nicaraguan terrorists.

Oh, do you think it was just an enormous coincidence that the hostages were liberated exactly on Reagan's inauguration day?

Well, didn't he do all the *gasp to Republicans today* negotiating? Didn't Reagan try and get them out? Did Reagan stay up all night to work at getting them home?

In fact, this number is still higher than the approval ratings of the Republican Congress for the entirety of 2006.

I think we should let that point sink in.

Your link doesn't link...

However (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003585195&imw=Y):
After a surge of support earlier in the year after the Democrats took control
...at 29%. This is down from last month's 33% and well below the year's high of 37%
Congress don't usually have a whole lot of approval.

See this:
Congress usually has an approval rating around 30%, as you can see here (http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm). Nothing new, there.

In fact, this number is still higher than the approval ratings of the Republican Congress for the entirety of 2006.

Oh, do you think it was just an enormous coincidence that the hostages were liberated exactly on Reagan's inauguration day?

Mainly, I that Iran released the hostages on Reagan's inauguration day as a final FU to Jimmy Carter.

As for Congress, it's common knowledge that they suck.

I think we should let that point sink in.

Don't try to confuse partisan hacks with facts. It will only anger them and make them say more inane bullshit with no logical proof to back it up. Congress tradtionally has a low ratings as can be seen of congressional approval ratings as far back as they can be traced. The points others have made should not be rehashed, but poiting out they names "congress" and not democrats means that RO's logic is flawed. RO, when you first came onto NSG I respeted you and saw much good in many of your points. You seem to have left logic and returned to ideological banter instead. Anybody wonder where EO has gone adn suddenly this guy pops up? It seems as soon as one partisan hack is beaten down there comes another one with the same intonation as the previous one. Coincedence? You decide.

Fuck, they haven't ended the war, passed universal health care, given everyone the right to marry, or make a law legalizing abortion in every state, or impeached any member of Bush's coven. They don't have my goddamn approval.

Democrats control Congress. Sorry.

No. Democrats have a slight majority. There is a difference. A BIG difference.

Polls are tools. You may get whatever results you want by engaging in "push" polling. It is called "gaming the game."

But the most germane point is that there is no specificity to the poll question. You ask a generic question, you get a generic answer.

Congress, as a generic body has rarely seen polling numbers higher than 35%. Congress is a polarising body, always has been and always will be.

Besides, Bush's popularity is varied from poll to poll as well, he has numbers as LOW as 28% and as high as 33%. All of these figure are +/- 3%.

I wouldn't be bragging much on Mr. Bush's poll figures. He is still exploring how low he can go. He should be pleased that he doesn't have Dick Cheney's numbers and concerned, because it is obvious his numbers CAN go lower.

Congress usually has an approval rating around 30%, as you can see here (http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm). Nothing new, there.

In fact, this number is still higher than the approval ratings of the Republican Congress for the entirety of 2006.

If you click on the detailed trend link, it shows very good approval ratings( above 50%, up to 85%) in the 5 years ahead of 9/11/2001, as well as in the 3 years after. As I recall, Congress was led by Republicans during those times, right?

I got it...This must be one of those Clinton-esque redefinitions of the word 'usually', right?

The link ('http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003585195)



I thought it took a lot of effort to have people think you suck more than Bush, but it looks like they've pulled it off.

And now, for the usual arguments that polls are bullshit, or that the questions weren't phrased right, or the sampling was bad, or it doesn't reflect reality, blah blah blah...

Blah Blah. Look at the numbers for individual members. They are higher than Bush's.

Well he did. He did it by illegally selling weapons to Iranian terrorists and funding Nicaraguan terrorists.

nooo those were the hostages being held in lebanon not the embassy hostages in iran that were released as soon as carter left office.

If you click on the detailed trend link, it shows very good approval ratings( above 50%, up to 85%) in the 5 years ahead of 9/11/2001, as well as in the 3 years after. As I recall, Congress was led by Republicans during those times, right?

I got it...This must be one of those Clinton-esque redefinitions of the word 'usually', right?

I was just identifying the trend in the most recent years, since RO seemed to base his own comparison of Congressional approval and Presidential approval on the most recent polls. The approval of Congress from '96-'04 doesn't seem to matter for this discussion.

Democrats control Congress. Sorry.

Yes that's true, however your attempt to draw, by way of inference, that approval ratings for congress are the same as approval ratings for democrats is misguided.

As seen here (http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm) (democratic congresspeople have approval rating of 35%, higher than bush's)

and here (http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm) (republican congresspeople have approval rating of 22%).

Which is to say that congress has an approval rating below bush's, the approval rating for democratic members of congress is higher than bush's slightly, and higher than the approval ratings of republican members of congress by a significant margin. More than 50% in fact.

So yes, approval ratings of Congress has fallen, which is a result of, as demonstrated, a higher degree of dislike of the republican members of it, rather than the democratic members.

In fact, I daresay, since the numbers for congress approval in general is higher than the approval ratings for the republican members of congress, the very fact that the Democrats have the majority, as you say, is probably the only reason why more people support congress than support the republican members of it.

And now, for the usual arguments that polls are bullshit, or that the questions weren't phrased right, or the sampling was bad, or it doesn't reflect reality, blah blah blah...

Yup, I expect that from you any minute now.

And now, for the usual arguments that polls are bullshit, or that the questions weren't phrased right, or the sampling was bad, or it doesn't reflect reality, blah blah blah...
It's simpler than that, actually.

1. In a country this divided, chances are that at the best of times, Congress is never going to get much above 50%, simply because too many people are automatically opposed to anything they do.

2. Pretty much any Congress is going to have people whose party is in the majority upset because their party hasn't done more to get their agenda passed. Much of the Democratic Congress's rating is undoubtedly due to the fact that we're not already removing troops from Iraq, for example.

3. Congress is an institution, so it's easier to have a negative opinion of it. It's not monolithic, so there's no single personality to blame for something you don't like, as opposed to a single personality like Bush. It's easy to dislike individual members of Congress and transfer that dislike onto the institution as a whole.

Of course, you're not stupid, and you knew all this. So why'd you make such a facetious claim again? Oh yeah--it's what you do for fun. :rolleyes:

The link ('http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003585195)

What a credible link :p

Where was the survey polled? What exactly was the question being asked and to what demographic? How many were asked?

I could provide a theory that says 100% of Americans want to kill all Muslims, Jews, and Minorities by asking every Aryan cell block in the state. Low and behold, I'd have thousands of volunteers to back my hypothosis.

Until the link works, I'll take it all with an African salt mine.

Check this out. (http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm) Then check this out. (http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm) "Democrats in Congress" have rated "pretty good" or "very good" by 35-41% according to the most recent two surveys in that category. "Republicans in Congress" get the rating of "pretty good" or "very good" by 22-26%.

So... I'd say that people are generally still happier with Democrats than Republicans overall.

Check this out. (http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm) Then check this out. (http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm) "Democrats in Congress" have rated "pretty good" or "very good" by 35-41% according to the most recent two surveys in that category. "Republicans in Congress" get the rating of "pretty good" or "very good" by 22-26%.

So... I'd say that people are generally still happier with Democrats than Republicans overall.

And if the Democrats do not start getting their domestic agenda going (outside of what has been passed) their approval ratings will drop pretty fast. It has already dropped 3 points and people are becoming unsatisfied with them. If they do not change, 2008 will be interesting and the Repubs will retake control.

And if the Democrats do not start getting their domestic agenda going (outside of what has been passed) their approval ratings will drop pretty fast. It has already dropped 3 points and people are becoming unsatisfied with them. If they do not change, 2008 will be interesting and the Repubs will retake control.

I see you completely ignored that the Republicans are polling 13-15 points lower than the Democrats. What a shock. I'm not exactly sweating the next election right now. The Democrats have had 5 months with a hostile president--the Republicans had 12 years. We'll get the benefit of the doubt, and in the Senate, the landscape very much favors us.

The link ('http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003585195)



I thought it took a lot of effort to have people think you suck more than Bush, but it looks like they've pulled it off.

And now, for the usual arguments that polls are bullshit, or that the questions weren't phrased right, or the sampling was bad, or it doesn't reflect reality, blah blah blah...

What argument needs to be made? You aren't making one. You're implying one, though. This is a defense of Bush by comparison - the tu quoque fallacy. It's OK if Bush has a low approval rating because now you can point to another body that also has a low approval rating.

And I don't even need to address how ridiculous that is, not to anyone with half a brain.

I see you completely ignored that the Republicans are polling 13-15 points lower than the Democrats. What a shock. I'm not exactly sweating the next election right now. The Democrats have had 5 months with a hostile president--the Republicans had 12 years. We'll get the benefit of the doubt, and in the Senate, the landscape very much favors us.

The last time I heard such confidence from the left was back in 2004. We all know what happened there. Do not declare victory when no victory has been achieved yet. It is the left's biggest failing.

The last time I heard such confidence from the left was back in 2004. We all know what happened there. Do not declare victory when no victory has been achieved yet. It is the left's biggest failing.

Uh huh. Last time I heard such brave talk from the right was 2006, and we all know what happened then, too. But hey--you live in a fantasy world all the time anyway, so this must just be another day for you, eh Corny?

Uh huh. Last time I heard such brave talk from the right was 2006, and we all know what happened then, too. But hey--you live in a fantasy world all the time anyway, so this must just be another day for you, eh Corny?

So there is a lesson to be learned. NEVER DECLARE VICTORY!!! Eh Nazz?

The link ('http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003585195)



I thought it took a lot of effort to have people think you suck more than Bush, but it looks like they've pulled it off.

And now, for the usual arguments that polls are bullshit, or that the questions weren't phrased right, or the sampling was bad, or it doesn't reflect reality, blah blah blah...

Wow, it looks like someone accomplished the impossible! http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/surprised.gif

and yet, here's the funny thing. You assume "congress" means "democrat".

How many of those unapprove votes are from people dissatisfied with the war and mad at the republican congressmen for not voting for withdrawl?

Remember, the question is "do you approve of what congress has done" not "do you approve of how the democrats have run it?"

Frankly I'm not surprised with these results. Many people are getting angrier and angrier with the republican party for stonewalling progress in Iraq, and that's beginning to show.


WOW! I love your spinning the polls to your favor! Or atleast trying to.

But hey--you live in a fantasy world all the time anyway, so this must just be another day for you, eh Corny?

Coming from the fanatic left. :rolleyes:

So there is a lesson to be learned. NEVER DECLARE VICTORY!!! Eh Nazz?

See--here's your problem. You don't comprehend the words on the screen. You seem to be able to mouth them, and even recreate some of your own, but you don't apparently understand them as they appear before you. I didn't declare victory--I said the landscape favors us, and that we would get the benefit of the doubt. It's certainly possible the landscape could change between now and November 2008. It's likely that it'll change somewhat, though it probably won't be a major shift if history is any indication. Landslides like 2006 are rare--the last one was in 1994 after all. But I'd be willing to wager that it's more likely for us to see Ron Paul win the bronze in rhythmic gymnastics in 2008 than it is for us to see a Republican Speaker of the House in 2009.

Coming from the fanatic left. :rolleyes:

Fanatic? Last I saw, the people I supported are in charge. If I were a fanatic, I'd be canvassing for the Greens or the Peace and Freedom party. What's the matter--does it kill you to see the center take a leftward lurch after so many years of rightward movement? Better get used to it, bucko.

WOW! I love your spinning the polls to your favor! Or atleast trying to.

If you want to call the hard numbers I have already provided (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12656473&postcount=26) showing that americans democratic members of congress to the jobs of republican members of congress "spin" you're just the one who looks stupid, not me.

I have already posted my numbers, democrats are leading by, on average, around 15 points. That's not spin, that's fact.

Spin that.

*snip*

Address the point! Both sides need to learn not to declare victory. You have already done so. I stated that if the Dems are not careful, they are going to lose in 2008. I was not declaring anything. You were.

In 2006, the right was saying they were going to hold on to one of the houses. They did not do so. Both sides need to learn to not declare victory.

Is that not so?

Instead of lecturing me (I am not one of your students), address my fucking point.

Fanatic? Last I saw, the people I supported are in charge. If I were a fanatic, I'd be canvassing for the Greens or the Peace and Freedom party. What's the matter--does it kill you to see the center take a leftward lurch after so many years of rightward movement? Better get used to it, bucko.

You center!?

Projectile vodka isn't harmful for computer monitors is it?

If you want to call the hard numbers I have already provided (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12656473&postcount=26) showing that americans democratic members of congress to the jobs of republican members of congress "spin" you're just the one who looks stupid, not me.

I have already posted my numbers, democrats are leading by, on average, around 15 points. That's not spin, that's fact.

Spin that.


Still you jack. Polls are crap as I said before and will again. Anybody who bases their stances on them is a complete moron..IE...YOU!


Your first post was just you spinning bad numbers. Now you used polls taken by less than 1% of the population....Can't get much dumber than a neo art!

Address the point! Both sides need to learn not to declare victory. You have already done so. I stated that if the Dems are not careful, they are going to lose in 2008. I was not declaring anything. You were.

In 2006, the right was saying they were going to hold on to one of the houses. They did not do so. Both sides need to learn to not declare victory.

Is that not so?

Instead of lecturing me (I am not one of your students), address my fucking point.

um....he did.

Seriously, less time swearing like a petulant child, more time studying, k?

You might one day learn to read.

Address the point! Both sides need to learn not to declare victory. You have already done so. I stated that if the Dems are not careful, they are going to lose in 2008. I was not declaring anything. You were.

In 2006, the right was saying they were going to hold on to one of the houses. They did not do so. Both sides need to learn to not declare victory.

Is that not so?

Instead of lecturing me (I am not one of your students), address my fucking point.

Oh oh oh, Corny--are you the same person who used to lecture me about using harsh language, how it weakened my argument? Would Jesus approve of you dropping those f-bombs?

By the way, I answered your argument. That you didn't like the answer is your failing, not my argument's.

You center!?

Another candidate for "reading is fundamental" I see. He didn't say HE was center. He said the center is starting to move left.

I am sure he would refer to himself as quite the leftist. But to refer to him as a "fanatic" is stupid, and an obvious indicator that you've never met a TRUE far left liberal

um....he did.

Seriously, less time swearing like a petulant child, more time studying, k?

You might one day learn to read.

Condescending tones gets you nowhere.

I'd rather have street smarts anyday of the week instead of booksmarts. Actually, I'll prefer both of them together. Oh wait. I mostly do have both.

And the day I stop learning is the day I die.

You center!?

Projectile vodka isn't harmful for computer monitors is it?

Another candidate for "reading is fundamental" I see. He didn't say HE was center. He said the center is starting to move left.

I am sure he would refer to himself as quite the leftist. But to refer to him as a "fanatic" is stupid, and an obvious indicator that you've never met a TRUE far left liberal

Pwned. :D

Still you jack. Polls are crap as I said before and will again. Anybody who bases their stances on them is a complete moron..

You mean like the OP who started this entire thread based on...a poll?

Les choses se compliquent

French translation (Rough): Shit goes down.

Les choses ne se compliqueront pas en deux mille huit.


Shit will not go down in 2008.

Simple, coming from the French.

um....he did.

Seriously, less time swearing like a petulant child, more time studying, k?

You might one day learn to read.



OH MY! The hypocrisy is almost too much to handle!



http://geekent.com/blog/archives/pics/exploding-head.gif

You mean like the OP who started this entire thread based on...a poll?


Then you are both morons..Happy?:rolleyes:

Another candidate for "reading is fundamental" I see. He didn't say HE was center. He said the center is starting to move left.

I am sure he would refer to himself as quite the leftist. But to refer to him as a "fanatic" is stupid, and an obvious indicator that you've never met a TRUE far left liberal

Nazz has been the symbolic leftist poster on a majorly left forum. Considering I was addressing him the post before:

Coming from the fanatic left.
What's the matter--does it kill you to see the center take a leftward lurch after so many years of rightward movement? Better get used to it, bucko.

Excuse me for assuming this meant he was leaning to the center. Otherwise where we he get the impression I was mad at everyone leaning to the left?

You may not want to be such an ass lest you gain a reputation for it.

I'd rather have street smarts anyday of the week instead of booksmarts.

Unfortunatly you have yet to demonstrate a fundamental grasp of either

keep calling the people you disagree with stupid. That will SURELY distract everyone from the fact that you don't have an argument!

:rolleyes:

You seem to have a penchant for it.

Unfortunatly you have yet to demonstrate a fundamental grasp of either

Goes to show that you do not know me personally.

Then you are both morons..

keep calling the people you disagree with stupid. That will SURELY distract everyone from the fact that you don't have an argument!

:rolleyes:

keep calling the people you disagree with stupid. That will SURELY distract everyone from the fact that you don't have an argument!

:rolleyes:



http://geekent.com/blog/archives/pics/exploding-head.gif



Keep post and ignore sarcasm, which the post you responded to was! SARCASM!!!!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

LEARN IT!

See, I try. I really really REALLY try to respect the right's perspective on things. But really, when the republican party had defenders like you guys who can't even show the basic ability to sit down and READ what they're responding to...

well...it's no wonder people are deserting the republican party in droves, with spokesmen like you three.



keep calling the people you disagree with stupid. That will SURELY distract everyone from the fact that you don't have an argument!

:rolleyes:


Take your own advice. And I am not a republican.

See, I try. I really really REALLY try to respect the right's perspective on things. But really, when the republican party had defenders like you guys who can't even show the basic ability to sit down and READ what they're responding to...

well...it's no wonder people are deserting the republican party in droves, with spokesmen like you three.

See, I try. I really really REALLY try to respect the right's perspective on things. But really, when the republican party had defenders like you guys who can't even show the basic ability to sit down and READ what they're responding to...

well...it's no wonder people are deserting the republican party in droves, with spokesmen like you three.

I'm a left voting centrist...

I'm a left voting centrist...

But I'm a fanatic. Riiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

I'm a left voting centrist...

was refering to US, corny, and RO.

was refering to US, corny, and RO.

Ah ok.

But I'm a fanatic. Riiiiiiiiiiight

Well you are Corny's polar opposite. :D

Goes to show that you do not know me personally.

I know only that which you show.

Are you claiming that the level of intellect you have demonstrated here is not indicative of your real intelligence?

Why would you do that?

I know only that which you show.

Are you claiming that the level of intellect you have demonstrated here is not indicative of your real intelligence?

Why would you do that?

keep calling the people you disagree with stupid. That will SURELY distract everyone from the fact that you don't have an argument!

:rolleyes:




Lead by example and stop calling him/her stupid.

Well you are Corny's polar opposite. :D
That just makes me intelligent and well-read.

Lead by example and stop calling him/her stupid.

I've already fundamentally disproven the claims by the OP.

What more than you want from me than to render the entire argument irrelevant?

What more is there for me to do here?

That just makes me intelligent and well-read.

Wow, what a mature and witty comment.

I was only referring to political values, but from what I've seen Corneliu is extremely intellegent and well read. I just disagree with most of what he says, so to call him stupid on those grounds alone would just make me a prepubescent flamer.

I've already fundamentally disproven the claims by the OP.

What more than you want from me than to render the entire argument irrelevant?

What more is there for me to do here?

I was asking myself the same question....If you feel you have done all you can..why still post in here? I am sure your pure genius is needed in another thread.


http://www.spin.com/features/news/images/2006/06/060607_peewee.jpg


Now wipe that grin off your face.:D






(Just is case you missed it, I am just joking with you)

That just makes me intelligent and well-read.

What's your point? :D

Oh, and get my TG?

The link ('http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003585195)



I thought it took a lot of effort to have people think you suck more than Bush, but it looks like they've pulled it off.

And now, for the usual arguments that polls are bullshit, or that the questions weren't phrased right, or the sampling was bad, or it doesn't reflect reality, blah blah blah...

People always dislike Congress, because whatever it's makeup it will have lots of people who disagree with you. The same people who dislike Congress usually have high praise for their particular Senator and Congressman.

People's opinion of Congress is irrelevant. What matters is their opinions of factions within Congress. Because right now, love the war or hate the war, you aren't happy with a big chunk of what Congress is doing about it.

I've already fundamentally disproven the claims by the OP.

What more than you want from me than to render the entire argument irrelevant?

What more is there for me to do here?

Even I did that with my comment about individual congressman's approval ratings.

Wow, what a mature and witty comment.

I was only referring to political values, but from what I've seen Corneliu is extremely intellegent and well read. I just disagree with most of what he says, so to call him stupid on those grounds alone would just make me a prepubescent flamer.

Why thank you.

*hands you a cookie.

Still you jack.
...

Polls are crap as I said before and will again. Anybody who bases their stances on them is a complete moron..IE...YOU!

The OPer made his stance on a poll.

Take your own advice. And I am not a republican.
Considering your location tag, I would guess you're Fascist.

What's your point? :D

Oh, and get my TG?

Gotcha--and I've replied.

What's the matter--does it kill you to see the center take a leftward lurch after so many years of rightward movement? Better get used to it, bucko.

Quoted for pure fucking pwnage.

Quoted for pure fucking pwnage.


pwnage denied.


It was pure arrogance in assuming that it's all leftward from here, thats what they thought in 2000 and 2004. As always and in every country it will go back to the right at some point in time, and that is always sooner than you think. Better get used to it bucko!

pwnage denied.


It was pure arrogance in assuming that it's all leftward from here, thats what they thought in 2000 and 2004. As always and in every country it will go back to the right at some point in time, and that is always sooner than you think. Better get used to it bucko!

So you're saying we're more conservative now than we were a hundred years ago? A hundred years ago, the only people who could vote, for all practical purposes, were white men. Not so today. I'd say that's a move toward progressive values. A hundred years ago, labor unions were outlawed and strikes were put down violently by the federal government. Today, the federal government unions are some of the strongest in the country. Hardly a rightward move. A hundred years ago, a black man could be lynched and the local authorities wouldn't even look twice at it. Not so today. Hardly a conservative move. Social Security. Medicare. Medicaid. All liberalizations of the country. You may not like them, but they are proof positive that the country moves leftward far more often than it does rightward.

Is that enough pwnage for one post, or should I continue? Trust me--you want to back the fuck down right now, or I'll really make you look stupid on this one.

pwnage denied.


It was pure arrogance in assuming that it's all leftward from here, thats what they thought in 2000 and 2004. As always and in every country it will go back to the right at some point in time, and that is always sooner than you think. Better get used to it bucko!

which is why slavery is back in style and women can't vote...

No, wait, that's not true at all. The entire modern history of political and social evolution has been moving to the left. Despite what problems some minorities face in this country, this is still the period of the greatest civil liberties for the greatest amount of people in our history.

Societies have been moving consistantly to the left for the last 300 years.

which is why slavery is back in style and women can't vote...

No, wait, that's not true at all. The entire modern history of political and social evolution has been moving to the left. Despite what problems some minorities face in this country, this is still the period of the greatest civil liberties for the greatest amount of people in our history.

Societies have been moving consistantly to the left for the last 300 years.

A trend that will, sadly, reverse, as more socially Conservative countries, like China, become world powers, I fear.

A trend that will, sadly, reverse, as more socially Conservative countries, like China, become world powers, I fear.

Even China, repressive as it is, is more free now than it was under Mao, at least economically speaking. And the same is true for many of the Arab states, though I think that's currently the part of the world undergoing the most regression. Eventually, though, they'll turn around, or they'll be left completely behind. They don't really have to change right now because they have something everyone on earth needs--cheap oil. That allows them to be socially conservative. As that hammerlock loosens--and it will, because eventually they'll run out of oil and everyone else will have moved on to something else--they won't have the power to keep their people oppressed and they will reform. It may take a while, but it will happen.

which is why slavery is back in style and women can't vote...

No, wait, that's not true at all. The entire modern history of political and social evolution has been moving to the left. Despite what problems some minorities face in this country, this is still the period of the greatest civil liberties for the greatest amount of people in our history.

Societies have been moving consistantly to the left for the last 300 years.


WOW! You couldn't get any dumber if you tried. :rolleyes:

So I guess all conservatives are against women voting and and for slavery....:rolleyes: If you believe that I got a bridge to sell you. I guess as a social conservative I should want slavery back...wait...I am half black so I would enslaving myself.:rolleyes:

If you really buy into what you just said, I suggest turning of CNN, put down the kool aid and take a long hard look at reality.

WOW! You couldn't get any dumber if you tried. :rolleyes:

So I guess all conservatives are against women voting and and for slavery....:rolleyes: If you believe that I got a bridge to sell you. I guess as a social conservative I should want slavery back...wait...I am half black so I would enslaving myself.:rolleyes:

If you really buy into what you just said, I suggest turning of CNN, put down the kool aid and take a long hard look at reality.

They were, at one point. For the most part, they aren't anymore because the country has moved consistently left over time. Try this--if you don't duck, the point might not fly over your head this time. It might smack you in the face and you'll fucking learn something for once.

A trend that will, sadly, reverse, as more socially Conservative countries, like China, become world powers, I fear.


China's economic policies are far-left, not right. Atleast based on the american definition of left and right. They are still communist, changing yes, but still communist for now.

China's economic policies are far-left, not right. Atleast based on the american definition of left and right. They are still communist, changing yes, but still communist for now.

China is a totallitarian state. It may have far-left economic policies, but it toes the line on the far-right's social policies.

And yet Kimchi and Corny still wonder why they're called Busheviks.

So I guess all conservatives are against women voting and and for slavery....:rolleyes:

were, not are. and yes, obviously.

were, not are. and yes, obviously.



:rolleyes:



My comment is Present tense not Past tense. And if you believe we are...well....My god help you. I guess I want to work in a cotton field and all female conservatives don't want to vote. :rolleyes: Your comment couldn't be farther from any sense of reality.

China is a totallitarian state. It may have far-left economic policies, but it toes the line on the far-right's social policies.



I am not far-right...Just saying. I am more moderate conservative on my social policies. Which would explain why I resent China censoring video games and I have a weakness for internet porn.:D Yes, I am a social conservative and I like naked women. Sue me.:)

My comment is Present tense not Past tense.

it's not our fault that conservatism has no abiding principles other than love of hierarchy and either the status quo at the moment or some imaginary past, and has to change with the times as its old bad ideas are recognized as bad ideas and replaced by new bad ideas.

The link ('http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003585195)



I thought it took a lot of effort to have people think you suck more than Bush, but it looks like they've pulled it off.

And now, for the usual arguments that polls are bullshit, or that the questions weren't phrased right, or the sampling was bad, or it doesn't reflect reality, blah blah blah...
No fears, Shrubya comes through in a pinch.
After all, he IS
"The Master of Low Expectations".
"I'm the master of low expectations." —aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

As low as that smear of diseased, pus-ridden excrement is, he's still a challenge for the most experienced of spelunkers among us. Including congress.

China's economic policies are far-left, not right. Atleast based on the american definition of left and right. They are still communist, changing yes, but still communist for now.

China hasn't been socialist since the late 1970s. His name was Deng Xiaoping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping) and "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is basically a pretty way of saying "authoritarian capitalism."

(of course, if we want to fuss over Marxist theory, nobody anywhere has ever been communist, as nobody anywhere has managed to move past the "dictatorship of the proletariat" stage into a classless stateless society stage, etc...)

it's not our fault that conservatism has no abiding principles other than love of hierarchy and either the status quo at the moment or some imaginary past, and has to change with the times as its old bad ideas are recognized as bad ideas and replaced by new bad ideas.

Sigworthy, as many posts of yours are.
*bows*

Sigworthy, as many posts of yours are.
*bows*


Too bad he is wrong in ways never thought possible. He actually thinks conservatives want slavery back and to strip women of their voting rights...So wrong it's Laughable. Just false.

Just goes to show that no one's ever really satisified. Which is probably good. :p

Just goes to show that no one's ever really satisified. Which is probably good. :p



There is always a good reason to be pissed off.

There is always a good reason to be pissed off.

I'd guess that maybe 3% of what Congress does is useful in any real way, so maybe they ought to be proud of a 20+% approval rating. :p

I just thought I'd note that it isn't the dems who are causing the frustration, its the 'Pubs who won't vote to end this fucking war. That's why Nancy "San Fransisco Librul" Pelosi has a 45% approval rating.

:rolleyes:



My comment is Present tense not Past tense. And if you believe we are...well....My god help you. I guess I want to work in a cotton field and all female conservatives don't want to vote. :rolleyes: Your comment couldn't be farther from any sense of reality.

wow, you really truly missed the point didn't you? THe point was that society HAS BEEN MOVING LEFT historically. Correct, they WERE, not ARE. We ARE talking past tense because were were talking what things WERE like versus what they ARE like now.

Get it? Understanding? American has historically been moving left, as evidenced by the fact, as you so well point out, that slavery is over and women can vote, gay marriage and civil unions are becomming more popular, desgregation is, at least de jure, over, and a whole slew of other things.

Too bad he is wrong in ways never thought possible. He actually thinks conservatives want slavery back and to strip women of their voting rights...So wrong it's Laughable. Just false.

you know what? You just....should probably stop talking. It's for your own good. Really.

How can some people be so consistently and obviously wrong, and yet not seem bothered by it?

This thread, like so many others from the right-wing nutters, was quickly debunked on the first page. A Google of "Congress approval rating" can verify that the OP pretty much has no point, and it only takes about 6 seconds to do this.

Congress never has a high approval rating, and the current Congress has a higher approval rating than the Republican Congress had all last year. Really, the only impressive point from the OP is that Bush still has any approval rating at all.

I don't like being wrong. I really don't like being publicly, embarrassingly wrong. I assumed most people felt much the same way. But it appears that some do not. How do you get to that point? How do you become so immune to embarrassment and shame that you can go on being publicly wrong all the time? That's amazing.

Still you jack. Polls are crap as I said before and will again. Anybody who bases their stances on them is a complete moron..IE...YOU!


Your first post was just you spinning bad numbers. Now you used polls taken by less than 1% of the population....Can't get much dumber than a neo art!

still never passed statistics 101 have you? Stats provide a representative sample of the overall population which is why they are relevant within their margin of error. The bigger the population the bigger the sample size should be to lower margin of error. Statistics are not a %100 up and down on a subject but they are the closest damn thing you have to asking every single American. Don't even bother trying to flame/bait me like you did to this poster because I'm not falling for it. While we're at it let's clear the world of math in general as numbers are merely a statistical representation of a perceived value that may or may not necessarily exist. We're not going to rule out an entire mathematical category because you say it's crap. I mean, we all know you're the expert when it comes to empirical analysis, but we'd prefer to be rubes.

Too bad he is wrong in ways never thought possible. He actually thinks conservatives want slavery back and to strip women of their voting rights...So wrong it's Laughable. Just false.

learn to read?

How can some people be so consistently and obviously wrong, and yet not seem bothered by it?

on the internet i typically ascribe it to trolling, if only so i don't have to contemplate the consequences of the other options.

but since it is common in real life too, i worry that it is some sort of frighteningly common cognitive deficiency - a basic inability to analyze information and put it into coherent pictures, combined with strong tendencies of groupthink, confirmation bias, and generally being authoritarian followers.

Folks may want to tone down the insults a bit before this thread gets modly attention.

How can some people be so consistently and obviously wrong, and yet not seem bothered by it?

This thread, like so many others from the right-wing nutters, was quickly debunked on the first page. A Google of "Congress approval rating" can verify that the OP pretty much has no point, and it only takes about 6 seconds to do this.

Congress never has a high approval rating, and the current Congress has a higher approval rating than the Republican Congress had all last year. Really, the only impressive point from the OP is that Bush still has any approval rating at all.

I don't like being wrong. I really don't like being publicly, embarrassingly wrong. I assumed most people felt much the same way. But it appears that some do not. How do you get to that point? How do you become so immune to embarrassment and shame that you can go on being publicly wrong all the time? That's amazing.
For some posters, it's absolutely trolling--they know they're being dishonest and they just don't care. They're flinging shit at a wall and hoping some of it will stick, and that the people who are inclined to believe them will accept their version of events unquestioningly.

And then there are the posters who accept it blindly. They're in over their heads, but they're so far down they have no idea what they're saying. I leave it to the individual reader to categorize posters for themselves.

And if the Democrats do not start getting their domestic agenda going (outside of what has been passed) their approval ratings will drop pretty fast. It has already dropped 3 points and people are becoming unsatisfied with them. If they do not change, 2008 will be interesting and the Repubs will retake control.

The political calculus is a lot more complicated than that, Corneliu.

As more of Mr. Bush's friends get forced out of their plum postings because they either abused their powers for their girlfriend's salary (Paul Wolfowitz), they lied to Congress under oath about key questions (Alberto Gonzalez), go to prison for corruption (Randy Cunningham, John Boehner and other corrupt Republican politicians), and appear deliberately obstructionist to getting things done in Congress (Mitch McConnell), the less of a serious chance that the Republican Party will get either House of Congress back.

Do you think those 11 Congresscritters went and had that "extraordinarily frank" exchange with the President because their poll numbers were positive? No. They went there because they are in vulnerable districts and are LOSING popularity to the point to where it endangers their reelection chances seriously.

The difference I clearly see between now and 1972 is back then Republicans in the final analysis actually had the nerve to sign on to impeach a Republican President for impeachable offenses. There was Barry Goldwater who went up to the White House and said, "Dick, it's time for you to go." and HE DID LEAVE.

I never thought in my life I would ever compliment Dick Nixon for how he handled himself in that time, but there it is. Bush has committed enough impeachabale offenses to keep Constitutional Scholars in business for decades and not only does Bush endure, his own party is complicit in keeping him in office.

You think 28-35% is as low as this President can go? Look at Cheney in the teens.

Conservative Republicans are in serious trouble. Moderate Republicans are in less trouble. Does it really take a slide rule to figure this one out?

Not only is Wolfowitz gone, you can now bet Alberto Gonzalez' position as AG is thoroughly untenable. This President is presiding over a sinking ship and his Party and Administration are in full damage control mode. Soon the long knives will be out within the Republican Party.

The two smartest people in Bush White House are Secretary Rice and Secreatry Gates. Rice is keeping her head down and her profile low. Gates is actually doing a great job as SecDef and you know that has to gall W, because his choice resigned in disgrace and Poppa's friend, Bob Gates came in and righted the ship in short order.

You are far too intelligent to allow this sort of sloppy and wishful thinking to prevail in your mind.

I leave it to the individual reader to categorize posters for themselves.

no fair assigning homework

no fair assigning homework

It's what I do. ;)

The political calculus is a lot more complicated than that, Corneliu.

Ya think? Some members of the Democratic Party even stated that they need to focus more on domestic than Iraq. But yes, it is more complicated then what I am saying

How can some people be so consistently and obviously wrong, and yet not seem bothered by it?

This thread, like so many others from the right-wing nutters, was quickly debunked on the first page. A Google of "Congress approval rating" can verify that the OP pretty much has no point, and it only takes about 6 seconds to do this.

Congress never has a high approval rating, and the current Congress has a higher approval rating than the Republican Congress had all last year. Really, the only impressive point from the OP is that Bush still has any approval rating at all.

I don't like being wrong. I really don't like being publicly, embarrassingly wrong. I assumed most people felt much the same way. But it appears that some do not. How do you get to that point? How do you become so immune to embarrassment and shame that you can go on being publicly wrong all the time? That's amazing.
Some people just create a new profile and a new name and start over...

Some people just create a new profile and a new name and start over...

And additionally in Kimchi's case, a subsconscious desire to emulate Beloved Dear Leader Bush George-Dubya and his imperviousness to reality and its criticisms.

Seriously, I feel dumber for having read this thread. Liberals you owned them. Leave it a that. The "you are." "no, you are" "nuh-uh" stuff is just too much. I challenge anyone that was involved with this thread to go through and read it again and not feel ashamed.

Seriously, I feel dumber for having read this thread. Liberals you owned them. Leave it a that. The "you are." "no, you are" "nuh-uh" stuff is just too much. I challenge anyone that was involved with this thread to go through and read it again and not feel ashamed.

Meh. In some cases, you really have to stomp on it to make sure its dead, and I was really trying with this one.

Seriously, I feel dumber for having read this thread. Liberals you owned them. Leave it a that. The "you are." "no, you are" "nuh-uh" stuff is just too much. I challenge anyone that was involved with this thread to go through and read it again and not feel ashamed.

This thread was owned in the first two posts, that it went on this long is beyond stupid.

The link ('http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003585195)



I thought it took a lot of effort to have people think you suck more than Bush, but it looks like they've pulled it off.

And now, for the usual arguments that polls are bullshit, or that the questions weren't phrased right, or the sampling was bad, or it doesn't reflect reality, blah blah blah...

Dude, this is how high the approval rating for congress normally is. It's not really news. Bush should be ashamed that his approval rating got anywhere near the depths of the usual congressional one.

The link ('http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003585195)

I thought it took a lot of effort to have people think you suck more than Bush, but it looks like they've pulled it off.

And now, for the usual arguments that polls are bullshit, or that the questions weren't phrased right, or the sampling was bad, or it doesn't reflect reality, blah blah blah...
DK.....are you just trying to reinforce, as has been suggested, that you are indeed a Republicant Bushevik?

DK.....are you just trying to reinforce, as has been suggested, that you are indeed a Republicant Bushevik?

I submit that this has reached a new, unprecedented level.

We have, before us, our first Bulshitvik.

And additionally in Kimchi's case, a subsconscious desire to emulate Beloved Dear Leader Bush George-Dubya and his imperviousness to reality and its criticisms.
That is a Remote Observer-vation that I totally agree with. :D

That is a Remote Observer-vation that I totally agree with. :D

*groans at the pun but hands CH a cookie for it nonetheless*

Too bad he is wrong in ways never thought possible. He actually thinks conservatives want slavery back and to strip women of their voting rights...So wrong it's Laughable. Just false.

He's working with ample material, it would appear.
Hope you don't take it too personally.

I submit that this has reached a new, unprecedented level.

We have, before us, our first Bulshitvik.

Amen.

Ya think? Some members of the Democratic Party even stated that they need to focus more on domestic than Iraq. But yes, it is more complicated then what I am saying

I would agree with that sentiment, btw. But Iraq will not and should not drop off the radar.

I would agree with that sentiment, btw. But Iraq will not and should not drop off the radar.

Oh I agree that it shouldn't drop off the radar but they do need to focus on the domestic portion alot more as well.