Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Random political crapFollow

#1 Apr 24 2006 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The media wrote:
President Bush's approval ratings have sunk to a personal low, with only a third of Americans saying they approve of the way he is handling his job, a national poll released Monday said.

In the telephone poll of 1,012 adult Americans carried out Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, 32 percent of respondents said they approve of Bush's performance, 60 percent said they disapprove and 8 percent said they do not know.
[...]
It was one of four conducted within the past 10 days that have yielded similar results: a Pew Center poll carried out April 7-16 gave Bush a 35 percent approval rating; a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll carried out last Tuesday and Wednesday gave him a 33 percent approval rating; and an American Research Group poll carried out Tuesday through Friday gave him a 34 percent approval rating.
Story

I blame Fox News for obviously weighting their poll to make Bush look bad.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Apr 24 2006 at 5:44 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
The media wrote:


In the telephone poll of 1,012 adult Americans carried out Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, 32 percent of respondents said they approve of Bush's performance, 60 percent said they disapprove and 8 percent said they do not know.



These people scare me more then the people who approve of him. How the hell can someone not have an idea or an opinion on the matter?
#3 Apr 24 2006 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
I agree, you either like him or you don't. The whole no opinion is a crock of complete sh[black][/black]it.
#5 Apr 24 2006 at 5:53 PM Rating: Good
Buffyisagoddess wrote:
I agree, you either like him or you don't. The whole no opinion is a crock of complete sh[black][/black]it.
Simple. They asked people that were not of voting age.
#6 Apr 24 2006 at 5:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
What I'd be most concerned about if I were a Democrat is the fact that despite losing 15 points on the approval rating over the last year, people are no more willing to vote Democrat today then they were a year ago.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#7 Apr 24 2006 at 5:57 PM Rating: Good
Most teenagers "should" have an opinion regarding Bush. I think it would be pretty hard for them not to. But then again you never know anymoreSmiley: disappointed
#8 Apr 24 2006 at 5:57 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
Approval ratings of Congress are worse...


#9 Apr 24 2006 at 6:03 PM Rating: Good
***
1,863 posts
Approval ratings for the King of Nepal are quite low at the moment, too.
#10 Apr 24 2006 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
What I'd be most concerned about if I were a Democrat is the fact that despite losing 15 points on the approval rating over the last year, people are no more willing to vote Democrat today then they were a year ago.
However, there's still a 10 point lead for voting Democratic over voting Republican.

You can spin anything if you come at it from the right angle! Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Apr 24 2006 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
***
1,863 posts
The point leads in polls don't matter; what will the Democrats promise to give me? Tradition demands that the offers be on the table by election day, though there is no such compulsion for following through.
#12 Apr 24 2006 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
**
811 posts
I suppose when it comes right down to it, Democrats have to find a nice garnish for the **** sandwich Bush has given people
#13 Apr 24 2006 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
**
282 posts
fenderputy the Shady wrote:
How the hell can someone not have an idea or an opinion on the matter?


Quite easily. I suggest one of two possibilities: on the one hand you have the people who are just too sickeningly lazy to pay attention to the constant flood of information concerning Bush and his policies and decisions (these you are right to be afraid of), and on the other you have people who realize that no matter whether they like or hate him and his actions, they have to deal with him for another two years regardless. Your opinion of Bush makes for little more than conversation fodder. There's no point in getting uppity about it, as he's going to do his thing until he either comes to the end of his term or gets impeached for some horrendously stupid decision (that is, moreso than any of his decisions thus far. I apologize if that frightens anyone). Or gets assassinated Smiley: tongue
#14 Apr 24 2006 at 7:49 PM Rating: Default
GG redundancy?
#15 Apr 24 2006 at 8:37 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What I'd be most concerned about if I were a Democrat is the fact that despite losing 15 points on the approval rating over the last year, people are no more willing to vote Democrat today then they were a year ago.
However, there's still a 10 point lead for voting Democratic over voting Republican.

You can spin anything if you come at it from the right angle!


Lol! Yeah. I suppose you can. Afterall, that's the same approximate lead they had a year ago when Bush's ratings were in the high 40s. It's *easy* to point out what the other guy is doing wrong. It's a lot harder to convince people you'd be able to do better. It's the latter that is required to win elections.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Apr 24 2006 at 8:48 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
So, what's to approve of? Even if you supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq, you have to admit that its been a complete catastrophe and failure. US involvement in WW2 took less time than its taken Bush to nab Osama and establish a peaceful government in Iraq.

-Dec. 7th, 1941
- Japan pulls its sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.
-1,712 days later - VJ Day

-Sep. 11th, 1991
- Al-Qaeda pulls its sneak attack on various US targets.
-1716 days later - Osama Bin Laden is still free. Despite the toppling of (irrelevant) bad guy Saddam Hussein, US troops continue to get blown up all over Iraq, by Al-Qaeda.


#17 Apr 24 2006 at 8:58 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
So, what's to approve of? Even if you supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq, you have to admit that its been a complete catastrophe and failure. US involvement in WW2 took less time than its taken Bush to nab Osama and establish a peaceful government in Iraq.

-Dec. 7th, 1941 - Japan pulls its sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.
-1,712 days later - VJ Day

-Sep. 11th, 1991 - Al-Qaeda pulls its sneak attack on various US targets.
-1716 days later - Osama Bin Laden is still free. Despite the toppling of (irrelevant) bad guy Saddam Hussein, US troops continue to get blown up all over Iraq, by Al-Qaeda.


I always thought our mistake in Iraq was not dropping a couple A Bombs on them to beat them into submission...
#18 Apr 24 2006 at 10:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Deathwysh wrote:
So, what's to approve of? Even if you supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq, you have to admit that its been a complete catastrophe and failure. US involvement in WW2 took less time than its taken Bush to nab Osama and establish a peaceful government in Iraq.


Ok. First off, you're pulling a switcheroo. If we're talking about supporting Bush's decision to invade Iraq, why do you contrast Japan and OBL?

Secondly, your timeline is missing a datapoint:

-Dec. 7th, 1941
- Japan pulls its sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.
-1,712 days later - VJ Day
-23,499 days later - 25,000+ US troops still stationed across 90 military facilities in Japan and Okinawa.

Kinda puts it in perspective, doesn't it? Our "involvement in WW2" didn't end when we declared military victory, just as our "involvement in Iraq" didn't end when we declared military victory over Saddam either. Only by the biggest stretch of imagination can you argue that it *should*. But that hasn't stopped some people...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Apr 24 2006 at 10:27 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
Lord Alloran wrote:
fenderputy the Shady wrote:
How the hell can someone not have an idea or an opinion on the matter?


Quite easily. I suggest one of two possibilities: on the one hand you have the people who are just too sickeningly lazy to pay attention to the constant flood of information concerning Bush and his policies and decisions (these you are right to be afraid of), and on the other you have people who realize that no matter whether they like or hate him and his actions, they have to deal with him for another two years regardless.


Yeah but the ladder of those two still has some opinion. To truly not have an opinion on this is scary at best.
#20 Apr 24 2006 at 11:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's a lot harder to convince people you'd be able to do better. It's the latter that is required to win elections.
So far, 10% more are still convinced the Democrats are able to do better though Smiley: wink2

I'm sure though, that in the "any port in a storm" school of spin, saying "Sure, ten percent of the population thinks they'd do a better job than us but that's the same as it was a year ago! It should be 20% thinking we'd do a crappier job! HAHAHA!" sounds like a real punch in the stomach.
Gbaji wrote:
Our "involvement in WW2" didn't end when we declared military victory, just as our "involvement in Iraq" didn't end when we declared military victory over Saddam either.
When was the last time someone told us that if we cut and run from Okinawa now, the Emperor will come back? Smiley: eekSmiley: laugh

Please. Our continued presence in the overseas bases gained from WWII has nothing remotely to do today with the actual war itself and pretending the two are comparable is disingenious. You could make arguments for the usefulness of a US military presence in the Middle East but, here and now, we continue to call it a "war" long after Saddam's gone down in order to validate our continued presence. No one was still calling Japan a "war" in 1948, three years after V-J day.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Apr 25 2006 at 12:28 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Buffyisagoddess wrote:
Most teenagers "should" have an opinion regarding Bush. I think it would be pretty hard for them not to. But then again you never know anymoreSmiley: disappointed


On the contrary, I'd prefer that they save their opinions, if they would otherwise just be one of those people who run their mouth without enough background knowledge about the subject.

Too many people have opinions that are based upon one episode of the O'Reilly factor or the Daily Show that they saw.
#22 Apr 25 2006 at 8:44 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Deathwysh wrote:

So, what's to approve of? Even if you supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq, you have to admit that its been a complete catastrophe and failure. US involvement in WW2 took less time than its taken Bush to nab Osama and establish a peaceful government in Iraq.




Ok. First off, you're pulling a switcheroo. If we're talking about supporting Bush's decision to invade Iraq, why do you contrast Japan and OBL?

Secondly, your timeline is missing a datapoint:

-Dec. 7th, 1941 - Japan pulls its sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.
-1,712 days later - VJ Day
-23,499 days later - 25,000+ US troops still stationed across 90 military facilities in Japan and Okinawa.

Kinda puts it in perspective, doesn't it? Our "involvement in WW2" didn't end when we declared military victory, just as our "involvement in Iraq" didn't end when we declared military victory over Saddam either. Only by the biggest stretch of imagination can you argue that it *should*. But that hasn't stopped some people...



At least America ACTUALLY won the war with Japan. And the reason we occupied them for so long is we wouldn't allow them to have a military so we had to leave ours. "We" (America) still haven't even gotten close to completing the one objective we began with...
#23 Apr 25 2006 at 3:26 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
Quote:
Ok. First off, you're pulling a switcheroo. If we're talking about supporting Bush's decision to invade Iraq, why do you contrast Japan and OBL?


I am? Perhaps you misunderstand me. You usually do. By saying "What's to approve of?" I mean that Bush has done nothing worthy of approval. So EVEN IF someone supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq, they'd pretty much have to admit that whatever his goals were, he's failed to meet them.

Secondly, your timeline is missing a datapoint:

-Dec. 7th, 1941 - Japan pulls its sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.
-1,712 days later - VJ Day
-23,499 days later - 25,000+ US troops still stationed across 90 military facilities in Japan and Okinawa.

Kinda puts it in perspective, doesn't it? Our "involvement in WW2" didn't end when we declared military victory, just as our "involvement in Iraq" didn't end when we declared military victory over Saddam either. Only by the biggest stretch of imagination can you argue that it *should*. But that hasn't stopped some people...[/quote]

You're missing a datapoint too.

23,499 (and counting) days later - US troops not being blown up on a daily basis in Japan and Okinawa by, well... anyone.


I guess the point that you missed - which is to be expected from you, others seem to have gotten it though, is that from the date of Pearl Harbor, we managed to shift the US economy to a war footing (and in doing so, created an industrial power house that ruled the world for decades to come), built up a military capable of fighting on multiple fronts against capable, well trained, well entrenched enemies, liberated numerous countries, and utterly defeated two deadly foes, and managed to do so in less time than it has taken George Bush and company to dismantle one terrorist organization and find its grand poobah.

Yes, of course, these are very different sorts of operations, but it simply boggles the mind that it has taken longer to find Osaman Bin Laden than it did to bring down Hitler, Mussolini AND Tojo.

#24 Apr 25 2006 at 3:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
To Joph, I'll reiterate a point. A drop in approval rating for Bush does not automatically translate into vote for Democrat candidates. No matter how much Dems might wish otherwise.

To Deathwysh, I'll expand on that point in reference to your argument. What exactly is the Democrats plan for dealing with global terror? So far, all we've gotten is a deafening silence. You can critisize Bush's plan and methods all you want. But if you don't present an alternative, you aren't presenting a real alternative when it comes time to vote either.

Edited, Tue Apr 25 16:55:09 2006 by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Apr 25 2006 at 3:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
To Joph, I'll reiterate a point. A drop in approval rating for Bush does not automatically translate into vote for Democrat candidates. No matter how much Dems might wish otherwise.
Never said it did. I was merely pointing out that the ten point lead in the question "Would you rather vote for a Dem or a Pubbie?" has held solid. You're saying it's a blow that it hasn't increased; I'm saying it's still a substantial lead.

Like I said, it's all in how you spin it. *Shrug*
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Apr 25 2006 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
Gbaji guffed
Quote:
I'll expand on that point in reference to your argument. What exactly is the Democrats plan for dealing with global terror?


As usual Gbaji, reduces it all to a them and us, Republican or Democrat argument. when are you gonna realise that its not about Repub. or Dem? they are effectively the same organisation by different names. In reality Kerry is prolly more dangerous because he pretends to be different, and caring and 'one of us'. (puke) At least bush and Co. dont pretend to be anything other than warmongering bastiges.

Its dimwits like yourself who perpetuate their ability to cause the mayhem and destruction that they do, by reducing the argument to 'them' and 'us', you kill any debate that would be possible.

And, as far as dealing with 'the global war on terror'. Don't be c'nut. what f'c'king global war on terror?

Worldwide in 2003 there were 208 terrorist attacks and 625 people killed and 3,646 wounded. The increase in those wounded reflects the numerous indiscriminate attacks during 2003 on "soft targets," such as places of worship, hotels, and commercial districts, intended to produce mass casualties.

The absolute annual burden from tobacco was highest for the US at 514,000 deaths per year in 2000 (Table 1). This is equivalent to the impact of an 11 September type terrorist attack every 2.1 days.

The GWOT is a slogan made up by your government for people like yourself, to make you feel that the genocide/aggression/stealing other peoples land and resources being committed in your name is a justifiable means of making you safe.

And dont come back with that "but the Lancet study was flawed" crap. the method used was acceptable in numerous other studies of death rates globally, and was a methodical and sensible way to come up with an estimate of the amount of death and destruction wrought on the people of Iraq. Something wich your government didnt think was something worth quantifying.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 358 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (358)