34% - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-15-2006, 06:24 PM   #226
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Al Gore has given some really great speeches as of late and has gotten a lot of exposure with his new film coming out. Vanity Fair also ran a pretty good essay of his in their last month's issue.

I don't know whether his sudden re-emergence in the mainstream everywhere is an indication of things to come, but wow, he has sounded FANTASTIC recently, and I say that as a person who was never a fan of his.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 05-15-2006, 06:47 PM   #227
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:37 AM
three words:

Richard. Milhouse. Gore.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-15-2006, 08:04 PM   #228
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




nope. it's nostalgia for Clinton. the man is loved, and continues to grow in stature, particularly around the world.

i know you like to pin everything on Clinton, or "the liberals," but the fact of the matter is that Bush sits at 29% -- and i'm not even going to touch the convenient presentation of "reality" in the post above (since we all know that reality has a liberal bias) about sanctions and containment and the wild overestimation of the nation's unsustainable economic growth particularly given a 9 trillion debt with no way to pay for it and an exploding right-wing moralistic, Christianist nanny state, pornographic farm subsidies, and more pork than a sow fest, the growing disparity between the rich and the poor, the grossly unequal distribution of wealth, the 40m without health care insurance, and we could go on and on and on and on and on.

it might be more accurately be read as a desire for divided government that has usually resulted in some of the best decisions the nation has ever made, when a president and Congress are at odds with one another.



oh, and the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989 ...
Do you know the reality and conditions of sanctions/embargo along the Syrian/Iraq border in the late 1990s and how that seriously impacted the entire containment regime? Do you have an idea have how much Saddam was making on the black market in violation of sanctions and the embargo?

Here is a reality check for ya, as a percentage of GDP, the national debt is roughly the same as it was under Bill Clinton.

Arguements about "the growing disparity between the rich and the poor, the grossly unequal distribution of wealth, the 40m without health care insurance" could be leveled against any administration of the past half century. The fact is, the United States has one of the highest standards of living in the world, and the current standard of living in the country is higher, if only slightly, than it was during the rosiest times of the Clinton administration according to the United Nations Human Development Index totals.


By the way, if you read my post again, you realize I did not state that the Soviet Union did not leave Afghanistan in 1989. Yep, it was during Bush Sr. time in office, but that does not change the fact that Clinton did little during his 8 years despite the advantage of not having to fight the Cold War.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-15-2006, 08:49 PM   #229
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Fairly soon the number of American dead in this war (not to mention the many thousands who are grievously wounded) will surpass the number of who died on 9/11. When the number three thousand is reached will there be those who have supported this war who say 'enough'? Or will they continue to believe the sorry deceit that because so may have died more must perish? What an absurdity, and how disheartening that our president had the gall to present it.
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 05-15-2006, 09:16 PM   #230
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Do you know the reality and conditions of sanctions/embargo along the Syrian/Iraq border in the late 1990s and how that seriously impacted the entire containment regime? Do you have an idea have how much Saddam was making on the black market in violation of sanctions and the embargo?



do you have any idea that an all-out unilateral invasion was probably the worst way to go about resolving the situation? do you have any idea that Saddam was a murderous dictator, but there are many, and that an invasion on an electoral timetable that milked the tragedy of 9-11 is an insult to every single person that has died in a war that has nothing to do with the safety of the average american? do you have any idea how different things would be if ANY OTHER administration had pursued the same policy, only with out the fuck-off attitude towards the rest of the world combined with a sickening arrogance that has come back to bite it in the ass? can you not understand that such things are incredibly complex, and that there's never only two choices in regards to any situation? do you have any idea the fact that Saddam was a weak old man just a shadow of his old self?


[q]Here is a reality check for ya, as a percentage of GDP, the national debt is roughly the same as it was under Bill Clinton. [/q]


and what kind of reality check is this? is this the "deficits don't matter" argument?


[q] Arguements about "the growing disparity between the rich and the poor, the grossly unequal distribution of wealth, the 40m without health care insurance" could be leveled against any administration of the past half century. The fact is, the United States has one of the highest standards of living in the world, and the current standard of living in the country is higher, if only slightly, than it was during the rosiest times of the Clinton administration according to the United Nations Human Development Index totals. [/q]


and this is totally irrelevant -- not to mention neauseatingly smug and totally divorced from non-privileged white male reality -- if you don't have health care, are morbidly obese, are trapped in service sector job, have shitty public schools, have no way out of your town except through military service.



Quote:
By the way, if you read my post again, you realize I did not state that the Soviet Union did not leave Afghanistan in 1989. Yep, it was during Bush Sr. time in office, but that does not change the fact that Clinton did little during his 8 years despite the advantage of not having to fight the Cold War.

nor does it change the fact that Bush Sr. did nothing nor was Bush Jr. going to do a thing until 9-11, and you'll remember that, initially, the Taliban were seen as a good thing, a way to fill the power vaccume and provide some sort of stability to the country. it wasn't until the late 1990s that their human rights abuses because well known. this is not to excuse clinton, but it is to stop your veneration of the Bushes as faultless.

and shall we talk about the weekly meetings that Clinton had about OBL that were promptly dropped when Jr. took over because all he wanted to think about was China and his national security advisor was an expert on the non-existent Soviet Union? remember the missile defense shield? remember "Osama Bin Laden determined to strike within the US"? THESE were the Bush administration's priorities before 9-11. if you want to blame Clinton, fine. but at least acknowledge that there is more than enough blame to go around.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 03:04 AM   #231
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



do you have any idea that an all-out unilateral invasion was probably the worst way to go about resolving the situation? do you have any idea that Saddam was a murderous dictator, but there are many, and that an invasion on an electoral timetable that milked the tragedy of 9-11 is an insult to every single person that has died in a war that has nothing to do with the safety of the average american? do you have any idea how different things would be if ANY OTHER administration had pursued the same policy, only with out the fuck-off attitude towards the rest of the world combined with a sickening arrogance that has come back to bite it in the ass? can you not understand that such things are incredibly complex, and that there's never only two choices in regards to any situation? do you have any idea the fact that Saddam was a weak old man just a shadow of his old self?


[q]Here is a reality check for ya, as a percentage of GDP, the national debt is roughly the same as it was under Bill Clinton. [/q]


and what kind of reality check is this? is this the "deficits don't matter" argument?


[q] Arguements about "the growing disparity between the rich and the poor, the grossly unequal distribution of wealth, the 40m without health care insurance" could be leveled against any administration of the past half century. The fact is, the United States has one of the highest standards of living in the world, and the current standard of living in the country is higher, if only slightly, than it was during the rosiest times of the Clinton administration according to the United Nations Human Development Index totals. [/q]


and this is totally irrelevant -- not to mention neauseatingly smug and totally divorced from non-privileged white male reality -- if you don't have health care, are morbidly obese, are trapped in service sector job, have shitty public schools, have no way out of your town except through military service.






nor does it change the fact that Bush Sr. did nothing nor was Bush Jr. going to do a thing until 9-11, and you'll remember that, initially, the Taliban were seen as a good thing, a way to fill the power vaccume and provide some sort of stability to the country. it wasn't until the late 1990s that their human rights abuses because well known. this is not to excuse clinton, but it is to stop your veneration of the Bushes as faultless.

and shall we talk about the weekly meetings that Clinton had about OBL that were promptly dropped when Jr. took over because all he wanted to think about was China and his national security advisor was an expert on the non-existent Soviet Union? remember the missile defense shield? remember "Osama Bin Laden determined to strike within the US"? THESE were the Bush administration's priorities before 9-11. if you want to blame Clinton, fine. but at least acknowledge that there is more than enough blame to go around.

1. The Invasion of Iraq was not a unilateral invasion and was the only option left in order to bring about compliance with the UN Security Council Resolutions. The initial invasion had 3 different countries involved with troops on the ground. It was authorized by UN Security Council resolution 1441 in November of 2002. In June of 2003, the occupation was approved by UN Security Council Resolution 1483. Dozens of countries have deployed their own troops to Iraq and there have been few occupations in the history of the planet with more countries participating.

From March 1991 to March 2003, the United States and other member states of the United Nations did everything they possibly could short of invasion to bring about compliance. Saddam had a military force of 430,000 , 2,700 tanks, nearly 2,000 Armored Personal Carriers, over 2,000 artillery pieces, 300 combat aircraft, over 100 combat helicopters, and unaccounted for stocks of WMD as well as Ballistic Missiles. On a more personal standpoint, Saddam had 12 different security services, some who's job was simply to spy on the other security services. The only way to bring about compliance given Saddam's refusal to cooperate starting in the mid-1990s was regime change through military invasion given the size and strength of his military forces and personal security services. Compliance has been achieved and one of the worst threats to global security has been removed. Multiple ways short of regime change were tried by the United States and other member states of the UN for 12 years and they all failed. The invasion successfully achieved what the other options had failed to.

2. No Dictator has ever used WMD as many times as Saddam did. No other Dictator was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations. No other dictator had recently invaded and attacked four different countries. No other dictator had threatened the planets main energy supplies with siezure or sabotage. Name another Dictator that has been responsible for the deaths of 1.7 million people since 1979! The average American like every other average person on the planet is seriously impacted by the cost of energy and the impact that the loss of energy from the Persian Gulf would have on the entire global economy. This is not the first time the United States has fought a war against Saddam! There is a reason why the United States deployed over 500,000 troops to Saudi Arabia in the fall of 1990. Simply put, there are few if any places on the planet that impact US national security more than the Persian Gulf Region, and it has been that way for decades!


3. The Clinton administration had stated early on that it wanted to act in Bosnia, but it essentially did nothing for 3 years. While it talked and talked, over 250,000 Bosnian Muslims were slaughtered. They get credit for finally acting and solving the problem, but what they started to do in the fall of 1995 could have been done in the Spring of 1993! So, one thing that you would likely see from a Democratic administration is a lack of resolve or action on a key issue which cost lives and damages security.

In Kosovo, when the NATO bombing began and the Serbs were starting their final push to drive out the Muslim population, it was discovered that there was no humanitarian supplies at all in neighboring Albania where the refugees were all fleeing to creating mass suffering and hardship. The humanitarian supplies meant for the potential refugee exodus had been placed in Kosovo now under full control of the Serbian military.

Its likely if US large numbers of US ground troops had been deployed to the region prior to the NATO bombing, the Serbs would have withdrawn from Kosovo prior to the start of bombing and agreed to NATO terms. But without the threat of a ground invasion from NATO, the Serbs went ahead with their final Ethnic Cleansing effort and NATO had to bomb Serbia for 78 days to get them to agree to leave Kosovo. The Clinton administration was about to prepare to send ground troops to the region when the Serbs gave up, but had such ground troops been in the region months prior to hostilities, the whole bombing campaign and refugee exodus might have been avoided.



4. I realize that the United States problems with Saddam did not start in 2002, but had been constantly ongoing since August 2, 1990. There are too many people around the world that are uninformed about what happened in Iraq from March 1991 through September 2001. Dealing with Saddam was indeed a difficult and complex problem and many things were tried from March 1991 through March 2003, but sometimes there is only one solutuion to a problem, and this proved to be the case with Saddam after other attempts to solve the problem failed.

5. Saddam's age was irrelevant. In addition, were talking about a regime, not just one man. Saddam's sons were worse than his father in terms of rational behavior and their caculations. A military force of 430,000 , 2,700 tanks , 2,000 armored personal carries, 2,000 Artillery pieces, 300 combat aircraft, thousands of unaccounted for stocks of WMD, Ballistic Missiles sitting just across the border from a small country like Kuwait is not an example of Saddam's percieved weakness.


6. The United States has experienced far larger national debts and deficits in its history than what is being currently experienced.


7. Even in Norway, the country with the highest standard of living in the world, there are some people who live in poverty. The fact is, when it comes to standard of living in the United States, the United States has the one of the highest standards of living in the world. Its current rank is #10. The United States currently has one of the lowest poverty rates in the history of the country. In fact, the 2004 poverty rate, the last for which statistics are available,is the 17th lowest in the country's history.


8. I always find it funny how liberals love to put all the blame of 9/11 on the Bush administration when they had only been in office for 7 months. Clinton had 8 years and the only thing he did in Afghanistan was launch 20 Cruise missiles at empty tents and caves one day in August of 1998. Bin Ladin had been determined to attack the United States for nearly a decade in 2001. Everyone knew that , and the report simply restates the obvious. The Democrats tried this garbage arguement in the 2004 election and the result was that Bush was re-elected with the first majority any President had had since 1988, and the Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate, the first time that an happened in an incumbent presidential election in half a century.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 08:15 AM   #232
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 06:37 AM
I admire your faith, STING... but no amount of rhetoric will change the reality of what's happening every day. Damage beyond measure has been done to this country in the name of national security. Perpetual war and a governmant of, by, and for the wealthy. It makes me heartsick.
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 01:00 PM   #233
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by najeena
I admire your faith, STING... but no amount of rhetoric will change the reality of what's happening every day. Damage beyond measure has been done to this country in the name of national security. Perpetual war and a governmant of, by, and for the wealthy. It makes me heartsick.
Its not faith, but facts and evidence. Claims, that damage beyond measure has been done to this country in the name of national security and that this government is simply for the wealthy, has absolutely no factual basis.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 08:23 AM   #234
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 06:37 AM
I wish I had the facility with numbers that you have, STING. The deficit, the war, the spying, the lying, the torture, the corruption... and this meager list doesn't cover the myriad other reasons that Bush is an awful president. He doesn't give a damn about anyone who won't give him either money or a vote. I don't recognize this country anymore, I wouldn't have believed it could devolve so quickly if I hadn't seen it happen in front of my disbelieving eyes.
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 09:51 AM   #235
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 01:37 AM
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/8/123228/7545

Jesus. H. Christ. Is Bush even capable of telling the truth?

Bush says the highlight of his presidential career was catching a 7.5 pound perch in his lake. Except that...

The only problem is that the world's record for the largest freshwater perch caught is 4 pounds 3 ounces.

So Bush either doubled the world record, and didn't report it, or he's a liar.

Incidentally, see how three presidents answered the question, "What was the best moment of your presidency?"

Apparently, since Bush didn't have any "best moments", he had to invent one.



How did President Carter answer the question?

"I think the best time was probably dealing with the Middle East issue at Camp David," he said, "and even better I think was the peace treaty that came along six months later. I made a very difficult decision over the almost unanimous opposition of my cabinet and my staff to take the initiative and to go to Egypt and to go to Israel to try to get Begin and Sadat to agree on a peace treaty. And when they did sign-both of them signed the agreement-I guess that was probably my best moment."

http://www.americanpresident.org/history...


How did President Clinton answer the question?

JIM LEHRER: As we sit here right now, Mr. President, is this the best moment of your presidency?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Oh, no, I won't say that. I don't know. So many things have happened here at home that have been important to me; passing economic plan, passing the Brady Bill and assault weapons ban, so many things have happened internationally, the role that I was fortunate to be able to play in the peace process in the Middle East and in Northern Ireland, but this could have the biggest long-term positive consequences if we do it right. But frankly, I hadn't, you know -- Sometimes people say "do you feel vindicated?" The answer is no. I think America has been vindicated. I think what we stand for has been vindicated. But keep in mind that there have been times in the past where people win a conflict and then squander the peace. So a lot of our work is still ahead of us. We've gotta get the people home, get the land mines up, work out the details of who is involved in the peacekeeping mission. We have to get this -- We've got to organize police forces and civil government for the Kosovars. And then the really big thing over the long-run, our European friends want to take the lead in this but we ought to help them, we've got to get the World Bank and all these other people involved in a development plan for the Balkans that involves not just Kosovo, but Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, and I hope someday Serbia if they have a government that respects freedom and democracy and human rights. So that these people have something pulling them together instead of these ancient ethnic troubles pulling them apart.

Now if we get all that done, it might be perhaps the most satisfying thing because it might prove that people can lay down their hatreds of people who are different. You know, I basically think free people will figure out a way to make the most of their lives and work out their problems if they can get the rules of engagement right. That's why I gave somewhat of an extended answer to what you said about the Republicans. Because, I think, you know, differences are good. Nobody's got the whole truth. But you gotta get the rules of engagement right. And I think what we did in Kosovo was profoundly important.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/ja...
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 09:58 AM   #236
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 01:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601264_pf.html

Public confidence in GOP governance has plunged to the lowest levels of the Bush presidency, with Americans saying by wide margins that they now trust Democrats more than Republicans to deal with Iraq, the economy, immigration and other issues, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll that underscores the GOP's fragile grip on power six months before the midterm elections.

Dissatisfaction with the administration's policies in Iraq has overwhelmed other issues as the source of problems for President Bush and the Republicans. The survey suggests that pessimism about the direction of the country -- 69 percent said the nation is now off track -- and disaffection with Republicans have dramatically improved Democrats' chances to make gains in November.

Democrats are now favored to handle all 10 issues measured in the Post-ABC News poll. The survey shows a majority of the public, 56 percent, saying they would prefer to see Democrats in control of Congress after the elections.

The poll offers two cautions for the Democrats, however. One is a growing disaffection with incumbents generally. When asked whether they were inclined to reelect their current representative to Congress or look around for someone new, 55 percent said they were open to someone else, the highest since just before Republicans captured control of Congress in 1994. That suggests that some Democratic incumbents could feel the voters' wrath, although as the party in power Republicans have more at risk.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 11:07 AM   #237
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:37 AM
[q]Bush Slumps to a New Low -- It's All About Iraq

Analysis By GARY LANGER

May 16, 2006 — George W. Bush's job approval rating has slumped to 33 percent, tying the all-time low for presidential approval in the 25 years of ABC News/Washington Post polls. Sixty-five percent disapprove, a new high.

The war in Iraq — try as he might to change the subject — is the reason.

Americans who disapprove of Bush's performance overwhelmingly cite Iraq as the main reason. His rating for handling the war has hit a new low. Sixty-two percent say the war was not worth fighting, a new high. And 59 percent call the war a mistake — about as many as said that about Vietnam in the early 1970s.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollV...ory?id=1968029

[/q]


the most important point in this poll is that 65 percent disapprove of his handling of the presidency. aside from Nixon, who would have been impeached if he had not resigned, this is the highest disapproval number for any president since the Great Depression. to further the Nixon comparisons, Bush is now as hated as Nixon was in his darkest days. further, Bush's crimes-- from manipulating intelligence to get up a war of choice, to authorizing torture, to spying on Americans without a warrant-- dwarf a minor political burglary.

as for Carter -- who had the misfortune to be president during the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the taking of US hostages, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, gasoline shortages and high fuel prices, a stagnant economy, high unemployment, and double-digit inflation -- Bush, shockingly, given the economy, has an even higher disapproval rating!
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 01:37 PM   #238
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]Bush Slumps to a New Low -- It's All About Iraq

Analysis By GARY LANGER

May 16, 2006 — George W. Bush's job approval rating has slumped to 33 percent, tying the all-time low for presidential approval in the 25 years of ABC News/Washington Post polls. Sixty-five percent disapprove, a new high.

The war in Iraq — try as he might to change the subject — is the reason.

Americans who disapprove of Bush's performance overwhelmingly cite Iraq as the main reason. His rating for handling the war has hit a new low. Sixty-two percent say the war was not worth fighting, a new high. And 59 percent call the war a mistake — about as many as said that about Vietnam in the early 1970s.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollV...ory?id=1968029

[/q]


the most important point in this poll is that 65 percent disapprove of his handling of the presidency. aside from Nixon, who would have been impeached if he had not resigned, this is the highest disapproval number for any president since the Great Depression. to further the Nixon comparisons, Bush is now as hated as Nixon was in his darkest days. further, Bush's crimes-- from manipulating intelligence to get up a war of choice, to authorizing torture, to spying on Americans without a warrant-- dwarf a minor political burglary.

as for Carter -- who had the misfortune to be president during the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the taking of US hostages, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, gasoline shortages and high fuel prices, a stagnant economy, high unemployment, and double-digit inflation -- Bush, shockingly, given the economy, has an even higher disapproval rating!
The ABC news poll only goes back 25 years. The Gallup poll goes back to World War II and as of right now in the Gallup poll. Bush is ahead of four Presidents at their lowest points.

Truman 22%
Nixon 24%
Carter 28%
Bush Sr. 29%

Bush had fallen to 31% at the end of April. He is now up to 33% in the most recent Gallup poll.

In terms of what is actually relevant, who is running the country and setting and implementing the country's most important policies, Bush and the Republicans are solidly in control. The Democrats have a chance to win the House Of Representitives this year, but even if they win, by how much will they win, and would it actually have any real effect on the Presidents most important policies considering the margin of victory and the division within the Democratic party itself.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 01:43 PM   #239
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

In terms of what is actually relevant, who is running the country and setting and implementing the country's most important policies, Bush and the Republicans are solidly in control.
Still doing super-duper!!!

That immigration idea of his that all his xenophobic bigots in the GOP are so supportive of is going marvelously.

Heckuva job!
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 01:51 PM   #240
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The ABC news poll only goes back 25 years. The Gallup poll goes back to World War II and as of right now in the Gallup poll. Bush is ahead of four Presidents at their lowest points.

Truman 22%
Nixon 24%
Carter 28%
Bush Sr. 29%

Bush had fallen to 31% at the end of April. He is now up to 33% in the most recent Gallup poll.

In terms of what is actually relevant, who is running the country and setting and implementing the country's most important policies, Bush and the Republicans are solidly in control. The Democrats have a chance to win the House Of Representitives this year, but even if they win, by how much will they win, and would it actually have any real effect on the Presidents most important policies considering the margin of victory and the division within the Democratic party itself.


and you're sidestepping the most crucial piece of data -- the 65% strong disapproval.

but continue to select whatever information you wish.

as for the Republicans who control all branches of government, Congressional approval ratings are around 22%. with Congressional Republicans quaking in their boots about their reelection chances, we're already seeing shifts in policy more favorable to democrats (Bush's overall immigration policy where he has basically proposed Amnesty) that in turn angers his base despite all the tawdry political stunt of calling up the National Guard.

of course, there's some gay bashing on the horizon in June with a vote on the FMA, and while that might give a few fundie bigots gigantic hard-ons, it simply makes Bush look less and less appealing to the mainstream which is increasingly in favor of marriage-like alternatives such as civil unions.

so hat's off to you all.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com