|
|
Guess Bush noticed his numbers are slipping
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
Um, Dubya's approval rating has been increasing steadily (without any decline) since Oct '05.
So your point is kinda wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Misleading title.
"This request provides the resources necessary ... so the Coalition can continue to hand over control of more territory to Iraqi forces," Bush said of the war funding request."
More FUNDING. Not MORE WAR.
The guy who came up with the title of said article obviously has a anti-Bush zealot slant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairbanks AK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
Um, Dubya's approval rating has been increasing steadily (without any decline) since Oct '05.
So your point is kinda wrong.
and your point is kinda not right.
approval through Oct' 05 (gif)
it looks like he was at 39% in Oct, 05. where is he now? 39%.
i love fuzzy math
|
Earth First! we'll mine the other planets later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
So your point is kinda wrong.
One-third of the sentences in my post was "No serious political commentary here." Is this Correct-Chuck's-Jokes Week or something? I just thought it was a really awful headline and wanted to share it.
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status:
Offline
|
|
Wow, you people are wound to tight. Sometimes you've got to realize that it is just a poorly written head line that reads humorously.
|
Nemo me impune lacesset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ThinkInsane
Wow, you people are wound to tight. Sometimes you've got to realize that it is just a poorly written head line that reads humorously.
Naw, just not naive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Kevin
Misleading title.
"This request provides the resources necessary ... so the Coalition can continue to hand over control of more territory to Iraqi forces," Bush said of the war funding request."
More FUNDING. Not MORE WAR.
The guy who came up with the title of said article obviously has a anti-Bush zealot slant.
The headline doesn't say more war, but rather more money for the war. Technically there's nothing wrong with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
The way it's written
" Bush requests more war, hurricane emergency money"
It reads as if he is requesting more war, and more hurricane emergency money.
IT should have said "Bush requests more money for war effort and hurricane emergency money"
The first is purposely mis-leading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Kevin
The way it's written
" Bush requests more war, hurricane emergency money"
It reads as if he is requesting more war, and more hurricane emergency money.
IT should have said "Bush requests more money for war effort and hurricane emergency money"
The first is purposely mis-leading.
The problem with your example is that "money" is repeated twice. I guess if it had said "Bush requests more war and hurricane emergency money" it would have been misleading, but since it's separated by a comma then 'money' refers to both elements.
(
Last edited by Busemann; Feb 17, 2006 at 08:04 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Busemann
The problem with your example is that "money" is repeated twice.
Uh, no it's not. "Bush requests more war, hurricane emergency money"
I don't see two "money" words there. Do you?
If it had said "Bush requests more war and hurricane emergency money" I'd agree that it would have been misleading.
That is exactly what it says. But with a comma and not a "and" making it more ambiguous.
"Bush requests more war, hurricane emergency money"
Only one money there bub. It's not repeated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
Um, Dubya's approval rating has been increasing steadily (without any decline) since Oct '05.
So your point is kinda wrong.
Actually your wrong
No matter how you slice it, its in the cellar.
Poll date 2/9-12:
CNN/USA today: 39% approval
Poll dated 1/6-8
CNN/USA today: 43% approval 43%
Poll dated 12/9-11
CNN/USA today: 41% approval 41%
Its in the cellar and not moving. You can make a case that statistically 39% - 43% are so close that it's unchanging. Or if your a sceptic you can say that its starting to slid in 2006.
Having 61% - 57% of Americans disaprove of your job is embarrassing.
I can see why. We have a presidant from oil country (texas) but yet we're paying through the nose for gas.
He's cutting social programs, adding hidden taxes (user fees) but yet on the other side increasing the spending on the war. Spying on americans without due process and the vice president guns down people sorry Icouldn't resist that one - seriously look how he handled that by trying to sweep it under the rug but it blue up in their faces
Bottom line is he's mismanaged domestic issues, strained foreign relantionships, got us into a war we have no business being in. Broke the law by spying on americans without a warrent and the econmony is barely puttering along. Do you know the last president who used wire taps without a warrent - yep you guessed it Nixon. At least tricky Dick got us out of a war (vietnam).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Maflynn Bush has nothing to do with the Gas prices.
I guess the left forgets when in the late 90s and early 2000s gas started going up
And I guess you forgot the Clinton administration warning everyone Gas would no longer be cheap.
BUT IT'S BUSH'S FAUUUUUUULLLlT!111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Kevin
Maflynn Bush has nothing to do with the Gas prices.
I guess the left forgets when in the late 90s and early 2000s gas started going up
I agree it was going up before (it always goes up) but its been going through the roof coincidently so hasn't the oil company's profits. We have a presidant and vice presidant with ties to oil companies gas prices sky rockets along with their profits and you say Bush has nothing to do with it riiight.
As for being on the left, I'm actually a conservative and a registered republican. That doesn't mean I agree with the president, or how he's handled his job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
May the left in the 90s was saying gas was going to be even MORE expensive now than it actually is!
So now that it is more expensive (But not to the extent they were telling us) I am getting the "Oh bush has oil cornies, they are making tons of money, he has something to do with it!1"
It just cracks me up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Maflynn
Actually your wrong
No matter how you slice it, its in the cellar.
Poll date 2/9-12:
CNN/USA today: 39% approval
Poll dated 1/6-8
CNN/USA today: 43% approval 43%
Poll dated 12/9-11
CNN/USA today: 41% approval 41%
Its in the cellar and not moving. You can make a case that statistically 39% - 43% are so close that it's unchanging. Or if your a sceptic you can say that its starting to slid in 2006.
Or you can believe that the collective must really have their finger on the pulse of righteousness here. In that, you'd have to assume that gay marriage is also a bad thing evidenced by the overwhelming lack of support for it in polls. Either you like poll numbers or you take them with a grain of salt.
Having 61% - 57% of Americans disaprove of your job is embarrassing.
This is much like saying the gay mariage movement should be ashamed of itself as well or, could it be that possibly there is a progressive movement underway that many have difficulty understanding and supporting? Again, you can't really have it both ways. Either you appreciate poll numbers or you take them with a grain of salt. You're using them here as if they were somehow affirming good form yet would likely run from them when they don't happen to support your view.
I can see why. We have a presidant from oil country (texas) but yet we're paying through the nose for gas.
I want you to tell me what we should do to bring down the cost of oil. Okay? You're President now, tell me what we should do.
He's cutting social programs,
such as?
adding hidden taxes (user fees) but yet on the other side increasing the spending on the war.
What "user fee" taxes are you referring to here? If you're referring to a proposed "road user fee" tax, this is supposed to replace a gas tax.
Spying on americans without due process
...making calls internationally to known terrorists. It's not enough to simply say; "spying on Americans", but I understand it's partisan value. I think we should move beyond the partisanship because it facilitates dishonesty such as;
and the vice president guns down people sorry Icouldn't resist that one - seriously look how he handled that by trying to sweep it under the rug but it blue up in their faces
There are many that believe 24 hours is not that long of a time. Why would anyone feel it's their right to know such information anyway? Did you care about Whittington last week??? See, you have to ask yourself why it is you'd want to know this information. If it's because you need to know anything that could be construed as "dirt" on an opposing political idealist, compromising the right to privacy of an individual who's been accidentally shot in a hunting accident requiring medical attention, not media frenzy; then you're probably not deserving of the information in the first place. You should've been happy to have gotten the info at all. BTW; it hasn't blown up in his face. The story is already on the decline as the incident has been deemed for what it is, an accident.
Bottom line is he's mismanaged domestic issues,
Name one who has handled all domestic affairs to your liking.
strained foreign relantionships,
This can occur regardless of what one man does. Sometimes just standing up for yourself is enough reason to hate you. Sometimes, others are involved in scandals that they'd know you'd put a stop to if you knew and they hate you for that. There's only so much one man can do.
got us into a war we have no business being in.
Oh, we've got "business" being into this war. Trust me.
Broke the law by spying on americans without a warrent and the econmony is barely puttering along.
Our economy is barely puttering along??? Are you really doing that poorly for yourself? If so, is it Bush's fault? Jobless recovery in fact by definition indicates an economic boom. Real GDP shows continuous growth over Bush's entire term of at least 3.3%, per US Department of Labor the unemployment rate fell to 4.7%. Job gains occurred in several industries, including construction, mining, food services and drinking places, health care, and financial activities. The average unemployment rate since 1970 has been 6.25%. As you can see, the Bush Administration domestic affairs policy is well below the statistical average here as well. Home ownership (another sign of economic strength) at an unprecedented high most significantly among single parents and minorities. Per the Conference Board; CEO confidence in the U.S. economy is the highest in 20 years. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that you'd be hard-pressed to find a better economic condition for the US than the one we find ourselves in today under this Administration. Do you have any examples of better conditions? The fact of the matter is that a cynic will always find problems. I find those opposed to Bush particularly more cynical than the rest of us.
Also, I'd have to ask where you're from Maflynn. Either you're from the US and you're very young or you're not very well educated grammatically. Perhaps you're from elsewhere entirely which leads me to ask why you seem to refer to US activity as "we" and "us". I believe partisanship causes dishonesty and I've seen some dishonesty in your post which leads me to question your use of "we' and "us" when referring to the US. Maybe you've immigrated here recently because you appreciate the prosperity afforded by the American Dream, but the optimism only lasted a couple of months. Are you currently living in the US or are you kind of pretending to be here to attempt to give your points more merit? You certainly don't seem very well in touch with domestic economic conditions.
Secondly, the President has acted within the confines of law. Please site for me what law President Bush has broken???
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
ebuddy his post proves the old saying "You repeat a lie enough and it becomes the truth"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Or you can believe that the collective must really have their finger on the pulse of righteousness here. In that, you'd have to assume that gay marriage is also a bad thing evidenced by the overwhelming lack of support for it in polls. Either you like poll numbers or you take them with a grain of salt.
Why do you bring up Gay Marriage. This is a discussion on the president's rating slipping and it has nothing to do with "rightesousness"
I want you to tell me what we should do to bring down the cost of oil. Okay? You're President now, tell me what we should do.
I don't need too, I'm not the president so there
What "user fee" taxes are you referring to here? If you're referring to a proposed "road user fee" tax, this is supposed to replace a gas tax.
User Fees
Name one who has handled all domestic affairs to your liking.
I'll give you two - Reagan & Clinton
Oh, we've got "business" being into this war. Trust me.
Yep haliburton profits while Americans die, or did you forget that Cheney's old company won the award so easily, or did you forget that cover up that haliburton supplied water was tainted but they surpressed and hid the fact for over year while our troops drank the tainted water?
Our economy is barely puttering along??? Are you really doing that poorly for yourself? If so, is it Bush's fault? Jobless recovery in fact by definition indicates an economic boom. Real GDP shows continuous growth over Bush's entire term of at least 3.3%.
I'll give that - the GDP has for the most part increased, hoever in my section of the country layoffs have continued, companies out sourced jobs to India and those people while now employed are making way less then they did. I don't see the the benfits of an ecomomy that's steaming ahead in bush's term as we all did during Clinton's. And no I'm not blaming GW for out sourcing - just greedy companies.
Also, I'd have to ask where you're from Maflynn. Either you're from the US and you're very young or you're not very well educated grammatically. Perhaps you're from elsewhere entirely which leads me to ask why you seem to refer to US activity as "we" and "us". I believe partisanship causes dishonesty and I've seen some dishonesty in your post which leads me to question your use of "we' and "us" when referring to the US. Maybe you've immigrated here recently because you appreciate the prosperity afforded by the American Dream, but the optimism only lasted a couple of months. Are you currently living in the US or are you kind of pretending to be here to attempt to give your points more merit? You certainly don't seem very well in touch with domestic economic conditions.
LOL this paragraph is a hoot.
Just because I disagree with you, your calling me dishonest, by way of saying my post contains dishonesty.
For the record I was born and bred here in the good ol US of A and whileI'd like to consider myself young, I'm over 30 but under 50 . Sounds like your insinuating that if I disagree with the policies of this presidant (and/or you) I'm a bad american or worse I'm unpatriotic. That is pretty narrow minded and short sighted, but I'm not surprised. You are the immature uneducated sounding one.
Secondly, the President has acted within the confines of law. Please site for me what law
President Bush has broken???
That's what Nixon said too.
Since when did wire tapping Americans making phone calls withouht a warrant became legal? Just because the president says its legal doesn't make it so and the last time I checked here in the US we have civil rights and due process.
(
Last edited by Maflynn; Feb 17, 2006 at 10:53 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Kevin
ebuddy his post proves the old saying "You repeat a lie enough and it becomes the truth"
The same can be said for yours
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Maflynn
Why do you bring up Gay Marriage. This is a discussion on the president's rating slipping and it has nothing to do with "rightesousness"
No, actually it was in response to your having cited poll numbers. Numbers you'd likely run from when they don't align with your personal views. The example was used to illustrate the need to understand polls, poll numbers, and collective thought.
I don't need too, I'm not the president so there
That was easy now wasn't it?
You don't need solutions, you need naysayers and pessimists to point out all the problems. Seizing upon partisan bumper-sticker statements does not solve problems.
Then you must've seen the ideal behind the proposal; "The idea behind user fees is that those who benefit from government services should pay for them rather than everyone."
Are you familiar with the flat tax? I don't believe it's such a bad idea.
I'll give you two - Reagan & Clinton
This is debatable and the .com boom was the entire source of the Clinton economy. This, worse than coming down off a wine-drunk as evidenced by the recessional condition this Administration was left with upon entering the White House.
Yep haliburton profits while Americans die,
I love this; "while Americans die" bit. Nice emotional pull, not much substance to the statement. People die mayflynn, this is not the President's fault. BTW; how many companies with Haliburton's credentials came to the table? Haliburton is particularly skilled at providing and integrating products and services including, but not limited to exploration and development, through production, operations, maintenance, conversion and refining, to infrastructure. I know among your ilk Haliburton is a bad word, but the truth of the matter is that very few can offer the types of services on quite the scale that Haliburton can and historically has. Haliburton was founded in 1919. This was before Cheney could've led the nefarious organization. Keep in mind that Clinton himself acknowledged Haliburton in 1992. Haliburton bid on and won the 1992 LOGCAP agreement. This provided services to the troops for four years by supplying food, energy, basic goods, laundry services and built housing and bases for troops in Somalia, Croatia, Bosnia and Hungary. Actions Clinton engaged without seeking UN counsel first.
or did you forget that Cheney's old company won the award so easily,
It seems from above you forgot a few things as well.
or did you forget that cover up that haliburton supplied water was tainted but they surpressed and hid the fact for over year while our troops drank the tainted water?
To qualify, the water they drink is bottled. The water they used for coffee and showering was in fact found to be tainted, the purification systems were repaired and to date there are no medical cases or evidence of illness caused by this issue. This is not to excuse the alleged "cover-up", but these folks are used to molehills being made into mountains.
I'll give that - the GDP has for the most part increased, hoever in my section of the country layoffs have continued, companies out sourced jobs to India and those people while now employed are making way less then they did.
You should probably look to your democratic local leadership to do something about this. This is bad to be sure. This occurs at the local level. If the US conditions are favorable, but you find yourself to be exclusively troubled, you must look to those at the local level for support. If you're not getting it, you too should vote Republican.
I don't see the the benfits of an ecomomy that's steaming ahead in bush's term as we all did during Clinton's.
Why not? I do. What are you doing differently now than you were doing during the Clinton Administration???
And no I'm not blaming GW for out sourcing - just greedy companies.
If greedy companies are all you see, greedy companies are all you'll get.
LOL this paragraph is a hoot.
I didn't find it as entertaining.
Just because I disagree with you, your calling me dishonest, by way of saying my post contains dishonesty.
Yet I called you to task on specific items for your dishonesty and interestingly, you addressed few of them.
For the record I was born and bred here in the good ol US of A and whileI'd like to consider myself young, I'm over 30 but under 50 . Sounds like your insinuating that if I disagree with the policies of this presidant (and/or you) I'm a bad american or worse I'm unpatriotic.
I never claimed you were a bad American or unpatriotic. I said you're either not an American at all, very young, possibly a disgrunted immigrant, or uneducated in general.
That is pretty narrow minded and short sighted, but I'm not surprised. You are the immature uneducated sounding one.
I'm just going by evidence posted in this thread and in fact, you appear uneducated. We can namecall, I'm just telling it like it is. You're welcome to disagree and I find myself in disagreement with others from time to time. I will not generally accuse one of being uneducated unless it's patently obvious they've attained their talking points from bumper stickers and establish repeatedly the inability to accurately spell "President". There are very basic fundamentals of our English language and as a life-long American, you've shown a peculiar ineptitude in this area.
Since when did wire tapping Americans making phone calls withouht a warrant became legal?
In this particular context, since the early 70's.
Just because the presidant says its legal doesn't make it so and the last time I check here in the US we hav civil rights and due process.
... due process, that's funny. Everyone is entitled to due process unless their last name is Bush. Bush's are guilty until proven innocent. What do you have as evidence that the President has broken laws? Nothing. Will this stop you from lodging the indictment? Of course not, you're not interested in due process nor civil rights at all. That is unless you consider making international calls to known terrorists a fundamental civil right.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Six feet under and diggin' it.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Kevin
The way it's written
" Bush requests more war, hurricane emergency money"
It reads as if he is requesting more war, and more hurricane emergency money.
IT should have said "Bush requests more money for war effort and hurricane emergency money"
The first is purposely mis-leading.
Originally Posted by Kevin
Uh, no it's not. "Bush requests more war, hurricane emergency money"
I don't see two "money" words there. Do you?
That is exactly what it says. But with a comma and not a "and" making it more ambiguous.
"Bush requests more war, hurricane emergency money"
Only one money there bub. It's not repeated.
I see two moneys.
You can't spin something that obvious.
Go back and see busemann's post.
Put your eyes back in bub.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Kevin
The way it's written
" Bush requests more war, hurricane emergency money"
It reads as if he is requesting more war, and more hurricane emergency money.
IT should have said "Bush requests more money for war effort and hurricane emergency money"
The first is purposely mis-leading.
Headlines are supposed to be terse. This could be malicious or it could be accidental (there are many examples of unfortunate headline wordings), but the format used was standard headline style. If I were writing it, I would have just flipped the money: "Bush requests more funds for war, hurricane relief."
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Rolling Bones
I see two moneys.
You can't spin something that obvious.
Go back and see busemann's post.
Put your eyes back in bub.
Ah yeah you are right. I apologize Buseman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chuckit
Shouldn't that go in the comedy lounge?
|
"Criticism is a misconception: we must read not to understand others but to understand ourselves.”
Emile M. Cioran
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I figured this was where all the jokers were anyway.
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status:
Offline
|
|
i watched bush speak today and i think he said all the right things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chuckit
I figured this was where all the jokers were anyway.
lol
|
"Criticism is a misconception: we must read not to understand others but to understand ourselves.”
Emile M. Cioran
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Check out Polling Report's summary of the the approval rating polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
There are clearly discrepancies in results between these different polls, but there are definitely less than half of the population who approve of him.
Don't understand the "not sure's", but whatever...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|