The President's Supporters are POOF, going away

[Psychoblues]

Uhhhh, loverpgirl. Saddam has been incarcerated for a long time now. His army has been defeated and many of them are also long since incarcerated. What is your objection to the questions asked or solutions given?

Psychoblues

Uh, dude, how about responding to the points I made about the differences with Iraq and the other countries you want to invade.

How about responding to the fact that someone who is ravenously hungry for power would go along with the UN mandates if the only other option was being ousted, ESPECIALLY if he didnt have any WMD's. ONLLY a lunatic would fight over something he doesnt have.

And we didnt attack the Iraqi people, we attacked saddam and his army, they DID NOT REPRESENT the IRaqi people.
Look at afghanastan, yes those people are very, very happy we went in and liberated them

same with the philippines, we liberated them twice. THE ITALIANS considered us heros in WWll, but those countries were ruled with iron fist dictators, same as IRaq, but UNLIKE china, russia, etc. etc.

You inability to see the difference makes me suspect you may be as crazy as saddam

 

[Mariner]

"only a lunatic"... No, I think it makes perfect sense that Saddam would bluff. In this way, on his home stage--which is the one he cared about--he could be seen as a heroic figure engaged with the world's only superpower. He had every reason to believe that he wouldn't really be attacked--after all, he's Donald Rumsfeld's old friend and Dick Cheney's old business partner, and the U.S. held the line in the first Gulf War, staying within its U.N. mandate.

It's time to give up saying "the weapons are in Syria." The administration itself has now admitted (Steven Hadley, Nov. 13th), "We were wrong," i.e. that there were no WMD's in Iraq.

As for Clinton's approval ratings vs. Bush's--yes, Clinton fell below 50%, several times, but only very briefly. In general he remained well over 50% even during impeachment, and rose to nearly twice Bush's current rating by the end of his term. Clinton's overall rating looks like a rising stock market, while Bush's looks like an airplane crashing and burning, despite a actual rising stock market. This week's poll shows a full 75% of Americans were unconvinced by his recent "Plan for Victory." (Did you catch the news that he claimed this was an unclassified version of a 2003 classified strategy, but its primary author was found to be a political consultant, Peter Feaver, who has only worked for Bush for 6 months? The fact that Feaver is a polling expert adds irony to the deception.)

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"only a lunatic"... No, I think it makes perfect sense that Saddam would bluff. In this way, on his home stage--which is the one he cared about--he could be seen as a heroic figure engaged with the world's only superpower. He had every reason to believe that he wouldn't really be attacked--after all, he's Donald Rumsfeld's old friend and Dick Cheney's old business partner, and the U.S. held the line in the first Gulf War, staying within its U.N. mandate.

It's time to give up saying "the weapons are in Syria." The administration itself has now admitted (Steven Hadley, Nov. 13th), "We were wrong," i.e. that there were no WMD's in Iraq.

As for Clinton's approval ratings vs. Bush's--yes, Clinton fell below 50%, several times, but only very briefly. In general he remained well over 50% even during impeachment, and rose to nearly twice Bush's current rating by the end of his term. Clinton's overall rating looks like a rising stock market, while Bush's looks like an airplane crashing and burning, despite a actual rising stock market. This week's poll shows a full 75% of Americans were unconvinced by his recent "Plan for Victory." (Did you catch the news that he claimed this was an unclassified version of a 2003 classified strategy, but its primary author was found to be a political consultant, Peter Feaver, who has only worked for Bush for 6 months? The fact that Feaver is a polling expert adds irony to the deception.)

Mariner.

I see your long hiatus allowed time to strengthen your left wing lunacy. Why must you formulate your thoughts in isolation? Cuz they don't stand up to actual facts and logic?

 

[dilloduck]

Your efforts to bash George Bush must be getting a little tiring.
Why should any one (including him) give a damn what the rigged polls say about him anymore? He will be our President until 2008 and if I were him I could care less what my ratings were. I wouldn't even bother to try to appeal to my "base". He just needs to continue the course he has set and he will complete his terms as a successful president no matter how history chooses to remember him.
With all the things that are available for people to criticize him about it's amazing that it's all come down to one thing. How we finish winning the war in Iraq.
Liberals hate Bush for one reason--he's a conservative. If you want to take on conservative policy and why you think liberal policies are better for America, it's time that you think a little bigger than Bush. There is no reason for him to care anymore. His job is making sure our troops succeed and can return to America with a sense of pride, accomplishment and victory. As much as you libs like to fake your support for the troops, you would happily take all these away from them and make them sound like traitors and baby killers. We lived though that once with Viet Nam and if Bush gets his way it will NEVER happen again.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Uhhhh, loverpgirl. Saddam has been incarcerated for a long time now. His army has been defeated and many of them are also long since incarcerated. What is your objection to the questions asked or solutions given?

Psychoblues

Oh, so you are saying President Bush was right when he said "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?

Bigmeats Chinese analogy just doesnt fit. It is so far off, because the Clintonites arent evil dictators. IF Clinton, or someone else assumed the power and carried out the tyranny that saddam did, and the Chinese liberated us, the AMERICANS would be very grateful. end of analogy.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

"only a lunatic"... No, I think it makes perfect sense that Saddam would bluff. In this way, on his home stage--which is the one he cared about--he could be seen as a heroic figure engaged with the world's only superpower. He had every reason to believe that he wouldn't really be attacked--after all, he's Donald Rumsfeld's old friend and Dick Cheney's old business partner, and the U.S. held the line in the first Gulf War, staying within its U.N. mandate.

It's time to give up saying "the weapons are in Syria." The administration itself has now admitted (Steven Hadley, Nov. 13th), "We were wrong," i.e. that there were no WMD's in Iraq.

As for Clinton's approval ratings vs. Bush's--yes, Clinton fell below 50%, several times, but only very briefly. In general he remained well over 50% even during impeachment, and rose to nearly twice Bush's current rating by the end of his term. Clinton's overall rating looks like a rising stock market, while Bush's looks like an airplane crashing and burning, despite a actual rising stock market. This week's poll shows a full 75% of Americans were unconvinced by his recent "Plan for Victory." (Did you catch the news that he claimed this was an unclassified version of a 2003 classified strategy, but its primary author was found to be a political consultant, Peter Feaver, who has only worked for Bush for 6 months? The fact that Feaver is a polling expert adds irony to the deception.)

Mariner.

Its makes sense that saddam would bluff? Im glad you arent my planner of affairs. Look at saddam now, and when he was found in a hole, a dirt hole on a farm, months earlier he had full power, control and roam of all Iraq. He had presidental palaces, any woman he wanted, anything he wanted. Now he is reduced to living in a dirt hole, even poverty stricken filipinos live better than that, so it MADE NO SENSE that he bluffed.

As for Bushes ratings, you dont know how to compare numbers, (unless your goal is to skew them to look wrong), you have to compare the point in time when Clinton was at 36% to when Bush reached that number, and see how each responds. Bush hasnt had time to respond, Clinton has. So how can you compare the two? I do believe Bush's highest approval rating was at one time higher than Clintons highest ever.

 

[Mariner]

Yes, you're right, we should wait and see if Bush can bring his ratings back up.

Personally, I think the only way he will do so is by changing direction, i.e. listening to his critics.

He will need to reduce his desire for an imperial presidency, reduce his obsessive secrecy, reduce his arrogant disdain for critics, bring in some people who will not filter the news he hears so completely, spend more time taking questions from reporters, give up his Social Security Plan, give up at least part of his tax cuts, scale back his neoCon plans to remake the world, change our torture and human rights policies, etc.

In fact, he's been doing many of those things in the past week. I was moved when he referred to the war as "controversial" for the first time in his speech yesterday, and addressed critics directly.

Sure, his numbers will rebound then--but only because he's changed what he's after to make it more in line with what most Americans--who are centrists--want. It's fine with me if he becomes more popular because he gives up his previous bad ideas.

Mariner.

 

[Gunny]

Yes, you're right, we should wait and see if Bush can bring his ratings back up.

Personally, I think the only way he will do so is by changing direction, i.e. listening to his critics.

He will need to reduce his desire for an imperial presidency, reduce his obsessive secrecy, reduce his arrogant disdain for critics, bring in some people who will not filter the news he hears so completely, spend more time taking questions from reporters, give up his Social Security Plan, give up at least part of his tax cuts, scale back his neoCon plans to remake the world, change our torture and human rights policies, etc.

In fact, he's been doing many of those things in the past week. I was moved when he referred to the war as "controversial" for the first time in his speech yesterday, and addressed critics directly.

Sure, his numbers will rebound then--but only because he's changed what he's after to make it more in line with what most Americans--who are centrists--want. It's fine with me if he becomes more popular because he gives up his previous bad ideas.

Mariner.

In other words, he needs to sell out and join the Democrat party, huh? I think not. It appears you find fault where the majority of voters do not.

 

[Mariner]

and listen to his fellow Republicans. His big problem isn't with Democrats right now. We're spineless and hopeless. His big problem is with fellow Republicans, particularly in the Senate, who are turned off by his imperial-style presidency, worried about his intrusions on privacy and liberty, angry about his fecklessness on Katrina, frustrated by his hopeless tone-deafness on issues like social security reform and drilling in the Arctic, and terrified of confronting voters at home with the Bushy combination of tax cuts for the wealthy combined with program cuts for the poor. Five straight years of falling median family income, while corporate profits boom.

When the Senate majority is yours but votes 90-9 against your policy over your threatened veto (as the senate did in opposing Bush's torture policy), your problem isn't the other party--it's you.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

and listen to his fellow Republicans. His big problem isn't with Democrats right now. We're spineless and hopeless. His big problem is with fellow Republicans, particularly in the Senate, who are turned off by his imperial-style presidency, worried about his intrusions on privacy and liberty, angry about his fecklessness on Katrina, frustrated by his hopeless tone-deafness on issues like social security reform and drilling in the Arctic, and terrified of confronting voters at home with the Bushy combination of tax cuts for the wealthy combined with program cuts for the poor. Five straight years of falling median family income, while corporate profits boom.

When the Senate majority is yours but votes 90-9 against your policy over your threatened veto (as the senate did in opposing Bush's torture policy), your problem isn't the other party--it's you.

Mariner.

Is this the president who created a new democratic society in the center of muslim Theocracies? Is this the president who presides over a great economy with low low unemployment rates and decent stock market? The guy who caused libya to give up arms like a wee little girl just by having the balls to enforce U.N. resolutions? WHen you talk about gw you make him sound bad or something.

Bush Is Good For America, and America is Good For The World.

 

[nbdysfu]

Just still resting on my laurels :usa: :sausage:

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes, you're right, we should wait and see if Bush can bring his ratings back up.

Personally, I think the only way he will do so is by changing direction, i.e. listening to his critics.

He will need to reduce his desire for an imperial presidency, reduce his obsessive secrecy, reduce his arrogant disdain for critics, bring in some people who will not filter the news he hears so completely, spend more time taking questions from reporters, give up his Social Security Plan, give up at least part of his tax cuts, scale back his neoCon plans to remake the world, change our torture and human rights policies, etc.

In fact, he's been doing many of those things in the past week. I was moved when he referred to the war as "controversial" for the first time in his speech yesterday, and addressed critics directly.

Sure, his numbers will rebound then--but only because he's changed what he's after to make it more in line with what most Americans--who are centrists--want. It's fine with me if he becomes more popular because he gives up his previous bad ideas.

Mariner.

HAHHAHAHHAH

You gotta love this. ALways the sign of a LIAR. Leave themselves some "OUT" wiggle room.

His numbers wont increase "UNLESS" he....blah, blah, blah

then if his numbers stay bad, he can say "see, I told you they wouldnt rebound"

But if his numbers do rebound its "well, its because he's doing exactly what I said..."

sounds like its right out of John Kerrys handbook of how to bullshit the masses.

Uh, just wondering, how exactly do you determine if Bush has
"reduced his [/B]DESIRE for an imperial presidency'?

See, this is the exact type of tactics you bullshit artists use, its such a vague and unprovable statement, I mean, he could start clipping his left toe nail first instead of the right one and you could claim its proof of his "DESIRE" changing.

FACT: MARINER is a liar who provides no information of substance but just continualously espouses his opinions as though they are fact.
I thought Hinduism frowned on lying Mariner??

Have a nice day, NOBODY is buying your propaganda.

PRESIDENT Bush's numbers are up significantly and will continue to do so, he has corralled the Dems, they are perplexed, "we, the superior elitists, owners of the media, how could he do this to us?"

 

[ThomasPaine]

Are we going to oust every single dictatorial regime from power, all over the world? Let's start with China, who actually has nukes. Then we can move on to Russia, a nation that is not a shining example of freedom, a nation that has questionable control over it's supply of nukes as well. Or how about Mommar Khadaffi or the rulers of Saudi Arabia, who actually have supported terrorists? Oh wait, we actually support them. We're perfectly willing to aid repressive regimes as long as they do our bidding.

http://www.mises.org/story/818

expect form a moronic liberal calling himself "Bigmeat". Wasamatta lib boy in need of a "ahem" physical extension? I know libs have no cojones but no meat either? How horrid....

 

[Mariner]

course I give Bush credit for Afghanistan. Kerry would have done the same thing. They were protecting our actual enemy--Al Qaeda.

I also give Bush credit for Libya, and if he pulls off creating a true democratic, non-theocratic multicultural state in Iraq, my hat will be off to him and I'll vote Republican in the next election. I've never said that democracy in the middle east is a bad idea. I've voiced my opinion that it's a long shot, especially when imposed by force, given the specific Muslim hatred of being occupied, particularly by Christians.

LuvRPgirl, you're making less sense all the time. I listed specific policy ideas that I thought would make the president's approval ratings rise. If he changes policy position (i.e. listens to his critics) and then his ratings do rise, you owe his critics some of the thanks. If he keeps his same old positions and his ratings rise, then you can say "I told you so." Where's the lie in that?

And where am I stating opinion as fact? Is it just my opinion that the Senate shot down Bush 90-9 on the terrorism bill? Is it just my opinion that Bush admitted day before yesterday that much of the prewar intelligence was wrong? (So why doesn't he take back the big fat medal he gave George Slam-Dunk Tenet?) Is it just my opinion that median family income has fallen 5 years in a row under Bush, despite booming corporate profits, and that is precisely what non-supply-side economists predicted when Bush first proposed his tax cuts? Is it just my opinion that 45 million Americans are now uninsured, and that Bush has done not one single thing about it? Or that 1 in 5 American children now grow up in poverty? (It was 1 in 6 when Bush took office.) Is it just my opinion that after we invaded Iraq, support for the U.S. fell from 75+% to under 20% in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country? Sorry, people, these are the type of facts that Republicans would like pushed under the rug, but they're perfectly available, and not opinion. If you want to tackle reality honestly, then you have to listen to them. As a physician, I'm on the front lines with poor, disabled, and disadvantaged people. I'm not confined to hanging out with the "Some people call you the elite... I call you my base" people that are the only people Bush knows and listens to.

Every news event I've referred to was reported by multiple credible media outlets. I read the New York Times and Wall Street Journal daily, along with the Boston Globe, the New Yorker, and The Week, and I scan numerous online news sources all the time. Plus, I talk to friends and acquaintances, not a few of whom have significant ideas on these issue. For example, the chief psychiatrist who consults to the CIA on Muslim extremism is someone I have spoken with personally many times (we belong to the same think tank). If you want me to be more specific about the date/byline of each article I'm speaking off of, I will be--but most people here don't bother with that. Where's the byline for all the "libs are idiots" talk around here? It's just hot air.

Mariner.

 

[Stephanie]

Marnier, you say you'll give President Bush credit in one breath, then the next breath it's all Bush bashing. You know I didn't like clinton, but my god I never had the hate on for him as I have seen with the Dem, libs for President Bush. How does one hold onto so much hate for 5yrs and not go INSANE? Shoot their going to have too lock a bunch of liberal's up in a nuthouse after another three yr's of the Bush presidency...Oh but I forgot, you all think you have the good's on him THIS time, out of how many other time's? For impeachment. sheeeessshhhh
And all those little number fact's you just quoted, just what did clinton do for those numbers while he was president for EIGHT YR'S????

 

[Avatar4321]

Anyone else notice that Pyscho has disappeared since the poll numbers started going back up?

And to think he was upset at us when we didnt respond to his 6am post within an hour.

 

[Stephanie]

Anyone else notice that Pyscho has disappeared since the poll numbers started going back up?

And to think he was upset at us when we didnt respond to his 6am post within an hour.

Well one could wish.... I've noticed that physo only seem's to come around on the weekend's. Wait till late Friday night, that must be the witching hour's. :teeth: