Well done, Dubya!
-
Bush's Disapproval Rating Highest in History[^] ...and well deserved.
-
Bush's Disapproval Rating Highest in History[^] ...and well deserved.
oilFactotum wrote:
...and well deserved.
It is, indeed, but it's hard for me to understand why ABC or you actually think it's newsworthy. Bush is irrelevant. The disapproval ratings for Congress - lower than the ones for Bush - should be receiving the attention since many of those idiots are running for re-election. I note that both candidates for President are members of Congress.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
oilFactotum wrote:
...and well deserved.
It is, indeed, but it's hard for me to understand why ABC or you actually think it's newsworthy. Bush is irrelevant. The disapproval ratings for Congress - lower than the ones for Bush - should be receiving the attention since many of those idiots are running for re-election. I note that both candidates for President are members of Congress.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The disapproval ratings for Congress - lower than the ones for Bush - should be receiving the attention since many of those idiots are running for re-election.
But doesn't congress always rate really low, yet incumbents get re-elected much more often than not? The reason is simple... everyone thinks everyone ELSE'S representatives are the ones to blame. They like their own guys. Or don't know how to vote outside of the party their area decided they "should" vote for. Hmm, and two senators are running for President. Fascinating.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
-
Bush's Disapproval Rating Highest in History[^] ...and well deserved.
"Just two presidents have had lower approval (Richard Nixon and Harry Truman) than President Bush, and none has had higher disapproval in polls since 1938. " The sentence immediately following the leader you quoted. I guess nothing before 1938 counts... And congratulations on once again demonstrating your mindless partisanship...
-
oilFactotum wrote:
...and well deserved.
It is, indeed, but it's hard for me to understand why ABC or you actually think it's newsworthy. Bush is irrelevant. The disapproval ratings for Congress - lower than the ones for Bush - should be receiving the attention since many of those idiots are running for re-election. I note that both candidates for President are members of Congress.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Worst ever is newsworthy in my book.
-
"Just two presidents have had lower approval (Richard Nixon and Harry Truman) than President Bush, and none has had higher disapproval in polls since 1938. " The sentence immediately following the leader you quoted. I guess nothing before 1938 counts... And congratulations on once again demonstrating your mindless partisanship...
Please feel free to find pre-1938 Gallup polls to support your mindlessly partisan defense of Bush. ;P
-
Bush's Disapproval Rating Highest in History[^] ...and well deserved.
-
OP link rated worst website to read about this story in History[^]
modified on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 6:11 PM
-
Oakman wrote:
The disapproval ratings for Congress - lower than the ones for Bush - should be receiving the attention since many of those idiots are running for re-election.
But doesn't congress always rate really low, yet incumbents get re-elected much more often than not? The reason is simple... everyone thinks everyone ELSE'S representatives are the ones to blame. They like their own guys. Or don't know how to vote outside of the party their area decided they "should" vote for. Hmm, and two senators are running for President. Fascinating.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
An excellent article from the WSJ Excoriates both parties pretty much equally ending the article with: "the Members also need to act to redeem their own reputations, to the extent they are still worth redeeming."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Worst ever is newsworthy in my book.
oilFactotum wrote:
Worst ever
If so, it is a record which is unlikely to stand for very long. If Obama wins, with nothing to rely upon but his history of socialistic, anti-AMerican radicalism, supported by equally radical leadership in congress, I'm pretty damn sure that in four years no one will even remember Bush ever existed. It should be a lot of fun to watch as AMericans begin to comprehend what 'change' really means.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Please feel free to find pre-1938 Gallup polls to support your mindlessly partisan defense of Bush. ;P
-
Bush's Disapproval Rating Highest in History[^] ...and well deserved.
What's congress's disapproval rating?... and how does it rank to other congresses in times past?
MrPlankton
-
What's congress's disapproval rating?... and how does it rank to other congresses in times past?
MrPlankton
-
oilFactotum wrote:
your mindlessly partisan defense
It's good that you are here as an example of undeviating non-partisan objectivity.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
undeviating non-partisan objectivity
I never pretended for a moment to be non-partisan. It's utterly meaningless. I believe in certain things and I'm all for getting them. Non-partisan, bipartisan - it's just code for do nothing, take responsiblity for nothing - a cop out. You can keep your 'A pox on both their houses' affect - I'll have none of it.
-
Oakman wrote:
undeviating non-partisan objectivity
I never pretended for a moment to be non-partisan. It's utterly meaningless. I believe in certain things and I'm all for getting them. Non-partisan, bipartisan - it's just code for do nothing, take responsiblity for nothing - a cop out. You can keep your 'A pox on both their houses' affect - I'll have none of it.
oilFactotum wrote:
I never pretended for a moment to be non-partisan.
oilFactotum wrote:
your mindlessly partisan defense
So it was just a case of the pot calling the kettle black
oilFactotum wrote:
I believe in certain things
But all we ever hear about is all the things you don't believe in and all the people you hate. You and Ilion appear to be opposite sides of the same coin. If what I believed in made me as grumpy as you, I'd re-examine my beliefs.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I never pretended for a moment to be non-partisan.
oilFactotum wrote:
your mindlessly partisan defense
So it was just a case of the pot calling the kettle black
oilFactotum wrote:
I believe in certain things
But all we ever hear about is all the things you don't believe in and all the people you hate. You and Ilion appear to be opposite sides of the same coin. If what I believed in made me as grumpy as you, I'd re-examine my beliefs.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
So it was just a case of the pot calling the kettle black
No.
Oakman wrote:
But all we ever hear about is all the things you don't believe
Untrue, of course.
Oakman wrote:
all the people you hate
No. What this shows is your failure to take your blinders off. I've never expressed hate at all. That you attribute this to me shows you are not listening and simply putting up a strawman in my place to attack.
Oakman wrote:
If what I believed in made me as grumpy as you
Another false attribution. When you have something of substance to say to me, I'll be happy to listen.