Bush's approval ratings

[PW2]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

A poll is only as good as the science behind the data. If the science is correct, the conclusions will always be accurate.<br /><br />They used to have this neat display at the Seattle Science Center, where they would drop little balls into the center of a display with a bunch of deflecting rods in it. You could not determine where any individual ball may fall, but at the end, the result of where the balls fell would always form a perfect bell shaped curve.

 

[Friz]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

I don't think W cares about the polls, either. In case the Libs forget, he isn't running for a third term!

 

[knobby]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

Nice replies boys. I like it, so I know you care about Bush's success, me too. I think Alito will be a great Supreme Court Justice. If two Justices is all that comes from the Bush Presidency, he did a great job in my opinion!!!!

 

[eeboater]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

Originally posted by chugger:<br />

Originally posted by BrettNC:<br /> <br />We haven't had a terrorist attack in this country in over 4 years. We took the fight to the Middle East region. <br /><br />

I hope you don't work in any capacity related to homeland security.

What is that supposed to mean? So, are you trying to twist history into saying somehow we did have a terrorist attack when we didn't? Hmm.. I must have missed that attack!<br /><br />Pollsters are in it for one thing... Money and recognition. As a result, I don't trust any of their crap.

 

[chugger]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

I'm saying the war in Iraq is not preventing a terrorist attack.

 

[pjc]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

any of the armchair annalists here note that Presidential approval ratings are generated by as well as reported by the popular media?<br /><br />So, based upon approval ratings, Pres. Bush and his cabinet should resign, give all financial raises, do shots of Southern Comfort, buy a new SUV, WTF.<br /><br />These published "approval ratings" are intended to form public opinion over the long term and thus influence the general publics vote.<br /><br />Very naive public buys into this hook, line, and, sinker. Dumbbells.

 

[BrettNC]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

I didn't say that either. I stated that we haven't had a terrorist attack and that we took the fight to them, not because we took the fight to them. It makes a difference of course, but it is not the sole reason we have not had any attacks in the last four years. Is it possible to prevent all possible future attacks? I doubt it, but this administration is making it very difficult for that to happen. That is a reflection on the Bush administration and our House of Representatives. <br /><br />Last Christmas, the worst Bin Laden could do was release some half*ss video.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

ok <br /> we took the fight to whom?<br /> all ya gotta do is tellus that. to whom. saying a war on terror is like a war on drugs or poverty. its a warm fuzzy but there is no goal nor anyone that can surrender

 

[KRS]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

Since when does the average Joe really know what is going on?<br /><br />And, since you brought up polls... if you read the Wall Street Journal, you would have read a very nice article discussing a dozen presidents, the events that occured during their time as president, and their approval ratings..... and you would have realized that Bush is up to par with most presidents.

 

[BrettNC]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

ok <br />we took the fight to whom?<br />all ya gotta do is tellus that. to whom. saying a war on terror is like a war on drugs or poverty. its a warm fuzzy but there is no goal nor anyone that can surrender

This is exactly what I am talking about. <br /><br />If you don't know who hit us so many different times with bombs, including what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, then you have bigger problems than this thread. If you can't come to the realization that we are facing major threats and that we are in a major war with those who want to kill you, then stay out of the way.<br /><br />There is no goal? Just because the Democratic base doesn't have any useful goals, or the balls to even care, it doesn't mean that the rest of us will let our country become someone else's b*tch. <br /><br />We took the fight to the ultra-extreme terrorist groups smack in the middle of the region where they reside.

 

[chugger]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

BrettNC,<br /><br />I may have lept to a faulty interpretation of your original post. The proximity of the two statements concerning the war in Iraq and the absence of terrorist attacks on the US triggered my response. I thought you were expressing an opinion that I hear frequently and am yet to find any merit in. It's become a pet peeve. I don't see any reason to believe that Iraq has had any significant impact on the terrorist's ability to attack us. Like I said in a earlier post it's not like they need to move large numbers of men and equipment from the Iraq to do it. They've done it in Spain and England and we shouldn't underestimate them or think they're any less capable of doing it here because their supposedly occupied in Iraq. <br /><br />I give the president points for heading an administration that has been effective in thwarting more attacks, but it's not because he lead us into Iraq. I just don't see a strong engough link between the two. I don't see how anyone can factor it into their opinion of the president's performance.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

One problem, it doesn't say what or who they think would do a better job. If asked about W's approval with me it would be negative. If asked about Gore, Kerry, Reid, Clinton, Boxer, I would have a hard time holding my lunch.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

Polls Schmolls... <br />BrettNC,<br />Not going to debate on this thread but I'm curious since I had ideas of a "logical consequence" regarding Bush's actions in Iraq.<br />It seems that Iran was always more of a threat to US than Iraq, both before and now.<br />As a fact Iran, N. Korea and even Syria seem to be on an eventual collision course with our for real this time national security.<br />Don't you think that Bush's actions in Iraq (not Afganistan)has put us in a position of not being able to act as quickly, or pre-emptively, or with international or domestic support that it would deserve?<br />My own opinion is yes it has damaged our ability to act quickly and deliberately on those real threats.<br />And it has damaged our national security.<br />

We took the fight to the ultra-extreme terrorist groups smack in the middle of the region where they reside.

Our troops see only a low level trickle. This is the definition of terrorist warfare.<br />They really reside in safety in Iran, Syria and can be sold the WMD's at any time by N.Korea. All places this President and this country hasn't the will to fight in. Thanks mostly to this Presidents blunders.

 

[Kalian]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

Skinnywater, maybe Iraq is to be the staging area for Iran, syria etc. There was good apparent reason to invade Iraq, but not much for the other countries.

 

[rolmops]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

The only reason why we are in Iraq is oil.Oil is fast becoming a rare energy source,so in good colonial fashion,it is a good idea to control the lands that the resource comes from.By now we control the United arab emirates,Saudi arabia,kuwait and Iraq.

 

[BrettNC]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

Don't you think that Bush's actions in Iraq (not Afganistan)has put us in a position of not being able to act as quickly, or pre-emptively, or with international or domestic support that it would deserve?

Information on the planned NYC subway attacks was intercepted by our forces in Iraq. Would it have happened otherwise? We'll never know, because it didn't happen. <br /><br />So, what you're saying is, we can never go to war because, if we do, we won't be able to defend ourselves? By that logic, Europe would now be known as Germany, and we would be Japan's slave.<br /><br />Again, it is not about specific countries. It is about a region. Why do you think that we cannot act easily on Iran? We already have the resources established in the Middle East. We can act more concisely, not less. <br /><br />Why do you think our national security has been damaged? Give specific explanations on why you think this. Our military is vast. Those who coordinate our operations make sure our resources are properly allocated. That is why we have built up a superior military. We can effectively defend ourselves both here and overseas at the same time.

 

[BrettNC]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

The supply is huge rolmops, but it's the freedom to extract it is what has become the obstacle.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

Information on the planned NYC subway attacks was intercepted by our forces in Iraq. Would it have happened otherwise? We'll never know, because it didn't happen.

I think the FBI and CIA and other sources are doing excellent jobs protecting us.<br />But you're giving the Iraq (not Afganistan) war to much credit.<br /> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ay12oct12,0,7146113.story?coll=la-home-nation <br />

So, what you're saying is, we can never go to war because, if we do, we won't be able to defend ourselves? By that logic, Europe would now be known as Germany, and we would be Japan's slave.<br />

No. What I'm saying is if you don't have a good stratagy to win a war, you will lose support to fight one.<br />If you didn't have accurate details why you went to war, you will alienate those that supported it on that basis.<br />If you don't go to war to defeat your enemy into surrender, you will lose that war.<br />If you have overwhelming support both at home and abroad for a war and as Commander in Chief you lost that support, then that is a great indication he's not up for the job.<br />Brett, it's simple. President Bush should have let the troops fight ahead of the critics of this war. Instead he let the troops get bogged down and let the critics catch up to them.<br />This is a good way to lose a war and lose support for it. <br />

Why do you think that we cannot act easily on Iran?

Because Rumsfeld can point to all kinds of weapon sites and pictures of WMD's in Iran and address the UN, beg, plead, and it'll fall on deaf ears.<br />Abroad all credibility from this administration has been shot to hell. Domestically it's the same to a great degree and the administration couldn't get the support for such an action.<br />Iran's beating the drums of war as we speak, and not a peep from our government.<br />And from my point of view it's a crying shame that our credibility has been damaged to the point that "the axis of evil" would dare speak of such things when we occupy their "region".<br /><br />CBS polling never asks me squat.<br />Mark me down for being a grand supporter of GW when he said "You're either with us or against us." and "If you support or harbor terrorism in any way we will view that as an act of aggression and will defeat you as our enemy."<br />To completely losing any respect or support for him since he he failed to aggressively fight this war and squander a unified peoples support and commitment to fight it.<br /><br />So Brett, how long do you think we'll be in the "region"? Will we leave like Siagon as soon as the next President take office? Or are we going to sit accross the new DMZ from Iran for the next 50 years? You think the B52's will be hitting Tehran soon?<br />I surely don't know. And sadly I don't think the President knows either.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

thats the whole plan. to establish a military base in Iraq and about 8,at last count,in afghanistan. someone has to protect the afghan pipeline and insure we get our oil.<br /> as far as the NY subway thing it was laughable. the CIA and FBI both said the intel ws not credible yet it cost NY millions.<br /> its a good thing the terror leaders are as ignorant as some of ours or the 9/11 event would have crippled us for months.<br /> could you imagine the panic if on the evening of 9/11 osama had handed fox news or cnn a video proporting to have contaminated 3 major cities water supplies? and said yall guess which 3. or introduced a chemical agent into the natural gas supplies? the panic would have been wild. <br /> but false reports have not been widespread ,yet. I think it was a test to see how much panic could be induced with false intel. seems quite a bit can.<br />its amazed me we have not seen more of it.

 

[SoulWinner]

Re: Bush's approval ratings

Lets say this poll is completely accurate, and that republican voters approval for Bush is declining. Could this indicate that republicans have something called "integrity" and believe in stuff like "accountability," and these traits are reflected in the results of said poll. Now, juxtapose this with Clinton's approval ratings among democrats during his second Presidential term, and tell us what this says about you.