[anabolicrhino]

MIENFOKS: GEORGE W BUSH HISTORICAL POLL SLIDE ???

This is a historical poll across the terms of recent presidents

GWB like Barry Bonds is closing in on some big names, like his dad, then Carter and Ford!

He is heading down toward Nixon / Truman territory !!

[Tiberius]

He soundly beat Ford. While he isn't as low as his dad's lowest rating he's lower than his dad's final rating.

The drop in Nixon was only because of Watergate. Before Watergate broke his approval ratings were phenominal. After they dropped to nothing. Honestly I don't really count that. Really Nixon wasn't such a bad President. In fact I'd say he was a pretty good one. He did a lot of good with respect to the US's international trade relations, especially with China. Although Nixon did take us off the Gold Standard which probably wasn't a smart idea.

Carter and Truman really and truly sucked.

[joecski]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Carter and Truman really and truly sucked.

Carter was probably the worst president in my lifetime, and definitely the worst ex-president. He undermines not only this country, but several of our allies, especially when he criticizes about the Palestinian policy, which I see as the only policy to pursue.

I guarantee GWB's approval ratings go up before his term is over, not because there is no other way for them to go either. I believe that Iraq is at a tipping point and could go our way for a change. The other big mideast crisis with Israel and Palestine is coming to a head and negotiations can finally begin anew, Lebanon is heading in the right direction, and Iran may begin to negotiate over their stopping their pursuit of nukes, as North Korea is apparently already doing. But, the major force is the economy, and all is going well on that front. The RNC is waiting to get it's media machine cranking for 2008, when they do, everything GWB has done that is positive will be touted, and his ratings will soar. If they sold stock in him, I'd buy while it was at this current low!

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

MIENFOKS: GEORGE W BUSH HISTORICAL POLL SLIDE ???

This is a historical poll across the terms of recent presidents

GWB like Barry Bonds is closing in on some big names, like his dad, then Carter and Ford!

He is heading down toward Nixon / Truman territory !!

I dont even know what those numbers mean. job-approval ratings? that same question could mean so many different things to different people. Id really like to see who they asked, how many people they asked, what questions they asked, how random the survey was... Without those questions we have no idea how biased this really is

[jeglinas]

How about those congress ratings????

[WannaBeHulk]

i approve of GW. he gets an undeserving amount of negative critisism. most people dont comprehend that someone in his position is much more informed with classified information in comparison to the general public. i cant wait for a dem to get elected and not change anything about our efforts on the war on terror when he or she(god forbid) is in office. since i find homealnd security to be a priority, im happy with the efforts thus far.

[jeglinas]

Originally Posted by WannaBeHulk

i approve of GW. he gets an undeserving amount of negative critisism. most people dont comprehend that someone in his position is much more informed with classified information in comparison to the general public. i cant wait for a dem to get elected and not change anything about our efforts on the war on terror when he or she(god forbid) is in office. since i find homealnd security to be a priority, im happy with the efforts thus far.

Great post!

[joecski]

Originally Posted by jeglinas

Great post!

I agree with this, GWB takes way too much criticism for doing the RIGHT things. He has a vision, and he sticks with it. I'm sorry, but even though the majority of people taking polls in this country would cut and run from Iraq, that is the wrong policy to follow.
GWB doesn't take any half-measures, he goes all out. When congress was calling for a pullout, he did a surge in troop levels. I think this was the right course of action based on the needs in the country, I think we have to secure Iraq to ensure any future stability for our own country, and I know fighting the terrorists in Iraq definitely draws down their resources to fight us over here, a good thing in my mind. I still see a big jump in his poll numbers come the end of this year.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by joecski

I agree with this, GWB takes way too much criticism for doing the RIGHT things. He has a vision, and he sticks with it. I'm sorry, but even though the majority of people taking polls in this country would cut and run from Iraq, that is the wrong policy to follow.
GWB doesn't take any half-measures, he goes all out. When congress was calling for a pullout, he did a surge in troop levels. I think this was the right course of action based on the needs in the country, I think we have to secure Iraq to ensure any future stability for our own country, and I know fighting the terrorists in Iraq definitely draws down their resources to fight us over here, a good thing in my mind. I still see a big jump in his poll numbers come the end of this year.

WTF are we there again?

I'm gonna be blunt and honest here. I don't give a crap what happens to the people in Iraq and neither should our military. Their job aint protecting the world its protecting America and they aint doing that sitting in Iraq. The CIA has reported that the Iraq war has and continues to increase the likelihood of terrorist attack on the US.

"Cut and run" is propaganda bullcrap. Reality folks: it's called baliing out of a project we never should have started in the first place. We don't belong there, we never belonged there. It was retarded to start the war in the first place and even MORE retarded to stay. No we should not "see this through." You'd gain more financial benefit from paying billions of federal funding to verify the viscosity of catsup.

Seriously if we "see this through" what do we get? A peaceful iraq? First of all, not a chance in hell. Second, even if we did, WHO CARES?! How exactly does that in any way benefit Americans, that the Iraqis are living in peace? Call me heartless if you want, but I'm just being pragmatic. Clean up your own house before you start looking to clean up someone else's. And when you realise you are spending money on a project that is worthless, you end the project, you don't "see it through."


I don't blaim Bush for that though. I blaim everyone in Washington who goes along with it. I'm also sick of Democrats compromising. There should be no compromise. get the troops out and stop all funding for the war immediately. We're hemoraging cash at a sickening rate because fo this crap.

[jeglinas]

So your what? Judge and jury? I don't give a crap what you say. Fairness doctorine in motion here

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by jeglinas

So your what? Judge and jury? I don't give a crap what you say. Fairness doctorine in motion here

Yeah I'm not following your line of reasoning here. What exactly do you mean by this?

[jeglinas]

Read your own post,figure it out your self I will post later on tonight via 3rd shift 11-7 Later

[joecski]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

WTF are we there again?

I'm gonna be blunt and honest here. I don't give a crap what happens to the people in Iraq and neither should our military. Their job aint protecting the world its protecting America and they aint doing that sitting in Iraq. The CIA has reported that the Iraq war has and continues to increase the likelihood of terrorist attack on the US.

"Cut and run" is propaganda bullcrap. Reality folks: it's called baliing out of a project we never should have started in the first place. We don't belong there, we never belonged there. It was retarded to start the war in the first place and even MORE retarded to stay. No we should not "see this through." You'd gain more financial benefit from paying billions of federal funding to verify the viscosity of catsup.

Seriously if we "see this through" what do we get? A peaceful iraq? First of all, not a chance in hell. Second, even if we did, WHO CARES?! How exactly does that in any way benefit Americans, that the Iraqis are living in peace? Call me heartless if you want, but I'm just being pragmatic. Clean up your own house before you start looking to clean up someone else's. And when you realise you are spending money on a project that is worthless, you end the project, you don't "see it through."


I don't blaim Bush for that though. I blaim everyone in Washington who goes along with it. I'm also sick of Democrats compromising. There should be no compromise. get the troops out and stop all funding for the war immediately. We're hemoraging cash at a sickening rate because fo this crap.

I would like to note that I do believethat the war in Iraq is unpopular and may lead to a terrorist attack, however, when waging a war you have to deal with your enemy directly. Our #1 enemy is al-qaeda. Al-qaeda is spending millions of dollars funding the insurgency in Iraq, the US military just captured a field hospital in Baquba(sp) that was state of the art, better than most nations are capable. It is a simple fact of warfare, the side with the most resources wins. my question is this - where would all those resources be going for Al-Qaeda if not directed towards Iraq? We would be facing a well funded and highly sophisticated attack here.

You claim not to care about the Iraqi's, and that is fine by me. Our goals in Iraq are not about saving Iraqi's, they are to keep Iraq from becoming another Iran, who, since Carter blew the chance in the 70's to stop the Islamic revolution, have been major source of funding for terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Now, what do you care if the terrorize the middle east? Hezbollah has published plans to destroy the US and has planned attacks on US targets. Luckily, Lebanon is cracking down on Hezbollah, Hamas is infighting with Fatah, and neither group can spend resources on the US. THIS IS OUR GOAL! Winning wars is not about body count or flashy victories, as the terrorist groups believe, it is about conserving resources. This is why North Korea is a fly on the wall and China is a 800lb gorilla.

[WannaBeHulk]

Originally Posted by joecski

I would like to note that I do believethat the war in Iraq is unpopular and may lead to a terrorist attack, however, when waging a war you have to deal with your enemy directly. Our #1 enemy is al-qaeda. Al-qaeda is spending millions of dollars funding the insurgency in Iraq, the US military just captured a field hospital in Baquba(sp) that was state of the art, better than most nations are capable. It is a simple fact of warfare, the side with the most resources wins. my question is this - where would all those resources be going for Al-Qaeda if not directed towards Iraq? We would be facing a well funded and highly sophisticated attack here.

You claim not to care about the Iraqi's, and that is fine by me. Our goals in Iraq are not about saving Iraqi's, they are to keep Iraq from becoming another Iran, who, since Carter blew the chance in the 70's to stop the Islamic revolution, have been major source of funding for terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Now, what do you care if the terrorize the middle east? Hezbollah has published plans to destroy the US and has planned attacks on US targets. Luckily, Lebanon is cracking down on Hezbollah, Hamas is infighting with Fatah, and neither group can spend resources on the US. THIS IS OUR GOAL! Winning wars is not about body count or flashy victories, as the terrorist groups believe, it is about conserving resources. This is why North Korea is a fly on the wall and China is a 800lb gorilla.

yep, i strongly agree. its better to fight them there than here in america with other clever terrorist attacks to bring about many civilian casualties. ONE democrat has the right idea. joe lieberman suggests we attack iran. i think iran is more of a threat with all their support given to the enemy. by the way, its a war on terror, we're over there to keep things peaceful here.

[joecski]

Originally Posted by WannaBeHulk

yep, i strongly agree. its better to fight them there than here in america with other clever terrorist attacks to bring about many civilian casualties. ONE democrat has the right idea. joe lieberman suggests we attack iran. i think iran is more of a threat with all their support given to the enemy. by the way, its a war on terror, we're over there to keep things peaceful here.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by joecski

I would like to note that I do believethat the war in Iraq is unpopular and may lead to a terrorist attack, however, when waging a war you have to deal with your enemy directly. Our #1 enemy is al-qaeda. Al-qaeda is spending millions of dollars funding the insurgency in Iraq, the US military just captured a field hospital in Baquba(sp) that was state of the art, better than most nations are capable. It is a simple fact of warfare, the side with the most resources wins. my question is this - where would all those resources be going for Al-Qaeda if not directed towards Iraq? We would be facing a well funded and highly sophisticated attack here.

You claim not to care about the Iraqi's, and that is fine by me. Our goals in Iraq are not about saving Iraqi's, they are to keep Iraq from becoming another Iran, who, since Carter blew the chance in the 70's to stop the Islamic revolution, have been major source of funding for terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Now, what do you care if the terrorize the middle east? Hezbollah has published plans to destroy the US and has planned attacks on US targets. Luckily, Lebanon is cracking down on Hezbollah, Hamas is infighting with Fatah, and neither group can spend resources on the US. THIS IS OUR GOAL! Winning wars is not about body count or flashy victories, as the terrorist groups believe, it is about conserving resources. This is why North Korea is a fly on the wall and China is a 800lb gorilla.

Why exactly do you think the Iraq war is doing anything to stop terrorism? It isn't! It's increasing it. If we were to withdraw our troops we would be LESS likely to be hit by terrorists. Why are our troops anywhere in the world other than the USA?! WTF is the point?!

The CIA at elast recognizes that having troop presence in a foreign nation increases the hostility of that nation's people against us. You folks seem to disregard that though.

I see a whole lot of "the boogeyman hates us" but not a whole lot of why. I'll tell you why, because we've messed with their **** and we continue to mess with their ****. Well we need to stop messing with their ****.

We'll still be targetted by terrorists for past aggressions but we won't be giving them new excuses. They'll focus on more important fish like people who STILL are messing with them. We need to get the hell out of there and just let them kill each other ffs already.


We've had terrorists target this country for over half a century. Nothing is different. Oh and it all started cus we messed with their ****. If I'm not mistaken we supported the British in putting the Shah of Iran in power. That guy was a real winner.


But I guess you guys would rather go with the tried and true method of conitnuing to poke the hornets nest with a stick.


Oh and "war on terror?" What a bull**** phrase. Yeah let's declare war on a concept. Might as well declare war on fear. We will not stop until fear has ended. Oo or how about declaring war on theft! We will not stop until there are no more thieves! Oh that'll work.

[WannaBeHulk]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

I see a whole lot of "the boogeyman hates us" but not a whole lot of why. I'll tell you why, because we've messed with their **** and we continue to mess with their ****. Well we need to stop messing with their ****.

we werent at war with them before 9/11, they messed with us...