Bush Approval Measured at All-Time Low

The self interest Cheney and his, "ex", company Halliburton, (with an appointment in Iraq, not a competitive bid), displayed, really showed what it's all about. Get as much as you can while you can while placating the public with nonsense.


http://imdb.com/title/tt0436971/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#Relationship_to_Halliburton_as_Vice_President

To me the most important reason he's managed to keep it going this long, including being re-elected, is down to 9 / 11

i don't by any means buy into the conspiracy theory that bush or his administration was involved in and / or responsible for the tragedy on that day

but they've been able to use 9/11 as justification for many of their subsequent policies ( and mistakes eg unauthorised wire taps on citizens )
- i guess many of the folks who voted for him last time round must've thought it would've been unpatriotic not to support the commander-in-chief, or else they might've voted for GeorgeW for a "social" or "belief" issue like gay marriage, abortion rights, supreme court appointees etc
:2 cents:

dick van cock said:

What puzzled us Europeans most was not that he moved to 1600 Philly Ave. in 2000, but that he was re-elected.

Click to expand...

Because John Kerry is a fucking two-faced, opportunistic liar.

That's why.

I despise Bush.
I despise John Kerry.

I didn't vote for either of them the last Presidential election.

This is the man who got my vote the last time.

And this is the man who will get it, if he is running in 2008 ...


cheers,

dick van cock said:

Oops... the absent-minded waiter I am, I am :1orglaugh

Click to expand...

Philly is in Pennsylvania, so you still get points!

blakey said:

To me the most important reason he's managed to keep it going this long, including being re-elected, is down to 9 / 11

i don't by any means buy into the conspiracy theory that bush or his administration was involved in and / or responsible for the tragedy on that day

but they've been able to use 9/11 as justification for many of their subsequent policies ( and mistakes eg unauthorised wire taps on citizens )
- i guess many of the folks who voted for him last time round must've thought it would've been unpatriotic not to support the commander-in-chief, or else they might've voted for GeorgeW for a "social" or "belief" issue like gay marriage, abortion rights, supreme court appointees etc
:2 cents:

Click to expand...

Exactly right! Just mention terrorists and everyone panics. They even forget Brittney for a little while.

Roughneck said:

Because John Kerry is a fucking two-faced, opportunistic liar.

That's why.

I despise Bush.
I despise John Kerry.

I didn't vote for either of them the last Presidential election.

Click to expand...

Like I said, not very good choices. :dunno:




http://liveshot.cc/liveshotslivshots.htm

Roughneck said:

This is the man who got my vote the last time.

And this is the man who will get it, if he is running in 2008 ...

Click to expand...

I thought this was supposed to be a secret:dunno:

AFA said:

Like I said, not very good choices. :dunno:

Click to expand...

Whatever happened to "neither of the above" ?:dunno:

I people don't vote for crooks, crooks don't get elected! No where does it say you "have to vote"! :thumbsup:

So my suggestion to all of you - don't like the candidates... DON'T VOTE!

"The lesser of two evils is still evil"


cheers,

Roughneck said:

Because John Kerry is a fucking two-faced, opportunistic liar.

Click to expand...

not to mention a sissy who cant even throw a baseball 60 feet. :1orglaugh



why dont you run roughneck? id vote for you.

Roughneck said:

Whatever happened to "neither of the above" ?:dunno:

I people don't vote for crooks, crooks don't get elected! No where does it say you "have to vote"! :thumbsup:

So my suggestion to all of you - don't like the candidates... DON'T VOTE!

"The lesser of two evils is still evil"


cheers,

Click to expand...

The only problem with that is that no matter how low voter turn out is someone still wins the election.

Roughneck said:

Whatever happened to "neither of the above" ?:dunno:

I people don't vote for crooks, crooks don't get elected! No where does it say you "have to vote"! :thumbsup:

So my suggestion to all of you - don't like the candidates... DON'T VOTE!

"The lesser of two evils is still evil"


cheers,

Click to expand...

I didn't! :thumbsup:

Neither of the above is always the best choice.

AFA said:

That always reminded me of Microsoft. Pops up all the time to tell you it's working over some trivial thing, but completely ignores the reality of how bad it works overall. It was a tactic to make people more at ease, as if they actually had a clue.

Click to expand...

Actually, I felt that it was used to keep people on edge, back when the Reps still had everyone convinced that they were the only ones who could protect the country from terrorism, effectively saying "don't forget the terrorists are still out there, and they're going to get you if you vote for a Democrat."

AFA said:

The self interest Cheney and his, "ex", company Halliburton, (with an appointment in Iraq, not a competitive bid), displayed, really showed what it's all about. Get as much as you can while you can while placating the public with nonsense.

This is something that the new congress had better investigate, and soon! The way that this administration has taken away other companies' rights to bid for jobs against Haliburton is straight out un-American.


http://imdb.com/title/tt0436971/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#Relationship_to_Halliburton_as_Vice_President

Click to expand...

Big P13 said:

Actually, I felt that it was used to keep people on edge, back when the Reps still had everyone convinced that they were the only ones who could protect the country from terrorism, effectively saying "don't forget the terrorists are still out there, and they're going to get you if you vote for a Democrat."

Click to expand...

I see your point, but thought it was simplier. It was a means to justify expenditure and get people's attention instantly in the beginning. As though they were right on top of it, taking charge. Red alert! Oh no! Under control now, yellow for caution. I just don't believe they have any clue where another attack could come from. It doesn't take much imagination to think of possibilities. :2 cents:

AFA said:

Newsweek Poll Measures Bush Approval at 28 Percent

Bush's low is now tied with Jimmy Carter during the Iran hostage crisis. Only two modern presidents have fared worse -- Richard Nixon, at 23 percent, and Harry Truman, bogged down in the Korean War, at 22 percent. (Well, he still has time! :dunno:

"When presidents get down into the 20's -- as Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon [did], of course -- what it tells us, of course, is that they have lost their hold on the public's imagination. The public is so at odds with them, they don't have credibility any more. The public does not trust them -- and it's ruinous."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=3145675&page=1

Click to expand...

Deservedly so. What a disaster his administration has been!

Roughneck said:

Whatever happened to "neither of the above" ?:dunno:

I people don't vote for crooks, crooks don't get elected! No where does it say you "have to vote"! :thumbsup:

So my suggestion to all of you - don't like the candidates... DON'T VOTE!

"The lesser of two evils is still evil"


cheers,

Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

This nonsense that it is unpatriotic to vote is lunacy. It just encourages mediocre people keep running.

To me it is more unpatriotic to vote if you believe that all of the candidates will do more harm to the country then good.

And considering most people seem to have next to no faith in most politicians, then that must me what they are doing - in many cases.

When his approval drops to less then 1%, how do we accurately measure it?

Roughneck said:

Because John Kerry is a fucking two-faced, opportunistic liar.

That's why.

I despise Bush.
I despise John Kerry.

I didn't vote for either of them the last Presidential election.

This is the man who got my vote the last time.

And this is the man who will get it, if he is running in 2008 ...


cheers,

Click to expand...

Ron Paul, I havn't seen him but heard good things about how he presented himself in the Debate a few days ago. I found this:

Main article: Political views of Ron Paul
Paul wants to "reinstate the Constitution and restore the Republic." He rejects a welfare state or nanny state role for the federal government, and advocates a strong non-interventionist foreign policy.

He voted against the Iraq War in 2002 and has offered alternatives such as granting the President authority to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and arming pilots. He is the only Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War.

Paul's desire to secure U.S. borders remains a key topic in his 2008 presidential campaign. He opposes the North American Union proposition and its proposed integration of Mexico, the United States of America, and Canada. Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico. Paul opposes illegal immigration as well as amnesty for illegal immigrants.

In the May 3, 2007 GOP Debate, Ron Paul stated that as President, he would seek the immediate abolition of the IRS and the abolition of the income tax. As Congressman, he has long fought for the prohibition of direct taxes by repeal of the 16th Amendment which created the income tax.

Abolish the income tax? Now We're Talkin!!!!!!!!!
See I'm looking for a real leader for the country, and at this point it looks like Clinton is a shoe-in. Thats scares me....alot. I literally beg of any voter to think twice(or a thousand times) before casting thier vote.

Jagger69 said:

Deservedly so. What a disaster his administration has been!

Click to expand...

At least Jimmy Carter deserves credit for his work in Habitat for Humanity, and other Humanitarian causes. He is also considered to be honest. That in itself is remarkable for a politician and alone should have won him the Nobel Prize.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/carter-lecture.html
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/

I've never liked the way the Bush Administration handled the Irag situation. i mean we went in looking for Bin ladin and somehow came back with Sadam???? . but aside that they went into Irag with a very similar agenda to Vietnam. a slow growth of troop movement. now i know the War Powers Act limits Bush's ability to send troops however he (being president) should've persuaded congress to declare war thus giving the president full authority to send a mass amounts of troops in the beginng implying a Blitzkreig attack.

after the military take over, pump huge amounts of money into Iran, i mean huge amounts. contracters for example would've been nice. anyway it would've been a FDR new deal thing, where you spend alot of money, get people working, so they can feed their family. this pumping of money worked extremely well with Greece during the cold war, they were on the verge of collapse when the good ole U.S. of A jumpstarted them with trillions of dollars.

americans don't revolt because we are controlled by our work. we work to live, thus making us happy. jk it might not make us happy with our lives, but most our content with it. a revolt occurs when people arn't happy with the government, like the suni's and shiites want to be in power because they think they know what is best. but what is best is putting in a puppet government until Iraq could grow into it's own, kind of like training wheels.

P.S. Bush's approval rating is most likely skewed it is most likely lower, reason being is that it is a random sample with biased response.

Rumsfeld pushed the low numbers of troops in Iraq and mocked experienced military people in Iraq that said he needed 5x that number.

I keep asking why isn't this guy doing time? Or at least in treatment for the criminally insane?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/

AFA said:

Rumsfeld pushed the low numbers of troops in Iraq and mocked experienced military people in Iraq that said he needed 5x that number.

I keep asking why isn't this guy doing time? Or at least in treatment for the criminally insane?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/

Click to expand...

Because he is rich and well connected. People like this appear to be above the law.

The Captain said:

Because he is rich and well connected. People like this appear to be above the law.

Click to expand...

Nothing personal, but I don't think that's it, rich and above the law I mean.

In a nutshell, I think people should check out the full episode link. It answers a lot of questions and takes it beyond the realm of conjecture.

While my opinion might not generally be valued the way I'd like. I do my homework and normally see something pretty clearly before I direct others to it as I have with this link about 5 times now. People can guess at the explaination or take in intelligent source information, and make a value judgement based on some quality research.

He sucks, or it sucks, are not usually good enough explainations for me to make a quality assessment before I give my opinion publicly.