codeorama Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Kilmer, Like I said, I'm not saying that I believe it's true, I just have heard those issues as a concern and I hope that's not the case. Bush's approval rating is in large part because of the 9/11 attacks and subsequent actions. The 9/11 attacks brought this country closer together than any other even in my lifetime...( I was not alive for Pearl Harbor) If you recall, Bush's dad seemed unbeatable after the Gulf War, it's amazing what a difference a year made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 code, Bush has the highest sustained approval ratings in history. Thats not a very good argument. The facts are concrete. He has violated 91 ceasefires as well as current UN resolutions. It cannot be any clearer. If someone is opposed to removing Saddam, please give a reason with some factual backing. The 'going to war for oil' argument raised by code, can not be invalidated by pointing to those violations. The 91 violations only help invalidate the argument that 'no case has been made so we should not go to war'. A better argument against the oil issue, is to ask: 'So what if it is a major reason. Does that alone invalidate the fact that this man is in violation of international law?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Code, Bush's dad made critical political blunders, like breaking a promise to the taxpayers, and raising taxes into a recession, which is a mixture that allowed "it's the economy stupid," to override anything else. Bush's dad was stupid and deserved to lose. Bush has been a bit smarter. He's cut taxes when there was a recession, which is a proven way to get out of a recession and increse government revenue. We no longer are in recession. He's attempting to cut a particular portion of taxes that may spark the stock market some, which may spark the stock market some. Bush, unlike his father, knows it's about the economy. The war stuff is ancillary. Like Clinton who went at Iraq to get people to forget about his perjury, that stuff is a band aid over other issues. If Bush deserves to lose, like his father, it'll be pretty clear. As for the going to war for oil statement, who cares. We couldn't waltz into Kuwait because they have not violated international law. We can go into Iraq because they have. If oil is a part of it, then bully to us. We should take all we can because, well, we can . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 22, 2003 Author Share Posted January 22, 2003 Not to argue the polls, but Bush Sr's numbers did not approach W.s in that Srs were largely partisan based and showed serious splits on questions outside the "approval" question. Even today W's most important poll number is this If the election were held today who would you vote for: Bush 51% Democrat-27% Other- 4% Undecided- 18% Interesting point. That number increases for Bush and decreases for Dems when ANY actual democrat is named other than Al Gore. In Gore's case Bush drops to 49 and Gore gets 31. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Originally posted by Art Code, Bush's dad made critical political blunders, like breaking a promise to the taxpayers, and raising taxes into a recession, which is a mixture that allowed "it's the economy stupid," to override anything else. Bush's dad was stupid and deserved to lose. Bush has been a bit smarter. He's cut taxes when there was a recession, which is a proven way to get out of a recession and increse government revenue. We no longer are in recession. He's attempting to cut a particular portion of taxes that may spark the stock market some, which may spark the stock market some. Bush, unlike his father, knows it's about the economy. The war stuff is ancillary. Like Clinton who went at Iraq to get people to forget about his perjury, that stuff is a band aid over other issues. If Bush deserves to lose, like his father, it'll be pretty clear. I can't say that I disagree with you, I was only pointing out that approval ratings at this point don't mean much. BTW, I was against Clinton's military actions, while I never thought it was because of his BJ scandal, (there were too many Republican Military advisors and so on that agreed with his decisions) I did not agree with in none the less. And yes, while I am not necessarily a Clinton suporter, it was a BJ scandal and that's all. Billions of wasted dollars about a man who lied about gettin a BJ...:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Not to argue the polls, but Bush Sr's numbers did not approach W.s in that Srs were largely partisan based and showed serious splits on questions outside the "approval" question. Even today W's most important poll number is this If the election were held today who would you vote for: Bush 51% Democrat-27% Other- 4% Undecided- 18% Interesting point. That number increases for Bush and decreases for Dems when ANY actual democrat is named other than Al Gore. In Gore's case Bush drops to 49 and Gore gets 31. Go figure. Again, I'm only saying it's too early to rely on the approval rating.... Heck, I don't know who I will vote for yet, I don't know who Bush's opposition will be. I will hold my decision until then. I didn't vote for Bush last election, but looking at the possible choices on the other side, I may this time. But it's too early to tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Yomar....condescending?....well, that's just a burden I'll have to live with.........."it's lonely at the top"....yada yada yada.... bore?......it seems to me you weren't so bored that you weren't provoked to blast away for multiple posts..... wierdo?.......you keep mirroring your [fill in the blank] proclivities onto me. what's with that?..... this war is going to happen. thanks for your input. duly noted. it has stimulated some thought..... now...some of us have a fight to return to........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 wierdo?.......you keep mirroring your [fill in the blank] proclivities onto me. what's with that?..... I believe Jung called it projecting, but I'm not sure about that as for "some of us have a fight to return to", are you in the military or are you just being weird again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 I'm not a Jungian...middle-aged actually......sent you a PM...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 23, 2003 Share Posted January 23, 2003 I could give a f@ck what France has to say.. When I was doing intel in Bosnia the French had control of Mostar where the majoriity of war criminals were and those bast@rds tipped off those guys when my unit from Sarajevo (since we could not count on those snail eaters) came in to do their job as well as sharing info with those guys. This was posted in our Stars and Stripes paper in Europe then the Brits posted it in their Daily Sun next to their page three girl back in 97. The skirmish will be done in a month and we lose personell during practice so the idea of people dying is mute IMHO. Heck when we did the gulf 12 years ago I was surprised at how fast it was over. It took longer for my ship to get the medals and shipments of beer than it took to beat down Iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.