The big news here is that the support of our nation's great and glorious leader is still in the toilet.
According to a just released NBC/WSJ poll done by Hart/Newhouse, there's bad news for this administration and worse news.
The bad news is found in the response to the following question:
All in all, do you think that things in the nation are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel that things are off on the wrong track?Of those polled, a full 68% felt that the nation was headed on the wrong track and only 19% think the nation's headed on the right track.
19%? Who are those people?
As far as I can tell, these are the worst numbers of dubya's presidency and you have to go back to July of 92 to find worst numbers. I guess that means that throughout the two Clinton administrations, more people felt the country was "on the right track" than now.
The worse news for dubya is found in the response to this question:
In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing as president?Of those polled, only 29% approved of the job dubya is doing with 66% disapproving. And as far as I can tell these are the worst numbers of dubya's presidency.
Poor, dubya.
27 comments:
It is a sorry commentary on the American ethic that almost 30% of us still approve of the disaster, the wind-up toy, the Chuckie doll that leads the Executive branch.
This is the man who has cut our military off at the knees, who has swelled the size of the Federal government, who ignored warnings from his predecessors that 9/11 was coming, who throws people behind bars and holds them there for years without charge, who breaks the law on a daily basis, who has created more terrorists than jobs. About 70% of Republicans apparently approve of all that. It defies explanation.
Harry Reid seems to be enjoying those very same approval ratings.
Of course, from the biased point of view that you continually demonstrate David, I can see why you are "shhh" about it.
But then again, what else would one come to expect from someone like you, the same someone like you who claims to "care about our troops," and yet your own political party running the show won't defund the war in order to bring our troops home now. Instead, your beloved Democratic leaders wish to put a time line on the war, which not only puts our troops in harms way further still, but pretty much tells the enemy that we will be out of Iraq in x number of months, which means they can start to pave their way for their own victory.
Way to go Democrats! Let's fight a war with a time line, which tells our enemy that we will be pulling out in x number of months, which gives our very same enemy the chance to plan their way for their eventually victory based on our time line of pulling out.
Nice going! I can imagine that if we used the Democrat methodologies of fighting the Iraq war back during WWII, we'd all be speaking German right now.
Nicely done, Democrats! That's supporting our troops, alright!
You know there was a name for people like you and those leading your Democratic party, David. And that name was "traitor."
Seems as achieving the definition of the term "traitor" is a Democratic status symbol these days. Isn't that right, "Mr. We Lost The War While Our Troops Are Still In Harms Way Harry Reid?"
When will you sheeple every learn?
Never. Your arrogance, and malcontent will only blind you further, until the day comes when it's much too late to think back.
Ahh, Master Lie. Your mind functions like a Swiss watch. Let me just put a couple of tweaks on your erudite, insightful essay.
Our Beloved Leader (you know, the one who lied us into war and who has already lost the war) could start bringing the troops (you know, the troops that he is killing and maiming) home today. But he won't.
Unfortunately for the troops, you are correct about the Congressional Democrats being traitors, because they agreed to continue funding Mr. Bush's atrocities in Iraq after they promised the American people they would end it. When one knowingly supports the actions of a traitor, one is a traitor him- or herself.
Thanks for pointing out the traitorous nature of the entire Federal government. We count on you to keep us up to date on the Administration's latest vileness and his ugly pet Congress.
Shitrock, you're so predictable, which then again only matches your predictability when it comes to you demonstrating to the world that you are so far out of touch with reality.
I could not imagine what this country would be like if people like your beloved Democratic leaders ran this country during WWII. At least we'd all be speaking "guten Morgen" correctly, right Shitrock?
What's wrong, Shitrock? Are you upset that your beloved Democratic leaders in Congress haven't had the balls to defund the war?
Aren't you upset that your beloved Democrats are putting a timeline on the war, which in turn gives the enemy a timeline for victory? Don't you care about the troops, Shitrock? Shouldn't you be outraged at your beloved Democrats for wanting to put a timeline on the war, which puts our troops in harms way (and pretty much all for nothing, being the timeline is a timeline for the enemy's victory)?
Does your feeble little mind not see the complete "out of touch with reality" mentality here in terms of a timeline being put on a war? Jesus Christ Almighty, that's exactly like saying:
"We will be pulling out in x number of months, until then, stand by and plan your victory now, Mr. Enemy"
If you cannot see how futile that is, then you're seriously one hopeless, sorry ass, clueless son of a bitch, who by the way, won't have anyone else to blame but your own Democratic party if and when the shit hits the fan at home.
And you can take that to the bank.
Master Lie, except for a few tiny little glitches, this latest commentary is nearly on par with your first. Let me help you see how to tidy it up a little.
First, they're not my "beloved Democratic leaders in Congress." I hate 'em for their cowardice.
Second, when you get to high school you will find that it WAS the Democrats who were in charge of the US government during WWII.
Third, when you learn to read a newspaper you will find that Congress continued to fund the debacle in Iraq WITHOUT time limits.
Fourth, the victory has already been won by our enemies. We're creating terrorists faster than we can kill 'em. Iran has more political clout than ever. The name of the US inspires hatred around the world.
Aside from those minor discrepancies and a couple of dozen others, your post was perfect.
Keep coming back, Master Lie; but don't let Mom catch you. Your health, you know.
First off, dumb ass:
"Second, when you get to high school you will find that it WAS the Democrats who were in charge of the US government during WWII"
Yes, ideed, the Democrats were in charge back during WWII, thanks for taking it upon yourself to educate me on something I already knew. However, I'll return the favor and I'll educate your clueless ass as to say that those very same Democrats are not the same liberal left Democrats of today.
The victory was already won by the enemy? WTF? So like, what you're pretty much saying is that we've lost the war, all the while our troops are still over there? Oh man, but don't question your patriotism, right?
Dude, you're fucked up. Really, you are. You're in denial. No matter how factual the information presented to you is, you'll still turn a deaf ear and a blind eye.
Gee, think about why Iran is in the shape it's in today? Did you ever stop and think about that? And what do you propose we do about Iran? Do we go take out Iran? Or did we go into Iran and then people like you will say that the Iran war is lost?
Oh by the way, speaking about Iraq:
You may want to watch this, from 1992:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bYw1q2Ew7Bo
Of course in 2004, Al Gore says, "He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!"
What's Al have to say for himself? He says one thing in 1992, and in 2004, he says something completely different.
I am sure your feeble little mind will make up yet another excuse for what Al Gore said in 1992.
Funny, all of you liberal lefties seem to of "forgotten" what Al Gore said.
Forgotten my ass.
Oh, and my dear Shitrock (and you too, David, since you take delight into blogging about Bush's current poll numbers)
Congress gets worse ratings than Bush.
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/13/201450.shtml?s=lh
BAHAHAHAHAHA!
Nice Congress you guys elected. LOL!
I have learned so much from you today, Master Lie. I have learned that:
-- Bush can't have lost the war because he still has troops over there.
-- By saying that he has lost the war, I am a traitor to my country.
-- All those conservative Dems that were elected last Nov are actually liberals.
-- I elected people I didn't vote for.
-- I'm in denial about the American victory in Iraq.
-- I have a clueless ass.
-- No matter how many times an adolescent says "fuck" and "Jesus Christ," he still sounds like an adolescent.
I appreciate the education and the entertainment. This is the most fun I've had since your eighth grade picnic last spring.
And my dear Shitrock,
You've educated me on how liberals such as yourself talk politics. If said liberal such as yourself doesn't agree with what someone else tells them, they the liberal (uhmm, you), will completely ignore the main points as to what is being presented to you such as Congress's hideous approval ratings (ratings actually LOWER than the Presidents, interesting that David fails to mention that his beloved Congress which made all of these promises such as the most ethical, yadda yadda yadda, isn't doing so hot), not to mention you will ignore what Al Gore said in 1992 in terms of diplomacy with Iraq, not to mention you still fail to see how putting a time line on the war in Iraq is absolutely futile. You don't see how a time line being put on the war in Iraq automatically defaults victory to the enemy. I tried to compare a time line being put during WWII, and you ignored it. You also stated that you're "in denial about the American victory in Iraq." Sir, how can there by ANY victory when people like you at home say the stuff you say about what our troops are doing over there? Why is it that many of those military folks who have returned home from Iraq are re-enlisting to return to Iraq? If no progress was being made, certainly they wouldn't want to re-enlist to return to Iraq, would they? Why is it that those very same folks who are re-enlisting are saying real progress is being made in Iraq, and they they are upset at what the media at home has said about the war in Iraq? Oops! I should actually correct myself: In response you'll say, "If you support what's going on over in Iraq, then enlist!" That liberal argument is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard, considering the fact that over 90 percent of the USA population have never served in the military. So that being said, anyone who supports the war should enlist, right? Do you see how completely ridiculous that all sounds?
And how do you debate all of these points? Allow me to quickly refresh your mind, you said, and I quote:
"I have learned so much from you today, Master Lie. I have learned that:
-- Bush can't have lost the war because he still has troops over there.
-- By saying that he has lost the war, I am a traitor to my country.
-- All those conservative Dems that were elected last Nov are actually liberals.
-- I elected people I didn't vote for.
-- I'm in denial about the American victory in Iraq.
-- I have a clueless ass.
-- No matter how many times an adolescent says "fuck" and "Jesus Christ," he still sounds like an adolescent.
I appreciate the education and the entertainment. This is the most fun I've had since your eighth grade picnic last spring."
I rest my case. The only thing you're capable of is attempts at putting down your opponent with personal jabs which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.
And I am about as confident as Clinton never inhaled that you never, ever have used the words "fuck" or "Jesus Christ" in your entire life time; and don't tell me you're offended by them considering you've used far worse words on here than I have.
So go on, keep going with the personal jabs as you fail miserably at debating me. You know you cannot win with me, hence why you go with the personal jabs in the first place. Your attitude on here clearly demonstrates that very fact.
...you are so far out of touch with reality...
...your feeble little mind...
...you're seriously one hopeless, sorry ass, clueless son of a bitch...
...I'll educate your clueless ass...
...Dude, you're fucked up... ...You're in denial...
...Your arrogance, and malcontent will only blind you further...
Master Lie, I apologize for all the personal jabs I have taken at you in this thread, especially since you would never stoop so low.
As you say, I could absolutely never win debating you. The cogency of your arguments, the elan with which you present them, the biting wit, the deep and thoughtful logic...all of these things clearly make you a debater without peer. I, on the other hand, am a mere liberal with very little brain. I am, as you were so kind to point out early in our relationship, a Schmuck, one who will find a way to agree with everything you say from now on.
Can't stand the sour taste of your own medicine, eh Shitrock?
Leaves a bad taste in your mouth, huh Shitrock?
Hey, if you can dish it out all the time, surely you can take it. Unless of course, you're just passive aggressive. :-)
By the way, STILL no comment on the time line on the war? Still no comment on Al Gore's 1992 Diplomacy with Iraq video?
What's wrong, don't you know how to respond? Nothing else to say except the patronizing comments, right Shitrock?
Forgive me if I say that your reactions are the typical liberal left reactions one can expect when they put a liberal lefty such as yourself into the corner with no way out.
Hiss! Attack!
Master Lie, Master Lie. When one matures, one will learn to accept one's opponent's surrender. You have devastated me with your insight. You have vanquished me with your wisdom. You have humbled me with your perspicacity. Please! No more! I can't stand the humiliation! Stop! Stop! I am destroyed! From now on I promise to do as the wingnuts do and ignore my opponents responses, just please desist with your devastating, seering, penetrating knowledge! You have convinced me that I must renounce liberalism and worship Bill O'Reilly, even, nay, especially when he utters nonsense. I will subscribe to Rush Limbaugh's podcasts. I'll even start eating oxycontin to be more like him. Just please, PLEASE, PLEASE have mercy on my poor, uninformed, liberal brain!
Shitrock, Shitrock, Shitrock....
I hope you're not seriously suggesting that I listen to Rush Limbaugh, and watch Bill O' Reilly, because if you are assuming that I do watch and listen to those two, then I must submit to you that I do not, nor would I suggest you ever watch and listen to them for yourself. I am so sorry to disappoint you.
See, I don't need to watch and listen to other people such as those two to form my own views and opinions.
See, that would be like me saing to you:
"Now that being said, go back to listening to Rhandi Rhodes via Air America Radio."
But of course, we won't go there.
You're demonstrating your liberal mentality more and more and more each and ever day, Sir.
Why STILL NO COMMENENT on the 1992 video with Al Gore concerning himself with Diplomacy and Iraq? Nothing to say STILL? STILL no comment on the Iraq war TIMELINE? I'm waiting.
All you've done so far in response is patronize me with your childish antics.
C'mon, Shitrock. Why don't you demonstrate how intelligent you really are, unless of course, that corner you're backed into seems a little tighter than before.
Master Lie, why do you keep insisting that I show my intelligence when I have already admitted how stupid I am. I'm certainly no match for you.
WRT Randi, she's too smart for me, too. I vastly prefer Lionel.
Gee, Shitrock, all you do is patronize me with your nonsense. What's a matter? Can't you comment on the 1992 video showing Al Gore talking about the diplomacy and Iraq? Can you not come back with a solid, valid argument concerning the time line the Democrats wish to put on the war in Iraq?
All you do is patronize me.
That corner you are backed into must be really tight, because once again, all you do is respond with patronizing nonsense.
A true representation of your intelligence, eh, Shitrock?
That's right, Master Lie.
You amuse me, Shitrock. You can't answer. C'mon dude, answer! Don't sit there and patronize me with your bullshit. Step up, man.
Again:
Comments on the 1992 Al Gore video speaking about dimplocy in Iraq?
Comments on your political party leaders wanting to pave eventual victory for our enemies in Iraq by issuing a timeline on the war?
Can't do it, Shitrock? Just more patronizing.
What? No crap spewing out of your mouth talking about me and how much of an adolescent I am, or about my health in general? No talk about that, Shitrock? Nothing to say because you know I've backed you into a corner which you know you cannot get out of without sounding like a total nincompoop?
I rest my case.
Of course I'm a nincompoop, Master Lie. I'm wasting my time making you look foolish, am I not?
Actually, Master Lie, it is simply much more fun to patronize you than to attempt to answer questions that are based on delusional premises.
I'll tell you what. I'll answer your blather if you'll just answer one first: Name just five American soldiers, sailors, or marines that you were happy to see killed in Iraq to keep Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney in oil money.
You answer mine, I'll answer yours.
The liberal tactic of answering a question with a question WILL NOT work with me, Mr. Shitrock. Don't even try it.
I'll answer your question WHEN YOU GET THE BALLS to FINALLY answer mine first.
Calm down, Master Lie. You're going to give yourself the Creeping Willies again. Remember what happened last time!
What's wrong? Can't remember the names of those five dead soldiers you were happy to see die for the Bush/Cheney money machine? A weakened memory could be due to high stress, you know.
Shitrock, Since you practice the well known liberal art of answering a question with a question, I'll entertain your repugnant question with an answer so you'll stop whining in order for you to answer my previous questions made to you:
I don't recall ANY names of five military people I want or would want to see die in Iraq. Only a sicko like you would come up with a question like that. And please, the "war is about oil!" argument is about as old as it gets. That's pure rubbish and you know it. Hell, I WISH the war were about oil! I am sick and tired of paying $3.00+ a gallon for gas to fill up my big, thirsty SUV which has parts manufactured by Halliburton ;-)
Now, moving forward: Get the balls to respond to my previous questions. Or will you simply whine some more and answer my question with another ludicrous question of your own as you attempt to change the subject.
Speaking of weakened memories, how about Al Gore's 1992 speech regarding Diplomacy in Iraq?
Nothing to say, have you?
Troll:
Read.
Some quotes:
Gore’s speech highlighted a wide variety of Saddam Hussein’s terrorist tendencies, and H.W. Bush’s response to each — which was always tolerance. No matter what Iraq did, and how much it promoted terrorism, and how often it would use chemical weapons, Bush 41 preferred to look the other way.
Gore’s point, in the context of the 1992 presidential campaign was clear — if H.W. Bush wants credit for the 1991 Gulf War, he ought to also accept responsibility for helping enable Saddam Hussein for the better part of a decade.
And:
None of the conservatives who’ve promoted the video have made any effort to criticize the substance of Gore’s remarks in 1992, which suggests that they believe he was right — Saddam was sponsoring terrorism, using chemical weapons, and faced no adverse consequences at all from the Reagan/Bush/Quayle team(s).
And finally:
Gore said Saddam Hussein was dangerous in 1992. That’s true. Gore said Bush 41 looked the other way while Saddam got more dangerous. That’s true. Gore said the U.S. needed to do more to address the Iraqi threat, and then was part of the administration that disarmed Saddam’s regime. That’s true. Years later, Gore said a war against Iraq was unnecessary and would be a tragic mistake. That’s true.
In other words, the right is trumpeting a video clip that makes Gore look better — he’s not only right about Iraq policy now, he’s been right about Iraq policy for 15 years.
Sounds good to me. You were saying?
Ill tell you what, Master Lie, I'm going to answer your question about Al Gore, even though you seem to be incapable of answering mine. I'm only doing this because I'm a nice guy, and because you seem to be on the verge of a complete meltdown.
Here's the answer: I don't really care what Al Gore said 15 years ago. I don't particularly like Al Gore's foreign policies, although he is clearly brilliant on matters of ecology and global warming. The I only voted for him in 2000 because he was the only sentient being with any chance of becoming president.
And frankly, it is a symptom of your disease that you insist on railing against a fellow conservative such as Mr. Gore who dropped out of electoral politics seven years ago.
There. Feel better?
Shitrock, be careful because if Gore were to come to a sudden halt, that poop noodle on your wanker will be bigger than before.
That makes exactly as much sense as anything "anonymous" has said on this thread.
This whole thread presents evidence that our local wingnuts are possessed of enormous erudition, elegance, and grace.
Post a Comment