PDA

View Full Version : CNN Poll G.W.Bush 54% Unfavorable Opinion AND.....



Gayle in MD
06-08-2012, 10:36 AM
And his Da Da's approval rating is 59%

AND......Bill Clinton's favorability is..... Drum roll!

<span style='font-size: 17pt'> 66% ! </span>

Gee, what Dummies voted for G.W.Bush, TWICE! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

President Obama's favorability is at.....Drum Roll.....

<span style='font-size: 17pt'> 56%! Even in a slow (Repiglican created, and extended) job recovery, quite remarkable! </span>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Soflasnapper
06-08-2012, 10:41 AM
So, the 'do you miss him yet?' campaign has yet to bear fruit??? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

A good sign, which means the American people have SOME memory ability, at least to stretch back 4 years or more.

I was beginning to doubt that. Glad to see it.

Gayle in MD
06-08-2012, 10:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, the 'do you miss him yet?' campaign has yet to bear fruit???

</div></div>

LOL, too funny! That has to be one of the greatest failed promotional efforts in history!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

eg8r
06-08-2012, 06:58 PM
LOL only a lefty idiot proves their guy is doing good by not even besting a Bush. HAHA, your idiocy cracks me up.

eg8r

LWW
06-08-2012, 07:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, the 'do you miss him yet?' campaign has yet to bear fruit??? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

A good sign, which means the American people have SOME memory ability, at least to stretch back 4 years or more.

I was beginning to doubt that. Glad to see it.

</div></div>

Again with the love for spoon fed stats.

Soflasnapper
06-08-2012, 07:13 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about. But to be fair, neither do you.

But I'll bite.

What, you have a Rasmussen poll showing W the most popular ex-president? I must have missed it.

Shirley you've based your randomly generated quip from some data or another?

Gayle in MD
06-09-2012, 07:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL only a lefty idiot proves their guy is doing good by not even besting a Bush. HAHA, your idiocy cracks me up.

eg8r </div></div>

Well then do tell us, given that you voted for GW Bush, twice.
Given the second time you voted for him under the famous Bush/Cheney philosophy of "Deficits don't matter".... after Bush had wasted the surplus, spent us into a debt ditch of 6.7 trillions dollars, growing every month. given we were having predictions of a coming housing crash, and market crash, for literally the entire span of his administration, and through it all, you were slandering and insulting every Democrat on this forum over our warnings.


Throughout the Bush/Repiglican blank check congress, running up more debts, borowing more money than all previous administrations combined. You voted a second time for the most incompetent bunch of spending borrowing nitwits in our histroy, they couldn't even manage responding to a hurricane.

You had already seen that Bush didn't respond to the most threatening, most specific and accurate warning, of the most disastrous coming attack on our shores, in history, and din't even call a single meeting of our best experts to the table in eight months. Left us on the brink of a Greater Depression, than the Great Depression, with two unfinished wars, one of them which he lied us into, annd 10.7 trillion dollars in debt.

So do you ever feel like an idiot now, after yout relentless insulting anbd slandering of everyone of us who were articulating throughout, what was Bush was doing to this country, and did in fact create?

As I have stated before, nothing could be more hypocritical than you trying to say now, that you were against the Bush policies, LMAO!

Anyone who voted twice for Bush, calling everyone else who warned about the mess he was creating, an idiot, and particularly you, should never use that word again, as long as you live.

G.

Soflasnapper
06-09-2012, 11:55 AM
I think the W Bush National Security Council met once on the topic of terrorism, in early September, 2001. Slightly too late.

That was after the multi-year bipartisan Hart-Rudman blue ribbon commission's recommendations for Congress were aggressively ended by the W Bush administration, just as they began early January to consider implementing them. W Bush said that was all fine and good, but he would start the multi-year process all over again, but this time, headed up by Cheney. Cheney failed to ever convene any such process, and possibly, can't remember now, never even appointed members to his commission.

To be fair, the NSC WAS VERY BUSY that year, not on terrorism, but intently watching the prospects for Enron to succeed in trying to sell their white elephant energy production plant in India that could not sell energy at a profit, and during the time of their collapse where they badly needed the return of their several-billion dollar investment there. Also, on a dual track effort, the NSC was trying to get arranged the liquid natural gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea region through Afghanistan to India, to give them a cheap enough source of energy to be able to sell energy, and at least generate some income there. Which is why the first thing the W Bush administration did as to Afghanistan is re-open negotiations with the TALIBAN, bringing them to Texas for talks.

So you see, they WERE very busy indeed. Trying to save Enron the entire beginning of that first year.

eg8r
06-10-2012, 01:49 AM
LOL, rant all you want but only a lefty idiot tries to tell us how good Obama is by not even having better numbers than a Bush. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-10-2012, 10:33 AM
I suppose you mean the father Bush?

Bush 41's numbers are better now than when he was in office (which is typical; cf: Harry Truman, and even George W), as absence makes the heart grow fonder or at least more forgetful over time.

The last 'poll' the American people gave GHW Bush was to give him a near-all time low vote for an incumbent, at 37.5%, and over a 2-1 spanking in the electoral college vote. Even as Carter lost in a landslide, he got 41%, also with a 3rd party candidate taking votes from him.

To see if Obama will beat him (eventually, on a level playing field measure), you'll need to wait a dozen years or more to find out. Incumbent presidents are automatically less popular than when retired, as they are partisans with fierce foes while in the arena. All that fades from memory over time, and as someone once said about dead pool players, the longer they are dead, the better they (are said to have) played.

eg8r
06-10-2012, 04:54 PM
I don't disagree with what you have said but then again it shows just how moronic this thread is. Comparing apples and oranges was not my idea, it was gaylio's. I am merely responding to the data she is providing.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-11-2012, 08:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't disagree with what you have said but then again it shows just how moronic this thread is. Comparing apples and oranges was not my idea, it was gaylio's. I am merely responding to the data she is providing.

eg8r </div></div>

More proof that you can't read!

As is perfectly clear, comparisons in my original post, were between former presidents, only.

My comments about President Obama, had nothing to do with the comparisons between former presidents, but were pointing to his unusally high approval rating, during a bad economy.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">CNN Poll G.W.Bush 54% Unfavorable Opinion AND.....
And his Da Da's approval rating is 59%

AND......Bill Clinton's favorability is..... Drum roll!

66% !

Gee, what Dummies voted for G.W.Bush, TWICE!

President Obama's favorability is at.....Drum Roll.....

56%! Even in a slow (Repiglican created, and extended) job recovery, quite remarkable!



</div></div>

Learn To Read! Learn to re-read before throwing out another of your non-stop, knee-jerk, attacks.

G.

eg8r
06-11-2012, 10:54 AM
LOL, well I have read it again and clearly you don't even understand the ambiguity you pass off as a "clear thought". In no way did you made the distinction that you were only comparing past presidents. Goes to show why your posts come across so moronic all the time, you must not be bothering to read the rubbish before hitting the submit button.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-11-2012, 02:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, well I have read it again and clearly you don't even understand the ambiguity you pass off as a "clear thought". In no way did you made the distinction that you were only comparing past presidents. Goes to show why your posts come across so moronic all the time, you must not be bothering to read the rubbish before hitting the submit button.

eg8r </div></div>

Obviously, you were spinning the info in my post beyond anything that was written.

Nowhere in my post, did I say anything to compare President Obama, to the rest. I referenced only his approval numbers, during a time of a bad economy.

As usual, you try to wiggle out of your own inability to read correctly, and try to turn the blame elsewhere.

No wonder you can't even fly across the pond, without facing one disaster after another...KARMA!





G.

Gayle in MD
06-11-2012, 02:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the W Bush National Security Council met once on the topic of terrorism, in early September, 2001. Slightly too late.

That was after the multi-year bipartisan Hart-Rudman blue ribbon commission's recommendations for Congress were aggressively ended by the W Bush administration, just as they began early January to consider implementing them. W Bush said that was all fine and good, but he would start the multi-year process all over again, but this time, headed up by Cheney. Cheney failed to ever convene any such process, and possibly, can't remember now, never even appointed members to his commission.

To be fair, the NSC WAS VERY BUSY that year, not on terrorism, but intently watching the prospects for Enron to succeed in trying to sell their white elephant energy production plant in India that could not sell energy at a profit, and during the time of their collapse where they badly needed the return of their several-billion dollar investment there. Also, on a dual track effort, the NSC was trying to get arranged the liquid natural gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea region through Afghanistan to India, to give them a cheap enough source of energy to be able to sell energy, and at least generate some income there. Which is why the first thing the W Bush administration did as to Afghanistan is re-open negotiations with the TALIBAN, bringing them to Texas for talks.

So you see, they WERE very busy indeed. Trying to save Enron the entire beginning of that first year. </div></div>


;)/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Yep, to busy to do one damned thing to address the most specific warning of a coming attack, from the largest number of security experts, from the largest number of agencies, in our history.

Now, we know, had he just called the head of each agency together, in one room, the attacks could have been prevented.

Chilling stories about Condoleeza Rice refusing to listen to any of those who were begging for access directly with the President, even though head of agencies had abandoned their offices, and raced across Washington D.C. to inform her of more info, of the coming attack.

The President, refused to meet with our most knowledgable expert on al aeda, and bin Laden, Richard Clarke, or with any of the others, as well, from the Alex Unit, AFTER months of warnings.

Eight months passed from the time that his first specific warning, from Bill Clinton...BUT....as Rice stated....

The president didn't want to..... <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Swat at flies"</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
06-12-2012, 03:17 AM
Now you are attempting to save face because you completely screwed this up. Your post was BS and you know it. I called you out for the stupidity and you are in CYA mode.

You made no distinction that you were comparing only the past presidents. You listed them all together and now that the mistake has been pointed out, instead of admitting it you are trying to sidestep it and you know I won't let it happen.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-12-2012, 06:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now you are attempting to save face because you completely screwed this up. Your post was BS and you know it. I called you out for the stupidity and you are in CYA mode.

You made no distinction that you were comparing only the past presidents. You listed them all together and now that the mistake has been pointed out, instead of admitting it you are trying to sidestep it and you know I won't let it happen.

eg8r </div></div>

The statistics weren't taken from a poll that I even viewed.

Hence, I did not include any link.

I didn't even hear them on the same station, lol.

The two statements, one about former presidents, annd one about the current approval rating on the President, were separated by this sentence.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Gee, what Dummies voted for G.W.Bush, TWICE</div></div>

Now the questions is, what dummie would make an issue over what I wrote, try to skew my meaning by trying to tell me what was in my own mind, while I was writing it, all of it just to launch another argument!


Answer:
Someone who loves to argue about nothing.

Result:
A waste of time.

eg8r
06-12-2012, 08:46 AM
LOL, keep on backing up.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-12-2012, 08:51 AM
Gee, what Dummies voted for G.W.Bush, TWICE