Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 54

Thread: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

  1. #11
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Unification. You mean support for the President? Did I get the wrong chart? Or does my chart say 'Percentage of Americans Unified'?



    - With a 90% approval rating. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say the majority of liberals supported him. Or are you waiting for that magical 100% nobody ever got?


    Rght so a month of 90% means the left supported Bush? Please. It was an emotional response to 911 that quickly faded as they went back to thier politics as usual....



    I am un concerned with the rest of your straw man post.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  2. #12
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:35 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,485
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Zimmer, are you quoting me thinking I thought it was stolen?
    No. I know you know better.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  3. #13
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post


    Notice the points marked out. His approval ratings go down from a historical 90%.
    You are correct here in regards to the assertion that democrats NEVER showed Bush support. After one of the biggest catastraphe struck upon this country, they did join together for a short time that slowly went down from that moment onwards.

    HOWEVER, you also show that the original poster's theory is ALSO wrong.

    Notice that the start of your graph, his approval number is around 50%.

    What did Bush win the election by? About 50%?

    Not to mention your graph shows polls of the American People, not allowing us to see exactly what the approval was by Democrats and by Republicans themselves. However, based on the election results of 2000 and the poll results of 2000 an educated guess can be done.

    Will is absolutely wrong. The Democrats in 2000 were doing the exact same thing as Bush is here. From cries of Stolen Election!!!!!! that continue on to this day, to making fun of how "dumb" he is or the way he talks, to complaining about his stances on religious based programs and other such things, to senatorial minority rights....Democrats in 2000 were no different than most republicans now in the beginning of Bush's Presidency and at almost every time outside of the initial few months after 9/11.

    There were some that gave him a chance, I'm sure, as there are some republicans giving Obama one. But the vast majority seemed to not be just "giving him the benefit of the doubt".

  4. #14
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,087

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    You are correct here in regards to the assertion that democrats NEVER showed Bush support. After one of the biggest catastraphe struck upon this country, they did join together for a short time that slowly went down from that moment onwards.
    And why may you ask? Well let's see. The complete false premise under which the war was started. The complete mishandling of the war by Rumsfeld. An either 'you're with us or with the terrorists' mentality by America's right wing.

    HOWEVER, you also show that the original poster's theory is ALSO wrong.

    Notice that the start of your graph, his approval number is around 50%.

    What did Bush win the election by? About 50%?

    Not to mention your graph shows polls of the American People, not allowing us to see exactly what the approval was by Democrats and by Republicans themselves. However, based on the election results of 2000 and the poll results of 2000 an educated guess can be done.

    Will is absolutely wrong. The Democrats in 2000 were doing the exact same thing as Bush is here. From cries of Stolen Election!!!!!! that continue on to this day, to making fun of how "dumb" he is or the way he talks, to complaining about his stances on religious based programs and other such things, to senatorial minority rights....Democrats in 2000 were no different than most republicans now in the beginning of Bush's Presidency and at almost every time outside of the initial few months after 9/11.

    There were some that gave him a chance, I'm sure, as there are some republicans giving Obama one. But the vast majority seemed to not be just "giving him the benefit of the doubt".
    I've got no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the false assertion that Democrats & Liberals NEVER supported Bush. It is simply not backed up by the evidence. FFS the Iraq war was passed with 50% Democrat support in Congress and so was the Patriot Act. It's VERY dishonest to claim that Democrats and Liberals 'never' supported Bush like the so many right wingers claim.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #15
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    And why may you ask? Well let's see. The complete false premise under which the war was started. The complete mishandling of the war by Rumsfeld. An either 'you're with us or with the terrorists' mentality by America's right wing.



    I've got no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the false assertion that Democrats & Liberals NEVER supported Bush. It is simply not backed up by the evidence. FFS the Iraq war was passed with 50% Democrat support in Congress and so was the Patriot Act. It's VERY dishonest to claim that Democrats and Liberals 'never' supported Bush like the so many right wingers claim.



    Meh, I think it is a lot more accurat and 'honest' than to play a symantics game....

    It was the brief exception, not the rule. I don't expect Republicans to support Obama any more that dems to support Bush.

    But the OP's claim is debunked. Good to see you acknowledge that.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  6. #16
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:35 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,485
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    You are correct here in regards to the assertion that democrats NEVER showed Bush support. After one of the biggest catastraphe struck upon this country, they did join together for a short time that slowly went down from that moment onwards.
    Democrats post 911 were seen as weak on National Security for their decades long hostility to the military and intel services.
    Post 911 this "position" was a disaster for them and they knew it.

    It is why the Democrats asked for a SECOND vote to got to war in the Senate... to show their great support, and to cover their asses for decades of the hostility described above.

    Their vote to send troops to war was done for political purposes.

    Then they realized they had to destroy Bush to have "Hope".

    So they went back to their roots and began slamming Bush and the war in Iraq.

    Another turn for political expediency. They could care less what this did to the morale of the troops, their families and how it inspired the terrorists they were trying to neutralize and eliminate.

    Only Lieberman stood in opposition to his party's 180... and they pulled their long knives on him.

    A party that voted to send troops into battle for political expediency is willing to do anything to win votes.
    Last edited by zimmer; 02-23-09 at 10:50 AM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  7. #17
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,087

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Meh, I think it is a lot more accurat and 'honest' than to play a symantics game....
    Semantics = Roses are red. Roses are FF0000.

    Not semantics = Roses are always red. Roses are 00FF00.

    Get it?

    It was the brief exception, not the rule.
    So you standard for 'support' is always?

    I don't expect Republicans to support Obama any more that dems to support Bush.

    But the OP's claim is debunked. Good to see you acknowledge that.
    I never claimed otherwise. Good to see you admit you were wrong too
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  8. #18
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I've got no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the false assertion that Democrats & Liberals NEVER supported Bush. It is simply not backed up by the evidence. FFS the Iraq war was passed with 50% Democrat support in Congress and so was the Patriot Act. It's VERY dishonest to claim that Democrats and Liberals 'never' supported Bush like the so many right wingers claim.
    And I don't disagree with that.

    But I believe, on average, barring the immediete months surrounding 9/11 it was typical American politics where most people on one side don't support the other sides guy. This is usually for a variety of reasons, some policy, some petty.

    You can't tell me that, despite perhaps disagreements with the Iraq War, Democrats never throughout the next 7 years harped on petty, pointless, non-policy worthless things. From faking information about Bush's IQ that was so prevelant I had to print a factcheck thing out to disprove three random co-workers one day who swore to me Bush had a slow persons IQ, to the non-stop jokes all over the internet regarding "Bush-isms" and his speech, to the whole scathing debate about him reading to the kids that started cropping up after 9/11, to George Bush doesn't care about black people, and on and on and on.

    Yes, for a short time during the one of the most prolific moments in American History Democrats and Republicans were united. For about 7 years and give or take some months however it was primarily politics as usual for BOTH sides.

    There's nothing wrong with that, but you propping up this chart all the time as if the Republicans are insane for even giving any indication that for the most part Democrats were against Bush the amjority of his presidency is as annoying as those that say the Democrats NEVER supported Bush. You also have a tendancy to throw it out when people say that the Democrats weren't supporting Bush right out of the gate, which they WEREN'T.

    That being the case, whether they did or not at one point due to a massive thing in our countries history is secondary to the OP's main point, which was that the Democrats someone gave Bush a "pass" at the start of his Presidency which just isn't the case.

    While I'm sure there is a debate to be had on this, for me personally, I think the vast majority of Republicans would rally behind Obama immedietely if such a horrendous attack happened again barring it somehow being directly tied to something Obama did (for example, if say a Gitmo releasee ended up being in on it). I think there'd be some extreme ones that would be against him at first, and some other more extreme ones that would slowly in the weeks/months later start changing their tune...but that's about in line with Bush at 9/11.

    However, no matter how many times I've heard people talk about this economic crisis as a "Disaster" and akin to 9/11 in the need to pass things...frankly, a long term economic crisis is never going to have the same affect on the psyche and attitudes of Americans like a massive terrorist attack.

  9. #19
    Tart with a Heart
    StandUpChuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    07-29-11 @ 01:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,188

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by WillRockwell View Post
    Democrats have always supported the winner of the presidential election, even when that election was stolen. But Republicans have decided to obstruct and bring down the president simply because he is not a Republican.
    This sh*t is so stupid, I feel like I'm reading Miley Cyrus's Facebook page, not Debate Politics Breaking News.
    Quote Originally Posted by soccerboy22 View Post
    You guys are weird.

  10. #20
    Professor
    WillRockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 09:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,950

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Your kidding right?


    Please show me where they supported Bush.


    Your thesis is nonsense.


    As usual, you resort to name calling instead of even reading the link provided.
    President George W. Bush, though denied a plurality of the vote in 2000, nonetheless gained some Democratsí cooperation in passing tax cuts and his No Child Left Behind education plan.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •