PDA

View Full Version : Presidential approval ratings



Ringo
01-20-2009, 09:23 AM
Name the only President in the last 60 years to leave office with higher numbers than when he came in.

http://online.wsj.com/media/info-presapp0605-all.gif

http://online.wsj.com/media/info-presapp0605-clinton.gif

http://online.wsj.com/media/info-presapp0605-bush2.gif

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

biccat
01-20-2009, 09:46 AM
Name the only President in the last 60 years to be impeached.

Ringo
01-20-2009, 09:50 AM
Name the only President in the last 60 years to be impeached.

He was impeached by a radical republican congress. The American people were on the side of Bill Clinton and the Democrats.

Thats why his approval rating on IMPEACHMENT DAY is only something Bush can dream about.

Bush is around 30% ...Clinton had around 60% .....ON IMPEACHMENT DAY.

Gingersnap
01-20-2009, 10:21 AM
He was impeached by a radical republican congress. The American people were on the side of Bill Clinton and the Democrats.

Thats why his approval rating on IMPEACHMENT DAY is only something Bush can dream about.

Bush is around 30% ...Clinton had around 60% .....ON IMPEACHMENT DAY.

What is a "radical Republican congress"? Seriously, I'd like to know. I'm not a Republican myself so from the outside looking in it appears that anytime a Republican or self-identified conservative does anything in line with a center-right or right ideology, it's termed "radical".

YupItsMe
01-20-2009, 10:21 AM
He was impeached by a radical republican congress. The American people were on the side of Bill Clinton and the Democrats.

Thats why his approval rating on IMPEACHMENT DAY is only something Bush can dream about.

Bush is around 30% ...Clinton had around 60% .....ON IMPEACHMENT DAY.

Well I guess Pres. Bush will never be voted Prom Queen. Oh, Well. :rolleyes:

Ringo
01-20-2009, 10:23 AM
What is a "radical Republican congress"? Seriously, I'd like to know. I'm not a Republican myself so from the outside looking in it appears that anytime a Republican or self-identified conservative does anything in line with a center-right or right ideology, it's termed "radical".

It was against the will of the American people. It was the agenda of a radical minority, Like Newt, who was cheating on his wife at the time, typical repub hypocrisy.

ralph wiggum
01-20-2009, 10:35 AM
So lying under oath is acceptable for a President? Whatever, ass-clown. :rolleyes:

Ringo
01-20-2009, 10:45 AM
So lying under oath is acceptable for a President? Whatever, ass-clown. :rolleyes:

More fake outrage.

At least he was under oath. Bush refuses to testify under oath, in fact he demanded that Cheney sit by his side and hold his hand while he testified to the 9-11 commission....NOT under oath.

But Clinton lied about a blow job ? ...lets get him.

ralph wiggum
01-20-2009, 10:50 AM
More fake outrage.

At least he was under oath. Bush refuses to testify under oath, in fact he demanded that Cheney sit by his side and hold his hand while he testified to the 9-11 commission....NOT under oath.

But Clinton lied about a blow job ? ...lets get him.

Testify for what exactly? Put up or shut up, Supercrash. What war crimes against humanity has ChimpyMcBushCokespoon committed?

ZERO. NOTHING.

He's leaving office as a principled president who stood for what he believed was right. I respect him for that. The ideals he and his administration believed in may not have been popular, but he stood by his beliefs.

Ringo
01-20-2009, 11:03 AM
Testify for what exactly? Put up or shut up, Supercrash. What war crimes against humanity has ChimpyMcBushCokespoon committed?

ZERO. NOTHING.

He's leaving office as a principled president who stood for what he believed was right. I respect him for that. The ideals he and his administration believed in may not have been popular, but he stood by his beliefs.

It's called torture. The current AG was asked if waterboarding was legal ...and he wouldn't give an answer. The new AG was asked, and said NO, torture is NOT legal.

Get it ? ....Mukasey wouldn't say it was legal.

ralph wiggum
01-20-2009, 11:13 AM
It's called torture. The current AG was asked if waterboarding was legal ...and he wouldn't give an answer. The new AG was asked, and said NO, torture is NOT legal.

Get it ? ....Mukasey wouldn't say it was legal.

It is certainly a gray area, because the definitions of torture are not clear. The U.N., Geneva convention, U.S. law....all are open to different interpretations.

FlaGator
01-20-2009, 11:17 AM
It's called torture. The current AG was asked if waterboarding was legal ...and he wouldn't give an answer. The new AG was asked, and said NO, torture is NOT legal.

Get it ? ....Mukasey wouldn't say it was legal.

How do you define torture?

Ringo
01-20-2009, 11:21 AM
How do you define torture?

Easy.

The USA has charged, tried, and convicted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding. The USA has always thought this was torture, otherwise we wouldn't be charging people for it.

The USA defines it as a war crime and torture. I define it the same way the USA does.

lacarnut
01-20-2009, 11:29 AM
It's called torture. The current AG was asked if waterboarding was legal ...and he wouldn't give an answer. The new AG was asked, and said NO, torture is NOT legal.

Get it ? ....Mukasey wouldn't say it was legal.

The appointed AG also participated in the pardon of M. Rich for income tax evasion. Your boy Clinton pardoned the biggest tax cheat in American history. Nice resume for a left wing liberal A..G. BTW, he has not been confirmed yet. Get your facts straight.

Whatever the Navy Seals endure is not torture. Of course a limp dick, wuzz like you would disagree.

Ringo
01-20-2009, 11:35 AM
The appointed AG also participated in the pardon of M. Rich for income tax evasion. Your boy Clinton pardoned the biggest tax cheat in American history. Nice resume for a left wing liberal A..G. BTW, he has not been confirmed yet. Get your facts straight.

Whatever the Navy Seals endure is not torture. Of course a limp dick, wuzz like you would disagree.


Bush sr. pardoned a terrorist who bombed a plane killing over 70 people....That trumps your tax cheat.

http://www.observer.com/node/44069

Odysseus
01-20-2009, 11:54 AM
More fake outrage.

At least he was under oath. Bush refuses to testify under oath, in fact he demanded that Cheney sit by his side and hold his hand while he testified to the 9-11 commission....NOT under oath.

But Clinton lied about a blow job ? ...lets get him.

He lied to fix a $1 million lawsuit for sexual harassment, based on actions prohibited by legislation that he personally signed into law, and it wasn't just the blowjob that he lied about.

Bush refused to testify under oath because the executive branch is not subordinate to a congressional commission. No president has ever testified before congress under oath, and Clinton's testimony was not based on his actions as president, but as governor of Arkansas.

lacarnut
01-20-2009, 12:11 PM
Bush sr. pardoned a terrorist who bombed a plane killing over 70 people....That trumps your tax cheat.

http://www.observer.com/node/44069

No it does not. Mr Rich was indicted for tax evasion. Orlando Bosch was suspected of bombing a Cuban airliner killing 73 people. He was a CIA operative and many in the Cuban community in FL considered him a hero. No such luck for your indicted tax cheat. Orlando Bosch was never charged or indicted for that crime. I think he is gulity as sin but so is Ayers and so is OJ. That's the way our justice system works, dumb ass.

Molon Labe
01-20-2009, 12:14 PM
He was impeached by a radical republican congress. The American people were on the side of Bill Clinton and the Democrats.

Thats why his approval rating on IMPEACHMENT DAY is only something Bush can dream about.

Bush is around 30% ...Clinton had around 60% .....ON IMPEACHMENT DAY.

There is/was nothing radical about the Republican majority congress during Clinton's admin.
Both President's will be viewed as failures IMO.

Odysseus
01-20-2009, 12:22 PM
No it does not. Mr Rich was indicted for tax evasion. Orlando Bosch was suspected of bombing a Cuban airliner killing 73 people. He was a CIA operative and many in the Cuban community in FL considered him a hero. No such luck for your indicted tax cheat. Orlando Bosch was never charged or indicted. I think he is gulity as sin but so is Ayers and so is OJ. That's the way our justice system works, dumb ass.
More importantly, GHW Bush didn't pardon Bosch. He was arrested in the US on a parole violation and the charges were eventually dropped. No pardon. Of course, Joe Conason, the author of the article, has never corrected his error, but being a liberal journalist means never having to say that you're sorry, or wrong, or libelous, or treasonous...

There is/was nothing radical about the Republican majority congress during Clinton's admin.
Both President's will be viewed as failures IMO.
Clinton's presidency will forever be remembered for his scandals, despite the media's insistence on forgetting them (note that Clinton's impeachment is almost never mentioned when he is interviewed or when he speaks publicly, but if it is brought up, it's always in the context of him as a victim, rather than as a lawbreaker). Bush might be remembered for defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan, preventing a second attack on US soil during his term, instituting tax cuts that brought the US out of a slump that began in 2000 (remember the dotcom bubble and the massive losses of income after 9/11?) and trying to prevent the economic meltdown that was caused by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the Community Reinvestment Act, if the media can be bothered to report any of it between Obama swoons.

lacarnut
01-20-2009, 12:27 PM
More importantly, GHW Bush didn't pardon Bosch. He was arrested in the US on a parole violation and the charges were eventually dropped. No pardon. Of course, Joe Conason, the author of the article, has never corrected his error, but being a liberal journalist means never having to say that you're sorry, or wrong, or libelous, or treasonous...

.

I stand corrected on the pardon issue. However, it must really hurt to be as stupid as Ringo. :eek::eek::eek:

Gingersnap
01-20-2009, 12:38 PM
It was against the will of the American people. It was the agenda of a radical minority, Like Newt, who was cheating on his wife at the time, typical repub hypocrisy.

I don't think it was. That still leaves your definition of "radical" to be considered. If this Democratic congress follows a left of center party line that isn't shared by most Americans, will they be radicals too?

I suspect that you would only apply the term "radical" to politicians you disagree with ideologically.

Odysseus
01-20-2009, 12:39 PM
I stand corrected on the pardon issue. However, it must really hurt to be as stupid as Ringo. :eek::eek::eek:

Nah. If ignorance is bliss, stupidity like that must be multi-orgasmic. :D

hmac
01-20-2009, 09:58 PM
Interestingly no other president had to deal with cowardly terrorist attacks on our soil. Interestingly, no other president dealt with a natural disaster as big as Katrina. Never mind the economy, healthcare, social security and other crap left for him to take on. You can't really compare events if they are of different magnitudes and try to make opinion polls equal. You can only take the presidency for what it is and make general comparisons based on philosophy, ideology and economic plans. Opinion polls are relative to the events!! And quite honestly, who cares. It's not a popularity contest...it's a presidency...the hardest job in the world.

He was impeached by a radical republican congress. The American people were on the side of Bill Clinton and the Democrats.

Thats why his approval rating on IMPEACHMENT DAY is only something Bush can dream about.

Bush is around 30% ...Clinton had around 60% .....ON IMPEACHMENT DAY.

hmac
01-20-2009, 10:04 PM
At least Bush used the tax payers money to actually do his job....and not give blow jobs while on -the-job. Are blow jobs included in the "all duties as assigned" claus in the job description?? I feel like I said the word "job" a lot, eh?

More fake outrage.

At least he was under oath. Bush refuses to testify under oath, in fact he demanded that Cheney sit by his side and hold his hand while he testified to the 9-11 commission....NOT under oath.

But Clinton lied about a blow job ? ...lets get him.

Mythic
01-20-2009, 10:14 PM
And quite honestly, who cares. It's not a popularity contest...it's a presidency...the hardest job in the world.That's it exactly.

Sonnabend
01-21-2009, 03:08 AM
Ringo, you are absolutely spot on

I will tell every friend I know to never vote for GW Bush for President ever again :):)

jeskibuff
01-21-2009, 06:43 AM
How do you define torture?
Main Entry: 1tor·ture Pronunciation: \'tor-chər\ Function: noun
1: Going through life beating back absolutely idiotic liberal ramblings from people like Ringo.

FYI, popularity numbers don't define how good a president is. His ability to make the best decisions under tremendous pressure do.

First, Clinton may have been very popular but he was the most conniving, scandalous dolt of a man who could only make a decision by taking an opinion poll first. We elect Presidents to digest and act on information not available to the general public, trusting that that information is assembled from a network of agencies that are each doing their job. Smart people do not want the President to take action based on the opinions of a general public who does not have access to classified information and "the big picture". This is a major flaw in the thinking of libidiots, that a President is supposed to respond to the demands of clueless people. Clinton's popularity didn't make him a good president...it just meant stupid people like Ringo thought he was good, based on a juvenile high school mentality.

Second, we've learned that the liberal media biases everything to make liberals look like saints and conservatives to look like demons. Based on overwhelming evidence to that effect, it's hard to trust such polls to get a good number even if it DID mean something.

Third, GWB certainly wasn't popular with liberals and was accused of doing a "terrible job" even BEFORE he took office. It's funny how GWB was accused of "talking down the economy" by liberals but there aren't any such excuses since Barry went from "Yes We Can" to "We're Just Going to Try Real Hard". To top the fact that 50% of the populace would think of giving Bush an F- just for being conservative, if you weigh in the opinion of many conservatives that Bush didn't make the grade because he wasn't conservative enough, then you have low popularity numbers. Those really don't take away from the fact that Bush stood on principles, made some extremely tough and excellent decisions and proved liberals to be dead wrong on their predictions of tax cuts that would never work and a surge that would never work.

Give me an unpopular President like GWB any day over one that liberals fawn all over.

Ringo
01-21-2009, 07:03 AM
Interestingly no other president had to deal with cowardly terrorist attacks on our soil.

You forgot about when Al'Qeada stuck our homeland in 1993 you idiot. WTC ? ...remember.

Ringo
01-21-2009, 07:05 AM
Ringo, you are absolutely spot on

I will tell every friend I know to never vote for GW Bush for President ever again :):)

Your opinion is worth horse shit.

After all, you believe it was a stupid liberal trick that made Bush betray the conservatives.

Lars1701a
01-21-2009, 07:09 AM
You forgot about when Al'Qeada stuck our homeland in 1993 you idiot. WTC ? ...remember.

Ya he did a such a bang up job of deterring AQ they never tried it again . :rolleyes:

Sonnabend
01-21-2009, 07:14 AM
Your opinion is worth horse shit.

After all, you believe it was a stupid liberal trick that made Bush betray the conservatives.No, the forum "Stupid Liberal tricks" is where we dump the threads that don't belong in the other forums....you join such luminaries as the guy who says we never walked on the Moon (Cosmored)....he made Pelican look sane by comparison.

It's where most, if not all of your threads belong, and it fits you because all you do is throw invective, abuse and insults.

I'd debate with you if you knew how to debate properly...but you're more like a DUmmie in behaviour so here you are.

Lager
01-21-2009, 10:22 AM
The most enduring failure of GWB is exactly what misguided liberals such as ringnose now relish in Obama -- the unprecendented accumulation of power in the executive branch. It began with 9/11, accelerated after Katrina, continued up to the "economic crisis" and is now at a point where there is virtually no impediment to a president's discretion in spending huge amounts of our nations' wealth.

Now, late blooming libs like to wave the Constitution when it suits them. But their reverence for it extends only to pointing out hypocrisy to conservatives who hold it in higher esteem than they do. Rabid libs have no problem with a semi-royal presidency -- a state the Constitution made pains to prevent -- as long as the one with king like powers, is their guy.

So now, the Constitution is back to just being a piece of paper as they wait for the annointed one to shape the mighty powers of government to make us all happy and prosperous, and in the course, submissive. They don't mind if he exerts king like powers, because even they know their dem congress is pretty mushy and impotent and hell.... Obama just looks so good on the TV, you just know he's gonna get it right!

jinxmchue
01-21-2009, 12:53 PM
Name the only President in the last 60 years to leave office with higher numbers than when he came in.

http://online.wsj.com/media/info-presapp0605-all.gif

http://online.wsj.com/media/info-presapp0605-clinton.gif

http://online.wsj.com/media/info-presapp0605-bush2.gif

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

Dude, all that shows is that Clintoon was a very, very mediocre president. He never stepped out to do anything very popular or very unpopular. All he was concerned about was his "legacy." He served himself, not the people of the country.