Bush Job Approval (Forum Members)

[Keystone Phil]

there were flags every 3 feet, on every car, in every commercial. I actually remember singing along to that Lee Greenwood song. It was a terrible time to live through.

Patriotism really is disgusting.

[Speed of Sound]

there were flags every 3 feet, on every car, in every commercial. I actually remember singing along to that Lee Greenwood song. It was a terrible time to live through.

Uber-[/u][/i]Patriotism really is disgusting.

I couldnt agree more, my friend.

[Keystone Phil]

there were flags every 3 feet, on every car, in every commercial. I actually remember singing along to that Lee Greenwood song. It was a terrible time to live through.

Uber-[/u][/i]Patriotism really is disgusting.

I couldnt agree more, my friend.

Putting flags up, singing patriotic songs and voicing our pride in our country especially after a horrific terrorist attack on our people and values is a bad thing?

[patrick1]

there were flags every 3 feet, on every car, in every commercial. I actually remember singing along to that Lee Greenwood song. It was a terrible time to live through.

Uber-[/u][/i]Patriotism really is disgusting.

I couldnt agree more, my friend.

Putting flags up, singing patriotic songs and voicing our pride in our country especially after a horrific terrorist attack on our people and values is a bad thing?

Phil, This is why they lose elections. 

[A18]

I've disapproved of Bush ever since November 1999 when in a GOP primary debate he said his favorite philosopher was Jesus.

lol

[Cubby]

Yep, that proves it.  You're scum.  The President and my favorite philosopher wouldn't like me calling you that though.

Jesus didn't think anyone is scum, you don't speak for him, you speak for your party, which doesn't have a monopoly on religion. Jesus is not a philosopher, Bush was just trying to win over the base with that ridiculous comment. I'm not attacking religion, I'm attacking intellectual laziness.

And I will never forget how scared I was those first 3 weeks after 9/11, you all seem to think it was a happy time of Patriotism and friendliness. There were bonfires on my campus, supposedly to show the terrorists they wouldn't win. Everyone was drunk, the RA's came pounding on our doors telling us we had to go outside for the bonfire.........it was an awful time to be away from home.

[Keystone Phil]

Yep, that proves it.  You're scum.  The President and my favorite philosopher wouldn't like me calling you that though.

Jesus didn't think anyone is scum, you don't speak for him, you speak for your party, which doesn't have a monopoly on religion.

Uh, he kind of said what you just said.

[??????????]

....there were flags every 3 feet, on every car, in every commercial. I actually remember singing along to that Lee Greenwood song. It was a terrible time to live through.

GTFO of my country please, kthx.

[Defarge]

January 20, 2001: Disaprove
June 10, 2001: Disaprove
September 14, 2001: Strongly Approve
November 5, 2002: Strongly Approve
March 24, 2003: Approve
June 2, 2003: Approve
December 10, 2003: Disaprove
November 2, 2004: Strongly Disaprove
January 20, 2005: Disaprove
July 22, 2005: Strongly Disaprove
October 6, 2005: Disaprove
November 3, 2005: Strongly Disaprove
April 1, 2006: Strongly Disaprove

I bet you can figure out what political affiliation I have

[A18]

....there were flags every 3 feet, on every car, in every commercial. I actually remember singing along to that Lee Greenwood song. It was a terrible time to live through.

GTFO of my country please, kthx.

Well, it can be a bit much sometimes, but I think right after 9/11, having a bunch of flags around was completely appropriate.

[??????????]

January 20, 2001: Disaprove
June 10, 2001: Disaprove
September 14, 2001: Strongly Approve
November 5, 2002: Strongly Approve
March 24, 2003: Approve
June 2, 2003: Approve
December 10, 2003: Disaprove
November 2, 2004: Strongly Disaprove
January 20, 2005: Disaprove
July 22, 2005: Strongly Disaprove
October 6, 2005: Disaprove
November 3, 2005: Strongly Disaprove
April 1, 2006: Strongly Disaprove

I bet you can figure out what political affiliation I have

Well to be fair, at least you're balanced. I don't really see how anyone could say "Sept 14 2001 :  STRONGLY Disapprove", that's just hackish there.

[Nym90]

January 20, 2001: Disaprove
June 10, 2001: Disaprove
September 14, 2001: Strongly Approve
November 5, 2002: Strongly Approve
March 24, 2003: Approve
June 2, 2003: Approve
December 10, 2003: Disaprove
November 2, 2004: Strongly Disaprove
January 20, 2005: Disaprove
July 22, 2005: Strongly Disaprove
October 6, 2005: Disaprove
November 3, 2005: Strongly Disaprove
April 1, 2006: Strongly Disaprove

I bet you can figure out what political affiliation I have

Well to be fair, at least you're balanced. I don't really see how anyone could say "Sept 14 2001 :  STRONGLY Disapprove", that's just hackish there.

I understand patriotism and rallying around your leaders in a time of crisis, and all that, but why would the terroist attacks change one's opinion of the President? What did he do that people would approve of so strongly if they didn't approve of him prior to that?

Ok, he kept a cool head in time of crisis, or some such. Yeah, that's a good thing. I don't deny that. But it's not like anyone else wouldn't have done the same thing.

Having your opinion of Bush changed by his actions in the next year or two after 9/11 makes perfect sense, but logically speaking I don't really see anything about the attacks themselves that should immediately cause a massive change in your opinion of his job performance. Supporting the country and supporting the President are not synonomous.

[??????????]

Ok, he kept a cool head in time of crisis, or some such. Yeah, that's a good thing. I don't deny that. But it's not like anyone else wouldn't have done the same thing.

You blow it off like what happened was some simple bombing like the first WTC bombing. Dude, 4 damn airplanes crashed that day, three of them into buildings. Thousands of Americans died in just a few short hours. That comment above seems to make the event like it was just something that happened in passing. September 11th was probably one of the most defining moments in American History. It's probably more important then Pearl Harbor, you've got to realize that 150 years they'll still be stating the signifigance of this event. If I had said what you typed in regards to Pearl Harbor, wouldn't you have taken me to task on it? I hope you would have.

[Nym90]

I am fully aware of the magnitude of what happened. I do not disagree with you on that one bit. I completely agree about its significance.

My question is what this has to do with Bush specifically. I don't see any reason why people's opinions of Roosevelt would change dramatically right after Pearl Harbor either. He was still the same guy he had always been, with the same performance.

Now I understand why Bush's approval ratings went up, because it was a rally around the flag effect. There's absolutely nothing wrong with showing patriotism after 9/11; heck I certainly did. People chose to equate support for the President with support for the country as a whole.

 But I'm simply saying that Bush himself hadn't done anything as of September 14, 2001 much of any different than he had done a week before. So saying that anyone who disapproved of his performance was a partisan hack doesn't really make sense.

[WMS]

Got busy with real life...

You are going on and on about 'theft' although no one is forcing the credit card companies to extend credit either, now are they?

Neither side is forced. The difference is that the credit card company lived up to its obligations.

Actually, they don't always do that, either - many companies have the nasty practice of deliberately not sending bills to their customers to force them into misisng payments and thus getting hit with large late fees and the like. Not that you give a crap about business misconduct - it doesn't appear to exist in your world.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I implied no such thing. You simply erected a strawman.[/quote]

Bulls***. Your selective interpretation of reality is astonishing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What a joke. You started the personal attacks.  I just responded in kind.[/quote]

You called me an idiot. I responded in kind to you. Not that your selective interpretation of reality will admit to that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I understand the purpose. I simply disagree with it.

The stuff following the comma simply has no connection to the words preceding it.[/quote]

Yes, God forbid anything ever be done to help people in bad situations. Not that you've ever been in a bad situation, have you, with your vast experience in life...

Selective interpretation of reality again, I see...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An investment involves no promise, genius. If I let you borrow something on the condition that you give it back to me in two weeks, and you don't, that is not a 'bad investment.' It's theft.
[/quote]

And under a free market system, why shouldn't the risk be shared between borrower and lender? If you lend money out to a bad risk and lose it, wouldn't that be your fault? But from what you've said, you believe that all the risk in these transactions should be to the borrowers, and none to the lenders - and in the case of credit card companies, they very aggressively market to bad credit risks, and then want to change the laws to protect them from taking any losses from the result of their own poor decisions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now that I've bothered responding to you, I think I'm just going to ignore you now. Congratulations! It takes a lot to make me despise someone personally, but you've pulled it off! May you fail your classes (you seem to be heading that way, oh person who is smarter than everyone else and certainly smarter than little ole M.A. me ) and have to go to a working-class community college! May your parents lose their money and have to file bankruptcy under the laws we just discussed! May you lose what you value! Know that I hate thee, oh follower of Mammon, and I wish you nothing but ill from now on.

And feel free to report me if you so choose! Heck, any of you can click that link if you want! It will still be worth it, even if Dave does kick me off the Forum!

Personal attack/obscenity edit.

[A18]

Actually, they don't always do that, either - many companies have the nasty practice of deliberately not sending bills to their customers to force them into misisng payments and thus getting hit with large late fees and the like. Not that you give a crap about business misconduct - it doesn't appear to exist in your world.

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, actually you simply misinterpreted my post by inferring something that simply can not be justified by the text, and I called you on it.

You called me an idiot. I responded in kind to you. Not that your selective interpretation of reality will admit to that.

Um, the insults started with this diss: "Maybe when your life experiences go beyond 'upper-middle-class-suburban-Yuppie-economic-conservative' will you understand how horrible your view is..."

Yes, God forbid anything ever be done to help people in bad situations.

If a bad situation is an excuse for crime, we can throw out every moral principle hitherto thought inviolable.

And under a free market system, why shouldn't the risk be shared between borrower and lender? If you lend money out to a bad risk and lose it, wouldn't that be your fault? But from what you've said, you believe that all the risk in these transactions should be to the borrowers, and none to the lenders - and in the case of credit card companies, they very aggressively market to bad credit risks, and then want to change the laws to protect them from taking any losses from the result of their own poor decisions.

In a free market, fraud is still punishable. When two people enter into a contract, and one doesn't live up to his obligation, we do not say that the other guy just made a bad risk. If I contract with someone to build me a house, and after I pay him the money, he chooses to do nothing, no intelligent (yes, I realize this doesn't include you) person would say that I merely made a 'bad risk' by not anticipating that this guy was a con man, and that no wrong has been done.

You can call me a bunch of stupid names all you want. The bottom line is that you can't win an argument, because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Previous quotation edit.

[7,052,770]

strongly disapprove at all times, especially and even moreso right after 9/11

[Alcon]

I never expected to have to post this, but you need to calm down, WMS (edit: and Philip, too).  If you have a problem with what the other person is saying, tell them so.  It does not matter "who started it."  This is not kindergarten; you are both responsible for what you did here, and your rationalisation does not make it any less against the board rules.

I am locking this until I can make sense of it.  Obviously, no ban will be handed out, but it does deny other people not involved in this argument the right to post here.  In the future, please take your squabbles into PM where you can say whatever you like and not hijack the topic like this.

Edit: Back open; be sane.