TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Wow... I had no idea it was this low.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wow... I had no idea it was this low. - Page 2

post #31 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
the % is lie by the way.
several link where given with better sources.
Care to share some?
post #32 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
the % is lie by the way.
several link where given with better sources.
Whatever the percentage is, it will not matter because it will be low no matter what.

What makes it a better source? Aren't sources just a matter of opinion anyway?
post #33 of 41
I think I may know why Bush is so disliked. IMO, he's a racist bully. I say he's a bully because he's mainly concerned with being remembered as being the strongest president and he thinks that also means the best president, which is how bullies think.

I call him a racist because it's one thing to go to war against terrorists, but to attack innocent people just because they live in a certain part of the world, speak a certain language, and be part of a different culture is wrong. Plain and simple it is just wrong. Now I bet some of you are thinking something like "there's no evidence that the U.S. military has killed innocent people" but consider the fact that the U.S.A. is renowned for (among other things) having the strongest military in the world. The U.S. soldiers are trained to use excessive force and I can guarantee that they have killed an incredible number of people over the last few years and there is no way that all of them are terrorists.
post #34 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerOnTheProwl View Post
I think I may know why Bush is so disliked. IMO, he's a racist bully. I say he's a bully because he's mainly concerned with being remembered as being the strongest president and he thinks that also means the best president, which is how bullies think.

I call him a racist because it's one thing to go to war against terrorists, but to attack innocent people just because they live in a certain part of the world, speak a certain language, and be part of a different culture is wrong. Plain and simple it is just wrong. Now I bet some of you are thinking something like "there's no evidence that the U.S. military has killed innocent people" but consider the fact that the U.S.A. is renowned for (among other things) having the strongest military in the world. The U.S. soldiers are trained to use excessive force and I can guarantee that they have killed an incredible number of people over the last few years and there is no way that all of them are terrorists.

I disagree with you that the President is mainly concerned with being remembered as "the strongest president". I believe his main concern is not his legacy, but the protection and safety of the US.

Your second paragraph is stunning. Do you *really* believe that the US has "attacked innocent people just because they live in a certain part of the world, speak a certain language and are part of a different culture?" Do you honestly think that's why the US and the coalition forces went to Iraq and Afghanistan? If your premise is true, why are we pursuing military action in only those countries? After all, there are many countries with languages and cultures different from the US.

It is not possible to have war without civilian casualties. This is a terrible and sad fact of the reality of war. It does not follow that having the strongest military means it is also barbaric. The US military makes every effort to minimize such casualties. In stark contrast to the enemy, the US armed forces value innocent human life. If anything, our restraint in the way we are fighting these conflicts in order to avoid civilian casualties has cost us dearly in terms of the lives of US troops and the duration of the war.
post #35 of 41
Personally, I don't think this war will be over until Bush wants it to be over. As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. has made their point. They clearly are the strongest military force in the world. So why are soldiers still there? Because there are still people shooting at the soldiers. I think that bush believes that everyone that is attacking the U.S., Canadian, and British soldiers there is a terrorist. I think that they just want us off of their land now. Did they strike first? Yes. But we have retaliated 10000 times more than what they did. I believe that if we got out now, the war could be close to over.

And obviously there are other people who speak other languages in different countries but they have not really done anything to offend anyone. I'd bet that if someone from another country bombed a U.S. building and they were captured, Bush would still start a fight with the country they came from. He would attack that country and everyone from that country.
post #36 of 41
324 days left by the way!
post #37 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
Care to share some?
I posted several earlier in this thread.

The polling company used in the OPs link often do internet polls that skew the results because only people who feel strongly either way or happen to be on the sites the poll is posted on vote.
post #38 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
I posted several earlier in this thread.

The polling company used in the OPs link often do internet polls that skew the results because only people who feel strongly either way or happen to be on the sites the poll is posted on vote.
Quote:
The results presented here are based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews conducted among a nationwide random sample of adults 18 years and older. The interviews were completed February 16 through 19, 2008. The theoretical margin of error for the total sample is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

I don't know anything about ARC, but in this case, that's not at all how they conducted the poll and their results are as accurate as any other random-sample telephone poll.

I would have to admit from your prior links that there is probably something fishy going on with this particular poll, like how they asked the question or something, but it isn't based on anything as useless as a self-selection poll.

I suppose I was asking Bruce for something substantial about it being an outright lie, then.
post #39 of 41
I still have a problem believing it is not flawed with a 17-20% difference from other polls asked at the same time
post #40 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
I still have a problem believing it is not flawed with a 17-20% difference from other polls asked at the same time
It is possible that it was done correctly, as in the description it gives the industry standard margin of error with the 95% rate- meaning 95% of the time the results in a repeat study would be within the margin of error. So, this could have just been a fluke.

More likely it was something else, like how they asked the question or something, so yea, the other ones are probably more accurate if the same questions were used.
post #41 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
I usually don't look at approval ratings for President Bush, but this is shocking. His rating is at: 19%. This means that 19% of people approve of how our President is doing his job.

I never ever remember anyone's approval rating being this low.



http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/20...eally-new-low/
It's important to note that this is the American Research Group, which has a long reputation of being really far off the mark in their polls. Just as an example, they missed Obama's total in the NH primary by 27 points, and that was in their own home state.

Most polls show the President between 30-35 percent approval, which is right in there with Truman in 1952 (and for the same reason, by the way). It's hard to know what history will say, but you'll note Truman is not considered that bad a President, now.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Wow... I had no idea it was this low.