"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite
record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major
hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all
levels.


Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his
job as president?"

.


Approve 40% Disapprove 53%


Rasmussen: 47%
Fox: 45%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45%

Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's
what
happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth.

the key to the newsweek poll is "adults nationwide" i.e. meaningless

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite
record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major
hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all
levels.


Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his
job as president?"

.


Approve 40% Disapprove 53%


Rasmussen: 47%
Fox: 45%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45%

Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's
what
happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth.

the key to the newsweek poll is "adults nationwide" i.e. meaningless

Moron. It means they selected their survey population from a wide area, to
differentiate from a study which might involve only people from one city or
state.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite
record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major
hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels.


Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his
job as president?"

.


Approve 40% Disapprove 53%


Rasmussen: 47%
Fox: 45%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45%

Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's
what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth.

I assume you didn't like the way Newsweek phrased their survey questions. Do
you know what they were, or do you disapprove without having that
information?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite
record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major
hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all
levels.


Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his
job as president?"

.


Approve 40% Disapprove 53%


Rasmussen: 47%
Fox: 45%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45%

Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's
what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth.

I assume you didn't like the way Newsweek phrased their survey questions.
Do you know what they were, or do you disapprove without having that
information?

I disapprove of the constant negative barrage of misinformation that
continually comes out of Newsweek.

There are numerous ways that polling data can be manipulated or "shaped" to
fit an agenda. When one poll differs substantially from three other major
polls, you have to begin to wonder why...particularly when you add it to the
fact that they consistently put out negative info on the President.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:14:57 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:07:43 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American
security.
Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to other
nations.

I'm not sure they are a "threat" anymore civil war or not.

Although a perpetual civil war would keep the dumbasses busy.

If they're fighting each other, then we can sit back and watch who is
arming
who. It will certainly make it easier to pick sides if you see Iran
sending
arms, intel, and money to one of the sides.

That's true, but unfortunately, we couldn't do anything about it
anyway.

The one mistake Rumsfield has consistently made throughout his Defense
career is the mistaken belief that quick reaction forces substitute
Division level administration and peacekeeping. As we are seeing in
Iraq, that is patently a false assumption.

I like his idea about quick reaction, kick ass and take names,
confrontation, but his insistence that you can use them also as peace
keepers and administration is stupid.

Iran will keep sending arms, supplies and suiciders into Iraq because
we can't seal the borders or effectively interdict them because the
forces are tied up keeping the peace.

But we can use those quick-strike forces inside of Iran.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:07:43 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The country overwhelmingly supported war with Japan because of Pearl
Harbor. But there were plenty of doves who opposed sending our guys to die
in Northern Africa and Europe to fight "Europe's war". After Kasserine
Pass, you can bet that there were a lot of American's questioning whether
we should be there at all.

Yeah, but, after Pearl Harbor, Hitler foolishly declared war on us. He
had hoped the Japanese would start another front with the Soviet Union.
They didn't. While it's true there were plenty of isolationists, Pearl
Harbor changed all that, and I would strongly suspect while Kasserine was
discouraging, Americans were still supportive of the war effort.


Most Americans supported going into Iraq as well. But Americans are fickle
and impatient. A little bad news goes a long way in shaking the resolve
of a good portion of our country.

To a degree, but I suspect the slow realization that it wasn't about WMD,
or bin Laden, or . . . plays a large part. When the cause is just, I
don't underestimate America's will, but to this day, no one in this
administration has come clean about the true reasons for this war.


A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American
security. Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to
other nations.

NOYB, even in the unlikely chance that a Civil War was contained inside
Iraq's borders, have you considered what it would do to the price of a
barrel of oil? Civil War means this administration has failed, and the
next administration will have to put the pieces back together. It also
means 2,000 young Americans have died in vain. That's unacceptable.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:14:57 +0000, NOYB wrote:


If they're fighting each other, then we can sit back and watch who is
arming who. It will certainly make it easier to pick sides if you see
Iran sending arms, intel, and money to one of the sides.

Of course Iran will pick a side, as will the Saudis, the Syrians, the
Turks. That is the problem with unrest. Blink your eyes, and you have a
full blown regional conflict. Definitely not a good outcome.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite
record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major
hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all
levels.


Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his
job as president?"

.


Approve 40% Disapprove 53%


Rasmussen: 47%
Fox: 45%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45%

Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's
what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth.

I assume you didn't like the way Newsweek phrased their survey questions.
Do you know what they were, or do you disapprove without having that
information?

I disapprove of the constant negative barrage of misinformation that
continually comes out of Newsweek.

There are numerous ways that polling data can be manipulated or "shaped"
to fit an agenda. When one poll differs substantially from three other
major polls, you have to begin to wonder why...particularly when you add
it to the fact that they consistently put out negative info on the
President.

OK - you're an expert. Provide us with 3 "impartial" survey questions.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American security.
Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to other
nations.


But, you've said in the past that Iraq was not a threat, and that Bush's
original list of reasons was just a polite disguise for the only real
reason: A military presence to protect the oil supply.

As far as a threat to security, you know that's ridiculous. There are steps
we should've taken 30 years ago in terms of increased vigilance - the same
types of things the Israelis have been doing for years. Iraq didn't keep us
from doing those things (increase airport security, for instance).

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:07:43 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The country overwhelmingly supported war with Japan because of Pearl
Harbor. But there were plenty of doves who opposed sending our guys to
die
in Northern Africa and Europe to fight "Europe's war". After Kasserine
Pass, you can bet that there were a lot of American's questioning whether
we should be there at all.



Yeah, but, after Pearl Harbor, Hitler foolishly declared war on us. He
had hoped the Japanese would start another front with the Soviet Union.
They didn't. While it's true there were plenty of isolationists, Pearl
Harbor changed all that, and I would strongly suspect while Kasserine was
discouraging, Americans were still supportive of the war effort.



I'm sure they were. But I'm talking relative dropoff in approval.

According to Rasmussen, Bush's poll numbers are almost exactly where they
were pre-9/11 and only slightly lower than they were pre-election 2004.


Most Americans supported going into Iraq as well. But Americans are
fickle
and impatient. A little bad news goes a long way in shaking the resolve
of a good portion of our country.

To a degree, but I suspect the slow realization that it wasn't about WMD,
or bin Laden, or . . . plays a large part. When the cause is just, I
don't underestimate America's will, but to this day, no one in this
administration has come clean about the true reasons for this war.


A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American
security. Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to
other nations.

NOYB, even in the unlikely chance that a Civil War was contained inside
Iraq's borders, have you considered what it would do to the price of a
barrel of oil? Civil War means this administration has failed, and the
next administration will have to put the pieces back together. It also
means 2,000 young Americans have died in vain. That's unacceptable.

Instability in Iraq isn't going to affect the price of oil as long as some
semblance of stability remains in Saudi Arabia. I believe the true purpose
of our going into Iraq was to permanently station troops in the Middle East
on the borders of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia...so that we didn't need to
leave our troops in Saudi Arabia.