Citing the response to Hurricane Katrina and the Soaring gas Prices, the "AP-Ipsos Poll" has ranked Bush's approval rating at 39%.
I have no problem posting Anti-Bush, and republican stories.
Heres the thing though, who the hell is the AP-Ipsos? Is this some Newly founded poll that someone thats anti-Bush just pulled out of there rear?
Okay, now when i think of polls especially ones where the margin of error is nearly astronomical, i think of AP-Ipsos! of course..
But the bell ringing Demon-crats will say Look! look! i told you so. Face it, this will be just another ploy by some Liberals to further blame Bush for the Hurricane Efforts.
Totally forgetting the now $60+ Billion being spent ot releif efforts...
Which i might add is more then the Afghan and Iraq wars combined...
Whats next? Protests on Washington about food deleiveries?
Anything is possible when you suffer from the mental disorder known as Liberalism.
Okay, for those of you ready to jump on my ass about me not knowing who AP is, i know exactly who AP is, thats not the point of what im talking about Above, the point im trying to make is that just because theres "AP" in front of the poll... DOESNT mean a thing.
Anyone can call the AP and make a poll up, and thats what im talking about.
This Iposis or whoever is some agency in news gathering that i have never heard of, And im a Journalism Minor in College, so i have some background in the field.
Mike, An Ap-Iposis poll has been used continously since late 2003, so therefore it's an accurate poll.
Furthermore, it's dropped to 42% in a Time poll, and 38% in a Newsweek poll. In a zigboy poll, its at 41%. You can't argue with that, three polls all very close to eachother.
And mike, Iposis has been around for a while, so I'm surprised you've never heard of them, I do remember hearing about them in a news article some time ago.
And the fact is, the President is almost always blamed for what happens while he is in office. The president is often blamed for the economy, gas prices, domestic and foreign affairs, etc.
The same process was applied to Clinton, when something would go wrong, his approval rating would drop.
Just face it Mike, America doesn't like the job that Bush is doing. Simple as that. There is nowhere else to put the blame...
I'm pretty sure George W. Bush didn't inherit the presidency.
While he, like most Republicans and Democrats, has screwed up a lot of things, not everything is his fault. There have been much worse natural disasters throughout the history of the world. This is nothing new.
kahmooza wrote:This drop in approval rating is long overdue. The public amazes me sometimes...he covers up 9/11, lies about reasons to go to war, tries to strip away civil rights, pushes chirstianity on everybody, only cares about oil profits, frequently yanks cabinet members then replaces them (apparently without checking their background i.e. FEMA chairman), accomplished getting the whole world to hate us so we can't even travel abroad anymore without getting harrassed...I could go on and on...
...and it takes a natural disaster which he actually didn't cause (unless you count raising pollution levels to cause these storms like I do) to FINALLY wake people up. I don't get it? The last president did wonders for our country but got impeached for sleeping with his intern.
I can't even fathom what else can happen when he has three years left and doesn't have to worry about re-election. I think from now on we shouldn't allow father/son presidencies anymore. Thats called a monarchy and it scares me.
You almost made me piss myself laughing so hard about such crap you have spewed from your mouth, Where did you learn it from Aero?
First of all.... Hurricane Katrina was not caused by Global Warming, As any bipartisan committee out there and they will tell you the same thing, Fact Check #1
Secondly, In order for any president to make a cabinet appointment, that appointment MUST be approved by Congress... So actually when you go off saying Bush didnt do a background check, your basically saying that congress didnt do the background checks also?
Third, In Iraq, America has given back the civil rights that the Saddam Dictatorship squashed all together.. Since when is Kids going back to school and some womens rights bad things?
Fourth, You say that Bush has raised pollution levels? HOW? I know the 5+ million SUVs on the roads of America today where all purchased by Bush... Right and John Kerry now runs Greenpeace am I right?
Fifth, Bill Clinton did not get impeached for sleeping with his intern, he was impeached for Lying about it, Fack Check #2.
Before you open your mouth and spew out crap, learn your facts first. And this isnt the first time you've told things on this forum that where your incorrect interpretation.
Bush HAS increased pollution levels. Check the EPA Clean Air guidelines from 2000-2005. They have been signifcantly laxed for big factories and even automobiles.
Bush is a diasaster to the environment.
Mike I notice how you failed to mention the war in Iraq issues, or civil rights, or anything related to oil.
I actually mentioned two of those in one statement
Third, In Iraq, America has given back the civil rights that the Saddam Dictatorship squashed all together.. Since when is Kids going back to school and some womens rights bad things?
Galvan316 wrote:Third, In Iraq, America has given back the civil rights that the Saddam Dictatorship squashed all together.. Since when is Kids going back to school and some womens rights bad things?
But was it worth all the Casulties we suffered. We didn't invade to give those people rights, we invaded to get Sadam and his WMD program (which never existed).
If we care so much about giving people rights, why don't we invade Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, North Korea, much of Sub Sahara and Northern Africa...There are billions of people who don't have equal rights in this world (even here in America). Why don't we fight for them?
Let me explain the origin of this scientific disagreement [Global Warming]. There are two kinds of scientists. Let's assume for the moment that both of them are honest. In the first group there are quite a few who argue as follows:
They say "Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing." It is. Second, they say, "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas." It is. They then say, "Because carbon dioxide is on the increase and it is a greenhouse gas, therefore the climate must be warming. The [mathematical] models support this assumption," they say, "and the models show the climate is warming; therefore evidence that goes contrary to this we will ignore. We will only look at supporting evidence."
Last edited by Do I Know You on September 11th, 2005, 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And every one of those articles are written in left wing biased papers, and magazines. There has been no proof what so ever on global warming. If it is, well then I guess Andrew was caused by global warming, which mean Clinton had a hand in that as well. It always amazes me. If Gore, or Kerry was in office, would this global warming thing be a concern? No. I guarentee it.
Particulate matter (PM) air quality has been improving, both for PM 2.5 and PM 10. Levels of fine particles in 2003 were the lowest they have been since nationwide monitoring began in 1999. The improved air quality can be attributed to EPA’s Acid Rain Program, along with other programs that reduce emissions contributing to fine particle formation.
Ozone levels across the nation were down substantially in 2003. The improved air quality resulted from favorable weather conditions and continuing reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) – the pollutants that combine in the summer heat to form ozone.
You know, the polls are absolutly crap. They don't mean a thing.
When the AP did their poll, they only interviewed 1,002 People.
So, I guess that 1,002 People represent the views of Millions.
They only represent 3.3% of the country. This is totally bogus.
Plus these polls can be manipulated.
I'm not going to allow them to represent my opinion on how
Bush is doing. The only way to get an accurate poll, is to
interview ALL adults in the US.
Other than that, these polls mean absolutly nothing.
"The world of politics is filled with uncivilized, snarling, rapacious beasts that, like untrained mutts, raise their legs and urinate on everything we hold dear," - Michael Savage
The polls aren't designed to be 100% accurate. You're right, they'd have to interview every adult in the US. But if they interview 1000 people, and 850 think something, it's obvious one side is winning. And chances are very high that it's going to be same for the rest of the population.
and the Soaring gas Prices, the "AP-Ipsos Poll" has ranked Bush's approval rating at 39%.
