Bush's approval rating hits a staggering 57%

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
Just wait a couple weeks. You can't pick and choose approval ratings after big events. That's like saying after the Republican Convention, DAMN... Bush's approval rating is so high. Maybe everything they're saying is true after all! Honestly, he would get my approval if he'd just shut up and not do all the things he's saying he would do.
 

whistleclient

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2001
2,700
1
71
Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14839

Guess the Iraq vote helped people change their opinion of the Iraq war, seeing as it was a huge success. Maybe Bush was right after all?


A momentary bump in the ratings and suddenly he was "right after all"? We all enjoyed the images of Iraqis voting. I fear as soon as the results are announced the disenfranchised Sunnis will have a reason to rebel again and it'll be back to business as usual.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14839

Guess the Iraq vote helped people change their opinion of the Iraq war, seeing as it was a huge success. Maybe Bush was right after all?


A momentary bump in the ratings and suddenly he was "right after all"? We all enjoyed the images of Iraqis voting. I fear as soon as the results are announced the disenfranchised Sunnis will have a reason to rebel again and it'll be back to business as usual.

There's that liberal negativety I was looking for.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14839

Guess the Iraq vote helped people change their opinion of the Iraq war, seeing as it was a huge success. Maybe Bush was right after all?


A momentary bump in the ratings and suddenly he was "right after all"? We all enjoyed the images of Iraqis voting. I fear as soon as the results are announced the disenfranchised Sunnis will have a reason to rebel again and it'll be back to business as usual.

There's that liberal negativety I was looking for.

So you are admitting that this was a flame/troll thread?

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14839

Guess the Iraq vote helped people change their opinion of the Iraq war, seeing as it was a huge success. Maybe Bush was right after all?


A momentary bump in the ratings and suddenly he was "right after all"? We all enjoyed the images of Iraqis voting. I fear as soon as the results are announced the disenfranchised Sunnis will have a reason to rebel again and it'll be back to business as usual.
There's that liberal negativety I was looking for.
No it was the comment you were looking for so you could denigrate Liberals once again. You are no different than those whom you label Liberal Trolls except you got your money on a different horse than they do.

Now if you were actually interested in an honest discussion instead of a reason to flame you would have countered his statement with a statement of your own explaining why you think he's wrong.



 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: raildogg
lol I love how some of you people are outright dismissing his bump in approval ratings simply because they're in his favor and not in yours.

Remember a few weeks back when he had 50% approval you were all predicting doom and gloom for Bush?

Phonies.

Links?
You guys have short term memories:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1471498&enterthread=y

That thread could just as easily have been labeled a troll as well, but those participating in it apparently didn't see it that way.

Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14839

Guess the Iraq vote helped people change their opinion of the Iraq war, seeing as it was a huge success. Maybe Bush was right after all?


A momentary bump in the ratings and suddenly he was "right after all"? We all enjoyed the images of Iraqis voting. I fear as soon as the results are announced the disenfranchised Sunnis will have a reason to rebel again and it'll be back to business as usual.
A momentary decline in the ratings didn't stop some from implying Bush was wrong after all. If the side you're on is going to dish it out, be prepared to take it when opinions change.

That said, both threads were little more than flamebaits/trolls.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: raildogg
lol I love how some of you people are outright dismissing his bump in approval ratings simply because they're in his favor and not in yours.

Remember a few weeks back when he had 50% approval you were all predicting doom and gloom for Bush?

Phonies.

Links?
You guys have short term memories:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1471498&enterthread=y

That thread could just as easily have been labeled a troll as well, but those participating in it apparently didn't see it that way.

Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14839

Guess the Iraq vote helped people change their opinion of the Iraq war, seeing as it was a huge success. Maybe Bush was right after all?


A momentary bump in the ratings and suddenly he was "right after all"? We all enjoyed the images of Iraqis voting. I fear as soon as the results are announced the disenfranchised Sunnis will have a reason to rebel again and it'll be back to business as usual.
A momentary decline in the ratings didn't stop some from implying Bush was wrong after all. If the side you're on is going to dish it out, be prepared to take it when opinions change.

That said, both threads were little more than flamebaits/trolls.
Nice try but I fail to see how you can label my thread a Flamebait or Troll. All I did was post a link to an article and left it open for discussion. I didn't even post an opinion as I wanted to see how those who favored Bush would respond and when they did I didn't insult them. In fact the only insult I posted in that thread was aimed at Dave for posting his typical nonsensical BullSh!t. As an OP I am only responsible for what I post, not what others post. I wasn't looking to insult other for any valid opinions they had unlike the OP of this thread.

 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Clinton was at 62% (the highest yet) just prior to his 2nd inauguration:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/01/16/poll.clinton/
It was at 60% right after this 1997 SotU address
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/02/03/sotu.poll/
And at 62% on the same date Bush was hitting 57%
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/02/08/clinton.approval/

Would you purchase a product rated anything lower then say 85%...a pretty dismal state of affairs when the Presidents and candidates of at least the last 15 years have not done much to inspire us with their vision for America.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Clinton was at 62% (the highest yet) just prior to his 2nd inauguration:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/01/16/poll.clinton/
It was at 60% right after this 1997 SotU address
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/02/03/sotu.poll/
And at 62% on the same date Bush was hitting 57%
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/02/08/clinton.approval/

Would you purchase a product rated anything lower then say 85%...a pretty dismal state of affairs when the Presidents and candidates of at least the last 15 years have not done much to inspire us with their vision for America.
I'd take a nearly 2/3 favorable rating. Considering the polarity of this nation, politically speaking, anything above 60% is pretty good.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: raildogg
lol I love how some of you people are outright dismissing his bump in approval ratings simply because they're in his favor and not in yours.

Remember a few weeks back when he had 50% approval you were all predicting doom and gloom for Bush?

Phonies.

Links?
You guys have short term memories:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1471498&enterthread=y

That thread could just as easily have been labeled a troll as well, but those participating in it apparently didn't see it that way.

Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14839

Guess the Iraq vote helped people change their opinion of the Iraq war, seeing as it was a huge success. Maybe Bush was right after all?


A momentary bump in the ratings and suddenly he was "right after all"? We all enjoyed the images of Iraqis voting. I fear as soon as the results are announced the disenfranchised Sunnis will have a reason to rebel again and it'll be back to business as usual.
A momentary decline in the ratings didn't stop some from implying Bush was wrong after all. If the side you're on is going to dish it out, be prepared to take it when opinions change.

That said, both threads were little more than flamebaits/trolls.
Nice try but I fail to see how you can label my thread a Flamebait or Troll. All I did was post a link to an article and left it open for discussion. I didn't even post an opinion as I wanted to see how those who favored Bush would respond and when they did I didn't insult them. In fact the only insult I posted in that thread was aimed at Dave for posting his typical nonsensical BullSh!t. As an OP I am only responsible for what I post, not what others post. I wasn't looking to insult other for any valid opinions they had unlike the OP of this thread.
Nice try as well. I'm fairly confident that you understand the tendencies in this forum pretty well. Posting these kinds of threads never bring about anything in the way of any meaningfull discussion and tend to do little more than lure the trolls out from under their bridges. If you're not aware of that fact then you're not as smart as I believed you to be.

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: raildogg
lol I love how some of you people are outright dismissing his bump in approval ratings simply because they're in his favor and not in yours.

Remember a few weeks back when he had 50% approval you were all predicting doom and gloom for Bush?

Phonies.

Links?
You guys have short term memories:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1471498&enterthread=y

That thread could just as easily have been labeled a troll as well, but those participating in it apparently didn't see it that way.

Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14839

Guess the Iraq vote helped people change their opinion of the Iraq war, seeing as it was a huge success. Maybe Bush was right after all?


A momentary bump in the ratings and suddenly he was "right after all"? We all enjoyed the images of Iraqis voting. I fear as soon as the results are announced the disenfranchised Sunnis will have a reason to rebel again and it'll be back to business as usual.
A momentary decline in the ratings didn't stop some from implying Bush was wrong after all. If the side you're on is going to dish it out, be prepared to take it when opinions change.

That said, both threads were little more than flamebaits/trolls.
Nice try but I fail to see how you can label my thread a Flamebait or Troll. All I did was post a link to an article and left it open for discussion. I didn't even post an opinion as I wanted to see how those who favored Bush would respond and when they did I didn't insult them. In fact the only insult I posted in that thread was aimed at Dave for posting his typical nonsensical BullSh!t. As an OP I am only responsible for what I post, not what others post. I wasn't looking to insult other for any valid opinions they had unlike the OP of this thread.
Nice try as well. I'm fairly confident that you understand the tendencies in this forum pretty well. Posting these kinds of threads never bring about anything in the way of any meaningfull discussion and tend to do little more than lure the trolls out from under their bridges. If you're not aware of that fact then you're not as smart as I believed you to be.
Oh I'm aware of it, in fact I'm aware that any topic posted in this forum will bring out the Flamers from both sides.The difference between my thread and this one is I didn't post mine with the intent of insulting anybody with a valid opinion whether I agreed with them or not.
 

whistleclient

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2001
2,700
1
71
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

A momentary decline in the ratings didn't stop some from implying Bush was wrong after all. If the side you're on is going to dish it out, be prepared to take it when opinions change.


Actually, I don't base my opinions on ratings. Most people, it seems, have short term memories about such things as "WMDs" and "finding Osama dead or alive". It's actually a pretty brilliant move that they've revised history to the point that people are convinced liberating the Iraqi people is why we went in there in the first place. Of course those people never stop to ask "why Iraq?" How about all those dictatorships in Africa? Or, I don't know, Saudi Arabia?... Where large portion of the 9/11 terrorists were from. The irony is that democracy alone won't stop terrorism. We should've learned that from Oklahoma.




 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Originally posted by: kogase
A staggering 57 percent? That's pretty close to 50%. Come back when his approval rating is 80% before you use the adjective "staggering".


It is staggering as it's should be 0%. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

A momentary decline in the ratings didn't stop some from implying Bush was wrong after all. If the side you're on is going to dish it out, be prepared to take it when opinions change.


Actually, I don't base my opinions on ratings. Most people, it seems, have short term memories about such things as "WMDs" and "finding Osama dead or alive". It's actually a pretty brilliant move that they've revised history to the point that people are convinced liberating the Iraqi people is why we went in there in the first place. Of course those people never stop to ask "why Iraq?" How about all those dictatorships in Africa? Or, I don't know, Saudi Arabia?... Where large portion of the 9/11 terrorists were from. The irony is that democracy alone won't stop terrorism. We should've learned that from Oklahoma.
Our foray into the ME is not designed to eradicate terrorism. It's designed to weaken it and reduce it drastically. Terrorism will never disappear because there will always be fruitcakes looking for any excuse to be destructive.

As far as the historical revisionism, got any proof that people are convinced the US went into Itaq only for liberation purposes? The revisionism I've seen comes from the left in the insistent claim that WMDs was the ONLY reason given by the admin, when that's not true at all.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

As far as the historical revisionism, got any proof that people are convinced the US went into Itaq only for liberation purposes? The revisionism I've seen comes from the left in the insistent claim that WMDs was the ONLY reason given by the admin, when that's not true at all.
WMD's were used as the selling point by this Administration to invade Iraq. Without scare tactics of Iraq's WMD's the Dub and his Administration wouldn't have been able to convince the American Public to support his ill advised and ill prepared excellent adventure into Iraq.

Trust me, back then the American Public couldn't have given a flying fsck whether the Iraqi's were free of Saddam of not as they were still pissed at Arabs in general over 9/11.
 

whistleclient

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2001
2,700
1
71
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

A momentary decline in the ratings didn't stop some from implying Bush was wrong after all. If the side you're on is going to dish it out, be prepared to take it when opinions change.


Actually, I don't base my opinions on ratings. Most people, it seems, have short term memories about such things as "WMDs" and "finding Osama dead or alive". It's actually a pretty brilliant move that they've revised history to the point that people are convinced liberating the Iraqi people is why we went in there in the first place. Of course those people never stop to ask "why Iraq?" How about all those dictatorships in Africa? Or, I don't know, Saudi Arabia?... Where large portion of the 9/11 terrorists were from. The irony is that democracy alone won't stop terrorism. We should've learned that from Oklahoma.
Our foray into the ME is not designed to eradicate terrorism. It's designed to weaken it and reduce it drastically. Terrorism will never disappear because there will always be fruitcakes looking for any excuse to be destructive.

As far as the historical revisionism, got any proof that people are convinced the US went into Itaq only for liberation purposes? The revisionism I've seen comes from the left in the insistent claim that WMDs was the ONLY reason given by the admin, when that's not true at all.


Oh, really? It's designed to eradicate terrorism? 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Why not there? The single greatest act of terrorism in our nation's history... and we invade the nation next door?

They sold the war to the American people on WMDs. You know it. I know it. Dogs know it. Flip flop all you want: I know you have to believe that so that the life of your son isn't in danger for nothing.

 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Originally posted by: kogase
A staggering 57 percent? That's pretty close to 50%. Come back when his approval rating is 80% before you use the adjective "staggering".


It is staggering as it's should be 0%. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

Haha, calling American people stupid because they vote for a leader who says what he means and means what he says. They obviously voted for the better candidate, just like they voted for the better candidate back in 1992.

The American people always make a wise decision. Its sad sore losers can't stand the fact that their person isn't in office
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

A momentary decline in the ratings didn't stop some from implying Bush was wrong after all. If the side you're on is going to dish it out, be prepared to take it when opinions change.


Actually, I don't base my opinions on ratings. Most people, it seems, have short term memories about such things as "WMDs" and "finding Osama dead or alive". It's actually a pretty brilliant move that they've revised history to the point that people are convinced liberating the Iraqi people is why we went in there in the first place. Of course those people never stop to ask "why Iraq?" How about all those dictatorships in Africa? Or, I don't know, Saudi Arabia?... Where large portion of the 9/11 terrorists were from. The irony is that democracy alone won't stop terrorism. We should've learned that from Oklahoma.
Our foray into the ME is not designed to eradicate terrorism. It's designed to weaken it and reduce it drastically. Terrorism will never disappear because there will always be fruitcakes looking for any excuse to be destructive.

As far as the historical revisionism, got any proof that people are convinced the US went into Itaq only for liberation purposes? The revisionism I've seen comes from the left in the insistent claim that WMDs was the ONLY reason given by the admin, when that's not true at all.


Oh, really? It's designed to eradicate terrorism? 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Why not there? The single greatest act of terrorism in our nation's history... and we invade the nation next door?
It's NOT designed to eradicate terrorism, it's designed to reduce it. You can't eliminate terrorism, just like having the best schools in the world wouldn't eliminate ignorance. It might help reduce it though.

As far SA, how can anyone ask that question with a straight face? Invade SA and throw the economy of the entire world into chaos? Well that would be real smart. So how do we keep an eye an SA without invading them? We invade Iraq and plop our butt down right next door, and we get a bonus of being able to introduce the democratic process into the ME and rid ourselves of a constant thorn in oyur side since the early 90s.

They sold the war to the American people on WMDs. You know it. I know it. Dogs know it. Flip flop all you want: I know you have to believe that so that the life of your son isn't in danger for nothing.
They sold this war publicly using many reasons, WMDs being the primary one. But since they were wrong about WMDs, some people want to pretend it was the only reason given when that is nowhere near the truth.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They sold this war publicly using many reasons, WMDs being the primary one. But since they were wrong about WMDs, some people want to pretend it was the only reason given when that is nowhere near the truth.
It's the only reason the Dub and his Administration got approval for the invasion of Iraq and they knew it. That's why their argument for the Invasion of Iraq centered on WMD's.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They sold this war publicly using many reasons, WMDs being the primary one. But since they were wrong about WMDs, some people want to pretend it was the only reason given when that is nowhere near the truth.
It's the only reason the Dub and his Administration got approval for the invasion of Iraq and they knew it. That's why their argument for the Invasion of Iraq centered on WMD's.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! TLC's denial knows no end!
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They sold this war publicly using many reasons, WMDs being the primary one. But since they were wrong about WMDs, some people want to pretend it was the only reason given when that is nowhere near the truth.
It's the only reason the Dub and his Administration got approval for the invasion of Iraq and they knew it. That's why their argument for the Invasion of Iraq centered on WMD's.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! TLC's denial knows no end!
Your denial on this subject was already demonstrated in the other thread yesterday, conjur, where it was demonstrated precisely what Powell said and which is not what you claim.

Keep up the hardy-har-harring though. It makes you look so smart. :roll:

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They sold this war publicly using many reasons, WMDs being the primary one. But since they were wrong about WMDs, some people want to pretend it was the only reason given when that is nowhere near the truth.
It's the only reason the Dub and his Administration got approval for the invasion of Iraq and they knew it. That's why their argument for the Invasion of Iraq centered on WMD's.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! TLC's denial knows no end!
Your denial on this subject was already demonstrated in the other thread yesterday, conjur, where it was demonstrated precisely what Powell said and which is not what you claim.

Keep up the hardy-har-harring though. It makes you look so smart. :roll:
Nice shot man.:roll: That still doesn't refute what most say that without the supposed thread of WMD's the Dub never would have gotten the support of the American Public to invade Iraq.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They sold this war publicly using many reasons, WMDs being the primary one. But since they were wrong about WMDs, some people want to pretend it was the only reason given when that is nowhere near the truth.
It's the only reason the Dub and his Administration got approval for the invasion of Iraq and they knew it. That's why their argument for the Invasion of Iraq centered on WMD's.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! TLC's denial knows no end!
Your denial on this subject was already demonstrated in the other thread yesterday, conjur, where it was demonstrated precisely what Powell said and which is not what you claim.

Keep up the hardy-har-harring though. It makes you look so smart. :roll:
See what I mean?
 

whistleclient

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2001
2,700
1
71
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They sold this war publicly using many reasons, WMDs being the primary one. But since they were wrong about WMDs, some people want to pretend it was the only reason given when that is nowhere near the truth.
It's the only reason the Dub and his Administration got approval for the invasion of Iraq and they knew it. That's why their argument for the Invasion of Iraq centered on WMD's.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! TLC's denial knows no end!

Seriously. In other threads TLC is the first to throw around "fear mongering" insults. Too bad he doesn't recognize it when he sees it.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They sold this war publicly using many reasons, WMDs being the primary one. But since they were wrong about WMDs, some people want to pretend it was the only reason given when that is nowhere near the truth.
It's the only reason the Dub and his Administration got approval for the invasion of Iraq and they knew it. That's why their argument for the Invasion of Iraq centered on WMD's.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! TLC's denial knows no end!
Seriously. In other threads TLC is the first to throw around "fear mongering" insults. Too bad he doesn't recognize it when he sees it.
But it wouldn't suit his agenda (whatever that is)