State of The Union

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fenian_Bastard
  • Start date Start date
Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

F

Fenian_Bastard

Guest
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBushApproval060815State.htm

What's a bigger surprise, that he's down to 39 percent in Kansas or that he's up to 33 percent in Massachusetts?
 
Or is the biggest surprise is another negative Bush thread?

Oh, wait, none there...
 
markvid said:
Or is the biggest surprise is another negative Bush thread?

Oh, wait, none there...

Feel free to start a positive Bush thread.

Creative writing class starts at 4:00.
 
JR said:
markvid said:
Or is the biggest surprise is another negative Bush thread?

Oh, wait, none there...

Feel free to start a positive Bush thread.

Creative writing class starts at 4:00.

Obviously, a class you've mastered, considering your posts here.
 
Wow. Lyman's back with more witty repartee.
 
Lyman_Bostock said:
JR said:
markvid said:
Or is the biggest surprise is another negative Bush thread?

Oh, wait, none there...

Feel free to start a positive Bush thread.

Creative writing class starts at 4:00.

Obviously, a class you've mastered, considering your posts here.

Ignore the guy, Lyman. He's not only unAmerican, he's unCanadian. A mere rabble rouser. I've started a list of all the great things George Bush has done as president:

1. Didn't rush blindly into any unwarranted action on 9-11.
2. Kept the tax cuts

Feel free to add.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
Fenian - you do realize that poll numbers mean squat to Bush? Its not like he has to run again.

Why not mention that his poll numbers at this point in his second term are similar to Harry Truman (and we know how history has treated Truman).
 
What's with the obsession with Bush's approval ratings? I've never understood it.

People in this country can't even balance a checkbook, maintain a savings account, or, in many cases, read at better than a fourth grade level. Yet these people can judge, from month to month, the job that the President is doing? And who even cares?
 
poindexter said:
What's with the obsession with Bush's approval ratings? I've never understood it.

People in this country can't even balance a checkbook, maintain a savings account, or, in many cases, read at better than a fourth grade level. Yet these people can judge, from month to month, the job that the President is doing? And who even cares?

Who cares what kind of job the president of the United States does? Hmmmm. Not the president, evidently. But a whole bunch of other people.
 
I care what job the President is doing. I could not care less what Joe Sixpack in Wyoming thinks.
 
Ace said:
Ignore the guy, Lyman. He's not only unAmerican, he's unCanadian. A mere rabble rouser. I've started a list on all the great things George Bush has done as president:

1. Didn't rush blindly into any unwarranted action on 9-11.
2. Kept the tax cuts

Feel free to add.

I don't hate Bush. I actually voted for him. And I want reasons to like him. So I don't post this in a state of idealogical hatred or blind hysteria...

I'm all for low taxes, as any fiscal conservative is. But tax cuts are incredibly dumb policy when your administration is spending like a drunken sailor, as Bush's has been.
The budget deficit last year totaled $319 billion, the third largest deficit on record. Sadly, that was an improvement from the record $413 billion in red ink in 2004.

The CBO just put out a revised forecast for the Federal deficit for the current fiscal year, which shows that despite the fact that the deficit spending continues to reduce, we are still going to be $260 billion in the hole for the year. With the way we are spending, the CBO estimates s $1.76 trillion deficit over the next decade, and a deficit twice that if Congress makes the Bush tax cuts permanent, as the administration would like.

Tax cuts in a vacuum sound like a great thing. But running deficits that large bodes badly for our economy. I actually believe in supply-side economics, but there are diminishing returns from repeated tax cuts. We are probably past the point at which lower taxes are spurring any significant investment. Whether you agree with that or not, it's clear that we are spending way too much and not bringing enough in. If we are going to spend a ton on wars, fighting terrorism, providing natural disaster relief and funding entitlement programs, I'd rather do the fiscally responsible thing and actually pay for them. So I don't agree with the second point on your list.
 
The Big Ragu said:
Ace said:
Ignore the guy, Lyman. He's not only unAmerican, he's unCanadian. A mere rabble rouser. I've started a list on all the great things George Bush has done as president:

1. Didn't rush blindly into any unwarranted action on 9-11.
2. Kept the tax cuts

Feel free to add.

I don't hate Bush. I actually voted for him. And I want reasons to like him. So I don't post this in a state of idealogical hatred or blind hysteria...

I'm all for low taxes, as any fiscal conservative is. But tax cuts are incredibly dumb policy when your administration is spending like a drunken sailor, as Bush's has been.
The budget deficit last year totaled $319 billion, the third largest deficit on record. Sadly, that was an improvement from the record $413 billion in red ink in 2004.

The CBO just put out a revised forecast for the Federal deficit for the current fiscal year, which shows that despite the fact that the deficit spending continues to reduce, we are still going to be $260 billion in the hole for the year. With the way we are spending, the CBO estimates s $1.76 trillion deficit over the next decade, and a deficit twice that if Congress makes the Bush tax cuts permanent, as the administration would like.

Tax cuts in a vacuum sound like a great thing. But running deficits that large bodes badly for our economy. I actually believe in supply-side economics, but there are diminishing returns from repeated tax cuts. We are probably past the point at which lower taxes are spurring any significant investment. Whether you agree with that or not, it's clear that we are spending way too much and not bringing enough in. If we are going to spend a ton on wars, fighting terrorism, providing natural disaster relief and funding entitlement programs, I'd rather do the fiscally responsible thing and actually pay for them. So I don't agree with the second point on your list.

To be fair, Bush didn't start spending like a drunken sailor until after the tax cuts.
 
The Big Ragu said:
Ace said:
Ignore the guy, Lyman. He's not only unAmerican, he's unCanadian. A mere rabble rouser. I've started a list on all the great things George Bush has done as president:

1. Didn't rush blindly into any unwarranted action on 9-11.
2. Kept the tax cuts

Feel free to add.

I don't hate Bush. I actually voted for him. And I want reasons to like him. So I don't post this in a state of idealogical hatred or blind hysteria...

I'm all for low taxes, as any fiscal conservative is. But tax cuts are incredibly dumb policy when your administration is spending like a drunken sailor, as Bush's has been.
The budget deficit last year totaled $319 billion, the third largest deficit on record. Sadly, that was an improvement from the record $413 billion in red ink in 2004.

The CBO just put out a revised forecast for the Federal deficit for the current fiscal year, which shows that despite the fact that the deficit spending continues to reduce, we are still going to be $260 billion in the hole for the year. With the way we are spending, the CBO estimates s $1.76 trillion deficit over the next decade, and a deficit twice that if Congress makes the Bush tax cuts permanent, as the administration would like.

Tax cuts in a vacuum sound like a great thing. But running deficits that large bodes badly for our economy. I actually believe in supply-side economics, but there are diminishing returns from repeated tax cuts. We are probably past the point at which lower taxes are spurring any significant investment. Whether you agree with that or not, it's clear that we are spending way too much and not bringing enough in. If we are going to spend a ton on wars, fighting terrorism, providing natural disaster relief and funding entitlement programs, I'd rather do the fiscally responsible thing and actually pay for them. So I don't agree with the second point on your list.

It's absolutely ridiculous how we spend and just hide the bill under the rug for future generations.
 
So how much does a "drunken sailor" actually spend?

I only ask that because in this incredibly polarized country, that is the one adjective that everyone always uses. Everyone.
 
BTExpress said:
So how much does a "drunken sailor" actually spend?

I only ask that because in this incredibly polarized country, that is the one adjective that everyone always uses. Everyone.

And does said sailor really want to "**** the ****" out of some girl?
 
poindexter said:
People in this country can't even balance a checkbook, maintain a savings account, or, in many cases, read at better than a fourth grade level.    Yet these people can judge, from month to month, the job that the President is doing?  And who even cares?
These same people get to vote.

Which is why Bush was elected in the first place.
 
JR said:
poindexter said:
People in this country can't even balance a checkbook, maintain a savings account, or, in many cases, read at better than a fourth grade level. Yet these people can judge, from month to month, the job that the President is doing? And who even cares?
These same people get to vote.

Which is why Bush was elected in the first place.

I guess we need a queen, just like Canada. Or maybe a benevolent dictatorship. Jeez, the unwashed masses are too stupid to govern themselves, aren't they?
 
JR said:
poindexter said:
People in this country can't even balance a checkbook, maintain a savings account, or, in many cases, read at better than a fourth grade level. Yet these people can judge, from month to month, the job that the President is doing? And who even cares?
These same people get to vote.

Which is why Bush was elected in the first place.

They aren't voting for Bush again, which makes his approval numbers in August, 2006 pretty irrelevant.

Unless Bush's handlers are plotting to change the 22nd Amendment.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top