GWB Approval Rating 4/24/06

POSTED BY: STDOUBT
UPDATED: Monday, April 7, 2025 04:26
VIEWED: 6755
PAGE 9 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 29, 2006 7:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
What's to respond to ? It's a moot point, Sig. Despite 15(?)million illegal aliens, hurricanes and disasters along the Gulf states,(along w/ knocked out oil drilling platforms and refineries) and military conflict in 2 different counries things are going damn well. Consumer confidence is up, the rate of growth is high ( 4.8 % ) and the unemployment is down.
Well, I wanted to make sure that these were the criteria you were using, not, say the Federal budget, balance of trade, manufacturing capacity, median wages, or total savings or any number of possible economic indicators. Because I was under the impression that when challenged to provide statistics you picked out positive indicators ... Which BTW were NOT the same as the ones you just cited earlier. Previously it was consumer confidence, consumer spending, and home sales ... just because they happened to be positive in the article that your eyes lit upon. Because when I lead you over a cliff in this dicussion you're not going to weasel out and decide that other indicators are more robust or meaningful. That's why!

So my first question is: which indicators do you REALLY want to discuss? The first set, or the second set?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

I merely added more to the list, so you could get a broader picture of just how good this economy is doing. You seem , by the post you leave, to think that in a ' good ' economy, EVERYTHING is going great, and in a 'bad' economy, NOTHING is going well. Guess what, there were folks who made more $$ during the great depression, even w/ the high unemployment.

And just how are other industrialized nations doing ? What about France? Germany ? How good is their economic situations? Unemployment ? China and India are booming, we know that from the oil situation, but what about the rest of Europe?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, April 29, 2006 8:28 PM

Razza,

Yeah, if Firefly had continued it would have been nice to see more of Monty. Of course, it would have been nice if Firefly continued. But what can you do. Fox.

Quote:
I’m afraid this argument still doesn’t hold any water in my opinion. Are you saying that given other more conservative choices, Sen. Hatch and other Republicans would still have chosen Ginsberg? If the answer is no, then I think it cannot be argued that she was their selection. What does it matter where Pres. Clinton heard of Judge Ginsberg from? The President made the selection bearing in mind the advice he received from all those he consulted. I agree that he made a very shrewd choice (what do you expect from one of the shrewdest politicians of all time?) and give credit where credit is due, but the choice or selection was his in the end, not Hatch’s or his fellow republicans. Pres. Clinton was acting in a statesmanlike manner by taking Sen. Hatch’s advice to heart and I think it was statesmanlike of Sen. Hatch to offer the advice in a constructive way. Cheers all around for statesmanship! (And there was much rejoicing...yeaaa!)

Ah. I see where we're talking past each other on this one. You're right in that the selection was Clinton's and Clinton's alone and my use of the word selection is inaccurate. How about one of these: Ginsburg was Clinton's "Republican pre-approved" selection; Ginsburg was Clinton's "Republican suggested" selection; Ginsburg was Clinton's "If I hadn't talked to Hatch there is a high probabily I wouldn't have made this" selection. Any of those maintain what I'm basically trying to get across (that there was Republican input into the decision making process, by the design of the President, that resulted in Ginsburg being nominated) while being more accurate in regards to who exactly was responsible for the selection. The reason why I think this is important is because it doesn't fit with the narrative that was presented by the GOP during the Alito confirmation hearings (and which was reproduced by AURaptor in their post). They were the ones who brought up the Ginsburg nomination as a similar situation. The main point of their narrative was that they, as the minority party, had to accept the President's nominee so the Democrats needed to do the same with Alito. What they neglected to mention with their narrative was that the Republicans were prepared to contest nominees that they felt were too liberal. They agreed to not contest Ginsburg because she was not as liberal as she could have been. In other words, the Ginsburg nomination was a compromise made by a President who didn't have to compromise. In the Alito case, you couldn't really get a much more conservative judge. He was not a compromise nominee. There was no input from the Democrats into his selection. So the situations were not similar at all. And for the GOP to bring up the Ginsburg nomination as an example that was similar to the Alito case, and especially as an example of them having to acquiesce to whoever the President chose, was disingenuous.

Quote:
In your post addressing Aruptor you stated,

Quote:
” According to Hatch, "there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side," to Bruce Babbitt”

You use this quote to support your contention that there were potential nominees that the GOP senators were prepared to fight tooth and nail over and damn the political consequences.

I notice that you left out the an important piece of Hatch’s statement which was in total,

Quote:
” I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.”

I think that fact that the Babbit would have had members of the President’s own party opposing him speaks volumes about how controversial a no

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, April 29, 2006 9:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

You are aware of the role that the Senate Judiciary Committee plays in the nomination process, aren't you? In two years, Hatch would become chairman of that committee. In this instance I'd put money on his claims over yours.
None of that in any way changes the substance of my post.

Which is that the GOP, "honored the idea that the President has the right to choose whom he wants to sit on the bench." during the Ginsburg nomination? And when I present evidence from a prominent Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee that doesn't support that claim you discount it. Okay, that's your story and you're sticking to it. Message received.

Quote:

Quote:
I see we're moving to a different field now. Okay. Because of your track record, forgive me if I'm wary of the accuracy of your claims. How about going through the transcript of that particular day of the Alito confirmation hearings and pulling out "factless" or "vitriol filled attacks"
My track record on accuracy is pretty damn good, thank you very much You not liking what I say doesn't discredit my record one bit. You want to go back and rehash over what's been documented? Why ? What purpose would it serve ? Why don't you go read it for yourself, and maybe you'll read some of what I'm talking about for the 1st time. I know what I heard and read during the process. Graham was HIGHLIGHTING what it was the Democrats had done. ( I knew you'd try to spin it that way, though. ) But the record is clear. Look at how the Left treated the likes of Alito, Roberts and all the way back to Thomas and even Bork. I challenge any one to find similar treatment in the interview portion of the vote by the GOP on a Democrat nominee.

You can't, because it simply hasn't happened. Not nearly to the same level of vitriol demonstrated by the Dems.

Actually, your precision has been pretty damn good. Accuracy, not so much. If I may step back and ponder for a bit, I have noticed that your positions and your statements are remarkably similiar to the GOP pundit positions in many areas (not all areas, IIRC you diverge from some of the positions that are influenced by the fundamentalist branch of the GOP - such as evolution). You are a reliable indicator of the official GOP message in many instances. And, like the GOP pundits, your position is invariant. Oftentimes that position can be distilled down to, "Democrats evil. Republicans good." The hatred that you have for the Democratic party is easily discernable. I get that. I even understand where you're coming from. I spent most of Clinton's Presidency listening to right-wing radio so I know what it's like to hate Democrats and parrot vitriol against them. I've been there. However, your hatred of the Democrats might be preventing you from being able to discuss rationally most political topics. Just a thought. And this idea that Democrats are hate-filled and spew vitriol might actually be projection on your part.

During the run-up to the election I was on Ken Mehlman's e-mail list (basically, the one that goes out to millions of people) so I was aware of the particular talking points that the Republican party was pushing on any particular day. And, like the GOP pundits, you rarely failed to disappoint in your adherence to those talking points. As such, my main goal in engaging with you is to see if you will ever back away from a GOP talking point, once you have put it out there. Now I probably haven't done a good job of giving you a reason to back away from a talking point. And I put that down to my own deficiencies in making a compelling argument. But I'd like to think that you were receptive. However, I'm starting to get the feeling that nothing I could write, or any evidence that I could bring up, would sway you from the GOP talking points that you have embraced. And, if that is the case, I completely understand because I've been there before. As far as Clinton and the Democrats were concerned there was nothing t

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 29, 2006 10:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen - you're so full of your self worth and politically correct crap that you can't stand to be shown where you're wrong.

Your so full of your own over inflated ego and hatred of anyone not you, you can't stand to be wrong. Which is whenever you open your vacuous hole, BTW

.

I also find it funny that you consider the idea of not hating and discriminating against an entire people based on religion is PC crap. Very telling...

Quote:
Instead of backing up your claim, you only make more absurd replies and hope everyone else forgets the oh so important point that you have no basis for your charges.

Oh I'm sorry sweet heart, did you miss it? You say all Muslims are evil terrorists, based on the actions of a very small minority. That's basically what bigotry and religiousism is, honey.

If you judge people based on what colour their skin is, that is racism.

If you judge people based on what religion they have, that is religiousism.

Quote:
I'm not a racist now, but I'm a Nazi? Boy, that's a good one. Too bad it's been used to death for the past 50 years by the Left wing nuts who whine like spoiled brats when they've beaten in any discussion.

Oh honey, I never said you were a Nazi, but you seem to jump on that pretty quick, guilty conscience? Maybe a little mistake with the extra curricula groups one joined during one's college days perhaps?

Indignant attempts to gain moral supiriority they aren't entitled too, the stock reserve of the far right when they're inevitably beaten in an argument.

Quote:
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing, you keep talkin! Amazing.

Funny, just when I've heard the stupidest thing a human being can possibly say, you turn up.

I assume you're laywers ring you when something stupid has been said, since you have the patent an' all

.

Quote:
There are not 'forms of racism', you dink.

No, there are of course forms of rationalisation you doughnut. Now what you’re doing is confusing the rationalisation with the crime, so to speak. Racism is where one judges a person or group based on race. You said racism is where one assumes a race is inferior due to genetics, that's a rationalisation, you dipstick

.

Religiousism is where one judges a person or group based on religion. Now you've said, quite openly on these forums that all Muslims are terrorists. So you're judging all Muslims to be terrorists, because they're Muslim, which means you discriminate against people based on Religion, which means you are a... anyone... that's right a religiousist bigot.

Quote:
I'm not one of them, but you keep on throwing names out like 'racist, nazi' if it makes you feel any better. Lord knows, it's all you have.

I have plenty in my life. You however sound like a very sad lonely and angry little individual. How's that working out for ya?

So, you sound like a racist (except you discriminate on religion rather than race) so what is the logical conclusion to take from this?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 30, 2006 12:45 AM

Quote:

I also find it funny that you consider the idea of not hating and discriminating against an entire people based on religion is PC crap

Well, it is P.C. crap. Thinking that every one is equally wonderful, and that not one group is any less than all the rest. Sorry pal, but terrorist are less than human. End of discussion.

Quote:
Oh I'm sorry sweet heart, did you miss it? You say all Muslims are evil terrorists, based on the actions of a very small minority. That's basically what bigotry and religiousism is, honey.

First of all, I never said that. I only raised the point that not too many Muslims seem to be up in arms about their brothers murdering men, women and children via suicide bombs, etc...We've already had this discussion, why are we still going over it? Oh, I know... you have nothing else but to accuse me of things which I'm not. Now I remember.

Second of all, remember that thinly veiled reference I made about you being gay? Your choice of wrods like 'sweet heart, honey' might have been where I got that from. ( not that there's anything wrong w/that

) *** This marks the point where citizen will call me homophobic, or some such nonsense ***

Quote:
Indignant attempts to gain moral supiriority they aren't entitled too, the stock reserve of the far right when they're inevitably beaten in an argument

Moral superiority was gained long ago, and it had nothing to do w/ any 'entitlement'. You support terrorist's rights, I don't.

Quote:
So, you sound like a racist (except you discriminate on religion rather than race) so what is the logical conclusion to take from this?

Conclusion? citizen is a pin head who doesn't know the difference between racism and religiousism ( new word of the day ), and simply makes up what ever charge makes him feel good at the time to 'win' his argument.

Most of your post was nothing more than repeating of your old post, petty ad hominems,and a lie or two added for effect. Time to move on.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Sunday, April 30, 2006 1:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
First of all, I never said that.

This is simply amazing! You've insinuated it in this VERY post. Right here:

Quote:
Well, it is P.C. crap. Thinking that every one is equally wonderful, and that not one group is any less than all the rest. Sorry pal, but terrorist are less than human. End of discussion.

I say Muslim, you hear terrorist. One can only think that in your mind Muslim == Terrorist.
Here's another:

Quote:
Now, the rest of us, Non muslims and *some* muslims alike, aren't too keen on the idea of seeing our neighbors, friends and family blown up in a subway station, seeing their heads sawed off by masked thugs as the video tape rolls, or watch as airliners are flown into sky scrapers.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=19577&m=281728#281728
Some Muslims, clearly indicating the minority, clearly indicating that the majority of Muslims are evil terrorists...

Quote:
Second of all, remember that thinly veiled reference I made about you being gay? Your choice of wrods like 'sweet heart, honey' might have been where I got that from.

Oh sweet pea, it's nothing to do with me being gay, you seem to be really flogging THAT dead horse.

When my three year-old god-daughter acts out and I'm trying to teach her not to that's how I speak to her. Simply put, if you want to act and talk like a three year old little girl, spitting you dummy and throwing your toys out of the pram and such, well frankly dear, I'm going to speak to you like one.

Quote:
*** This marks the point where citizen will call me homophobic, or some such nonsense ***

Well if you insist I can drag out some childish immature innuendo regarding your sexuality too. Let’s see, how about:
You really DO like flogging those dead horses don’t you…

Quote:
Moral superiority was gained long ago, and it had nothing to do w/ any 'entitlement'. You support terrorist's rights, I don't.

Even if you ever had it you lost it the moment you accused me of being a terrorist and a terrorist supporter.

Quote:
Conclusion? citizen is a pin head who doesn't know the difference between racism and religiousism ( new word of the day ), and simply makes up what ever charge makes him feel good at the time to 'win' his argument.

Religiousism is actually in the dictionary, not a new word at all

.

As for the rest, well I've backed up my accusations, as per usual all you've done is mouth off

.

Quote:
Most of your post was nothing more than repeating of your old post, petty ad hominems,and a lie or two added for effect.

Well I wasn't going to say anything but people do have to repeat themselves several times when talking to you, and you still don't get it. Thick skull syndrome? Undoubtedly.

Quote:
Time to move on.

Don't let me stop you. I'm still waiting for that picture you promised you'd draw for me with your crayons; I've cleared a space on the fridge, now be a good little boy and run along.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 30, 2006 3:28 AM

citizen,
I finally see your problem. You see only what you want, and then make up what ever the hell you feel like to fill in the rest. That explains it all. I've been wasting time dealing w/ an imbecile.

G'day.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Sunday, April 30, 2006 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen,
I finally see your problem. You see only what you want, and then make up what ever the hell you feel like to fill in the rest. That explains it all. I've been wasting time dealing w/ an imbecile.

G'day.

AURaptor:
Right that's it young man! I've had just about as much of you're lip as I'm going to take! If you're going to act like a child you'll damn well be treated like one!

You sit yourself down on the naughty thread and you think about your behaviour, one minute for every year of your mental age!

Now when those three minutes are up you can come back and appologise.

Then you can tell me again how it's only wrong to judge people based on religion if someone else does it

.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 30, 2006 12:06 PM

citizen -

I'm sorry. Sorry that you're such a petty little wanker who is far too deluded to get past your own silly false preconceptions to have any sort of meaningful, coherent and mature dicsussion.

It is a shame.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Sunday, April 30, 2006 12:36 PM

I'm supporting the majority view my friend, your supporting you own twisted reality.

I mean I've had plenty meaningful coherent discussions with people here. You haven't had a meaningful discussion with anyone.

This is the short and tall of it.

Just about everyone here ignores you, just like most ignore PirateNews. I've had personal messages before now saying things like "thanks for replying to that idiot, I can't be bothered anymore" from more than one person. I suppose that won't tell you anything, you won't listen to reality even if it turns up and slaps you around the face with you're ignorant jumped up bigoted little comments. You just still don't get it.

I've tried humour, I've tried politeness, I've tried logic, I've tried confrontation, I've tried making you angry (which is whenever someone steps up with an opinion counter to yours) and you still don't get it.

You're right, it is a shame.

One day one can only hope that you wake up and stop blaming Liberals and Muslims for all your problems. That you'll stop blaming me and everyone else here for the inevitable flame war and personal insults that get thrown around whenever you post, but I really do doubt it.

I do wonder if you have the mental capacity.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE