Can Bush bounce back?

[RichardNixon]

the difference between us and you is you, have already been proven to be wrong.
Losing sucks and brings out the worst in people.

Right...like there were WMD's in Iraq, huh?

Proven wrong.....? ?

I'd actually say, given his approval rating, you'd have a hard time making that case with any sort of legitamacy.? We lost the election, yes.? I'd say, so far, the proof is in the pudding, my friend.

As for losing bringing out the worst in people...you've evidence that quite nicely over the last few days.

We lost one election to Bush.

[SLCPUNK]

We lost one election to Bush.

The world lost on that election day........

[RichardNixon]

For all this talk about spreading democracy in the Middle East...We can't even have it in the USA. Bush came to power illegitimately, the Supreme Court and Jeb Bush really fucked the world up the ass.

[D]

I dont really think Polls are accurate at all though, I mean how many on this board have been called up and asked their response?

No one has polled me on Bush, so how is the rating even accurate to begin with?


out of the number they polled maybe the majority were left wingers? 

[D]

Since oil has went down Bush climbed back to 42 percent today, so he is on his way back up.

[pilferk]

I dont really think Polls are accurate at all though, I mean how many on this board have been called up and asked their response?

No one has polled me on Bush, so how is the rating even accurate to begin with?


out of the number they polled maybe the majority were left wingers??

Polls are random samplings, different every week, of a size that is considered to be statistically and scientifically representative.  Some are random samplings of registered voters, some not.  To make the argument that a real random sampling, week after week, with different participants would be made up of more liberals than conservatives isn't really statistically valid.

Polls are certainly not the end all/be all of information.  But you shouldn't discount continued polling showing VERY similiar numbers over a pretty long period of time.  You can argue, compellingly, about week to week "blips", but the overall trend is tough to discount.

[shades]

Polls are certainly not the end all/be all of information.?

Especially "exit" polls

[pilferk]

Especially "exit" polls

Absolutely true, and pretty much what I said.  Because exit polls are a "blip", not a continuing trend.  In addition, exit polls aren't a trully random sampling.  They're effected by both the people choosing (who visually see the people and pick them out of the crowd of exiting voters) and over what actual time frame the exit poll is conducted (studies have shown that particular types of people, like seniors or working professionals vote in higher numbers during particular time frames).

[Booker Floyd]

I dont really think Polls are accurate at all though, I mean how many on this board have been called up and asked their response?

 

Well, youve destroyed your own arguments:

Still yet he had a lower rating than Bush, so Its fair to say Bush is better than Carter.

Jimmy Carter was the polar opposite of Bush and had lower ratings than Bush.

Maybe this blatant double standard suggests that youre stuck on Bush too hard and "unable to see the forest for the trees."

[SLCPUNK]

I dont really think Polls are accurate at all though, I mean how many on this board have been called up and asked their response?

 

Well, youve destroyed your own arguments:

Still yet he had a lower rating than Bush, so Its fair to say Bush is better than Carter.

Jimmy Carter was the polar opposite of Bush and had lower ratings than Bush.

Maybe this blatant double standard suggests that youre stuck on Bush too hard and "unable to see the forest for the trees."

He also failed to mention it was a FOX POLL that showed Bush's numbers going up. 

What a load..........

[pilferk]

He also failed to mention it was a FOX POLL that showed Bush's numbers going up.?

What a load..........

To be fair, the poll is conducted by an outside independant agency...and has run neck and neck with the Newsweek poll for weeks.

[SLCPUNK]

He also failed to mention it was a FOX POLL that showed Bush's numbers going up. 

What a load..........

To be fair, the poll is conducted by an outside independant agency...and has run neck and neck with the Newsweek poll for weeks.

I saw it listed on Fox as a "Fox poll".

I guess the numbers are inclined to go up after a speech.

But anytime I see "Fox" in front of something I grow leery quick.

[pilferk]

I saw it listed on Fox as a "Fox poll".

I guess the numbers are inclined to go up after a speech.

But anytime I see "Fox" in front of something I grow leery quick.

Heh...me too.  That's actually WHY I know it's conducted by and independant company (Opinons Research, or something like that) and has been running neck and neck with the Newsweek poll.  I checked, yesterday, when he brought it up.

[D]

See SLC and Pilferk there u all go again.

Its Ok if some Left Wing site runs a poll that shows Bush negatively, U guys jump on that and report it as FACT.

But if another organization runs a poll that shows Bush a tad more favorable, its automatically bullshit.

U have to see the hypocrisy in that.

[Booker Floyd]

Its Ok if some Left Wing site runs a poll that shows Bush negatively, U guys jump on that and report it as FACT.

What left-wing site are you referring to?

But if another organization runs a poll that shows Bush a tad more favorable, its automatically bullshit.

Its not "another organization," its FOX News...and I dont think either called it "bullshit" - in fact, Pilferk defended its apparent legitimacy.? Again, a lack of reason.

U have to see the hypocrisy in that.

Would you like to comment on your own hypocrisy?

[SLCPUNK]

See SLC and Pilferk there u all go again.

Its Ok if some Left Wing site runs a poll that shows Bush negatively, U guys jump on that and report it as FACT.

But if another organization runs a poll that shows Bush a tad more favorable, its automatically bullshit.

U have to see the hypocrisy in that.

Again, know your facts about the posters before you go spouting off bullshit about them.

I don't post polls coming from "liberal sites". I post poll results coming from polling groups that are well known and used by all groups.

In fact he corrected me and said that it was a polling group independent of Fox. I assumed it was a Fox run poll, because on their website it read "FOX poll", which would lead me to believe they were not being honest, since often times they are not. Pilferk read a bit longer then I did (my bad) and saw that their poll was based on anothers work, independent of Fox. So I stand corrected via Pilferk.

You are talking about something totally different, and we are waiting to see the "liberal polls" and your answer to Bookers question(s) in the meantime.

[D]

What questions has he asked??

A poll comes on the news u guys believe it automatically.  The same poll comes on and read everyone of the left wing posts on here, automatically its bullshit just cause FoxNews Reported it.


I just love how extreme left wing zealots condemn and bad mouth everything that isnt their view. Just like Bill O Reilly, he is called Liberal by some,Conservative by some but he criticizes Bush every single night on his show over something.

Just because he sticks it to Left Wingers who arent held accountable anywhere else, he gets perceived to be right wing when I think he is the closest thing to middle of the road on TV.

Arguing with Booker is pointless, he is a left wing zealot like most of u on this board and u guys dont even take the time to try and see any other point of view, so why waste hours to post something that isnt gonna even be comprehended anyway?

I got better things to do with my time then to try and post some sense into people who are mere feet away from having a cult mentality.

Facts are these.

I know SLC, that u are a big fan of moveon.org, they are an extreme left wing website true or not? But yet u believe and take them as fact.

If Moveon.org posted that Bush's rating was 30 percent, it would be on this board in about 5 seconds.

But just cause something is on Fox it immediately is not valid info.

U cant argue with people with that kind of logic; its impossible.

[SLCPUNK]

What questions has he asked??

You don?t' read.

A poll comes on the news u guys believe it automatically.  The same poll comes on and read everyone of the left wing posts on here, automatically its bullshit just cause FoxNews Reported it.

Fox lies all the time, it has been proven again and again. What else do you want? Of course I am going to not believe Fox...they lie.

I just love how extreme left wing zealots condemn and bad mouth everything that isnt their view. Just like Bill O Reilly, he is called Liberal by some,Conservative by some but he criticizes Bush every single night on his show over something.

I just love how you throw names out like you are some sort of intellectual . Your knowledge of international politics is about well rounded as mine on sports. Fact is you don't  know the difference between a baathist and a bathtub.

Arguing with Booker is pointless, he is a left wing zealot like most of u on this board and u guys dont even take the time to try and see any other point of view, so why waste hours to post something that isnt gonna even be comprehended anyway?

So instead of owning up to you contradicting yourself, you call names instead. Wow, what a big surprise, just like your hero Bill O'reilly. Waste hours huh? Why not answer the question? He called your on your double talk, now you come back and say "you don't have time" and call names.

Facts are these.

I know SLC, that u are a big fan of moveon.org, they are an extreme left wing website true or not? But yet u believe and take them as fact.

If Moveon.org posted that Bush's rating was 30 percent, it would be on this board in about 5 seconds.

But just cause something is on Fox it immediately is not valid info.

U cant argue with people with that kind of logic; its impossible.

What kind of "fact" is that?

You build me up to some imaginary scenario and then say "if this happened, I know this would be true"...it's a fact.

Fact is, you are full of hot air. Run along and watch some O'reilly, so he can tell you how the big bad liberal wolf is at your door.

You using the word logic is an oxymoron.

EDIT to add: I do not know where you get that I am a "big fan" of moveon.org. I rarely read that site at all. Although I know you love to create things so you can tear them down, this is simply not the case. And rest assured, if I did read that site, and held it to be the truth, I'd be using it all the time here. But I do not.

Now...go round up those "liberal polls" and answer bookers questions, or shut up.

[Sakib]

too many forces against him and the fact he's not even benefitted anyone or anything around him will make it a huge leap for him to bounce back

[pilferk]

See SLC and Pilferk there u all go again.

Its Ok if some Left Wing site runs a poll that shows Bush negatively, U guys jump on that and report it as FACT.

But if another organization runs a poll that shows Bush a tad more favorable, its automatically bullshit.

U have to see the hypocrisy in that.

Uh...no...read what I wrote again.

I said it wasn't a "Fox" poll.  It was run by an independant agency, comissioned by Fox.  When I saw Fox attached to it, bells and whistles went off becausae, lets face it, no one can make the argument that Fox is remotely unbiased.  Hell, Rupert even calls a spade, a spade.  So I looked into it...as I would look into a poll and methodology run by "moveon.org".

And if you think Newsweek is a Left Wing site......you got another thing coming, my friend.