RE: Bush approval is 29%....Congress down to 23%

RE: Bush approval is 29%....Congress down to 23% (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Bush approval is 29%....Congress down to 23% (6/16/2007 5:28:35 PM)
well, chappie, I don't think the brits learned a goddam thing either, knowing first hand how tangled a web it is to start making deals tribe by tribe, religion by religion, infedel by infedel, instead of picking one allegiance and slaughtering the rest into submission they are back in the soup with us. So, let's not call any brand of national motherfucker enlightened here. Ron

philosophy -> RE: Bush approval is 29%....Congress down to 23% (6/16/2007 5:33:35 PM)
...ah Ronnie, you may well be right in that many of all nationalities do not learn from history, indeed those who seek to gain power seem particulary unable to grasp the concept......but individuals from all countries can learn from it......and many of those lurk amongst these august fora....[:)]

mnottertail -> RE: Bush approval is 29%....Congress down to 23% (6/16/2007 5:36:15 PM)
I conceed your point. Ron

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Bush approval is 29%....Congress down to 23% (6/17/2007 3:19:22 AM)
Never said per head. I said more money. The US is actually the lowest if you look at a percentage of GNP. Not propaganda, just my own research. People can complain about the percent of GNP being low, but remember that foreign aid is given by governments and charity is given by the people. Why don't you research the charity side and report with your findings. I stand by my claims. Here is one site I have used in the past. See you expect me to be just a pro American cheerleader, but I am not turning a blind eye to things we have done wrong, I see with both eyes, so I am not blind to things we have helped with. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp From now on, do your own research if you wish to refute my claims, because I assure you I will do my own research before I make claims. Mate. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf The amount of money given from American charities exceeds any other country. Wolf, I'll be honest, I think most of you are idiots. I'll say 15% of this board are decent people. I'll compare this with say 18% of the British. I think most people are lost regardless of country, but your lot are taking it to new heights. Look at your foreign policy. I'll take issue with your above comment, though. You've gotten it into your head that you're a charitable nation. To the rest of the world, this is hilarious. Can you provide a link to show that Americans per head charity exceeds any other country? Victim of propaganda, mate.

NorthernGent -> RE: Bush approval is 29%....Congress down to 23% (6/17/2007 4:52:30 AM)
Fair enough, Wolf. The idiots/board comment was a rash statement on my part. I meant 15% of the posters on political threads, although not stated clearly. You say you didn't say per head. Well, it's rather convenient to compare 300 million with say 50 million. In fact, it is no comparison where you don't count for relative factors such as population size. If you turn this into per head, then you arrive at a measure which is useful for comparison. Your statement that "Americans are the most charitable" can only be discussed in the context of population size. Otherwise, it's just not a serious comment, and if you're a reasonable person you'll concede this. When accounting for population size, your statement is nonsense. I've done my research and posted them on various threads on this board. I'm not going 'round the houses again. If you're genuinely interested, the information is on the interent to access: the individual American hands over far less of their personal wealth to others/foreign countries (and this is accounting for both government aid and private donations) than individuals in countries such as Britain, Germany, The Netherlands. There's little point playing the "do your own research" internet domination games with me because I'm not arsed about the drama. Your statement was nonsense. Plain and simple.

MissSCD -> RE: Bush approval is 29%....Congress down to 23% (6/17/2007 7:09:03 AM)
Why does that not suprise me any? Regards, MissSCD

luckydog1 -> RE: Bush approval is 29%....Congress down to 23% (6/17/2007 12:35:57 PM)
actually it depends on how you do the accounting. Take the Indonesian Tsunmai for example. The Tsunami was detected hours before it hit(because of Money America spent), the Indonesians were notified (again because we spent money)(unfortunatly they did not recieve the message and did nothing to warn the affected, but several other nations in the region did). Before the tsunami struck the US started getting ready to mave a battle group from the indian ocaen to the affected region(that alos cost money). Our Navy got there with in hours of the event, and began flying triage missions, before the shiops crossed the horizon. (more money spent). We brought in floating hospitals and water desalinators, and prevented the expected epidemics, saving perhaps a million people. We built the airstrips so that the other aid could get there from Europe and elsewhere(often more than a week later). But none of that gets counted as aid, it is all part of our Millitary budget. So if you play with the numbers you can certianly pretend America doesn't help out the world, but playing with numbers can give any desired result.

Zensee -> RE: Bush approval is 29%....Congress down to 23% (6/17/2007 1:14:29 PM)
Still waiting for an explanation of how a 71% disapproval rating is a cause for exaltation. Z.

luckydog1 -> RE: Bush approval is 29%....Congress down to 23% (6/17/2007 2:15:56 PM)
Zen, It is infact a 66% disaproval rating(5% are unsure), so the question you wait an answer for is based on a false premise. Who has exalted such numbers? They suck, but Bush isn't running for office again, so it matters little. Pelosi and Reid however very much want to remain in thier leadership/majority positions, and they have lower approval numbers (though they have a 13% unsure rating), at least according to the poll under discussion on these threads. What does it all mean....? I will make a bold prediction that it will be a turbulent surprising election in 08, and many groups that people count on in politics will not function as usuall.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Bush approval is 29%....Congress down to 23% (6/17/2007 4:36:37 PM)
The point is that it appears that the Democratic victory in 2006 was not based on ideas. The victory was based on divisions in the GOP and an anti-war movement. It appears the GOP is going through a purging process. The grassroots conservatives are trying to throw the neo-cons overboard. And in the process the Democrats end up winning by default and President Bush is getting hit with a buzzsaw and is losing power. Other than a half-dozen loyal Senators in the Senate, the GOP as a whole has all but abandoned Bush and the neo-conservatives. And if you break down the 2006 election...most of the Republicans that lost their seats hand their hands in one of the many scandals or was a textbook neo-conservative. And those people were replaced by moderate Democrats. This gave control of the Congress back to the Democrats but it is certainly not a liberal congress. Because so many of those Democrat seats are conservative districts, there is no way the House is going to be able to push a liberal agenda. Pelosi is getting a LOT of heat from the far-left and the bloggers for not pushing hard against Bush and the conservatives. But if she wants to hold the House for the Dems...she can't push that hard. Because if the House becomes too liberal, those moderate Democrats will lose their seats and the balance of power tilts right back to the GOP again.

caitlyn -> RE: Bush approval is 29%....Congress down to 23% (6/17/2007 5:12:24 PM)
I agree that the 2006 election was not based on much, past the "we aren't Bush" vote. Combine that with the way Congress has functioned since that election, and you get where we are today. On top of my list, is Harry Reid. I'm not big on talking down about our elected officials, but Harry Reid is just a walking, talking, bullshit machine. One of his first major talking points, was to tell us that the war is already lost ... nice talking point for a blogger on CollarMe, but not so intelligent a thing to say, if you are a Senator. He then told us that the troop increase wasn't working ... before a single troop had hit the ground in Iraq. This doesn't even get a one, on a fact-based scale of one-to-ten. The latest is to misquote David Petraeus, completely misrepresenting what the General said, and then insist that General Petraeus is out of tough with events in Bagdad, even though he is in Baghdad. Harry Reid is an aid and comfort to NeoCons everywhere. He destroys the left's ability to call the administration full of shit, by being twice as full himself. If I was a Republican running for President, I would throw all my money into getting Harry to campaign for me.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Bush approval is 29%....Congress down to 23% (6/18/2007 5:37:43 PM)
You make me laugh. reminds me of a begger that complains that they were not given butter on their bread. Also, the statistics out there are skewed, since any amount given to UNICEF, is not attributed to the US, but to the UN. So which country would be the one that gives the most money and support to the Red Cross over the last three decades? How much money has been given by US christian organizations to fund foreign charities, that do not report where exactly the money comes from? Is that money included? Of course it is not. So if I understand you, it is not that you have an issue with the amount of money, but that the US should give more per head? As a country the US gives more money, plain and simple. If you look at my posts on this board, you will see I often show pro's and con's of many situations, without regard to an agenda. In reading yours, it has the appearance of an agenda. I could be wrong of course, but likely not. Now use your brush and paint it as you wish. Though I was born and now live in the US, I was raised in Europe and the UK. With that said Northerngent, go piss up your rope somehwhere else, I don't buy your keg of vinegar. To the OP, Neo-cons were supported by Republican cheerleaders in the beginning. Now that they are identified as non-Cons, it seems a moderate Dem is a better choice than a non-Con. Orion Orion quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Fair enough, Wolf. The idiots/board comment was a rash statement on my part. I meant 15% of the posters on political threads, although not stated clearly. You say you didn't say per head. Well, it's rather convenient to compare 300 million with say 50 million. In fact, it is no comparison where you don't count for relative factors such as population size. If you turn this into per head, then you arrive at a measure which is useful for comparison. Your statement that "Americans are the most charitable" can only be discussed in the context of population size. Otherwise, it's just not a serious comment, and if you're a reasonable person you'll concede this. When accounting for population size, your statement is nonsense. I've done my research and posted them on various threads on this board. I'm not going 'round the houses again. If you're genuinely interested, the information is on the interent to access: the individual American hands over far less of their personal wealth to others/foreign countries (and this is accounting for both government aid and private donations) than individuals in countries such as Britain, Germany, The Netherlands. There's little point playing the "do your own research" internet domination games with me because I'm not arsed about the drama. Your statement was nonsense. Plain and simple.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625