Political Topics And Discussion > Disapproval of Bush at high point

Grizzly

Jun 28 2005, 06:58 AM

Don't worry though! He is coming on TV tonight to explain why so many Americans dislikes his performance!

QUOTE ( CNN)

(CNN) -- The number of Americans disapproving of President Bush's job performance has risen to the highest level of his presidency, according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

According to the poll, 53 percent of respondents said they disapproved of Bush's performance, compared to 45 percent who approved.

The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The 53 percent figure was the highest disapproval rating recorded in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll since Bush became president in January 2001.

The approval percentage -- 45 percent -- matches a low point set in late March. The 8-point gap between those who disapproved and approved was the largest recorded during Bush's tenure...

CNN

dixon76710

Jun 28 2005, 07:04 AM

Almost as low as Clintons 43% approval in 93. MARK

QUOTE (Grizzly @ Jun 28 2005, 06:58 AM)

Don't worry though! He is coming on TV tonight to explain why so many Americans dislikes his performance!

QUOTE ( CNN)

(CNN) -- The number of Americans disapproving of President Bush's job performance has risen to the highest level of his presidency, according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

According to the poll, 53 percent of respondents said they disapproved of Bush's performance, compared to 45 percent who approved.

The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The 53 percent figure was the highest disapproval rating recorded in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll since Bush became president in January 2001.

The approval percentage -- 45 percent -- matches a low point set in late March. The 8-point gap between those who disapproved and approved was the largest recorded during Bush's tenure...

CNN

Thaiquila

Jun 28 2005, 07:40 AM

BS from you as usual, SKID MARK.
Just reported on CNN.
bush approval rating the LOWEST of any president in modern history during the FIRST YEAR of the SECOND TERM.

They hate him, they reallyhate him. DEAL WITH IT, brown shirt.

It is clear to me they hate him because his actions have NOTHING TO DO with the issues everyday Americans really care about.

I smell a realignment in congress in 06.

dixon76710

Jun 28 2005, 07:49 AM

What s the queen going on about now. Its not bs, its a fact. Bush's current approval rating is " Almost as low as Clintons 43% approval in 93." You have nothing to contradict the assertion other than your own hysterical rantings. Nothing from CNN disputes this fact. MARK

QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 28 2005, 07:40 AM)

BS from you as usual, SKID MARK.
Just reported on CNN.
bush approval rating the LOWEST of any president in modern history during the FIRST YEAR of the SECOND TERM.

They hate him, they reallyhate him. DEAL WITH IT, brown shirt.

It is clear to me they hate him because his actions have NOTHING TO DO with the issues everyday Americans really care about.

I smell a realignment in congress in 06.

Roadster

Jun 28 2005, 08:04 AM

Clinton's alleged approval rating has nothing to do with the present debacle. That was then and this is now. This is no longer an issue about liberals, conservatives, Republicans or Democrats. This is about the massive deceit and incompetence of the Bush gang of thugs and their war crimes. Bush is a lying sack of $hit, and you can bet there will be more of the same load of crap in tonight's speech from that ignorant, arrogant liar in chief. It's time to make these low-life scumbags, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld accountable for crimes against humanity. Impeach the crooked ba$tards.

Thaiquila

Jun 28 2005, 08:05 AM

Did you read the sentence, Skiddy?

bush approval rating the LOWEST of any president in modern history during the FIRST YEAR of the SECOND TERM.

dixon76710

Jun 28 2005, 08:22 AM

Yes I did you ignorat fool. Did you read MY sentence that you labeled as BS? You're to ignorant to even figure out that there is no contradiction between your statement and mine. just your usual rants that what someone has said is "BS" without even a trace of evidence to back up your sillty assertion. Your total lack of intelligence integrity, honesty or any trace of charachter is nauseating. MARK

QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 28 2005, 08:05 AM)

Did you read the sentence, Skiddy?

bush approval rating the LOWEST of any president in modern history during the FIRST YEAR of the SECOND TERM.

Thaiquila

Jun 28 2005, 08:39 AM

QUOTE (dixon76710 @ Jun 28 2005, 03:22 PM)

Yes I did you ignorat fool. Did you read MY sentence that you labeled as BS? You're to ignorant to even figure out that there is no contradiction between your statement and mine. just your usual rants that what someone has said is "BS" without even a trace of evidence to back up your sillty assertion. Your total lack of intelligence integrity, honesty or any trace of charachter is nauseating. MARK

Skiddy, cheap personal attacks notwithstanding, it appears you have some kind of literalist BRAIN DISORDER.

You have failed to respond to the core of my assertion.
Remember, your hero bush was recently reelected.
They tried to paint this as some sort of GRAND MANDATE.
And yet here we are, a few short months after the event, and the so called mandated one has approval numbers the LOWEST OF ANY PRESIDENT IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THEIR SECOND TERM in modern history.

Get it now, pumpkin?

Grizzly

Jun 28 2005, 09:02 AM

I have a good idea on what he is going to discuss.

But I can't wait until the reporters starts to ask him questions -- thats when the fun really starts!

dixon76710

Jun 28 2005, 09:57 AM

Yes I have responded to the core of your assertion. You said "BS from you as usual" in response to my single sentence, "Almost as low as Clintons 43% approval in 93."
Your just trying to change the topic because you KNOW the core of your assertion is pure Bull Shiite, and mine is 100% accurate. Youve not presented ANYTHING to indicate otherwise. MARK

QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 28 2005, 08:39 AM)

Skiddy, cheap personal attacks notwithstanding, it appears you have some kind of literalist BRAIN DISORDER.

You have failed to respond to the core of my assertion.
Remember, your hero bush was recently reelected.
They tried to paint this as some sort of GRAND MANDATE.
And yet here we are, a few short months after the event, and the so called mandated one has approval numbers the LOWEST OF ANY PRESIDENT IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THEIR SECOND TERM in modern history.

Get it now, pumpkin?

Thaiquila

Jun 28 2005, 09:59 AM

Yes, but Clinton was higher in the FIRST YEAR of his SECOND TERM.
OK now?

dixon76710

Jun 28 2005, 10:38 AM

And just WHAT THE HELL does Clintons approval rating in 97 have to do with his approval rating in 93, other than a topic used to avoid his 93 approval. COME ON YOU SPINELESS PIECE OF ######! You claimed my simple assertion "Almost as low as Clintons 43% approval in 93" was "BS" . Youve presented nothing to back up your assertion and have merely triied to avoid it. You lie thru your teeth and at the same time accuse others of spouting BS. When asked to back up your assertion, you dodge and move onto another. Put up or shut up. Your personal hysterics hold no weight. Lets see anything published that shows my statement to be BS. I can provide 100s of cites to Clintons 43% approval rating showing that it is fact, and you, maddam are the one full of BS. You reside in a deep dark void of integrity, morality or semmingly, any redeeming human qualities. You and your kind disgust me. MARK

QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 28 2005, 09:59 AM)

Yes, but Clinton was higher in the FIRST YEAR of his SECOND TERM.
OK now?

Thaiquila

Jun 28 2005, 04:40 PM

Ditto scumbug. Your are clearly an insane man.

Phil

Jun 28 2005, 05:21 PM

C'mon guys. Lets clean it up. Please.

dixon76710

Jun 28 2005, 09:19 PM

QUOTE (Phil @ Jun 28 2005, 05:21 PM)

C'mon guys. Lets clean it up. Please.

Whatever you say IF he promises not to refer to me as "darling". MARK

Thaiquila

Jun 28 2005, 10:05 PM

Skiddy, no problem, sweet cheeks.
To clear things up, there is no contradiction. Yes, I see the lower Clinton number.
However, he didn't have that lower number in the FIRST YEAR of his SECOND TERM, Kay?

dixon76710

Jun 28 2005, 10:56 PM

SOOOOO where is the BS. I said ""Almost as low as Clintons 43% approval in 93" and you replied
"BS from you as usual, SKID MARK".
I didnt say anything about Clintons FIRST YEAR of his SECOND TERM, kay? I was very clear in my reference to 93.
Personally, I think when you cant respond to a post with anything rational, you spout off with crap like "BS from you as usual, SKID MARK" and then try to dodge the issue. MARK

QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 28 2005, 10:05 PM)

Skiddy, no problem, sweet cheeks.
To clear things up, there is no contradiction. Yes, I see the lower Clinton number.
However, he didn't have that lower number in the FIRST YEAR of his SECOND TERM, Kay?