28 percent.
By on Jan 22nd, 2007 at 11:39 pm
28 percent.
President Bush’s approval rating, yet another record low, according to CBS News. (Via Atrios)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Chipping away at the hard-core supporters. Good job, Chimpy.
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:42 pmHe’s still got 28%?!
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:42 pmC’mon, George! You can do it! Shoot for less than 20% like your partner in crime Dick(head) Cheney. We’re pulling for you. The only surge your likely to enjoy is the flushing sound of you swirling down the toilet bowl after the SOTU address.
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:44 pmFinally, Bush’s approval rating , IQ and blood alcohol content have converged.
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:48 pmAt long last, Bush has finally united America.
-GSD
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:52 pmya know, what amazes me about Bush is his 28%
ratings, he simply doesn’t care………..
he has carried out the mission he has been intended
to serve, certainly not the american people anymore.
just 3 short years ago i thought corruption was a rarity,
certainly after being educated… i’m fully aware corruption
is commonplace and it’s not all pledge alligance with all
the stars of red/white/blue
so with Bush at 28% what will the next presidential election
bring… serve the people as the democrats did with family
values of clinton… then the snake oil of NAFTA/CAFTA
however what is lacking here with the 28% is the damage
Bush created to the average american and of course he’ll
take us to the cleaners and go scott free :(
guess it’s time to open up the blinders :)
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:01 amAt long last, Bush has finally united America.
-GSD
Comment by GSD
And the light burns on =)
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:10 amwow, this is probably the only site left now that doesn’t have some funky delay with comments. Anyway, he’ll be in the teens before he leaves office.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:21 amOnly 4% more before he enters the history books as the most disliked and hated president in the history of the United States.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 amAnd this poll, if you want to call it that, was taken in Ted Kennedys district outside of a Starbucks. There was a bookstore club book signing a few doors down from Starbucks. Ted Kennedy spoke there.
Then they were all invited a few doors down for freee coffee and bagels. Including Ted and his ss entourage. Inside of the Starbucks is where the polling took place with Ted Kennedy standing there drinking a hot latte` probably spiked with scotch.
Guess who the guest speaker for this book signing was, none other than Ted Kennedy himself. Talk about biased polling.
This poll is flawed and thereby so is the [story (?)
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:43 amUh, yeah villified:
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:47 amThis poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,168 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone January 18-21, 2007. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. An oversample of African-Americans was also conducted for this poll, for a total of 221 interviews among this group. The results were then weighted in proportion to the racial composition of the adult population in the U.S. Census. The margin of error for African-Americans is plus or minus seven points.
This was taken straight off the CBS site
Now that W has clear cut Camp David and his “ranch” in Crawford, he may spend more time in DC – the cherry trees are in bloom there. GD global warming.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 amUmmm
No, it wasnt.
I was STANDING right there and excuse me YES it did take place just like I said it did.
This polling is flawed. It is a propaganda campaign from the left to villify George W. Bush and rub his nose into the Iraq war.
Sick game you Democrats play.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 amPolitics with peoples lives that is.
And this poll, if you want to call it that, was taken in Ted Kennedys district outside of a Starbucks. — Villified
Prove your insane statement, we don’t accept neocon zombie troll falsehoods here.
Links…..
I happened to read the link above.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:56 amDid you?
Didn’t think so….
Now that W has clear cut Camp David and his “ranch†in Crawford, he may spend more time in DC – the cherry trees are in bloom there. GD global warming.
Comment by WaltTheMan
Weather patterns ebb and tide. We are just having a milder than normal winter. Anyone ever read The Old Farmers Almanac around here? It explains it all.
No need to get all flustered with a myth like -global warming.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 amLet me guess. 1% are wealthy neocons and 27% are mouth breathers on the trailing edge of the intelligence curve that let Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson do their thinking for them.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:00 amI happened to read the link above.
Did you?
Didn’t think so….
Comment by Wayne
No need to read the link. It is a known falsehood and you people jump on the bandwagon like a bunch of gullible, desperate fools.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 amNow Who is villified do you think? They can never spell!
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:09 amNo need to read the link — villified
Your hero W doesn’t like to read either.
Very ironic.
You make a very good example of a 28 percenter for all to see. Thank you.
Keep showing us how intellectual you are. =)
I will sit here and laugh along with the other posters here.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:11 amNo need to get all flustered with a myth like -global warming.
Comment by villified
Global Warming? Whats that? Perhaps you are right, global warming is a myth. Perhaps thats why the scientific community calls Climate Change to the consequence of human activity that releases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Moron.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:23 amBefore I start with the list, I’d like to credit my motivation and much of the content of this article to a friend of mine named Will for starting the following conversation with me:
(02:54:39) Will: so we were thinking of this for a party next quarter
(02:54:46) Will: and i wanted to get a jew’s perspective
(02:55:02) Me: this should be good
(02:55:03) Will: what if we had “nazi partyâ€
(02:55:17) Will: would you be offended
(02:55:47) Me: no, but people would get really tired of hearing the “my grandfather got drunk and fell out of a guard tower†joke
Granted, I’m only half Jewish on my father’s side, which makes me technically not Jewish at all, but I’m still the most Jewish person he knows. Anyway, without further adieu, I give you:
1. The Nazi Party
Treat your drunk Nazi Party-goers to a blast from the past with “The Time Machine”!
Storm troopers handing out jungle juice, Eva Braun in a miniskirt doing a kegstand—what could be better? I can name a few things. For one, this is the one time per year your Hitler ‘stache will be in vogue. Also, ever had a party become so big the fire marshal stopped letting people in? Unleash the Blitzkrieg. Even if your troops are too drunk to take over another house, you can probably still get Poland to surrender with an angry phone call. Finally, with this theme comes the single greatest themed room of all time. Mess with the pipes a little bit, get an ounce of pot, and suddenly the showers become The Gas Chamber. If you’re SAE, you can even force a few pledges to tattoo stars of David on their arms and lie naked on the floor.
2. The Plantation Party
This one’s pretty simple: everybody has fun but the black people, who toil endlessly and thanklessly to entertain those of proud Caucasian heritage. Understandably, some groups will be afraid that this is discriminatory and offensive. If you share these worries, you can always throw the same party using pledges to do the work instead. Of course, then it’s just a [frat party.http://www.pointsincase.com/frat_guys_life.htm
3. The Prohibition Party
30’s attire is optional, but no liquor! If you’re clever, you’ll find some Mexican or Canadian friends outside the party and sneak alcohol in cleverly concealed in coffee (think of it as the 40-year-old’s Red Bull and vodka). Just remember, though, those men dressed in kooky 30’s police outfits are actually security guards, and if they catch you, they’ll throw you in the paddy wagon! Seriously, though, you’ll go to jail with an MIP.
4. The Toga Party
Just kidding! The toga party is actually a time-honored college tradition.
5. The AIDS Party
Rejected only because it seems offensive, this is actually the greatest party of all time. After all, the staples of the AIDS Party are unprotected sex and shared needles.
http://www.pointsincase.com/nathan/2006/02/red-ribbon-snippets.html
Even better, if you come dressed as and acting like an AIDS victim, before the end of the night you won’t even have to pretend to be infected anymore!
6. Golf Pros and Tennis Hoes
Seriously, this one just sucks.
7. The Green Party
This isn’t so much a party of its own as much as the act of stealing just enough hot girls and beer from what would otherwise be a successful party to ruin it. See, I can write political humor too.
8. The Darfur Party (or Janjaweed Bros and Zaghawa Hoes)
Girls, tonight the only costume you need is your anorexia (though I guess to be fair that’s pretty much been half your costume for every party in college). Slutty starving orphan
http://www.pointsincase.com/columns/david/10-29-06.htm
is the garb of the day, and if the line for the keg is too long, you can always start a jihad to take over the bar. Also, points to the people who manage to get a loudmouthed drunk to have sex with a camel.
9. The Katrina Party
This is actually a variation of the “Build the Bar†party. For those of you unfamiliar, the Build the Bar party requires each person to bring a handle of alcohol to build the bar. The variation here is that you have to acquire your alcohol by looting. Also, at any point, you’re allowed to yell “Hurricane!†and throw a bucket of water on someone. Of course, they’re also allowed to yell “Police helicopter!†and shoot you.
10. The Rejected Theme Themed Party
On the one hand, this could turn out brilliantly—slutty Eva Braun making out with sluttier orphans in The Gas Chamber. On the other hand, people could take the fun out of the night by choosing poor, offensive costumes, and God knows we wouldn’t want to end up with a Golf Pros and Tennis Hoes party. http://www.pointsincase.com/columns/simonne/10-24-04.htm
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:23 amVillified, you are one sick puppy, it’s not about you, you know that right?
Let’s move on guys…wasted space here
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:27 am*** A REMINDER ***
Important Note:
We will do everything we can to remove disruptive comments. But you need to play a role as well. When you see these kind of comments on the blog DO NOT RESPOND.
When you respond, you destroy the thread forever. Once we delete the offending comments the thread doesn’t make sense.
Instead, ignore the comments and report the person to us. We’ll take care of it as soon as we get the message.
As I indicated earlier, we are working on a technical fix for all of this. But it just can’t happen immediately. We are pushing to make it happen as fast as possible. But even with registration, people intent on disrupting the discussion won’t go away. How you react makes all the difference.
Thanks. And thanks for your patience.
Comment by Judd — January 21, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:31 am.
Look at the bright side. He’s still 4 points higher than Nixon’s lowest.
But then again, Bush is such a great orator, I’m sure he’ll get a terrific boost from his SOTU tomorrow night.
/sarc
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:34 amWith Dubya’s approval rating falling, don’t forget this:
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:39 amhttp://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm
“Bin Laden Proving Harder to Find than Laura’s Clitoris?” Wording to Stay in Tuesday’s State of the Union Address
In a development that has outraged conservative elements of Republican Party, the White House Press Office has confirmed leaked information that W. will indeed compare the hunt for Bin Laden to his own attempts to navigate Laura’s Bush.
In a development that has outraged conservative elements of Republican Party, the White House Press Office has confirmed leaked information that W. will indeed compare the hunt for Bin Laden to his own attempts to navigate Laura’s Bush.
When pressed to explain this radical shift in Republican messaging on the war on terror, Walter Duvall of the Press Office noted – “It is no longer good enough for the leader of our party to target specific elements of the population. It’s time for broader messaging, messaging that resonates with all members of our society be the male, female, poor, rich, old, young, Barry Manilow or George Michael fans.”
When asked for comment on the likely response from grassroots Republican supporters, Mr. Duvall went on to comment “In the run up to a critical election year, the leader of our party has an obligation to focus on the issues of the day. America today is a divided nation. The President wants to talk on Tuesday about the importance of helping people come together. I suspect some of our grassroots supporters understand that.”
Critics were further inflamed when sources leaked that an earlier version of the address contained the metaphor “The capture of Bin Laden will start a shockwave emanating from the Middle East that will send vibrations throughout the free world.” When questioned about the removal of the metaphor Duvall was characteristically blunt. “There is no documented proof that any Republican US President has ever worn a metaphor. Our position on that issue remains unchanged.”
Bush’s new tactics has left party members from across the aisle fumbling for the appropriate response. Former President Bill Clinton commented “I think the record clearly shows that was never an issue in my administration.” – A comment that resulted in Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton slapping her husband on the back of the head.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:40 amBush expects to get a bounce in his approval rating after he spews suger coated lies in his State of the Union speech. He knows at least 60% of Americans hate his guts, but at 28% he hopes to win back 10% to raise his approval to 38% and FOX News will do a phony poll to say he has 48% approval. His speech is just a game show, so I will not watch it!
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:43 amI posted an inccorect approval rating of 26% earlier tonight. The correct percentage is 28%; I did post the wrong figure.
I hope Bush is forced out of office. I don’t think he will be impeached, as much as I’d like to see that scenario happen. It’s already 2007, and time is running out. On the other hand, his ship is sinking fast, and his party is abandoning him in droves. If worse comes to worse, his party will force him out. They’re not going to let Bush drag them down to total defeat. No way!
I have the feeling a few wagons will begin to circle the White House in a couple of months. The troop escalation will be a total failure.
SURGE AHEAD WAGONS.
Hillary’s looking mighty good.
John
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:48 amWell you keep being amazed that these poll results mean nothing to the only person who matters then, while ThinkProgress brings you the next 30 poll results this month.
Or better yet, decide what infuence these poll results could/should have, watch that not happen just like it didn’t the previous 7500 times polls were published, then see if the amazement doesn’t wear off at some point.
And they call GWB slow. Sheeesh.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:54 amIncoherent and irrelevant comments destroy threads here forever ?
So how many undestroyed threads have your regulars produced in the past 2 years ? They broke into double figures yet ?
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:00 amVillified, these polls are taken all over the country. Bush has even gotten members of his own party against him.
Bush has so many people against him because of this stupid and senseless unjust war that he has gotten us into. If Bush had any sense about him he would end this war and bring all remaining troops home. But, he won’t because he wants to prove that he can save the world, and he can’t.
I would also like to add that this saying, “Well, if we leave Iraq now, the terrorists will follow us over here.” That is nonsense. The Iraqi resistance are not terrorists. They are freedom fighters fighting to free Iraq from U.S. imperialism and occupation. They have no reason to come to the U.S. to attack us. They just want their country back.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:09 amAnd they call GWB slow. Sheeesh.
Comment by Kilo
They call??? Are you living in a cave? He IS slow, no matter how we call him. Also, idiot, stupid, stubborn, illiterate, incompetent, obnoxious and a puppet of Cheney, George Bush, Wolfowitz, Negroponte et al.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:12 amReally ? Then I guess I can thank you lot for the troop escalation, the continued lack of an exit strategy, the reaffirmation of the commitment to domestic wiretapping without oversight, continued disconnection from diplomatic efforts with foreign governments… etc… etc… etc.
Either that or you’re kidding yourself and nobody else.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:18 amYour timing could not possibly be worse. Literally.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:22 amal Qaeda in Iraq sought US student visas for US attacks
No, his ship is about where it has been for quite a while…
All polls, not just one selective one
In fact given that ThinkProgress’ last report was that his approval rating was at 33% and most of the polls in the last 2 weeks have him above that, you could say his ship is improving.
Of course you’d only say that to point out that selectively quoting only abnormally low poll numbers differing from most is an exercise in distortion… but you’d be correct none the less.
Kind of sad actually that ThinkProgress needs to do this. It’s like exaggerating the times of sprinters in the 100m of the special olympics. How lame are you if you need to handicap the handicapped ?
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:37 amLol Kilo > who is going to give Iraqis student visas to come to the US? Only way that can happen is if Bush allows them to come here.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:41 amKilo, I saw that on the corporate owned media, CNN today and I did not believe it. They will not come over here if we leave Iraq.
No one wants their country occupied by a foreign army. That is why they are fighting. If the U.S. would leave, then the fighting would stop.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:46 amI remember when I was in college there were 100s of Iraqis and Iranians and Palestinians enrolled and vying for technical, science and engineering degrees.
Predominantly age 20-35.
99% males
They never mingled or got involved in anything.
They stuck to themselves all the time except in classes in which they were required to attend.
Real loners they all were.
I would always say hi when I saw them in the student union mall.
They would never say anything back. It was like they were on a secret mission or something.
They were really secretive. Always talked excitedly about this or that, hushed it down whenever someone would walk by.
Given all these out of the norm clues and looking back?
I will bet they were Al Queda operatives or some other mideastern terrorist group.
Probably those filthy little Palestinians.
I witnessed part of history while attending college too.
Many of those same ” students ” were inherently involved in 9-11.
It was part of a ” Johnny Cash build your own Caddy one piece at a time ” song strategy.
Each student smuggled materials, knowledge and reconaissance from the USA back to their country of origin one small piece of the puzzle at a time.
And over many, many years.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:47 amKilo, do you believe everything that the corporate owned media tells you? Do you believe that the corporate owned media said that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a Madrass? I do not believe it, in fact, Sen. Obama attends the United Church of Christ.
The point I am trying to make here is that do not believe everything that the corporate owned media like ABC, CNN, FOX, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and MSM tells you.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:52 amEphraim Z. Zogby, your post is offensive. Do not post your xenophobic rantings on TP or you will be reported to the owner of this site and then you will be deleted.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:54 amhttp://www.jewishjournal.com/old/jjgoldberg.4.14.0.htm
“It’s the classic Jewish dilemma,” says Rabbi Ephraim Rubinger, a Conservative rabbi in … Zogby’s latest poll shows Clinton ahead among Jews, 57 to 27. …
Hillary’s Hesitant Surge
New York Jewish voters are moving cautiously into Hillary Clinton’s corner
By J. J. Goldberg
All sorts of theories are floating around New York this month as to why First Lady Hillary Clinton has suddenly pulled ahead of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in their bruising race for the U.S. Senate. It’s the first time she’s been ahead since she began campaigning last fall. Something’s going on, and New Yorkers don’t like surprises.
A key reason, pundits agree, is the Republican mayor’s mishandling of police-minority tensions, which are currently at a boiling point following the March 16 police killing of an unarmed black man. Some also credit Clinton’s months on the hustings, methodically shaking hands and kissing babies across the state while Giuliani was hunkered down in City Hall.
Less discussed, so far, is a sudden reexamination of one of the classic dilemmas in modern Western political thought. We refer, of course, to the age-old tension between Jewish universalism and Jewish particularism.
That’s how many of New York’s Jewish voters are viewing the choice they face next November, according to local rabbis and community leaders. To these folks — perhaps one-fourth of the state’s 1.7 million Jews — a vote for Clinton represents Jewish idealism, while a vote for Giuliani represents Jewish self-interest, and neither feels quite right.
“It’s the classic Jewish dilemma,” says Rabbi Ephraim Rubinger, a Conservative rabbi in Massapequa, the Long Island suburb where Jerry Seinfeld grew up. “Jews want to be pro-Clinton because they see themselves as liberals and Democrats. But on specific Jewish issues, like support for the Palestinians and her meetings with Al Sharpton, they see her as dangerous. It’s an agonizing decision.”
That Jewish dilemma will play a big role in determining New York’s next senator, as the latest polls make clear. After trailing Giuliani since last summer by margins of between three and eight points, Clinton suddenly surged in late March to lead by about the same margin. Most of the shift, polls show, was among Jews, Hispanics and upstate voters.
Rubinger says the Jewish defections don’t surprise him. “Giuliani’s behavior in defending some of the police actions gives Jews an excuse to go back where they came from,” he says. “But that could change.”
Jews, in fact, showed the most dramatic shift of all the groups that moved toward Clinton, according to Republican pollster John Zogby. The candidates had been tied among Jews at about 44 percent each since September. Zogby’s latest poll shows Clinton ahead among Jews, 57 to 27. Jewish defections account for about one-third of Giuliani’s overall decline.
Some experts question Zogby’s findings, noting that state polls rarely report Jewish opinion because Jewish respondents are too sparse to be statistically meaningful. But Zogby’s sample includes about 90 Jewish respondents, more than the statistical minimum. Moreover, he says, the consistency of his findings — Jewish voters split 45-45 from September to February, then spreading to 51-42 for Clinton in early March and finally to 57-27 in late March — “is significant enough to indicate that there is movement.”
The shift is statewide, and powerful. “I think the statements Giuliani made about that police shooting victim gave him a callous image, fairly or not, and backfiring,” says Rabbi Michael Feshbach, a Reform rabbi in upstate Buffalo. “There is still a sympathy for minorities in the community.”
It’s fragile, though. “Hillary can make some untoward comment, or show up to speak in the wrong place, and people will move right back,” says Rubinger.
Clinton’s own strategists tend to dismiss her Palestinian problem as a fringe obsession among Brooklyn extremists. It’s not. It arises repeatedly in conversations with Reform and Conservative rabbis in the middle-class suburbs of Long Island. Their congregants — schoolteachers, accountants, small shopowners — will decide the election. And they’re troubled.
“Hillary still has a huge obstacle to overcome,” says Rabbi Charles Klein of Merrick, down the road from Massapequa, who officiated at Seinfeld’s wedding last year. “Jews would love to have a candidate that they really felt more certain about in terms of Israel.”
New York’s Jews are America’s largest Jewish community, but they’re not what they used to be. A half-century ago they numbered over two million, one-fourth of the city’s population. Today they’re just over one million, 14 percent of the city. Still, together with a half-million Jews in the surrounding suburbs, they remain the largest Jewish community in the world and a powerful political force. They’re 9 percent of the state’s population but comprise an estimated 15 percent of the electorate because of higher turnout.
New York isn’t what it used to be, either. The nation’s third-largest state, population 18.2 million, its politics are largely defined by the fact that it used to be No. 1 until industry fled in the 1960s.
Much of the state has stagnated. Only New York City, with 40 percent of the state’s population, still thrives. It remains the nation’s business and media capital — and an object of intense resentment in the rest of the state.
Hillary Clinton’s unprecedented decision to run for senator from New York, even though she’d never lived there, underscored the state’s continued hold on the national imagination. If she succeeds, she will be the first First Lady ever to use the White House as a springboard to higher office. If she loses, it will be at least partly because of New Yorkers’ ambivalence about their state. Instead of glorying in the city’s magnetic appeal, many now resent it.
Less noticed, Giuliani is trying for a historic first of his own. He would be the first New York City mayor ever to move on to higher office. No mayor before him has ever managed to overcome upstate New Yorkers’ loathing of the city and win a statewide election.
Being a Republican should help Giuliani among the largely Republican voters upstate. He’ll be helped, too, by the fact that his opponent is Hillary Clinton, who galvanizes Republicans to action in a way that Giuliani himself could never hope to.
Most Jews around the state, like their neighbors, will decide their votes over those issues, not Palestinian statehood. “My guess is that most Democrats will vote Democratic and most Republicans will vote Republican,” says Rabbi Feshbach in Buffalo. “And most Jews are Democrats.”
For a big group in and around New York City, though, the Jewish question looms large. “We’re going to see a lot of flip-flopping between now and November,” says Rubinger. “That’s what makes it such an interesting race from a Jewish point of view. This is the genuine Jewish dilemma between particularism and universalism.”
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:56 amHowever, I do want to respond to your post.
Maybe the Iranian, Iraqi and Palestinian students kept to themselves because they were afraid of intolerant students.
When I was in college, I had a photograph of the late, great Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat posted on my wall. I also had a poster of Libyan leader Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi on my wall because I believed in revolution and that these leaders will free the oppressed from the oppressor.
There was a couple of students who made obnoxious remarks about the Arabs because of it and questioned my loyalty to America. I told them that I am opposed to U.S. imperialism and opposed to any relationship with Israel. They did not like it. I stood my ground and they left and did not bother saying anymore about it.
I will stand my ground when confronted about my beliefs and I will confront those who make racist and xenophobic remarks.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:00 amSince we seem to be off-topic, I’ll talk about what’s on my mind.
The up-coming hearings should focus in part upon the ten thousand redacted pages of Saddam’s weapons declaration. It is in those pages that we will likely find evidence of cherry-picked intel. Saddam is defunct, and the weapons themselves apparently don’t exist, so there is no valid reason not to let House and Senate members look at them. Or perhaps a FOIA request.
How about it, TP?
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:02 amNixon resigned at 26%.
Gw’s numbers started to fall last Fall, after a medical intervention by democracy removed several opportunistic Republican infections.
Gw’s new book, If I Did It, Here’s How It Happened, has been leaked to the aptly-named Vanity Fair. The banned expose has chapters ranging from pathetic whining, such as “The Two Pickles,” noting the former baseball team-owner’s self-depiction as a passive hostage to his wife’s mercurial moods, and of course the now-infamous “The Morning in Question,” with a detailed account of the author’s actions during the September 11th event — along with a novel claim Gw makes, that he was somehow the mastermind of a conspiracy!
An appendix, oddly-titled Deciderings, lists at least 4,000 ‘fantasy’ war crimes the author committed, during an unlikely scenario that involved former SecDef Dick ‘the Dick’ Cheney, and former SecDef ‘Ronald Dumbsfeld.’ You can’t make this stuff up.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:05 amComment by ephraim zogby
Rache, you’re not fooling anyone. And quoting the Doughy Pantload is a sure sign of mental instability. Who next? Lyndon laRouche?
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:05 amEr… they came to the US before Iraq.
You know what’s happened since then ? The country that was worth launching the world’s largest terrorist attack on before that has since invaded and occupied 2 muslim naitons and stationed troops in almost a dozen.
I can’t explain to you how that situation has changed any more than I can explain changes in perceptions of German citizenry pre and post WW2.
Either it’s crystal clear without explanation or there is no explanation that will help.
You mean the fighting directed primarily against the Iraqi government and other Iraqis ? That fighting will stop when a participant which isn’t one of those is no longer a participant ?
Yeah that makes sense.
Maybe the US could invade Sri Lanka then withdraw to end their civil war as well while they’re at it.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:11 amHey, if 1400 years of religious divisions in Iraq and al Qaeda’s desire for a failed state can be solved this way the Tamils should be a pushover.
Don’t feed the trolls…..
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:11 amWell, you’re not fooling anyone besides Brandon.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:12 amYou mean the fighting directed primarily against the Iraqi government and other Iraqis ? That fighting will stop when a participant which isn’t one of those is no longer a participant ?
Strawman arguments this early in the morning?
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:18 amWell if you think that’s how immigration works why not assume that’s the “who” then.
You could also assume that the weekly news reports of schools being attacked, students and teachers being kidnapped and killed, and the middle-class of Iraq migrating to avoid the chaos will result in a significant portion of those seeking the world’s dominant economy for resettlement and education.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:20 amKilo, the war in Iraq makes no sense. If we left Iraq, the fighting would stop.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:21 amand the middle-class of Iraq migrating to avoid the chaos will result in a significant portion of those seeking the world’s dominant economy for resettlement and education.
Comment by Kilo
Why would they want to move to China?
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 amkaty pasted a request from Judd not to respond to disruptive posts back in #23….
Let’s try to honor that request.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 amThe civil war in Iraq is a “straw man” when discussing the violence in Iraq ?
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:24 amI guess you’re not a member of that “reality based community” I keep hearing about.
I do not think that these individuals who are fighting the U.S. in Iraq are wanting to obtain student visas to come to the U.S. to fight us here.
As far as all the sectarian violence goes, that was the fault of the U.S. for invading and occupying that nation. The U.S. turned Iraq into a bloodbath.
When Saddam was in power, there was no sectarian violence. There was stability. Now, Saddam is dead and who knows when the violence will end.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:25 amKilo, the reality of it is that the world is not perfect and not absolute. SOME of the people fighting in Iraq are fighting for power. Most are fighting to extract the U.S. out of their nation.
The corporate owned media sensationalizes everything. All this fighting between the Shia and Sunni. I mean, why? Why don’t they just get along and stop fighting eachother and try to rebuild the country?
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:29 amBush needs to be impeached for lying to the American people about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:33 amYou’ve said this already.
What you haven’t said is why you believe this. Can you do that instead ?
The US isn’t a necessary component in the war in Iraq and hasn’t been since the fall of the Baath party.
The insurgency which has existed since that point (and has defined the US’s need for troop presence) is against the local government – as per the definition of insurgency- and the only impact the withdrawal of US troops will have is to weaken the Iraqi government’s ability to fight the insurgency.
The civil war between religious factions and militias doesn’t involve US troops in any way and therefor will be uneffected by US withdrawal. The ethnic cleansing of Sunnis will however progress and escalate along the same timeline it already has independant of a US troop presence.
What exactly are you expecting the withdrawal of US troops to change in regard to either offensive in this war ?
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:34 amYou mean the fighting directed primarily against the Iraqi government and other Iraqis ?
The government is riddled with Mahdi army moles, and the violence is both religious, and clan-based. There are 18 seperate factions fighting for control – not just “terrorists.” When the Americans join with the Shi’a to stop Sunni attacks, they empower the Mahdi army; with knowledge of weapons and tactics. After the Sunni insurgency has been defeated, the US will have to confront the Shi’a militias – which are currently getting a pass from al-Maliki. To do this, they will bring in the Kurdis Peshmurgas, who they can depend upon. When the Sunnis and Shi’a see that they are being played off against each other, to the advantage of the Kurds, then the real fun begins. Real enough for ya’ Kilo?
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:38 amThe ethnic cleansing of Sunnis will however progress and escalate along the same timeline it already has independant of a US troop presence.
Wrong. See my last post.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:39 amJudd #23
“When you respond, you destroy the thread forever. Once we delete the offending comments the thread doesn’t make sense.”
Hey Judd, there’s a fairly easy solution to the problem. Add a “reply to comment” option, then tag the reply (like “Judd #23″ above) automatically so that it is related to the original comment.
When you decide to remove an offending ignoramous post, all derived comments can be automatically deleted along with it. Thus, only the elegant prose of the non-troll posts would remain and all would be harmonious.
It should not be terribly difficult to implement, and frankly it would be a lighter weight solution than requiring registration.
If you want to implement the registration, that’s fine, but as you point out it would be easy to circumnavigate and thus would not eliminate the problem. Remember, we’re dealing with a hardcore nutcase 28% of the population that are only too thrilled to swift-boat TP along with Obama, Clinton, and anyone else they can drag with them into the abyss.
They cannot be eradicated, but they can be controlled with a simple feature upgrade.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:40 amKilo = Seixon
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:42 amKilo, this war makes no sense because people are getting killed at a rate of over 20 per day. More and more of our fine young people are getting killed daily.
The insurgency’s purpose is to fight the occupying forces in Iraq. They view the current government as a puppet government in which it is a puppet government of the United States. They do not want a puppet government.
I am expecting that if the U.S. withdraws its forces from Iraq that no more of our people being killed and no more innocent Iraqi civilians getting killed.
The Shia’s hate the Sunnis because the Sunnis believe that Muhammad was the prophet of Islam while the Shia’s believe that Ali was the prophet. Anyways, the other reason is that because most Sunnis looked down at Shia’s as being irrelevant and because most of the power base in Iraq under Saddam Hussein was dominated by Sunnis and some of the Sunnis oppressed the Shia’s.
This has gone on forever. What goes on in these other nations has nothing to do with the U.S.. The U.S. needs to just pack up and leave Iraq. There is nothing that we can do over there. We have not accomplished anything and we will not accomplish anything if we are there ten years from today. The U.S. needs to pull out. Why should people’s lives be in danger? That is why so many people hate Bush. Bush will be the most hated and most unpopular president the U.S. has ever had.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:46 amNo, you’ve actually got that the wrong way around. And until you’ve actually read something about the history of Iraq and it’s social and religious structures (as the rest of your post indicates you haven’t), you can pass on explaining to anyone what “the reality” is.
For the same reason that this has always occurred throughout history when an oppressive regime supported by a minority is deposed.
A better question would be why are you so eager to cease the presence of US forces in the country with the gathering genocide campaign ?
Was all the hype about stopping Rwanda just a head-fake from the same liberals advocating the opposite policy here ?
Does the brown skinned genocide differ from the black skinned genocide in whether intervention is a must ? Is it an Arab vs African thing ? Seriously, I really cannot understand what the difference is.
Be a brave man who put a qualifier on which genocide is more acceptable than another.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:47 amKilo = Seixon
Thanks, TA.
‘Nuff said.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 amI agree with barfly, and to sum it up: As long as the U.S. is over there, there is going to be more and more fighting. The Shia’s, Sunnis, Kurds and the smaller ethnic groups want the U.S. to end the occupation of their country and they will fight the U.S. for it.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:50 amI’ve never used that name, so if your name is your job, you really suck at it pal.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:51 amKilo, no genocide is acceptable. However, it is people like you who would be silly enough to believe that Pol Pot murdered over 3 million of his own people. There was no evidence.
What is going on in Iraq is not genocide. The Sunnis and Shia’s are religious groups. They are both Arab people.
Now, when you refer to Black and Brown genocide, you are refering to the Darfur crisis. What you do not know is that both sides in that crisis is armed. Also, I bet you did not know that this fighting is over water rights and grazing rights.
To end that fighting, both sides must disarm and communicate with one another. I think that the African Union should negotiate. This is not for the U.S. to get involved with.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:55 amFor the same reason that this has always occurred throughout history when an oppressive regime supported by a minority is deposed.
Ok, Mr. History Buff. Can you name one example in which a democracy was ever successfully installed by an invader?
Just one.
And WW 2 Japan doesn’t count – they were the initial invaders, and we retaliated.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:56 amIf you want to talk about genocide then look no further to what happened to the Jews of Europe during WWII; look at what happened to Black people in Africa under colonialist rule; look at what happened to the Native American Indians when the Pilgrims came to the U.S. and when Cortes and Pizarro came to the New World, this spearheaded the largest genocide of Indigenous peoples and brought 500 years of imperialism to the New World. That is genocide.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:59 amOh, I should add one more caveat: “Can you name one example in which a democracy was ever successfully installed by an invader in a country which has never previously known it?
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:04 amKilo, no genocide is acceptable. However, it is people like you who would be silly enough to believe that Pol Pot murdered over 3 million of his own people. There was no evidence.
What is going on in Iraq is not genocide. The Sunnis and Shia’s are religious groups. They are both Arab people.
Comment by Brandon Harris — January 23, 2007 @ 3:55 am
But it is people like YOU Harris!
It is people like you who think it is just A okay that the antisemites in the world gathered in Iran for a holocaust conference and decided not to invite Israel or the United Dtates and many other countries who didnt bend to their view.
You are doing the same thing here Brandon.
Twisting it.
And their are people as silly as you who believe the nazi death camps and tolls were exaggerated beyond wildest imagination for sympathy and monetary purposes.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:06 amRemember that question I just posed, Brandon. I’ve chased away more than one troll who thinks they know something of history with it.
And, shut up before I report you again, Rache.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:08 amYour welcome,Barfly.
Kilo,why so defensive?
How would you even know what a ‘Seixon’ is?
Kilo = Seixon
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 amwiley hoover = Rache.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:11 amwiley hoover = Rache.
Comment by Barfly — January 23, 2007 @ 4:11 am
No doubt.
And also ‘angie’ and ‘patricia reglin’ and many others incl.’Wellsley’.
And don’t forget
Kilo = Seixon
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 am#
Your previous post doesn’t relate to what is being discussed. If we were to be generous and grant that it did, it actually agrees with what I’ve said.
So perhaps that was a typo which was meant to say “Right”.
Your previous post addresses the fate of Sunnis only with this…
….which only refers to relies on the influence of US forces which, as we were discussing, will be withdrawn before any such events transpire.
So unless you made another typo where you mentioned the involvement of the US by accident, we’ll assume you also believe that the civil war won’t cease when this ability for intervention is removed.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:23 amCould you please pay attention.
We weren’t discussing cleaning up this mess, the proposal was to leave it as is and watch it until there are no more lives for it to claim.
In accordance with ThinkProgress’ plan for withdrawal as it happens.
PS. No doubt those recently calling for moderators to delete posts for vulgarities and personal attacks will have STFU for a completely non-hypocritical reason right about now.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:30 amKilo,why don’t you just go by this name,
‘Skeiloxon’,or maybe ‘Sekilonox’
Either one could mean ‘Bush a_s kisser’.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:35 amYour timing could not possibly be worse. Literally.
al Qaeda in Iraq sought US student visas for US attacks.
yes, lets kill more iraqi women and children and sexually humiliate more arab men for the world to see. THAT will keep people from coming after us.
Al-Queda is nothing but a freakin idealogical franchise. no real organization or structure.. never had it.. never will.. people say “i hate america, so i am al-queda”.. other people hear them say that, they hate america too (for actual, you know REASONS), and they join in. sure, there are undoubtedly some people in Iraq who want to strike america.
are we really going to IDENTIFY and KILL ALL of them, genius?
and are we going to be able to do so without causing more innocents to die and therefore creating more people who want to strike us?
theres one simple fact.. there was no al-queda of any sort in saddam controlled iraq terrortority.. they were ENEMIES.. SAddam was having Zaraquiri(??) hunted down…. YOUR idiot hero gave them a breeding ground for new recruits, (yes, people arent born terrorists), a place to hone thier skills on american troops, and plenty of nice pictures of dead muslim children and women for recruting tools.
the idea that somehow we will be able to stay there and kill THEM ALL without CREATING NEW ONES is about as ludicrious and fallacious as every other assertion that Dumbya used to justify and wage this war…
What exactly are you expecting the withdrawal of US troops to change in regard to either offensive in this war ?
It will end our culpability in this mess. Sunni + Shia are going to have thier civil war and nothing we can do is going to stop it. I know your incredibly naive, but there are no good guys in this conflict. You support radical shia islam? Or you dont think its the majority power in Iraq today? Care to discuss our former support of saddam, and why that was a worse idea than the political groups we are supporting now?
So Kiloham, remind me, which political party in Iraq are you rooting for that you think is going to make Iraq into the democratic pro-western graveyard of islamic fundamentalism you envision in your mind late at night when the pipe has cooled down?
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:37 amTroll ruins another thread.
This latest LIE about US forces being withdrawn is total nonsense.
Bushco has NEVER had the slightest intention of leaving its moonbases in Iraq.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:38 amFour permanent major airbases in Iraq. How many in Afghanistan? Senator Kerry courageously outed the PNAC permanent airbases scheme during the first debate of 2004, before 60 million Americans — a month before he won the election, and lost the count.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:47 amWow. Just wow. And here I was thinking it took a lot of alcohol and a DUI charge for someone to out themselves as a holocaust denier.
FYI the Khmer Rouge kept impeccible records of those they detained, tortured and executed, complete with photographs.
I have personally seen 3 hours worth of documentaries from 3 different countries on just that aspect of their genocide campaign, as corroborated on film by those that survived it.
Cambodian Genocide Project Records
The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,..
You can stop posting now.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 amAre you suggesting such atrocities which have already occurred have already worsened those prospects for safety ?
If so then I’ll assume that was your retarded way of agreeing with that specific point I made in relation to discussion you’ve quoted.
And some of them are also members of the Iraqi branch of the international group referring to themselves as al Qaeda.
Doing a bang up job of agreeing with me so far there pal.
Considering that with the maximum amount of ground forces able to be committed over a 4 year period you haven’t been able to put a dent in there numbers the obvious answer would be no.
So the membership of the group that is committed to attacking the US will remain trained and ready to do that after the US leave Iraq. Gee I wonder how that’ll turn out.
I’m guessing you think “well” considering you gave the impression (but not yet the substance) that you wanted to disagree with me.
Well there’s 2 simple facts if you also throw in “there were no WMDs either”.
I assume we are recounting facts that have no relevant bearing on the outcome or the discussion of it, right ?
Phew… lucky nobody suggested such a ludicrous outcome and we won’t have to entertain it then. Whoops, too late.
Speaking of ludicrous concepts, is anyone willing to suggest this “creating of the new terrorists” situation was going to start in the coming months rather than having been the state of affairs for a few years now ?
No ? Just yet another point I’ve already posted here which you’ve gone to pains to agree with while convincing yourself you are arguing with me.
Thanks for not reading before you post. That always turns out well.
January 23rd, 2007 at 5:12 amI could ask why you don’t participate in the discussion rather than just making random comments about people’s names as though this qualifies as a meaningful contribution. But I don’t need to. Everyone here understands what holds you back.
January 23rd, 2007 at 5:25 amAnd considering how low the bar is set for commenters here that really does put you in a class of your own.
re#11 Other National Anthem
Do you believe that you can only sample 1,168 people and use that to make a statement about a population of 200,000 people, and have a margin of error just of 3%?
Do you believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE to poll a different 1,168 people and not find that 0%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, or 100% of them could approve of Bush?
How can you believe that the answers of .6% of a population can accurately reflect the beliefs of an entire population?
Random sampling is only valid for RANDOM EVENTS!
If the people determined their opinions about Bush in a RANDOM manner by flipping a coin or rolling dice, then you can use random sampling and a small sample size to infer a decision about the entire population in with a 3% margin of error.
The event must be random to ensure that the outcome constantly changes from sample to sample!
For events that are not random, you must sample at least 80% of the population to make a statistically VALID inference, since the poll sampled less than 160,000 adults of the 200,000 adults in the population, the poll’s inference is INVALID
Opinion polls are psychological tools not mathematical ones!
PS: The margin of error is the difference the RANDOM probability of an outcome and the ACTUAL probabilty of measured. Therefore if I poll heads at 46% the margin of error is 4%.
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:37 amI didn’t know anything about Bush until he started his 2000 campaign. The first time I heard him I thought he was a total phony, and as it developed I thought his whole campaign was phony manipulation and deception. I’m glad the country is gradually agreeing with me, but it really troubles me that most people didn’t see that to begin with. I’ve been trying to understand that ever since and can’t figure it out. Then after 4 years they RE-ELECTED him, to the astonishment of the rest of the world. In the first 2004 debate Kerry was aggressive, as we wanted him to be, and Bush was pathetic. I thought surely Bush had lost the election then and there, but it was as if people didn’t see what I saw right in front of me on television. This is a very strange movie.
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:48 amI didn’t know anything about Bush until he started his 2000 campaign. The first time I heard him I thought he was a total phony, and as it developed I thought his whole campaign was phony manipulation and deception. I’m glad the country is gradually agreeing with me, but it really troubles me that most people didn’t see that to begin with. I’ve been trying to understand that ever since and can’t figure it out. Then after 4 years they RE-ELECTED him, to the astonishment of the rest of the world. In the first 2004 debate Kerry was aggressive, as we wanted him to be, and Bush was pathetic. I thought surely Bush had lost the election then and there, but it was as if people didn’t see what I saw right in front of me on television. This is a very strange movie.
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:49 amLATIMES OBSERVES THAT BUSH MUST INTERACT WITH DEMS TO SCORE SOME POINTS WITH DOMESTIC AGENDA NOT TO BE IMPEACHED DUE TO IRAQ. THE GOP BASE WILL BE SOUR.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-union23jan23,0,2810055.story?coll=la-home-headlines
January 23rd, 2007 at 7:00 amHaving taken three graduate courses in research design and statistical methods, I can assure everyone that criticalthinker at 91 knows absolutely nothing about statistical methods. He appears to be just making things up, speaking of random events.
January 23rd, 2007 at 7:01 amWait till viewers call in to complain about the SOTU address pre-empting their favorite sitcom. How many more speeches can his ratings withstand?
Liar, liar, pants on fire. Here’s an Iraq plan for you Mr. Bush: start telling the truth. The rest is simple.
January 23rd, 2007 at 7:09 am28% support Bush
well thats more than individually support any demcratic challenge
Hilary Cliton – She a nutcase for Isreal and war
Obama – Hes Black and will never get the vote
Kennedy – Too Old But good and truthfull
Democrats are useless really
January 23rd, 2007 at 7:34 amLet the impeachment begin!
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:03 amcriticalthinker,
the random event that occurs in random sampling is the selection of the people to be polled. polling is not done to the first x people in the phone book, the names are selected at RANDOM. For example, let’s say I want to determine the percentage of numbers in (0,1) that are less than 0.75. I would randomly (U(0,1)) select numbers and compare them to 0.75. Probably my results wouldn’t be exactly 75% but as the sample size grew the results would converge to the correct percent of 75% Also please note that there are an infinite amount of numbers in (0,1) yet my results will converge to 75% rather quickly.
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:04 amSpeaking of ludicrous concepts, is anyone willing to suggest this “creating of the new terrorists†situation was going to start in the coming months rather than having been the state of affairs for a few years now ?
No ? Just yet another point I’ve already posted here which you’ve gone to pains to agree with while convincing yourself you are arguing with me.
Kilotwat you seem pretty incapable of making any coherent argument that doesnt revolve around “theres nothing wrong with possibly making the situation worse”
You’ve basically insisted im agreeing with you without answering any of my questions. You’re idea is “we can make this better”, my argument, supported by past evidence, is that “everythign we are doing is throwing fuel on the fire”. There are some things which even mighty america cant do. Bring peace to the middle east through the barrel of a gun is one of them,
Typical republican smokescreen bullsh!te.
I asked you some specific questions , you didnt give any specific answers.
Lets talk about our past alliance with hussien and why we had it.
Care to give me your thoughts about that? Have anything to do with Iranian/Shia influence and power in the region?
Lets talk about specific poltical parties in IRaq now and which ones are going to get us out of this morass? Care to tell me which ones have friendly pro-western democratic ideals that going to have a real chance of having control of the government?
Oh, and do you support democracies like Palestine?
Since you seem to insist that you and I are in agreement.
let me make some predictions about the future of Iraq.
tell me how many you think im wrong about. then we’ll see how much in agreement we are
1) This escalation will not work.
2) THe bloodshed will worsen. Us troops and Iraqis will continue to be killed at an increasing rate.
3) It will soon be so bad that even the koolest of the kool-aid keyboard commandos will have to admit iraq is in a civil war.
4) The choas will spread outside iraqs borders, setting other parts of the region aflame.
5) Iraq will break apart.
6) After years and years of turmoil, whatever government exists in whatever is left of Iraq will not be friendly to america.
7) Iranian power will be expanded and the Shia Crescent will spread across the middle east.
8) The amount of enemies america creates will increase enormously. one by one our coalition of the willing will disspear, to the replaced by people lining up to attack our interests because we’ve killed so many more innocent people than we have already.
many or ALL to these things WILL be the inevitable result of your idiot Dumbyas delusional meth war.
how many of my predictions do you dispute Nostradamus?
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:13 amThe New Reality Series : The Impeachment Proceedings. Coming to a TV near you!
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:21 amIt’s still not low enough. Nixon was at 24% and Bush is far worse than him.
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:26 amI guess IMPEACHMENT is in the works, despite their trying to spin and propagandize some new intel about Al-Queda yesterday which could have been used any day of the week. Their tactics are transparent and the people have had enough.
I’ve heard that when the empirical evidence reaches a critical mass of opinion (somewhere in the vicinity of 29%), then the leader is rendered useless (lameduck) and no longer has the backing of the people. Guess it’s definitely IMPEACHMENT TIME!
His SOTU tonight will, again, be illustrative of just how far out of touch with the pulse of this country this man is….and will bring the number down even lower.
Basically, he’s said it all so there’s nothing new he can say to resurrect his horrendous poll numbers. Even if he gave away free gas at this point, the numbers would continue to plummet.
He’s lame, indeed…..and a lameduck prez.
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:30 amWhat really pisses me off is : that Pelosi said from the get-go that Impeachment was off the table. With all the crap this Chimp has pulled in 7 years — and to say this. I am at the moment disgusted with the Dems also. I re-enrolled yesterday as an independent. The only candidate I support now is Kucinich. And I don’t think Mr. and Mrs. Nebraska is ready for someone with sounding name. We need a 3rd party.
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:31 amPoliticalCritic sez:
Again, blame FOX News. This government propaganda machine masquerading as a news organization is the only reason Chimpy hasn’t been tarred and feathered by now. When the neocons are finally called to account for their monstrous crimes, the ‘pundits’ at FOX News need to be right up against the wall with the rest of them.
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:31 amAs long as Dubya keeps Cheney (central in the Trial of this century) visible, the public is reminded of just how bad things are in this country and how far they’ve descended at the hands of these guys.
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:32 amAdding Rice to the picture only further serves to disqualify it as a legitimate regime. What a cavalcade of zoological characters they parade before us? Is this the best of the Washington Zoo perchance?
As for the “creation” of new terrorists in the middle east, it’s not news that we’ve opened the veritable Pandora’s Box by touching off such instability in the region. The suggestion yesterday (pretty lame) that there’s some new threat against us by Al-Queda is ludicrous – of course, there is and has been yesterday and the day before and the day before that….Our mere presence in the region is the best terrorist recruiting tool ever imagined. And the leaders of the new Iraqi government couldn’t agree more; in fact, they said it recently and blamed Bush et al for the increase in sectarian violence and terrorism. What is it about this that we don’t get?
What is it that keeps this country in a perpetual “war mode”? What is it that keeps us from peace? It’s a supreme and overstated, overdeveloped ego and an underdeveloped (if not absent all together) sense of self, morality, and spirituality.
We talk a good game; hypocritically, we never walk our own talk.
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:36 am#104 I suspect that the rationale behind Pelosi’s comment about impeachment being off the table was a form of political correctness only. Of course, impeachment is always on the table and the congress will soon become mandated to bring the articles of impeachment forward.
Imagine why Pelosi said what she said for a moment: If we impeach Cheney first (after he perjures himself in the Libby trial), then Bush is next and he will fall fast (either resign due to health (psychiatric) reasons or will be forced out which makes Nancy Pelosi, as speaker of the house, automatically the Commander in Chief. So it would be politically incorrect aka conflict of interest for the first woman president to be the one instrumental or integral to the impeachment process which will render her as the successor.
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:39 amI rest my case…..go to http://www.huffingtonpost.com and see headlines: ‘WORLD POLL SAYS INSTABILITY IN IRAQ BRINGING MORE VIOLENCE TO THE MIDDLE EAST” And three guesses who is responsible for this continued level of instability?? Right!
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:41 amand the middle-class of Iraq migrating to avoid the chaos will result in a significant portion of those seeking the world’s dominant economy for resettlement and education.
Comment by Kilo — January 23, 2007 @ 3:20 am
They have been leaving in droves ALREADY. The middle class and upper classes (those who have the means) have already left. That bs you are spouting is just that bs. Fear, Fear, Fear, Republicans have nothing better to play on. Many of us did not fall for it the first time, and we got called Dirty F*c*ing Hippies and worse and WE WERE RIGHT!! You think we believe anything coming from the collective mouths at the admin or the so called msm. Yeah right…LOL!!
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:01 amDemocrats are useless really
Comment by Jackanory
So being black and old makes one useless? MMMMM
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:07 amyea,
Kilo it happens to me all the time.
Just a short little burst or whimper more like.
such and such = such and such
such and such didnt get very much attention as a child did it?
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:07 amre#99 erock
The only “margin of error” that matters is the one between right and wrong for the ANSWER, not the one on how fast the sample function converges!
If the margin of error of this poll is that says the answer is 28% with a only 3% margin of error, that means that if we went ahead and polled another 1,168 people or the entire population, it would mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE the new answer to be less than 25% or more than 31%, right?
OBVIOUSLY that is nonsense, I could randomly pick another 1,168 people out the phone book and find 24% or less or 31% or higher, therefore the margin of error is not 3%!
Without RANDOM PROBABILITY preventing people from picking the same outcome over and over, there is nothing in nature stopping the pollster from polling 1168 yes approval outcomes in a row, then are we to believe that Bush as a 100% approval rating!
You are ignoring the most important statistic in all of statistics, and that is called “level of certainty”, or how sure you are your answer is correct, which must be at least 80% in order for any inferrence to be statistically VALID.
A level of certainty of 1,168 / 200,000 = .584% is UNCERTAIN!
The 200,000 – 1,168 people who you didn’t poll, could all be Bush lovers or they all could be Bush haters, one CANNOT BE CERTAIN without RANDOM PROBABILITY ensuring the outcomes are different!
I repeat, you need a RANDOM DISTRIBUTION of outcomes in order to use RANDOM SAMPLING to make a statistically VALID inference about the total population based on the outcomes from a sample size less than 80% of the population.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 am28% or 2.8% doesn’t make any difference to Bush. He has assumed the role of dictator (”Decider”) and he will do as he wants. His minions will prepare his way, stand at his side, defend him to any detractors, and cover the mess in his wake.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:45 amHe must be removed from office.
It’s twue.
However, his disapproval rating has been higher.
The CBS poll showed a 64% disapproval, the ABC/Washington Post poll of 1/16-19 and the AP Ipsos poll at the beginning of the month both had his disapproval at 65%.
So watch Tony SnowYa spin it that his ratings actually improved, or they don’t listen to polls, yadayada ya.
I’d like all those 28%ers to proudly stand up and take a bow.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:50 amWhilst the American public kicks yer asses…
re#114 Marie
I agree with you 100% about the decider, and how he must be removed from office, and put on trial for the crime against humanity of starting an UNNECESSARY war.
I just hate polls because they are psychological ploys, and not meaningful statistics, because of their microscopic sample size versus population size, and how they confuse people by using a “margin of error” that is not even based on the answer!
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:56 amcriticalthinker,
you’re forgetting the confidence level. We assume the results of polling will be normally distributed about the actual approval rating (mean) and assign the margin of error based on a 95% confidence level. (Variance of course is a function of sample size) In other words, with a 3% margin of error, any sample of comprable size will be within 3% of the mean 95% of the time. Obviously there’s some wiggle room, but thats why this is called statistics and not deterministics.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:05 amIMPEACH?
We tend to forget that Pelosi is a COWARD when it comes to the most meaningful type of decisive action. I CANNOT nor WILL NOT give her a pass on that one!!!
We have BUSH, the GREATEST IDIOT and MOST INCOMPETENT president in history, along with CHENEY, the biggest CROOK and THUG in history, dragging down the United States…and the control they (DEMOCRATS) wanted is here, yet they are hesitating on pulling the trigger!
As for CONGRESS…many of us here should be asking the Blue Dog Democrats if they have a freaking clue about the core values of their party loyalties! The Blue Dog DEMOCRATS have sold out, and nothing much is being said about their traitorous acts, yet we speak about IMPEACHMENT???
Until Pelosi shows she has the balls (pardon the pun) to make the hard choice, then all she is doing is playing politics while soldiers die and these IDIOTIC trolls stomp on their graves as they support this IGNORANT president!!!
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:16 amI’d be up for a poll of 100% of the country, then erock and critical thinker wouldn’t need to debate statistical theory.
I’d bet my ass that the numbers 28 and 64 would be real close.
Just like horseshoes and hand grenades, real close counts when it comes to describing how this nation feels about its leadership.
BTW, good debate you 2!
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 amFinally, Bush’s approval rating , IQ and blood alcohol content have converged.
Comment by Angry One
:>D My first laugh of the morning!!!!!
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:19 amSick game you Democrats play.
Politics with peoples lives that is.
Comment by villified
You are kidding, right? :>(
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:28 am#113 criticalthinker
It’s hard to tell what you’re trying to say at some points, because your grammar sucks. But, since you’re trying to prove that polling is not scientific, can you give us a reason for the consistency we see in polls? How is it that several different polling companies are coming up with essentially the same results week after week after week? How is it that trends for all these different polls are almost all going in the same direction at the same time? What an amazing coincidence that so many polls show Bush’s approval rating in the 30s and his disapproval is almost universally in the high 50s or low 60s. Look at pollingreport.com and you’ll see that for the last 40 days, CBS’ 28% approval rating was the only one that didn’t have Bush in the 30s. That’s eighteen polls that ranged from 30% to 39%. The disapproval rating was an even tighter group. It only ranged from 58% to 65%. You’d think that one of these pollsters might have stumbled across that group of 60% or 80% or 100% approval that you claim is out there. What gives?
And, is there some kind of source for this new statistical theory of yours that you’d like to share with us? Or did you just make it up out of your own little head?
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:34 amp.s. criticalthinker,
nothing about “one CANNOT BE CERTAIN without RANDOM PROBABILITY ensuring the outcomes are different!” makes sense. Probability is rarely random (unless you’re dealing with some very complex pdf’s that are themselves random) but rather the events to which probability applies are random. Also, consider a cat. Let the even X be the side that a cat lands on after being thrown into the air. Technically speaking X is a random variable yet age old wisdom tells us that the cat will always land on its feet. Hence P(X == feet) = 1. In other words, cats always land on their feet.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 amHe’s got my Aunt’s support. He could literally stand on television and stick his middle fingers up and declare ‘F-YOU’ and go on vacation for 2 years.
He’d still have 20% of the population to support him.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 amRe#117 erock
You make my point exactly, the ASSUMPTION of the poll following a normal distribution (i.e. random probability) is the thing that is wrong!
People’s choice of a leader DOES NOT follow the normal distribution where there are 10% super for, 80% in the middle, 10% super against!
People’s choice of coupe versus sedan DOES follow the normal distribution where there are 10% super for, 80% in the middle, 10% super against!
In statistics picking the right distribution for the inferrence is most important, and you cannot just use a normal distribution and expect it to always be valid!
I can prove the margin of error is meaningless for a non-random distribution, with the help of posters on this site by polling their car colors, and comparing sample polls to population truths, to show you just how far from reality they are.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 amcriticalthinker,
the people’s choice is not normal. the result of the poll is normal based on the central limit theorem. there is no distribution assumed for people’s preferences, we are only trying to extrapolate the expected value of people’s preferences.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 amC’mon Shrub, you can go lower!
We’re counting on you!!!!!
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:59 amre#122 chimpeach
Oh one of perfect grammer, my point is:
When a poll is done, and they give you a percentage answer with a percentage margin of error, they are performing “statistical abuse”!
People without a college level background in mathematics, do not understand that there are many types of statistical distributions other than the 10 80 10 “normal” distribution that everybody is familiar with.
Random sampling techniques only work with random distributions like the normal distribution, and polls like the approval of Bush, are far from randomly distributed!
For these distributions in which there is no guarantee of change from sample to sample, therefore you need a much higher sample size, in the order of 80% to make any inference with any CERTAINTY.
Please see a statistics text book to see the type of distributions they use in random sampling examples, and you will see they all of the random probability type.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 amcriticalthinker,
there are lots of good reasons to attack polling, one of which will never be the underlying mathematics. attack the questions, attack the pollsters themselves, attack the publishing establishment. but never, ever ever attack something which can be unequivocally proven. its fairly clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about, i can say this as someone who has taught mathematics at the college level. please think critically about your own comments before posting.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:13 amDue to a rising debt load with China and the enormous cost of the Iraq march to freedom, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off. -GWB / SOTUA 1/23/07
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:24 amre#129 erock
If you want to believe statistics is a “magic” tool that enables you to look at less than 1% of a picture and say that you know what 100% of that entire picture looks like within a 3% margin of error, that is your choice to believe such nonsense.
“Critical thinking”people do not believe in “magic” tools that make complexity disappear and 99% of the information irrelevant.
“Critical thinking”people do not abuse statistics by trying to push pull off the opinions of 1168 people as matching TRUE beliefs of 200,000 people within a 3% margin of error.
Random sampling is perfect for predicting defects on an assembly line, but USELESS for predicting what people think!
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:29 am#10, and any other hairsplitter trolls – HA-ha!
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 amWow, did you even read my posts above?
1. There is no assumption made about the distribution of people’s thoughts.
2. The only distribution we care about is the distribution of polling results which, by the central limit theorem are normal.
3. The margin of error is the radius of the interval that the sample mean will fall within up to a certain confidence, generally 95%. This can be easily calculated since, again, by the central limit theorem, sample mean distribution is normal.
For a proof of the central limit theorem:
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 amhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
criticalthinker,
Statistics does not claim to do “magic.” Anyone with a basic background in the field would know that.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 amSick game you Democrats play.
Politics with peoples lives that is.
Comment by villified #13
You inbred idiot!
Many of US marched to try and prevent YOUR gods (Bush/Cheney)…
…from sacrificing your children…
…so THEIR political cronies…
…could make a profit…
…and Bush/Cheney could get re-selected in ‘04…
…to STEAL even MORE money…
…Who’s playing games w/people’s lives…
…you are a freakin’ intellectually challenged IMBECILE…and a TRAITOR!
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:14 pm#91 – I totally agree. Were a truly accurate instrument used, we would see that Bush’s approval rating is, in fact, 3%, with a 1% margin of error.
Judd, babe….seriously – let the trolls play, let the troll-warriors make war upon them, and let grownups use whatever vocabulary they choose. Managing the content and the contributors will turn this site into a high-bandwidth boredom generator faster than a troll can hit their caps lock.
Methinks those that protest too much are evinced of some fantasy that they’re participating in history by blog-commenting, and that, one day in the near future, it will be announced that TP is now a Think Tank, and its contributors will be syndicated in the papers and receive royalty checks.
Let’s none of us take it waaayyy too seriously, even though the topics at hand are indeed very serious.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 pm#128 criticalthinker
The polls serve the purpose that they’re meant to serve. In this case, they’re not being used to predict an election, so the sampling doesn’t need to be weighted. I don’t know of anyone who thinks that 28% is an exact representation of how the entire country feels about him. And, the exact same group of people might poll differently the following day. All that really matters is the relative consistency of the polls and the trend. 28% might be an outlier, but it’s still the lowest outlier from that polling firm yet. We might never see 28% in that poll or any other again, but polling in the 30s is pretty well guaranteed. If the average of multiple polls were to start moving up into the 40s over the next week or two, that would have meaning. Likewise, if it moved down into the 20s.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:26 pmWow. 28%, and he hasn’t even started vetoing highly popular legislation. This horrible excuse for a president is going to hit historic levels before he’s done. I’m looking at low 20’s, worse than Nixon or Truman.
Judd is so right. Part of the reason these incredible idiots come on this site and spew their absurd nonsense is that posters like myself respond to them and try to knock them down. What’s the point? When Bush was high in the polls, they called us losers. When Bush reaches historic lows, all they want to talk about is how unreliable polls are or how the American public doesn’t know what it wants. You cannot win an argument with a cultist and that’s all Bush has left – cultists – people who can’t recognize truth even if it hits them square on in the face like a cream pie.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 pmIf you don’t believe the 28%, just go to Pollingreport.com and look at the last 10 polls. Take an average of those polls and maybe you’ll have more confidence in that number — and it’s not a good number for Bush.
And, just for comparison, at this point in his presidency, Clinton enjoyed a 65% approval rating.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:32 pmDoes this mean that 2% of the 30%ers died or just woke up?
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:39 pmYeah, George, but you said that you don’t care how un-poop-ular you are, as long as Laura and your dog still believe in and support you. Or, is that a lie, too? Wow! 28%! heh heh- I’m looking forward to watching you tonight, W. Ciao-
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 pmFailure to read posts like the one above results in retarded responses like the one below…
Gee if that was happening ALREADY it might have been included in reports of it happening…. like I referred to in the post you quoted dimwit.
Another fine contribution from the Auto-Abuse-Generator 3000 Model B.
January 24th, 2007 at 3:06 amTurn any agreeing point of view into an apparent arguement and add insults and random gibberish with the push of a button. In stores now.
The word “impeach” does not appear in that article.
January 24th, 2007 at 3:14 amSticking with that not bothering to understand what’s being discussed tactic eh ?
The topic of discussion was how withdrawal of US forces will:
1 – end the violence of the insurgency,
2 – end the violence of the civil war,
3 – ensure no terrorist attacks on US soil as a result of the Iraq invasion.
I was taking the dissenting opinion on all 3. You were pretending to disagree with me by making the same arguements I was. It was all rather boring to start with and hasn’t improved yet.
Yes, that’ll be because you’ve actually been asking me to repeat what I’ve already posted. Me pointing out repeatedly that your questions provide answers which support what I’ve been saying should have been a clear enough indication that this was the problem with your questions, but apparently not.
Now, why don’t you not absorb that, continue to ignore what has been written in responses to topics being discussed you do not understand and soldier on without a connection to reality.
January 24th, 2007 at 3:36 amThat average is 34 which matches the most recent poll result. So no, you will have less confidence in this poll result of 28% if you know that.
January 24th, 2007 at 3:50 am