What if George W. Bush was a DEMOCRAT? How high would his approval rating have been??

ha ha. It seems that I pissed on your parade. Don’t forget that 9/11 happened in bush’s presidency, and he ignored every advice about binladen before that and one of them might have stopped it. Then he got us in a needless war and got over 4000 killed. You have to be a fool and or a republican to support that failure. and majority of people agree with me.

 

Couldn't agree more. Iraq is a total failure. Its about time more people picked up what Harry Reid has been saying for years. We lost! Give up the ghost!

 

Harry has been right all along. He was saying that the three stoges, bush, Chaney and dumbsfeld are a total failure in Iraq. We can easily see how much better it can get when one of the stoges was removed. It might actually work out with all three gone. Nevertheless it was a mistake to start it and it was a total failure executing it for years. Unless the plan was to enrich their friends at Halliburton then I can say it worked out pretty good

 

Exactly! Obama can save Iraq!

 

Wasn't it planned during all during Clinton's Presidency, hmmm???

haha - sorry, pizzaman, seems the facts piss on your parade!

 

You mean President CLINTON's friends at Haliburton, don't you?

President Clinton awarded all those contracts to Haliburton during his first two years in office, right???

Wow, pizzaman, you are REALLY weak on your facts, aren't you? I can't wait for your next post!

 

you pugs think if you repeat some bs long enough people will belive it. but that only works with you guys. anyone with half a brain can smell it from a mile away.
a-it does not matter when it was planned, but when it was executed. obl saw these dummies comming and took advantage of them being sleep at the helm. only a fool doesn't see that.
b-there is no link more obvious than chaney haliburton. if you can't see that you need new glasses.
now you are the proof of why only pugs still approve of the failure. please dont get me started, now go ahead say it, but but but

 

I think in your yearning to be right no matter what you're closing your eyes to the original intent of what people were trying to tell you in this thread.

You're proudly holding up your scenario as if it's an ironclad, black and white, air tight experiment. When in fact it's so fatally flawed there is no way to come to a subjective or even accurate conclusion.

The very simple fact is Corwin, again as they tried to explain to you, if George W. Bush were a Democrat he wouldn't have had his own party's support to do what he did. And even giving you artistic license to try and paint dems into a corner to get the answer you want and saying well just "what if"...... If he still managed to do what he did, he'd be turned on by his own party and still end up with low approval ratings.

Now if Obama were a Republican, would you be complaining about his spending? Would he have a low approval rating? Oh wait... we already know the answer to that.... because that's exactly what Bush did

i.e. when Bush started spending and near the end of his term when every Republican in congress was trying to distance themselves from him (without actually coming out and criticizing his spending) his approval ratings ended up in the gutter.

So Dem or Repub it doesn't matter. Either way he's still the Worst President Ever (WPE).

 

he is even worse than that he is the worst that will ever be

 

Pizzaman, you think if you repeat some bs long enough people will belive it. but that only works with you guys. anyone with half a brain can smell it from a mile away.

Really??? How intellectually short-sighted of you.

But if I accept your premise - let's look at these facts, shall we? Let's look at what happened during Clinton's Presidency:
- February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center
- June 25, 1996 - powerful truck bomb in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (the Khobar Towers attack) killed 19 American soldiers & injured hundreds more
- July 17, 1996 TWA Flight 800 exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on its way from New York to Paris
- August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
- October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole

These were all on Clinton's watch! So, whose fault where they, hmmm? Aren't these falures the Democrat's fault????

You need new glasses.

During Clinton's first two years as President, he and the Democratic Congress pretended to slash the defense budget. But, what the Democrats really did was take many operations away from the government - and the Democrats gave them to Haliburton!!!

It was the DEMOCRATS that gave all those big fat huge contracts to Haliburton! The Dems GAVE THEM to Cheney!!! The Democrats gave them to Haliburton!!!

Now, go get yourself some new glasses, pizzaman!

 

i am glad that it is you that contibute to bushes approval rating and not me. the failure that you support has been acknowledged by majority of americans. you keep on talking about clinton to divert attention from the shrub but the evidance of his failures are unmistakable and it does not end with iraq and 9/11. these seems to be what you point as the only evidence of his success. it does not make any difference what clinton did. the fact remains that bush has no success story at all. not even and actually specially in national security area

 

Approval ratings are as high or low as MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, and CNN want them to be. For a reality check on what they actually are, Rasmussen is about the best you can hope for.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

 

Corwin, Pizza man is making some very basic points you are having a hard time understanding.

1) Al Queda Bombings and growth during Clinton era were evidence of what a good job Clinton was doing keeping them under control
2) Al Queda attacks during Bush's term were evidence of what an abject failure Bush is
3) The war in Iraq during Bush's term was a lost battle and a complete failure
4) The war in Iraq under Obama's management will be a glowing success, and a testament to Obama's world wide popularity, and god like management skills.
5) Big spending under Bush was abhorent. It was all the evidence we needed to understand Bush was responsible for the destruction of the great economy handed to us by a Democrat
6) Big spending under Obama will save our economy and our nation from the Bush's big spending .

If you cant understand these very basic truths, perhaps you should have your head examined.

 

or it could be that he is very unpopular

 

1 and 2 they both failed us in regard to alqada
3 and 4 bush started the war in iraq which was a mistake and wouldent remove his pal donald duck. that action by the decider lol caused a huge failure. obama might fail also but he did not start it and we can hope that if the managment of the situation goes downhill he will make the changes needed rather than rrely on nepotisim like bush
5 and 6 bush spended money on war and tax cut moved the wealth of the nation in the hand of few and fewer people and destroyed the economy. obama inherited a failed system and is working on trying to improve that. he is spending the money for the betterment of the nation rather than enriching the elite

 

An excellent portrayal of the delusions, and incoherent and incomprehensible, nonsensical ramblings of your average moonbat liberal dote.

Right on the money.

 

Really???

O.K., let's look at this political position:
1. Supporting laws that ban gay marriage
2. Marriage is defined as only between a man and a woman
3. Anyone openly gay is not allowed in the military
4. Illegal aliens may not be granted automatic citizenship
5. Increasing troops into Iraq and Afghanistan
6. "I Have Accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior"
7. Warrantless wiretapping
8. Limited torture of prisoners

Both of these positions accurately describe President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama - both Democrats!!! WOW!!!

In GeorgeB and pizzaman's yearning to be right no matter what, they are closing their eyes to the original intent of what I am trying to tell you in this thread - which is that there is no real difference between the two political parties, that both parties are hypocrites.

They are also behaving on the very flawed assumption that if someone dislikes Obama he must be a Republican, and if someone dislikes Bush he must be a Democrat. There is a name for people like them - "political bigot". You see political agendas in complete terms of black or white - nothing in between. Just like a bigot.

GeorgeB's political bigotry is so fatally flawed there is no way he can come to a subjective or even accurate conclusion.

And every time GeorgeB and pizzaman write another blindly bigoted partisan post, they further prove my point - that, like all bigots, they see what they want to see and remember what they want to remember and are TERRIFIED to recognize anything that goes against their political bigotry - even to the point of lying.

They are proceeding on the very flawed and pathetically naive assumption that a President that is a Democrat behaves according to the Democratic platform, and that a President that is a Republican behaves according to the Republican platform. It's really charming and cute and silly and amusing and sad that you think that way, really it is. But, against the cold, hard facts, it is absolutely wrong and intellectually naive and sets you up to be used and abused and taken for granted by the political party that has put a leash around your neck and treats GeorgeB and pizzaman like they are political pets.

 

George W. Bush: The last Republican President. The man who destroyed the Republican brand for all time. Ah, what a legacy!

OK, I'm being somewhat over the top there, I do think there's a slight chance another Republican could be elected someday but they'll have to put the social conservatism behind them if they want to be competitive. Certainly none of the current crop stands a chance in hell. Sarah Palin? Huckabee? Romney? Jindal? Gingrich!? These people are simply unelectable.

 

I'd be careful getting over confident. Many a man has had to eat their words when making such outrageous claims. You already make some whoppers... I'd hate to see you completely fall apart over this one.

 

Despite blind partisans like Zibblu, another Republican will definitely be elected President, and this is why:

Each party gets their chance. They always do a good job at first, but then they let their majority go to their head and they abuse the system. After enough abuses, which turn into failures, the public gets disgusted and elects the other party.

So, it's going to go back and forth between the two parties. And nothing is going to change. Because while the Republicans and the Democrats SAY different things, they DO the SAME things.

Don't buy into the delusion. Bush may have screwed things up, but the Democrats let it happen. Carter (my nominee for worst President) may have created today's foreign policy mess, but the Republicans let it happen.

What the USA needs is a third party. And that will never happen, because both parties won't let it happen.

Or, as Jon Stewart said to Howard Dean, "How will the Democrats screw this up?"