"Bush's rating are sssooo low..."

[DKW 86 7,429]

Bush's rating are sssooo low...He only beats Kerry and Gore by 5 and 3 points

Man, that has to inhale to be rated almost as low as two Democratic frontrunners for President...

[Tigermike 3,039]

Bush's rating are sssooo low...He only beats Kerry and Gore by 5 and 3 points

Man, that has to inhale to be rated almost as low as two Democratic frontrunners for President...

235025[/snapback]

But if you listen to the dims, their future is bright. Nancy Pelooser has already been planning her agenda as Speaker of the House.

[Shug2003 1]

Well Tigermike, we had our "national revolution" and guess what? We now have a wider margin between the poor and rich than I can remember other than the great depression; a higher national debt than ever before; more jobs that don't pay a living wage than before; more outsourcing of jobs because of the failure of our educational system to train students in math and science; a no-student left behind program which is a dismal failure; a war which is dividing our nation once again; a gutless president and congress which panders to hispanics for votes and to their friends for cheap labor; and almost unparalled cronism and corruption. Hey, don't blame this on Democrats or 9/11 or the "world situation" which Repubs have played a king size role in creating. Yes, tell us the state of the union is GOOD! :-( Since you obviously have assumed the role of pro-Republican, I felt equal time was needed for a little balance.

[Tigermike 3,039]

Well then Shug you should have elected John Kerry and we would all be living in a utopia now wouldn't we.

[Shug2003 1]

No Mike, I didn't vote for Kerry nor would I vote for Hillary. However, we ARE now living in utopia with George aren't we? I can assure you when the Democratic Party has a viable, moderate candidate I WILL vote for them! Bush's approval rating shows YOU are out of touch! It's nice to disagree isn't it?

By the way, one final note to you and other see no wrong with Republicans, a note from your fearless helmsman that is being ignored by King George:

"The simple truth is that we've lost control of our own borders, and no Nation can do that and survive. We ignore America's lost sovereignty at our own peril."

Ronald Reagan

Now consider this: Our Republican President promised 2000 new border agents per year for the next five years, yet his budget actually only funds just over 200. With a few simple cuts in the billions of dollars in pork barrell projects, we can fund 10 times as many or more. Instead, we are spending $100 million to build a "Bridge to Nowhere" to connect two towns of about 2,000 people, and even the Governor of the State thinks it's wasteful. The Citizens against government waste has identified $27.3 billion n wasteful spending in the highway bill proposed by Congress alone. (A Republican controlled one at that) We are spending $7.9 million on Marine Mammel Protection, but we can't find the funds to secure our borders?

Mike, I want to let you know I appreciate your letting me express my views and SOME FACTS that apparently you have overlooked or seen fit not to post. I fully expected to see them censored.

[TexasTiger 12,956]

Bush's rating are sssooo low...He only beats Kerry and Gore by 5 and 3 points

Man, that has to inhale to be rated almost as low as two Democratic frontrunners for President...

235025[/snapback]

David lies with statistics again. The poll doesn't match Kerry or Gore against Bush. It asks favorable, unfavorable and undecided/no opinon. Bush's unfavorable is 55% in that poll. Kerry's is 38% and Gore's is 39%. Hillary, on the other hand, has higher favorables in this poll than Bush or John McCain.

And he also just flat out lies. Bush's favorable is 29%, Gore's 28% and Kerry 26%-- a statistical tie.

But neither of them will be the Dem nominee in 2008 and Bush won't either, so who cares? Johnny one notes who can only slam Dems but offer nothing substantive to talk about.

[tiger88 934]

And to think, the dem's still couldn't field a candidate to beat him a very short time ago. Shows how pathetically weak the dem's are.

It is funny how the media is trying to play this up as a walk in opportunity for the dem's in the next presidential race.

[TexasTiger 12,956]

And to think, the dem's still couldn't field a candidate to beat him a very short time ago. Shows how pathetically weak the dem's are.

It is funny how the media is trying to play this up as a walk in opportunity for the dem's in the next presidential race.

235069[/snapback]

Rove stirred up the homophobes on the Republican side in 2004 and managed to eek out an electoral win against a weak Dem. Now they will try it again with gay adoption.

I haven't seen the media say 2008 is a walk by any stretch of the imagination. Where have you seen that?

They have said 2006 looks more promising for Dems in Congress. That's still months away though, and I have enormous confidence in the Dems ability to blow it.

[DKW 86 7,429]

Bush's rating are sssooo low...He only beats Kerry and Gore by 5 and 3 points

Man, that has to inhale to be rated almost as low as two Democratic frontrunners for President...

235025[/snapback]

David lies with statistics again. The poll doesn't match Kerry or Gore against Bush. It asks favorable, unfavorable and undecided/no opinon. Bush's unfavorable is 55% in that poll. Kerry's is 38% and Gore's is 39%. Hillary, on the other hand, has higher favorables in this poll than Bush or John McCain.

And he also just flat out lies. Bush's favorable is 29%, Gore's 28% and Kerry 26%-- a statistical tie.

But neither of them will be the Dem nominee in 2008 and Bush won't either, so who cares? Johnny one notes who can only slam Dems but offer nothing substantive to talk about.

235067[/snapback]

Tex, you are at your best defending the indefensible. I never said that it was a Bush versus poll. Never did. I said that Bush's approval numbers are almost as bad as Gore's and Kerry's. To that end, the thread and post were 100% correct. BTW, why would anyone be doing or looking for a "Bush versus" poll? He will never run again.

And he also just flat out lies.  Bush's favorable is 29%, Gore's 28% and Kerry 26%--  a statistical tie.

Hey, this is a valid point. But like I said, statistical ties with Dem Frontrunners must just suck. BTW, Bush figures were 31%.

[TexasTiger 12,956]

Bush's rating are sssooo low...He only beats Kerry and Gore by 5 and 3 points

Man, that has to inhale to be rated almost as low as two Democratic frontrunners for President...

235025[/snapback]

David lies with statistics again. The poll doesn't match Kerry or Gore against Bush. It asks favorable, unfavorable and undecided/no opinon. Bush's unfavorable is 55% in that poll. Kerry's is 38% and Gore's is 39%. Hillary, on the other hand, has higher favorables in this poll than Bush or John McCain.

And he also just flat out lies. Bush's favorable is 29%, Gore's 28% and Kerry 26%-- a statistical tie.

But neither of them will be the Dem nominee in 2008 and Bush won't either, so who cares? Johnny one notes who can only slam Dems but offer nothing substantive to talk about.

235067[/snapback]

Tex, you are at your best defending the indefensible. I never said that it was a Bush versus poll. Never did. I said that Bush's approval numbers are almost as bad as Gore's and Kerry's. To that end, the thread and post were 100% correct. BTW, why would anyone be doing or looking for a "Bush versus" poll? He will never run again.

And he also just flat out lies.  Bush's favorable is 29%, Gore's 28% and Kerry 26%--  a statistical tie.

Hey, this is a valid point. But like I said, statistical ties with Dem Frontrunners must just suck. BTW, Bush figures were 31%.

235077[/snapback]

Calling you on your crap is defending the indefensible? You use that phrase, regardless of the circumstances.

He only beats Kerry and Gore by 5 and 3 points

This suggests a head-to-head matchup.

BTW, Bush figures were 31%

Wrong. Apples and oranges. You never looked at the actual poll, just your little conservative propaganda site that tells you what to think. Bush's approval rating is 31%. His favorability rating is 29%, which is the same measure the Kerry and Gore numbers were taken from.

[DKW 86 7,429]

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politi...OLL_RESULTS.pdf

Bush Approval Ratings: 31%

NYT Poll

The political situation has not helped some of the more prominent members of the Democratic Party. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was Mr. Bush's opponent in 2004, had a lower approval rating than Mr. Bush: 26 percent, down from 40 percent in a poll conducted right after the election.

And just 28 percent said they had a favorable view of Al Gore, one of Mr. Bush's more vocal critics.

Once again Tex, you try and attack the messenger and ignore the message.

You make a great Dem...

[Shug2003 1]

Don't worry Tex, DKW and TigerMike make great Repubics too, spin, spin, spin, spin and attack. hehehehe

[Tigermike 3,039]

Don't worry Tex, DKW and TigerMike make great Repubics too, spin, spin, spin, spin and attack. hehehehe

235093[/snapback]

And Shug & Tx make great dims, toe the party line, attack conservatives then accuse the attacked of being the attacker.

[Shug2003 1]

Republicans are NOT conservatives---they just pretend to be to get elected! The rule with all politicians is to be re-elected. They rationalize after the first term and say: "Hey, I need another term to get my agenda implemented." They never achieve that realization of that agenda and stay in office as long as they can--then write a book.. Again, Republicans have maintained control of both the house and senate AS WELL AS THE WHITE HOUSE for two terms now. That SHOULD allow any sincere person or party to get their agenda implemented. Not so with the Pubics! Instead, they blame the Demo's who don't have the power. By the way, the Repubics invented the terms "attack and discredit" due to their years of frustration at not being able to acheive the White House AND both the House and Senate. As the rural areas disappeared along with the middle class, the Repubics rose to power to accomodate their affluent voters and slowely achieved dominance in a wealthy, corrupt country by claiming high morals, no taxes, (free services) and tax breaks for the wealthy on the premise that they produce the goods and services and provide the jobs. (minimum wage and no benefits).

"The bad news is that Democrats plan to raise taxes on the working people and the good news is that if the Republicans remain in power there won't be any working people left" Will Rogers

[BamaGrad03 0]

Well Tigermike, we had our "national revolution" and guess what? We now have a wider margin between the poor and rich than I can remember other than the great depression; a  higher national debt than ever before; more jobs that don't pay a living wage than before; more outsourcing of jobs because of the failure of our educational system to train students in math and science; a no-student left behind program which is a dismal failure; a war which is dividing our nation once again; a gutless president and congress which panders to hispanics for votes and to their friends for cheap labor; and almost unparalled cronism and corruption.  Hey, don't blame this on Democrats or 9/11 or the "world situation" which Repubs have played a king size role in creating. Yes, tell us the state of the union is GOOD! :-( Since you obviously have assumed the role of pro-Republican, I felt equal time was needed for a little balance.

235043[/snapback]

Typical. People ignore current job and economic facts because they keep watching TV. CNN wont tell you how great the economy is...but all you have to do is look at your 401k or the dow (which is close to its all time high). We have a historically VERY low jobless rate. Jobs that dont pay a living wage? What is that...a shot at min wage? Outsourcing is part of a global economic model from which the US economy and job situation benefits greatly. Plenty of economic research supports that. It has NOTHING to do with undereducated americans...it has EVERYTHING to do with cheap and competent job resources that havent always been available. Its not just the president that panders to hispanic votes...the media calls me a racist bigot because i dont think we should open the borders wide as can be...The 9/11 situation happened because of things that took place well before republicans were in control. Last time I checked it was Clinton who had Bin Laden on a platter and did nothing. And last time i checked...it was republicans who have been in power since 9/11 making sure we've gone nearly 5 years without any attack....

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Our politicians are bought and paid for. Not too many in D.C. represent the will of the American people. I do have a question, though. How do we change our present government due to that government's failure to represent the will of the people?

Although many declarations of independence seek legitimacy by appealing to the right of revolution, far fewer constitutions mention this right or guarantee this right to citizens because of the destabilizing effect such a guarantee would likely produce. In the United States, for example, out of fifty state constitutions and one national constitution, only New Hampshire's guarantees its citizens the right to rebellion, in Article 10 of the constitution's bill of rights:

Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights

http://www.founding.com/guide/summary/ge17.htm

[Shug2003 1]

BamaGrad03, Perhaps you ignore some FACTS as well because you choose to do so. In this morning's edition of the Birmingham News ( I suppose you call that Democratic propoganda too) the following is stated. (as if we didn't already know it)

"Karl Rove, Bush's veteran political advisor, recognized the potential in the Hispanic vote, and that Republicans could appeal to to Hispanics on the issues of abortion, religion and family values." (those good ole standby carrots to dangle before voters)

"Karl has always been a strong believer that Hispanics were a natural Republican constituency and he once told me that we have about 15 years to put this thing together."

Quotes from Paul Burka, senior executive editor of Texas monthly.

If this is not a plan to pander to hispanic votes then I don't know what in the Hell it is!

[DKW 86 7,429]

One man's pandering is another man's political savvy. I do not like the end run implications of this but, what are you going to do?

Can we realistically deport 12M? No way. Unfortunately we have chosen since 1986 to not enforce the business hiring side of the law either. More laws that we do not have the will to enforce are just crazy as well.

So, what do you do? If you are thinking ahead, you offer amnesty, seal the boders. enforce the old laws already on the books, and pray the avalanche of illegals subside.

The Reps are looking at the far side of the voters how they play out. Most Mexicans are likely to be good Catholics. That would tend to lead them to ultimately vote like most Cuban exiles. That is to say very conservatively. Rove is just recognizing that fact. Bush said the same thing years ago btw.

[TexasTiger 12,956]

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politi...OLL_RESULTS.pdf

Bush Approval Ratings: 31%

NYT Poll

The political situation has not helped some of the more prominent members of the Democratic Party. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was Mr. Bush's opponent in 2004, had a lower approval rating than Mr. Bush: 26 percent, down from 40 percent in a poll conducted right after the election.

And just 28 percent said they had a favorable view of Al Gore, one of Mr. Bush's more vocal critics.

Once again Tex, you try and attack the messenger and ignore the message.

You make a great Dem...

235092[/snapback]

Now you're counting on NYT's reporters to get a story right? They didn't read their own poll correctly. Doesn't mean you can't. Click on "full results" on the left-hand side and you will see that what I stated above is 100% correct.

But thanks for playing.

[DKW 86 7,429]

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politi...OLL_RESULTS.pdf

Bush Approval Ratings: 31%

NYT Poll

The political situation has not helped some of the more prominent members of the Democratic Party. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was Mr. Bush's opponent in 2004, had a lower approval rating than Mr. Bush: 26 percent, down from 40 percent in a poll conducted right after the election.

And just 28 percent said they had a favorable view of Al Gore, one of Mr. Bush's more vocal critics.

Once again Tex, you try and attack the messenger and ignore the message.

You make a great Dem...

235092[/snapback]

Now you're counting on NYT's reporters to get a story right? They didn't read their own poll correctly. Doesn't mean you can't. Click on "full results" on the left-hand side and you will see that what I stated above is 100% correct.

But thanks for playing.

235534[/snapback]

I reported this straight from the poll, you are as wrong, wrong as the NYT , as usual...

[TexasTiger 12,956]

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politi...OLL_RESULTS.pdf

Bush Approval Ratings: 31%

NYT Poll

The political situation has not helped some of the more prominent members of the Democratic Party. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was Mr. Bush's opponent in 2004, had a lower approval rating than Mr. Bush: 26 percent, down from 40 percent in a poll conducted right after the election.

And just 28 percent said they had a favorable view of Al Gore, one of Mr. Bush's more vocal critics.

Once again Tex, you try and attack the messenger and ignore the message.

You make a great Dem...

235092[/snapback]

Now you're counting on NYT's reporters to get a story right? They didn't read their own poll correctly. Doesn't mean you can't. Click on "full results" on the left-hand side and you will see that what I stated above is 100% correct.

But thanks for playing.

235534[/snapback]

I reported this straight from the poll, you are as wrong, wrong as the NYT , as usual...

235560[/snapback]

You obviously reported it straight from the article about the poll, which you quoted, not the poll, which you never reviewed, or at least failed to do so very well. I guess you don't know the difference.

[DKW 86 7,429]

5/4-8/06

Bush  Approve:31 Disapprove:63 DK/NA:6 (Page two of pdf)

Congress  Approve:24 Disapprove:64 DK/NA:13 (Page ten of pdf)

Economy Very Good:6 Fairly Good: 47 Fairly Bad:31 Very Bad:15 DK/NA:1 (page 12)

2006 Election For Bush:13 Against Bush:36 Not about GWB:45 DK/NA:6 (page 15)

GWB         Favorable:29 Not Favorable: 55 Undec:13 Dont Know Enough:  3 Refused:1

HRC          Favorable:34 Not Favorable:35 Undec:23 Dont Know Enough:9 Refused:0

John Kerry Favorable:26 Not Favorable:38 Undec:21 Dont Know Enough:13 Refused:1

Al Gore      Favorable:28 Not Favorable:39 Undec:25 Dont Know Enough:8 Refused:0

(Pages 2-23)

The NYT piece was quoted by me as written and you have to really split some hairs to push the difference between "job approval" and "favorable." Tenets are still the same however and within errors.

My main point is still: GWB is within reason/error of being able to win re-election against the three leading/primary candidates for the Dems.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I heard Shaun Hannity today on AM radio say the welfare state implications of this policy are terrible. He went on to say the Heritage Foundation came out with two reports on this policy and it's implications. I am researching that tonight.

Senate Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants Over Next 20 Years

by Robert Rector

Posted May 15, 2006

  If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1076.cfm

Range of Estimates

The figure of 103 million new legal immigrants is based on the assumption that immigration under the guest worker program would grow at 10 percent per year. If guest-worker immigration grows at the maximum rate permitted by the bill, 20 percent per year, the total number of new immigrants coming to the U.S. over the next twenty years would be 193 million. On the other hand, if immigration under the H-2C program did not increase at all for two decades but remained fixed at the initial level of 325,000 per year, total legal immigration under CIRA would be 72 million over twenty years, or more than three times the level that would occur under current law. (See Chart 3.)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/bg1936.cfm

Amnesty and Continued Low Skill Immigration Will Substantially Raise Welfare Costs and Poverty

by Robert Rector

Backgrounder #1936

May 12, 2006   

This paper focuses on the net fiscal effects of immi­gration with particular emphasis on the fiscal effects of low skill immigration. The fiscal effects of immigra­tion are only one aspect of the impact of immigration. Immigration also has social, political, and economic effects. In particular, the economic effects of immigra­tion have been heavily researched with differing results. These economic effects lie beyond the scope of this paper.

Overall, immigration is a net fiscal positive to the government’s budget in the long run: the taxes immi­grants pay exceed the costs of the services they receive. However, the fiscal impact of immigrants varies strongly according to immigrants’ education level. College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the government’s finances, with their taxes exceeding the government’s costs. By contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers. This is important because half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty.

Shelby voted for this .

[TexasTiger 12,956]

5/4-8/06

Bush  Approve:31 Disapprove:63 DK/NA:6 (Page two of pdf)

Congress  Approve:24 Disapprove:64 DK/NA:13 (Page ten of pdf)

Economy Very Good:6 Fairly Good: 47 Fairly Bad:31 Very Bad:15 DK/NA:1 (page 12)

2006 Election For Bush:13 Against Bush:36 Not about GWB:45 DK/NA:6 (page 15)

GWB         Favorable:29 Not Favorable: 55 Undec:13 Dont Know Enough:  3 Refused:1

HRC          Favorable:34 Not Favorable:35 Undec:23 Dont Know Enough:9 Refused:0

John Kerry Favorable:26 Not Favorable:38 Undec:21 Dont Know Enough:13 Refused:1

Al Gore      Favorable:28 Not Favorable:39 Undec:25 Dont Know Enough:8 Refused:0

(Pages 2-23)

The NYT piece was quoted by me as written and you have to really split some hairs to push the difference between "job approval" and "favorable." Tenets are still the same however and within errors.

My main point is still: GWB is within reason/error of being able to win re-election against the three leading/primary candidates for the Dems.

235693[/snapback]

Okay! Now we are at least dealing with the same set of numbers. I'm not sure this poll supports your assertion. Check out the "not favorables." Bush and Kerry and Gore are within the margin of error on favorable, but Bush far and away has the highest negatives. People have given up on Bush. He would have trouble beating anybody, even candidates as weak as these.

Here's another poll:

Kerry 48% Bush 41%

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters

May 10-11, 2006

Bush v Kerry

John Kerry (D) 48%

George W. Bush ® 41%

 

May 15, 2006--A polling rematch of the 2004 Presidential Election shows that John Kerry leads George W. Bush 48% to 41% (see crosstabs). In the real election, Kerry never held a lead that big in any of the nightly polls we conducted from January 2 through Election Day.

http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/May%20Dai...ush%20Kerry.htm

I also saw a series of polls that put Gore's favorables in the 47-49% range.

[Tigermike 3,039]

5/4-8/06

Bush  Approve:31 Disapprove:63 DK/NA:6 (Page two of pdf)

Congress  Approve:24 Disapprove:64 DK/NA:13 (Page ten of pdf)

Economy Very Good:6 Fairly Good: 47 Fairly Bad:31 Very Bad:15 DK/NA:1 (page 12)

2006 Election For Bush:13 Against Bush:36 Not about GWB:45 DK/NA:6 (page 15)

GWB        Favorable:29 Not Favorable: 55 Undec:13 Dont Know Enough:  3 Refused:1

HRC          Favorable:34 Not Favorable:35 Undec:23 Dont Know Enough:9 Refused:0

John Kerry Favorable:26 Not Favorable:38 Undec:21 Dont Know Enough:13 Refused:1

Al Gore      Favorable:28 Not Favorable:39 Undec:25 Dont Know Enough:8 Refused:0

(Pages 2-23)

The NYT piece was quoted by me as written and you have to really split some hairs to push the difference between "job approval" and "favorable." Tenets are still the same however and within errors.

My main point is still: GWB is within reason/error of being able to win re-election against the three leading/primary candidates for the Dems.

235693[/snapback]

Okay! Now we are at least dealing with the same set of numbers. I'm not sure this poll supports your assertion. Check out the "not favorables." Bush and Kerry and Gore are within the margin of error on favorable, but Bush far and away has the highest negatives. People have given up on Bush. He would have trouble beating anybody, even candidates as weak as these.

Here's another poll:

Kerry 48% Bush 41%

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters

May 10-11, 2006

Bush v Kerry

John Kerry (D) 48%

George W. Bush ® 41%

 

May 15, 2006--A polling rematch of the 2004 Presidential Election shows that John Kerry leads George W. Bush 48% to 41% (see crosstabs). In the real election, Kerry never held a lead that big in any of the nightly polls we conducted from January 2 through Election Day.

http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/May%20Dai...ush%20Kerry.htm

I also saw a series of polls that put Gore's favorables in the 47-49% range.

235733[/snapback]

Weren't there similar numbers out there before the last two election? Kerry and Gore didn't fare too well then, what has either done that would make you think he would win this time around?