As far as approval ratings are concerned. . . I was not asked for my approval… Therefore ‘40% of America’ could be 4 of any 10 random people from the coast of Maine for all we know. Approval ratings are retarded. IMO.
if he drives a GTO he probably will
because it’s the bestest car evar!!!1!!
you can’t just force liberal bullshit out there and expect people to swallow it… you do realize that the amount of soldiers that died to date in this war cannot even hold a candle to vietnam of 60k and ww1 and 2 with like 110k and 440k… so that’s not really a shocking number… fuck, the kicker to start the war outright, 9/11, killed what, like 1300 people? so in 1 day, actually a mtter of hours, you can almost compare the casualties of this war that’s been goign on for years… wow, not as impactful as you stated huh?
so billions and billions??? well yeah… shit costs money… did you ever check out a budget for THE UNITED STATES… yeah, it’s not that cheap… you don’t really see ‘million’ written anywhere on it… becuase pretty much everything costs ‘billions and billions’ :scared: for example… how much does the government shell out to the average college studen for a grant?? maybe 2k a year… lucky 5k? well the government spends 30 billion a year in that alone… the ‘war on drugs’ gets about 50 billion a year! … medicade savings in the 2006 budget are estimated at over 150 billion… a lot of money is spent or saved regardless of a war… it’s just an added cost. waht do you care anyway? was money ‘personally’ taken from you? did you get higher taxes on your paycheck labeled ‘war tax’ ?
stop bitching you pussy… i think what’s worse is arguing about the inevitable.
You’re comparing the war in Iraq to a colossal failure (Vietnam) and two of the largest wars in human history (WW1 + 2). Yes, less than 2000 Americans have been killed, but how many thousands have been injured? And how many more enemies have we created with our very presence in Iraq.
And:
War of 1812 - 2,260 American deaths
Spanish-American War - 2,446 American deaths
Gulf War (1991) - 148 American deaths
1: About 3000 died on 9/11.
2: IRAQ IS NOT AL QAEDA. Saddam Hussein might have been a colossal prick, but the actions of Al Qaeda are not the actions of Iraq. That would be like holding the chancellor of Germany responsible for a Spanish terrorist group. I guess getting one “bad towelhead” is good enough for you. It seems to be for so many ill-informed people. Has anyone noticed that it’s been over four years and we STILL DON’T HAVE BIN LADEN? Quit building nations; Find the elusive cave-dwelling dialysis patient and put a bullet in his head.
In the fiscal year 2006 federal budget (which totals at $2,130,000,000,000 or $2,130bil), $558bil is budgetted for current military spending, and $85bil in additional non-budgetted money is expected for military operations in 2006. Between Veterans benefits and interest on past debt, spending on past military operations is budgetted at $384bil. So, EXCLUDING the $85bil expected but not budgetted, military spending comes to $942bil of the $2130bil budget, or 44.2% of the total budget. Bear in mind that this figure doesn’t include the totals for Homeland Security spending.
America was founded so people could bitch about anything they see fit to bitch about.
(All figures are from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/index.html except percentages, which are from Microsoft Calculator)
Cliff notes?
We’re spending a lot of fucking money. I’m a “soulless commie liberal”, and I think we’re spending too much money. We need to get more results from less money, and don’t tell me it can’t be done.
:ugh2: I’m glad someone was paying attention in Statistics class in college.
It’s called a “random sample” and there is usually a +3% or -3% possibility of error in that sample.
They do not just pick a couple of people out of the telephone book and give them a ring.
You can’t tell that to some people… they think the “random sample” is taken from Al Franken’s PDA contacts list…
I think she is trying to say you can’t knwo what the national feeling is either way due to not asking everyone.
If they pole every 4th person out of 10 its possible to have the favors stacked to one side that is not the TRUE represented opionion due to “how the chips fall”. And sorry but 3% isn’t going to correct that.
They should take an approval rating of Iraqie citizens. And don’t let a biased source handle it.
If anyone has become an enemy because we started a war, then they are pussies. They know that if they don’t side with us we won’t attack them. Furthermore that keeps them in good graces with the terrorists. It would behoove any pussy country to not be in the coalition. Look as Spain. I’m so proud of them. Now take an approval rating of France. Not so many people are proud of them. Spain says their with us, and terrorists bomb them.
But i digress.
Hopefully their filling the gaps in the budget from the war overspending by taking from welfare. How come you guys arent up in arms about that kinda shit. Perhaps you see everything as potentially benifitial, but must first consider the source. If GW started it it must be bad.
He’s freakin awsome. He’s visited New Orleans like 8 times. Clinton would have only done like 3. So haha
Hey you sissy liberals, get your jollies now while you can. Bush’s approval rating is going to skyrocket up now after he drums up support for the war with that scripted interview with those soldiers.
wow… just wow.
Have you ever heard of a sample selection size? Do you think the statisticians that work for the polling firms just go, “uhh yah, let me call up 10 people and that will be our sample size.” Statisticians job is to eliminate bias from a sample, your ‘problem’ has been known for thousands of years.
I was talking about white water ass…though I think Clinton should have gotten more than a slap on the wrist for his affair and the impact it made on the youth of America it really means nothing compared to white water.
so you are saying you don’t think we should have gone into WW1 or WW2 because those guys in Germany were just huge pricks?
as for the budget- like sonny said it costs money to do anything so deal with it. you have a reno and darkstar walks to work so we know you don’t spend your money on gas.
vietnam was different because there was a draft. the people fighting right now had a CHOICE when they joined the military. they KNEW they were signing up to have the possiblity of going to war.
EDIT: PS- Iran and Syria should be next on the list. If you think that Saddam and Bin Laden never did business you are stupider than I thought you were.
A gallup poll was indeed conducted in 2004. 81% view the coalition as ‘occupiers’ rather than ‘liberators.’ Keep in mind that this poll was conducted in March 2004, prior to the fights in Fallujah and Najaf. It has been over a year and half since this poll was conducted and so I am positive that that number has risen.
And don’t let a biased source handle it.
Please describe why you think these polls are biased. I could get some statisticians to debate with you about various bias in samples, but I am sure that you have yet to even take an elementry statistics course.
If anyone has become an enemy because we started a war, then they are pussies. They know that if they don’t side with us we won’t attack them. Furthermore that keeps them in good graces with the terrorists. It would behoove any pussy country to not be in the coalition.
Huh? The first line says that a country is weak if they do not side with us. Then you say that we will not attack them if they are on our side. It sounds like if someone ISNT on our side, they are stronger than the countries that do side with us because they are standing up to the worlds on superpower. I am not saying that the policies of NK, Iran, etc are good, I am just mearly saying that your arguement does not make any sense.
Look as Spain. I’m so proud of them. Now take an approval rating of France. Not so many people are proud of them. Spain says their with us, and terrorists bomb them.
Weren’t you just talking about how the polls are biased a minute ago?
Hopefully their filling the gaps in the budget from the war overspending by taking from welfare. How come you guys arent up in arms about that kinda shit.
We aren’t ‘all up in arms about that kinda shit’ because they aren’t taking from welfare. Other programs are getting budget cuts however, many which actually work to educate and train people on welfare so that they do not have to rely on welfare.
Perhaps you see everything as potentially benifitial, but must first consider the source. If GW started it it must be bad.
I completly agree that too many democrats (/ left wing) people worked up over everything that Bush does. Oftentimes they spout rants out of their mouths which make no sense. Then again so do Republicans.
He’s freakin awsome. He’s visited New Orleans like 8 times. Clinton would have only done like 3. So haha
1st off, Bush didn’t visit 8 times. Second of all, you saying that Clinton would have gone only 3 times is completly baseless.
college liberals who think they know all of the worlds mysteries, oh my
not quite collge, but from the same cloth…
yeah because clinton cause the youth of america to start getting blowjobs, after all i had never heard of a blowjob before clinton, and clinton is, of course, my biggest role model. :jerkit:
the average vagina is 8 inches deep :gives: :1320:
Quite the contrary: The Germans were allied with a country on which we had declared war. The Germans were obligated to go to war with us.
what are you even trying to say?
Islamic extremists hate Hussein nearly as much as they hate Bush. In their eyes, Hussein is nothing more than a dictator. He did what he did for personal power… he doesn’t give a fuck about Allah.
Also… “stupider”… not a word.