Congress' approval rating: 9%

Pelosi and Reid are nothing more than political hacks.

Jim Webb's not a political hack, but he said something recently that irritated me that's reflective of what is wrong with politics. I like Jim Webb, but when Webb achieved what he had set out to do, pass his new version of the GI Bill, he then went on Countdown on MSNBC to attack McCain for not supporting his verison and instead raising his concern about front-loaded benefits and retention rates, going on to say that McCain should keep Politics out of the military. (This was also around the same time Gen. Wesley Clark said that McCain was not qualified to be President because he got shot down, he did not denounce those remarks on the program).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 17 2008, 09:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The poll question was asked to determine if people favored Obama's or McCain's approach to continuing the nation building in Iraq.

Of course, they could ask the poll question in ways you suggest to get the answer you want.</div>

Could, and often do. I give this poll little if any value. The only poll that counts is the one they take in early November to determine who the next Congressmen will be.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jurassic @ Jul 17 2008, 09:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RipCity @ Jul 17 2008, 05:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I hope your first statement was not referring to my post, if it was, dear god read it again.

There are plenty of supporters of this war, way more than any media outlet would have you believe. I saw a poll last night that said the country was divided 48% for the war, 52% against.</div>

That is not true at all. Lets be real, when many Americans will say they support the war when really what they mean to say is that they support the TROOPS. If the question was asked "Do you support the war based on the premise that it was founded upon" the approval rating would be much lower.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I'm sorry Bush wasn't prepared for the most catastrophic attack on our soil in the history of the United States. I know, terrible.</div>

I have a friend who says that same crap....sad. Republicans seem to think that Bush's presidency was ruined by 9/11. First of all he's not the first president to ever deal with a terrorist attack on American soil. And lets be clear what a terrorist attack is, it isn't doesn't have to be done by foreigners like the media seems to think, the OKC bombing is an example of terrorism in my book. Nobody expected Bush or any human to be prepared for the attack, simply to handle it much better than he did.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Oh and on the note of democratic hypocrisy..I love how they are crying about the national deficit yet they are sending 50 billion to help aids victims in Africa. Makes sense!</div>

I don't want this to turn into a flame war, but that is ignorant. Charity of all things, is not the reason that the deficit is so high.
</div>


Many Americans such as myself support both the troops and the war, we understand the reasoning for it and we also do not hide behind claims of "There were no WMD" when clearly there were. The Democrats know damn well what we have found there, and they also know that there is no way in hell we are going to find a fully assembled nuclear weapon in Iraq, however that would be the only way they would admit that they were wrong. Never mind the manufacturing facilities, never mind the yellow cake uranium, let's not worry about all those chemicals used to make biological weapons that were found...No, there are no WMD unless they are fully assembled and ready to use...Talk about ignorance.


The OKC bombing had little to no effect on the economy or gas prices, which was the premise with which I made that statement. Of course he's not the first President to deal with a terrorist attack, however he is the first to deal with one so catastrophic as well as one that had such a huge effect on our economy.

And as for charity to Africa...I'm not naive enough to think we can throw money at every problem and solve it. Democrats bash Bush and Republicans for the deficit, yet they are giving money to causes everywhere while our own nation slips into a recession. At some point you have to say enough is enough and take care of whats most important to us, and that would be the United States of America.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 18 2008, 08:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There's been more than one poll with the same result. More than one polling firm.</div>
That's terrific. Still not convinced.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RipCity @ Jul 18 2008, 04:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And as for charity to Africa...I'm not naive enough to think we can throw money at every problem and solve it. Democrats bash Bush and Republicans for the deficit, yet they are giving money to causes everywhere while our own nation slips into a recession. At some point you have to say enough is enough and take care of whats most important to us, and that would be the United States of America.</div>

I do donate to charity but only to causes I feel are worth it.

If celebrities want to "fix" Africa then super but the reason IMO they do it is ego. Its a problem big enough for their inflated sense of being. Further, every thing they do seems massive and is yet another ego trip.

Washington thinks in order to solve a problem all you have to do is throw money at it. The recent bailout for example; I believe only 29% of Americans are in favor of it.

Yet Congress is going through w/ it. I'd bet that a great majority of that 29% works in the mortgage banking/financial services industry or on Wall St. Not only does it legislate ignorance but grants absolution for stupidity, arrogance, & greed.