Poll: USA is going wrong direction.

[AROCES]

Overall, the number of people who think the country is going in the wrong direction hit 54 percent in the latest AP-GfK poll, up from 46 percent in June.

It's not just Obama who's feeling the drag. Approval of Congress — already low — has gotten lower, slipping 6 percentage points to 32 percent.

Obama still has a solid 55 percent approval rating — better than Bill Clinton and about even with George W. Bush six months into their presidencies

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/ap_poll_o.../21/238464.html

[KRS-One]

You should take a look at the percentage of people who felt the country was going in the wrong direction for the last year or two of the Bush administration. 55% makes it look like we're a utopia compared to then.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A mere 7% of Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the United States, the lowest satisfaction reading in Gallup history. This finding, from a weekend USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Oct. 10-12 after a week of devastating losses on Wall Street, is down 2 points from the previous record low of 9% recorded just over a week ago. Prior to this month, Gallup's lowest satisfaction reading had been 12%, measured in 1979.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111169/American...llTime-Low.aspx

Yea. Damn that Obama! Raising public opinion about the country almost 50 times over from where it was less than a year ago! *shakes fist angrily*

Edited July 22, 2009 by KRS-One

[AROCES]

You should take a look at the percentage of people who felt the country was going in the wrong direction for the last year or two of the Bush administration. 55% makes it look like we're a utopia compared to then.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111169/American...llTime-Low.aspx

Yea. Damn that Obama! Raising public opinion about the country almost 50 times over from where it was less than a year ago! *shakes fist angrily*

Well, he is about even now with W Bush on his 6 months. Remember, he needs a second term before you can even compare him to W Bush.

[KRS-One]

Well, he is about even now with W Bush on his 6 months. Remember, he needs a second term before you can even compare him to W Bush.

How is a higher approval rating now than Bush has had for over 5 years running "on par", exactly?

I can see why you've said in the past that you "don't believe" in polls. It's because you don't know what they mean, apparently.

[AROCES]

How is a higher approval rating now than Bush has had for over 5 years running "on par", exactly?

I can see why you've said in the past that you "don't believe" in polls. It's because you don't know what they mean, apparently.

Well, Bush being a 2 term President is not a poll.

[pbarosso]

aroces is right. its only six months in. how can you even bring up the last five years of bush2 as a way of diverting the conversation away from ther first six months approval comparison?

it is even as it stands now, we can only judge the rest when it happens.

[pbarosso]

also whether or not aroces believes in any polls is not the issue. he makes no claim as to what he thought in the orignal post. only presenting the facts.

[pbarosso]

How is a higher approval rating now than Bush has had for over 5 years running "on par", exactly?

I can see why you've said in the past that you "don't believe" in polls. It's because you don't know what they mean, apparently.

oh so now aroces doesnt know what they mean. just like you to say anything that somebody doesnt agree with you on must clearly not understand. what are you some kind of person who is afraid to be a jerk in real life so you do it online?

[AROCES]

also whether or not aroces believes in any polls is not the issue. he makes no claim as to what he thought in the orignal post. only presenting the facts.

YUP! Precisley, I'm just the messenger.

[The Silver Thong]

Well, he is about even now with W Bush on his 6 months. Remember, he needs a second term before you can even compare him to W Bush.

Are you saying Obama needs to start a war to get his approval ratings up ?

[The Silver Thong]

also whether or not aroces believes in any polls is not the issue. he makes no claim as to what he thought in the orignal post. only presenting the facts.

I wish I had one of those star trek double facepalm things right now, oy what a leap of faith.

[__Kratos__]

I wish I had one of those star trek double facepalm things right now, oy what a leap of faith.

Lazy beaver here you go...

[AROCES]

Are you saying Obama needs to start a war to get his approval ratings up ?

Oh no, never. If we get hit again I can see Obama on national TV apologizing to the whole world that it is our fault we got hit again.

OR, he may get tough and say, if the terrorist ever do that again he would file a formal protest at the United Nations and threaten the terrorist a lawsuit.

[The Silver Thong]

Oh no, never. If we get hit again I can see Obama on national TV apologizing to the whole world that it is our fault we got hit again.

OR, he may get tough and say, if the terrorist ever do that again he would file a formal protest at the United Nations and threaten the terrorist a lawsuit.

Well both those options are better than starting a 6 year war with a country that had nothing to do with any attacks against America don't you think.

Kratos, I thank you lazy maybe, computer retard most definitely LOL

[KRS-One]

also whether or not aroces believes in any polls is not the issue. he makes no claim as to what he thought in the orignal post. only presenting the facts.

AROCES has specifically stated in the past that "polls and statistics" mean nothing.

When he posts polls and/or statistics I therefor find it strange that he has taken them into consideration.

I'm sorry that my criticism of his arguments amounts to being a jerk to him over the internet that in some way shows that I am hiding behind anonymity. Believe me, if he and I were to meet in real life, my disdain for his dishonest representation of facts and willful ignorance as an attempt to prove a point my sardonic attitude might possibly astound you. When a person claims that they are absolutely opposed to a methodology and then use those very same methods to make a point it sort of calls into question their credibility.

aroces is right. its only six months in. how can you even bring up the last five years of bush2 as a way of diverting the conversation away from ther first six months approval comparison?

It may have something to do with the fact that AROCES is calling into question the moral support of a president using statistics that he contends meant nothing for the president preceding the current one regardless of time frame.

[AROCES]

Well both those options are better than starting a 6 year war with a country that had nothing to do with any attacks against America don't you think.

For years we been attacked, we took your approach and downplayed it and the enemy didnt stop until they saw we reacted.

Let it be known that if Amercan gets attacked again our respond will extent to other enemies as well, its a good time to get rid of Saddam once and for all instead of waitng for him to die and watch Uday continue on his tyrannical regime.

Besides, arent you glad we did since Saddam was able to corrupt the UN itslelf?

[Kimi81]

For years we been attacked, we took your approach and downplayed it and the enemy didnt stop until they saw we reacted.

Let it be known that if Amercan gets attacked again our respond will extent to other enemies as well, its a good time to get rid of Saddam once and for all instead of waitng for him to die and watch Uday continue on his tyrannical regime.

Besides, arent you glad we did since Saddam was able to corrupt the UN itslelf?

We had been attacked for years......by who?

Plus, I think if we do retaliate for attacks the logical thing would be to go to war with the Nation that attacked us right? Invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks sort of defeats the purpouse.

[AROCES]

We had been attacked for years......by who?

Plus, I think if we do retaliate for attacks the logical thing would be to go to war with the Nation that attacked us right? Invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks sort of defeats the purpouse.

The attack on us the for the past 20 years been posted here numerous times. Sorry, got no time to post it all, but to name a few, the the first World Trade Center bombing and the USS Cole.

Nope, there was no Nation that attacked us, our enemies are spread like bugs.

Iraq has been a problem, so we fixed that problem at the same time. .

[The Silver Thong]

For years we been attacked, we took your approach and downplayed it and the enemy didnt stop until they saw we reacted.

Let it be known that if Amercan gets attacked again our respond will extent to other enemies as well, its a good time to get rid of Saddam once and for all instead of waitng for him to die and watch Uday continue on his tyrannical regime.

Besides, arent you glad we did since Saddam was able to corrupt the UN itslelf?

Let me remind you. The United States has been attacking ! Your not being attacked, they are defending. When a country has it's nose up so many other country's nose some will take offense. Or do you deny American manipulation and nation building? Bush said that America was not, a nation building country, meaning the U.S. and guess what, you are the biggest nation building country on the globe.

Now is Bush better at foreign relations or is Obama? Remember the pen is mightier than the sword. The pen that signed for the war in Iraq was far more dangerous than the sword. The pen has written history and there are many examples of history being an embarrassment. I am not a huge supporter of Obama but I have to say imo, he was the better of the two. Not that I didn't like some of McCain's policies but Obama was the right choice.

Electing in another pub would have meant the child didn't learn from the first time he sneaked into the cookie jar LOL.

Edited July 22, 2009 by The Silver Thong

[Kimi81]

The attack on us the for the past 20 years been posted here numerous times. Sorry, got no time to post it all, but to name a few, the the first World Trade Center bombing and the USS Cole.

Nope, there was no Nation that attacked us, our enemies are spread like bugs.

Iraq has been a problem, so we fixed that problem at the same time. .

Ok, your right, we have been attacked before, I'll give you that much. I was so young when those attacks took place that I didn't think of them outright.

However, in the case of 9/11, the attack stemmed from Al Queda out of Afghanistan, so explain to me how it was logical to invade Iraq? How was Iraq more of a problem then Afghanistan?

[AROCES]

Ok, your right, we have been attacked before, I'll give you that much. I was so young when those attacks took place that I didn't think of them outright.

However, in the case of 9/11, the attack stemmed from Al Queda out of Afghanistan, so explain to me how it was logical to invade Iraq? How was Iraq more of a problem then Afghanistan?

10 years of sanctions, embargoes, no fly zone, weapon inspection and the fact that Saddam was able to corrupt the UN itself for me is logical enough to put him out for good since it was an opportunity to do so.

Also, the WMD warning been going on for years and the world has no clue really if Saddma has it or not, just too much risk to not do nothing.

Edited July 22, 2009 by AROCES

[KRS-One]

Ok, your right, we have been attacked before, I'll give you that much. I was so young when those attacks took place that I didn't think of them outright.

However, in the case of 9/11, the attack stemmed from Al Queda out of Afghanistan, so explain to me how it was logical to invade Iraq? How was Iraq more of a problem then Afghanistan?

The answer you are going to get is that Iraq was a key player in supporting and harboring Al Qaeda members.

Much like it was planning to use and accrue weapons of mass destruction.

Which is to say there isn't evidence of either and both were blown out of context as a means to get us to go to war with them. This will then descend into 4-6 pages of AROCES (and possibly Acid and Lord Umberger) not understanding links he's quoting while insisting he's right contrary to any and all evidence provided.

You will also have your patriotism called into question, and possibly be asked if you really support the troops and America. Save yourself the time and energy.

[AROCES]

Which is to say there isn't evidence of either and both were blown out of context as a means to get us to go to war with them. This will then descend into 4-6 pages of AROCES (and possibly Acid and Lord Umberger) not understanding links he's quoting while insisting he's right contrary to any and all evidence provided.

Then what the heck was the UN Inspectors doing in Iraq for years and years?

[Kimi81]

The answer you are going to get is that Iraq was a key player in supporting and harboring Al Qaeda members.

Much like it was planning to use and accrue weapons of mass destruction.

Which is to say there isn't evidence of either and both were blown out of context as a means to get us to go to war with them. This will then descend into 4-6 pages of AROCES (and possibly Acid and Lord Umberger) not understanding links he's quoting while insisting he's right contrary to any and all evidence provided.

You will also have your patriotism called into question, and possibly be asked if you really support the troops and America. Save yourself the time and energy.

LOL, I do believe you are right KRS, I totally agree with you're theory about everything being blown out of context just to have an excuse to invade another Country. It makes perfect sense.

Besides, Aroces and I have been down this road before, and it leads to no where

[The Silver Thong]

10 years of sanctions, embargoes, no fly zone, weapon inspection and the fact that Saddam was able to corrupt the UN itself for me is logical enough to put him out for good since it was an opportunity to do so.

Also, the WMD warning been going on for years and the world has no clue really if Saddma has it or not, just too much risk to not do nothing.

Maybe you should start of by stating how many Iraqi died under those sanctions and embargoes? No fly zone LOL they had no planes LOL

Plus why doesn't your argument about the U.N. start with, the U.N. was allowed to be corrupted. To blame one man Kofie is ludicrous. To think Saddam held all that power over the righteous victors of WWII and all it's affiliates is also ludicrous. Money always leaves trails, it about how much money will it cost to hide that trail

WMD's have been well explained and to put it simple and to the point. The U.S. new of WMD's because they the U.S. helped supply them. The U.S. was also fully aware that the Kurds were being slaughtered. However a million have died in Iraq and not one mention of the Kurds. Unless you want to justify Americas presence there.