Which is Bush handling worse?

[El Barto]

Here is a poll the liberals should love, since every answer is a whack at Bush. But I want to get a feel for what everyone's priorities are. No wiggle room is allowed.

[Cumulonimbus]

Hmm... 8 votes for Pro-Bush, spending policy. 0 for Pro-Bush, Iraq policy. It seems that the only people that are going to be left on Bush's side are those Bush lovers who support the war.

Edit: I think I'm stating the obvious. Meh.

[El Barto]

The poll confirms several things that I suspected:

1 - Conservatives understand that you have to go through good and bad to succeed in a war. Things are never perfect, but the goal must be pursued. Hence, they don't bash Bush over Iraq.

2 - Democrats are the anti-war party regardless of the worthy goals being pursued. With major overspending in this country, they still vote 10 to 8 in favor of being anti-war.

3 - Republicans are the party of fiscal concern (100% for spending restraint), but then we knew that. When we didn't have a war to fight, newly majoritarian Republicans dragged Clinton to a balanced budget kicking and screaming.

4 - The neutrals mirror the anti-Bush. (Liberals who don't want to call themselves liberal? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif) Only two of these voting for focusing on spending restraint is disappointing.

5 - 2+2 has more anti-Bush people (18 votes, versus 8 pro-Bush and 5 neutral)

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The poll confirms several things that I suspected:...[list of several things unconfirmed by poll]


[/ QUOTE ]

Your poll really doesn't confirm any of those things.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The poll confirms several things that I suspected:...[list of several things unconfirmed by poll]


[/ QUOTE ]

Your poll really doesn't confirm any of those things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when do actual facts matter to these guys? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[tolbiny]

"The poll confirms several things that I suspected:"

"That El barto is always right, now let me explain why."

basically what your poll "confims" is that supporitng Bush and supporting the war in Iraq are opinions that a person is likely to hold together, the same with the anti bush anti war crowd.

Basically all this proves is that you are a jackas pushing an agenda.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
The poll confirms several things that I suspected:

2+2 has more anti-Bush people (18 votes, versus 8 pro-Bush and 5 neutral)

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[ QUOTE ]
Republicans are the party of fiscal concern

[/ QUOTE ]

This is possibly true unless you are just counting "Republicans In Power." If you just count them, your conclusion falls apart entirely.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
The poll confirms several things that I suspected:

1 - Conservatives understand that you have to go through good and bad to succeed in a war. Things are never perfect, but the goal must be pursued. Hence, they don't bash Bush over Iraq.

2 - Democrats are the anti-war party regardless of the worthy goals being pursued. With major overspending in this country, they still vote 10 to 8 in favor of being anti-war.

3 - Republicans are the party of fiscal concern (100% for spending restraint), but then we knew that. When we didn't have a war to fight, newly majoritarian Republicans dragged Clinton to a balanced budget kicking and screaming.

4 - The neutrals mirror the anti-Bush. (Liberals who don't want to call themselves liberal? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif) Only two of these voting for focusing on spending restraint is disappointing.

5 - 2+2 has more anti-Bush people (18 votes, versus 8 pro-Bush and 5 neutral)

[/ QUOTE ]

This post confirms several things that I suspected:

1 - This poll is stupid

2 - El Barto's logic is faulty

[Matty]

Is not the Iraq policy a spending policy? Not only in hundreds of billions of dollars, but the good will the world had toward us after 9-11, a couple thousand American lives, an somewhere around a hundred thousand Iraqi civilian lives.

Channeling El Barto:

What this poll shows to me is that war supporters are completely brainwashed. They can be convinced to spend hundreds of billions to build someone else's country; but not their own. To the point that they don't even categorize the Iraq policy as a spending policy.

Thank you.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Also, when you draw conclusions from something that was a vote of 10-8 ("SEE I WAS COMPLETELY RIGHT!!!!") that immediately discredits whatever the hell else you're talking about. What's the margin of error of a sample of 18? I'm willing to guess it's higher than +/- 5.5%.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
1 - Conservatives understand that you have to go through good and bad to succeed in a war. Things are never perfect, but the goal must be pursued. Hence, they don't bash Bush over Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this why Conservatives on this forum think America won the Vietnam war?

I'm a liberal, and I think the US won the Vietnam War. The US completely devastated the country. They didn't want the dominos to fall, or didn't want a threat of a good example (which is really what the domino analogy amounts to) and with a decimated country there was no way it would be a good example for anything. Other than a good example of what happens to a leftist country when it leans too far left.

[[censored]]

pro bush and the domestic spending. I still support the war in principle but it is getting harder and harder for me to support it in execution.

[HtotheNootch]

You make a faulty assumption that all conservatives are pro-Bush and pro-Iraq.

[Cyrus]

"The poll confirms several things that I suspected."

When a researcher says that, it shows how severely biased he has been in his research.

"Conservatives understand that you have to go through good and bad to succeed in a war. Things are never perfect, but the goal must be pursued."

This is not shown in the poll's results. A different and equally valid interpretation would be that conservatives are prone to pursue a mistaken war strategy to its bitter end, even though the objective is not to be consistent but to win! However, both this and your interpretation of the data would be abritrary.

"Democrats are the anti-war party regardless of the worthy goals being pursued."

This remark is supported by other data but not by your poll. All that your poll shows is that those that are anti-Bush consider the war in Iraq to be a bigger bungle than Bush's spending policies. It does not show, in and by itself, whether or not the Democrats are "the anti-war party".

"Republicans are the party of fiscal concern (100% for spending restraint)."

This remark is supported by other data but not by your poll. Again, all that your poll shows is that those that are anti-Bush consider the war in Iraq to be a bigger bungle than Bush's spending policies, something that the pro-Bush crowd does not agree with.

You probably forgot you have not made your choices to be Dems, Republicans and Other- ---but pro-bush, anti-Bush and neutral-Bush. In other words, you are drawing conclusions that are simply not there. (FYI, there are Democrats that are pro-Bush and Republicans that are anti-Bush out there. Or did you not know that?)

"The neutrals mirror the anti-Bush. (Liberals who don't want to call themselves liberal?) /images/graemlins/smirk.gif"

You may smirk but this is actually quite an arbitrary remark! From the posts we read on this forum, one could say that most of the neutral-Bush crowd would probably be Libertarians.

Do you believe perhaps that Libertarians are liberals who don't want to admit it? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

So - congratulations.

You have managed to f*uck it all up almost perfectly. I can't wait for your next poll. /images/graemlins/grin.gif