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? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) 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? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[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? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) 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.