Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Disarray! Disarray!Follow

#1 Mar 10 2006 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Associated Press wrote:
WASHINGTON -- More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq -- the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

"Obviously, it's the winter of our discontent," said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.

Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues -- port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.
[...]
The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.

Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.

On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.
[...]
The AP-Ipsos poll, which has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, gives Republicans reason to worry that they may inherit Bush's political woes. Two-thirds of the public disapproves of how the GOP-led Congress is handling its job and a surprising 53 percent of Republicans give Congress poor marks.

By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.
More of the story explains why this may not translate into an easy win by Democrats this fall. Which is probably true -- the biggest issue (in my mind) with the Democratic party is that they try to define themselves as "not Republicans".

Anyway, feel free to get into how the poll was administered or how it was slanted or how I left "this paragraph" out of the quoted portion. I'm just a conduit to the news, baby...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Mar 10 2006 at 4:40 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Interesting,

Ipsos while evil is one of the better research outfits out there.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#3 Mar 10 2006 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good
****
6,760 posts
Shadowrelm? Dat you?
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#4 Mar 10 2006 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eviler than Monsanto?

Here's the poll (PDF Warning) to tear apart if so inclined.

Edited, Fri Mar 10 16:54:05 2006 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Mar 10 2006 at 4:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kakar the Vile wrote:
Shadowrelm? Dat you?
Shadowrelm's never cited a source before in his life.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Mar 10 2006 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
****
6,760 posts
Quote:
Shadowrelm's never cited a source before in his life.


Touche
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#7 Mar 10 2006 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
They are only evil cause I worked for em.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#8 Mar 10 2006 at 4:58 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Does this have anything to do with Bush throwing a fit and acting like a petulant little child over of the Dubai ports deal?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#9 Mar 10 2006 at 5:01 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Dubai port deal, possible civil war in Iraq, evidence that he fibbed when he said they didnt know Katrina would be that bad.


Plus the whole sink hole that is his second term in office.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#10 Mar 10 2006 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
possible civil war in Iraq


Which by all rational measures is an actual, ongoing civil war in Iraq.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#11 Mar 10 2006 at 5:05 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Shhhhh


/plugs ears and hums

Mission Accomplished Mission AccomplishedMission Accomplished Mission AccomplishedMission Accomplished Mission AccomplishedMission Accomplished Mission AccomplishedMission Accomplished Mission AccomplishedMission Accomplished Mission AccomplishedMission Accomplished Mission AccomplishedMission Accomplished Mission AccomplishedMission Accomplished Mission Accomplished




I can't hear you!!!
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#12 Mar 10 2006 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
possible civil war in Iraq


Which by all rational measures is an actual, ongoing civil war in Iraq.


I'm curious what definition of "civil war" you use...?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Mar 10 2006 at 5:27 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
But guys ... would you have honeslty wanted Gore in office instead?


He's still going to have approval from all the religious head cases out there.


#14 Mar 10 2006 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Quote:
possible civil war in Iraq


Which by all rational measures is an actual, ongoing civil war in Iraq.


I'm curious what definition of "civil war" you use...?


Armed conflict between two or more groups of citizens of the same country. What definition would you have me use?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#15 Mar 10 2006 at 5:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
JEB BUSH 2008!
#16 Mar 10 2006 at 5:31 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Quote:
possible civil war in Iraq


Which by all rational measures is an actual, ongoing civil war in Iraq.


I'm curious what definition of "civil war" you use...?

I'm just guessing here, but I think it would be the definition that involves revolt against the standing folk in power.
#17 Mar 10 2006 at 5:32 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
Samira wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Quote:
possible civil war in Iraq


Which by all rational measures is an actual, ongoing civil war in Iraq.


I'm curious what definition of "civil war" you use...?


Armed conflict between two or more groups of citizens of the same country. What definition would you have me use?

I'm willing to be whatever it is, it's going to be long winded.
#18 Mar 10 2006 at 5:35 PM Rating: Decent
*****
19,369 posts
Samira wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Quote:
possible civil war in Iraq


Which by all rational measures is an actual, ongoing civil war in Iraq.


I'm curious what definition of "civil war" you use...?


Armed conflict between two or more groups of citizens of the same country. What definition would you have me use?



Pffft semantics.
#19 Mar 10 2006 at 5:43 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
Samira's definition confirmed:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/civil%20war
#20 Mar 10 2006 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Too bad we couldn't get the people to rise up against Saddam himself when he was in power... Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#21 Mar 10 2006 at 6:04 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
Armed conflict between two or more groups of citizens of the same country. What definition would you have me use?


Ah. So we had a Civil War in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict? France had a Civil War last year? Everytime there's a gang shootout, that's a Civil War?

It's more then armed conflict. It's a "war" waged between two or more groups of citizens in the same country. The term Civil War is generally reserved for conflict specifically in which control of the country itself is the objective of the conflict.

The current violence going on in Iraq (as opposed to the insurgency that's been going on for some time) does not meet that criteria. While it is violent, the violence is not specifically organized or aimed at gaining control of the country. We're not seeing forces seizing government buildings, claiming control (or even intent to control), or any of the other things normally associated with civil war.


Wiki's listing on civil war is far more accurate the the one sentence definition you gave. You'll note it also includes the requirement that those fighting be organized and specifically seeking control of the nation itself. Random groups of people killing other people is bad, but is *not* civil war. Not unless you take an incredibly broad definition of the term...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Mar 10 2006 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Okay, I'm game. Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about it:

Wikipedia wrote:
Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not). In simple terms, a Civil War is a war in which a country fights another part of itself.


Oh, looks like it's not so cut and dried as all that. Really seems to depend on whom you ask.

If you're under the impression that the conflict in Iraq isn't over control of the country - what, pray tell us all, is it over?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#23 Mar 10 2006 at 6:16 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
gbaji wrote:
The term Civil War is generally reserved for conflict specifically in which control of the country itself is the objective of the conflict.


Ummm ... according to Webster’s, you're incorrect. You're adding your own clauses on top of the definition. Unless you’re saying that war specifically means to fight for control of a country. That would be stupid on your part since you seem to think we are at war with Iraq for reasons other than control.

It was wordy though.
#24 Mar 10 2006 at 6:19 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
Samira wrote:
If you're under the impression that the conflict in Iraq isn't over control of the country - what, pray tell us all, is it over?


Syndication rights for Charle's in Charge. Scott Baio had quite the harem there ...
#25 Mar 10 2006 at 6:21 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
fenderputy the Shady wrote:
Unless you’re saying that war specifically means to fight for control of a country. That would be stupid on your part since you seem to think we are at war with Iraq for reasons other than control.

We're not at war against Iraq. We're engaging in a War on Terror, and Iraq is just a crucial front in that war.

Of course, trying to subsume "War on Terror" under the standard definition of War might prove even more slippery...
#26 Mar 10 2006 at 6:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
If you're under the impression that the conflict in Iraq isn't over control of the country - what, pray tell us all, is it over?
Don't you know? It's because our presence has drawn all the world's terrorists there!

They're only there to kill Americans and care nothing about who controls Iraq. Duh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 140 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (140)