Clinton beats Bush on taxes, the economy, national security, honesty etc.

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.

The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era -- 1:57)

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.
Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.

Clinton was impeached in 1998 over testimony he gave in a deposition about an extramarital sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinksy. He was later aquitted by the Senate.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

Vote Bill in 2008!

http://billforfirstlady.com/
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Ahem....

A poll does not make it so. [/quote]

A poll shows what most people think. And that's the point.

It's just like you to define truth by a majority opinion instead of fact or reality.

Like I said the last time you made that comment, you haven't paid attention to my posts at all. It's funny, I both look down on the average person and I think their opinion equals truth. Which is it?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']A poll shows what most people think. And that's the point.

Like I said the last time you made that comment, you haven't paid attention to my posts at all. It's funny, I both look down on the average person and I think their opinion equals truth. Which is it?[/QUOTE]

What people think about an issue is irrelevent compared to the truth.

I probably pay too much attention to your posts. I definitely pay more attention to them than you do.

You don't look down on the average person, alonzo, you look down on those lower than yourself. You think them incapable of helping themselves and in need of a savior in the form of government. It's the average opinion of peoples' emotional perspective of a given issue that is so attractive and safe for you to adhere to and take as your own.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']What people think about an issue is irrelevent compared to the truth. [/quote]



I probably pay too much attention to your posts. I definitely pay more attention to them than you do. [/quote]

You may read them, but you don't remember what they say or understand what they're saying.

What people think about an issue is irrelevent compared to the truth.

I could have sworn I made nearly identical comments when discussing civil rights issues. I've made similar comments a few times, and even here I stated the whole point is it shows what people think. You're the one who made the link with truth.

I'd like to see you support the accusation that I give any value to public opinion other than as a way to gain votes.

It's the average opinion of peoples' emotional perspective of a given issue that is so attractive and safe for you to adhere to and take as your own.

How many of my opinions are shared by the average american? If I simply wanted a safe opinion, or simply took others opinions as my own, I'd get along much better with political groups and I wouldn't argue against any of their opinions. I'd like you to show me where I gave a damn what the average person thought, other than when it's advantageous to my political views.
 
Polls of public opinion mean what exactly? Most people have only superficial understanding of the political world anyways.

Many of the average joe and jane americans get their info about politics from the big media (networks abc, cnn, etc and daily newspapers like N.Y. times, U.S.A. today).

The same big media that is overwhelmingly registered Democrats.

The same big media that generally blatantly ignores any news items that will make a Democrat look bad while excoriating any Republican for mistakes. (abramoff bribery for example where dems are just as dirty as republicans but you only hear about the republicans)

The same big media that seems to use the identical catch-phrases and talking points handed out to Democrats, almost as if the media themselves receive the same emails and directives.

The same media that looked the other way in the Clinton years during all the scandals of corruption and damage done to our national security.

Therefore, it's not all that surprising that the general public would think Republicans are bad and Clinton was good. Blame it on their ignorance. Blame it on Bush (heck, that's what every corner of the big media today do for any problems in the world/country). But don't confuse public opinion polls with the truth.
 
[quote name='penmyst']Polls of public opinion mean what exactly? Most people have only superficial understanding of the political world anyways.

Many of the average joe and jane americans get their info about politics from the big media (networks abc, cnn, etc and daily newspapers like N.Y. times, U.S.A. today).

The same big media that is overwhelmingly registered Democrats.

The same big media that generally blatantly ignores any news items that will make a Democrat look bad while excoriating any Republican for mistakes. (abramoff bribery for example where dems are just as dirty as republicans but you only hear about the republicans)

The same big media that seems to use the identical catch-phrases and talking points handed out to Democrats, almost as if the media themselves receive the same emails and directives.

The same media that looked the other way in the Clinton years during all the scandals of corruption and damage done to our national security.

Therefore, it's not all that surprising that the general public would think Republicans are bad and Clinton was good. Blame it on their ignorance. Blame it on Bush (heck, that's what every corner of the big media today do for any problems in the world/country). But don't confuse public opinion polls with the truth.[/QUOTE]

You know, the "Liberal Media" is one of the worst lies perpetuated by the Right, and I'm getting quite sick of it.

Name me one news organization that acts for the Democrats as Fox News does, as a wheezing groaning Wurlitzer for the Republican Party line.

Name me one news organization that actively investigated the false claims of WMDs in Iraq prior to the war, as any halfway good or truly "liberal" media might do.

Name me one news organization that didn't jump on Bush's election year smears -- the lies about Al Gore's veracity, the outright disgusting assault on Kerry's war record -- while giving him a pass on his drinking, drug use and othe problems.

Hell, let's take a look at the most recent example -- Steven Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondent's Dinner. Whether you thought he was funny or not, his attack on the president was news, but how many newspapers and TV stations did you see cover it immediately? It wasn't until the performance was picked up on the Internet that the mainstream media paid one little bit of attention to it, and then they only derided it as not funny rather than looking into why it struck a chord with many.

Liberal media my ass. You conservatives are going to have to come up with a better reason why reality doesn't seem to conform with many of your views and policies.

P.S. Oh, and quess what -- Abrhamoff gave ZERO money to Democrats. THAT's why you're not reading anything about how Dems are as dirty in that scandal...because they AREN'T.

P.P.S. And you're going to have to stop whining about "Bush haters," too. The man has screwed up incredibly and repeatedly, and if you can't admit that, you are so full of kool-aid that you can't be reasoned with. It does not take hatred to acknowledge reality, only intelligence.
 
But don't confuse public opinion polls with the truth.

Everyone should have to take a reading comprehension course before being allowed to post here.

Many of the average joe and jane americans get their info about politics from the big media (networks abc, cnn, etc and daily newspapers like N.Y. times, U.S.A. today).

Just out of curiosity, what are you suggestions for news?
 
[quote name='penmyst']Most people have only superficial understanding of the political world anyways.[/QUOTE]


Maybe if you work hard and study intensely you can be one of them.
 
[quote name='penmyst']Polls of public opinion mean what exactly? Most people have only superficial understanding of the political world anyways.[/quote]

This is no doubt true.

[quote name='penmyst']Many of the average joe and jane americans get their info about politics from the big media (networks abc, cnn, etc and daily newspapers like N.Y. times, U.S.A. today). [/quote]

Well, yes, the most-read papers are the Times, USA Today and The Washington Post. The NY Times is unabashedly liberal while USA Today is rather neutral from what I've seen and the Post is a little liberal (much less than it used to be, I can tell you from being a DC area resident). But you are leaving out the most popular cable news network, you know, the one which has higher ratings than CNN and MSNBC combined - Fox News, the only one with a conservative slant.

[quote name='penmyst']The same big media that is overwhelmingly registered Democrats.

The same big media that generally blatantly ignores any news items that will make a Democrat look bad while excoriating any Republican for mistakes. (abramoff bribery for example where dems are just as dirty as republicans but you only hear about the republicans)[/quote]

The media kicks anyone when they're down. However, as I will show below in response to dennis, you do have a point about the media being liberal.

[quote name='dennis_t']You know, the "Liberal Media" is one of the worst lies perpetuated by the Right, and I'm getting quite sick of it.[/quote]

I've posted this information for alonzo before and he attempted to hem and haw at it, so I'll give you a shot:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

More than half of the journalists surveyed (52%) said they voted for Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, while fewer than one-fifth (19%) said they voted for Republican George W. Bush. The public chose Bush, 51 to 48 percent.

Read the page for much more information. So, dennis, why are these facts wrong?

EDIT: Oh, on the original topic, to get somewhat back on topic, I think we need to take nostalgia into account somewhat here. Not saying that people in 10 years will think Bush was a better prez than Clinton, but time seems to dull the bad and intensify the good. Therefore, we yearn for the great victory of the Korean War (President Truman approval rating = 22 percent, 1952) while we despair over Iraq (President Bush approval rating = 31 percent, 2006). I wonder what the polls will say in 10 years, 20, 30? That will be interesting.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Well, yes, the most-read papers are the Times, USA Today and The Washington Post. The NY Times is unabashedly liberal while USA Today is rather neutral from what I've seen and the Post is a little liberal (much less than it used to be, I can tell you from being a DC area resident). But you are leaving out the most popular cable news network, you know, the one which has higher ratings than CNN and MSNBC combined - Fox News, the only one with a conservative slant.

The media kicks anyone when they're down. However, as I will show below in response to dennis, you do have a point about the media being liberal.

I've posted this information for alonzo before and he attempted to hem and haw at it, so I'll give you a shot:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

Read the page for much more information. So, dennis, why are these facts wrong?[/QUOTE]

Because voting trends do not indicate bias, elprincipe. Journalists are just like everyone else in that they are allowed to go home and have their own lives and their own thoughts, and if they are professional their personal opinions do not filter into their coverage.

What matters is what ends up in the paper or over the airwaves. That's where bias shows itself, and if you look at the coverage of the past few years you will find that the press has either been neutral or right-leaning.

Objectivity used to be a treasured goal of the national media. No matter what you personally thought, your job was to put those opinions aside in search of the truth. But as we've seen from Fox News, right-wing journalists are by and large driven by ideology and have no interest in presenting stories in a balanced way. Those outlets trying to present balanced coverage are constantly assaulted by conservatives who are "playing the ref" to try and sway the coverage their way.

You want to convince me that the national media is liberal, then show me studies looking at content, not voting records. Show me what journalists are doing on the job, not off the clock in the voting booth.

A couple of links from sources that DO look at content, and find widespread conservative bias in the media:

www.mediamatters.org
www.whatliberalmedia.com
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Because voting trends do not indicate bias, elprincipe. Journalists are just like everyone else in that they are allowed to go home and have their own lives and their own thoughts, and if they are professional their personal opinions do not filter into their coverage.

What matters is what ends up in the paper or over the airwaves. That's where bias shows itself, and if you look at the coverage of the past few years you will find that the press has either been neutral or right-leaning.

Objectivity used to be a treasured goal of the national media. No matter what you personally thought, your job was to put those opinions aside in search of the truth. But as we've seen from Fox News, right-wing journalists are by and large driven by ideology and have no interest in presenting stories in a balanced way. Those outlets trying to present balanced coverage are constantly assaulted by conservatives who are "playing the ref" to try and sway the coverage their way.

You want to convince me that the national media is liberal, then show me studies looking at content, not voting records. Show me what journalists are doing on the job, not off the clock in the voting booth.

A couple of links from sources that DO look at content, and find widespread conservative bias in the media:

www.mediamatters.org
www.whatliberalmedia.com[/QUOTE]

Ah yes the VS board, the one place where you can preach about objectivity and non-bias only to then link two occasionally bias and certainly not objective websites (okay I'm not familar with the second one so much, but still mediamatters.org...) in the same post and it doesn't seem the least bit ironic. Not that El didn't do just about the same thing...
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Ah yes the VS board, the one place where you can preach about objectivity and non-bias only to then link two occasionally bias and certainly not objective websites (okay I'm not familar with the second one so much, but still mediamatters.org...) in the same post and it doesn't seem the least bit ironic. Not that El didn't do just about the same thing...[/QUOTE]

I understand your point.

But while Media Matters does not claim objectivity or even non-bias, it does support its jabs at the media with facts. If you look at the website, you will find that most of the time they are criticizing the media for failing to report information that would provide more balance to their reports.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Because voting trends do not indicate bias, elprincipe. Journalists are just like everyone else in that they are allowed to go home and have their own lives and their own thoughts, and if they are professional their personal opinions do not filter into their coverage.[/quote]

Is that so? You must have missed this part:

When asked “How often do journalists’ opinions influence coverage?” a solid majority of the editors (57 percent) conceded it “sometimes” happens while another 14 percent said opinions “often” influence news coverage. In contrast, only one percent claim it “never” happens, and 26 percent say personal views “seldom” influence coverage.

When asked “generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, an Independent, or something else?” more than three times as many journalists (33%) said they were Democrats than said they were Republicans (10%).

[quote name='dennis_t']A couple of links from sources that DO look at content, and find widespread conservative bias in the media:

www.mediamatters.org
www.whatliberalmedia.com[/QUOTE]

mediamatters.org = "support our fight against conservative misinformation." Yeah, looks like an unbiased source for information. :roll:

whatliberalmedia.com = I can't see anything on this site for free that has any evidence backing the claims in the book being peddled.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Ah yes the VS board, the one place where you can preach about objectivity and non-bias only to then link two occasionally bias and certainly not objective websites (okay I'm not familar with the second one so much, but still mediamatters.org...) in the same post and it doesn't seem the least bit ironic. Not that El didn't do just about the same thing...[/QUOTE]

What's wrong with the poll I posted the link to?

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the “media elite” were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article “Media and Business Elites.” The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues.

Where is the inherent bias in this? Do you have some information I am not aware of that Lichter and Rothman are conservative hacks not attempting to do an honest study? I'd just like to know how you've concluded these numbers aren't accurate, especially when they jive with other similar polls of journalists.
 
The link picks out favorable info and attempts to prove your case, but never makes any real link. It's a bunch of supporting evidence that, if your conclusion is correct, then it makes sense. But it doesn't really show that your conclusion is correct. You already know my argument about why it doesn't prove there's a bias, so there's no need to get into that.

But on the main page it states"The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias". Then the articles:
Nets Near-Hysterical Over NSA Program
Top Ten Left Wing Scenes on The West Wing
Bye-Bye, “Culture Of Corruption”
Hurt America, Win a Prize

But it's not even a case of the evidence being biased, it's the evidence they chose to include (and chose not to include). And how they view certain evidence. They start at the conclusion and work their way back it seems.

I'm not arguing what I was arguing before. I'm not trying to say it's right or wrong, simply that it clearly is not an unbiased source.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']What's wrong with the poll I posted the link to?



Where is the inherent bias in this? Do you have some information I am not aware of that Lichter and Rothman are conservative hacks not attempting to do an honest study? I'd just like to know how you've concluded these numbers aren't accurate, especially when they jive with other similar polls of journalists.[/QUOTE]

It's not so much the poll and to be fair I said "just about the same thing". The poll could be totally accurate and unbiased, but ultimately like alonzo and dennis mentioned, it's not a study of those people actually reported the news just their voting patterns and personal leanings (however in the news world of today too many people actually interpret commentary as news...). What I was getting at though isn't the poll, it was your source for that info, the MRC, which like the sites dennis gave is not at all objective. You're the guy who seems to think journalists so often mix their beliefs with the facts, so why be so trustworthy on something reported by a bias source?
 
When asked “How often do journalists’ opinions influence coverage?” a solid majority of the editors (57 percent) conceded it “sometimes” happens while another 14 percent said opinions “often” influence news coverage. In contrast, only one percent claim it “never” happens, and 26 percent say personal views “seldom” influence coverage.

You know what I consider that? An honest answer from professionals struggling daily to provide objective coverage. That still doesn't make their coverage flamingly liberal or biased. That only shows they are human, and aware of the fact that they must work hard every day to meet the ideal of objectivity.

Again, I ask you to show me actual content, or studies of actual content, that provides evidence of a "liberal media." Because content is what matters, not voting patterns or personality surveys.

And that's what Media Matters does. They study content. And doing such they have found overwhelming conservative bias in the content of Sunday morning news shows like Meet the Press (http://mediamatters.org/items/200604040001) and in other major media. Do they have an axe to grind? Sure. But that doesn't make them wrong.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']
And that's what Media Matters does. They study content. And doing such they have found overwhelming conservative bias in the content of Sunday morning news shows like Meet the Press (http://mediamatters.org/items/200604040001) and in other major media. Do they have an axe to grind? Sure. But that doesn't make them wrong.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying they aren't biased now? Because they don't report any content unless it promotes their agenda. That's the very definition of bias. Are you going to sit there and tell people with a straight face that an organization (like Media Matters) that only consistantly reports one side of the story and hardly ever anything that hurts their agenda is totally unbias and objective? They intentionally stray away from any examples of "liberal media" I'm sure. Does it make them wrong? Maybe or maybe not, but it's hard to tell from only hearing one side again and again. As a pretty moderate person who watches the news media (though I do my best to stay away from the commentary programs), I don't need to look at self appointed watchdog groups on opposing sides battling it out, I can often enough see who leans one way or the other perfectly fine on my own. So I don't expect to see/hear an objective point from somebody like John Gibson or Rush Limbaugh anymore than I do someone like Keith Olberman or Al Franken. Honestly there will always be bias in the media, whether or not you claim people can separate their personal beliefs from the job they will at some point bleed into each other, be it a big thing or a little one. The real goal is as a smart viewer/listener is to pick out the facts from however they present it to me and not just take everything at their word, and if more people took the time to do this we wouldn't have a discussion here (but I also undertsnad why they don't).

To be honest I wouldn't trust an admittedly liberal media watchdog group like Media matters anymore than an admittedly conservative watchdog media group. But often when it comes to media, people tend to gravitate to the person's whose viewpoints reflect their own, so I can see why though if you lean one way over the other you could somehow place more trust in one rather than the other.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Honestly there will always be bias in the media, whether or not you claim people can separate their personal beliefs from the job they will at some point bleed into each other, be it a big thing or a little one. The real goal is as a smart viewer/listener is to pick out the facts from however they present it to me and not just take everything at their word, and if more people took the time to do this we wouldn't have a discussion here (but I also undertsnad why they don't).[/QUOTE]

100 percent in agreement with you, here, about the responsibility of the reader/viewer to think about what they're reading.

The reason I feel like a group like Media Matters is important is specifically because the conservatives have been "working the ref" with the major media for so long that the media has been forced to the right. If journalists are receiving good criticism from both sides, maybe it will reinforce the need for objectivity -- if only so they don't have to listen to the griping.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']It's not so much the poll and to be fair I said "just about the same thing". The poll could be totally accurate and unbiased, but ultimately like alonzo and dennis mentioned, it's not a study of those people actually reported the news just their voting patterns and personal leanings (however in the news world of today too many people actually interpret commentary as news...). What I was getting at though isn't the poll, it was your source for that info, the MRC, which like the sites dennis gave is not at all objective. You're the guy who seems to think journalists so often mix their beliefs with the facts, so why be so trustworthy on something reported by a bias source?[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. It was merely the first comprehensive info I found and it fit with every other study I've ever heard of on media political preferences, so I went ahead and posted it. It also seems to be citing an unbiased study for at least some of its statistics. But push comes to shove a less, shall we say, interested source would be preferable.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Dennis is SO FAR TO THE LEFT that all media seems to lean to the right.[/QUOTE]

Herr Bush thinks you should be a uniter...

ra1753050706.jpg


not a divider...

how dare you disobey our fearless leader?
 
My God, is this president delusional. According to him, people who don't like his policies haven't judged him wrong, which would mean he'd need to change -- they're just "unsettled."

Condescending and oblivious, all at once. Amazing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12857539/

Gregory: Let me ask you about your leadership. In the most recent survey, your disapproval rating is now one point lower than Richard Nixon’s before he resigned the presidency. You’re laughing...

President Bush: I’m not laughing.

Gregory: Why do you think that is?

President Bush: Because we’re at war. And war unsettles people. Listen, we’ve got a great economy. We’ve added 5.2 million jobs in the last two-and-a-half years, but people are unsettled. They don’t look at the economy and say, 'life is good.' They know we’re at war. And I’m not surprised that people are unsettled because of war. The enemy’s got a powerful tool — that is to get on your TV screen by killing innocent people. And my job is to continue to remind the people it’s worth it. We’re not going to retreat hastily. We’re not going to pull out of there before the job’s done and we’ve got a plan for victory.

Gregory: They’re not just unsettled, sir. They disapprove of the job you’re doing.

President Bush: That’s unsettled.


Gregory: That’s how you see it?

President Bush: Yeah, I do. I see it as the war has… the war is… the war is difficult. And I understand that. I understand why people wonder whether we can win the war or not. But there’s a big difference between some of us who believe we’re doing the right thing and moving forward and a group of people who want to pull out before the jobs is done.

Gregory: Do you think it's possible that, like Nixon and Watergate, the American people have rendered a final judgment of disapproval on you and your war in Iraq?

President Bush: Of course not. I’ve got two-and-a-half years left to be President of the United States and I intend to get a lot done, including immigration reform. Yesterday, I signed the extension of tax relief. We’re making good progress on cutting this deficit in half. I’ve got a lot to do and I’m going to work with the Congress and get things done on behalf of the American people. We’ve got a positive agenda that is making a difference in people’s lives. I’m also not going to retreat in the face of adverse polls. I’m going to do what I think is right and complete the mission in Iraq. And I believe a free Iraq is going to make the world a better place.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']My God, is this president delusional. According to him, people who don't like his policies haven't judged him wrong, which would mean he'd need to change -- they're just "unsettled."

Condescending and oblivious, all at once. Amazing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12857539/

Gregory: Let me ask you about your leadership. In the most recent survey, your disapproval rating is now one point lower than Richard Nixon’s before he resigned the presidency. You’re laughing...

President Bush: I’m not laughing.

Gregory: Why do you think that is?

President Bush: Because we’re at war. And war unsettles people. Listen, we’ve got a great economy. We’ve added 5.2 million jobs in the last two-and-a-half years, but people are unsettled. They don’t look at the economy and say, 'life is good.' They know we’re at war. And I’m not surprised that people are unsettled because of war. The enemy’s got a powerful tool — that is to get on your TV screen by killing innocent people. And my job is to continue to remind the people it’s worth it. We’re not going to retreat hastily. We’re not going to pull out of there before the job’s done and we’ve got a plan for victory.

Gregory: They’re not just unsettled, sir. They disapprove of the job you’re doing.

President Bush: That’s unsettled.


Gregory: That’s how you see it?

President Bush: Yeah, I do. I see it as the war has… the war is… the war is difficult. And I understand that. I understand why people wonder whether we can win the war or not. But there’s a big difference between some of us who believe we’re doing the right thing and moving forward and a group of people who want to pull out before the jobs is done.

Gregory: Do you think it's possible that, like Nixon and Watergate, the American people have rendered a final judgment of disapproval on you and your war in Iraq?

President Bush: Of course not. I’ve got two-and-a-half years left to be President of the United States and I intend to get a lot done, including immigration reform. Yesterday, I signed the extension of tax relief. We’re making good progress on cutting this deficit in half. I’ve got a lot to do and I’m going to work with the Congress and get things done on behalf of the American people. We’ve got a positive agenda that is making a difference in people’s lives. I’m also not going to retreat in the face of adverse polls. I’m going to do what I think is right and complete the mission in Iraq. And I believe a free Iraq is going to make the world a better place.[/QUOTE]

exactly

b/c he sees himself as an instrument of God

so if people are disagreeing with him, they are disagreeing with the perfect creator of the universe.

so they MUST be wrong

b/c otherwise that means GOD must be wrong.. and that's just silly!!!

now let's go for another dune buggy ride!!
 
bread's done
Back
Top