T1B

DrDetroit wrote:Democrats celebrate narrow U.S. House loss in Ohio

Sounds like pmscal celebrating Bush's 45% approval ratings.

He wasn't celebrating it, dumbshit.

So why are you compelled to mischaracterize his reference to it?

Yeah, I know, I'm always pulling this card...but you're always pulling that move, bitch.

DrDetroit wrote:He wasn't celebrating it, dumbshit.

So why are you compelled to mischaracterize his reference to it?

I guess that makes up for him mischaracterizing "historic low".

Despite a clear-cut re-election and the prospect of lasting GOP dominance in Congress, President Bush prepares for his second term with the lowest approval rating of any just-elected sitting president in more than half a century, according to a series of new surveys.

Mvscal didn't mischaracterize anything that MSU posted.

A 45% approval rating cannot possibly be considered as historically low when you have Carter racing to the floor with 20%.

DrDetroit wrote: A 45% approval rating cannot possibly be considered as historically low when you have Carter racing to the floor with 20%.

Dude, why do you always use the old "we're not as bad as (insert selected Democrat here)" in every argument?

Bush's numbers are in the toilet.......period.

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:

DrDetroit wrote: A 45% approval rating cannot possibly be considered as historically low when you have Carter racing to the floor with 20%.

Dude, why do you always use the old "we're not as bad as (insert selected Democrat here)" in every argument?

Bush's numbers are in the toilet.......period.

45% isn't in the toilet.....period.

Comparatively speaking--yes it is.

Compared to who?

DrDetroit wrote:Compared to who?

To his own approval rating numbskull

Bush approval ratings

Date Approval Rating
1/21-24/02 82
1/5-6/02 84
12/7-10/01 86
11/13-14/01 85
10/25-28/01 87
10/9/01 90
10/8/01 90

Looks to me like he's working his way DOWN the ladder of success.....

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:He wasn't celebrating it, dumbshit.

So why are you compelled to mischaracterize his reference to it?

I guess that makes up for him mischaracterizing "historic low".

Despite a clear-cut re-election and the prospect of lasting GOP dominance in Congress, President Bush prepares for his second term with the lowest approval rating of any just-elected sitting president in more than half a century, according to a series of new surveys.

NEWSFLASH!!! President Bush has the lowest approval rating of any President ever elected......in 2004!!!

What pathetic pieces of shit you people are.

Even Nixon had better numbers after his 72 re-election.

Nice try shill.

Felix wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Compared to who?

To his own approval rating numbskull

Bush approval ratings

Date Approval Rating
1/21-24/02 82
1/5-6/02 84
12/7-10/01 86
11/13-14/01 85
10/25-28/01 87
10/9/01 90
10/8/01 90

Looks to me like he's working his way DOWN the ladder of success.....

You're going to take his approval #'s immediately following 9/11 and suggest that those should be the baseline for his administration??

:roll:

Reaching, again?

In any case, I see the lefties here are casually avoiding the ridiculous headline that I referred to in my initial post... :roll:

DrDetroit wrote:In any case, I see the lefties here are casually avoiding the ridiculous headline that I referred to in my initial post... :roll:

What, they were happy to have faired as well as they did. From the article

Schmidt, a former state representative, beat Hackett by 3,500 votes out of more than 112,000 cast in the conservative and heavily Republican district, where no Democrat in decades had won or even managed 40 percent of the vote.

Is there something the Democrats should be ashamed of there?

Christ Detard, I can pull ridiculous fucking stories about Republicans all day long......but really, what's the point of that?

They lost, dipshit.

In a conservative district where Republicans stayed home and with a weak Republican candidate (who voted for a huge tax increase in Ohio) and with national $$ flowing in and blogs to help Hacket, they still lost.

The point is that the Dems are desperately trying to call a loss a "win." It's hilarious.

You'd find it similarly funny but you're too busy nipping at my heels.

DrDetroit wrote:In any case, I see the lefties here are casually avoiding the ridiculous headline that I referred to in my initial post... :roll:

I'm actualy quite interested in Mr. Hackett's career. Sounds like a guy after my vote. Thank you for bringing him to my attention.

Oh, and by the looks of it, Hackett lost like Lincoln lost to Douglas.

BSmack must buy the Democrats spin that this is the first wind of a hurricane...LOL!!

Hackett lost a special election on Tuesday to fill a U.S. House seat representing Southwestern Ohio, but not before the broadcast networks and CNN all championed the candidacy of the Bush-bashing Marine who served in Iraq.

On ABC on Sunday, reporter Geoff Morrell recited how Hackett denounced Bush as a "chicken hawk" and "the biggest threat to America," but instead of describing that as mudslinging, Morrell called it "candor," relaying: "If elected, Hackett says he'll use that same candor to educate Congress about what's really going on in Iraq."

On Saturday, CBS's Drew Levinson touted Hackett as "a tough talker" who "goes as far as saying President Bush is a greater threat to U.S. security than Osama bin Laden."

Tuesday on CNN, Bruce Morton noted how Hackett's attacks on Bush have "angered some Republicans," but highlighted how one "Vietnam vet, who voted for Bush, is having second thoughts."

NBC's Carl Quintanilla plugged Hackett as what "some call a next generation Democrat" and asserted that "analysts like Stu Rothenberg say there may be fallout even if Hackett finishes a close second."

bwaaahahahahhaaaaaa!!

DrDetroit wrote:They lost, dipshit.

In a conservative district where Republicans stayed home and with a weak Republican candidate and with national $$ flowing in to help Hacket, they still lost.

The point is that the Dems are desperately trying to call a loss a "win." It's hilarious.

Pot calling the kettle black much? You're employing the exact tactics you call "hillarious".

You'd find it similarly funny but you're too busy nipping at my heels.

News flash brainiac--you're the resident T1B pinata'.
And going to the old "anklebiter" card eh?

I've generally quit responding to your inane drivel because you bring nothing new, just the same bootlicker regurgitation and attacking whatever Democrat.

Have you ever gone shopping for a car and ran into a salesman who's entire pitch consisted of "why you shouldn't buy from the other guy" rather than expounding on the virtues of his particular product?

I always look at people like that and say to myself "you just don't fucking get it do you?"

That's you, only not near as intelligent........

DrDetroit wrote:BSmack must buy the Democrats spin that this is the first wind of a hurricane...LOL!!

Why must you mischaracterize what I say???

Hackett does appear on his way to bigger and better things. Would you disagree?

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:BSmack must buy the Democrats spin that this is the first wind of a hurricane...LOL!!

Why must you mischaracterize what I say???

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:BSmack must buy the Democrats spin that this is the first wind of a hurricane...LOL!!

Why must you mischaracterize what I say???

Hackett does appear on his way to bigger and better things. Would you disagree?

Yes, I do disagree. He lost to a former state House member who came out of an 11-candidate primary field who voted for a huge state tax increase in an election where many Republican voters stayed home.

He was an overnight sensation who only in the last fews days prior to Tuesday started getting national $$...

He'll be pimped by the Dems in 2006 for something, but he ain't going anywhere.

DrDetroit wrote:

BSmack wrote:Hackett does appear on his way to bigger and better things. Would you disagree?

Yes, I do disagree. He lost to a former state House member who came out of an 11-candidate primary field who voted for a huge state tax increase in an election where many Republican voters stayed home.

You have no idea which party "stayed home" if any. I guarantee the Board of Elections has not released that data.

So why do you lie?

BSmack wrote:
So why do you lie?

Lawdy it's come to this. Giving him a taste of his own posting medicine is not double the fun for sure.

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:

BSmack wrote:Hackett does appear on his way to bigger and better things. Would you disagree?

Yes, I do disagree. He lost to a former state House member who came out of an 11-candidate primary field who voted for a huge state tax increase in an election where many Republican voters stayed home.

You have no idea which party "stayed home" if any. I guarantee the Board of Elections has not released that data.

So why do you lie?

http://buzz.nationalreview.com/071854.asp
However, Buzz reader Melissa writes in with some interesting data from the last two congressional cycles:

2002-184,100. R-136,523 D-47,618
2004-310,000 R-227,102 D-89,598
2005-111,000 R-57,974 D-54,401

Comparing 2002 to 2005, the Republicans stayed home, the Democrats, if reports are true, invested millions to get 6,783 more votes. Relative to 2004, they lost 35,197 or 40% of the voters they had only 9 months ago. The backslapping that is occurring is far from reality.

Felix wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:34 pm
Bush approval ratings

Date Approval Rating
1/21-24/02 82
1/5-6/02 84
12/7-10/01 86
11/13-14/01 85
10/25-28/01 87
10/9/01 90
10/8/01 90

Looks to me like he's working his way DOWN the ladder of success.....

Biden would kill to have these approval ratings.

Bush did.

Kierland wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 2:48 pmBush did.

Touche.