Liberals need to stop sneering at people

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
The jobs market still hasn't fully recovered

That's what really matters

It is better though

IS U.S. GOING IN RIGHT DIRECTION?

Yes (49%) Bush 89%

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


And the 57% who did not think it was "good"?

The 43% was by far the largest group. That's where he won.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by GePap


BY what you claim, there would be no "Iraq" without "terrorism", since they are part of the same struggle, NO?

Bush won because he and the republicans had a better ground organization and mobilized more religious voters than the dems did young and minorities and their cores.

No, I'm not, really. I should have been more clear. Bush was the benevolent President when he went into Afghanistn. Almost everyone was behind him. If you take out Iraq, which was where the turning point began, he would still be the President who just went after the terrorists, not the one that "started an illegal war".

And yes, I would say that the Republicans have always been more organized on the grass roots level, I can attest to that.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


IS U.S. GOING IN RIGHT DIRECTION?

Yes (49%) Bush 89%

CNN poll:

Are you optimisitic about Bush's second term in office?

NO 59%

Point?

[Ben Kenobi]

I might end up there. Most of the jobs in my field this year are in the States. I don't think I will get one this year though, I don't have enough on my CV yet. Still, it costs very little and is worth a shot.

We'll be using the same means to acheive opposite ends, I suppose.

In any case, good luck with that.

[GePap]

No, that is not. the 19% of the voting public who said the economy was their biggest concern overwhelmingly backed Kerry.

Do look at the data out there, why don;t you?

Bush won based on the opiniopns of those who said they were voting on moral values, or to whom the "war on terror" was the most important choice of all.

[Harry Tuttle]

Alright, I'm not going to try and argue job creation as it relates to a President. Really, we can all agree that the President can do little when it comes to tunring an economy around, barring tax cuts or federal help to the unemployed. Really, it's a free market. Saying that Bush or Clinton or Hoover made or broke an economy does not work.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Alright, I'm not going to try and argue job creation as it relates to a President. Really, we can all agree that the President can do little when it comes to tunring an economy around, barring tax cuts or federal help to the unemployed. Really, it's a free market. Saying that Bush or Clinton or Hoover made or broke an economy does not work.

Sure it does.

[GePap]

The Federa government can undertake all sorts of policies that directly affect workers. More importantly, the fact the economy is not creating workers with any real success belies the presidents claim that his tax measures are job creation engines.

I would agree with you that perthaps macro-economic structural changes have made job creation harder-0 but then it is up to the government to try to alliviate the suffering that will go on during any significant economic shift.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


CNN poll:

Are you optimisitic about Bush's second term in office?

NO 59%

Point?

I'm trying to show you through exit polls where Bush won the race. If you don't want to listen, and go back to increasingly innaccurate polls that only support your views, then be my guest to support a party that won't win in the foreseeable future.

Trust me. I know the feeling. I've been railing against Liberals in my country for near 20 years, and prospects are I will be for another 10 or more until the Tories smarten up.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Sure it does.

To the uninformed, sure, but we're somewhat informed here on Poly, aren't we?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I'm trying to show you through exit polls where Bush won the race. If you don't want to listen, and go back to increasingly innaccurate polls that only support your views, then be my guest to support a party that won't win in the foreseeable future.

Trust me. I know the feeling. I've been railing against Liberals in my country for near 20 years, and prospects are I will be for another 10 or more until the Tories smarten up.

Next time put captions and explanations on your posts so we know what you are talking about.

Here is my next post:

3 Kerry 36%

(16)

I'd hit it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I'm trying to show you through exit polls where Bush won the race. If you don't want to listen, and go back to increasingly innaccurate polls that only support your views, then be my guest to support a party that won't win in the foreseeable future.

Trust me. I know the feeling. I've been railing against Liberals in my country for near 20 years, and prospects are I will be for another 10 or more until the Tories smarten up.

You realize those numbers make 0 sense in the way you are trying to intepret them?

Bush did NOT win because people were happy with the economy- he won despite the fact many people are angfry about it- enought people don't care about the eocnomy and voted about other things to get him elected.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by GePap
enought people don't care about the eocnomy and voted about other things to get him elected.

Exactly. Which brings us back to how the Democrats can win in 2008.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


To the uninformed, sure, but we're somewhat informed here on Poly, aren't we?

Or uninformed = someone that doesn't agree with me