Al Queada eating children?

This is fascinating reading the same posts over and over. Keep up the good work, guys.

 

Do you think that Bush's 26% approval rating is significant? Of course not. See, this is a fringe minority.
So no, I don't think less than a quarter of all those willing to call themselves liberals is significant.

I will also point out that the entire population of the US didn't vote in the last election. Your numbers are off and very skewed. Maybe there were 300-million American Idol votes, but there wasn't even close to that in the presidential election.

As to "the other day" why bring it up? Do you have trouble discussing this one topic?

Thanks.


And Zag, you have comprehension issues.

 

No, you have comprehension issues beyond belief and further you can't admit you are wrong and worse you are clueless as to how clueless you really are.

So I'll ask this in very easy to understand little baby steps -- Is 68 percent significant enough or not? That's all I want to know. Is it enough to be considered significant or not?

Based on what they were told before 9/11, do you think that the Bush administration . . . ?"

Base: All Adults
Did all that it could reasonably have been expected to do to prevent the attack
Total (as a percentage) -- 39%
Republicans -- 71%
Democrats -- 16%
Independents -- 39%

Failed to take steps it could and should have taken
Total - 43%
Republicans -- 13%
Democrats - 68%
Independents -- 45%

68 percent of Democrats believe that the Bush Administration based on what it knew on the information it had failed to take the steps necessary to prevent it. In other words, Bush knew about it and didn't take necessary steps to prevent it.

 

Wasn't really directed at you Pastor. I admire your efforts, but I think you're banging your head against a wall.

 

Quick question.

Was Zagishe's poll data generated before or after Ms. Rice's testimony regarding the title of that intelligence report I posted earlier?

 

I'm starving!

 

It is from April 2004

 

Want to come over for dinner?

My group of "friends" here have cooked up this special new product called Soylent Green.

 

As hard as his head is, I feel sorry for the wall. I've given him poll numbers and stats, he's given me the world according to Pastor and a lot of hot air.

 

Well, at least you haven't locked this one up, yet.

 

Another poll question from a Newsweek poll asked and answered....76 percent of Democrats believe that 9/11 happened largely because the Bush administration didn't take the threat of terrorism based on the information it had seriously. In fact only 10 percent of Democrats believe the Bush administration did take it seriously.

19. From what Condoleezza Rice and Richard Clarke have told the commission, do you think the Bush administration took the threat of global terrorism as seriously as it should have prior to September 11th, or that they underestimated the terrorist threat and focused too much on other security issues like missile defense and Iraq?

Total Rep Dem Ind
23 Took terrorist threat
seriously 39 10 26
60 Underestimated threat 41 76 60
17 Don't know/Refused 20 14 14


I know, I know it doesn't count, it is different, that's not what we were talking about, 76 percent is not a significant number.......sigh

 

The PDB Dr. Rice was questioned about in that clip was released to the public on April 10, 2004.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

Think that might have any effect on how people responded to those questions?

It's disingenuous to try to paint Democrats as crackpots or conspiracy theorists in light of their relatively reasonable opinions that an intelligence memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" might have constituted fair warning to a more alert administration.