-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Bush may not like to read, but he certainly reads Orwell.
- Thread starter Dilbert
- Start date
- Status
Diablos said:
The field in 1996 was definitely uninspired (I mean Forbes, a horrible candidate, was actually competing with Dole in some primary states.) but Clinton's approval ratings were not anything to be afraid of.
I honestly think Jack Kemp would have fared much better than Dole did. The 1992 election of Clinton (and surprising success of Perot) coupled with the massive turnover in House/Senate in 1994 showed that people were not friendly to the "same old candidates". Dole was almost the antithesis of what people were tired of.
------
Clinton's approval ratings near the time of the election:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.usa.gallup/082596.shtml
Economy approve: 54 percent disapprove: 40 percent
Foreign policy approve: 53 disapprove: 40
In August of 2004, Bush showed similar approval numbers with Clinton (in the 50 - 59 range during the election campaign). We can all agree that Bush was clearly beatable.:
http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?CI=12694
------
It's all conjecture and speculation, because Clinton did not have an albatross of a war around his neck and Bush did not benefit from a third party candidate like Clinton did. Those two variables alone skew any apples to apples comparisons of approval ratings or election outcomes.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Dont' make us start bitching about the electoral college again.Willco said:
Bush couldn't have said it better. When are the dems going to start to blame the REAL problem?!--TERRORISTS!!
The terrorists have to love the dems and those who think alike.... even the Jordanians are against the bombings and get this... they dont blame BUSH!!! OH MY GOSH@
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-11-10-jordan-blasts_x.htm
The terrorists have to love the dems and those who think alike.... even the Jordanians are against the bombings and get this... they dont blame BUSH!!! OH MY GOSH@
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-11-10-jordan-blasts_x.htm
Vinzer Deling
Banned
JoshuaJSlone said:
That's all you hippies do is bitch.. maybe you can clipclop down to the polls and vote next time you hippies.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Unfortunately things such as May primary voting for anyone but Kerry and November Indiana voting for anyone but Bush mattered... not so much.
Did he say I read... oil well?
Did he say I read... oil well?
videogamer
Banned
*blinks*Jdw40223 said:
Blame Bush for what-- the bombings? How about blaming him for poor evidence and leading the country to war? IIRC, there have been no reports of terrorists pulling the levers of power and media to start the Iraq War.
It's posters like this who are primarily responsible for what happened last year.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Jdw40223 said:
:lol You. Are. Dumb. But hey, maybe you write for the NY Post:
NY Post said:
It ends with this, which I really love:
NY Post said:
Not shown is the sloppy cock-knobbing the "writer" of this piece was giving Dear Leader whilst "writing".
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Macam said:
But that's the thing. Pretty much everyone I know on a personal level thinks this way, more or less. There's no influx of dumb. There's just a dearth of smart.
bob_arctor said:
This is true. I'm still trying to rid myself of the memory of Republican 2004 Convention past, where all my friends came over to watch "Dubya's" speech and chant FOUR MORE YEARS every five minutes after every "terrorism=iraq" reference. Plus, omg, did you know he's Texan? Even owns a ranch!? Vote +1
bob_arctor said:
I'm sure they think the same about you. As I've said before I for one am glad to see this influx of dissenting opinion, because even though I don't agree with the vast majority of what they (the evil conservative Internet peoples!) say, it drives uneducated Liberalcrats like Diablos to actually do a bit a research when he's challenged on the issues. And that's a good thing. The last thing you want is a one-sided circle jerk, because even if you don't agree or care for the other side of the story, understanding it only makes you more knowledgable.
Incognito said:
That's due to proximity and isn't indicative of all of America.
Well, my friends are more of the Bush mold, and less of the Diablos scampering to do research kind. They're right, I'm wrong, stupid, and not a native Texan. The chain of command is as follows: Bush -> Fox News -> Friends piehole. And I'm the pinko commie for expressing a different viewpoint. :lol
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Willco said:
I agree with this but in my case, none of my friends can ever ever come up with a coherent and well thought out argument against what I rail about. It never even gets to that point. Good friends of mine have said shit like "Nuke all of Iraq, fuck it" and when I say simply "We can't" they reply with "Well, why the hell do we have all those nukes if we're never gonna use them then?". I mean, come on. People here like say, Guileless, are a rare breed in my "real" life--able to spew bullshit with the best of 'em but at least able to argue convincingly for said bullshit.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Cyan said:
Iowa was somewhat progressive. We were one of the few states that had electoral votes for Dukakis 1988. Something very wrong has happened from 2000-2004 and even a little before that. Now its become another bible thumping state. Tom Harkin, who was quite the liberal now is moving to the center and became another cowering Democrat (although he did have some balls in 2004 by calling Bush a liar).
The other Senator, Charles Grassley, made me sad at how hard Iowa has fallen off. For advertisements, he didn't campaign his views once. Instead, his campaign was that he had perfect attendance at Congress and that he comes home on the weekends to mow the grass on his farm. :lol Even worse is that the opposing Democrat ran absolutely no campaigns at all.
Our Governor, Tom Vilsack is a useless lump of shit. Another cowering Democrat who is a bible thumping conservative with a Democrat moniker. Funny, our previous Governor was a Republican who was quite liberal. Vilsack (or Ballsack as he's called by both parties alike) cut back on everything. Word is he wants to run for the Presidency. I strongly hope nothing comes of this.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Its sad. I think Iowa is pretty much finished in regards of being a swing state. It might be regarded as one in 2008, maybe 2012 as a formality but thats it. Its probably going to be a "for sure" red state if it hasn't already (Kerry barely lost in 2004) A concern is that young people grow up and get educated at Iowa (Iowa State is good for Engineering and University of Northern Iowa is pretty prominent for teaching) and get jobs elswehere.
Ballsack and his GOP buddies' solution? Eliminate income tax for all people under 30 :lol Of course this means even less money coming in so education will take even bigger hits.
Iowa also was pretty famous for having some of the best and brightest in the country despite its hick image. Now its less than average.
Ballsack and his GOP buddies' solution? Eliminate income tax for all people under 30 :lol Of course this means even less money coming in so education will take even bigger hits.
Iowa also was pretty famous for having some of the best and brightest in the country despite its hick image. Now its less than average.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Ulairi said:
Well, seeing as how I went to High School until 2003, I would know. There have been budget cuts every year I went there. That or the extra money was just handed off to the school board and not to education itself. Also, Iowa teachers are some of the worst paid out there. I don't expect them to make $70k like in California but not damn near at the bottom.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Ulairi said:
George Orwell said:
George Orwell said:
Man, that Wikipedia thingamjiggy knows everything!
Though I should add no one here said Orwell wouldn't support the war, just that Bush sounds like he's right outta "1984".
videogamer
Banned
Heh 70k? I've seen at most in the 60k range, but 70k may be available somewhere in the state. But then again the teachers that get paid 60k are the ones who have been there like 20 years, do extracurriculars, and/or have that master's degree.The Experiment said:
And what the heck was the out-of-nowhere Vilsack+Bush/DoE comment? It feels just incomplete.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Hammy said:
An explanation why Iowa didn't step up and pick Kerry.
Democrats don't blame Bush for bombing people and committing acts of terrorism. To say that they are is to ignore the reality of the situation altogether. They blame Bush for starting a war under confirmed FALSE pretenses with NO exit strategy. They blame Bush for starting a "war" against "terror" for which there is no humanly possible end, because it is a war against thought and human behavior, not against political ideology or geographic location.Jdw40223 said:
I have no problem with Bush taking aggressive measures against major terrorist organizations. But if those aggressive measures are not followed up by humanitarian aid, financial backing to ease poverty, doctors and medicine to heal the sick, and basically divine influence to end all troubles for all human beings, then there is no such thing as "total victory" against terrorism. It is an impossibility. It's like launching a war against murder or rape. When somebody is desperate enough, they will do desperate things. It has been this way ever since man stepped foot out of the jungle.
I'm sorry. "Ever since man spontaneously materialized from a lump of clay" is what I meant to say.
Jonnyboy117
Member
ToxicAdam said:
He wants to put enough troops in Iraq to actually do the job right so we can hurry up and get out of there. I don't know if that's the right approach, but clearly we need a new military strategy of some sort, because the military situation there has actually gotten slightly worse in the past two years, even as the political situation (in Iraq) has improved somewhat. "Staying the course" means losing a hundred soldiers a month while the insurgency just grows and spreads. McCain is saying that if we need to shit or get off the pot, let's try the former and see if that makes a difference.
videogamer
Banned
??
The federal government provides relatively little to a school's budget. Most of the money comes from the state and local funds.
And you did say that :
1. The states often provide 40-60% of funding.
2. The federal government tends to provide about 10% of funding, with much of this kept for special programs.
3. This DoE funding is spread across the US.
I am inclined to question how effective the DoE budget increases would be in counterbalancing any Iowa education cuts.
The federal government provides relatively little to a school's budget. Most of the money comes from the state and local funds.
And you did say that :
This implies that this is a state thing, not a federal thing. So the sudden mention of DoE gave me the "huh?" feeling. One could argue that the income cuts would counterbalance the added DoE funding, but I don't have numbers for that. However, considering how:
1. The states often provide 40-60% of funding.
2. The federal government tends to provide about 10% of funding, with much of this kept for special programs.
3. This DoE funding is spread across the US.
I am inclined to question how effective the DoE budget increases would be in counterbalancing any Iowa education cuts.
Jonnyboy117
Member
NLB2 said:
Libertarianism only works for the people who are already smart and/or rich. A lot of parents are themselves so poorly educated that they would willingly send their children to schools that would brainwash them or simply fail to provide even the basic levels of competency to be had from our currently flawed education system. Part of the American Dream is a child coming out better than his parents, and we as a country need to make that possible for every child. That's exactly why we have truancy laws that require kids to go to school even if they or their parents don't want them to. Farmers in the 1800s would have only raised farmers, because they wanted the kids to come home and help out instead of going to school, but the government forced those kids to get an education and thus have the opportunity to choose, if they want to, a different path in life when they finished.
funkmasterb
Member
NLB2 said:
Here's a clue.
If you're fucking poor, bringing home an exra ten bucks per paycheque will not move you into a high class suburb, which in turn, would mean you can send your kids to a half decent school.
Here in Canada, you don't need to be rich or live in a high income area to have access to high quality education. That isn't the case in the US, and it's the root of so many of your problems. Education is critical, and just because you live in an apartment in the inner city shouldn't mean your kids go to a shit school. There is too much disparity in your education system.
videogamer
Banned
Well, to be fair, teachers tend to be attracted/repelled by certain schools, and that's one reason why per student spending can vary. For instance, the veteran/better paid teachers will tend to avoid working in Compton. They might rather work somewhere with, uh, more compliant or easy to work with students.
It also depends on the state-- California tries to make sure that per student spending is close across the state by using a cap on spending. Which is kinda counterintuitive considering the relatively small amount California spends on education.
It also depends on the state-- California tries to make sure that per student spending is close across the state by using a cap on spending. Which is kinda counterintuitive considering the relatively small amount California spends on education.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Hammy said:
The GOP inside Iowa.
- Status