digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

[PIC]Will Bush hit the bottom?

hist.umn.edu — Approval ratings at new low

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • TheRealToma, on 10/10/2007, -65/+394Would be nice to see a graph that ends in 100.... and maybe even starts at 0.
    • skizzabadoo, on 10/10/2007, -39/+147Why? It would be blank and wasted space since his ratings have never been that high or low respectively. Why do we need more white space when most of us understand why the scale is the range it is?
      • Jacob, on 10/10/2007, -52/+96but it makes the results seem different then they really are, it makes it look like he has 0% approval when it's over 25%. It's just one of those things graph makers do to show you what they want you to see.
        • Joe_rigby, on 10/10/2007, -27/+85If you can't properly read a graph, then don't bitch about it on digg.com
          • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5For those who need help, How to Read a Graph: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/howto/graph.html (see step 2)

            Besides, I'm sure you can use your imagination to mentally visualize 5 blank lines below the graph, if you need to.
          • jonohull, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2People must have really liked that Patriot Act right after 9/11 to make his approval rating go so high...
          • Jelfish, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Without looking at the graph again, can you say with any recollection what fraction of his supporters during his reelection now still approve of his job?

            The problem with a cut off y-axis is that it skews the *percent* change. A glance at the picture would have you thinking that Bush's ratings now are about 1/5 of what they were when his second term started, when in fact he still has more than half. Sure, you can do all the math in your head, but the point of a graph is to display information in a clear way so you can quickly spot trends and remember important conclusions. Look at philipbock's graph.
        • expat001, on 10/10/2007, -21/+14Ohh please, we can keep holding your hands you retards.
        • hipnerd, on 10/10/2007, -8/+76By that logic, they also made it look like he had a 100% approveal ratings when he did not.

          Not eveything is the result of hidden bias. Narrowing of the range of your x-axis to focus on the significant numbers is a relatively comon practice and it does not require a conspiracy by the liberal media to explain it.
          • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -20/+3So, you're helping his argument?
          • nixonrichard, on 10/10/2007, -16/+6Yeah, I think that's exactly what the parent said 0-100%. When the article title is "will Bush hit the bottom?" and then shows a graph where the "bottom" is 25% it's a little odd.
          • nonnald, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2But some things are a result of poor math skills. Follow along here - the x axis is the horizontal one, narrowing it would make the time period of the graph shorter not the percentage, that would be accomplished by narrowing the range of the y axis.
          • GliTCH82, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8Who said anything about a conspiracy? Percentage graphs should start at 0 and end at 100, it puts the overall picture into perspective, even if there are no points plotted below or above a certain threshold. It's a percentage, and a finite scale. I could understand your argument if you were talking about a graph showing the U.S. GDP growth in trillions of dollars over the last 5 years or something like that, where it would be ridiculous to start the scale at zero dollars.
          • hipnerd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8GliTCH82: "Who said anything about a conspiracy?"

            Jacob: "It's just one of those things graph makers do to show you what they want you to see."
        • DocHoliday22, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20The graph was done using a spreadsheet software and if you have ever used one they try to conserve space by removing axis values that are not needed so that the graph can be maximised for page height and width. There is no conspiracy here unless these spreadsheet packages were coded in to create conspiracy and bias - but that's just stupid now isn't it?

          Also note that Fox viewers ratings are always significantly higher than other news channels... There's no conspiracy there - they're just dumb.
          • GliTCH82, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Because clearly, the full percentage scale would make the graph absolutely enormous. Come on! This isn't a conspiracy or anything like that, it's just a stupid idea by the person who created it. Clip the X-axis if you're showing dollar amounts or something, but on a PERCENTAGE graph it's just stupid to not include the full scale.
        • gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6I agree that graphs like this can give the impression at a casual glance that the president has no support at all.
          Truth is there will always be a segment of the population; the sick the lame, the lazy, the blind and the crazy who will support just about anything.
          • ayeroxor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Stop whining that you think it seems he is at zero without mentioning that it seems he was once at 100%, math-illiterate twits.
      • topherbook, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Because Edward Tufte said so, that's why.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_tufte
      • TheRealToma, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10Well, the title says 'Will Bush hit the bottom?' and the bottom isnt even on the graph. So really, its a little misleading in its graphical interpretation of 'the bottom'.
        • wattznext, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3that happens to me all the time when i go out to bars. The next morning i often find that my interpretation of the bottom had been quite misleading.
        • wattznext, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1that happens to me all the time when i go out to bars. The next morning i often find that my interpretation of the bottom had been quite misleading.
        • wattznext, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1that happens to me all the time when i go out to bars. The next morning i often find that my interpretation of the bottom had been quite misleading.
      • CelebVoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This graph is just a cheap ploy to see how many people aren't paying attention. The reason to end at zero is because you cannot justify starting at 25 when the absolute lowest is equal to zero. As much as I trust the data on the graph, I only saw that it did not start and end in the right place when I looked a second time. Very questionable to use this kind of tactic with data of this nature. After I saw this, the graph lost all credibility.
    • joe7845, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8Nah, it will probably level off around 15 or so.
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -11/+15He'll always have the support of the christian fundamentalist wackjobs! Ain't nothin will change that!
      • Alegoo92, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1im now a wackjob, im a gay atheist- pretty intelligent too.

        i still support him.
      • plato1123, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Whenever the immigration debate comes up he loses the wackjobs... "Jesus wants me to not pay taxes, but Jesus also wants me to keep mexican's out... as a conservative I've never been so torn!" :p
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Don't the people have the power to force a president out of office when his approval ratings go 10% below 50? Why has he gotten to below 1/4 of being a complete dictator that no one actually wants in office but can't do anything about. Wouldn't that make us a dictatorship? And when do I get out my guns?
      • p337r, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Just because he is unwanted doesn't make him a dictator. It is still a representative democracy... just no one is really voting to impeach.
        • GliTCH82, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Yeah, but I guarantee you if this happened to the CEO of a company he would have been fired 4 years ago. This is no different really, what's the advantage to having an incompetent leader remain in office for the remainder of his term? So we don't hurt his fragile ego? I hold no respect for stupidity.
    • Soccer4786, on 10/10/2007, -15/+2Now you have to look at the accuracy of the graph and what it actually means with regards to the point of the article. "Approval ratings at a new low" this is true according to all of the polls done but so what...our liberty is still safe. If you read this graph CORRECTLY it will show that people are actually in favor of what bush has done. Look at where the graph spikes. The spikes are all during major events in his presidency. During everyday activity his ratings sit around the same area...which doesn't say anything bad nor good...it just says that basically half of the people approve. what the graph does say is that people support their president because his rating jump right after a significant event in which he responds to and the pools show how the American people feel about his decision. As time passes his rating eventually returns to what it normally was before events. If you think that we should "impeach this dictator" based on this information you are completely wrong because the bottom line is that you can't please everybody and as long as my liberty is safe (and it currently is) I am happy with any decisions being made.
      • wattznext, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Awww your naivete would be cute if it wasn;t leading all straight to ruin...
      • SupaFurry, on 01/23/2008, -0/+5Ohhh wowwww. You're *really* retarded. Try to just appreciate the pretty colours and ignore the huge downward slope.
    • hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Uh, oh, looks like its time for some more Terror Fear.
    • philippbock, on 10/10/2007, -3/+34I might be a bit late now, but I made a fixed version (yeah, I was bored…) Notice a difference?
      http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/1640/fixedqb4.gif
      • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1It still shows a nice 60% drop of approval rating over 6 years. From 90 to 30, pretty remarkable.
        • alamandrax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4sigh. Here goes nothing. The average peaked out at 87% after 9/11. The current value is about 28%.
          The total drop is: 87-28=59.
          The percentage drop: (59/87)x100 = 67.82% [ http://www.google.com/search?q=(59/87)*100 ]. Which is closer to 70%. Good? Ok? Let's move on.
      • ayeroxor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Difference? The numbers are the same, the pathetic trend is the same, but hey, you math-illiterate chimpanzees get the empty pointless whitespace you were crying for, so congratulations.
      • Scienceisfun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0No.
    • scottc, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5@philippbock You added a lot of whitespace but no new information. So unless someone wasn't paying attention to the original graph, yours will not change anything. Or maybe that was your target audience?
      • Jelfish, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7@ scottc

        Actually it does. By adding the white space, you now can see more easily the percent change from one time to another. You can clearly see that right now, he still has more than half his supporters since his reelection. On the original graph, you'd have to do the math in your head at best, or haphazardly conclude that he lost 4/5 of his support at worst.

        It's no different than looking at a pie graph where the percentages are clearly written in, but they don't add to 100%. Sure you can do the math in your head, but the graph is suppose to be mental shortcut so you can get a general idea quickly.
        • Scienceisfun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Who cares about the percent change in the approval rating? Is it so much more important that I realize that he has had a roughly 70% percent change than for me to notice the 60 real percentage points that he's dropped since 2001? So I repeat, when do you hear about percent changes in percentage points? What useful metric does that even provide? If you think he's lost 80% of his support since last election, you should go learn how to read a graph.
        • changyang1230, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The way you read the graph might be doing math based on the values on the X-axis; however, for the _general public_, a graph is meant to be a quick representation of the actual information. Not everyone is as good in math as you, scienceisfun; people will likely to say that he's lost four fifth supporters based on a quick look. Of course you could complain that those who make wrong estimation suck at math and should relearn math in high school; but you can't do anything about this: Yes, many people do suck at math. Why don't you prevent the potential source of bias in the first place (which is not hard at all in this graph) instead of blaming people for not being as smart as you?

          Besides, if the Y-axis really has to be truncated, it should have shown a zigzag lines which is a common notation.
    • togaman5000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2the way its set up probably benefits how it appears, if you're implying it may be biased. Going full scale would show his approval ratings are farther from 100%, making him worse than capping it at 95%.

      If you're not implying that its biased, then i don't see the point of having it 0-100
    • rspeed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4What? Didn't you ever take a statistics class? Graphs don't need to start at zero. That's what the guides are for. This is standard practice, not an anti-Bush conspiracy.
    • billtvshow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Everytime I see one of these, I wonder who the hell are these 25-30% that do approve?
  • bjgpp, on 10/10/2007, -19/+205Believe it or not, Congress' is even lower...
    • carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -11/+190because they aren't doing ***** about bush.
    • benbenbenben, on 10/10/2007, -36/+4THANK YOU. Everyone's pissed off that Pelosi's not doing anything, and what do they do? Blame Bush. Katrina's Bush's fault, the bridge collapse was Bush's fault. Bonds's record is Bush's fault. Congress isn't doing anything they promised to do, so let's all say it's Bush's fault! He gets blamed for so much ***** he has no control over.
      • Pake, on 10/10/2007, -15/+4Global Warming, the ice age, the black plague, and the extinction of the Neanderthal (obviously because they aren't Christian and can throw a bone in creationist beliefs) are all Bush's fault as well. Remember that!
        • Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9He's hardly helping stop global warming
        • Pake, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Most people aren't.
          • ayeroxor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Most people aren't the leader of arguably the world's most powerful nation. *****.
          • Pake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And what does being a leader have to do with it? Do you need to be told by him that you should change to energy efficient lighting, drive less, etc? Or does your mommy still change your diapers while you pitch a fit?
      • gordeaoux, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1No one is blaming Bush for Bonds. STFU
        • benbenbenben, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Actually some people are (Diggers! believe it or not). Some retards are saying it's Bush's fault that he didn't crack down on steroids because he supposedly mentioned it in his SotU address.
          And that's why I get my news from GOP hub
      • JonBuddy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Don't bother posting pro-bush statements. Digg has been overrun by these anti-bush idiots. He's probably the smartest president america has ever had.
      • alamandrax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1JonBuddy: there's this clear distinction between smart and calculating see? Bush isn't smart.
    • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -8/+22Congress' approval rating is comparable, but a bit higher, at an average of 27% over the five major polling sources.

      If you're going to sling *****, please sling it responsibly.
    • Bmarofsky, on 10/10/2007, -19/+3a group of dems has a lower approval rating than a single republican. and they have been working less time than he.

      what a bunch o' losers
      • Urzeitlich, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Durrr, there are republicans in congress, too. Durrrrrrr.
        • Bmarofsky, on 10/10/2007, -12/+0Drrr, who has the majority "control"? Who got all high and mighty when the took "control"? Who just passed wiretapping legislation, who pass extensions to the patriot act?
          • GliTCH82, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Okay, so we agree that both mainstream democrats and republicans suck. Elect Ron Paul.
    • OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+32Believe it or not, it's not simply a Democratic Congress.

      Believe it or not, the House is 47% Republican.

      Believe it or not, the Senate is 49% Republican (50% democrat. With the two independents, I'll count Bernie Sanders as a Democrat, but I'm not counting Lieberman. He even nearly caucused with the republicans.)

      Believe it or not, the Democrats might not be the sole reason Congress is unpopular. They don't have unquestioned authority there. Congress is pretty split right now. That said, I'm happy with my Representative. I approve of him. I have mixed feelings about one of my Senators, and I don't really like the other. On the whole, Congress sucks.
      • sabach, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8To me the best possible situation is an Executive branch that's exactly the opposite of the Legislative branch, doesn't matter who sits in the chairs as long as they're opposites. That way they hardly agree on anything and I think we're better off when nothing really gets done, it's when they agree and get things done that the world suffers the most.
        • OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Agree 100%. Checks and balances don't work when two of the branches cover for each other.
      • Anifanatic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Is that your favorite saying? Believe it or not? Can't mix it up a bit with "You might not believe it but," or "You may find it hard to believe," etc. Believe it or not, saying "Believe it or not" four times in a small paragraph is pretty bad.
      • frostieDude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Everyone hates congress but loves their congressman.
    • FredoBerfil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9To meaningfully compare Congress' approval ratings to the President's you'd have to also look at the individual ratings of each senator and representative of their own state and district with that of the President's. I would guess that Democrats, on average, have far higher individual ratings than the President. Republicans, due to their unflagging support for this disaster of a Chief Executive, probably have much lower ratings. I daresay peoople aren't as stupid as generally-worded, broad poll questions would tend to indicate.

      As a whole, I disapprove of Congress as well, but I lay a large share of that blame on the feet of the GOP - keep in mind they've filibustered, or threatened to filibuster one of every six bills submitted to Congress - nearly a record.
    • Calcularius, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12IMPEACH and watch it rise.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Cheney is somewhere between a black hole and another universe.
      • JonBuddy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1What the hell is that supposed to mean?
    • Menthol, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5"If the President feels bad about the nation's opinion of him—a meager 25% of those surveyed in a June Gallup poll approve of Bush's performance—all he needs to do is pick up that same poll and keep reading. According to Gallup, just 14% of people express confidence in the current Congress. That's the lowest measure in the 34 years Gallup has been tracking government institutions."

      All from: www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1640263,00.html
      • JonBuddy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Its funny how people digg you down for a comment like that. These silly anti-bush kids aren't interested in the facts. They'd rather read skewed graphs that show Bush at the very bottom.
    • blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Hum, why would anyone like congress? There are people from both parties, so each half is bound to be hated by the other half.
    • LowRentDiggs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Congress is designed to be complete gridlock so that bills have a harder time passing without compromise. This is the main reason most people have a negative view of congress as a whole, but it's a good thing when this happens. Unfortunately we had a full term of a rubber stamp congress and lots of very damaging bills were passed.
    • ryanwarnersteel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Congress is low because the people elected dem's to do something about our ***** situation and they have made good on nothing they set out to do.
    • achoo5000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The polls always show that people hate congress but love the congressperson from their own district.
  • Poweroft, on 10/10/2007, -52/+6It looks like a graph of a bad movie.
  • Poweroft, on 10/10/2007, -64/+4It looks like a graph of a bod movie.
  • duggtodeath, on 10/10/2007, -45/+173Achtung, after the next false flag terror attack, our Fuhrer's popularity will skyrocket, jawohl!
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -13/+21Sigh...
    • j.carcinogen, on 10/10/2007, -11/+14The scary thing is it will probably be a nuclear attack to justify an attack on Iran. It makes sense that Bush will be rewarded for his steadfast position despite the tarnishing of the Bush name with an event near the end of his presidency so that he can be seen as a "visionary hero that was right all along" and to secure that the next presidential nominee that will be hawkish and continue to borrow massive amounts of money making the people that lend it even more wealthy.
      • Xill, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The even sadder thing is that morons that will actually blame the wrong people for it and trust the people who did it.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -28/+10Next? How can there be a "next" false flag attack if there hasn't been one?
      • mace2, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21This is very ignorant. There have been many documented false flag attacks in history. Go do some research.
        • GliTCH82, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Pretty sure he assumed the implied previous attack to mean 9/11, and since unlike 9/11 there are actually a lot of confirmed false flag operations throughout history, that would indeed make him quite ignorant.
      • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Context: Bush popularity spikes to 90% instantly on 9/11 according to the chart we're discussing, and you both know damn well what duggtodeath meant, as well as what I meant. You're a toolbag for trying to 1) pretend I'm ignorant and 2) divert my message off course by using an unrelated and irrelevant argument. Congrats, assclowns.
      • tyfin85, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0don't even bother.. anything anyone posts that doesn't insinuate Bush caused 9/11, Katrina, the Chicago fire of 1871, and the sinking of Titanic. Will either be written off as invalid, or get dugg down beyond recognition. God forbid someone make a valid point here instead of jerking each other off to Fahrenheit 9/11. Just to further validate my point, watch how fast THIS post gets dugg down.
    • SingerSirCoda, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Buried as truther
      • itanshi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2you may say that, but the Government had considered/tried to do this before. Google up some Operation Northwoods
    • oxigen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Amerika uber alles!
    • StormTrooperVII, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1left to his own devices, bush is an incompetent retard that people hate, and it shows in the polls. The only thing that gets his popularity up is dumb luck. And boy, is it ever dumb.
  • 0rion16, on 10/10/2007, -41/+2(speachless)
    • hmunkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Speechless.

      Digg gave you a spellchecker, use it.
      • GliTCH82, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Firefox has one built-in that underlines your text in red. Strike 2.
        • psygnisfive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If he's using OS X, automatic spell checking is built right into the text system.
        • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So does Safari!
  • h4ppymac, on 10/10/2007, -18/+5meh not that bad

    /sarcasm
  • Fascist, on 10/10/2007, -28/+287Why isn't he at 0 yet?
    • AlphaEta, on 10/10/2007, -11/+120Good question. 1 in 4 people still approve of what this numb nuts is doing... what the hell?
      • Pake, on 10/10/2007, -10/+71 in 5 still approve of Congress, so he's gotta be doing something right!
        • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17They're mad at Bush for sucking, and they're even more mad at Congress for not stopping Bush's sucking. Understand yet?
        • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Congress is at 27%; that's slightly more than 1 in 4, and quite a bit more than 1 in 5.
        • Pake, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2Haha, keep convincing yourself of that Utopia. Also Fordi, last one I saw for Congress was at 22%.
      • solonGFX, on 10/10/2007, -3/+22That's because one forth of Americans are retarded.

        "Let's take a test sample, there's four of us, you're retarded, that's one forth!"
        • ScrumFritter, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2'Quarter'.
        • khellendros1984, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6The word is "fourth". Our leadership has better information than the general populace. They agree enough with the current course of action to continue on it. I wouldn't say that 1/4 of the population is "retarded" either....perhaps "misinformed", or just plain "of a different mind".
        • Malakym, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4So if someone doesn't think the same way as you, they're retarded? So much for embracing a variety of opinions in such a diverse country, eh?

          The fact that you can't even spell "fourth" and you call other people retarded in the same sentence is ironic, isn't it?
        • solonGFX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2/South Park Reference

          For those who did not understand.
        • nuclearpotato31, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Looks like your the "forth!"
      • qwerter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Many people believe McDonald's sells "food." Many people believe reality television is good entertainment. Many people believe Paris Hilton is a celebrity worth paying attention to.

        So no, I am not at all surprised that over a quarter of the population approves of GWB. Frankly, I'm surprised his rating is as low as it is.
      • GliTCH82, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's the 25% that like to stick to what they're doing even when they know they're wrong. They are applauding him for it. Stay the course, don't flip-flop, man up, don't show your enemy your weakness, changing your mind is a sign of vulnerability, etc.
    • ghostlywind, on 10/10/2007, -20/+55Christians
    • natch, on 10/10/2007, -11/+31One word: Republicans.
    • geeker819, on 10/10/2007, -10/+80Because some people are still gullible enough to watch FOX News.
      • Pake, on 10/10/2007, -16/+6Would watching ABC, MSNBC, NBC, CNN, and BBC be better since it agrees only with your opinion, whether or not your opinion can be considered the right opinion? Different news for different people, the news spins it regardless. I don't care for any of them, so I prefer to just read multiple sources rather than just one bias source.

        If it's there to inform, it's there to persuade.
        • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8"Different news for different people"

          Never mind reporting the facts.

          "If it's there to inform, it's there to persuade."

          Yeah, that's not news; it's editorialism.
        • ScrumFritter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"If it's there to inform, it's there to persuade". Isn't that Fox's motto?
        • Pake, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Do you honestly think any news network gives a ***** about reporting the facts Fordi?

          Scrum, that's all their motto's. It's news in general and it's people in general. Obviously though you're just looking for digg ups for bashing Fox, rather than just agreeing that persuasion is how the media works.
        • djAnakin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5ABC, MSNBC, NBC, CNN, BBC, and FOX all report for ratings... not for truth!
        • PixelVision, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2djAnakin, The BBC gets paid no matter what news they put out. Ratings aren't an issue
      • bpmox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It's not that they are gullible, it's that they only listen to what they want to hear. I call it being militantly ignorant.
    • j.carcinogen, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Bankers and the people who control money actually are doing excellent with Bush's administration. Keep in mind they also rule our government with the central bank that is not a part of the government: the Federal Reserve.
    • lordmetroid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah one has to take into account the government bureaucrats. They have to love bush for giving them money.
    • Vltava, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Texas.
      • Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1*****.....most people in texas hate that stupid ass hole....Texas, actually until the 1990's voted democrat
    • djAnakin, on 10/10/2007, -17/+3I will never support a democrat. They are too worried about what people will think instead of doing what's right.

      You people would be loving President Bush if the insurgency in Iraq [which is mostly disillusioned *foreign* fighters] wasn't there and Iraq had a Islamic-Democracy working.
      • crispee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11you're right. I wouldn't hate Bush if he was doing his job well. Too bad there's an insurgency, civil war and a country on the brink of chaos. What does that have to do with supporting or not supporting a democrat?

        Who's disillusioned by the way?
      • Nowheredan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The hilarious part about this is that he's implying that Bush, at some point during his presidency, has done what's right... can anyone here name one thing? I can't.
    • mrsneakypat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Because the graph only goes down to 25...
    • antdude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Has anyone's rating been to zero before? If not, then what's the lowest rating ever?
    • blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's think it's because zero was invented by arabs.
    • vornan19, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He did but his rating bounced.
    • Gabberwok, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The worse he does, the sooner Jesus gets here (according to his remaining 25%).
  • carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -9/+24interesting how the different news outlets show their viewership in their stats.
  • alantocheri, on 10/10/2007, -18/+6Why isn't it a straight line down? It actually goes up in small spots! Why?! What did he do to make people like him briefly?
    • Genius16, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15he made our people feel frightened and insecure
    • Fozefy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8it says what he did on the graph...and with so many people approving of him as he initiated the Iraq war, you can't really keep saying he didn't do what the nation wanted. Sure people say they don't want it now and that Bush is abusing is power, but at the time they clearly did. Hindsight is 20/20....
    • gwellington, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Various speeches he gives, events he attends, etc will influence the public's opinion of him on any given day. Also, they use a random sample of the population when making these, and as they're asking different people their opinion, there are bound to be more people that approve on one day, and more people that disapprove on another day.
    • joe7845, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0More clear picture here:

      http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

      Spikes are due to 9/11, the Iraq war, capture of Saddam, the election.
  • a12k, on 10/10/2007, -11/+26the monster.com commercial with the 'monkeys at work' comes to mind where they rotate the graph to make it look positive.. I can see Bush doing that...
    • coyoteblue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i'm pretty sure that was bush in that commercial...
  • reiner15, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
  • killtherebel, on 10/10/2007, -43/+7That is the the most difficult graph to read. EVER.
  • natch, on 10/10/2007, -21/+84The sad thing is how many people, in red states at least, still have W stickers on their cars.

    Goes to show that the problem is not just with Bush, the problem is with Republicans, who pretend corporate welfare is more important than college aid, protecting the Bible is more important than leaving a clean planet for future generations, and keeping stem cells alive for a few more hours before they are thrown in the garbage anyway is more important than saving dying children.
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3Or maybe they're too lazy to take the stickers off? Or have forgotten about the stickers?
      • Stormflux, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I don't know about you, but I'd be freakin' MORTIFIED if I had a Bush sticker on my car. Just scraping it off wouldn't be enough - that much evil requires a priest to get rid of. No, a Bush sticker isn't the kind of thing one "forgets".
    • Pake, on 10/10/2007, -2/+31The problem is idiots who keep voting for Democraps and Republicunts, rather than voting in people who they trust and agree with. "Oh look! His name has a (D) after it. He's my type of person!" "Oh look! His name has a (R) after it. He's my type of person!"
      • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12I'm glad to see there's at least one other person out there that realizes that political parties don't mean *****.
        • Pake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9There are a lot of us out here. We're generally the ones who get dugg down every post for bashing both sides.
      • shupy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The real problem is that barely half the population bothers to vote at all. Of those who vote, how many only get their news from television? It doesn't make for an informed populace. So half don't bother, 1/4 are ignorant, and then there's a few of us that educate ourselves on the issues.
        If Bush were going to institute the draft, you'd see a lot of people get up off their duffs and find out what's happening,
    • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0For your information, bumper stickers are hard to get off. If you look close enough, you can still find people with Kerry-Edwards stickers still on them, and they didn't even make it to the White House. So you sound pretty dumb.
      • joel8x, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That may be the dumbest thing I ever heard. "Honey, I hate Bush now, but I just can't seem to get this darn sticker off my pickup."
  • Rabid_Llama, on 10/10/2007, -10/+121You know a conservative republican president is doing bad when he's scoring about 25% approval on Fox News' poll.
    • TnTBass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Did you notice that the graph constantly has Fox showing Bush's rating's higher than the other polls? They're trying to improve his ratings any way they can!
    • directedition, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Except he's not a conservative. Conservatives tend to avoid spending tons of money.
      • mos6507, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Unless it's for the military.
      • Stormflux, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Bush isn't liberal or conservative. He quite literally takes the worst aspects of both schools of thought and rolls them into a giant tarball of bad governance.
        • Zarokima, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That is the best explanation for Bush's mindset I have ever heard.
  • expat001, on 10/10/2007, -14/+62Will Congress do their ***** job and impeach him and Cheney and stop voting on bills that give him more powers!
    • shabumike, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Congress is scared to impeach because of the economic instability it would cause. The USA is already so close to recession due to such ridiculous personal and government debt, political instability added could tip the scales.
      • shupy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Congress will not bother to impeach because the Democrats do not have enough of a majority to do it. So you impeach Bush and Cheney, then who takes over?

        For all the whining that people do about congress, they don't get it that the big bamboo in the WhiteHouse has the final say on any legislation and a big ol' veto pen. It takes a bigger majority than one to overide Bush's veto.

        And it'll take the defection of a few Republicans to push through an impeachment.
      • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2There wouldnt be a damn debt or economic instability if we had a sound monetary system, not this fiat paper ***** loaned at interest to the government.
    • klpowell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Have you seen Congresses approval ratings? Maybe we should fire them too it would only be fair they are much lower than his.
      • headt0thebunker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Maybe we can get the indivdual states to start recalling some of their best and brightest they sent to Washington.....

        California could start be recalling "little miss I don't have a clue Pelosi"

        North Dakota could recall "Mr. Show me the numbers and I will support impeachment"

        And whoever the proud owners of Mr I'm under my desk Conyers.....then maybe we can start getting some results from these morons

        Oh and who ever sent that ***** lieberman....it would be nice if you could bring his dumbass back home.

    • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Short answer: probably not
    • t12121, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0They cant iimpeach him the republicans would block it like they have with the other things that they have tried to vote on that they dont wanna be "on the record" with
  • kutza, on 10/10/2007, -4/+92Nice job forgetting to strip out the REDDIT referral in the URL.
    • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6BUSTED!!
    • joel2600, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1there's no problem with giving credit. the internet is a big place, i'm sure everyone realizes that there is more than one social networking news aggregator out there, and that not everything is posted on one site or the other first each and every time.
  • joeshlub, on 10/10/2007, -17/+21Anyone else notice the '&from=REDDIT' at the end of the URL?

    Reposting the content is fine i suppose, it's not like anyone here creates their own stuff in the first place. But being so damn lazy to leave the old referrer? Come on man, that's just weak...

    Dugg anyway though, because it's just a beautiful graph to look at knowing you've been one of those hating him the whole time, even ON 9/11.
    • shupy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I still can't figure out why so many people are surprised at the corruption and general incompetence of the Bush Cadre. His whole history shows what a nincompoop he is, and a brief look at his record as govner of Texas tells the story.
      • frostieDude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or his record in the oil industry. Or his younger life.

        When the biggest thing you have going in your favor is that you used to be a drunk but quit drinking, its pretty bad. Not that quitting drinking isn't fine and all, but it shouldn't be the #1 accomplishment in your life if you are going to run for office.
  • dupswapdrop, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9When will the rapture come?
    Bush is waiting
  • webcite1, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4If that were Walmart, they would close the doors. Bush should pull a Nixon and just leave or die!
    • webcite1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I see that the brain dead Neo-Con Bush ass suckers are out in force!
      • dudefaceguyman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You're right! I mean what the hell, DIFFERENT OPINIONS!!! WHAT ARE THE CHANCES?!

        GODDAMMIT UGH
  • Joe_rigby, on 10/10/2007, -10/+12I wonder when we'll decide to impeach between now and zero?
    • joel2600, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2forget bush, it's not worth it. hold him in some sort of military tribunal or something if possible. impeach gonzales first, then cheney.
  • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -9/+29Wow things like 9/11 really cloud the peoples' judgement!
    • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Another reason why Iran is starting to be pushed for.
    • thedragon4453, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Watch the episode of Family Guy where Lois runs for mayor. Its very applicable here, or Guiliani's entire campaign. Especially right after 9/11 the answers to every question were "9/11", "terrorists", or "WMD's." Only at the time fear mongering was quite effective.
  • aSilver, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9That's My Bush!
  • batshitcrazy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+28i'm kinda scared by this actually... seems like we're due for a popularity spike
    • alwilson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Something major would have to happen. Something to make the public get scared and cry out for daddy. I can see Bush and Cheney sitting in their secret lair plotting some kind of ploy to create fear. "Hey, Dick... things are getting kind of quiet around here and people are starting to not like me again. Not that I care, but maybe it's time to blow some ***** up!"
  • TygerrTygerr, on 10/10/2007, -11/+28So 9/11 was the best thing that happened in his presidential career. Funny old world isn't it.
    • joe7845, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Is it a coincidence that something like 9/11 happened in the watch of perhaps the most incompetent president in US history?
      • adrenaline33, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11He is viewed as incompetent because of how bad he ***** things up after 9/11 but I doubt he was the reason for 9/11 in his less than eight months in office.
        • joel2600, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3he's incompetent because he ***** up nearly everything he does and can barely speak a few paragraphs of unscripted text before saying something stupid, hateful, or unintelligible
  • AlexWills, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5Buried for a misleading graph that ends at the lowest rating, ignoring the reality that Bush's public rating was probably lower than 50% on '04 election day but most people against him were too lazy to vote creating the illusion that he has lost that many more supporters, and for not placing a graph of Congress' even lower rating.
    • AndyJMo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Do you know how to read a graph? The graph shows his approval rating as less than 50% on election day. His approval rating is definitely lower today than it was on '04 election day.
      • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Absolutely. But you could have a 0% approval rating and still get back into office if you're running against the right person.
    • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Taking an average of polls on Congress for the same time period, Congress comes out two points higher than our Dear President.
    • warlax27, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you don't like Bush, then YOU CAN GET OUT! America doesn't have room for Unpatriotic F@#&s like you.
  • RocketGib, on 10/10/2007, -6/+36Notice how FOX tends to stay above the line?
    • theblt, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Notice how Zogby tends to stay below the line?
      • klpowell, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Notice how Zogby is always the one getting reported....
        • HigherLogic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Notice how every reply to the first comment starts with notice?
    • kpmoore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Interesting how NBC's is usually quite accurate.
    • dustblower, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, it's staying above the line with CNN, CBS, and ABC.
  • Nick22, on 10/10/2007, -8/+44I think this proves South Parks theory that 1/4th of the world is retarded. 25% of the populous approve of bush.
    • ejde, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I think you mean "populace," right?
    • shupy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0No, 25% of voters approve of Bush. Only 50 percent of Americans vote. So it's more like 12 1/2% of the population is retarded and approves of Bush..
    • DeathStrawberry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and which side of the 85% were you on after 9/11? A lot of you seem to hate Bush because it's "cool".
  • brooklynboy, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5And if he does hit bottom - SO WHAT? He can't be re-elected. Please, stop with the silly charts and meaningless diggs with this Anti-Bush propaganda. It was fine 3 years ago when he was up for re-election but c'mon - by now you democrats should be selecting either Hillary or Obama as your candidate and telling us why they will be BETTER than Bush. Continuing to bash Bush only makes you guys look silly. He's out in less than a year!
    • geomon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"And if he does hit bottom - SO WHAT? He can't be re-elected."

      Yes, but Bush does care about his legacy.

      "by now you democrats ...."

      You know, there are more than TWO ***** parties in the US.

      Now I know why Americans hate politics.
    • OswaldKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1They can't tell you why Hillary or Obama would be a better choice, because they wouldn't, but these moronic liberals will vote for them anyway.
    • MikeGrenade, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Bush doesn't leave office until the end of 2008 - Approximately 16 months from now.
      For reference, a year is 12 months.
      I hope this helps you.
      • ManIs5, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, Bush leaves office in January of 2009.
    • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Less than a year? Don't I wish.

      Not that it really matters - I don't think that any of the people likely to end up on the final ballot (read: not Ron Paul, no matter how much Digg's hive mind would like it) will be much better. I'm okay with Obama, but I'd be shopping for suitcases as my last US purchase if Hillary gets elected.
    • webcite1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Most smart people want to see six feet of dirt in his face!
      • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1if only I could say that in public without the Secret Service knocking at my door!

        after all cant speak my mind?
  • Shao00, on 10/10/2007, -9/+12what % of the population is born retarded in America? Thats got to be where it will level off........
    • CATSCEO, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4The south and mid-west.
    • Piyh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Midwest population density isn't ***** compared to the coasts. 60% of the Midwest is pure corn and soybeans. The south hovers around 40%, not counting Tennessee and Oklahoma which are 70% and boost the average.
      I live in Iowa and 90% of the land is pure farmland. .We supply the US and more countries with, ethanol, the bottom of the food pyramid. I wouldn't piss us off. We keep your gas prices low and food in your belly We can't be bloating it that much.
  • Zomar, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7who's bush?
    • diode1002, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Oh he's just that guy who has killed about 1 million people since becoming president of the United States. He tortured a whole bunch of others, and left a whole lot more crippled for life.
      • klpowell, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Funny I didn't see him killing anyone and haven't seen any actual proof of toture that wasn't on some left-wing smear site.
        • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4the world must look pretty good through those rose tinted glasses you have.
        • cswnow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Typical libtard comments. Thanks for the boring talking points. Stick to the retards at the Huffingtonpost.
          People are starting to turn. Pelosi should resign. Hell all libtard demwits should just kill themselves. Make the world a better place.
        • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you died *****, I would give a *****!


      • DeathStrawberry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1diode1002, try to keep your comments in the range of somewhat believable. Thank you.
    • samssf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1A rock band, duh.
  • CarolinaHeel23, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7yeah nothing about the democratic congress ratings. thats my commie digg
    • Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0at best in the house, they have a 3 person majority, and the senate a 1 person, not much of a democratic congress now is it?
  • StiGUP, on 10/10/2007, -9/+11I'm still stuck on the election day bar...? he was pretty low then ..yet he got re-elected...stupid people? or rigged election?
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Off the top of my head, the 2004 election was 51% Bush and 48% Kerry. Bush won by... one percent. Judging by the graph, that's about right. :) Although just because people disprove of Bush doesn't mean they're going to support the Democrats (Kerry). A lot of people believe Kerry would have been worse than Bush.
    • klpowell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2He ran against an idiot who showed that he had no leadership skills what so ever
      • OswaldKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I hope you are a Democrat. That would be the most honest left-wing comment ever made about Kerry.
    • webcite1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Both!
    • stuckinOK06, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Rigged! Seriously. Read "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast. He (Bush et al.) selectively disenfranchised over 4 million (mostly minority = mostly Democratic) voters in key swing states. Also check out http://www.gregpalast.com/
    • melandersen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Disgusting and true--a great documentary about the marginalization of minority and democratic voters in the last election is "American Blackout." Voting machines were literally taken from areas where the % of newly registered voters went up significantly (high minority/Democratic areas) to richer Republican suburbs. In the same areas, African-Americans were fraudulently flagged as criminals and ineligible for voting. Same areas...voters shuffled to voting sites different from previous years and further away, decreasing the chances of voters getting transportation....it goes on and on, and makes you feel sick that this could actually happen in a self-described democracy--when clearly it isn't!
    • dustblower, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It doesn't really matter who's like more nationwide as long as they're liked in the right states.
  • onelikeaztek, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6judging by these fundys it looks like its time for another terrorist attack.
  • esbern1, on 10/10/2007, -16/+9this is almost a month old. jesus christ. digg is going downhill at an annoying rate.
  • joshuagor44, on 10/10/2007, -11/+29/11 was government-planned to keep Bush in presidency. His only tool is fear. His entire campaign was based on him supposedly being able to protect America from "WMDs" and terrorists.
    • klpowell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Funny it was the democrats running on the ticket "If bush is reelected there will be a draft and your old people will starve" Thats not playing fear?
      • OswaldKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You have to remember that fundamentalists do not subscribe to logic.
    • blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You know, he'd have kept the presidency without 9.11. It's not like rather bad ratings were a motive for impeachment.
    • mal5305, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1i think your tinfoil hat is on a little tight...
  • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5What is the point of this game of approval numbers? You are looking at the bottom. The rest that approve him are not going to change their minds. Furthermore, it's about 33% (that's 1/3 of the country for those in Rio Linda), while Congress falls short of that.

    So with a Congress effectively run by Democrats being less popular than George W., does that not make Democrats less popular? Surely you can say that neither are. So I ask again: What's your point?
    • snkscore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I strongly disaprove of the way congressional Republicans are blocking almost all Democratic legislation.

      Therefore I disaprove of Congress.

      But, I only disaprove of the idiots on the R side of the isle.

      See how that works?
    • dustblower, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Point? There is no point in even discussing any of this so whether your for or against the Government at this moment there's nothing you can do until election season.
  • ghall, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1It's not like he even cares at this point. He can't get reelected anyway. The good news is that the more he ***** up, the better chance we'll have at getting a democratic president in '08
    • jmhyer51, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Yeah, because since they got in Congress, they've really turned things around.
      • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0because congress has power over the executive these days...
  • indyguide, on 10/10/2007, -15/+9when is everyone just going to stop bashing the man? everyone acts like the united states is the worst country to live in . Do you know how good we have it here??
    • oMeSSiaHo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I fully understand how good I have it. I also understand how good my ancestors had it as well. They had it so good that they fought and died to protect it.

      Technically the ***** hasnt hit the fan yet but it can. People are upset at a system that seems to be destroying itself and giving up its values.
    • JCritter, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2How can you equate Bashing Bush with acting like the United States is the worst country to live in??? I don't follow the logic?
    • workfaster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Indyguide: Bush isn't America. He's more like a parasite or an infection that's destroying it from the inside. We know we have it good and hope to keep it that way.
    • Tarl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Bush was elected to do a job. He sucks at it. Time for someone who is better. The end.
      • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He did a good job at making himself and Dick money!
    • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The United States is the best country in the world, but you gotta do things to keep it that way, namely removing said person from office
    • headt0thebunker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I know how good it "USED TO BE"

      Thats the problem......It USED TO BE.....its not anymore.....Wake the hell up dipstick......what are you like 10?
    • Sabin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2America was a great country 10 years ago. Now it takes next to no effort to name 10 countries where you would be better off living.
    • snkscore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Why don't you tell us "how good" we have it?

      Have you ever lived in another country to see how messed up it is here?
      I'm going to guess NO.
    • xornor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What man? OHH this man http://tinyurl.com/4z5v
    • tyboulder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Do you know how good we HAD it here? Bush has severely wounded our civil liberties, the environment, corporate accountability, international relations/policy and has appointed only morons and cronies to posts of government that should and could have a very important role. The Bush administration is the very antithesis of what our forefather gave their lives for. States rights? What? The NWO and the Council on Foreign Relations seems to be gaining power at an exponential rate under this tyrant.
    • dustblower, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Maybe the problem is that we have it too good. If more people really realized what a majority of the world has to go through each day just to survive the would bitch so much.
  • kufu91, on 10/10/2007, -13/+2876% of america, why do you hate america?
    • patch6, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5The administration isn't "america"; they are actively trying to undermine the principles on which the country was founded, and are probably the most anti-american factor there is.
    • ChristianMagic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5They hate us for our freedom.
      • Conguent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah that makes sence.
      • xornor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0WOW The very fact that you were able to find the power button on your computer impresses me. Keep up the good work!
      • ChristianMagic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If I may quote someone who replied to the comment below mine, "check your sarcasm detector"
      • Kestrel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Freedom??? WHAT freedom? You're living in a gilded cage, where the average american on the street has fewer rights than any place in the civilised world. There are only a handful of countries (incouding America) where anyone can be vanished off the street, sent off to a hell-hole to be tortured, denied access to the red cross, denied access to legal resources to defend themselves, denied any access to monitoring agencies... you're living in a banana republic with a third-world-style dictator at the helm and nobody in your country is doing ANYTHING to stop it.

        The worst part for you lot is that it's virtually impossible to reverse; the next president may be publicly appalled at the freedoms stripped away by Bush & Co.but do you honestly believe that once he gets a taste of the power Bush has secured, he's going to give it back?

        No... America is a country where the populace are so easily frightened that you've now handed yourselves over to eternal dictatorship, and it;s so easy for the boogeyman to be created at any time to keep you all frightened. Your time of being a "free" country is over, done, finished and you have no one to blame but yourselves.
    • xornor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1because people like you live here
  • MavRevMatt, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Answer: yes.
  • ritad, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I am not sure about Bush hitting bottom, he should on his stand on illegal immigration and his failure to secure our borders and ports, seem as though, he is on his way back up. No, seems to me it is our Congress who is hitting rock bottom, with a 3 percent vote of confidence from the American people, for the Pelosi, led Democratic congress, I think that just speaks volumes don't you?
  • jmhyer51, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4It's funny, according to that poll, we actually liked Bush at one point.
    • TnTBass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sadly, voters have a very short term memory.

      Happens here in Canada all the time...
      • Sabin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Vote for Chretien...cuz he does.....stuff.
  • omnirusa, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13What are all of those x's floating above the line by themselves?
    Oh thats fox news. Nevermind.
    • dustblower, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yeah, Fox, ABC, and CNN so yep must just be Fox News again.
  • oMeSSiaHo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Imagine if 75% of your bosses didnt approve of what you were doing. Imagine if 85% didnt approve. I know it isnt that simple but logically he and congress should be "fired". I sorta feel like Jefferson Smith, why is the system so convoluted and difficult?!
    • thedragon4453, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Very good analogy. Thats how I have felt about this for a while. Why we still haven't impeached him is a mystery to me.
    • TypeEE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Someone mentioned about political stability. It might be better off to wait 2 years than make a move now.
    • Jenje, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Depends on how "powerful" the other 25% are.
    • DeathStrawberry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You can't impeach a President because you don't like him. Sorry, children. It doesn't work that way.
  • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5So roughly 80% of the population disprove of Bush. Realistically, shouldn't that mean it's time to get rid of him? "Elections", I know I know...
    • alwilson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If we were able to get rid of Bush, who would replace him? Cheney? That would be going from really bad to terrible...
  • CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5Disapproval != compulsive, obsessive hatred
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Apparently, many diggers feel differently.

      For the record, I would be under the "disapprove" category.
    • Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2well put me under that obsessive hatred column. I passed "disapprove" about 4-5 years ago.
  • ozzum, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16It just goes to prove that if you want to be popular then you have to create a catastrophe as in the book "1984".

    What's next?????
    • goldfenix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well, I guess the world will eventually become three super-powers, all of which engage in eternal warfare in an effort to destroy the surplus goods to keep the lower classes poor and stupid then they shall each doctor history and use thought police to keep people in check.

      Man this is gonna suck.
  • compgeek, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1like this is a surprise maybe Americans are finally wising up to his ***** and figuring out that he really is just a democratically elected dictator
  • klpowell, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Funny, I just read a story on digg a few days ago that showed the latest 2 USA today/Gallup polls showing his approval rating increasing. Of course they were buried by the left wing fascist that run loose on digg.
    • OswaldKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2But that doesn't support the liberal cause. Fascism is only fascism when the liberals are not in control.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.