digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

It's official. 24% of America is brain dead.

reuters.com — Bush at 24% and dropping. Who are these supporters? Cue the twilightzone theme song..

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • SheilaNoya, on 10/24/2007, -102/+294Can we please bring Bill Clinton back now? Despite what the "Clinton haters" say, most of America loved him and he had an approval rate of 73% even while he was being impeached by the hate-filled Republicans.

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/ ...
    • xomox, on 10/20/2007, -67/+25why do too many sheeple on this earth seek leaders? U really need to wake up and learn about being TRULY free and non-authoritarian!
      • bluenullity, on 10/19/2007, -13/+54Buried for following others by using the term sheeple
        • DavidBGie, on 10/19/2007, -13/+5AND the Democratic Congress at 11% approval and dropping is being followed by !!!!!!!!! Libtard Diggers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bush STILL rules! Go to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com and see the real truth. If you are a stubborn libtard go to the site anyway. At least you can say "I KNOW MY ENEMY!" I dare you to wake up!
          • eplawless, on 10/19/2007, -7/+2That's a fakepost. I can't rationalize that not being a fakepost.
          • DavidBGie, on 10/19/2007, -10/+3@eplawless
            No, you just can't rationalize period. Wow! People like you truly amaze me! You really believe the hype and drink the Kool Aid. Sad. Well, at least at Digg you have thousands of other lemmings to be friends with....
      • fwedwic, on 10/19/2007, -13/+7buried for waste of breath.
      • onwardknave, on 10/20/2007, -9/+7Why is xomox being dugg down? Who wants to be a follower? Workers need to unite and take power from those who put personal power and dollars above the lives of the citizenry.
      • Syphon8, on 10/20/2007, -5/+3The people like you are the first to die when there's no more government.
    • jfowler27, on 10/20/2007, -22/+73I wouldn't call myself a "Clinton hater", but he definitely is not the shining beacon of light in American politics, and neither is his wife. I think he only seems like such a great president because he was surrounded by the presidencies of Bush Sr. and Jr.
      • netant, on 10/19/2007, -7/+4Apparently, you did not have to find a job during Bush Sr., or go to Iraq during Jr.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/19/2007, -5/+2You got a point there.
        • TitanX13, on 10/19/2007, -0/+7according to bush sr. i shouldnt be considered a citizen because i am atheist
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/20/2007, -19/+20I see that as 76% of Americans care about the country...what scares me more is the 40% of democrats who want to see the constitution burned by voting for Hilary. The thing with Clinton is that he was too involved in sex scandals to actually do much that registers on the public scale.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/19/2007, -3/+11Why will Hilary destroy the constitution?
        What the heck... Bush denying peoples rights to trial in Guantanamo Bay, getting the Telco giants to spy on us, rolling evironmental laws back a hundred years...
        ...Passes laws so anyone matching a loosely defined description of terrorist can be arrested without reason.

        Hilary is the enemy?
      • enki25, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5Yet another emotional 12 year old bashing Hillary because of the programming they've received. Name an actual policy she has that would involve her "burning the constitution". Face it, your criticisms amount to 'Hillary has cooties'.
      • cmackattack, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1People needs to wake the hell up; not sure why the digging down concerning the two sides of the same basic coin;

        Neo-cons want to take most of your rights away and some choices;

        Democrats want to take your most of your choices away and some rights.
        • kuzotz, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1WEll I love my rights so I guess Democrat it is.
          • cmackattack, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1There is another choice--educate yourself please sheep...
    • CraigJ, on 10/19/2007, -15/+22I'll take "neither" for $500 Alex. Approval ratings are really not the best indicators of job performance, which cannot be truly ascertained until they are well out of office. Remember, a great majority of Americans believe in God and Jesus too, so depending on your criteria I could suggest that 90% of Americans are braindead.
      • BobOki, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2In the REAL world, your job is based off of your performance and approval ratings.
        Besides making the largest deficit in our history, starting two soon to be three wars, having the second lowest employment in history, having the lowest dollar value in history, and tieing the lowest approval rating in history, just what has Bush done for the USA, and how can you justify that over the rest?
    • banthis, on 10/19/2007, -5/+18Digg me down if you want but ... only 24%?!
    • finbec, on 10/19/2007, -16/+7"Can we please bring Bill Clinton back now?"

      You can....vote Hillary.
      • macweirdo42, on 10/19/2007, -1/+13Does anyone realize that if Hilary wins, two families will have occupied the White House for 32 years, counting Bush Sr.'s 8 years as VP? That's mind-boggling.
        • XBSHX, on 10/19/2007, -2/+5That should be illegal, I don't know why... it just should.
        • Syphon8, on 10/19/2007, -1/+6Because that's where monarchies come from.
      • netant, on 10/19/2007, -3/+1No, that gives us a neurotic power monger who has imaginary talks with dead wives, votes for ill conceived invasions, and can't get a good national health care policy in place, and will probably sell us out to the highest bidding lobbyist. That's not getting Bill.

        She may be preferable to the Republican jerk who runs against her. And I find that insulting to both candidates.
        • finbec, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1I disagree. Bill has already stated he will be highly involved if she is elected...just like Hillary was when Bill was elected. In general, her policies are very similar to Bill's and most of your assertions are simply irrational. That being said, I likely won't vote for her. But I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul either.
    • leftykiller, on 10/19/2007, -20/+1524% and still spanking the Democrat-controlled House and Senate.
      • qwerter, on 10/19/2007, -8/+12It WOULD be controlled by the Democrat(IC) majority if they had enough of a majority to overturn vetoes. They don't, so they can't really control anything.
        • mtekk, on 10/19/2007, -7/+11But last November they claimed victory and promised to do things, yet they have not done much lately except try to violate the First Amendment rights of one of their detractors.
      • enki25, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3leftykiller! you're really living up to your handle with that devastating argument. Oh except for the fact that congress has always had lower approval ratings than the president, especially when it was republican controlled. And you ignore the obvious fact that it is low now because people are upset that the Dems aren't able to stop Bush. This is largely due to Republican obstructionism, but I guess thoughts like that are too nuanced for the likes of you.
    • tyho, on 10/19/2007, -10/+24Why are Democrats doing their little jig about this when 24% is still MORE than TWICE the 11% rating of the Democrat controlled congress?
      • LBobRife, on 10/19/2007, -3/+5Bush doesn't have his hands tied down by a democratic president, as the congress does.
      • rollem, on 10/19/2007, -1/+7It's not hard to say why congress' ratings are so low. Republicans hate it because it controlled by the dems, democrats hate it because it's not doing what they wanted it to do (get out of Iraq and improve domestic priorities).
      • Scottamus, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3A little digging will show that those 89% aren't disapproving of the democrat side of congress.
        • tyho, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Well to continue your make-believe argument - America is split pretty close to 50/50 Republican/Democrat, so that means that 44.5% ARE disapproving of your democrats. Isn't making up statistics fun?
    • petebert, on 10/19/2007, -3/+24But Clinton had Sex! With a Woman!!!
      • technoredneck, on 10/22/2007, -2/+18They tried to impeach him because what he did was clearly immoral--every self-respecting Republican man knows you're s'posed to have extramarital affairs with children and other men.
      • ChromaVita, on 10/19/2007, -4/+2If you really want to call Hillary a woman...
        • Tiak, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2I'd hope he never had sex with Hillary...

          Chelsea was a test tube baby.
    • scott1, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4We don't need Clinton we need Washington back! Sure they're my be a few Clinton haters but how many people ever hated Washington?
      • LBobRife, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4Read up about him. Everybody has their controversies. Yeah I know you're being sarcastic. What I'm trying to say is while Clinton did have some controversies, most of them did not relate to his job, and if they did, they tended not to get people killed. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying it was not as common.
      • Mullinsmcd, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1His slaves...
    • 21chrisp, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3They're just not as creative with cigars
    • clayasaurus, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5NO! Bringing a 'Clinton' back is feeding into the political dynasty.
      • biotch, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2interesting how no one mentioned this was a problem when Bush was elected after his dad was president and VP for a total of 12 years.
      • enki25, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1A married couple is not a dynasty. It would have to be one of Bill's kids, and the family (many generations) would have to have a long history in politics. None of that is true. It is true, however, with the Bush family.
  • Observant1, on 10/24/2007, -57/+2124% still think bush is a-ok?.. where they find em? mental wards? this looked like a bush hate thread and its suddenly all about a clinton love fest.. only supports the 24% braindead theory! bill clinton and bush in the baton pass rammed NAFTA on through, trade and border issues that should have been put to the people for a vote, Not Allowed Freedom To Approve, is more like it. it was clintons watch when a lot of our technology and patents were handed to china. it was on his watch satellite launches were made from there by corporations, leaving behind the technology for ICBM's. hillary was board of directors to walmart 6+ years bringing in cheap slave made consumer goods that pushed many American companies broke, and production workers unemployed. clinton was up to his neck in investigations for his involvement in drug for weapons trades when he was governor of arkansas when reagen was president and a bush family friends son john hinkley shot him.. which pretty much put bush senior in charge, who was CIA and ran Air America trading weapons and money thru korea and vietnam, more with oliver north and noriega, where shipments were going to mena arkansas and hillary got busy with her "rose law firm" setting up tyson chicken to launder the money.. up to his neck under investigations and he trots out monica lewinski and a blue dress sideshow, where all the real issues are dropped and the world stops wondering if a blowjob is sex. it also fomented sympathy for hillary for a "cheating hubby", but she could care less because she's a lesbian anyway! bush pardons clinton, clinton pardons bush, and the conspiring to destroy this nation rolls forward with a war on drugs they imported feuling a massive police state that would make hitler envious.. and people are still babbling b-b-but clinton! only tells me the 24% braindead just might be valid.
    • katie212, on 10/19/2007, -4/+3Sounds like a soap opera doesn't it? And so are..."The days of our lives"..... :)
    • kablaq, on 10/19/2007, -2/+9sorry but...
      tl;dr
      paragraphs are a wonderful invention though... should try them out sometime...
    • iChaz, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5there's always that one guy with a page long hissy-fit about what everyone's saying...
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/19/2007, -2/+4OK, to make you happy, I suggest we bring back Nixon -- he would be called a commie Liberal by the idjits who would vote for Bush a third time.
    • keeganspeck, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3WALL-O-TEXTs FTW!
    • BobOki, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Wait, you voted him down because he remembers the clinton scandals and all you remember is the bj?
    • daviejer, on 10/19/2007, -0/+0What a *****
  • feebes, on 10/24/2007, -14/+22824% was also the number that approved of Nixon just before his resignation
  • wreckosaurus, on 10/24/2007, -13/+305Lowest rating for a president ever: 23% Come on Bush, you can do it!

    • Anub1s, on 10/19/2007, -1/+114He's still got 12 more months, there no way he won't beat that.
      • BlackJackJester, on 10/20/2007, -10/+6He's gonna drop it like Arnold dropped the Predator.
      • ncc74656m, on 10/19/2007, -9/+4You know, he could bring it back up by "finding" Osama in that secret prison he's had him in for two years...
    • lithera, on 10/19/2007, -3/+14Excse my ignorance, but are you trying to tell me that somewhere in history there was someone who made a bigger mess of it then Bush?
      I find that hard to believe.
      • akula696969, on 10/19/2007, -2/+19No it is just that more people gave a ***** and paid attention back then. There are 24% of the population right now that are not paying attention........
        • netant, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6Its not that they are not paying attention. Its that they are that stupid.

          You must catch a movie called "Jesus Camp". Watch it, and weep for our nation.
      • ncc74656m, on 10/19/2007, -2/+24I'm certain that of those 25%, you could find at least 10% of them who can't even name the current president.
        • atheinostic, on 10/19/2007, -3/+13I personally believe that some U.S. Americans would be unable to do so because such as Iraq and South Africa, so we could better build up our future.
      • vervalsing, on 10/19/2007, -0/+15It could be worse. Franklin Pierce got drunk and ran over an old lady on his horse while he was in office. But, to be fair, the old lady's name was not "Iraq".
    • zestyhedgehog, on 10/19/2007, -0/+8Guess, Joe Lieberman was right when he said that overall, over time, his ratings among the historians will be greater than his ratings in the polls today - his ratings eventually will be so low that even if the historians say that he was a failure as a president that still would be a compliment to him.
  • GRTWHT, on 10/20/2007, -16/+67The supporters are all those folks that are getting insanely wealthy (or wealthier) during his presidency.
    Oh, before you get too excited about the future, keep in mind that these are the same people that are supporting all the mainstream candidates - they are all bought and paid for, to believe otherwise is simple naivete or stupidity, your choice which.
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/21/2007, -7/+18While there are definitely those types supporting him, most of that 24% are the jingoistic redneck types. And I completely disagree with your notion that all candidates are "bought and paid for". They are still people, with their own opinions, and are completely capable of acting on their own. I agree that special interests and companies need to have less of an influence on politics, though.
      • Chubs879, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1Except Barack Obama, who isn't excepting any money from lobbyists.
        • thinksage, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Who is smart enough to hide the fact that he excepts money..... all politicos are whores. They do anything for the right price. So what ia truely broken is he system.
          • atheinostic, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Except MIke Gravel! But he only has like $5.
    • Kikinou, on 10/19/2007, -4/+15They're evangelical Christians who think that God appointed W. They're the ones watching Hannity and listening to Rush.
    • awhiteflame, on 10/19/2007, -12/+7I support Bush in most of his policies, but I am neither "braindead" nor a religious person. I live in a lower-middle class suburb in Southern New England. What were you saying again?
      • czeman, on 10/19/2007, -11/+2@awhiteflame
        Same here. It's the Democrats that are doing everything they can to fool America. Sure, Bush has had his blunders. Just about every president has. The media chooses to report things to us as they want us to believe. The AP is the worst.

        My phone rang last week. The Democrats of WI were calling all WI residents to tell them how the evil Republicans were trying to pass an increased tobacco tax and that we need to contact our representatives and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. We have a Democrat for a governer, and he's a ***** prick who's doing a terrible job. His name is Jim Doyle. He was pushing for an increased tobacco tax, not the Republicans. I told the lady that the governer is doing a ***** job himself and to quit calling me with her propoganda.

        I heard on the radio this morning that the Democrats are all pissed off because the Republicans only want to raise a small amount.

        So, don't tell me the Republican Party is so evil. They're ALL liars and crooks. At least Bush has the balls to stand up for what he believes is right. The rest of them can't make up their minds. Clinton didn't even make a move to defend us when Bin Laden bombed the WTC before. Oh, wait. He was too busy getting lips and pussy in the oval office. That's sexual activity on the job, an offense most of us would be fired for.
        • netant, on 10/19/2007, -2/+5Your Republicans criticized him for attacking Bin Laden. You were too busying being outraged about him getting a blowjob. You Republicans criticized when he attacked Serbia. You ***** traitors were too worried about him looking good, to even support him when his policy was correct. How the hell could he run roughshod on Al Queda, knowing that you Republicans would impeach him for a blowjob?
      • Bamborzled, on 10/19/2007, -1/+7Why do you support Bush, then? Why do you still support him after his mishandling of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, his decision to plant troops in Iraq to search for nonexistent WMDs and cause a civil war that would devour the country if the troops left, the contracts he hands over to Halliburton, his eroding of American civil rights with the PATRIOT act and the suspension of habeas corpus, his generally being an incapable leader (It's Dick Cheney that actually does most of the work), etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum?
      • soomprimal, on 10/21/2007, -3/+2I think I was digging you down, actually.

        Enjoy your fascism!
      • Prefection, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5Sweet crackers awhite! What are you thinking? What has Bush done for you that you can still look on him favorably? At the current rate of spending the Fed will have to cut down entire forests to print the money fast enough. This President has betrayed you, me, and the entire country.
    • geoboy, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1124% of Americans support Bush because in their minds if nobody supports him then the Liberals have won. And if the Liberals can have their way, America is doomed.

      I kid you not, people really think that way.
      • netant, on 10/19/2007, -3/+1Blowjobs and weed for everybody!!!

        I'm sorry, for some odd reason those 24% will never convince me that its preferable to kill Americans for Muslims, and destroy this country with the expenses from the Iraq occupation.
    • mizenerd, on 10/19/2007, -1/+0To reply to this entire chain...

      I support BUSH. The things I am not: 1. Evangelical Christian 2. Redneck 3. Rich 4. Stupid
  • tjordan83, on 10/19/2007, -10/+33At least that percentage is shrinking...
  • Samji, on 10/20/2007, -35/+89Impeach Bush. NOW.
    • insomniacal, on 10/19/2007, -13/+5Still haven't given up on that, have you?

      How are we supposed to respect Democrats who refuse to heed their supporters by impeaching?
      • lowerlogic, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3How am I supposed to respect people who are still tricked into thinking everything is either Democrat or Republican? Two sides of the same coin, in a box. And Ron Paul is the only candidate outside that box.
    • RGWX, on 10/19/2007, -7/+8oh yeah. get right on that.
    • czeman, on 10/19/2007, -7/+3Impeaching doesn't mean jack. We impeached Clinton for his wrong-doings, but he kept his job. He should've been booted out of the White House and lost all benefits given to ex-presidents.
      • netant, on 10/19/2007, -3/+6But elect and re-elect GW Bush? You ***** retards.
    • JaffarDS, on 10/19/2007, -8/+3To impeach a President they must break the law. You cannot just randomly impeach a President.... >_>
    • viggenguy, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2y'know what, I think I will now! Thanks for the inspiration
  • macromorgan, on 10/22/2007, -28/+2960% of Americans like Bush.

    24% have a blind hatred for the Democrats though.
    • card51short, on 10/19/2007, -22/+11no i'd say about 2% like bush.
      ***** the dems too, though
      • calinazaret, on 10/19/2007, -2/+7Why? What can be said about the democrats that can't be said about republicans?
        • Pake, on 10/19/2007, -3/+5Not sure if you replied to the wrong person, but "What can be said about the democrats that can't be said about republicans?" is answered with "***** the dems too, though."

          It's true though. ***** both parties.
        • iChainsaw, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2...in the ass.
        • Super6, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1with a folding baton
        • DirtySnachez, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2they dont like child-sex ?
      • rendereduseless, on 10/19/2007, -3/+2close minded *****
    • socketman, on 10/19/2007, -41/+6 What's wrong with Bush? I am a regular digg reader - and I have yet to see any good reason to dislike bush. Just a bunch of sensationalism
      • ninjasteeve, on 10/19/2007, -6/+182 pointless wars (1 cause someone tried to hurt his daddy) and cowboy diplomacy that doesnt work? Seems like good enough reasons to me.

        SOCKETMAN ATE MY BALLS!
        • chillmandan, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6One of those war's wasn't pointless (Afghanistan), we just don't pay attention to it, apparently Iraq is 6 times more important than it.
      • tehbored, on 10/19/2007, -3/+23Also, the ludicrous debt, the erosion of our freedoms, the illegal wiretapping, the failure to prevent 9/11, his religious fanaticism, etc.
        • Zyphron, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3the first 3 points have validity (debt, freedom, wiretapping). Failure to prevent 9/11 I think is just everyone looking back with 20/20 hindsight, and I dont really think that religious fanaticism is applicable.
      • williamdyer, on 10/19/2007, -3/+14Illegal, undeclared preemptive war based on fraudulent "intelligence." Google the "Downing Street memo." There was no "intelligence failure." They knew it was all lies.
      • Nonplussed, on 10/19/2007, -3/+14Don't bother w/ fools like this. If you don't know what's wrong with Bush by now, you're either seriously demented or not paying attention. My guess is the former.
      • dannychen16, on 10/19/2007, -1/+6read this guy's comments.

        someone needs a new vocab word besides "sensationalism"
      • eclectro, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2Being on vacation 50% of the time is another reason for dislike
      • enki25, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
        • Zyphron, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3Princess Bride FTW! (it is "I DO NOT think it means..." though.)
    • Nonplussed, on 10/19/2007, -5/+43I wish you were right, but, sadly, you're not. There are, in fact, people who think Bush is the best thing to happen to this country. That all Muslims should be bombed to kingdom-come. That all taxes are bad but yet all wars are good (that's critical thinking). That this is a Christian country. That gays should be strung up. That.....well, you get the idea.

      Yeah, I know. Scary.
      • chillmandan, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3And its great that we live in a country where people can have those feelings. Yeah I hate Bush, but man people crucify others for supporting him, it's their right, chill out.
        • LBobRife, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4He was merely expressing himself. Having his feelings, if you will. It's their right to think what they think just as it's his right to think what he thinks as it's your right....etc etc.
    • tfulton89, on 10/19/2007, -6/+1Yeah, you're completely right though.

      /sarcasm
    • Kles, on 10/20/2007, -3/+8Actually, I know of a fellow who is a Republican who likes Bush, supports the war, thinks Iraq loves America and greets them as liberators and that "spying is necessary" and "Guantanamo Bay is a good thing for sure." It's absolutely tragic, but these people do exist, and do exist in numbers. Luckily, more and more are waking up.
      • Iconoclast25, on 10/19/2007, -3/+3Kles, your sort of clueless naivete is what makes the left so dangerous. More and better intelligence operations could have prevented 9-11. But no, as far back as the early 1970s, tools like frank church were hamstringing our people . . . there is so much could be said on this . . . .
        Gitmo is not a good thing; these terrorists oughta be interrogated by experts rather than given cushy tropical vacations. And trials, etc.? Not a bloody chance! These are rabid barbarians who intentionally kill civilians, children, etc. to *terrorize* others and force them to accept the terrorists' 7th Century "culture." The only thing they understand is brutal force and likewise it is the only way to deal with them.
        As to the reality of the situation in Iraq you might oughta talk to the troops actually on the ground or the Iraqi people rather than jerking off over the propaganda posted by the daily kos. They have a whole different take on things. They do have a lot of unkind things to say about the length of their tours, the poor preparations for winning the peace, etc., but they are adamant that the mass of the indigenous people are damn glad saddam is gone and appreciative of our role in doing so. The Iraqi politicians are as bad, or worse, than ours, but the vast majority of the Iraqi people are not the ones planting bombs by the roadsides. Personally, I give a lot more credence to folks who put their lives on the line for this country than the intellectually bankrupt jellyfish of the left.
    • Iconoclast25, on 10/19/2007, -4/+1I'm not terribly impressed with his (mis)management of the Iraqi campaign, absolutely furious with the attempted amnesty and generally disappointed in the man - he spent far too much time trying to make nice-nice with our enemies, domestic and external. That said, however, even knowing what I do now, I'd still support him ardently for a third term if his opposition were either of the klintoon maggots, johnny the bobble head, babbling al, botox boy, mondale, jimmy piddle-pants the Georgia jellyfish, lbj, fdr, woodhead wilson - in fact any other current or former dimoCRAP candidate offered in the past 100 years except JFK or Ed Muskie. I don't BLINDLY hate Democrats, just the lefties, and it isn't blind . . . they've given me SO much to hate them for.
      • nakani, on 10/20/2007, -2/+3Are you sure you're a conservative and not a dumb hick? There are actual conservatives with sound plans for economic, foreign and domestic policy abroad. Namely, Huckabee and Ron Paul. Why you would support the fake Texan for a 3rd term is beyond me.
        • Iconoclast25, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1nakani, did you actually READ my post or were you in such a big a rush to post the ad hominen attack to bother? Did I list any of the GOP candidates, even the RINOs such as rudy the red or amnesty mccain? Or did I simply state that I would vote to have a third GWB administration before I'd vote for any of the dimoCRAPS who have held or run for the office (with the exception of JFK) in the last 100 +/- years? These are not trick questions and even a liberal should be able to comprehend them.
          My comments were not, no matter what you chose to read into them, any endorsement of the President except in context to the far worse choice of any dimoCrap.
          Incidentally, I'm volunteering time with the Huckabee campaign . . . .
    • Useight, on 10/19/2007, -6/+1I'm American, a Republican, voted for Bush, support him, and the Iraq War strategy. He's doing his best, get off his back. You think you'd do better?
      • rads, on 10/19/2007, -2/+5Yes.
      • enki25, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2Most likely you support those things because you are mislead on certain key facts. I would bet that you:
        1. Think Iraq had WMD right before the invasion, and that we had evidence of this.
        2. Think being in Iraq made us safer, and helped advance our position in the war on terror.
        3. Think that Bush's economic policies have benefited this country and the majority of its citizens.
        • Useight, on 11/04/2007, -0/+0Actually, I couldn't care less whether they have weapons of mass destructions, don't care whether we're safer or not (I'm perfectly safe where I am), and don't care how much tax dollars it costs, either. I just want us to walk all over the Iraqis and every other Middle Eastern country and just waltz off with millions of barrels of crude oil. And leave a big sign. Lower your gas price or we'll take the rest, too.
    • biotch, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1One 300 millionth of Americans like Bush ....(Im pretty sure he's satisfied with himself)
      I think 0 percent of American's like Cheney though.
    • cmackattack, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1People needs to wake the hell up; concerning the two sides of the same basic coin;

      Neo-cons want to take most of your rights away and some choices;

      Democrats want to take most of your choices away and some rights.
  • iching, on 10/20/2007, -27/+11As a 24%-er told me last week.

    “There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those that can't.”
    • ronaldinho, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Uh, not to be a spoiler, but that's two kinds, not three.
  • opticwind, on 10/22/2007, -43/+46Yeah, again, insulting supporters is the BEST way to show them they're wrong. Otherwise they may actually see their opponents as intelligent.

    Buried for being pretentious and insultive.
  • chrazyc, on 10/20/2007, -65/+18SO THE MOST BIASED DIGG ARTICLE OF THE WEEK GOES TO....
    • wendelgee2, on 10/19/2007, -8/+25You're part of the problem.
    • danno74, on 10/19/2007, -5/+11Ladies and gentlemen, welcome our guest, part of the problem.
    • Freefalling923, on 10/19/2007, -4/+15DOES TALKING IN CAPS REALLY HELP GET YOUR POINT ACROSS BETTER?
    • ncc74656m, on 10/19/2007, -4/+4Wow. I'm happy to see that he can repeat Hannity and Orally.
    • iChaz, on 10/19/2007, -4/+10THE MOST OBNOXIOUS BASTARD OF THE WEEK AWARD GOES TO...
    • vervalsing, on 10/19/2007, -3/+5Yeah, those hate-mongering buffoons over at Reuters...
    • hmunkey, on 10/19/2007, -3/+6YAY? CAPS LOCK FEST?
    • dannychen16, on 10/19/2007, -4/+6WHO DOES IT GO TO DONT LEAVE ME HANGING
    • enki25, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4Another attempt by a Republican to sling meaningless words thinking that they are criticisms. Biased? This is a story about the opinions of the country, by definition it is biased in the direction of what people think. Knowing that Bush is a failure is not a far left viewpoint, it is the mainstream viewpoint.
  • mattwear, on 10/20/2007, -32/+24Did anyone see the approval ratings for the Democratic controlled congress?
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/19/2007, -1/+16This just means the American public disagrees with their government on the whole.
    • nblsavage, on 10/19/2007, -12/+22110th Congress (2007-2009)
      Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)
      Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)
      Other Parties: 1Independent; 1 Independent Democrat
      Total Seats: 100
      Bite me - the republicans get to share the blame.
      • mattwear, on 10/19/2007, -4/+3Defintely. Things need to change on both sides.
        • nblsavage, on 10/18/2007, -2/+7then why did you specifically mention democrats?
          • p0s3r, on 10/19/2007, -8/+4Let me guess, you're a 11%'er?
          • LastVisibleDog, on 10/19/2007, -6/+4I will type this slowly Mr. 11%-er - THE CONGRESS IS COMPLETELY CONTROLLED BY THE DEMOCRATS - maybe you shouldn't have been out in the parking lot doing bong hits during Civics class
        • mattwear, on 10/19/2007, -5/+2I wanted to offset the bias of the individual who posted the article.
      • Fooord, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3110th Senate*

        Congress includes the house as well, which you seemed to forget.
      • 3tcp, on 10/19/2007, -3/+4Congress is the House and the Senate. There are 233 democrats and 202 republicans in the house.

        You know who Nancy Pelosi is? She is the democratic house majority leader where they hold a significant majority. That's why everyone mentions her when they're complaining about how the democrats we elected aren't standing up to Bush.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/19/2007, -7/+4Speaking of biting yourself - are all Democrat blind partisans parrots as stupid as you?
        First: the numbers you site are for the Senate (almost), not Congress (Congress represents the entire legislative branch including both the Senate and House of Representatives)
        Second: there are 100 Senators, you numbers are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 independent which equals 99 (nitwit) - there are two Independents that caucus with the Democrats - so the Senate is CONTROLLED by the Democrats (nitwit).
        Third: In the House of Representative there are 233 Democrats and 200 Republicans (nitwit) therefore the House is CONTROLLED by the Democrats

        Spin all you want little person - the Democrat Congress has less than half the approval rating of the president.

        It is brain-dead partisans, like yourself, that are causing our political problems. We need people that can think for themselves and who can actually be FOR SOMETHING - not just a petty partisan parrots.
        • art42, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3It is brain-dead partisans, like yourself, that are causing our political problems. We need people that can think for themselves and who can actually be FOR SOMETHING - not just a petty partisan parrots.
      • Whalen25, on 10/19/2007, -2/+2The SENATE has 100 seats idiot, not congress!
    • PostScience, on 10/19/2007, -8/+7I think the 11% congressional approval rate has more to do with scandals on the republican side of the aisle such as Mark Foley and Larry Craig.
      Also, the notion that democrats control the congress is laughable. Without a 2/3rds supermajority, they can't override a presidential veto. This came up recently when Bush vetoed the child health care bill.
      • Bobthecow81, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2Yeah I"m sure that's it, because the Dem's have accomplished so much during their time as the majority thus far...
        • netant, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1Just sit back, next year those Republicans are going to explain to their constituents it was better to let poor children drop dead than pay another buck in taxes to keep them alive. The ones that can sell that, will get re-elected.

          In 2008, the Democrats will have a SUPERmajority to do their dirty work.
      • saigumi, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2100 hours.. oh... nevermind that is too much work, let us just keep America blaming Bush instead of doing jack.
    • brownr21, on 10/19/2007, -3/+11Slight majority, not controlled.
      • Monk22, on 10/19/2007, -5/+1nice excuse
        • Lewie, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3What do you expect them to do that they haven't? They've tried to pass things, but Bush vetos them. They can't override it. What else can they do?
          • Monk22, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2bush vetoed 0 bills in his first term and if im not mistaken the "healthcare for illegal alien kids" was the only thing he has vetoed so far

            edit: i forgot the war spending bill that the democrats backed down on. so thats 2
    • saintdesy, on 10/19/2007, -3/+8If they impeached Bush/Cheney, their approval rating would jump 30% overnight...
      • art42, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3Easily 50% or more - the number of ppl that think Bu$h should be impeached.
    • fadeout, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3Congressional approval ratings are *always* low. It's also noteworthy while people tend to hate Congress in general they usually approve of their own congress critters, often despite party lines.
    • enki25, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Yeah did you ever see them while they were impeaching Clinton? Or didn't it matter until it was something you could blame the Democrats for?
    • pasta2000, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1I did see that congress tied "last month's record low."
    • Scottamus, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1Congress can't do ***** if the pres vetoes everything they try to do. comprende?
  • 4degrees, on 10/20/2007, -19/+10isn't there a 25% margin of error for these polls?
    • DracoFlameus, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1U wish =)
    • tehAleksandrRox, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2I must say, I am one of the -1% who still like bush.
  • Klak, on 10/20/2007, -10/+31he only had about 50% when he got elected. im guessing that half of those people just don't want to admit they were wrong for voting for him. At least the other half know when to jump ship.
  • Ladycomet, on 10/24/2007, -16/+91My boss LOVESSSS BUSH! and he doesn't see why anyone wouldn't. He thinks people just hate him because its "COOL" to hate him and everyone else is doing it.
    I don't bother talking to him about it. After he said that I basically avoided all conversation involving logic or empathy.
    • tacklebox, on 10/19/2007, -26/+8The media told me to not like bush. It is the popular opinion, 90% of those 76% that dont think he's doing a good job only know what they're told they should know.
      • netant, on 10/23/2007, -1/+5I don't pay attention to the media. They tell me Bush is doing the right thing, until the facts say otherwise. In either case, I don't listen to the mouthpiece of the rich that wanted to invade Iraq. You're a chump, because you actually think the media supports Democrats.
    • p0s3r, on 10/23/2007, -24/+9Who cares what politics go on behind the Taco Bell counter? Seriously.
    • danno74, on 10/19/2007, -7/+15You must work for an oil company, correct? Or Haliburton?
    • gplpark92, on 10/19/2007, -7/+2"cuz its cool" "cuz others are doing it" this is all you know - you do not know a lick of politics so quiet!
    • guyinthechair, on 10/23/2007, -2/+3Weird, my boss is the same way. And no, I don't work at a ***** fast food job, my boss is the CEO of a web design company.
      • blackjax7, on 10/19/2007, -0/+0you're still workin' a ***** job-
        • kuzotz, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1if that was the case then your job is ***** seeing that his job requires actual skills.
  • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/20/2007, -10/+36And yet Bush still thinks he's doing the right thing...
    • insomniacal, on 10/19/2007, -4/+10Since when does the number of people who agree with you correlate with whether you're doing the thing?

      A real champion of independent thought, you are.
      • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/19/2007, -4/+3You've never heard of "majority wins"? Welcome to Democracy. He's a public servant... It's his job to do what the majority of the American public approves of.
        • Monk22, on 10/19/2007, -3/+3good thing this isnt a democracy you tool. its a democratic republic, pure democracy is just as bad as communism.
          • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3You're right, after I posted I thought about editing, but I had already closed the page. However, my point still stands.
    • crestfall, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1I think he was more concerned with the opinions of people in 2363, than those of the people who lived during his own lifetime. What he doesn't know, is that we see him as one of the biggest idiots in American history. (Kevin Federline as VP in 2012 takes the cake. That's what they Mayans were warning about, BTW.) If it wasn't for him, we may have been able to post in forums of the past by 2355.
  • Nat3r, on 10/20/2007, -50/+28im a supporter.
    so im one of the 24 percent
    • nblsavage, on 10/19/2007, -12/+37I'm surprised you figured out how to use a computer.
      • williamdyer, on 10/19/2007, -1/+12Hasn't found the shift key yet.
    • TheInfamousOne, on 10/19/2007, -4/+24why?
    • CraigJ, on 10/19/2007, -5/+17You have serious balls to admit that on Digg. Prepare for the onslaught.
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/19/2007, -4/+18I'm curious what you support that Bush is doing, and if you disagree with his actions? I personally used to say I supported bush a few years ago, in a sense that "Hey, he's our president, and he's not going anywhere, I mind as well support him". I also support our Troops overseas. I do think though that the best way to support our troops is to try to get them brought home, and Bush with his Iran threats don't do it for me, therefor I no longer support him at all.

      Dugg for being honest though.
      • danno74, on 10/19/2007, -1/+7Dugg for being honest as well. I admire that. I hope that is not why you like Bush. He thinks he is telling you the truth, he just has too much faith in what the puppeteers (Cheny) tell him to say, and is too much of a jerk0ff to care.
    • Paranoidmarvin, on 10/19/2007, -12/+2I can tell you support Bush - the lack of a real grasp on grammar shows.

      Kudos for using a full stop, however!
    • socketman, on 10/19/2007, -11/+4Hey me too. I'd even vote for him again if he could run again
      • dannychen16, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2I am disappointed they let people like you vote.
    • ncc74656m, on 10/19/2007, -2/+10I give ya full marks for bravery, lad.

      That said, dugg down. I can't abide anyone who would support this clown after everything that's happened. But I would still be interested in hearing your justifications.
    • Downtime, on 10/19/2007, -12/+9I'm a Bush supporter too. I voted for him for Foreign Policy (i'm in the offensive realism camp) and because I'm pro-life. I'm aware he misled the public with the whole WMD in Iraq speech, but that doesn't bother me b/c a: Saddam is out of power (and dead), and b: having a democracy in the Middle East in the longterm will do wonders for our national security, and the security of our allies, the region, and the world. I personally knew we'd be in Iraq for 10+ years; I knew it was impossible to make the invasion and rebduilding process any shorter w/out leaving too early.

      I buried the article for the classy headline. I love how people can't talk/discuss politics without bashing the other side. I vote republican, yet I don't trash other people b/c they disagree with me. Grow the ***** up! If you don't like the President then write your congressman/woman and DO something, because according to these polls your posting it looks like you've got the advantage.
      • DracoFlameus, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4Here in Europe... especially now with the mobilization at the Turkish/Iraqi border (yeah they have a border =p) I guess many know, that peace is farer away than ever... and we are not talking about 10 years... decades at best.

        Tensions in Middle East are not only there, they are rising. Iraq is on the best way to a civil war, including an invasion of North Iraq by Turkey. Threats against Iran don't help either. Or bombings in Syria. The whole Middle East Situation is highly alarming. As "neighbors" we have an eye on it and do what we can (diplomatically)... but with ongoing military actions mainly from US - being a good example for other nations - it is getting more and more difficult to achieve anything. Conflicts in this regions are a common occurence by now. If the situation doesn't get better, we'll have a nice war out there and who knows what happens then.
      • petewiz, on 10/19/2007, -2/+7"I voted for him for Foreign Policy (i'm in the offensive realism camp) and because I'm pro-life." Hmm.
        Does that get confusing? Being pro-fetus and anti-human at the same time? Last time I checked, wars kill people too. You people are so strange.
        "I love how people can't talk/discuss politics without bashing the other side."
        I love how people turn this into a battle between sides rather than a struggle against incompetence. While there might be some who hate Bush solely for his stance on issues, a great deal of the people who are against him feel that way because of his poor performance and the innumerable blunders committed by his administration. This isn't "liberals vs. conservatives", it's "the people who read the facts vs. the people who don't".
      • Tebixan, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4Having a democracy in the middle east would be great. The entire would was supporting the ousting of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the democracy that was growing there, so why did we take the 400,000 soldiers that were helping that budding democracy, abandon it, and go destroy the Iraqi infrastructure? Now the Taliban is re surging and the democracy there backtracking, and Iraq is worse than when we arrived.

        As for the pro-life stance, please please please try to realize there are in fact more moral issues than abortion going on in the united states right now. If there is a major change in abortion law it will be done in the supreme court, not in the executive office. I fail to understand how Christians can be so protective of life for the first 9 months, but then support an administration that promotes war, the death penalty, and torture. There is no greater hypocrisy by the right than being pro-death and clamoring about bring pro-life all the time.
        • Downtime, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1We never had 400k troops in Afghanistan, to the best of my knowledge. I am not pro-death, however my main interest is protecting our citizens, so war can be justified.
        • ronaldinho, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1"I fail to understand how Christians can be so protective of life for the first 9 months, but then support an administration that promotes war, the death penalty, and torture. There is no greater hypocrisy by the right than being pro-death and clamoring about bring pro-life all the time."

          I hate it when people generalize. I'm a Christian and I totally agree with you, which is why I did not vote for Bush. If anything else, a Christian president should avoid war at all costs. He's just using my faith to achieve his ends, and yeah, Christians suffer now because of the stigma now associated with Bush. Christianity has nothing to do with Bush's decisions. He's just a damn lunatic
    • Xill, on 10/19/2007, -6/+6How do you feel supporting a genocide? You like being on the side of the killers? Do you enjoy it?
      • saigumi, on 10/19/2007, -4/+6Genocide? Cite source please.
        • Tebixan, on 10/19/2007, -2/+2Wikipedia: Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

          I think causing 655,000 CIVILIAN deaths, all of which are arab (ethnic) muslim (religious) iraqi's (national) meets the wikipedia definition.

        • valkyries, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2erm, 655,000 cause just by the US military. I find that very hard to believe. now if u add in the ethnic killings by iraqis against other iraqis then u have 655,000. How many people have died in America since 2003? alot more then that, 40,000 people die every year just from car accidents in the US.
  • gimlik, on 10/20/2007, -10/+57Enough with the "IT'S OFFICIAL" headings!!!

    ... and "BREAKING... while we're at it.
    • ncc74656m, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5And SPECTACULAR, and STUNNING, etc, etc.
    • Bamborzled, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4But these headlines always seem to draw more Diggers in. Remember when some obscure buttonmaking company got front page and 2000+ diggs for buying a couple of boxed sets of Radiohead's album? In fact, if I included all the items in one big title, I'd bet it would get dugg up:

      "~*DIGG THIS *~BREAKING: IT'S OFFICIAL. STUNNING SPECTACULAR KEVIN ROSE PICTURE! [PIC]"
    • technoredneck, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6BREAKING, DIGG THIS: IT'S OFFICIAL, AMAZING RON PAUL PUTS UBUNTU ON HIS AWESOME IPHONE, MUST SEE!! MICROSOFT AND THE MAFIAA ARE DEAD NOW!!! [pics]
  • catalysis, on 10/20/2007, -6/+34Maybe if we insult them and ridicule them a little bit more, they will join our side.

    /sarcasm
    • ironhide, on 10/19/2007, -8/+14Yes, the republicans on Digg are such a warm, welcoming bunch also.
      • socketman, on 10/19/2007, -9/+7Can you blame us when there are headlines like this all over Digg?
        • petewiz, on 10/19/2007, -2/+2Ha ha, people getting offended at reality. This came from Reuters, not Crooks and Liars or Raw Story. His approval rating really is that low and it's because he's incompetent. Republicans have no justification for being such ***** about it because they are the one's who got him into office.
      • netant, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3I hate idiots. I don't want Bush supporters on Digg. They're incapable of critical analysis of facts. They're just there to be verbally abused. At least then, I can expiate my anger towards them, and reduce my urge to purchase a firearm and shoot them at Republican rallies.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/19/2007, -8/+2Today's lesson: IRONY
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/19/2007, -7/+5I was preaching warmth and openness about three years ago.
      I'll think about it again once these folks supporting Bush grow a brain stem.
      • Monk22, on 10/19/2007, -3/+4and that post is a perfect example of why your ignored by the real world. no solutions just complaints and insults.
  • vanityfarewell, on 10/20/2007, -12/+5Baaa
  • thestorey, on 10/19/2007, -6/+21Woot *crushes beercan on head*
  • tacklebox, on 10/20/2007, -22/+10Woot, I'm in the top 24%!!
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/19/2007, -4/+11Please explain what you like about bush, and why. Don't just be a contrarian.
    • petewiz, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5Who said anything about top? You are on the ass-end of American intelligence. Make sure you keep your "W '04" or, my personal favorite, "W: The President" (no *****; like I hadn't noticed) sticker on your car so I know which one to piss on when I see it.
  • MillionsLivio, on 10/20/2007, -5/+70I often get into "debates" with my mother regarding politics, the reason is she is a very religious person. She loves Bush, but when I question her as to why, all she can come up with is that "he is a Christian". I love her, but this kind of thinking is exactly why the country is going in it's current direction. She likes Ron Paul, but said she wouldn't vote for him because he wasn't "Christian enough".
    • iTorrey, on 10/19/2007, -5/+19Apparently worshiping Moloch at the Bohemian Grove and throwing devil signs all over the place is the new definition of Christian. Down is the new Up!
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/19/2007, -6/+31I feel like an ass saying this...but is she like 12th century Roman Catholic? Does she believe the Crusades were justified?
      • MillionsLivio, on 10/19/2007, -2/+19She's not that bad. The issue is that she will vote for someone based more on religion than how well they will run the country. I've tried to educate her on the current political issues, but it usually ends up with her getting irritated and going back to some religious issue. She's one of the people that get angry when they want the 10 commandments to be taken down from City Hall, but she isn't hardcore enough to go protest it or be hateful. The issue is when it comes to voting, too many are not educated on the candidates and the current issues and will vote based almost entirely on someones religion.
      • joegibes, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5Catholic ≠ Christian.
    • ncc74656m, on 10/19/2007, -12/+10Your mother isn't worth the breath she draws if that's the best answer she can come up with. I've talked to people who say he's "cute" so therefore they like him. I don't speak to said people anymore.
      • enchanterku, on 10/19/2007, -2/+8While I wouldn't say a person is worthless based on any political view, I completely agree that "cute" and "religious enough" are certainly poor substitutes for actually electing a president. I would say that some people do consider religion to be more important than I do, and that it means something in this day and age to be religious. I disagree, but I wouldn't call a person worthless simply because they disagree with me. If we were to insult or tear down everything that was different from us, we would never get anything done in any communal setting, nor would this be country be such a great place. Despite all the events that have taken place, despite Bush being in office, despite the candidates that are running, I think our country has a future based only on if we can forget this partisan, corporate political system and start focusing on the issues that matter most to us, the citizens.
      • MillionsLivio, on 10/19/2007, -3/+7I highly disagree with my mother's beliefs, but she is by no means worthless. She overall is not much of a political person and looks for what matters most to her in the candidate, religion. She thinks that if they follow the same religion as her they will run the country based off that religion, thus it would match the way she would like to see things ran. In theory this isn't actually a bad way to judge a candidate to how well you would agree to them. The problem is that on the global level this does not work and why we have an evangelical moron that dislikes scientific practices that could save millions of lives just because their religion says it's not good. I used to hate religious people with a passion, but I have learned over my short life span that hating others based off of beliefs is ignorant. Hate is an integrated part of humanity, if one is to hate, do it for their actions, not their beliefs. Going against this rationality is the reason we have people sending death threats to damn cartoonist for a simple parody.
    • riverrunner, on 10/19/2007, -4/+17Okay but what kind of Christian would start an illegal war based on lies and basically kill tens of thousands of people? Who would Jesus bomb? really?
      • Monk22, on 10/19/2007, -6/+3the romans would have bombed jesus. and a war cant be illegal if AUTHORIZED by congress since THEY have the power to declare war.
        • DracoFlameus, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5True, even the second world war was legal by german law, because it was officially a defensive war. Nowadays they'd probably call it a preemptive war.

          But despite of all its justification by law, war can however be illegitimate... and there is nothing you can do about it, not even by law.
      • orbit1979, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2Get with the times man. Everyone knows Jesus was a militant, card carrying Republican capitalist.
    • joegibes, on 10/19/2007, -2/+6Vote Colbert!
      Former Altar Boy FTW!!!
    • netant, on 10/21/2007, -3/+2Jimmy Carter is a christian. Didn't she love him too?
  • Talphin, on 10/20/2007, -13/+12I saw part of a documentary not too long ago here on Digg actually, where a bunch of Evangelical Xtians were practically worshiping Bush...
    • valkyries, on 10/19/2007, -2/+1u were watching family guy werent u/
  • NecroSexy, on 10/20/2007, -13/+12Who are the 24%? The "holy" nihilists themselves: the evangelicals.
    • MillionsLivio, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5Don't respect Nihilism by misusing the term.
      • iChaz, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2I agree, the Nihilists deserve more respect than the Evangelicals.
  • p0s3r, on 10/20/2007, -16/+15I guarantee you that 24% isn't the same 11% that approve of the Dem Congress.
    • nblsavage, on 10/19/2007, -8/+449 democrats 49 republicans and 2 independents
      • 3tcp, on 10/19/2007, -3/+5Hey dumbass, Congress is Senate + House of Reps = 535 members
        Senate: 49-D / 49-R / 2-I (100)
        House: 233-D / 202-R (435)
        • nblsavage, on 10/19/2007, -6/+3hey *****..anything that passes the house still has to go through congress.
          • nblsavage, on 10/19/2007, -2/+8er senate...doh!
          • p0s3r, on 10/19/2007, -5/+5If it passed the house then it's already gone through half of congress, by definition.
          • 3tcp, on 10/19/2007, -6/+4Hey *****, those 2 independants count as democrats for caucus purposes which gives the democrats all the power of having a greater majority save the automatic votes in support of their bills. With 51 votes on your side it is pretty easy to pass legislation that has already made it through the house. If the house would pass a bill that actually addressed what they were elected to do then there'd be too much pressure for it to not get through congress.
          • Bamborzled, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4You forgot that one of those independents is Joe Lieberman.
      • p0s3r, on 10/19/2007, -6/+3I'm sorry. I didn't realize that when I said "Congress" I was only referring to the Senate. Thanks for pointing that out to me, Mr. 11%'er!
        • nblsavage, on 10/19/2007, -2/+4see my reply below l0s3r
          • Monk22, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2"er senate...doh!"

            im sorry i cant seem to hear you through all that stupid
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4That is the Senate nitwit - the term Congress means the entire legislative branch (although it is clear you do not understand the legislative branch includes both the House of Representative and the Senate)
    • PostScience, on 10/19/2007, -6/+7The 11% is for the congress as a whole, not just the dems. I would suggest that the Larry Craig and Mark Foley sex scandals are more responsible than anything. (Craig and Foley are republicans)
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/19/2007, -6/+3The Congress is run entirely by the Democrats - funny, little partisan dweebs like yourself never claimed the low approval rating of the Republican congress (high compared to the Democrat congress) were actually approval ratings of both Republicans and Democrats.

        Hey nitwit - Mark Foley was never part of the current congress

        The approval rating rates the approval of the actions of congress - a congress completely controlled by Democrats that have time to talk about Rush Limbaugh but don't have enough time to do their actual job like appropriations. The do-nothing Democrat congress has done what nobody thought they could do - they have half the approval rating of the very unpopular president.
        • saintdesy, on 10/19/2007, -1/+6Dummy, the reason their approval rating is so low is BECAUSE they won't do anything about Bush. They don't have the support from their own Democratic voters. If they freaking impeached the *****, their approval would jump at LEAST 30%.
      • awhiteflame, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5Yeah-- An idaho sex scandal is BY FAR the worst this congress does.

        Please.
        • LBobRife, on 10/19/2007, -1/+0Come on. You know how much sex scandals get played up ever since it happened to Clinton. Of course they're fairly harmless when it comes to politics (we'll leave the debate on moral values for some other time), but they definitely get more attention than any other issue, nomatter how important.
      • Frosty122, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1i think the republicans and democrates are both at fault for ***** up this country, but i don't think many people remember that asshat mark foley
      • unearth, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1The approval ratings of congress are ALWAYS significantly lower. The Democrats are to blame in many ways for their lack of accomplishments, but if you took a sample of a thousand people walking down the street, my guess is that less than 50 would be able to give a basic summary of any bill passed in the last month, and less than 5 in the last week. Congress has always been the punching bag for approval ratings, mainly because nobody even knows what the ***** they're doing, whether it's positive or negative.
  • xXGeechXx, on 10/20/2007, -7/+20So 76% of Americans are unhappy with Bush, yet 76% of Americans do nothing about it? I understand how hard it would be to do anything about it it is just to bad that someone who in the eyes of the people is so incompetent and disliked can remain in power
    • CraigJ, on 10/19/2007, -1/+17What exactly should the 76% do? Riot?
      • xXGeechXx, on 10/19/2007, -1/+8Exactly my point, there really isn't much to do other than a full blow riot, It just is really awful to see this guy in power with this much disapproval
        • netant, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2No, its to contact our congressional representatives, and tell them they need to prepare an impeachment case against Bush (hell, illegal wiretapping can start the ball rolling, the crimes committed by Gonzo are a slam dunk), and proceed to impeach him. Otherwise, cease to fund operations in Iraq. DO THEIR JOB.

          And vote them out when they don't follow through.
          • xXGeechXx, on 10/19/2007, -1/+0Yeah but with enough money people can be swayed into doing anything, thats one of the biggest reason Bush got elected so long ago was because he had far more money then Gore
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/19/2007, -1/+12and yet 76%(or so) seem to be willing to vote for Guiliani or Hilary. Holy crap, we're screwed.
    • tnoy, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2The 76% did the only thing they can do, vote for people that they think will or have promised to make a change. We did what we can, now its up to the people we elected to finish the job. Due to the way they're behaving, I would not be surprized if a more than a few of them are nearing their last term because of it.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/19/2007, -1/+6If there's a mass protest, the police will send undercover officers into the protest to start throwing rocks. Then the police will pacify the crowd. The media will call it a riot.

      The mindset In the United States is that protesters are usually right. Rioters are always wrong.
    • cphelps, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1It's actually 66% according to the article if you choose to read. I suppose 10% are undecided, which actually means that 34% of the country are morons.
  • mildnater, on 10/20/2007, -7/+47To those who keep quoting the 11% approval for the Dems in congress - the reason their approval is lower is because they can't manage to counteract a president with a 24% approval. Everyone hates him and they still give him whatever he wants because they don't want to seem "weak." By giving in to his every whim...they don't just seem weak, they prove it.

    George Carlin said it best, "The Republican Party is the party of bad ideas, the Democratic Party is the party of no ideas." Two party system for the loss.
    • 21chrisp, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2FTL!!
    • joegibes, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3Vote Colbert!
      Demo-publican!
    • lowryba, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2I know that was Lewis Black that said that... Maybe George Carlin said it to.. that I don't know.
    • ErrorS, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1It's congress as a whole, people who quote it don't read anything other than was shows up on Digg. The same people are constantly asked "Who do you prefer in Congress, Democrats or Republicans" and Democrats always take a sizable lead. They don't want ot admit it, but this 11% just means we're going to vote more Democrats next year.
      Also, individual approval ratings of Democrat house members and Senators are extremely high in their respective states on average (Talking like. 70%).. save a few high profile members (Kerry, Ried, etc)
    • harusp3x, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Lewis Black said something similar to, "The Republican Party is a party of bad ideas, and the Democratic Party is a party of no ideas. This is how it works in congress, a republican stands up and goes 'I have a bad idea!' and then the democrat stands up and says, 'And I can make it *****!'"
  • ThreeDee912, on 10/20/2007, -14/+5What if those 24% of people are actually Ron Paul supporters in disguise? /conspiracy
  • youMISERABLEpos, on 10/20/2007, -19/+5Gringos who hate kids, love destroying other nations, hate constitutional rights, love torture, hate foreigners, love censored media, hate you.
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/19/2007, -2/+6I hate Illegals too, gtfo.
    • erkokite, on 10/19/2007, -3/+3Like Gonzales and Rice? Oh...wait...there not "gringos," are they?
  • boonesfarm, on 10/19/2007, -24/+4It's official. 29% of America is brain dead.
    That's the latest Gallup approval figure for Congressional Democrats.
    • saigumi, on 10/19/2007, -1/+8It's official.. 76% of Americans can't figure out that 24% does not equal 29%.
  • wreckosaurus, on 10/20/2007, -4/+9The most recent polls I can find for cheney are from 2006, when he was at 18%. I'd imagine that's probably lower by now.
    • ryantrask, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4I imagine he probably pays them to stop polling on him, at this point.
  • MagicCake, on 10/20/2007, -15/+9This isn't surprising. Think how many Wal-Marts there are. I'd say at least 24% of Americans shop at one. Just think about that for a minute, and it all comes together.
  • IdevInull, on 10/20/2007, -18/+5Congress has a worse approval rating...
    • nblsavage, on 10/19/2007, -3/+15you mean the one that has 49 democrats 49 republicans and 2 independents?
      • p0s3r, on 10/19/2007, -3/+4'Congress' is usually a phrase used to encompass both the House and the Senate. When people refer to just the Senate they tend to use to word "Senate" and not "Congress". HTH
      • Monk22, on 10/19/2007, -2/+2why do you call people losers in "leet speek" yet continue to not understand the difference between congress and senate?
    • soot, on 10/19/2007, -2/+1Oh, well in that case!
  • kitchensj, on 10/20/2007, -14/+39Well Texas IS a big state....
    • JekoV3U, on 10/19/2007, -4/+5Blatant generalization, I'm from Texas and almost everyone I know despises Bush. Ron Paul is from Texas.
  • TheInformer, on 10/20/2007, -18/+7Funny how the 11% approval of the democratically controlled Congress wasn't mentioned in the header. Wonder why? If you're going to mention one part of the story, why not both?
    • wreckosaurus, on 10/19/2007, -3/+7but but but..... congress
    • nblsavage, on 10/19/2007, -5/+6I'm tired of saying this - the democrats have 49 seats...the republicans have...wait for it....49 seats and there are 2 independents.
      • 3tcp, on 10/19/2007, -3/+4You don't know the difference between congress and senate do you.
        • nblsavage, on 10/19/2007, -3/+5already covered that in another message. Anything that passes the house has to through the senate. The democrats do not have the seats to push anything useful through.
          • 3tcp, on 10/19/2007, -4/+3You really have no idea about how government works do you.
        • p0s3r, on 10/19/2007, -2/+7He doesn't. Every time someone mentions Congress, Mr 11%'er posts the Senate breakdown. He's done it like 10x in this thread alone.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/19/2007, -1/+8"By a 2 to 1 margin, those who see little accomplishment in Congress's first nine months blame the inaction on Bush and the GOP more than they do the majority Democrats." see my comments above for the source.
    • erkokite, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3Calling it Democrat controlled is hardly fair. The senate is half and half and the dems only have a marginal lead in the house. Not to mention that congressional dems have a higher approval rating than the congressional republicans. People are pissed off because the people they elected have done nothing to get us out of Iraq or impeach Bush and Cheney. Actually they have done next to nothing at all. They're worthless.
  • Satanael, on 10/19/2007, -8/+7There's some kind of Two-Thirds rule that Congress likes to follow to keep things democratic, right? If more than Two-Thirds of the American people want Bush impeached... then I think this is no longer a Democracy.
    • awhiteflame, on 10/19/2007, -0/+7Ding ding! Correct! We're a republic.
    • Branden, on 10/19/2007, -3/+4Disapproval = Impeach?
      • LBobRife, on 10/19/2007, -0/+0You're right, disapproval is not grounds for impeachment. However, if he would actually let investigations into illegal wiretapping happen, I'm sure there would be plenty of solid footing for impeachment.
    • Scottamus, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2too bad there's no recall election for the presidency.
  • Commonwealth, on 10/19/2007, -5/+21I live in Georgia and I'm starting to see a lot of Giuliani bumper stickers. It's very disturbing.
    • kgorczyn, on 10/19/2007, -2/+6Key their cars
    • netant, on 10/19/2007, -4/+5Tell them they support a guy who married his 1st cousin, got divorced twice, is currently married to a Jew, and wants to take away their 2nd amendment rights. I'd also throw in he supports abortions, but he flip flops on that. Add that they are cowards because they're willing to throw away their rights to live in a police state.
      • fadeout, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2" is currently married to a Jew,"

        Wtf, your even considering that relevant just makes me want to support anything you're against.
      • tycity, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2I agreed with everything he said except that too... too bad, he had me going there.
      • Zaneris, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Well, at the very least, he's probably right that to the people in Georgia supporting him, would be offended by that fact. Putting morality aside, you have to admit it's most likely true.
        p.s. My parents are Jewish.
        • netant, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1And no implication on my part that there is anything wrong with being Jewish. I'll take you guys over Evangelicals any day of the week.

          No, its my implication that Southerners are racists that is probably unfair, but my observation on human nature merely moves me to state what is most likely to discourage a Southerner from voting for Guiliani. (Think Frank Luntz)

          At least I didn't say Guiliani had a black bastard offspring and was crazy from living in NYC.
  • rjey, on 10/20/2007, -15/+19It's official. 11% of America is brain dead.

    What is the 11% you ask? Pelosi's do nothing congress approval rating.
    • nblsavage, on 10/19/2007, -6/+5that include the 49 republican seats?
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3Wrong nitwit
        That includes 49 Republican Senators + 200 Republican Congresspeople AND 2 Independent Senators AND 49 Democrat Senators + 233 Democrat Congresspeople.

        Congress is run completely my the majority party (the Democrats in this case) and approval rating reflect approval of the ACTIONS of Congress which are controlled by the Democrats. This is JOB APPROVAL - not a beauty contest.

    • 3tcp, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4The 30 seat democratic majority in the house rubber stamping whatever bush puts in front of them is what everyone cares about.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/19/2007, -3/+2Damn you people are stupid.
        The Democrats have a 33 seat major and only a complete idiot would claim they are rubber stamping what Bush puts in front of them. (BTW: that is not how congress works - Bush does not put things before congress)
        • netant, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Well, he can try. His budget office usually presents a proposal to Congress as to where he thinks the money should be allocated.
    • Emray, on 10/19/2007, -4/+3I don't know what to think of Congress. Every day I hear of new ways to end the war, fix health care, etc, but the Republicans always block it. So isn't the real problem the fact that the democrats need a greater majority to make an impact? Unless this happens then the two sides will remain in a gridlock. It isn't really Pelosi's fault.
      • netant, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2Well, the stupid bitch isn't helping matters either.

        Mind you, I don't think women are stupid in general. I just really dislike her positions since getting elected Speaker.
      • phatt-matt, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2The minority part is blocking it....LOL
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/19/2007, -2/+1The "democrat controlled" congress can't do anything because:

      1) They only have 50% of the seats and Dick Cheyney is the tie breaker
      2) Bush won't sign their laws into being.

      At best they can prevent Bush from making more corrupt laws. (Like his retroactive criminal immunity law)
      • phatt-matt, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2The Dems actually have a two-seat majority. Bush never "made" any laws. Only Congress can make laws. It would do you good to go back to your civics class.
  • pantalapampa, on 10/19/2007, -16/+22You're right. Everyone that doesn't believe like you believe must be brain-dead. What a pretentious and ignorant headline.
    • blenderzen, on 10/19/2007, -5/+1That's the same point the other side makes, wow, it's the most even minded frame of view on digg.
    • lathicentropy, on 10/19/2007, -2/+32 buries in one story for the incorrect use of "pretentious"...geez.
  • insomniacal, on 10/19/2007, -11/+10Let's think about this for a second. Those who disagree with you are brain-dead? No one who supports Bush can have a brain? My, what an enlightened mindset you have.
    • Emray, on 10/19/2007, -3/+7Well Bush supporters may have brains, but 0% of their brains are used in forming political opinions. So in this context they are brain dead!
      • addicted68098, on 10/19/2007, -3/+2Nice! Big Words!
      • insomniacal, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1True or false: America would be better off if 100% of Americans agreed with your opinions.
  • emjaymj, on 10/19/2007, -1/+6Wow... South Park really IS all-knowing. Well, they were off by a percent.
  • Anzat, on 10/19/2007, -9/+1524% brain dead? Come on. The rest of the 48% who voted for him aren't exactly bright, either.
    • netant, on 10/19/2007, -3/+1This is why if you can't do math, you shouldn't express things mathematically.

      24% braindead + 48% who voted for Bush = 72% total.

      Its "The rest of the 24% who voted for him aren't exactly bright, either"
      • cphelps, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2Actually, you're the moron. It's likely that the 24% who still support Bush are part of the 48% of our country who voted for him. So saying the REST of the 48% would be an accurate way to express that.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1But what about the 52% that voted for the other guy. And the 70% of the country that didn't vote at all, or had their democrat vote taken away in Florida?

      Since Diebold is voting republican in the next election what about them?
    • valkyries, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2ud really want kerry over bush thou?
      • cphelps, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3At this point yes.

        Actually at every point I considered him the "lesser of two evils".
  • 3tcp, on 10/19/2007, -2/+4Considering how unusually low that is in comparison to other presidents I'm satisfied with 24%. There are enough people who are so loyal to specific issues that as long as a politician continues to advocate their view they don't care about anything else. I would expect it to be the same way if a democrat had somehow ***** up as bad as bush has (environmentalists & union people are very loyal). Plus, if people know everyone hates Bush they'll say they support him because if they think 'at least he's doing this one thing right'.

    When Nixon left office his approval rating was also 24%
    • 3tcp, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3Oh and the worst ever was Harry Truman with 23%. Bush is going to break his record.

      http://ask.yahoo.com/20051011.html
      • FredSanford, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Yeah, that's one of the problems. Bush really does think that history will remember him the way Truman is remembered. Not gonna happen.
  • LastVisibleDog, on 10/19/2007, -14/+15Let us not forget the Democrat Congress' approval is more than TWICE AS LOW meaning the federal Democrats have less than half the approval rating of Bush. The problem is not Republican versus Democrat - it is brain-dead partisan morons like the one that wrote the headline - thinking MyParty=perfect and YourParty=evil is what caused our current political problems. It is brain-dead thinking like this headline that will lead us to more problems - we need people that actually THINK and STUDY - not just tools that parrot what their handlers tell them to say.

    Come on dweebs - be FOR something, not just a partisan hack parrot.
    • nblsavage, on 10/19/2007, -8/+9If you were worried about not being a parrot then you'd be more honest and admit the democrat "majority" in congress is barely that. There are 49 democrats, 49 republicans and 2 independent seats in congress right now.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/19/2007, -4/+6You are yet another parrot - and a brain-dead one at that.
        Congress is made up of BOTH the Senate and the House - are you so stupid you think congress is just the Senate ?
        Total: 282 Democrats, 249 Republicans, and 2 Independents AND the Congress is completely controlled by Democrats, the majority party.

        Don't be a brain-dead partisan parrot - think for yourself - learn how our government works - learn what the term CONGRESS means!
        • Lewie, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4And what can the Dems do with a 52.7% lead? Certainly not overturn a veto!
        • nickelking, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Yep!, especially considering that things have to pass through BOTH the house and the senate to get to the president
    • soot, on 10/19/2007, -7/+5The Congress isn't "Democratic", you idiot.
    • dagamer34, on 10/19/2007, -4/+4If Bush rejects everything, then the Democratic majority means nothing. Have people never taken an American government class before?
      • Monk22, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3he vetoed 0 bills his first term. other than the ***** healthcare for illegal kids act what else has he vetoed?
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/19/2007, -2/+2One Veto - ONE! Funny one minute the Dims says the deficit is TOO HIGH and then they dream up a wedge-issue budget-buster in which the give some middle class kids free health care. I don't like Bush but the Democrats have no principles, no ideas - all they want to do is play the gotcha game and be the We Hate Bush Party (which does this country absolutely no good) Spin all you want - be a cheerleader for your pathetic little party - Bush sucks and so do the Democrats - if we don't stop playing this stupid partisan game - we are in deep trouble. It is time to be FOR something - not just a partisan parrot.

        • ErrorS, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Don't be an idiot, they had plans on how to pay for that healthcare.. out of the