don't forget the one from the same site for Bush: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm It's normal for both to get a little bump around this time. I'm done for now!
Yeah, that's where I got this: W's job ratings in Jan 2009: 61% to 68% disapprove Clinton's job ratings in Jan 2001: 29% to 33% disapprove
you are probably closer to the truth than you would like to admit. There are a lot of things I did not like that Bush did, but he did keep us safe. He did start the turning of the tide against the extremists that previous administrations let go. In the long run, history will be kinder to this President than most of the lemmings think. Oh and spare me the hypocrisy on the defense of the protest. No it shouldn't be illegal, but just because you can doesn't mean you should ( be so hateful and classless). All those people come across childish and dumb. If people did this about the new President they would be called racists and bigots and typical right wing hate mongers! You know it's true!
Why should we be respectful of a President? What is so sacred about the institution of the Presidency? He's not a King. There is absolutely no shame in disrespecting the President. Do you think our founding fathers wish was for us to revere a President? Well, considering they fought against their own leader in a war, I would think that they would find unquestionable reverence to a leader or the office of a leader to be, well, Un-American... I don't understand how to some people, Patriotism is defined as having absolute respect of our Government. For the record, I thought most of those protest were silly, but I would fight for their right to be silly just as passionately as I would fight for my own rights if someone was trying to take them away or pressure them to be silent.
yeah you are right, atleast as far as the East and West coast go, oh and most university professors...:lol: You avoiding my Obama analogy? Is that because I am right and you know its true? This should help John: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
