Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Pekelo, Sep 15, 2006.
You know what's funny? Bush's approval rating at it's low was similar to Clinton's on average.
That is of course a blatant lie, but I still take the Clinton years, on average...
Well, I'll admit that I can't provide a source, but that does not prove I am lying. Besides it depends on the meaning of the word lie.
The Clinton years were good, we did not have liberals trashing our sanity every day because 1) the word terror was not in the US vocabulary 2) liberals were in the White House so of course all was well with the whole world.
Maxpi, since you seem to be just plain ignorant and not malicious, I will educate you.
OK, here it is: Clinton's approval rating NEVER got below 40, thus
his average MUST HAVE BEEN higher. It was around 55, for your info. Bush's lowest approval rating was 32, thus your statement was either a lie or proof of ignorance. Since you seem to like Bush, I am not surprized by either.
Now you actually made a trifecta with your statement, making 3 logical mistakes in 1 sentence, congratulations for that!
#1. You tried to deffend somebody, who actually wasn't attacked. The chart didn't attack Bush, it actually showed that people seem to think: "The gas prices are falling, the Prez must be doing his job well."
It is quite possible that similar chart can be shown with Clinton or any other presidents. Nevertheless the negative correlation is still interesting.
#2. You used a non sequitur for your deffense, that had nothing to do with the topic.
#3. For backing up your deffense you used a lie/not fact, as pointed out earlier.
There you go. Now next time please educate yourself before making out-of-thin-air statements.
No charge for the lecture...
P.S.: Just like you, I was 10 years YOUNGER in the Clinton-years, on average...
Separate names with a comma.