What constitutes "boots on the ground"?

as GW has said

let us compare polls 10 years down the road, after our current pos leaves office we will find out how bad the economy has been

Not at all. The only obsessed idiot on here is littlekotex. He's obsessed with a 7-year-old opinion poll.

Oh wait, I forgot. You're obsessed with spamming this forum with thousands of incredibly stupid posts, wnning Dipshit of the Year, and setting new cocksucking records down at the 'holes!
. Originally Posted by lustylad

I can't be outdone by you and gay rey, your enforcer, who toil away down at the dingleberry farm, getting your hands ready to be cleaned by your momma/seester after your shift.

As for DOTY, I wear it with pride. You fuckers are idiots.

as GW has said

let us compare polls 10 years down the road, after our current pos leaves office we will find out how bad the economy has been Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

Words of wisdom from Ernest T. Bass...

SpeedRacer - Saying a poll is invalid because it was not properly conducted isn't saying it's invalid because it disagrees with your personal POV.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

It is if it WAS properly conducted. LLIdiot simply injected his opinion into the matter. He has no way of knowing if the poll was properly conducted or not.

It is if it WAS properly conducted. LLIdiot simply injected his opinion into the matter. He has no way of knowing if the poll was properly conducted or not. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're correct ....

.... and neither does anyone else posting on this board regarding "polls"!

That is why I selected a CNN poll, because it is more easily assumed that the poll would be biased in favor of Obaminable and Hellarious as opposed to Bush!

So, if I were going to add a "bias factor" in the results ...

.. I could justify a 5 point increase in the numbers on Bush with a like..

.. 5 point REDUCTION on the numbers for those two goof-balls.

But I simply reported the CNN results .... as published.

If you have a problem with CNN polls ... take it up with them.

Oh, Mr. WordSmith .... "It is if it WAS properly conducted" should be ...

"It is if it WERE properly conducted."

A poll is a snapshot in time. If properly conducted, both are valid. However, most people are more interested in a CURRENT poll reflecting CURRENT opinion than one cherry-picked from 7 years ago. Please explain this to littlekotex.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

They are all Cherry Picked just like Rey cherry picks your asshole.

This link does provide some comparative polling though.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/Pr...cs-Trends.aspx

You mean like George Bush .... CNN favorability in May 2015 was 52%

Obaminable CNN favorability in May 2015 was 49%

*May 2015 was the last shown and most recent by CNN.

Hillary in the CNN May 2015 poll as to "favorability" was 46%.

She's still at 46% in the CNN poll as of mid October 2015. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Tell the whole story LexusLiar.


http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/...pularity-poll/

It’s not a new phenomenon for a former president to gain in public esteem as the years pass. In addition to George W. Bush, the other former presidents were all viewed positively by a majority of Americans: Jimmy Carter was at 56% favorability, George H.W. Bush registered 64%, and Bill Clinton was at 64%. Two of those — Carter and H.W. Bush — left office after being defeated for re-election.

I'm saying you are doomed to be a stupid motherfucker for life, lusty tard. Why don't you go pick some dingleberries with gay rey or find a ladyboy to bang or whatever it is you do. Originally Posted by WombRaider

There you go, sewer rat. Whenever you deflect with your puerile insults and slink back into obscene gibberish like the above post we know EXACTLY what you're saying - "Help! Ive been backed into another logical corner and I don't have the wits to get out!"

Don't forget to fuck yourself on your way to your next Hamas fund-raiser, you terrorist-coddling scumbag.
.

You're correct ....

.... and neither does anyone else posting on this board regarding "polls"!

That is why I selected a CNN poll, because it is more easily assumed that the poll would be biased in favor of Obaminable and Hellarious as opposed to Bush!

So, if I were going to add a "bias factor" in the results ...

.. I could justify a 5 point increase in the numbers on Bush with a like..

.. 5 point REDUCTION on the numbers for those two goof-balls.

But I simply reported the CNN results .... as published.

If you have a problem with CNN polls ... take it up with them.

Oh, Mr. WordSmith .... "It is if it WAS properly conducted" should be ...

"It is if it WERE properly conducted." Originally Posted by LexusLover

A poll is singular, therefore 'was' is correct. You are definitely not a wordsmith. Keep trying, though.

Tell the whole story LexusLiar.


http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/...pularity-poll/

It’s not a new phenomenon for a former president to gain in public esteem as the years pass. In addition to George W. Bush, the other former presidents were all viewed positively by a majority of Americans: Jimmy Carter was at 56% favorability, George H.W. Bush registered 64%, and Bill Clinton was at 64%. Two of those — Carter and H.W. Bush — left office after being defeated for re-election. Originally Posted by WTF

There you go, sewer rat. Whenever you deflect with your puerile insults and slink back into obscene gibberish like the above post we know EXACTLY what you're saying - "Help! Ive been backed into another logical corner and I don't have the wits to get out!"

Don't forget to fuck yourself on your way to your next Hamas fund-raiser, you terrorist-coddling scumbag.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

This post perfectly refutes your point. Puerile insults are just fine for you when you want to use them, so go fuck yourself and don't forget to give gay rey a reacharound. He works so hard at the dingleberry farm all day, the least you could do would be to lick clean his shitstained hands.

This post perfectly refutes your point. Originally Posted by WombRaider

No, it doesn't. We were talking about the "nuances" of Odumbo keeping Hamas on the terrorist list. Try to keep up, moron.

All you can do is demonstrate - over and over - that you are, by far, the stupidest motherfucker on eccie!
.

Tell the whole story ... Originally Posted by WTF

Like you would know it, light-weight.

This post perfectly refutes your point... Originally Posted by WombRaider

Actually, it doesn't at all. What the polls often fail to reflect are the actual thoughts of the person responding, as opposed to the response to a pre-designed question(s) ..... But I am not the one who brought up "popularity," so my posting of polls actually demonstrates the irrelevance of a President's "popularity" at even given time ... and a "post-office" poll can represent several things beneath the surface that are not articulated in the questions asked.

For instance your current opinion about what may be in 6 years, presupposes that you will be around in 6 years to report it ... or I will be here to see it. You are therefore shouting in the forest for no one to hear/see.

So how are you going to explain a poll showing Obaminable's popularity at na all time low in 6 years ..... ? Because some Presidents' ratings go down after they leave office (why would that occur?). "Just because"?

Like you would know it, light-weight. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Like you would know either , you are what we called light in the loafers.

No, it doesn't. We were talking about the "nuances" of Odumbo keeping Hamas on the terrorist list. Try to keep up, moron.

All you can do is demonstrate - over and over - that you are, by far, the stupidest motherfucker on eccie!
. Originally Posted by lustylad

You've pulled the old IB two step. You're too goddamn stupid to talk about two things at once with your one-track mind. We were talking about past presidents and their popularity. You know this. It refuted your claim on that subject and you chose to make the above remark. Everyone sees you for what you are.