Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
Well, theres this from back in July when Obama was just beginning his implosion..
And more recently, this. Apparently, even the likes of Sarah Palin is polling significantly better than earlier in Obama's term.
Finally, a few weeks ago, there was this. Take from it what you will.
Palin and Romney are out of the news much more than Obama is. Obama faces constant attacks from all sides, which drags his numbers down. Rather than responding against an individual such as Palin or Romney, he has to respond to a Party, dragging the Party's numbers down rather than these individuals. Under the rigours of a campaign poll numbers change as approval ratings rise and fall and people become more interested in politics. This becomes very obvious if you look at the favourability ratings of both Palin and Romney (With Romney's data you must look towards the high number of undecideds to see that people are switched off and that, outside of the partisans on both sides, people rely on a campaign narrative to help shape opinions).Well, theres this from back in July when Obama was just beginning his implosion..
And more recently, this. Apparently, even the likes of Sarah Palin is polling significantly better than earlier in Obama's term.
Finally, a few weeks ago, there was this. Take from it what you will.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
Palin and Romney are out of the news much more than Obama is. Obama faces constant attacks from all sides, which drags his numbers down. Rather than responding against an individual such as Palin or Romney, he has to respond to a Party, dragging the Party's numbers down rather than these individuals. Under the rigours of a campaign poll numbers change as approval ratings rise and fall and people become more interested in politics. This becomes very obvious if you look at the favourability ratings of both Palin and Romney (With Romney's data you must look towards the high number of undecideds to see that people are switched off and that, outside of the partisans on both sides, people rely on a campaign narrative to help shape opinions).
While that certainly applies to Romney, the same cannot be said for Palin. Besides Obama, I cannot think of another politician that has been in the news, consistently, more that Palin. That includes Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who are supposedly in charge of this fiasco the Democrats call a government and Scott Brown, the new conservative hero. Palin and Romney are out of the news much more than Obama is. Obama faces constant attacks from all sides, which drags his numbers down. Rather than responding against an individual such as Palin or Romney, he has to respond to a Party, dragging the Party's numbers down rather than these individuals. Under the rigours of a campaign poll numbers change as approval ratings rise and fall and people become more interested in politics. This becomes very obvious if you look at the favourability ratings of both Palin and Romney (With Romney's data you must look towards the high number of undecideds to see that people are switched off and that, outside of the partisans on both sides, people rely on a campaign narrative to help shape opinions).
More worrying for Obama's team is that the coverage of Palin has been almost completely negative in the MSM except on Fox News, while the opposite is true of Obama - with positive coverage (excuses) in much of the media, with the only exception being Fox. Yet her numbers continue to rise.
The fact that a woman who continues to be so roundly mocked and villified at the same time is polling very well against O makes quite a point.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
More worrying for Obama's team is that the coverage of Palin has been almost completely negative in the MSM except on Fox News, while the opposite is true of Obama - with positive coverage (excuses) in much of the media, with the only exception being Fox. Yet her numbers continue to rise.
Honestly she's just a symbol of opposition. I find it difficult to believe that any sensible and responsible individual would actually trust her in a high office. More worrying for Obama's team is that the coverage of Palin has been almost completely negative in the MSM except on Fox News, while the opposite is true of Obama - with positive coverage (excuses) in much of the media, with the only exception being Fox. Yet her numbers continue to rise.
Also, I like how Fox News cut from the Q&A session and made a rather unflattering "summary" of what transpired.
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER:
Honestly she's just a symbol of opposition. I find it difficult to believe that any sensible and responsible individual would actually trust her in a high office.
That's what is so scary. Imagine the numbers a more qualified, less tainted and polarizing Republican with her name recognition would get. There are already a few such Republicans setting up PACs for 2012.Honestly she's just a symbol of opposition. I find it difficult to believe that any sensible and responsible individual would actually trust her in a high office.
Eh, you gotta know Obama is going to win reelection. His base is disaffected now, wait until full political season. The incumbent always has the advantage.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Eh, you gotta know Obama is going to win reelection. His base is disaffected now, wait until full political season. The incumbent always has the advantage.
Couple that with the fact that the economy is likely to come out of recession in the coming year and it seems quite likely. I'm not 100% sure on him winning re-election, but I'd put my money on it.Eh, you gotta know Obama is going to win reelection. His base is disaffected now, wait until full political season. The incumbent always has the advantage.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Obama continues his attack on the working class people of Las Vegas.
CR
I'm loving that mayor! With the 2010 election season rolling around, I'm sure he won't be the last Democrat to tell the Failure in Chief to stay the hell away...Obama continues his attack on the working class people of Las Vegas.
CR
Originally Posted by CountArach:
Couple that with the fact that the economy is likely to come out of recession in the coming year and it seems quite likely. I'm not 100% sure on him winning re-election, but I'd put my money on it.
The economy is already out of recession. And the Republican Party has spent the duration of that recession opposing the measures which ended it.Couple that with the fact that the economy is likely to come out of recession in the coming year and it seems quite likely. I'm not 100% sure on him winning re-election, but I'd put my money on it.
You reap what you sow, RNC.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Obama continues his attack on the working class people of Las Vegas.
CR
I'm surprised that the people of Las Vegas, the "Entertainment Capital of the World", are offended by what Obama said. It wasn't even an insult. Of course, the Republican Party is just in a froth about it because they can smell blood on Harry Reid's Seat in the Senate. No real politics to see here folks.Obama continues his attack on the working class people of Las Vegas.
CR
Although I did lol when I saw
Originally Posted by :
NEIL PETERSON
Disappointed in the President
As if that was his sole purpose in life NEIL PETERSON
Disappointed in the President
Originally Posted by Subotan:
The economy is already out of recession.
That's fair, and a lot of very smart people would agree with you. However, until unemployment drops, it's going to feel like a recession in full swing. And nobody is sure when hiring will pick back up. So how the recent recession is going to impact the '10 and '12 elections is ... questionable. Nobody really knows.The economy is already out of recession.
Originally Posted by Subotan:
I'm surprised that the people of Las Vegas, the "Entertainment Capital of the World", are offended by what Obama said. It wasn't even an insult. :
It was saying companies should not go to Las Vegas and waste their money there. That means the people who work their have a lot less work to do, and so people get fired or laid off.I'm surprised that the people of Las Vegas, the "Entertainment Capital of the World", are offended by what Obama said. It wasn't even an insult. :
They're are quite understandably offended because Obama is saying it's bad for companies to employ their services; it's bad for those workers to have jobs in that industry.
CR
Originally Posted by Subotan:
And the Republican Party has spent the duration of that recession opposing the measures which ended it.
Yikes. That line is so completely divorced from reality, even for a master salesman like O, it may just be a talking point too far. And the Republican Party has spent the duration of that recession opposing the measures which ended it.
Its usually pretty easy for politicians to confuse the unwashed over complex economics, but promising 8% and delivering 10% isn't hard to comprehend.
Just our of curiosity, PJ, do you believe America has had a worse president than Obama? If so, who?
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Just our of curiosity, PJ, do you believe America has had a worse president than Obama? If so, who?
Rhetorical? Just our of curiosity, PJ, do you believe America has had a worse president than Obama? If so, who?
No, a serious question. Your rhetoric on Obama is so negative, I'm wondering if you think him the absolute worst, or if there is room for lower. You're not required to answer anything you don't want to, of course.
-edit-
To clarify -- knowing just how low you rank Obama would be instructive. Worse than Harrison? Worse than Buchannan? Or is he more mid-list? It's impossible to get a sense of what you actually think of him, since your points about him are universally negative. Not much information there. And based on your posts in the Liberal Fascism thread, you appear to believe that rhetorical extremity is perfectly legitimate as a corrective, so I can't begin to get a sense of what you actually believe.
-edit-
To clarify -- knowing just how low you rank Obama would be instructive. Worse than Harrison? Worse than Buchannan? Or is he more mid-list? It's impossible to get a sense of what you actually think of him, since your points about him are universally negative. Not much information there. And based on your posts in the Liberal Fascism thread, you appear to believe that rhetorical extremity is perfectly legitimate as a corrective, so I can't begin to get a sense of what you actually believe.
Hey, it's that German! Never saw the euro post around for a long time. Mindi moonyaqueh animush.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
To clarify -- knowing just how low you rank Obama would be instructive.
How would it matter? How he ranks Obama shouldn't be relevant to the merit of any criticism made. It sounds more like you're trying to set up some kind of ad hominem. ie: He thinks Obama is the worst president ever, therefore his criticism is invalid. That doesn't follow. To clarify -- knowing just how low you rank Obama would be instructive.
But maybe I'm just missing what the relevance is.
It is pretty rare for someone to only say negative things about a politician.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
How would it matter? How he ranks Obama shouldn't be relevant to the merit of any criticism made. It sounds more like you're trying to set up some kind of ad hominem. ie: He thinks Obama is the worst president ever, therefore his criticism is invalid. That doesn't follow.
Thank you for inventing an entire argument for me. Why, I barely need post with you putting all kinds of interesting words in my future self's mouth.How would it matter? How he ranks Obama shouldn't be relevant to the merit of any criticism made. It sounds more like you're trying to set up some kind of ad hominem. ie: He thinks Obama is the worst president ever, therefore his criticism is invalid. That doesn't follow.
PJ postures, and he is the first to admit he postures. Is it so freakish and diabolical to want to know how he ranks the current President when he isn't forming a specific line of argument?
By way of contrast, while I thought George W. Bush was a very bad president, I always took issue with people who made the argument that he was the worst ever. To me that showed a real, palpable lack of history. I wouldn't even put GWB in the bottom ten. Our republic has survived some pretty terrible chief executives in its time.
Sasaki, if you need any help stuffing your straw man, please let me know, I'm free after the kids' bathtime.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
No, a serious question. Your rhetoric on Obama is so negative, I'm wondering if you think him the absolute worst, or if there is room for lower. You're not required to answer anything you don't want to, of course.
Obama unquestionably represents the worst elements of contemporary American politics, but is he the worst president in United States history? It’s way too early to tell; or to issue him a rank. He certainly hasn’t done as much damage to the fabric of the nation as FDR or LBJ, for example. Actually he hasn't done much at all. No, a serious question. Your rhetoric on Obama is so negative, I'm wondering if you think him the absolute worst, or if there is room for lower. You're not required to answer anything you don't want to, of course.
Ironically, that dismal failure in actually executing his job as president– despite a rare supermajority ensuring a powerless opposition – may just have saved him from the full fury of future history books. The profligate spending ensures he won’t go down as a “good” president, but had he passed that massive unfunded liability that was (is) healthcare “reform” and the penalty on industry, based on crumbling science, that was (is) Cap and Trade, things would look far worse for him.
Who knows, though? Despite being roundly rejected by the populace time and again, Obama’s agenda continues to rear its ugly head. He’s still got plenty of time to fall even further down the list.
Originally Posted by Megas:
Hey, it's that German! Never saw the euro post around for a long time. Mindi moonyaqueh animush.
Hey man. Good to see you are still around. The posturing and rhetorical flourish that Lemur speaks of got the best of me one too many times and I wound up on the wrong side of the ban-stick. Lesson learned the hard way. Hey, it's that German! Never saw the euro post around for a long time. Mindi moonyaqueh animush.
That's a fair answer, PJ. Thanks for satisfying my prosimian curiosity. (And while I understand why you single out FDR and LBJ as baddies, you'd have to agree that no chief executive has ever done more to tear the United States apart than James Buchanan. I believe he sets the bar so low that no president past or future will ever get under it.)
-edit-
Bit of a side note, but while thumbing through Wiki, I ran across this article about president rankings. I had no idea it was such a sport.
-edit-
Bit of a side note, but while thumbing through Wiki, I ran across this article about president rankings. I had no idea it was such a sport.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
That's a fair answer, PJ. Thanks for satisfying my prosimian curiosity. (And while I understand why you single out FDR and LBJ as baddies, you'd have to agree that no chief executive has ever done more to tear the United States apart than James Buchanan. I believe he sets the bar so low that no president past or future will ever get under it.)
Well, I believe the Governor of Texas threatened secession last year, and several other states have reasserted their rights under the 10th amendment, so you never know. That's a fair answer, PJ. Thanks for satisfying my prosimian curiosity. (And while I understand why you single out FDR and LBJ as baddies, you'd have to agree that no chief executive has ever done more to tear the United States apart than James Buchanan. I believe he sets the bar so low that no president past or future will ever get under it.)
All kidding aside, I can agree that Obama has a long way to fall before he gets anywhere close to the bottom of the list.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Bit of a side note, but while thumbing through Wiki, I ran across this article about president rankings. I had no idea it was such a sport.
Yeah. Look at the sea of red in the mid-1800's, with Lincoln the only green island.Bit of a side note, but while thumbing through Wiki, I ran across this article about president rankings. I had no idea it was such a sport.
-edit-
aw, heck. I didn't address "Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration". How about this:
Originally Posted by :
A Tibet Freedom Movement activist makes a portrait of U.S. President Barack Obama with his blood in Shimla, India as he thanks him for agreeing to meet the Dalai Lama, Thursday, Feb. 4, 2010. China on Wednesday again urged Obama not to hold a planned meeting with Dalai Lama, saying it would further hurt already strained bilateral relations. According to Chhime R. Chhoekyapa, the Dalai Lama's secretary, the Dalai Lama will be in Washington on Feb 17-18.
(my bolded underline).A Tibet Freedom Movement activist makes a portrait of U.S. President Barack Obama with his blood in Shimla, India as he thanks him for agreeing to meet the Dalai Lama, Thursday, Feb. 4, 2010. China on Wednesday again urged Obama not to hold a planned meeting with Dalai Lama, saying it would further hurt already strained bilateral relations. According to Chhime R. Chhoekyapa, the Dalai Lama's secretary, the Dalai Lama will be in Washington on Feb 17-18.
from this story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020500566.html
Q: Should Obama meet with the Dali Lama?
A: Sure. Gonna meet with the pope, dinner-jacket, and (maybe) 김정일,... what harm can the Dali do? How many Divisions has he?
In a coming-full-circle moment, the current administration accuses its critics of helping the terrorists. Ironic.. hypocritical.. hilarious?
Originally Posted by :
In an oped in USA Today, John Brennan -- Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism -- responds to critics of the Obama administration's counterterrorism policies by saying "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."
In an oped in USA Today, John Brennan -- Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism -- responds to critics of the Obama administration's counterterrorism policies by saying "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
In a coming-full-circle moment, the current administration accuses its critics of helping the terrorists. Ironic.. hypocritical.. hilarious?
Haha, even as a strong Obama backer and Dem I can see all three things you say it is... In a coming-full-circle moment, the current administration accuses its critics of helping the terrorists. Ironic.. hypocritical.. hilarious?
Yeah, I think 'helping the terrorists' is the new 'He is a damn Red!' or 'he is a damn Fascist'... Unfortunately this is a tactic that does not work well on GOP whose credentials of being tough with 'terrorists' is not to be questioned.
Can someone explain to me how Obama is any different than Clinton or Bush?
The last 20 years we've had the same president, the only difference being one liked fat chicks, one liked Jesus, and one likes black people.
Can someone explain to me how;
Bush's medicare expansion is anydifferent than Obamas healthcare expansion?
Clinton's welfare reform is any different than Bush's compassionate consevativism?
How interveinig in the former Yougo, the ME, and ramping up troops in Afghan are any different?
We've been governed buy lame ducks since I've been born.
Since Obama has gotten into office he has been center left at best, while I don't agree with some of his ideas I believe he has a few good nuggets, however these want get any attention because he's a forigen born muslim communist who wants to eat beautifual blonde infants.
The last 20 years we've had the same president, the only difference being one liked fat chicks, one liked Jesus, and one likes black people.
Can someone explain to me how;
Bush's medicare expansion is anydifferent than Obamas healthcare expansion?
Clinton's welfare reform is any different than Bush's compassionate consevativism?
How interveinig in the former Yougo, the ME, and ramping up troops in Afghan are any different?
We've been governed buy lame ducks since I've been born.
Since Obama has gotten into office he has been center left at best, while I don't agree with some of his ideas I believe he has a few good nuggets, however these want get any attention because he's a forigen born muslim communist who wants to eat beautifual blonde infants.
Quite simple, SFTS. Or as Watson would say, 'elementary!' - NO, I loathe sherlock holmes, as did Conan Doyle, who hated him with all his heart and wrote about Holmes only because they paid him several pounds for every friggin' sentence of the detective story (true fact)
Anyhow, nice intro
, but Obama and Clinton both are pushing/pushed for a healthcare reform, but both bills got mired with the natural Republican opposition. Except that right now the Republicans are being pure pigs, while back in Clinton's time they were about average in their opposition - hey, Clinton passed NAFTA.
Bush did not do much for healthcare. He merely dumped more money on the seniors. Dumping money is easy. Actually fixing the workings of the sytem is a Herculean labour. The American model is setting new high for inefficiency and this must be addressed. Even without medical insurance, US could have decent healthcare if the service was cheaper. Cap the spending on terminally ill, stop the doctor-gets-paid-per-procedure, stop the drug-company-paying-the-doctor, tone down the malpractice lawsuits, take the British approach by approving drugs only after a stringent cost:benefit ratio, tax the wealthy a tad to subsidise certain forms of healthcare, do something about the great gov't Ponzi scheme, a.k.a Social Security. All these are solutions, with varying difficulty of implementation. All these are more than just simple throwing-money-at-the-problem-approach.
'Compassionate conservatism'? Haha, nice buzzword there, I have heard of it... How about 'Tax-and-spend libertarian'? Either makes about the same amount of sense. US conservatives generally favour the wealthy and the liberals favour the working-class. Deregulation and small government is naturally hostile to the poor. I'd like a conservative in the Backroom to try to argue against this.
Kosovo was Clinton's folly, yes, it is true. But that was still Cold War politics speaking there, before the current situation. Dems and the GOP intervened in other nations' affairs nearly equally. Russia had interests in the Yugo wars, and where there is Russia, there is sure to be US, whether US likes it or not. Ramping up troops in Afghanistan? You cannot leave once you come in. The point is to not stick your nose into horsedung in the first place. But Iraq would be a better example for this purpose.
Lame ducks? Blame the 'No' strategy of the Republicans today. Now, Clinton, Clinton does not have an excuse, and neither does Bush. Both faced about average opposition. But hey, chew on this: who was the fiscal conservative? The surplus Clinton or the OMFG-WTF-deficit, and recession President Bush? You decide...
Anyhow, nice intro
, but Obama and Clinton both are pushing/pushed for a healthcare reform, but both bills got mired with the natural Republican opposition. Except that right now the Republicans are being pure pigs, while back in Clinton's time they were about average in their opposition - hey, Clinton passed NAFTA.Bush did not do much for healthcare. He merely dumped more money on the seniors. Dumping money is easy. Actually fixing the workings of the sytem is a Herculean labour. The American model is setting new high for inefficiency and this must be addressed. Even without medical insurance, US could have decent healthcare if the service was cheaper. Cap the spending on terminally ill, stop the doctor-gets-paid-per-procedure, stop the drug-company-paying-the-doctor, tone down the malpractice lawsuits, take the British approach by approving drugs only after a stringent cost:benefit ratio, tax the wealthy a tad to subsidise certain forms of healthcare, do something about the great gov't Ponzi scheme, a.k.a Social Security. All these are solutions, with varying difficulty of implementation. All these are more than just simple throwing-money-at-the-problem-approach.
'Compassionate conservatism'? Haha, nice buzzword there, I have heard of it... How about 'Tax-and-spend libertarian'? Either makes about the same amount of sense. US conservatives generally favour the wealthy and the liberals favour the working-class. Deregulation and small government is naturally hostile to the poor. I'd like a conservative in the Backroom to try to argue against this.
Kosovo was Clinton's folly, yes, it is true. But that was still Cold War politics speaking there, before the current situation. Dems and the GOP intervened in other nations' affairs nearly equally. Russia had interests in the Yugo wars, and where there is Russia, there is sure to be US, whether US likes it or not. Ramping up troops in Afghanistan? You cannot leave once you come in. The point is to not stick your nose into horsedung in the first place. But Iraq would be a better example for this purpose.
Lame ducks? Blame the 'No' strategy of the Republicans today. Now, Clinton, Clinton does not have an excuse, and neither does Bush. Both faced about average opposition. But hey, chew on this: who was the fiscal conservative? The surplus Clinton or the OMFG-WTF-deficit, and recession President Bush? You decide...
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Bush's medicare expansion is anydifferent than Obamas healthcare expansion?
Both use lots of money, but I think Obama's would require more taxes in the end. It also effects many more people, usually in the way of limiting what options they have or freedom to choose the health insurance they desire.Bush's medicare expansion is anydifferent than Obamas healthcare expansion?
And now; the Obama administration says federal agencies should be able to track anyone's cell phone, at any time, with no warrant.
Originally Posted by :
Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.
In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.
"This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century," says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. "If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment."
So much for Obama being good on civil liberties.Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.
In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.
"This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century," says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. "If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment."
CR
52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.
2012 is eons away, but man, has the lipstick worn off this pig or what?
2012 is eons away, but man, has the lipstick worn off this pig or what?
An incumbent polls slightly below "someone else," an undefined anyman? Heavens! That's never happened in the history of polling! It's as though the entire people of Earth have turned on the false Obamessiah! And you were there first, PJ!
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO