Quit picking on Obama……


EagleSmack
#1801
Quote: Originally Posted by Francis2004View Post

EagleSmack

But aren't FOX polls irrelevant?

Polls of all types are irrelevant unless its an actual Ballot Box poll ( Voting day )..

Well there you go then.

Quote:

Anyone who believed that the date was 100% firm on the war mission was way off.. Sorry but no one can predict no changes might occur in a War mission.

I agree, everyone knew Obama was foolish for putting a 2011 pullout date. I also agree that nobody can predict changes in war...not even Obama. He should have thought that through a bit more instead of trying to placate the far left.
 
Francis2004
#1802
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

I agree, everyone knew Obama was foolish for putting a 2011 pullout date. I also agree that nobody can predict changes in war...not even Obama. He should have thought that through a bit more instead of trying to placate the far left.

Perhaps it was a calculated move.. Some work and some backfire..
 
EagleSmack
#1803
Quote: Originally Posted by Francis2004View Post

Perhaps it was a calculated move.. Some work and some backfire..

Oh it was calculated for sure and it clearly backfired.
 
Walter
#1804
 
Walter
#1805
Nine Months After Stimulus 49 of 50 States Have Lost Jobs
America Now Over 6 Million Jobs Shy of Administration's Projections
Friday, December 18, 2009

<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify" class=middlecopy align=right sizcache="4" sizset="13">

<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" sizcache="4" sizset="13">The table below compares the White House's February 2009 projection of the number of jobs that would be created by the 2009 stimulus law (through the end of 2010) with the actual change in state payroll employment through November 2009 (the latest figures available). According to the data, 49 States have lost jobs since the stimulus was enacted as unemployment has skyrocketed to 10 percent. Only North Dakota and the District of Columbia have seen net job creation following the February 2009 stimulus (though both fall short of seeing the promised level of job creation). While President Obama claimed the result of his stimulus bill would be the creation of 3.5 million jobs, the Nation has already lost over 2.6 million – a difference of 6.1 million jobs. To see how stimulus has failed your state, see the table below.

House Committee on Ways & Means - Republican
 
EagleSmack
#1806
The Obama Administration is excited and brags about not losing as many jobs as they had at the last count.
 
Walter
#1807
December 19, 2009
Obama, the laughingstock

Ed Lasky

Is our President, and America itself, becoming laughingstock of the world to be ignored and dismissed, if not ridiculed, as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro have? The world has taken measure of the man and he has fallen short. Chavez calls Obama "the devil" and that, using his favorite way to describe the odor of American President, he smells of sulfur (external - login to view). Even Fidel Castro mocks him (external - login to view) .

Then other world leaders "include him out" of meetings that he has to invite himself into to by barging in. (external - login to view) The Iranians have swatted away his outstretched hand by depicting him as no better than George Bush.

Of course, the way he has mistreated allies - ignoring Prime Minister Gordon Brown (who had to force his own meeting with the President by meeting him in a kitchen), sending the bust of Winston Churchill back across the pond; stiffing the Dalai Lama, ignoring the work of allied nations that led to the tearing down on the Berlin Wall and the downfall of communism, and throwing various former allies under the bus does not engender trust or loyalty. He stabbed Alice Palmer, his mentor, in the back as he used legal challenges to knock her off the ballot during a race that he wanted to win. The list could go on..and will in the years ahead.
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#1808
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#1809
Thought the Barack Obama could do no wrong? Best thing for us since frozen dinners. I have trouble believing that out of 300+ million people he and his gang are the best we could come up with.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#1810
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Thought the Barack Obama could do no wrong? Best thing for us since frozen dinners. I have trouble believing that out of 300+ million people he and his gang are the best we could come up with.

Well Ya all voted Bush for 8 years. Either you guys are not too bright or you are scraping the bottom of the political barrel. (Of course with Harper at our helm, not much better up here.)
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#1811
Bush, Obama, Pelosi Reid & Lieberman all mistakes down here. We all have the same problem, there must be someone out there who could fix all this and make most of us happy. Would be nice to have a real majority goverment again.
 
DaSleeper
#1812
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Bush, Obama, Pelosi Reid & Lieberman all mistakes down here. We all have the same problem, there must be someone out there who could fix all this and make most of us happy. Would be nice to have a real majority goverment again.

You do A Democrat President, a Democrat majority in the House and Senate...
And some say the Republican party is divided
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#1813
No, I meant a real majority 51% to 49% or better of the population.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#1814
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Thought the Barack Obama could do no wrong? Best thing for us since frozen dinners. I have trouble believing that out of 300+ million people he and his gang are the best we could come up with.

Well, like it or not, American people thought that was the best they can come up with. And again, you may not like it, but you are stuck with him at least until 2012 (and perhaps even until 2016, in spite of what you evidently seem to think, Republicans are not guaranteed to win the presidency in 2012).
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#1815
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Bush, Obama, Pelosi Reid & Lieberman all mistakes down here. We all have the same problem, there must be someone out there who could fix all this and make most of us happy. Would be nice to have a real majority goverment again.


There is nobody out there like that, ironsides. The problem is that America is too divided between the right and the left. I don’t think there is a single person who will be able to satisfy a majority of Americans.

I don’t think this is the same America that existed during Reagan or even Clinton years. The political atmosphere has become much more poisonous, more divisive, more bitter in the recent years. Politics in USA these days is highly polarized.

I remember at Clinton’s State of the Union address in 1992, CNN had Rush ‘drug addict’ Limbaugh as the guest to comment on Clinton and his programs. Limbaugh ended the program by saying that he wished Clinton all the best, that he hoped Clinton succeeds (he probably didn’t mean it, but at least he said it).

Contrast that with the vitriolic tirade he unleashed against Obama on the very first day, loudly proclaiming ‘I hope he fails’.

Personally I don’t see any possibility of a politician coming up who can satisfy a majority of the population. I think your country is too divided or that to happen.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#1816
Potty, as long as you keep with the slanderous labels you'll never have any credibility
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#1817
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Well, like it or not, American people thought that was the best they can come up with. And again, you may not like it, but you are stuck with him at least until 2012 (and perhaps even until 2016, in spite of what you evidently seem to think, Republicans are not guaranteed to win the presidency in 2012).

Americans have never been stuck with a president they didn't want. I recall untimely passings.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1818
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

There is nobody out there like that, ironsides. The problem is that America is too divided between the right and the left. I don’t think there is a single person who will be able to satisfy a majority of Americans.

I don’t think this is the same America that existed during Reagan or even Clinton years. The political atmosphere has become much more poisonous, more divisive, more bitter in the recent years. Politics in USA these days is highly polarized.

I remember at Clinton’s State of the Union address in 1992, CNN had Rush ‘drug addict’ Limbaugh as the guest to comment on Clinton and his programs. Limbaugh ended the program by saying that he wished Clinton all the best, that he hoped Clinton succeeds (he probably didn’t mean it, but at least he said it).

Contrast that with the vitriolic tirade he unleashed against Obama on the very first day, loudly proclaiming ‘I hope he fails’.

Personally I don’t see any possibility of a politician coming up who can satisfy a majority of the population. I think your country is too divided or that to happen.

You are paying too much attention to the noisy minority. I'm sure there are 299 million Americans who don't really give a damn about politics one way or the other. Most people have other fish to fry.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#1819
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

You are paying too much attention to the noisy minority. I'm sure there are 299 million Americans who don't really give a damn about politics one way or the other. Most people have other fish to fry.


Perhaps JLM, but that may indeed be the problem. Since most people are not interested in politics, politics is defined by the noisy minorities, by the extremists, of both right and left.

That may indeed be the reason why politics in USA is so polarized, why something as important as health care reform has to be done in a partisan away. One would think that something as important as health care reform would be done in a bipartisan way, the two parties would sit down, talk things over and come up with something agreeable to both parties. In an ideal world, health care reform would pass the Senate, not 60:40, but 80:20.

And poll after poll show that Americans want some kind of health care reform. However, when one party is adamantly opposed to any kind of reform, even something like health care reform turns into a partisan, political issue.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1820
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Perhaps JLM, but that may indeed be the problem. Since most people are not interested in politics, politics is defined by the noisy minorities, by the extremists, of both right and left.

That may indeed be the reason why politics in USA is so polarized, why something as important as health care reform has to be done in a partisan away. One would think that something as important as health care reform would be done in a bipartisan way, the two parties would sit down, talk things over and come up with something agreeable to both parties. In an ideal world, health care reform would pass the Senate, not 60:40, but 80:20.

And poll after poll show that Americans want some kind of health care reform. However, when one party is adamantly opposed to any kind of reform, even something like health care reform turns into a partisan, political issue.

It's not really polarized- on election day some of these 299 million do take time to cast a vote, which counts just as much as the radicals' votes. IN most general elections the difference between the two parties is generally within three or four percent which I would hard call polarized.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#1821
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Well, like it or not, American people thought that was the best they can come up with. And again, you may not like it, but you are stuck with him at least until 2012 (and perhaps even until 2016, in spite of what you evidently seem to think, Republicans are not guaranteed to win the presidency in 2012).

Who cares if Republicans win or for that matter Democrats, I would be happy to see a new party emerge if these two parties cannot learn how to stop preaching to us and start listening to what the American people really want to hear, and that is leave us alone, we will tell you what and when we want something. Just do the job we want.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#1822
Might as well add this:

IT IS TIME FOR AMENDMENT 28



Amendment 28


Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.




"When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson


 
EagleSmack
#1823
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Might as well add this:

IT IS TIME FOR AMENDMENT 28



Amendment 28


Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.




"When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson


GOOD LUCK!

Both Democrats and Republicans would laugh their butts off with that one!

Heck you may be arrested for treason with suggesting that!
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#1824
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Might as well add this:

IT IS TIME FOR AMENDMENT 28



Amendment 28


Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.




"When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson


Ironsides, doesn’t an amendment have to be approved by the Senate and the House first before it gets anywhere (by a 2/3rd vote, no less)? In that case as EagleSmack said, good luck.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#1825
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

It's not really polarized- on election day some of these 299 million do take time to cast a vote, which counts just as much as the radicals' votes. IN most general elections the difference between the two parties is generally within three or four percent which I would hard call polarized.

And why wouldn’t you call that polarized, JLM? If an election is very close, to me that is a sign that electorate is polarized. If one candidate wins by a landslide that means that there is consensus in the country, there is not much polarization.
 
TenPenny
#1826
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

And why wouldn’t you call that polarized, JLM? If an election is very close, to me that is a sign that electorate is polarized. If one candidate wins by a landslide that means that there is consensus in the country, there is not much polarization.

You need to define what you mean by polarized.
 
TenPenny
#1827
The traditional definition of polarization in politics has NOTHING to do with election results.

In politics (external - login to view), polarization (or polarisation) is the process by which the public opinion divides and goes to the extremes. It can also refer to when the extreme factions of a political party gain dominance in a party. In either case moderate (external - login to view) voices often lose power and influence as a consequence.
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#1828
Polarization is the best thing that can happen to a country.

Why? It separates the good fron the bad.

Those to whom everything is in grey, those who can not see the difference, those who make up the rules as they go along, polarization is bad. Figures!!
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1829
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

And why wouldn’t you call that polarized, JLM? If an election is very close, to me that is a sign that electorate is polarized. If one candidate wins by a landslide that means that there is consensus in the country, there is not much polarization.

No, S.J. Polarized means lop sided, like Dems 90% REpubs 10%.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1830
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

Polarization is the best thing that can happen to a country.

Why? It separates the good fron the bad.

Those to whom everything is in grey, those who can not see the difference, those who make up the rules as they go along, polarization is bad. Figures!!

Y.J. Canada is already too polarized as it is- my feet are cold all bloody winter.
 

Similar Threads

11
Gorilla Wasn't Picking A Fight
by mt_pockets1000 | Jun 20th, 2009
14
Picking Fights
by Jersay | Jun 22nd, 2006
no new posts