Barack Obama

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by CCC

Now I have to sign off cause I have only worked 14 hours so far today in my own business--need to work more to provide for all the libs living off me. BYE

Score one for CCC. Well said.

[TracyCoxx]

When are those rich guys going to start pulling their weight and paying taxes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtTbdHytlAc

[CCC]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

When are those rich guys going to start pulling their weight and paying taxes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtTbdHytlAc

And that is why Obama is coming to Boston tomorrow afternoon to help Coakley. They need to draw out the bottom dwellers. All the urban welfare people who have that protected pie. Now people don't pic on me for being racist-far far from it- BUT they also need to get the black vote, the mulato vote, the spanish vote, the asian vote, etc You see the race is made up of two white people and Oakley being lilly white, blond and with no lips is a stark contrast from the vast majority of Boston's city dwellers. Here's hoping there are enough independant voters that can see thru all this BS. We are talking about the 41st seat-the regime breaker-the Obama nightmare--they are pulling out all the stops.

Vicky Kennedy came out to beg for you to vote for "Teddy's seat"--"don't let all of his life's work go for nothing". Brown says it is "the peoples seat" it belongs to no individual. Enough thinkers started saying-hey that isn't Teddy's -it does belong to me-the people. NOW Vicky is saying "vote for Oakley for the peoples seat". They can't even pump independantly.

Brown beat the tar out of her in the debate so immediately after the show-before midnight-the Dems started all thier prepared dirty commercials. Brown is staying clean .

Absentee voting is up 4-6 times what it was in the primaries. People covering themselves in case we get one of our bad new England N'oreasters.

Remember that little itty piece of pie-the one that the bottom 50% of tax payers that only pay 3%---yeah well the 3%'ers have 50% or more of the votes. That is what Obama is going after- the less educated- the dependers of the dole.

Here's hoping he fails at this like he failed with the Olympics.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by CCC

Here's hoping he fails at this like he failed with the Olympics.

To Obama's Failures!

[randolph]

From Washington Monthly

The president's 53% approval rating is up a few points from December, and his personal qualities still remain relatively strong -- 57% believe Obama understands the problems of people like them, and 63% consider him a strong leader. A 58% majority have a favorable view of the president personally. Notwithstanding the assumptions of Dowd, Gerson, and other Villagers, 55% approve of the president's handling of the terrorist threat, and 62% approve of his handling of the failed Christmas-day terror plot. Looks like the Cheneys' efforts to undermine the administration fell flat.

For the White House, that's the good news. The bad news is the public remains in a deeply sour mood, and has grown increasingly impatient. Obama's numbers have dropped below the 50% threshold on the economy and health care, and the number of Americans who believe the country is on the right track is lower than it's been since February. Ouch.

But in keeping with the year-long trend, Republicans are simply not the beneficiary (pdf) of public discontent. Only 24% of the public has confidence in congressional Republicans "to make the right decisions for the country's future." The number for congressional Democrats is at least a little better at 32%, while the president's number is nearly double that of the GOP at 47%.

What's more, "when it comes to assigning blame for the nation's economic woes, about twice as many fault the George W. Bush administration as do Obama's."

Most people haven't forgotten that the mess we are in was caused by the lax regulation during the Bush administration.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Most people haven't forgotten that the mess we are in was caused by the lax regulation during the Bush administration.

While the Bush Administration did obviously nothing to help out the economic situation, alot of this stuff was set into motion way before he got into office. Also, Zero's spending of 2 trillion dollars while there is a massive deficit is counterproductive.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

While the Bush Administration did obviously nothing to help out the economic situation, alot of this stuff was set into motion way before he got into office. Also, Zero's spending of 2 trillion dollars while there is a massive deficit is counterproductive.

Most people would agree that we had to save the big banks. If we didn't, full economic collapse would have made the great depression look like a minor recession. Of course, many "conservatives" seem to think economic collapse with millions of people starving and dying might be a good thing, that the rich would survive without all those workers. Well, that kind of BS didn't quite work out that way in the French revolution and it wouldn't be that way here, heads would roll.
Actually, the real rich are far smarter than the so called "conservatives". They knew they were at risk and so did Obama and Congress, that's why the government bailed them out.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Most people haven't forgotten that the mess we are in was caused by the lax regulation during the Bush administration.

Bullshit. Quit spreading the lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp...eature=related

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

From Washington Monthly...

Actually, the Washington Monthly article is a typical puff piece that plays the numbers to reach an end conclusion that they WANTED to reach versus discussing an actual truth.

For example, the article initially states this (bold accent is mine): 55% approve of the president's handling of the terrorist threat, and 62% approve of his handling of the failed Christmas-day terror plot. Looks like the Cheneys' efforts to undermine the administration fell flat.

Yet then it turns around and states this: The bad news is the public remains in a deeply sour mood, and has grown increasingly impatient. Obama's numbers have dropped below the 50% threshold on the economy and health care, and the number of Americans who believe the country is on the right track is lower than it's been since February. Ouch.

Well, that's a perfect example of an illogical connection. The truth is that people like the Cheneys -- as well as many other commentators -- continually harping on Obama obviously HAS had an undermining effect and DIDN'T fall flat, hence his falling approval numbers.

And that's the problem here. The article is cherry picking its words and numbers VERY tightly, because if you actually read between the lines what the numbers DO reveal is that (1) people are willing to say they like Obama personally, in other words they basically think he'd be an "okay guy" if he was your neighbor...

...But that said, (2) they ALSO show that more and more people feel he's a shitty President and they'll be glad when he's out of office and IS only a neighbor who is out mowing his law, and NOT someone in office that has any kind of say over your life.

In fact, as of today, Obama's approval rating stands at 50%. Which means that literally HALF of the country thinks he's doing okay and HALF of the country wishes we had a election today or a do-over for November to boot his ass out.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

From Washington Monthly...

Most people haven't forgotten that the mess we are in was caused by the lax regulation during the Bush administration.

Actually, here's another thing that makes me laugh about the news article you cited. It also states: But in keeping with the year-long trend, Republicans are simply not the beneficiary of public discontent. Only 24% of the public has confidence in congressional Republicans "to make the right decisions for the country's future." The number for congressional Democrats is at least a little better at 32%, while the president's number is nearly double that of the GOP at 47%.

See, there's a major problem with that. First of all, depending on which poll you look at, the Republican confidence number is actually higher -- in fact in most polls its only a mere point or so different than the Democrats. So the Washington Monthly... again to try and reach a predetermined conclusion about the Republicans... apparently decided to go with a low number.

That said, the far far far MORE TELLING thing that they DON'T bring up is that the Tea Party movement actually has a HIGHER approval rating than BOTH parties. So that's certainly not good news for the Dems or Obama. So, it was rather convenient of the Washington Monthly to leave THAT statistic out, basically because it wanted to run a few numbers to say "See! See! Obama has numbers twice as high as the Republicans!"

Which is only the more laughable when you consider that Sarah Palin now has an approval rating TIED with Obama, but I notice they conveniently left that number out TOO.

And finally, I find it hysterical that the article reached the conclusion that: when it comes to assigning blame for the nation's economic woes, about twice as many fault the George W. Bush administration as do Obama's...

...When in fact a poll taken at the start of the New Year ACTUALLY found that an EQUAL number of Americans right now (roughly 47%) would rather have BUSH back in office again, to guide the economy back, as opposed to trusting Obama with handling it anymore.