AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

It depends on the poll okie.
Bush's approval ratings at the time of the election was above 45 and below 50 but some polls such as CBS had him lower than 45, which would be lower than Obama is currently in the Rasmussen poll. The current AP poll, CNN poll and the CBS poll have Obama at 48%. NBC has Obama at 47%.

EI realize that this has nothing to do with anything, but I need to ask a favor. If anyone here is on twitter, can you send a tweet at frfghtr639.

I just got a new phone with twitter on it and I am trying to figure it out. Thanx much.

I agree with you, it does depend upon the poll, but you are wrong when you claim CBS's lower than 45% for Bush is lower than Rasmussen currently has Obama. In fact, today, Rasmussen has Obama at 43%, so it appears to me that Obama is not clearly higher than what Bush was at the same stage of his presidency. I pointed this out to cyclops, and asked of him to show proof of his claim, to which he has not done. I stand by my assertion that Obama is not clearly above where Bush was at the same stage of his presidency, and even if you could find a poll that shows him marginally better, I would bet that it is hardly significant statistically. I should also point out that Rasmussen has been proven to be one of the most accurate pollsters, as proven by his track record with elections.

Here is the link to Rasmussen's poll on Obama today:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
"Overall, 43% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance."

I based my statement on what you had provided earlier from Rasmussen. If you were wrong about Rasmussen then my statement was based on your faulty information.

Earth to parados, I was not wrong and I did not publish faulty numbers. Rasmussen publishes new numbers every day, based on a rolling average of more than one day. So today's number might be slightly different than yesterday's. If you really want to split hairs, Rasmussen's approval number for Obama has ranged from about 41% to about 49 to 50% over the past few months, so his overall average over the past few months is not far from about 45%, not much different statistically than what Bush's numbers were.

The point is that I proved cyclops contention to be wrong, and so until he can provide evidence to counter what I posted, you should let it stand, parados.

The chart you posted here
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-1153#post-4433720
clearly shows Obama's approval above 45%.

So was your chart right or wrong?

I already explained it to you, parados. On some days, it might be 46% or 47%, on others it might be 44% or 43%. It has been as low as 41% I believe. Now parados, be a good little boy and quit all the pointless "niggling" that even a fellow lib has noted you for.

For those that wonder what "niggle" means, here is one definition from the web:
"1. To be preoccupied with trifles or petty details.
2. To find fault constantly and trivially; carp."

A friend emailed this to me. For those who haven't seen it, this is an editorial from the English language version of Pravda:

Spankin' Sarah Palin: A clown short of a circus
30.11.2010

I have already called Sarah Palin a pith-headed bimbo from the back of beyond, in this column. I shall now go one step further. By attacking the democratically elected President of the United States of America at a sensitive time in her country's history, she shows the tact of a boorish drunkard bawling obscenities at a funeral.

If Sarah Palin is not some kind of a massive political joke in the USA, wheeled out to liven up the political scene from time to time with nonsensical and pastiche (one hopes) displays of sheer and utter ignorance, then it is worrying. It is even more so if anyone other than a manic depressive suffering from a chronic lack of lithium takes this...female...seriously.

Hockey Mum Sarah ex-Governess of Alaska is famous for her shrill shrieking style, displaying a pitifully shallow persona which one hopes is stage-managed to give the rest of the world a good chuckle at the Americans' ability and unique quality to make fun of themselves, a real-life female version of Homer Simpson-cum-Belching Barney at Mo's, giving us ever-more hilarious soundbites as she sets herself up as the dumbest woman on Earth.

Just occasionally, one encounters a bar-room idiot whose party piece is belching loudly before falling backwards off his stool, bouncing off the floor on his backside with a background provided by guffaws of laughter, yet who winks knowingly as he is carried out with his feet scraping along the ground and says "Don't worry son, most of it is an act".

The act. It reminds one of Marilyn Monroe putting on the act of the dumb blonde. But an act it was, a character projected by a shrewd, intelligent and charismatic woman with the ability to invent a persona. Sarah Palin, however, is the real-life thing. And it is becoming patently obvious that it isn't an act.

Sarah Palin, the one famous for ludicrous statements such as "I want to help clean up the state that is so sorry today of journalism. And I have a communications degree"; she is after all someone who "must have lived such a doggoned sheltered life", Sarah "We're all Arizonans now" Palin, cracking down on immigrants when the US of A is after all a country formed by...whom?

And now she turns not only against the fibre and backbone of her country, but against its democratically-elected President, accusing him of being incompetent for not stopping Wikileaks. Where was she and where was her GOP before and during the 9/11 attacks? She accuses President Obama of not taking "steps" to assure the leaks were not published. What "steps"?

Sinister Sarah Palin then goes on to insinuate that she is an advocate of cyber terrorism, questioning "Did we use all the cyber tools at our disposal to dismantle WikiLeaks?" Surely a more sensible question would have been why the material for the leaks was provided in the first place...and this has nothing to do with President Obama, but indeed speaks volumes about the State apparatus itself which goes beyond party politics. Her question also speaks volumes about her own inability to perform logical and strategic thinking.

President Obama after all knows the difference between North and South Korea, he knows that Hawaii is the largest US island and not Kodiak and he does not use the expression "refudiate".

If anything is a threat to the national security of the United States of America, it is this screaming, unrefined oaf with as much class as a searing release of flatulence followed by hysterical giggling at a state banquet. Is this what the people of the USA deserve?

To attack the President of the country at a time when the USA needs to close ranks and stand together to consolidate the enormous strides his intelligent and respectful approach has achieved in building bridges, when her party's period in government bombed them, Spankin' Sarah Palin comes across as a pitifully inadequate anachronism from the times of the Far West.

The United States of America has evolved. She has not.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru

Newt Gingrich indicated on Fox today that he is leaning towards a run for the Republican nomination for President. The former House Speaker said that Mitt Romney is probably the front runner due to the organization he already has in place and Mike Huckabee is certainly a strong contender.
Mr Gingrich said he would announce a decision in March or April.

It was you that was niggling okie, demanding that evidence be provided that Obama's ratings were higher than Bush's and now you want to argue 1 or 2%

Obviously plainoldme, all the absurd Leftist Liberal raging attacks on Sarah Palin mark her as someone perceived by the Leftist Liberals to be extremely dangerous to their achievement of their objectives. It's a clear sign that the Leftist Liberals realize she is quite capable of thwarting their non-sensical socialist aspirations if she were to be elected president of the USA in 2012.

Let me ease your worries. Sarah is not the only one capable of thwarting the Leftist Liberal non-sensical socialist aspirations if she were to be elected president of the USA in 2012. There are many others.

More than 50% of the American voters know that the Leftist Liberal non-sensical socialist aspirations are dangerous to their own civilized aspirations for their children and grandchildren.

she is a screaming banshee, a mindless numbskull too dumb to know the extent to which she is being used.

Grandchildren? Like the ones her daughters seem to be pumping out?

Write back when your a tad more intelligent and have something worth saying. Until then, put me on ignore.

POM, you are green with envy.
Smoke a joint, drink a beer and rest your sphincter.


!!! That could be Obama's re-election slogan!

Envy? Over what? Stupidity? Why would I envy stupidity?

Besides, envy is not an emotion I feel nor is it a condition I consider valid. There is never any reason to envy anyone else?

So asking cyclops for actual evidence to support his statement is: "1. To be preoccupied with trifles or petty details," or to "2. To find fault constantly and trivially; carp."

You are hilarious, parados! No wonder you blindly follow silly liberal policies, as you apparently don't find out if they are justified or even logical, or based upon evidence. No wonder you would buy a theory, such as what Pelosi would put out there, that one of the quickest ways to create jobs is to hand out more unemployment checks. You are a hoot, parados. But sadly you and like minded people are what got us into the mess we are in., and so the humor can quickly vanish after just a little thought about your posts.

I prefer Romney or Huckabee over Obama.

Yeah, that defines you perfectly okie.

Why don't you carp some more about how Obama is a socialist?

Hmmm.. I and people like me got us in this mess?
Oh.. can you provide some evidence of that?
Or is asking for evidence niggling when I do it?

I provided the evidence you asked for okie. You then niggled about whether the 1 or 2 points difference showed what cyclops said or not including arguing that your graph was not the numbers you really wanted to use.

Interesting. I think Gingrich is a smart man and has some great ideas. I believe he had a huge hand in helping balance the budget during the Clinton years. The downside to Gingrich is that he is one of the guys that Democrats and liberals most love to hate, and I am sure the dirt diggers would have plenty of ammunition during a campaign, such as he supposedly divorced his former wife on her death bed, stuff like that. Even as much as I respect Gingrich's political career and his ideas, I would have a problem with some of his personal baggage as well, I think so anyway. I think I would prefer a Romney, Huckabee, or even Palin.