AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

Gross Domestic Product History by quarter 2006 1st quarter to 2008 4th quarter.

Quote:

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2006&LastYear=2008
$ billions
GPD BY QUARTER..........I...............II................III................IV
2006: ..................... 13,183.5.... 13,347.8..... 13,452.9...... 13,611.5

2007: ..................... 13,795.6.... 13,997.2..... 14,179.9....... 14,337.9

2008: ..................... 14,373.9.... 14,497.8.... 14,546.7....... 14,347.3

The obamacrat propagandists are emulating Goebbels' tachnique of attributing to their opposition their own faults.

JOSEPH PAUL GOEBBELS -- 29 October 1897 " 1 May 1945

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels#Propaganda_Minister

A DEFINITION OF NAZISM

Quote:

http://www.answers.com/topic/nazism
Nazism
The noun has one meaning:

Meaning #1: a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism
Synonyms: Naziism, national socialism

0 Replies

@marsz,

marsz, How do you figure the CNN doesn't agree with the left wing democrats? Your heading for that article says no such thing. Where did you learn English?

Yes, the middle class will have to share in paying off the deficit with higher taxes when this recession is over; that's only common sense. Our citizens already pay some of the lowest taxes compared to our GDP, so what's your problem with raising taxes when our economy picks up again?

The reason the deficit increases, because spending outstrips revenue; that's the only logical conclusion. Taxes must be increased in the future to continue spending and pay down the debt. Comprende?

Gee, isn't logic wonderful?

0 Replies

Guess who the pilot was when the ship started to sink? LOL

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/aria09081120090810023423.jpg

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Guess who the pilot was when the ship started to sink? LOL

Guess who is the pilot who drilled more holes in the ship so that it is sinking faster.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Show me that Scott Rasmussen is even a registered Republican, much more so an 'avowed Republican'. Show me any evidence that his polling is biased toward anybody or anything. Put your evidence where your mouth is.

still looking for verification of party registration. however, there is this info which was not obtained through the msm..;

2003-2004 - paid consultant for the RNC to the tune of 95.5 k. i guess it's always better to be the "poller" than the "pollee"...

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/consultants/list.aspx?act=conCanExpend&candcom=C00003418&consult=122002

and this is interesting by way of the peeps listed as "similar speakers"..

http://premierespeakers.com/scott_rasmussen/bio

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

and all of that only started on january 21, 2009?

where the heck have ya been, gal?

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

Yes, according to my Congressperson at the time, Rasmussen did work as a consultant trainer to teach GOP internal pollsters how to poll. So did Zogby which is not widely publicized. The leftwing blogs did jump all over the Rasmussen thing, because it as assumed Rasmussen is a Republican (which Scott Rasmussen has never admitted.) Zogby is an admitted Democrat.

So would you like to accuse Zogby of being a GOP operative? Zogby was also hired by various Democrats to run internal polls for them too. Does that make him a Democrat operative?

Or can both maintain objectivity when their reputations for objectivity and accuracy are on the line? In my professional life I have been hired by various organizations to do this or that. And I have not been advocate or spokesperson for a single one of them, then or now.

No matter how much the radical left tries to marginalize or discredit Rasumussen--something they do to everybody who says or publishes anything they don't like--you still can't get around Rasmussen's track record as a professional pollster which is very good.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

well, we will see how those polls hold up as things get sorted out.

i suspect that as things continue to improve, public opinion will move back to a more reasonable set of expectations.

like i said before, anybody who thought this was all going to be fixed overnight isn't really thinking.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

well, we will see how those polls hold up as things get sorted out.

i suspect that as things continue to improve, public opinion will move back to a more reasonable set of expectations.

like i said before, anybody who thought this was all going to be fixed overnight isn't really thinking.

Nobody has asked that it be fixed overnight. But at least conservatives would like to see any kind of credible plan or proposal that has a chance of beginning to fix it. The fact that most Americans, at least conservatives and moderates, think what the Administration is doing is making things worse should at least make them stop and think. Or at least be willing to explain it. they aren't.

Rasmussen's polling was not kind to George Bush and he often commented that Bush's approval ratings had sunk and were mired at an unhealthy level. And his polls were explicit in why that was. He has also been good to point out why Obama is getting better ratings whenever there is an uptick. And he is finding out, via frequent polling, why Obama's approval ratings are down now. If the trend turns and Obama again becomes the messiah, I think you can count on Rasmussen's numbers reflecting that.

But yes, Rasussen is going to miss the mark on some--he has in the past--and he will be the winner on some. Overall, he has a very good track record.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

...No matter how much the radical left tries to marginalize or discredit Rasumussen...

i don't really think about him that much, to tell you the truth. as far as polls go, if i look at one, i also try to look at a few to get a general feel. then i watch what's going on around me, who's doing it and are they credible.

but mostly i form my opinions through talking with other people. and i do that across the country several times a week. they don't all agree on everything, but there's some things that are of a general consensus.

but you didn't comment on the other link to the "speakers" page , that i lovingly provided for you ( Smile

) that had rass listed as similar to hannity and michael reagan...

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

No, they're wrong. I have heard Scott R speak and he is NEVER partisan and you honestly cannot detect a bias in his opinion or who or what he is pulling for. Leading up to the last election I eagerly hung onto every word hoping for some encouragement that McCain would win. Never got it from Scott. It just wasn't there--he consistently reported that Obama's numbers were steady and solid. But you couldn't tell which candidate he favored either.

Hannity and Reagan are unapologetically biased in their opinion as is Scott Ott, though funny as hell. (You left him out. Smile

)

1 Reply

I think the fact that you refuse to comment on the incorrectness of your Fordham link is really sad, Fox. You are ignoring the issue rather than admit you were wrong.

All you have to admit is that the data was based on incomplete totals and move on from there... instead, this childish pretending that nobody has pointed this out to you, and that the study is somehow still valid, reflects poorly.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Hannity and Reagan are unapologetically biased in their opinion as is Scott Ott, though funny as hell. (You left him out. )

hannity and reagan.... oh yeah, you betcha. not a chance of mistaking what those guys are into... at all.....

i've never heard of scott ott before... i must be slippin'...

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

You've never heard of Scrappleface? That's practically a cultural requirement for those who follow politics. Smile

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You've never heard of Scrappleface? That's practically a cultural requirement for those who follow politics.

Maybe on the right side of the fence. The rest of us just think he's a mildly amusing moron.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

From Reuters:

Quote:

U.S. religious left wades into healthcare fight
Reuters

By Ed Stoddard Ed Stoddard " 52 mins ago

DALLAS (Reuters) " Liberal religious groups announced on Monday they are teaming up with President Barack Obama in a national campaign to counter the surprisingly vehement conservative opposition to his plan for overhaul of the U.S. healthcare industry this year.

Organized by liberal-leaning evangelicals, some mainline Protestant clergy, and some Catholic groups, it will include Obama participating in a call-in program with religious leaders streamed on the Internet on August 19, prayer meetings and nationwide television ads.

"As a pastor I believe access to healthcare is a profoundly moral issue," Rev. Stevie Wakes of Olivet Institutional Baptist in Kansas City, said in a news teleconference announcing the "40 days for Health Reform" campaign.

Protestors have confronted members of Congress across the country in town hall meetings held to take the public pulse on the various healthcare overhaul plans being written in Congress.

What lawmakers found was anger fueled in part by Christian and conservative radio that healthcare would lead to taxpayer funded abortion and even euthanasia for the old, have incited much of the loudest and most dramatic reaction.

Conservative Catholics often side with Republican-leaning evangelicals in opposition to abortion rights but the biblical call to help the sick and the poor is also an important part of the faith. Obama's healthcare agenda includes extending health insurance to the roughly 46 million uninsured Americans.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:

U.S. religious left wades into healthcare fight

...anger fueled in part by Christian and conservative radio that healthcare would lead to taxpayer funded abortion...Americans.

the hyde amendment.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

What you fail to understand is that most of the current spending was necessitated from the GW Bush destruction of our economy

How long is the left going to use that line?
Will it still be GW's fault 3 years from now?

When will you and Obama and the dems finally admit that they are respoinsible for any deficits and increased spending?

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

As long as it takes for people like you to understand the facts.

Why do you continually ask stupid questions?

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know