Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 4 May, 2011 12:49 pm
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't think any of those bastards are worth the money that they have set the system up to give to them.

I think most governors in this country make about half (or less) than transit guy. The sherrif of that county probably made no where near that, but would be worth more, I'd think. Alas, he probably has to pay for his own mortgage. And transit guy, believe it or not, isn't the worst offender.

It all adds up. I guess I'd rather see some of that money going to hire more firemen...more law enforcement...or rehiring some of those 20,000 laid off teachers.


Yup. But without lowering salaries in the corporate sector, you can't meaningfully lower them in the public sector either.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  2  
Wed 4 May, 2011 12:51 pm
@H2O MAN,
And transit guy's endeavor operates in the red year after year. We'd have been fired.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Wed 4 May, 2011 12:58 pm
The median household income for San Mateo County (where transit guy works) was $69K last year. The sheriff made $179K...and had to pay his own mortgage.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Wed 4 May, 2011 01:51 pm
Some poll numbers out, all dated 5/3. Some of them have one more day to go, if they use a 3-day rolling average, to get the results after Osama's killing fully included.
CBS/NYT (Adults) ... Obama +20 approval vs {+1 on 4/20}
Newsweek/Daily Beast (Adults) ... -1 {-1 on 5/1}
Gallup (Adults) ... +8 {0 on 4/26}
Rasmussen (Likely Voters) ... -3 {-6 on 4/27}

All of the polls suggest that any movement is coming from people who describe themselves as Independents.
roger
 
  3  
Wed 4 May, 2011 01:59 pm
@realjohnboy,
What that collection of polls suggest to me is that polls are not very consistant.

For the record, on the bin Laden killing, I think he did good. He also did well. Very well, indeed. I only hope he doesn't mess up and start apologizing.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Wed 4 May, 2011 02:04 pm
@roger,
I have said before that we can't compare polls (vertically) because of differences in methodology. Rather, we should look at movement over time within polls (horizontally).
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 4 May, 2011 02:52 pm
@realjohnboy,
I agree.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Sat 7 May, 2011 01:15 am
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:
I have said before that we can't compare polls (vertically) because of differences in methodology. Rather, we should look at movement over time within polls (horizontally).
I think the Rasmussen poll is one of the most reliable in terms of consistency of methodology, etc. The following approval rating graph really does not show any significant movement over the last year and a half, so I don't think the president is going to get much of any lasting bump out of tracking down OBL. As many pundits believe, it still gets back to the economy, and will probably remain that way through the next election cycle. Just my opinion.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_total_approval_graphics/may_2011/obama_total_approval_may_6_2011/477090-1-eng-US/obama_total_approval_may_6_2011.jpg
JTT
 
  -1  
Sat 7 May, 2011 04:14 pm
@okie,
Quote:
o I don't think the president is going to get much of any lasting bump out of tracking down OBL.


No, to get a really bump you have to lie your ass off and then launch an illegal invasion or two, bomb the **** out of a bunch of innocent people, spread WMDs across their lands, torture them, spread out thousands of cluster bombs to get kids and more innocents.

That's what really gives a prez a biiiiiiig boost.
cicerone imposter
 
  -1  
Sat 7 May, 2011 04:34 pm
@JTT,
The graph I posted on another thread proves that point very well; when GW Bush started his Iraq war, his approval rating was one of the highest of all contemporary presidents, but it quickly turned downward, and eventually hit 29% - the lowest of any president.
JTT
 
  0  
Sat 7 May, 2011 08:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The only thing I can add to that pointed and factual statement, CI, is that after everyone knew it was all a big lie, after everyone knew that untold numbers of innocent Iraqis died, after everyone knew that the US had no legal right to invade a sovereign nation, which is the ultimate war crime, still roughly 30% of the population "approved" of this little Hitler.

A huge WHY? comes to my mind. Anyone else?
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Sat 7 May, 2011 08:42 pm
@JTT,
You're talking about the past, but we still have problems with the American electorate. Many Americans still believe Obama increased their taxes when in fact he gave tax cuts to the middle class that was included in his stim bill. That was $288 billion in tax cuts.

Many Americans still believe Obama was born in Kenya.

****; I could go on and on about the ignorance of Americans, but I think you get my point.

I have to live with the results of our electorate, and the stupid legislation the conservatives continue to push. They wanted to make Medicare a voucher system until they learned that Americans wised up for a change, and they changed their tune.

I'm frustrated with this country more than you will ever be.
okie
 
  2  
Sat 7 May, 2011 09:57 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
still roughly 30% of the population "approved" of this little Hitler.
To sum it up, you are a nutcase, JTT.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Sat 7 May, 2011 09:59 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You're talking about the past, but we still have problems with the American electorate. Many Americans still believe Obama increased their taxes when in fact he gave tax cuts to the middle class that was included in his stim bill. That was $288 billion in tax cuts.

Many Americans still believe Obama was born in Kenya.

****; I could go on and on about the ignorance of Americans, but I think you get my point.
And liberals still think Bush lied us into war. That says it all about their ignorance, doesn't it, imposter? All because the libs spun it until it became fact in their minds. Fortunately, some of us actually remember what happened. That includes the details of the events leading up to the war.
JTT
 
  2  
Sat 7 May, 2011 11:54 pm
@okie,
Quote:
****; I could go on and on about the ignorance of Americans, but I think you get my point.


You don't have to go on and on, CI, Okie is always willing to pick up the ignorance ball and run with it.

Quote:
Okie: And liberals still think Bush lied us into war.


Quote:


The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies about War and Terrorism
Bring 'em On!
by Steve Perry

Lie 2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S., a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.

...

Here is the verdict of Gregory Thielman, the recently retired head of the State Department's intelligence office: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq. This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude--we know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers."

Elsewhere he has been quoted as saying, "The principal reasons that Americans did not understand the nature of the Iraqi threat in my view was the failure of senior administration officials to speak honestly about what the intelligence showed."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm


39 more lies to go, Okie. You can start with this one.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Sun 8 May, 2011 08:31 am
@okie,
Quote:
And liberals still think Bush lied us into war

An incorrect statement: The liberals know bush lied the US into a war.
Quote:
Fortunately, some of us actually remember what happened.

Who? You've demonstrated time and time again that you remember nothing, particularly anything you "yourself" post.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Sun 8 May, 2011 10:34 am
@plainoldme,
Another lie by okie. 1. His memory of factual history doesn't exist. 2. His imagination works overtime, and he lies to spin facts.

The following from alternet. There are ten, but anybody can connect with the web site to look at all ten of them.

Quote:
Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq
It was a systematic campaign to frighten the hell out of us about the threat of Hussein, and almost none of it was true.
June 27, 2003 |



"The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons."

-- George Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati.

Today, more than three months after Bush's stirring declaration of war and nearly two months since he declared victory, no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been found, nor any documentation of their existence, nor any sign they were deployed in the field.

The mainstream press, after an astonishing two years of cowardice, is belatedly drawing attention to the unconscionable level of administrative deception. They seem surprised to find that when it comes to Iraq, the Bush administration isn't prone to the occasional lie of expediency but, in fact, almost never told the truth.

What follows are just the most outrageous and significant of the dozens of outright lies uttered by Bush and his top officials over the past year in what amounts to a systematic campaign to scare the bejeezus out of everybody:

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.
RABEL222
 
  0  
Sun 8 May, 2011 01:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Gee CI, do you really believe these communist, democrat, liberal lies? Just beating waterman, Ican, and Okie to the punch.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 8 May, 2011 01:51 pm
@RABEL222,
Makes me punchy, just thinking about it! Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk Mr. Green

They never seem to tire of pushing their lies, so I respond to show how stupid and uninformed they are!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Sun 8 May, 2011 07:41 pm
@RABEL222,
Do not forget that almost every country's intelligence service thought Hussein had WMD, and that Hillary Clinton herself talked to the experts and was convinced of the same. Also do not forget that even Valerie Plame, the great CIA WMD specialist admitted in her book that she feared WMD would be used on our soldiers when they entered Iraq. It is also historical record that Congress voted for the resolution to go into Iraq. History is history. Some of us remember what happened, instead of believing the spin of the liberal media after the fact. We also remember what Joseph Wilson actually did instead of what he claimed.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 2034
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 09:50:10