Obama '08?

@Cycloptichorn,

Nate will probably analyze it later today. Or, he might be on vacation...hasn't had a column up in a few days.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

By all means continue deluding yourself. Obama's approval rating has been steadily declining for a couple of months. It hit 38% in the lattest Gallup pool. The country's conomic indicators are all bad and the likely more of the same expected from Obama in a few weeks isn't likely to either improve the situation or restore public confidence. I believe the nest election will bring about a popular rejection of the President, and by a substantial margin.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

That's what I enjoy about republicans; they continue to vote no on most of Obama's initiatives, then blame him for the poor economy.

CLUE: Obama does not have control of the House.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You forget that for his first two years he had wide margins in both Houses of Congress. That's when he did most of his harm.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

There is no 'large majority' in the Senate when one side filibusters each and every chance they get, and the other side has less than 60 votes. And you know this, so why do you write such stupid things? This sort of bullshit might work with people who don't know much about the way the Senate works, or the history of the last few years, but it doesn't work here, George, where frankly most of us know more than you do about that time period, apparently.

Re: Obama's lowered approval ratings, I agree that it's a troubling sign for his re-election. His lowered numbers have mostly come from Liberals disapproving in higher numbers, likely due to the debt ceiling debacle - a cynical and disgusting game your party played to some success.

Cycloptichornh

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You really are full of gross distortions as well as juvenile bombast. Single party control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency is a truly rare exception to the rule in our political history for the past century. I made no specification of fillibuster proof dominance of the Senate - that was your imagining. If you suppose that deficiency in the first two years of Obama's failed Presidency is some sort of excuse for the sorry results they have achieved following a period in which they could shove through almost any legislation they desired, then you aew welcome to it.

I'm sure you have some proofs to offer us in support of your interesting contention that the cause of the steady decline in Obama's approval polling is liberals frustrated by the debt ceiling crisis(who presumably will come back to the fold at the election). I am not aware of any data supporting this remarkable contention. Most of what I have read suggests growing, widespread unease about the direction in which the country is headed both economically and politically, as well as growing pweeception that the President and the current body of Democrat leaders don't appear to have a clue as to what to do.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

I think Obama's performance rating can be blamed on both parties. However, his performance rating at this juncture of his tenure looks pretty good compared to contemporary presidents.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Obama's lack of performance is the only cause for his terrible performance rating.
He is the president, he should be presidential an accept responsibility for all of his actions.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Most of what I have read suggests growing, widespread unease about the direction in which the country is headed both economically and politically, as well as growing pweeception that the President and the current body of Democrat leaders don't appear to have a clue as to what to do.

Really? Where did you read that? Because, I think you just sorta projected your own beliefs upon the populace.

The truth of the matter of the Filibuster, and the last Congress, is that the Dems could NOT shove through anything they wanted. That's the entire point. I mean, were you on vacation, or out of the country, or something? Have you forgotten how many bills the Republicans blocked? They blocked the vast majority of meaningful bills the Dems tried to pass, and blocked a gigantic number of appointments Obama has tried to make.

Factual errors kill your posts, George. Not matters of pweeception. Just plain falsehoods. If you could simply stick to telling the truth, I'd have a lot less to criticize. But it would be a lot harder for you, wouldn't it?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Nonsense. When I last read your posts on this thread - quite some time ago - you were citing as economics guru a biology dropout falsely claiming to still be studying for his PhD. If you've a single (that means ONE) instance of George posting something false please point it out to the thread - I'd love to see it.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Nonsense. When I last read your posts on this thread - quite some time ago - you were citing as economics guru a biology dropout falsely claiming to still be studying for his PhD. If you've a single (that means ONE) instance of George posting something false please point it out to the thread - I'd love to see it.

Here's just one post in which I point out factual errors he's making -

http://able2know.org/topic/47327-870#post-4695950

There are dozens more just in the last year alone, but frankly, I'm too lazy to look them up for you right now.

I've got nothing to prove, Helen, to someone who fervently supports racist murderers. Or do you think people have forgotten about your foaming-mouth anger during the whole Shawna Forde thing?

Much like George, your concern for facts extends only as far as the argument you are currently trying to forward...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I've got nothing to prove, Helen, to someone who fervently supports racist murderers.

You need to consult a medic asap. What support have I ever given to ANY murderers? Do you even know the definition of "murderer" - that it's someone convicted for murder by a court of law? That claim is too absurd for words - unless of course you support ALL murderers whom YOU, personally, don't consider "racists". And if that's the case, should we call 911 for you now or can you locate a medic on your own?!

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I've got nothing to prove, Helen, to someone who fervently supports racist murderers.

You need to consult a medic asap. What support have I ever given to ANY murderers? Do you even know the definition of "murderer" - that it's someone convicted for murder by a court of law? That claim is too absurd for words - unless of course you support ALL murderers whom YOU, personally, don't consider "racists". And if that's the case, should we call 911 for you now or can you locate a medic on your own?!

Are you telling me that you weren't a full-throated supporter of Shawna Forde, notorious murderer? That you didn't argue that she was innocent, vociferously, right here on A2K?

You don't remember this thread at all, in which you aggressively and irrationally argued she was innocent of murder?

http://able2know.org/topic/133272-1

She was indeed convicted of first-degree murder for her actions. You seem to have been arguing in the thread, that it was the fault of the child's parents for bringing her illegally to the states in the first place. Hard to characterize your increasingly hyperbolic posts in that thread in any other fashion.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Wonderful! Mr Brown-Munoz - whatever happened to him, btw, was he deported? - in 2009 posted a thread on which I commented, and now YOU in 2011, ie the year in which the woman was convicted, call THAT supporting a MURDERER? Truly you're too stupid, or too dishonest, to address further. Bye.

1 Reply

I personally think if we Americans are so stupid as to elect a George bush on steroids (perry) we deserve what we get. I am hoping that ain't gonna happen.

8/2 - 8/21 -- 49.8 Obama / 42.3 Perry
Real Clear Politics

2 Replies

@revelette,

It's always a possibility that American voters will elect another "GW Bush." After all, he was president for two terms that essentially destroyed our (and the world's) economy, our former allies, increased our national debt by double, and started two wars that's lasted longer than the Great Wars.

Americans are masochists - and essentially stupid.

0 Replies

@revelette,

A little late for you to raise the question. After all we elected, with great enthusiasm, a guy whose only experience in adult life was as an adjunct instructor in a university and as a community organizer. He could give a good speech (unfortunately after three years of repetition of the same vague generalities, it has gotten a bit thin), but it turned out that he was an inept leader, who dealt with criticism and ordinary politicval give and take only by scolding his opponents, and who in a crisis couldn't see past his prefabricated agenda.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Wonderful! Mr Brown-Munoz - whatever happened to him, btw, was he deported? - in 2009 posted a thread on which I commented, and now YOU in 2011, ie the year in which the woman was convicted, call THAT supporting a MURDERER? Truly you're too stupid, or too dishonest, to address further. Bye.

Yes, that's exactly what I call it - supporting a murderer. You were frothing at the suggestion that she might be guilty, and called everyone who disagreed with you all sorts of names for suggesting what turned out to be perfectly true.

The fact that it took two years for the case to wind up is immaterial to the arguments YOU were making in that thread - and, tellingly, when I bring it up here, you have gone straight into freak-out mode.

Your support for racist murderers notwithstanding - though that's a tough thing to even say - I provided you the example you requested.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I'm sure you have some proofs to offer us in support of your interesting contention that the cause of the steady decline in Obama's approval polling is liberals frustrated by the debt ceiling crisis(who presumably will come back to the fold at the election). I am not aware of any data supporting this remarkable contention.Most of what I have read suggests growing, widespread unease about the direction in which the country is headed both economically and politically, as well as growing pweeception that the President and the current body of Democrat leaders don't appear to have a clue as to what to do.

Really? Where did you read that? Because, I think you just sorta projected your own beliefs upon the populace.

The truth of the matter of the Filibuster, and the last Congress, is that the Dems could NOT shove through anything they wanted. That's the entire point. I mean, were you on vacation, or out of the country, or something? Have you forgotten how many bills the Republicans blocked? They blocked the vast majority of meaningful bills the Dems tried to pass, and blocked a gigantic number of appointments Obama has tried to make.

Factual errors kill your posts, George. Not matters of pweeception. Just plain falsehoods. If you could simply stick to telling the truth, I'd have a lot less to criticize. But it would be a lot harder for you, wouldn't it?

Cycloptichorn

Perhaps you just forgot to include the proofs or backup you so tiresomely claim to always have at your fingertips concerning your remarkable and counterintuitive explanation for the recent steady decline in Obama's favorability rating.

It is fast becoming clear that it is you who repeatedly makes implausible assertions without factual support or backup and who repeatedly fails to provide them when question. You cover your tracks by attempting to project the same failing on your interloquator and, in this case, by after-the-fact attempts to change the focus of the question - all in failed and very transparent attempt to coverup your hypocrisy and evasion..

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Perhaps you just forgot to include the proofs or backup you so tiresomely claim to always have at your fingertips concerning your remarkable and counterintuitive explanation for the recent steady decline in Obama's favorability rating.

Nah, I don't bother to provide you evidence any longer, because you don't read or care when I do, and you certainly don't ever intend to do so yourself. You never, ever admit you're wrong, even when others post evidence clearly showing you are. So why should I bother? It makes posting stuff in our conversations a lot easier, and frees me from the responsibility for backing up anything I say.

I mean, you don't mind, do you? Per what you've said earlier, I'm acting in an appropriate fashion when I do so. You think that discussions online should be a never-ending stream of assertions, with no requirement for any poster to back up anything they say. Right?

You're full of **** on the last Congress, the use of the filibuster, and you know it. You don't even bother to address the fact that the Republicans used it as much as possible to block everything they could - because you can't address that without admitting that it sort of makes your earlier argument that the Dems could 'pass anything they want' invalid. Which also kinda wrecks your (already weak) argument that all the ills of our country are their fault.

Keep your pronouncements about me to yourself - I really don't give a ****. You have failed pretty much every test I put forward to you that would determine you are someone whose opinion of me I would care about, and that's kinda sad, because it certainly wasn't always that way. There was a time when I considered you to be amongst the best of right-wing posters here. The last couple of years, however, have seen you slip into an increasing radical online persona, which frankly is boring for me to read and doesn't lead to productive conversation.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know