PDA

View Full Version : approval rating



subroc
09-01-2009, 09:14 AM
WoW!!

look at these polling numbers...


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

JDogger
09-01-2009, 10:28 AM
In your opinion is this a good thing or a bad thing? Why?

subroc
09-01-2009, 10:42 AM
It speaks for itself. It is neither good or bad. It illustrates that he and his policies are not as promised and/or failing.

I am thankful that his extreme left wing socialist agenda has been identified for what it is and the American people are seeing it with eyes wide open and voicing their displeasure with it.

ducknwork
09-01-2009, 11:18 AM
Don't get too excited. I was thinking about this yesterday and we have a real catch 22 on our hands.

If the economy does not recover in the next 3.5 years, where will we be as a nation? (if we still are a nation by then) If it does recover in the next 3.5 years, Obama's approval ratings will rise faster than a 12 year old with a playboy. That would surely mean 4 more years of him trying to destroy what's left of America.

Which evil do we want?
________
Alaska dispensary (http://alaska.dispensaries.org/)

JDogger
09-01-2009, 11:19 AM
It speaks for itself. It is neither good or bad. It illustrates that he and his policies are not as promised and/or failing.


Would the same hold true then for any recent President who had both high and low approval ratings during their administration. I refer not only to he who must not be named, throw Clinton in and every other President going back to the start of modern polling practices. Polls are just a snapshot in time. They mean very little. History is a better judge than a couple thousand phone calls on any given day.

TXduckdog
09-01-2009, 11:28 AM
Don't get too excited. I was thinking about this yesterday and we have a real catch 22 on our hands.

If the economy does not recover in the next 3.5 years, where will we be as a nation? (if we still are a nation by then) If it does recover in the next 3.5 years, Obama's approval ratings will rise faster than a 12 year old with a playboy. That would surely mean 4 more years of him trying to destroy what's left of America.

Which evil do we want?


Let's not let Chicken-Little run rampant here. The US economy has a LONG way to go to get to the likes of the Carter administration. I remember the gas lines. Knock on wood there is no inflation....there are some signs of recovery....we just need to keep the political fingers out of the damn cookie jar.

If the American public will keep up the pressure and take it to the next level of voting the current class of poiticians out of office....things should improve....hopefully.

subroc
09-01-2009, 11:55 AM
...History is a better judge...

True enough.

History is being written as we speak and the first words written are the polling above.

JDogger
09-01-2009, 12:23 PM
True enough.

History is being written as we speak and the first words written are the polling above.

Weren't the first words the poll in January?

It is the final words that will count, though.

All else aside. Carville's 1992 "Its the economy, stupid" rings a bell.

Polls go up and down and the American people tend to bend with the prevailing winds.

Sure there will be changes in 2010, but the sky is not falling. Not now, not then.

Goose
09-01-2009, 01:55 PM
Cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan helped Slick Willie with Monicagate. Maybe our Dear Leader should lob a few cruise missiles himself to overcome ratingsinthedumpgate.

Gerry Clinchy
09-01-2009, 02:27 PM
subroc, you didn't mention one of the best parts ...


Twenty-nine percent (29%) are confident that Congress knows what it’s doing (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2009/29_confident_that_congress_knows_what_it_s_doing_o n_economy) when it comes to the economy. If Americans could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 57% would throw out all the legislators and start over again (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2009/57_would_like_to_replace_entire_congress). Just 25% would vote to keep the Congress.

I do wonder about that first 29%, but that 57% might turn out to be a good omen.

dnf777
09-01-2009, 09:11 PM
Don't get too excited. I was thinking about this yesterday and we have a real catch 22 on our hands.

If the economy does not recover in the next 3.5 years, where will we be as a nation? (if we still are a nation by then) If it does recover in the next 3.5 years, Obama's approval ratings will rise faster than a 12 year old with a playboy. That would surely mean 4 more years of him trying to destroy what's left of America.

Which evil do we want?

Are you asking which is preferable, Obama getting re-elected, or a possible complete failure of the United States of America and it ceasing to exist as a country?
Are you serious? Maybe I read too much into your question.

mjh345
09-01-2009, 09:42 PM
Don't get too excited. I was thinking about this yesterday and we have a real catch 22 on our hands.

If the economy does not recover in the next 3.5 years, where will we be as a nation? (if we still are a nation by then) If it does recover in the next 3.5 years, Obama's approval ratings will rise faster than a 12 year old with a playboy. That would surely mean 4 more years of him trying to destroy what's left of America.

Which evil do we want?



I think I would be more scared of the second scenario where the economy recovers and we have prosperity.
In that doomsday scenario, Obama may indeed get re-elected.
The last thing we need to do would be to reward a man for a job well done.
Your first scenario of the economy failing & possibly having the U.S.A. cease to exist as a nation would definitely be the lesser of your two evils!!

Catch 22 regards

K G
09-01-2009, 10:27 PM
Are you asking which is preferable, Obama getting re-elected, or a possible complete failure of the United States of America and it ceasing to exist as a country?
Are you serious? Maybe I read too much into your question.

The better question is: are YOU serious? A "possible complete failure of the United States of America and it ceasing to exist as a country?" Really? "Chicken Little" lives!!! :D

Your fellow Americans who help elect BHO are deserting his ship like rats after a mere 8 months. If that momentum continues, there's going to be a change in power after the mid-terms next year. A change in four years will then become a foregone conclusion. Our (yours and mine) biggest concern should be bailing out the water we're taking on now instead of what might have been if he hadn't been elected.

If "ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas" regards,

kg

JDogger
09-02-2009, 01:14 AM
I think I would be more scared of the second scenario where the economy recovers and we have prosperity.
In that doomsday scenario, Obama may indeed get re-elected.
The last thing we need to do would be to reward a man for a job well done.
Your first scenario of the economy failing & possibly having the U.S.A. cease to exist as a nation would definitely be the lesser of your two evils!!

Catch 22 regards

Please explain your reference to a catch 22

mjh345
09-02-2009, 01:26 AM
Tongue in cheek. Read the post I quoted in my post.

dnf777
09-02-2009, 04:53 AM
The better question is: are YOU serious? A "possible complete failure of the United States of America and it ceasing to exist as a country?" Really? "Chicken Little" lives!!! :D

kg

where will we be as a nation? (if we still are a nation by then) "

Your words, not mine. As I said, maybe I read too much into it.

I"m still at a loss as to why, after 8 years of Bush and neocon budgets, why we're in this mess that became apparent in around october 2008. This didn't just pop up Jan 20? We should be seeing job growth, budget surpluses, and the fruits of the Bush tax cuts.

ducknwork
09-02-2009, 06:23 AM
Are you asking which is preferable, Obama getting re-elected, or a possible complete failure of the United States of America and it ceasing to exist as a country?
Are you serious? Maybe I read too much into your question.

In a way, you did read too much into it, but in a way you didn't. I don't truly think that America will cease to exist in the next 3.5 years if the economy doesn't recover, but we sure would be a lot more vulnerable and may not even recognize ourselves...

SO...It's that or it recovers and Obama has 4 more years to turn us into Cuba. Either way, we're screwed.

Pick your poison regards,

dnw
________
BLOWJOB MAID (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/351/maid/videos/1)

ducknwork
09-02-2009, 06:24 AM
I"m still at a loss as to why, after 8 years of Bush and neocon budgets, why we're in this mess that became apparent in around october 2008. This didn't just pop up Jan 20? We should be seeing job growth, budget surpluses, and the fruits of the Bush tax cuts.

Too bad greed finally caught up with us...
________
SANTERIA FORUM (http://www.religionboard.org/santeria/)

YardleyLabs
09-02-2009, 06:28 AM
Please explain your reference to a catch 22
I'm not sure if you are young enough that this question is serious. Assuming you are, Catch 22 is a reference to Joseph Heller's best selling novel of the same name about World War II. The most enjoyable way to find out the meaning is to read the novel, which is very funny. Catch 22 applies to persons seeking a mental health discharge from the army. It states that, since it is a mark of sanity to avoid danger, that anyone seeking a mental health discharge is obviously sane and cannot be discharged. It has been generalized to mean any lose-lose bureaucratic situation.

I can't believe that I am old enough to have read the book shortly after it was published in paperback form (c. 1962/63).

dnf777
09-02-2009, 09:07 AM
SO...It's that or it recovers and Obama has 4 more years to turn us into Cuba. Either way, we're screwed.

Pick your poison regards,

dnw

So, eight years of neocon policy and we're in recession BEFORE Obama takes office. He implements policies which have been derided on this forum (for right or wrong) and IF the economy recovers in 3.5 years....will Obama have credit for that recovery? (despite turning us into Cuba, whatever that means...I thought FDR successfully turned us into Cuba...or Russia??) Or will it be Bush/Cheney who somehow masterminded a cleverly disguised, delayed action recovery without any legisltative action or monetary policy enacted?

Just trying to understand the line of logic layed out in your scenario.

ducknwork
09-02-2009, 11:29 AM
Perhaps you can enlighten me, but I fail to see how the recession is Bush's fault. IMO, it is the fault of the general public. Greed and stupidity got us into this mess. Sure, you can be mad at Countrywide all you want for offering mortgages that would make them a ton of money, but you have to be some kind of idiot to think that you can afford a $300K house making $50K/yr. "Hey, they are willing to give me that much, that must mean I can afford it:D.":rolleyes: Not to mention the other massive debts that millions of people acquired because they had to have the newest car, the biggest tv, the most toys...Who cares if you can't pay for it. "They didn't give me that high of a credit limit for nothing, right?";-)

It is going to be awfully difficult for the economy to recover at this rate...Sure, his policies might create a few jobs, but it is going to be hard for the American people to stimulate the economy beyond basic necessities due to the cost of living continuously rising (gas, food, etc). Let us not forget that we are going to spend an ungodly amount of money on healthcare (among other things) if the chosen one has his way. Wait, how will that be paid for? Oh, that's right. We are going to take more taxes out of everyone's paycheck, leaving you even LESS to feed your family with. As a natural progression, more and more people will become dependent on the government to live and they are okay with that. Who wouldn't want a freebie? Don't forget-
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson


You can't spend yourself out of debt regards...
________
UNIVERSAL LIFE INSURANCE DICUSSION (http://www.insurance-forums.org/universal-life-insurance/)

dnf777
09-02-2009, 02:05 PM
Perhaps you can enlighten me, but I fail to see how the recession is Bush's fault. IMO, it is the fault of the general public. Greed and stupidity got us into this mess. Sure, you can be mad at Countrywide all you want for offering mortgages that would make them a ton of money, but you have to be some kind of idiot to think that you can afford a $300K house making $50K/yr. "Hey, they are willing to give me that much, that must mean I can afford it:D.":rolleyes: Not to mention the other massive debts that millions of people acquired because they had to have the newest car, the biggest tv, the most toys...Who cares if you can't pay for it. "They didn't give me that high of a credit limit for nothing, right?";-)

It is going to be awfully difficult for the economy to recover at this rate...Sure, his policies might create a few jobs, but it is going to be hard for the American people to stimulate the economy beyond basic necessities due to the cost of living continuously rising (gas, food, etc). Let us not forget that we are going to spend an ungodly amount of money on healthcare (among other things) if the chosen one has his way. Wait, how will that be paid for? Oh, that's right. We are going to take more taxes out of everyone's paycheck, leaving you even LESS to feed your family with. As a natural progression, more and more people will become dependent on the government to live and they are okay with that. Who wouldn't want a freebie? Don't forget-
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson


You can't spend yourself out of debt regards...

Don't look for an argument out of me. Your first paragraph is exactly what I gripe about, when I see young couples making less than half of what I make, buying houses that cost twice as much! Let them find out the hard way what responsibility is about. God forbid you live in an apartment until you can save for a downpayment!

This recession is not 100% Bush's fault, but his out of control spending, tax cuts during an expensive war (first in history of mankind) give creditors and other countries the impression that we have no intent of feigning responsibility! He ran this country just like the idiotic people who spend, spend, SPEND, with no regards for when the bills come in. Well, they're here now, and we're in deep.

I can't say it enough, but I am not, nor have I ever said Obama has all the answers. Actually, for what has changed, he's basically continuing the Bush policies. Sure, he signed a fancy declaration to close Gitmo, but it's still open. We're still in two wars. We're still spending like an ex-wife with hubbie's credit cards. We're still cutting deals with corporate America to protect their interests above the workin' guy's. Nothing has changed.

Buzz
09-02-2009, 03:49 PM
Don't look for an argument out of me. Your first paragraph is exactly what I gripe about, when I see young couples making less than half of what I make, buying houses that cost twice as much! Let them find out the hard way what responsibility is about. God forbid you live in an apartment until you can save for a downpayment!

My dentist's son graduated from dental school and came home to work for Dad. The first thing he and his wife did was build a $600,000 house right behind mine. His dad lives in a house worth 1/3 that. He said to me, how much does he figure on making, working in my practice???? Interestingly dad sold the business to his son, and now he works part time for the son. Dad is still fuming.


This recession is not 100% Bush's fault, but his out of control spending, tax cuts during an expensive war (first in history of mankind) give creditors and other countries the impression that we have no intent of feigning responsibility! He ran this country just like the idiotic people who spend, spend, SPEND, with no regards for when the bills come in. Well, they're here now, and we're in deep.

If you knew ANYTHING about economics, you would know that ALL tax cuts result in increased tax revenue. </snark>:p


I can't say it enough, but I am not, nor have I ever said Obama has all the answers. Actually, for what has changed, he's basically continuing the Bush policies. Sure, he signed a fancy declaration to close Gitmo, but it's still open. We're still in two wars. We're still spending like an ex-wife with hubbie's credit cards. We're still cutting deals with corporate America to protect their interests above the workin' guy's. Nothing has changed.

And thus, down goes his poll numbers. The Republicans were never with him to begin with. What many Democrats and Independents are seeing is that "change" actually means that things remain pretty much the same. And they are seeing spineless leadership from the White House and Congress.

If I was polled today, I would report a negative view of Obama and the Democratic Congress.

TXduckdog
09-02-2009, 04:09 PM
I'm not sure if you are young enough that this question is serious. Assuming you are, Catch 22 is a reference to Joseph Heller's best selling novel of the same name about World War II. The most enjoyable way to find out the meaning is to read the novel, which is very funny. Catch 22 applies to persons seeking a mental health discharge from the army. It states that, since it is a mark of sanity to avoid danger, that anyone seeking a mental health discharge is obviously sane and cannot be discharged. It has been generalized to mean any lose-lose bureaucratic situation.

I can't believe that I am old enough to have read the book shortly after it was published in paperback form (c. 1962/63).


AMEN......kind of like...if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.

Heller and Vonnegut....now there were some writers.

ducknwork
09-02-2009, 09:19 PM
And they are seeing spineless leadership from the White House and Congress.




Surely you must be mistaken. I thought he had steel in his spine??:confused:
________
Lovely Wendie99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

dnf777
09-03-2009, 07:43 AM
AMEN......kind of like...if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.

Heller and Vonnegut....now there were some writers.

Double-Amen to that!

This blind squirrel found two nuts....I stumbled across first editions of Catch-22 and Slaughterhouse 5. Two of my prized lucky finds.

I would add Fitzgerald to that list of "some writers".

Julie R.
09-03-2009, 09:19 AM
Back in July I posted a poll where you could weigh in and rate the president on several key issues. So out of curiousity I checked it out today.


Do you approve or disapprove of Obama's handling of health care?
Strongly disapprove 75%
Strongly approve 11%
Somewhat disapprove 7%
Somewhat approve 7%


Do you approve or disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy?
Strongly disapprove 75%
Strongly approve 10%
Somewhat disapprove 8%
Somewhat approve 7%

Do you approve or disapprove of Obama's handling of the federal budget deficit?
Strongly disapprove 84%
Strongly approve 7%
Somewhat approve 5%
Somewhat disapprove 4%

Do you approve or disapprove of Obama's overall handling of his job as president?
Strongly disapprove 72%
Strongly approve 12%
Somewhat disapprove 10%
Somewhat approve 6%


Note that this is most definitely NOT a right-wing engineered poll, it's from AOL. Not exactly a bastion of conservatism :cool:. And interestingly, the epic freefall of his approval ratings can't be blamed on the health care fiasco either. Oddly, only 8% of those polled rated health care as the most pressing national concern, trailing behind unemployment, the federal budget deficit and the economy.

http://news.aol.com/article/obama-approval-ratings/578736?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl7|link4|http://news.aol.com/article/obama-approval-ratings/578736

K G
09-03-2009, 09:20 AM
where will we be as a nation? (if we still are a nation by then) "

Your words, not mine. As I said, maybe I read too much into it.

Are you so obsessed with attacking conservatives that you can't attribute posts to the proper poster?:rolleyes:


I"m still at a loss as to why, after 8 years of Bush and neocon budgets, why we're in this mess that became apparent in around october 2008. This didn't just pop up Jan 20? We should be seeing job growth, budget surpluses, and the fruits of the Bush tax cuts.

Please tell me you're joking AGAIN. Where was YOUR Democratic congress, who sat on their hands for TWO YEARS!?!? The mess became apparent in 2008? You're only a year behind....and Congress STILL didn't act....

And we're in this "mess" because of greed, pure and simple...and greed knows NO political affiliation.

kg

dnf777
09-03-2009, 01:38 PM
Are you so obsessed with attacking conservatives that you can't attribute posts to the proper poster?:rolleyes:



Please tell me you're joking AGAIN. Where was YOUR Democratic congress, who sat on their hands for TWO YEARS!?!? The mess became apparent in 2008? You're only a year behind....and Congress STILL didn't act....

And we're in this "mess" because of greed, pure and simple...and greed knows NO political affiliation.

kg

we can agree on your last line!

JDogger
09-03-2009, 05:32 PM
I'm not sure if you are young enough that this question is serious. Assuming you are, Catch 22 is a reference to Joseph Heller's best selling novel of the same name about World War II. The most enjoyable way to find out the meaning is to read the novel, which is very funny. Catch 22 applies to persons seeking a mental health discharge from the army. It states that, since it is a mark of sanity to avoid danger, that anyone seeking a mental health discharge is obviously sane and cannot be discharged. It has been generalized to mean any lose-lose bureaucratic situation.

I can't believe that I am old enough to have read the book shortly after it was published in paperback form (c. 1962/63).

Oh, I understand the use of the phrase. I just don't agree with its use in the quoted post.

ducknwork
09-03-2009, 08:50 PM
Oh, I understand the use of the phrase. I just don't agree with its use in the quoted post.

I am sorry that you don't recognize the conundrum that we are in.
________
Bmw iv (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_IV)

AmiableLabs
09-03-2009, 09:32 PM
The averages of all polls posted at RealClearPolitics.Com have proven to be the most reliable --

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Roger Perry
05-02-2011, 06:13 PM
WoW!!

look at these polling numbers...


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Just wondering what the poll numbers will look like in the coming weeks?????????????

subroc
05-02-2011, 07:07 PM
Why has something changed? He is performing worse today than he was in 2009. I realize he planned, organized and loaded the weapons and remotely fired the shots that killed bin laden, but the economy is still tanking under his watch and gas is over $4.00 a gallon.

M&K's Retrievers
05-02-2011, 07:32 PM
Just wondering what the poll numbers will look like in the coming weeks?????????????

They will still be in the tank because the economy still sucks. He will get a little bump for a week or two then right back in the toilet. Besides, the only polls that matter are taken in November, 2012.

Losthwy
05-02-2011, 08:03 PM
That would surely mean 4 more years of him trying to destroy what's left of America.

________Alaska dispensary (http://alaska.dispensaries.org/)

Interesting. There are those on the left who accuse the Republicans of destroying America and the middle class.

Gerry Clinchy
05-02-2011, 08:23 PM
Strictly observing the politics of it all ... Obama & those in his administration would have been the only ones who knew about the Pakistan op when the birth certificate was released.

Someone mentioned that the man is very politically savvy. So, the birth certificate is released just before this op comes down.

Truly, I think that Trump's big wind about the birth certificate was just making him look foolish when there were real issues to discuss, so I don't think that Trump was the real mover on the birth certificate.

Then, both of those events coincided with Obama's official launch of his election campaign.

Taking nothing away from finally getting UBL out of the picture, bringing all 3 events together at the same time definitely is going to raise his poll ratings.

I'm betting that troops start coming home from Af'stan right around summer 2012. Any R that runs against him under those circumstances will be doomed ... and it could mean a repeat of 2009-2010 with D's controlling both houses of Congress & the WH.

Buzz
05-02-2011, 09:24 PM
I'm betting that troops start coming home from Af'stan right around summer 2012. Any R that runs against him under those circumstances will be doomed ... and it could mean a repeat of 2009-2010 with D's controlling both houses of Congress & the WH.


Imagine what Osama's hard drives might hold. There could be a lot of heads getting busted. I bet they are scattering right now like cockroaches when the lights come on.

Gerry Clinchy
05-02-2011, 10:59 PM
Imagine what Osama's hard drives might hold. There could be a lot of heads getting busted. I bet they are scattering right now like cockroaches when the lights come on.

Buzz, I'd be thinking that BHO will announce troops returning during that summer no matter what is going on over there.

Looking at political savviness again, the political strategists may have brought the three mentioned events together to offset the negative impact of the Libyan situation.

Roger Perry
05-03-2011, 03:46 PM
It's started---------------------

Less than 48 hours after President Barack Obama announced the death of the man who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, one new poll shows the president’s approval rating has jumped up by nine points, with Americans’ opinions of his handling of terrorism reaching the highest point during Obama’s presidency.
The overnight poll, conducted by The Washington Post and the Pew Research Center (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_05022011.html), found that 56 percent of respondents approve of Obama’s performance as president, up nine points from similar polls last month. That boost includes a substantial bump of 10 points among independents

In the Post-Pew poll, 69 percent of respondents said that they approve of Obama’s handling of the threat of terrorism, the highest rating since he became president in 2009. And more than three-quarters of Americans believe that Obama deserves credit for bin Laden’s death, with 35 percent saying he should get “a great deal” of credit for the terrorist leader’s killing.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/03/6577576-poll-nine-point-bounce-for-obama-after-bin-laden-news?GT1=43001

M&K's Retrievers
05-03-2011, 04:03 PM
It's started---------------------

Less than 48 hours after President Barack Obama announced the death of the man who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, one new poll shows the president’s approval rating has jumped up by nine points, with Americans’ opinions of his handling of terrorism reaching the highest point during Obama’s presidency.
The overnight poll, conducted by The Washington Post and the Pew Research Center (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_05022011.html), found that 56 percent of respondents approve of Obama’s performance as president, up nine points from similar polls last month. That boost includes a substantial bump of 10 points among independents

In the Post-Pew poll, 69 percent of respondents said that they approve of Obama’s handling of the threat of terrorism, the highest rating since he became president in 2009. And more than three-quarters of Americans believe that Obama deserves credit for bin Laden’s death, with 35 percent saying he should get “a great deal” of credit for the terrorist leader’s killing.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/03/6577576-poll-nine-point-bounce-for-obama-after-bin-laden-news?GT1=43001

I give it two weeks tops before he's in the ditch again. People will not be thinking about bin laden when they are trying to pay their bills.

What have you done for me lately regards,

road kill
05-03-2011, 04:07 PM
Please look at Roger's link and have a laugh.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_05022011.html

Obama's approval ratings on the economy and handling of the country is abysmal.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


RK

subroc
05-03-2011, 04:42 PM
I did. I am not really sure they conduct polls. I expect they just walk around the news room and ask the reporters.

luvmylabs23139
05-03-2011, 04:46 PM
Roger,
As soon as people go to the gas station or the grocery store the polls will flip back.
Sure, everyone is very happy OBL is dead. That doesn't give an unemployed person a job. It doesn't stop the upward trend of gas or grocery prices.

M&K's Retrievers
05-04-2011, 09:44 AM
According to Rasmussen today, Obama has not gotten any bump in his approval ratings. In fact, they gone down since May 1st.

Back to the drawing board RP regards,

Losthwy
05-04-2011, 11:45 AM
Real Clear Politics Poll (From Today's Fox News Website)

Job Approval Approve Disapproval

Obama........ 50.6%...... 43.4 %

Congress..... 20.3%...... 73.5%

Tea Party

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/042911teaparty2-300x184.jpg (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/40643/042911teaparty2)The poll shows 47 percent of those surveyed now hold unfavorable views of the tea party while just 33 percent see the movement in a favorable light. That is a seven percent increase in unfavorable ratings and six percent drop in favorable since the Gallup last surveyed American opinion on the tea party in January.
Only 30 percent of independents — the voter bloc crucial for elections — now favor the tea party. The tea party does best with older men with limited education while 57 percent of older women older women now oppose the movement.

subroc
05-05-2011, 05:07 AM
obama in action:


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/media/RAMclr-050511-superprezibd.jpg.cms.jpeg

huntinman
05-05-2011, 06:40 AM
obama in action:


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/media/RAMclr-050511-superprezibd.jpg.cms.jpeg

[B]HAHAHAHA!!!![B]

Losthwy
05-05-2011, 09:48 AM
WTC comes down on Bush's watch but somehow it is Clinton's fault. Obama signs a order making OBL the highest national security priority. Two years later he is taken out on his watch, but somehow Obama gets no credit, Bush does. My, my, my it is truely remarkable how some minds work.:rolleyes:

road kill
05-05-2011, 09:55 AM
WTC comes down on Bush's watch but somehow it is Clinton's fault. Obama signs a order making OBL the highest national security priority. Two years later he is taken out on his watch, but somehow Obama gets no credit, Bush does. My, my, my it is truely remarkable how some minds work.:rolleyes:

Question for you;

Are you saying that you approve of unilaterraly (no UN or NATO) entering a sovereign country secretly and executing an unarmed foreign leader?
( My, my, my it is truely remarkable how some minds work.:rolleyes:)

Standing by.........


RK

M&K's Retrievers
05-05-2011, 10:12 AM
Question for you;

Are you saying that you approve of unilaterraly (no UN or NATO) entering a sovereign country secretly and executing an unarmed foreign leader?
( My, my, my it is truely remarkable how some minds work.:rolleyes:)

Standing by.........


RK

I don't know about Lostwy, but for me in this instance, Hell yeah!

Ends justify means regards,

road kill
05-05-2011, 10:16 AM
I don't know about Lostwy, but for me in this instance, Hell yeah!

Ends justify means regards,

I understand, but part of the progressives mantra against a former President is exactly what "The One" just did.
You know, sort of "COWBOY" diplomacy.;-)


Ironic, don't you think???


RK

Losthwy
05-05-2011, 10:35 AM
Some of you just don't get it, do you? The vast majority of Americans, left/middle/right, support what the President did, DUH. Now Fox and Rush may distort it into something else and if you choose to believe it that is your choice.

road kill
05-05-2011, 10:37 AM
Some of you just don't get it, do you? The vast majority of Americans, left/middle/right, support what the President did, DUH. Now Fox and Rush may distort it into something else and if you choose to believe it that is your choice.

I didn't ask about the "vast majority of Americans."

I asked if you approve of unilaterraly (no UN or NATO) entering a sovereign country secretly and executing an unarmed foreign leader?
Pretty straightforward question.


RK

Losthwy
05-05-2011, 11:01 AM
Very strange question. The vast majority would include everyone who posts on this sub-forum. Though some will always manage to find some fault, lay some blame, or give no credit. Once again the fair and balance will be fairly unbalanced serving up their spin. And their audience will once again unquestionably lap it up. For them the glass is once again half empty.

same ol thang regards

road kill
05-05-2011, 11:11 AM
Very strange question. The vast majority would include everyone who posts on this sub-forum. Though some will always manage to find some fault, lay some blame, or give no credit. Once again the fair and balance will be fairly unbalanced serving up their spin. And their audience will once again unquestionably lap it up. For them the glass is once again half empty.

same ol thang regards

That is not true and avoiding the question.

Personally....I support what happened 100%.

But I will not pursue it any further, you ain't gonna answer.
Don't blame ya one bit.;-)

(tis a rhetorical question anyways)

As far as my cup.....it runneth over!!!:cool:



RK

charly_t
05-05-2011, 11:57 AM
Yep, it's kind of like "no you can't shoot the robber in your house but I can shoot the one who is in my house".....ain't it ? "You aren't capable of having a gun but I am etc.".

Roger Perry
05-05-2011, 12:37 PM
Question for you;

Are you saying that you approve of unilaterraly (no UN or NATO) entering a sovereign country secretly and executing an unarmed foreign leader?
( My, my, my it is truely remarkable how some minds work.:rolleyes:)

Standing by.........


RK

Foreign leader hell, the man was a terrorist plain and simple and was delt with accordingly.

dixidawg
05-05-2011, 12:59 PM
Foreign leader hell, the man was a terrorist plain and simple and was delt with accordingly.


How did you feel about 3 SEALs getting prosecuted for the way they delt with a terror suspect?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,588109,00.html

BHB
05-05-2011, 01:12 PM
I wonder how big a part he really played in this "decision". Check out the "This sounds more likely" thread.

BHB

Roger Perry
05-05-2011, 01:18 PM
How did you feel about 3 SEALs getting prosecuted for the way they delt with a terror suspect?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,588109,00.html

I would question the wisdom of their immediate chain of command. Now if you think the blame should go all the way up to the President, then you should also agree that in the Pat Tillman shooting then President Bush would be an accomplance in the cover up by claiming executive privilege in his shooting death.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/07/13/Bush-claims-executive-privilege-on-Tillman/UPI-91271184370462/

badbullgator
05-05-2011, 01:32 PM
Yep, it's kind of like "no you can't shoot the robber in your house but I can shoot the one who is in my house".....ain't it ? "You aren't capable of having a gun but I am etc.".

It does not work that way in Florida......

castle doctrine and no retreat regards

dixidawg
05-05-2011, 01:38 PM
I would question the wisdom of their immediate chain of command. Now if you think the blame should go all the way up to the President, then you should also agree that in the Pat Tillman shooting then President Bush would be an accomplance in the cover up by claiming executive privilege in his shooting death.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/07/13/Bush-claims-executive-privilege-on-Tillman/UPI-91271184370462/


I was asking YOU if you thought they should have been prosecuted, and you try to turn yet another subject back to Bush. Do you EVER have any non-Bush thoughts?

road kill
05-05-2011, 01:40 PM
I was asking YOU if you thought they should have been prosecuted, and you try to turn yet another subject back to Bush. Do you EVER have any non-Bush thoughts?

Man Crush?


RK

dixidawg
05-05-2011, 01:43 PM
Bush Derangement Syndrome:

As first described by conservative columnist and Psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer, Bush Derangement Syndrome (or BDS) is a loss of the capability for rational thought. This loss is often displayed over a period of hours, days or even months and years. The sufferer in all cases blames President George W. Bush for any and all types of disasters, human maladies, etc. despite abundant evidence of contrary causal effects. BDS is also manifested in many sufferers by a determination to label President Bush as the greatest single threat to democracy and freedom in the United States since the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts during the presidency of John Adams. Also, closely related, see Karl Rove Syndrome

badbullgator
05-05-2011, 01:51 PM
Bush Derangement Syndrome:

As first described by conservative columnist and Psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer, Bush Derangement Syndrome (or BDS) is a loss of the capability for rational thought. This loss is often displayed over a period of hours, days or even months and years. The sufferer in all cases blames President George W. Bush for any and all types of disasters, human maladies, etc. despite abundant evidence of contrary causal effects. BDS is also manifested in many sufferers by a determination to label President Bush as the greatest single threat to democracy and freedom in the United States since the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts during the presidency of John Adams. Also, closely related, see Karl Rove Syndrome


I think it is a sexual thing too......turns them on

dixidawg
05-05-2011, 01:57 PM
CIA interrogators are STILL being prosecuted by Holder:


September 18, 2009

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

We have served as directors of Central Intelligence or directors of the CIA for presidents reaching back over 35 years. We respectfully urge you to exercise your authority to reverse Attorney General Holder’s August 24 decision to re-open the criminal investigation of CIA interrogations that took place following the attacks of September 11.

Our reasons for making this recommendation are as follows.

The post-September 11 interrogations for which the attorney general is opening an inquiry were investigated four years ago by career prosecutors. The CIA, at its own initiative, forwarded fewer than 20 instances where agency officers appeared to have acted beyond their existing legal authorities.

Career prosecutors under the supervision of the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia determined that one prosecution (of a CIA contractor) was warranted. A conviction was later obtained. They determined that prosecutions were not warranted in the other cases. In a number of these cases the CIA subsequently took administrative disciplinary steps against the individuals involved.

Attorney General Holder’s decision to re-open the criminal investigation creates an atmosphere of continuous jeopardy for those whose cases the Department of Justice had previously declined to prosecute. Moreover, there is no reason to expect that the re-opened criminal investigation will remain narrowly focused.

If criminal investigations closed by career prosecutors during one administration can so easily be reopened at the direction of political appointees in the next, declinations of prosecution will be rendered meaningless. Those men and women who undertake difficult intelligence assignments in the aftermath of an attack such as September 11 must believe there is permanence in the legal rules that govern their actions.

They must be free, as the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, has put it: “to do their dangerous and critical jobs without worrying that years from now a future attorney general will authorize a criminal investigation of them for behavior that a previous attorney general concluded was authorized and legal.” Similar deference needs to be shown to fact-based decisions made by career prosecutors years ago.

Not only will some members of the intelligence community be subjected to costly financial and other burdens from what amounts to endless criminal investigations, but this approach will seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks to protect the country. In our judgment such risk-taking is vital to success in the long and difficult fight against the terrorists who continue to threaten us.

Success in intelligence often depends on surprise and deception and on creating uncertainty in the mind of an enemy. As president you have the authority to make decisions restricting substantive interrogation or any other intelligence collection method, based on legal analyses and policy recommendations.

But, the administration must be mindful that public disclosure about past intelligence operations can only help Al Qaeda elude U.S. intelligence and plan future operations. Disclosures about CIA collection operations have and will continue to make it harder for intelligence officers to maintain the momentum of operations that have saved lives and helped protect America from further attacks.

Finally, another certain result of these reopened investigations is the serious damage done to our intelligence community’s ability to obtain the cooperation of foreign intelligence agencies. Foreign services are already greatly concerned about the United States’ inability to maintain any secrets. They rightly fear that, through these additional investigations and the court proceedings that could follow, terrorists may learn how other countries came to our assistance in a time of peril.

The United States promised these foreign countries that their cooperation would never be disclosed. As a result of the zeal on the part of some to uncover every action taken in the post-9/11 period, many countries may decide that they can no longer safely share intelligence or cooperate with us on future counter-terrorist operations. They simply cannot rely on our promises of secrecy.

We support your stated commitment, Mr. President, to look to the future regarding these important issues. In our judgment the only way that is possible is if the criminal investigation of these interrogations that Attorney General Holder has re-opened is now re-closed.

Sincerely,

Michael Hayden
Porter Goss
George Tenet
John Deutch
R. James Woolsey
William Webster
James R. Schlesinger

Roger Perry
05-05-2011, 01:57 PM
I was asking YOU if you thought they should have been prosecuted, and you try to turn yet another subject back to Bush. Do you EVER have any non-Bush thoughts?

I made my statment. I said I would have to question the wisdom of their immediate superiors who brought the charges. President Obama had nothing to do with bringing the charges against them as others here claimed the Obama administration has.

dixidawg
05-05-2011, 02:14 PM
I made my statment. I said I would have to question the wisdom of their immediate superiors who brought the charges. President Obama had nothing to do with bringing the charges against them as others here claimed the Obama administration has.

Is Holder NOT a part of the Obama administration?

So in English, does that mean NO they should not have been prosecuted?

Roger Perry
05-05-2011, 02:35 PM
Is Holder NOT a part of the Obama administration?

So in English, does that mean NO they should not have been prosecuted?

The SEALs returned to the United States after being charged Oct. 2 and are not in custody, Silkman said. They are scheduled to be arraigned at Norfolk Naval Station in two weeks, with special courts-martial beginning in January.
Military misconduct is often handled administratively through so-called "non-judicial punishment," but accused sailors sometimes decline that option, fearing it will be seen as an admission of guilt.
The SEALs refused non-judicial punishment. "They all wanted to go to court-martial," Silkman said.
Army Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland, head of Special Operation Command Central, decided to try the men in special courts-martial, she said.
Typically, sailors charged with crimes have a preliminary hearing, or Article 32, before facing court-martial. An investigating officer will then recommend whether the charges should proceed to trial or be handled in another way.
Silkman said that because Cleveland chose special courts-martial - less serious than general courts-martial - a preliminary hearing was not required.

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/11/three-seals-accused-failing-protect-iraqi-detainee

Again, it was their immediate superiors. They chose a court martial hearing over Captains Mast.

dixidawg
05-05-2011, 02:42 PM
So no straight answer. What about the CIA guys?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-owes-thanks-and-an-apology-to-cia-interrogators/2011/05/03/AFka7tlF_story.html

Roger Perry
05-05-2011, 02:46 PM
What about the trials at Abu Ghraib????????????

The United States Department of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense) removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty, and eleven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dereliction_of_duty), maltreatment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_abuse), aggravated assault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggravated_assault) and battery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime)). Between May 2004 and March 2006, eleven soldiers were convicted in courts martial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts_martial), sentenced to military prison, and dishonorably discharged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dishonorable_discharge) from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Graner), and his former fiancée, Specialist Lynndie England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England), were sentenced to ten years and three years in prison, respectively, in trials ending on January 14, 2005 and September 26, 2005. The commanding officer of all Iraq detention facilities, Brigadier General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadier_General) Janis Karpinski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janis_Karpinski), was reprimanded for dereliction of duty and then demoted to the rank of Colonel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel) on May 5, 2005. Col. Karpinski has denied knowledge of the abuses, claiming that the interrogations were authorized by her superiors and performed by subcontractors, and that she was not even allowed entry into the interrogation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation) rooms.
The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib was in part the reason that on April 12, 2006, the United States Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army) activated the 201st Military Intelligence Battalion, the first of four joint interrogation battalions.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#cite_note-5)

I think waterboarding is a much worse form of torture which goes against the rules of the Geneva Convention treatment of prisoners of war.

charly_t
05-05-2011, 02:48 PM
It does not work that way in Florida......

castle doctrine and no retreat regards

In OK we have the "make my day" law. Wonder which it better. :-) We still have some people who don't want to be able to defend themselves till they get robbed etc. Some are changing their minds !!!! We have "open carry" being debated at this moment.

dixidawg
05-05-2011, 03:15 PM
What about the trials at Abu Ghraib????????????

The United States Department of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense) removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty, and eleven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dereliction_of_duty), maltreatment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_abuse), aggravated assault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggravated_assault) and battery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_%28crime%29). Between May 2004 and March 2006, eleven soldiers were convicted in courts martial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts_martial), sentenced to military prison, and dishonorably discharged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dishonorable_discharge) from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Graner), and his former fiancée, Specialist Lynndie England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England), were sentenced to ten years and three years in prison, respectively, in trials ending on January 14, 2005 and September 26, 2005. The commanding officer of all Iraq detention facilities, Brigadier General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadier_General) Janis Karpinski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janis_Karpinski), was reprimanded for dereliction of duty and then demoted to the rank of Colonel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel) on May 5, 2005. Col. Karpinski has denied knowledge of the abuses, claiming that the interrogations were authorized by her superiors and performed by subcontractors, and that she was not even allowed entry into the interrogation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation) rooms.
The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib was in part the reason that on April 12, 2006, the United States Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army) activated the 201st Military Intelligence Battalion, the first of four joint interrogation battalions.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#cite_note-5)

I think waterboarding is a much worse form of torture which goes against the rules of the Geneva Convention treatment of prisoners of war.



Your refusal to provide yes or no answers to my simple questions speaks volumes.