Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

sterlingice 06-22-2009 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by path12 (Post 2053634)
It's not like Obama is fuckin' Gandalf, after all.


:D

SI

rowech 06-22-2009 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2054759)
That seems like an awfully loose definition. Does any time anyone calls for a protest constitute treason? Why should it matter if you're local or international when you make said speech? Hell, by that definition, it seems like most of the stuff spewed by your average hate-filled commentator is treason. Are we going to line up Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc up against the wall?

SI


They're not doing it in another country. They're not doing it to get non-US citizens going. Doing it to get US citizens going which is acceptable.

flere-imsaho 06-22-2009 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowech (Post 2054746)
You're instigating other citizens to go against the United States.


Quote:

Originally Posted by rowech (Post 2054794)
They're not doing it in another country. They're not doing it to get non-US citizens going. Doing it to get US citizens going which is acceptable.


Come again?

rowech 06-22-2009 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2054802)
Come again?


If you take all three of my posts together you can understand what I meant. Anytime you are playing off of other US-citizens, I have no problem with that whatsoever. When you take that to citizens of another country and get them going...that's when I really start to have a problem.

Fighter of Foo 06-22-2009 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowech (Post 2054806)
If you take all three of my posts together you can understand what I meant. Anytime you are playing off of other US-citizens, I have no problem with that whatsoever. When you take that to citizens of another country and get them going...that's when I really start to have a problem.


Take what? I read all three and I have no clue what you mean/meant.

molson 06-22-2009 09:27 AM

I can't imagine the U.S. executing or imposing life (which is the penalty we're talking about with treason) on one of their own citizens for "getting people going" no matter what country they're doing it in.

That would basically be the standard for me - something that warrants execution. Like making a rougue sale of nuclear weapons to Al-Queda.

flere-imsaho 06-22-2009 09:28 AM

Yeah, I'm still not getting what you're saying.

Although, my current assumption is that you're OK with lining Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck up against a wall and shooting them, so I'm fully in support of your argument!

:D

Fighter of Foo 06-22-2009 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2054811)
I can't imagine the U.S. executing or imposing life (which is the penalty we're talking about with treason) on one of their own citizens for "getting people going" no matter what country they're doing it in.


No, we have thousands of other reasons we can use instead. Or we can just take you for no reason, just because we feel like it.

Galaxy 06-22-2009 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2054389)
Yeah, the covering the cost of the new program sounded really strange to me. Not sure I understand how this can be done ... I didn't read (or they did not provide) any details.

There will be change if the public option passes for the 40M+ who are underinsured. For the rest who get the benefits through employers ... maybe not, unless to stay competitive with the public option, the other insurers/providers lower their costs.

Better than the GOP plan for $x credit.


My point was more in what I said earlier. I haven't seen plans to fix the actual costs. I just see "let's pay for it" plans.

rowech 06-22-2009 10:13 AM

To all...it makes perfect sense in my mind but I'm obviously doing a crappy job of explaining it.

RainMaker 06-22-2009 10:38 AM

So if Glenn Beck does his broadcast from Canada next week, he should be tried with treason when he gets back?

rowech 06-22-2009 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2054859)
So if Glenn Beck does his broadcast from Canada next week, he should be tried with treason when he gets back?


Probably not as I'm sure he's not trying to get the Canadians fired up.

Ronnie Dobbs2 06-22-2009 12:23 PM

So what did Sean Penn say to get the Venezuelans fired up that makes him deserving of execution?

Mustang 06-22-2009 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2054959)
So what did Sean Penn say to get the Venezuelans fired up that makes him deserving of execution?


He said he had an ultimate set of tools to fix the US Economy.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-26-2009 01:03 PM

Some pretty sobering numbers from the CBO concerning the deficit..........

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Greyroofoo 06-26-2009 03:52 PM

If only we had a major political party that doesn't spend like drunken sailors.

Sadly none exist.

RomaGoth 06-26-2009 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo (Post 2059534)
If only we had a major political party that doesn't spend like drunken sailors.

Sadly none exist.


I believe drunken sailors take offense to this, as they do not appreciate being compared to a major political party. Or at least that is what I heard.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-27-2009 01:54 PM

Another campaign promise heading down the drain for good. Obama plans to keep many Gitmo terrorists retained indefinitely. The ACLU along with some Obama supporters are up in arms about it.

Critics Bemoan Prospect of Obama Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely

I'm in total support of the decision. The only thing that stands out is just how misinformed he was when making some of his campaign promises.

Flasch186 06-27-2009 03:20 PM

ignore the word 'prospect' in the headline.

now bear in mind you also should read this sentence in the Foxnews article carefully:

Quote:

"Lawmakers this month blocked $80 million the administration had requested for transferring the detainees. Without the money, Obama's order can't be carried out.
---congress isnt funding the president's desire to move them so until Congress approves the $ it CANT be done by Obama or anyone else.

You can throw the word 'prospect' into all kinds of sentences to accomplish your goals MBBF.

BTW if he did this I'd be very much against it, but it's just so MBBF to throw loose words around as if they were the gospel.

stevew 06-27-2009 08:49 PM

That energy bill sounds awesome I figure I don't spend enough on energy as it is. So maybe I can chip in a couple hundred more per year. Do we write the checks out directly to Al gore? And if there is any hope left in the republican party, they will fillibuster this nonsense as long as it takes.

stevew 06-27-2009 08:53 PM

Dola.
I know the republicans did a lot of stupid shit too. I still hate the concept of 300 page amendments going in at 3AM.
And I don't necessarily have a big problem with cleaner energy but I'm not convinced this is the answer.

sterlingice 06-28-2009 12:31 AM

I think people have shown that more and more they only respond to monetary incentives and disincentives. I see people less and less willing to use moral reasons to change their behaviors. So, if money is all people care about, then money is what you have to use to change things.

This is what happens when you spend years teaching people to misinterpret the phrase "you have the freedom to do anything in this country" with the emphasis on the wrong part of that phrase and ignoring that it also means you have to pay the consequences for your actions.

SI

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-28-2009 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2060097)
That energy bill sounds awesome I figure I don't spend enough on energy as it is. So maybe I can chip in a couple hundred more per year. Do we write the checks out directly to Al gore? And if there is any hope left in the republican party, they will fillibuster this nonsense as long as it takes.


I don't think the Republicans need to do much of anything that the Democrats haven't already done to make themselves look bad in this case. At some point, filibustering isn't the best option. In the case of this bill, the Democratic made some of their middle members sell their soul to support the party at the risk of angering their supporters at home. As one of the Democrats in the House put it, those people may lose in 2010 supporting a bill that won't pass the Senate.

This is why I mentioned a few months ago that Republicans were hoping that Democrats would start trying to pass through anything knowing that they had the party majority. Eventually, they make poor decisions like they have in regard to the Cap & Trade bill that is an expensive bureaucratic nightmare during a time when the #1 of the country now lists the deficit as being the main concern. It's a huge misstep and the Republicans should hammer it as such rather than bothering with a filibuster.

Flasch186 06-28-2009 10:51 AM

speaking of hammering things....it would seem that what used to be the democrats scandal of choice has been completely monopolized by the Republicans. That's crazy considering just 5-6 years ago the Republicans were the cornerstone of the Family Values party. Just pointing out that things can swing one way or the other very quickly. Not as quickly as MBBF would like to show in some polls he dredges for but even the party in power can't become become too comfortable in charge...

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-28-2009 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2060188)
speaking of hammering things....it would seem that what used to be the democrats scandal of choice has been completely monopolized by the Republicans. That's crazy considering just 5-6 years ago the Republicans were the cornerstone of the Family Values party.


1. There's been plenty of democrats keeping both sides in a mess. Let's not be silly here.

2. Most conservatives don't consider themselves a Republican because they don't buy the family/religion angle that is brought out each and every election. It's a talking point for Democrats partisan supporters more than anything.

Flasch186 06-28-2009 02:10 PM

1. is true its just the Dems have done a better job of getting caught lately.
2. is a ridiculous thing you put out there. The GOP LOVES being known as the party of Family Values. All of a sudden you want to compare it to the negative "connotation" like 'liberal'? Stop. please.

JPhillips 06-28-2009 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2060311)
1. There's been plenty of democrats keeping both sides in a mess. Let's not be silly here.

2. Most conservatives don't consider themselves a Republican because they don't buy the family/religion angle that is brought out each and every election. It's a talking point for Democrats partisan supporters more than anything.


Do you have any data to support that? I can't find info on conservatives, but as recently as early June 63% of Republicans were White conservatives according to Gallup. I've never seen data that says most conservatives are not aligned with the GOP.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-29-2009 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2060472)
Do you have any data to support that? I can't find info on conservatives, but as recently as early June 63% of Republicans were White conservatives according to Gallup. I've never seen data that says most conservatives are not aligned with the GOP.


I couldn't disagree more. Most conservatives don't align with the GOP planks involving religion and family values. Most of that is right wing hypocritical bunk. Sure, as you point out, if they had to choose in a poll, they'd align with the GOP more often than not. But most don't buy into what the extreme right is selling, which unfortunately is what the GOP has decided to align with right now.

The left is sailing down a similarly unsustainable stance regarding their climate change and health care bills. In theory, change in both is a great idea. But the level of utter crap in the cap and trade bill along with the union exceptions and 10M people who will have to find new insurance under the health care proposal leave them in a position where you wonder if they're bothering to think through the ramifications of their actions. Most of the moderates on both sides that put Obama in office will likely balk at these kinds of policies.

Flasch186 06-29-2009 07:34 AM

wow, just wow.

So aside what the polls say, MBBF knows what 'most' members of XYZ really mean. Not only that, but aside what the 'data' says he knows how people 'really' feel about the policies and/or how they'll feel in the future.

Quote:

Partisans on both sides see their party as the more friendly toward religion, but the divide is particularly stark on the right. Seven-in-ten Republicans say the GOP is friendly toward religion and just 27% say the same about the Democratic Party. Among Democrats, half see their own party as friendly toward religion, but 45% also say the same about the Republican Party. African-Americans, who are largely Democratic in partisan affiliation, diverge somewhat from this pattern. While about half of blacks (51%) see the Democratic Party as friendly toward religion, just 28% say the Republican Party is friendly. Three-in-ten African Americans see the GOP as unfriendly toward religion.

Pew Forum: GOP the Religion-Friendly Party, But Stem Cell Issue May Help Democrats

Quote:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/re...religious.aspx

A similar pattern is found when the three partisan groups are broken down into segments based on race, ethnicity, and religious intensity (among whites, as measured by church attendance).

nfnrmvtcbkihhge5lwt5nw

About half of Republicans are non-Hispanic whites who are strongly religious, defined as those who attend church about once a week or more frequently. Forty percent of Republicans are whites who attend less frequently.

Democrats, on the other hand, comprise only 20% highly religious whites, with more than twice as many whites who attend church less frequently. The pattern of church attendance among independents is similar to that among Democrats, but independents have higher percentages of whites in both the religious and the nonreligious categories....

...The data reviewed here highlight an essential dilemma the Republicans face as they ponder their future. The Republican Party's constituency is overwhelmingly white -- and the significant majority of those whites are ideologically conservative, while a majority are highly religious, as defined by church attendance. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has more than three times the percentage of nonwhites among its identifiers as does the GOP. And white Democrats are much more likely to be moderate or liberal than conservative, and are much more likely to be infrequent church attenders rather than frequent church attenders.

JPhillips 06-29-2009 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2060813)
I couldn't disagree more. Most conservatives don't align with the GOP planks involving religion and family values. Most of that is right wing hypocritical bunk. Sure, as you point out, if they had to choose in a poll, they'd align with the GOP more often than not. But most don't buy into what the extreme right is selling, which unfortunately is what the GOP has decided to align with right now.

The left is sailing down a similarly unsustainable stance regarding their climate change and health care bills. In theory, change in both is a great idea. But the level of utter crap in the cap and trade bill along with the union exceptions and 10M people who will have to find new insurance under the health care proposal leave them in a position where you wonder if they're bothering to think through the ramifications of their actions. Most of the moderates on both sides that put Obama in office will likely balk at these kinds of policies.


It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. If you can provide data that shows most conservatives do not identify as Republicans I'll buy it, but until then you're just making stuff up.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-29-2009 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2060855)
It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. If you can provide data that shows most conservatives do not identify as Republicans I'll buy it, but until then you're just making stuff up.


I'll be honest. I'm not sure there's any accurate polling of it mostly having to do with the partisan nature of polling on these issues. If you have a poll, it usually identifies people by their registration. In that case, there's conservatives that aren't included as registered party members. I think that liberal partisans would love to think that people that don't vote with them match up with the planks of the Republican Party. That's simply not the case. Same thing on the other end.

The truth is that there's a good 35-40% of voters that sit in the middle much like me and don't hold to a firm belief system harbored by one side or the other. How they vote may lean one way or the other based on importance, but generally those voters don't identify with one or the other.

JPhillips 06-29-2009 09:15 AM

You're changing the argument. You started with the statement that, Most conservatives don't consider themselves a Republican. I still haven't seen any evidence to support that claim and changing the argument to whether or not there are independent voters leads me to believe your initial statement was wishful thinking.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-29-2009 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2060864)
You're changing the argument. You started with the statement that, Most conservatives don't consider themselves a Republican. I still haven't seen any evidence to support that claim and changing the argument to whether or not there are independent voters leads me to believe your initial statement was wishful thinking.


Not wishful thinking and certainly not an 'argument'. I'm not here to argue. Likely an overly-general statement on my part. It's a fair point, but doesn't diminish my statement.

miked 06-29-2009 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2060869)
Not wishful thinking and certainly not an 'argument'. I'm not here to argue. Likely an overly-general statement on my part. It's a fair point, but doesn't diminish my statement.


If it's an over-general statement with no data to back it up, how does it not diminish your statement? Does it somehow augment it? Is this bizzaro-FOFC?

JPhillips 06-29-2009 09:34 AM

If you make a numerical argument (most conservatives don't consider themselves a Republican) but can't provide any data to support that argument it certainly does diminish your statement.

I think what you're doing here is extrapolating your beliefs to cover all conservatives.

miked wins.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-29-2009 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2060872)
If it's an over-general statement with no data to back it up, how does it not diminish your statement? Does it somehow augment it? Is this bizzaro-FOFC?


I was referring to my second statement, not the one that JPhillips cited as overly-general.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-29-2009 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2060876)
If you make a numerical argument (most conservatives don't consider themselves a Republican) but can't provide any data to support that argument it certainly does diminish your statement.

I think what you're doing here is extrapolating your beliefs to cover all conservatives.

miked wins.


I do find it interesting that 'wins' are so important in this thread apparantly. It's becoming pretty obvious this thread isn't about discussion. You keyed in on my one opinion/overgeneral statement rather than addressing the other points regarding the disasterous cap and trade and health care concerns. Fair enough. You 'win'.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-29-2009 09:47 AM

Good debate here concerning economy as long as you ignore the brutal stiff-as-a-board moderation by Zakiria.........

Krugman Debates Stimulus, Health Care With Conservative Economist John Taylor (VIDEO)

JPhillips 06-29-2009 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2060884)
I do find it interesting that 'wins' are so important in this thread apparantly. It's becoming pretty obvious this thread isn't about discussion. You keyed in on my one opinion/overgeneral statement rather than addressing the other points regarding the disasterous cap and trade and health care concerns. Fair enough. You 'win'.


You're misunderstanding what I meant by win. I simply meant that miked posted the same thought earlier, hence he won by getting their first. It had nothing to do with you.

The other points you mention didn't come out until after I asked for data on your statement about conservatives. I've actually been focused on your initial statement while you've been trying to change the topic because you can't provide data to support your initial claim.

miked 06-29-2009 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2060884)
I do find it interesting that 'wins' are so important in this thread apparantly. It's becoming pretty obvious this thread isn't about discussion. You keyed in on my one opinion/overgeneral statement rather than addressing the other points regarding the disasterous cap and trade and health care concerns. Fair enough. You 'win'.


Cap and trade concerns are valid, I think the changes will be stupid. Health care, not so much. Our current system is a disaster. I work in the field and I know it needs some drastic changes. I'm not looking for a single-payer government system, but would rather they heavily regulate insurers that run the show now. I'm not worried about Foxnews doom and gloom where they keep trying to convince me Obama is the second coming of Marx. Changing the health care system doesn't mean a bureaucrat in Washington will be perusing my medical data and making decisions. Right now, an uneducated insurance worker is doing that. In fact, Aetna has nurses calling my wife to discuss her lifestyle because she took a drug in early pregnancy to help regulate her insulin as a precaution (borderline) and was off it in 6 weeks.

But you really didn't want to have an intelligent debate about health care, you wanted to do what you usually do, which is post little shards of stories from various conservative news sources, then change the topic once somebody actually engaged you. It just so happened that your topic change brought you to your next unsubstantiated argument, which you acknowledged was over-reaching and unsupported yet felt those 2 things weren't diminishing your argument, so you changed lanes once again for another passing-glance on a different issue.

duckman 06-29-2009 10:51 AM

Here is a very good article (with citations!) about some of the 'myths' of healthcare in the US:

Health-Care Myths at Emac’s Stock Watch | Fox Business

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-29-2009 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2060936)
Cap and trade concerns are valid, I think the changes will be stupid. Health care, not so much. Our current system is a disaster. I work in the field and I know it needs some drastic changes. I'm not looking for a single-payer government system, but would rather they heavily regulate insurers that run the show now. I'm not worried about Foxnews doom and gloom where they keep trying to convince me Obama is the second coming of Marx. Changing the health care system doesn't mean a bureaucrat in Washington will be perusing my medical data and making decisions. Right now, an uneducated insurance worker is doing that.


I'm confused. I don't disagree with a thing you've said here, yet the implication by lumping me into a group (i.e. FoxNews snipe) is that I do. I agree that the current system is a mess, though we shouldn't change it just for the sake of changing it. I agree that a single-payer system is not a good idea. I'm not worried about any scare tactics by the conservatives, but I'm certainly am concerned with the huge pricetag that comes with the bill that still likely won't come close to covering everyone. I agree with your assessment as far as who's making the decisions, but that won't change under the new health care system. The same idiots denying coverage that is needed will still be denying coverage under the new plan. If anything, that will occur more rather than less often.

Arles 06-29-2009 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman (Post 2060960)
Here is a very good article (with citations!) about some of the 'myths' of healthcare in the US:

Health-Care Myths at Emac’s Stock Watch | Fox Business

Good article, I've seen similar ones but this is very well laid out. Here's a couple key points I like to bring up when discussing some sort of national health care:
Quote:

Myth: “About 46 mn Americans lack access to health insurance.”

About 14 mn of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP 2003, a BlueCross-BlueShield Association study based on 2003 data estimated. These people would be signed up for government insurance if they ever made it to the emergency room, Sullivan says.

A whopping 70% of uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid, SCHIP, or both programs, a 2008 study by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute shows.

Census figures also show that 18.3 mn of the uninsured were under 34 who may simply not think about the need for insurance, Sullivan reports.

And of those 46 mn without insurance, an estimated 10 mn or so are non-U.S. citizens who may not be eligible, according to statistics from the Census Bureau), Sullivan reports.
So, 14 mil are eligible for Medicaid and simply haven't signed up. 10 mil were undocumented and 18.3 were either kids where 70% are already eligible for programs in existence or young adults in the 20-30 range who may be choosing not to pay for it. So, you are left with around 5-9 million people (dep on overlap) between the age of 33 and 58 who don't have health care insurance options. Is it really worth completely throwing out the current coverage system because about 1-2% of our population doesn't have coverage options?

To me, we need to focus on reducing the cost, improving the quality and trying to strategically fill this remaining void. This can all be done within the existing system with more of a focus on covering preventive actions, reduced medical malpractice overhead, more focus on prescription drug plans, increased doctor/network flexibility within current plans (ie, many plans (like mine) no longer require referrals to see a specialist) and a study/focus on who actually isn't covered, doesn't have options and would like to be. Maybe create a tax credit to cover a person who loses their job for 8-9 months if most are recently out of work.

I would rather focus on the actual issues and try to resolve them one-by-one. This national plan idea is akin to trading a body with a broken leg for one with no legs. Different does not equal better.

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-05-2009 01:37 PM

Obama and Biden now appear to be facing a two-headed snake. Not only are conservatives bashing their economic policies, many Obama supporters are now hammering their policies as well.

Biden Ignores Warnings Of Krugman, Stiglitz, Roubini And Others

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-06-2009 07:45 AM

dola

More good points regarding how badly the economic policies of the current administration are failing and what needs to be done soon to avoid losing the next election.......

Robert Kuttner: 3 Reasons We Need an Economic Wake Up Call

JPhillips 07-06-2009 08:24 AM

So now you're posting articles giving advice that you completely disagree with just because they're in opposition to some of Obama's polices? What's the point of simply saying, "See some people disagree with Obama's policies!"

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-06-2009 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2065172)
So now you're posting articles giving advice that you completely disagree with just because they're in opposition to some of Obama's polices? What's the point of simply saying, "See some people disagree with Obama's policies!"


Sorry, I thought this was a discussion thread. Did you institute a rule that states that we only can post articles that support our point of view? I think liberal criticisms are just as valid and worthy of discussion whether I agree with them or not. I believe you and I differ in that regard.

JPhillips 07-06-2009 08:31 AM

But you don't discuss anything. You post articles with a comment about how damaging it is for Obama and move on. The economic criticisms you posted aren't new, the same arguments have been made since the stimulus battle. What do you want to discuss? What about the criticisms has merit or doesn't?

What is there besides, Obama is teh suk.

larrymcg421 07-06-2009 08:33 AM

Wow, MBBF has completely converted to an economic progressive. I fully welcome him to our group. I say this assuming that he has done a complete 180 on his economic beliefs and not that he simply posted about an article that he didn't even read.

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-06-2009 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2065180)
Wow, MBBF has completely converted to an economic progressive. I fully welcome him to our group. I say this assuming that he has done a complete 180 on his economic beliefs and not that he simply posted about an article that he didn't even read.


What part do you think I didn't read? I think it's an interesting read from the perspective of pointing out the failings of the current policy. It's become apparant in recent days that both conservatives and liberals are not happy with what Obama is doing under current policy. I differ greatly from the author as far as what I believe is the best way to resolve the current problems with Obama's mishandling of the economy.

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-06-2009 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2065175)
The economic criticisms you posted aren't new, the same arguments have been made since the stimulus battle. What do you want to discuss? What about the criticisms has merit or doesn't?


It's a fair point, though it definately merits further discussion. Many intelligent minds on the left continue to level the same criticism against the president, yet he remains steadfast in refusing to take heed of what they are saying, even now after his own vice-president admits that they misjudged the economy and what needed to be done. I get the feeling that Obama is trying to hit a middle ground and in the process, is pissing everyone off. Much like Congress, he's got to start taking a stand rather than holding the middle ground.

Flasch186 07-06-2009 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2065183)
It's become apparant in recent days that both conservatives and liberals are not happy with what Obama is doing under current policy.


untrue blanket statement.

Flasch186 07-06-2009 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2065188)
It's a fair point, though it definately merits further discussion. Many intelligent minds on the left continue to level the same criticism against the president, yet he remains steadfast in refusing to take heed of what they are saying, even now after his own vice-president admits that they misjudged the economy and what needed to be done. I get the feeling that Obama is trying to hit a middle ground and in the process, is pissing everyone off. Much like Congress, he's got to start taking a stand rather than holding the middle ground.


you insinuate that Biden thinks they did the wrong thing, or didnt do what needed to be done, when he meant, IMO, that they needed to do MORE not less as evidenced by him saying they UNDERESTIMATED the unemployment rate AND not ruling out a second stimulus package. Your insinuation and omission on this borders on lying in this thread, IMO:

Quote:

Originally Posted by USNewsAndWorld Report
In an interview on ABC News' This Week, Vice President Joe Biden said that although the Administration relied on consensus economic forecasts in crafting its economic stimulus package, the White House erred in its assumption about the unemployment rate. Biden said, "The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures in most of the blue chip indexes out there. ... No one was talking about that we would be moving towards -- we're worried about 10.5 percent, it will be 9.5 percent at this point. ... We're much too high." The remarks were tepidly reported by news wires and print sources, which also noted congressional criticism. The AP reports Republican congressional leaders "expressed disappointment about the impact of stimulus spending," while Biden "cited the economic conditions inherited from the Bush administration."

The Washington Times notes that Biden "said it's unfair to consider" the stimulus "program a bust because 'no one anticipated, no one expected that recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having distributed the bulk of the money.'" The Hill reports Biden "refused to rule out a second stimulus bill, which some economists have called for in order to stem job losses and spur the economy once again."

The Wall Street Journal reports Biden's comments were "likely to intensify calls for the administration to do more to counter job losses." White House economists "are discussing whether a second round of stimulus is needed, but a decision isn't expected until at least the fall."


USNews.com: Political Bulletin: Monday, July 6, 2009

cue Cyndi Lauper

ISiddiqui 07-06-2009 02:15 PM

Uh... I think your insinuation about what MBBF was saying borders on lying. He didn't insinuate any such thing about Biden's comments. Read his post again, please:

Quote:

Many intelligent minds on the left continue to level the same criticism against the president, yet he remains steadfast in refusing to take heed of what they are saying, even now after his own vice-president admits that they misjudged the economy and what needed to be done.

After he posted about Krugman and co.

Flasch186 07-06-2009 02:23 PM

so is the "...and what needed to be done." not attributable to Biden in that sentence? Did he mean that that portion was to be linked to the "intelligent minds" part of the sentence?

If he's attributing that portion to Biden than his insinuation is a lie based on what Biden stated in other portions of the interview to paint Biden as considering a stance of anti-stimulus and anti-intervention. If it's attributable to "intelligent minds" than I think the sentence structure is wrong...unless my comprehension is bad.

albionmoonlight 07-07-2009 08:55 AM

This strikes me as an effective ad and something that the GOP could build on. The fact that Al Franken happened to be the guy to make it 60 is, I think, something that will symbolically hurt the Democrats.

Of course, with Kennedy and Byrd in bad health and Collins and Snowe able to be pursuaded to vote with the Dems and a few conservative Dems ready to break ranks, it isn't as clean as 60/40. But it makes for a heck of a soundbite: "They got 60 Senators and a President. I'm not sure why they keep saying that we are the problem."

YouTube - "60"

On a related note--how do I embed youtube videos here?

Edit--Maybe I am prejudiced toward this ad because, even as a Democrat, I agree with it. If you can't get stuff done with this big of a majority, then you do have, at least, a bit of a leadership problem.

JonInMiddleGA 07-07-2009 09:03 AM

A couple of things from a single Biden quote here

Quote:

... Biden "refused to rule out a second stimulus bill, which some economists have called for in order to stem job losses and spur the economy once again."

First, anybody else get the feeling that some (most?) of these generic economists -- regardless of what point of view they're pushing -- aren't all that interested in actually making the economy get better but rather are engaged in some sort of sandbox "let's see what happens if we ..." using tax dollars to do it? Obviously they can't do it themselves directly but I've had the feeling more than once in recent months that they're enjoying their collective celebrity a little too much & have figured they may never get a better chance to do real world experiments on a large scale so it's become a game of "let's see if we can get them to do X, Y, and Z so we can see what happens".

Second, the phrase "spur the economy once again" sure seems to take a hell of a leap in assuming that the first one spurred anything in the first place.

RainMaker 07-07-2009 09:06 AM

Does anyone have that chart that showed the projections for unemployment under Obama's stimulus and what it's actually at? I was talking to my Dad the other night and we were trying to figure out how far they were off.

JonInMiddleGA 07-07-2009 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2066152)
Does anyone have that chart that showed the projections for unemployment under Obama's stimulus and what it's actually at? I was talking to my Dad the other night and we were trying to figure out how far they were off.


If so, I hope they include projections of what they expected it to be if there was no "stimulus" versus what they projected with their package.

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-07-2009 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2066152)
Does anyone have that chart that showed the projections for unemployment under Obama's stimulus and what it's actually at? I was talking to my Dad the other night and we were trying to figure out how far they were off.


I believe you're referring to Figure 1 on page 5 of this document. The Obama administration had predicted that unemployment would not go over 8% if the stimulus package passed whereas it would skyrocket to 9% at its peak if a stimulus package was not passed. The stimulus package was passed and the current unemployment rate is 9.6% and increasing.

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

molson 07-07-2009 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2066181)
I believe you're referring to Figure 1 on page 5 of this document. The Obama administration had predicted that unemployment would not go over 8% if the stimulus package passed whereas it would skyrocket to 9% at its peak if a stimulus package was not passed. The stimulus package was passed and the current unemployment rate is 9.6% and increasing.

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf


It's good to see that the administration has such a good handle on the economy. Geez.

This is kind of the economic version of thinking there were WMDs in Iraq, especially since we're probably looking at 10.5% at least before it's over.

Logan 07-07-2009 09:52 AM

I'm not sure if it's substantial enough to send it very high, but I thought at least a decent contribution to the rising unemployment number was that severence packages (Wall St especially) are running out so these people are now being included in the unemployment figure.

RainMaker 07-07-2009 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2066181)
I believe you're referring to Figure 1 on page 5 of this document. The Obama administration had predicted that unemployment would not go over 8% if the stimulus package passed whereas it would skyrocket to 9% at its peak if a stimulus package was not passed. The stimulus package was passed and the current unemployment rate is 9.6% and increasing.

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf


That's what I was looking for, thanks. Dude is as out of touch as Bush when it comes to shit.

JPhillips 07-07-2009 10:29 AM

It should at least be acknowledged that the prediction for unemployment numbers was based on the original stimulus plan, not the version eventually signed into law.

That being said, there was a lot of argument at the time from people like Krugman that the admin was underestimating the downside and should have pushed a larger, more immediate stimulus package.

Flasch186 07-07-2009 10:34 AM

Imagine how bad it wouldve been without...

My point is, either side will be able to claim victory or "right" on this as posted in the recession thread. In this thread Im certain that conclusion will fall along partisan lines. I certainly hope no one is wishing for it like Glen Beck's guest the other night that said the only thing that will save the USA was Osama Bin Laden attacking us again. Im certain everyone hopes that the plans put in place by our leaders are successful.

molson 07-07-2009 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2066257)
Imagine how bad it wouldve been without...



That sentiment is why it's so easy to trick people into thinking big spending is the answer. You can always claim success.

Flasch186 07-07-2009 10:40 AM

and vice versa.

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-07-2009 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2066267)
That sentiment is why it's so easy to trick people into thinking big spending is the answer. You can always claim success.


I'm not even sure that matters at this point. Being a political leader is much like being a coach of a sports team. You could make all the right decisions and still get fired if your players don't perform. Right now, you'd have a hard time distinguishing between the U.S. economy and the Washington Nationals.

JonInMiddleGA 07-07-2009 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2066278)
Right now, you'd have a hard time distinguishing between the U.S. economy and the Washington Nationals.


Nah, that's easy.

The Nationals have a better bullpen.

molson 07-07-2009 10:51 AM

It goes both ways, but the burden is on whoever's in power. It's easy to be on the outside and criticize, as we saw during the Bush years.

It's kind of like that Palin/Clinton thing from the other thread. When Bush is in power, liberals have all the answers (or if not the answers, at least they knew that the administration's policies on everything, especially national security, were wrong, despite the unavailability of proof that an alternative policy would be successful), but when Obama is in power, it's "hey, we don't know for sure that an alternative would have worked better".

JPhillips 07-07-2009 12:39 PM

I was for the stimulus, although I had reservations about the amount of non-stimulus tax cuts and the overall proportion of spending on public works projects. At this point I think it's too early to judge the effectiveness of the stimulus given how much more will be spent over the next 12 months. AT this point I think it's fair to argue that the stimulus hasn't done much, but I can't see how you can make the leap to the stimulus made things worse. By the next election results will be more clear and if things are still flat or heading south I expect the Dems will take it on the chin.

The idea, though, that stimulus spending is some great unknown is ridiculous. There's literally mountains of evidence that show that stimulus spending can be effective for bridging a gap in demand. In fact if short term demand is the major problem there isn't anything as effective as government spending.

flere-imsaho 07-09-2009 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo (Post 2059534)
If only we had a major political party that doesn't spend like drunken sailors.


Drunken sailors have nothing on Congress. Drunken sailors spend all the money they have and then pass out in a stupor for a few days before getting back to work.

Congress spends all the money they have, a bunch of money they don't have, and then go on vacation for ages before coming back to spend more money.

rowech 07-09-2009 07:46 PM


Flasch186 07-09-2009 08:05 PM

awesome.

Noop 07-09-2009 09:11 PM



Better photo. I think he is wondering what is up with her Jesus sandals.

Edward64 07-09-2009 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noop (Post 2069130)
Better photo. I think he is wondering what is up with her Jesus sandals.

I reserve judgement on Obama's tastes until I see a front shot. She's famous now!

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-10-2009 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowech (Post 2068965)


Must be a teleprompter on her ass.

ace1914 07-10-2009 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2069460)
Must be a teleprompter on her ass.


Watch the entire video. Its the french dude with ass radar.

sterlingice 07-11-2009 12:44 AM

Well, wasn't it France where one of the more recent PMs had a mistress who kept showing up at public events with him?

SI

Greyroofoo 07-11-2009 01:11 AM

I would hit it

CamEdwards 07-11-2009 02:14 AM

I'm just glad that there's nothing really important going on, so the media can spend an entire day debating whether or not the president looked at someone's ass.

lungs 07-18-2009 10:31 PM

Freepers plan on overthrowing Obama??

Free Republic founder is in the process of writing what appears to be some sort of document to instigate the overthrow of President Obama.

Some highlights:



Quote:

We have reached the point where the government's long train of abuses and usurpations has achieved absolute Despotism, therefore it is our right, it is our duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for our future security.

Quote:

Therefore, We the People of America choose to exercise our right to throw off and alter the abusive government by peacefully recalling and removing from office the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States and all U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives effective immediately.

RainMaker 07-18-2009 11:58 PM

The guy is a fucking inbred moron. He's going to overthrow the government with a handful of racist morons from his site who can't even afford a plane ticket to Washington. The whole thing would be funny if it weren't for the fact they've been breeding terrorists lately.

Dutch 07-19-2009 02:16 AM

What possessed you to read that in the first place?? Weird. (Reminds me of a lot of the stupid shit we endured during the Bush admin)

CamEdwards 07-19-2009 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2076936)
What possessed you to read that in the first place?? Weird. (Reminds me of a lot of the stupid shit we endured during the Bush admin)


Probably the same thing that prompted me to read Democratic Underground for a few months. It's fun, cheap, and easy to point out the batshit crazies in the other party.

lungs 07-19-2009 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2076974)
Probably the same thing that prompted me to read Democratic Underground for a few months. It's fun, cheap, and easy to point out the batshit crazies in the other party.


+1

It validates my beliefs and allows me to believe that everybody on the right is like that :)

lungs 07-19-2009 11:47 AM

dola

Is it just me, or has Free Republic gone from fringe right-wing to just absolute batshit crazy?

A lot of the shit I've been reading on there lately looks like it belongs on Stormfront.

RainMaker 07-19-2009 12:30 PM

The've always been like Stormfront. Back in the 90's they were known for talking incessently about Clinton's "n----- baby". Always been a hate site but is now bordering on a terrorist organization.

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-20-2009 07:45 AM

White House aides: "All Obama, All The Time"

Obama Heads to the Front to Do Battle on Health-Care Reform - washingtonpost.com

The media barrage from this president is getting very old, very quick. At some point, you have to stop campaigning to make something happen and actually put forth some policies that the public actually sees as a good idea. Outside of the day of Michael Jackson's funeral, Obama has been making speeches nearly every day around lunch time for 45-60 days. How do I know this? It's become a running joke in our lunchroom to be the first one to spot Obama when he comes on making a live speech during the lunch hour. He never lets us down.

PR overload does not make you a good leader. If anything, it quickly minimizes the impact of your message when you go to the well one too many times.

JPhillips 07-20-2009 08:01 AM

Quote:

actually put forth some policies that the public actually sees as a good idea

From a Kaiser Foundation poll:
Quote:

"Creating a public health insurance option similar to Medicare to compete with private health insurance plans."

Favor: 68% (40% strongly favor)
Oppose: 28% (17% strongly oppose)

The problem isn't public support, it's the handful of centrist Senators who always think it's a better idea to do 2/3 of what's proposed.

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-20-2009 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2077362)
From a Kaiser Foundation poll:

The problem isn't public support, it's the handful of centrist Senators who always think it's a better idea to do 2/3 of what's proposed.


1. That's a very generic poll that doesn't deal with the real issues at hand. It asks little more than "if we offered you something perfect, would you be in favor of it?". Of course they would. I'd be in favor of it as well as listed in that question, but that's not a full picture of what's being proposed nor does it present the numerous pitfall contained in the current legislation.

2. The core of my post surrounded the PR oversaturation of the Obama presidency. Those senators won't be swayed by the PR tactics. What people see right now is a Democrat president and a large majority-led Democrat Congress. Things aren't going well and nothing's happening. Continuing to hammer the public with too much PR when it's your fault along with Congress is an ill-conceived plan at best.

JPhillips 07-20-2009 08:21 AM

I could post a handful of other polls, including this morning's Gallup that also say the public has strong support for a public option. I've only seen one poll(Rasmussen) that shows less than strong support. If you're going to say that his proposals aren't liked by the public, I'd like to see your data.

As for your second point, I have no idea if his speeches are over saturation. I'd want to know how many speeches he's given and how it compares to past Presidents. I do know your claim that he's given a speech nearly every day for the past two months is false, but that alone doesn't make him any more or less over saturated.

Flasch186 07-20-2009 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2077354)

PR overload does not make you a good leader. If anything, it quickly minimizes the impact of your message when you go to the well one too many times.


Been telling you this for a long long time.

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-20-2009 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2077373)
I could post a handful of other polls, including this morning's Gallup that also say the public has strong support for a public option. I've only seen one poll(Rasmussen) that shows less than strong support. If you're going to say that his proposals aren't liked by the public, I'd like to see your data.

As for your second point, I have no idea if his speeches are over saturation. I'd want to know how many speeches he's given and how it compares to past Presidents. I do know your claim that he's given a speech nearly every day for the past two months is false, but that alone doesn't make him any more or less over saturated.


You're playing games here. Nice try on the attempt to make this partisan, but there's little question that public support is dying out surprisingly quick given the large support for this president and Congressional majority in the recent election. Here's a poll from this morning discussing the faltering polling numbers on all fronts.

Approval Ratings Drop for Obama on Health Care, Other Issues - washingtonpost.com

Quote:

Poll Shows Obama Slipping on Key Issues
Approval Rating on Health Care Falls Below 50 Percent

Heading into a critical period in the debate over health-care reform, public approval of President Obama's stewardship on the issue has dropped below the 50 percent threshold for the first time, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Obama's approval ratings on other front-burner issues, such as the economy and the federal budget deficit, have also slipped over the summer, as rising concern about spending and continuing worries about the economy combine to challenge his administration. Barely more than half approve of the way he is handling unemployment, which now tops 10 percent in 15 states and the District.

The president's overall approval rating remains higher than his marks on particular domestic issues, with 59 percent giving him positive reviews and 37 percent disapproving. But this is the first time in his presidency that Obama has fallen under 60 percent in Post-ABC polling, and the rating is six percentage points lower than it was a month ago.

Obama has taken on a series of major problems during his young presidency, but he faces a particularly difficult fight over his effort to encourage Congress to pass an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.

The legislation has run into problems in the House and Senate, as lawmakers struggle to contain spiraling costs and avoid ballooning the deficit.

Since April, approval of Obama's handling of health care has dropped from 57 percent to 49 percent, with disapproval rising from 29 percent to 44 percent. Obama still maintains a large advantage over congressional Republicans in terms of public trust on the issue, even as the GOP has closed the gap.

The erosion in Obama's overall rating on health care is particularly notable among political independents: While positive in their assessments of his handling of health-care reform at the 100-day mark of his presidency (53 percent approved and 30 percent disapproved), independents now are divided at 44 percent positive and 49 percent negative.

At the same time, there is no slackening in public desire for Obama to keep pressing for action on the major issues of the economy, health care and the deficit. Majorities think he is either doing the right amount or should put greater emphasis on each of these issues.

On health care, the poll, conducted by telephone Wednesday through Saturday, found that a majority of Americans (54 percent) approve of the outlines of the legislation now heading toward floor action. The measure would institute new individual and employer insurance mandates and create a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. Its costs would be paid in part through new taxes on high-income earners.

There are sharp differences in support for this basic package based on income, as well as a deep divide along party lines. Three-quarters of Democrats back the plan, as do nearly six in 10 independents. More than three-quarters of Republicans are opposed. About two-thirds of those with household incomes below $50,000 favor the plan, and a slim majority (52 percent) of those with higher incomes are against it. The income divide is even starker among independents.

Republicans have hammered the president and congressional Democrats over the cost of an health-care overhaul and its potential impact on the federal deficit, twin issues that have emerged as a possible brake on any new package.

Obama's approval rating on his handling of the deficit is down to 43 percent, as independents now tilt toward disapproval (42 percent approve; 48 percent disapprove).

More broadly, 55 percent of Americans put a higher priority on holding the deficit in check than on spending to boost the economy, compared with 40 percent who advocate additional outlays even if it means a sharply greater budget shortfall. This is a big shift from January, when a slim majority preferred to emphasize federal spending.

Independents, who split 50 percent to 46 percent for more spending in January, now break 56 percent to 41 percent for more fiscal discipline. But a larger shift has been among moderate and conservative Democrats, who prioritized more spending by about 2 to 1 in January and March. Now they are about evenly divided in approach.

Nearly a quarter of moderate and conservative Democrats (22 percent) now see Obama as an "old-style tax-and-spend Democrat," up from 4 percent in March. Among all Americans, 52 percent consider Obama a "new-style Democrat who will be careful with the public's money." That is down from 58 percent a month ago and 62 percent in March, to about where President Bill Clinton was on that question in the summer of 1993.

Concerns about the federal account balance are also reflected in views about another round of stimulus spending. In the new poll, more than six in 10 oppose spending beyond the $787 billion already allocated to boost the economy. Most Democrats support more spending; big majorities of Republicans and independents are against the idea.

Support for new spending is tempered by flagging confidence on Obama's plan for the economy. Fifty-six percent are confident that his programs will reap benefits, but that is down from 64 percent in March and from 72 percent just before he took office six months ago. More now say they have no confidence in the plan than say they are very confident it will work. Among independents and Republicans, confidence has decreased by 20 or more points; it has dropped seven points among Democrats.

Approval of Obama's handling of the overall economy stands at 52 percent, with 46 percent disapproving, and, for the first time in his presidency, more Americans strongly disapprove of his performance on the economy than strongly approve. Last month, 56 percent gave him positive marks on this issue.

More than three-quarters of all Americans say they are worried about the direction of the economy over the next few years, down only marginally since Obama's inauguration. Concerns about personal finances have also abated only moderately since January.

Obama declared ownership of the economic recovery, but the public still places far more blame on President George W. Bush's regulatory policies than on Obama's efforts for the state of the economy. But in the first read of a measurement that will be closely watched in coming years, nearly three in 10 say they are personally "not as well off" financially as they were when Obama took office.

Obama's leadership attributes remain highly rated, despite some slippage. Seven in 10 call him a strong leader, two in three say he cares about the problems of people like themselves, and just over six in 10 say he fulfilled a central campaign pledge and has brought needed change to Washington. However, he has dropped 10 points on the empathy question since April.

Obama still holds wide advantages over Republicans in Congress on the economy and the deficit, although the GOP has rebounded marginally from earlier in the year. The overall approval rating for congressional Republicans has increased six points since April, to 36 percent (compared with 47 percent approval for Democrats), and they have picked up five points vis-à-vis Obama on the deficit. They have gained seven on health care.

Beyond partisan shifts in Obama's ratings, sharp declines have occurred among those with household incomes above $50,000. And those with incomes above $50,000 now are split evenly between Obama and Republicans on dealing with health care. In June, they favored Obama by a 21-point margin.

A total of 1,001 randomly selected adults were interviewed for this poll; the margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

As far as his speaking engagements, there's a schedule here if you're interested. I did notice that his speaking engagements over lunch has slowed since returning from his latest foreign apology tour.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/

JPhillips 07-20-2009 08:56 AM

How I'm I making this partisan? You claim that the President should, "actually put forth some policies that the public actually sees as a good idea". Even the WaPo poll you cited says this:

Quote:

On health care, the poll, conducted by telephone Wednesday through Saturday, found that a majority of Americans (54 percent) approve of the outlines of the legislation now heading toward floor action.

I'll give you that he's lost support in general on healthcare, but the legislation that's being discussed, still has strong public support. What policies has the President put forth that the public doesn't support?

And once you start throwing out lines like foreign apology tour you should lose the ability to complain about partisanship.

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-20-2009 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2077390)
How I'm I making this partisan?

And once you start throwing out lines like foreign apology tour you should lose the ability to complain about partisanship.


You made the Rassmussen citation when I hadn't even used that polling service as a reference. You were making a partisan reference and trying to minimize my argument when it had no references to that polling service.

If you think it's a good idea for Obama to continue to apologize for our past overseas when there's no reason to do it, that's fine. I'm not of that opinion.

JPhillips 07-20-2009 09:13 AM

Dude, get another cup of coffee. Just saying Rasmussen is partisan? Is it now the new Kirby Pucket?

I'm done with the apology tour silliness.

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-20-2009 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2077401)
Dude, get another cup of coffee. Just saying Rasmussen is partisan? Is it now the new Kirby Pucket?

I'm done with the apology tour silliness.


The implication was transparent.

I hope Mr. Obama is done too. Would save us all a lot of unneeded trouble.

JPhillips 07-20-2009 09:21 AM

RASMUSSEN!

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-20-2009 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2077411)
RASMUSSEN!


:eek:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.