or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › When is the United States going to recover from Democratic Rule?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

When is the United States going to recover from Democratic Rule? - Page 3

Poll Results: When is the United States going to recover from Democratic Rule?

Poll expired: Jun 8, 2009  
  • 0% (0)
    2010
  • 16% (1)
    2012
  • 0% (0)
    2016
  • 33% (2)
    Never
  • 50% (3)
    When the Chinese cut up our credit card
6 Total Votes  
post #81 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

As we so enjoyed being reminded last election, it is the size of what is being discussed that determines the suitability. Detroit serves over a million people which makes it bigger than Alaska, bigger than Delaware which VP Biden served as a Senator for so long. The population of Detroit is larger than that wonderful state Howard Dean served called Vermont.

What a convenient double-standard. We care about Wasilla in the fall but who gives a crap about Detroit in the spring.

Nice try. But you're comparing the scrutiny given to a presidential candidate to the scrutiny given to a city council person. This isn't even a mayor that we're talking about.

If she were democratic or republican candidate for vice president of the nation, she'd be getting national coverage.

But anyway, the story is already being covered, just not commented on incessantly at the national level.
post #82 of 261
As a Canadian, I find the partisan bickering between Democrats and Republicans hilarious. The context of the arguments is that there is a supposed wide ideological gulf between the two parties. One is right, the other is left. One is liberal, the other is conservative.

I acknowledge there are some important policy differences between the two parties, but in the grader scheme of the political continuum, they're trivial.

Consider the following facts:

1) Both parties oppose gay marriage, and one of the parties keeps breaking promises for gay rights.
2) Both parties favour the death penalty.
3) Both parties are totally behind the military campaign in Afghanistan (other NATO countries are split).
4) Both favour violations of Americans' privacy rights.
5) Both favour strict pro-corporate copyright policies.

etc....

So there are some minor differences such as their positions on gun control, abortion and stem cell research. Nonetheless, from my point of view, both parties largely operate on a consensus.
post #83 of 261
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

I really have no clue what that sentence it supposed to be saying. It may as well have been written in a foreign language.

Allegations and musings can be used to force disclosure of information that is of no relevance except to try to embarrass or discredit.

If I accuse you of screwing the neighbor's wife and your only alibi has to show you couldn't be doing that because you were being taking a bribe or embezzling company money, then you are screwed.

Quote:
What am I supposed to be proving now?

The press won't even investigate legitimate claims against Democratic politicians but will investigate false claims against Republicans.

Find for me who initiated the claims about Sanford missing. Find for me who initiated the claims about Palin and you will see motif. Both were forced to reveal embarassing information to address claims not related at all to their service in office.

Quote:
But I will ask you to prove that. Exactly what major news outlets where claiming Palin's own child wasn't hers? As I recall, it was some diary on Kos picked up by a few left-wing blogs, plus Andrew Sullivan's odd fascination with the topic.

It isn't an odd fascination. Also The Atlantic reported on it as well.

Quote:
It didn't appear in the MSM until a few days later when the Palin camp thought they could score some points, and subsequently appeared on the major news outlets to whine about how awful the media was to them by accusing her of not being the mother of her own child.


Tit for tat, tit for tat. Wheeee!

Score some points?!?! How does one score points by disclosing embarrassing information?

It's sort of like saying in proving that you couldn't possibly have slept with my wife because then she would have herpes from you and she doesn't.

Wouldn't that make you look like a winner? I think not.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #84 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Allegations and musings can be used to force disclosure of information that is of no relevance except to try to embarrass or discredit.

If I accuse you of screwing the neighbor's wife and your only alibi has to show you couldn't be doing that because you were being taking a bribe or embezzling company money, then you are screwed.

Actually, I think the TPM article I linked to earlier put it better.

Quote:
politicians and their staffers frequently have reason to dissemble, about issues far more important than an extra-marital affair. Too often, though, the press treats public statements from elected officials' offices -- especially those purporting simply to provide information, like the Appalachian Trail line -- as self-evidently accurate. It's as if, despite everything, some in the press can't quite bring themselves to believe that politicians might try to mislead people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The press won't even investigate legitimate claims against Democratic politicians but will investigate false claims against Republicans.

That's a doozy of an allegation right there. One for which you have only anecdotes, and we've seen how those easily run both ways.
And how does this relate to Sanford at all? They weren't false claims. In fact, they were all true. No one new where he was. The reason eventually stated was untrue.


Quote:
Find for me who initiated the claims about Sanford missing.

http://www.thestate.com/news-extras/story/838623.html

It's my understanding the state police wondered where the hell he was, and inquired. Are you really trying to say a Governor going incommunicado for several days without telling anyone where he was going and leaving no instructions in his stead it is not a newsworthy story? Really?


Quote:
Both were forced to reveal embarassing information to address claims not related at all to their service in office.

Really? Disappearing has no bearing on your service?


Quote:
Score some points?!?! How does one score points by disclosing embarrassing information?

1. Because obviously it was going to come out eventually anyways.

2. It was used to counter a claim that was not in the mainstream at all (and I notice you've pretty much dropped that claim) but to play the victim and paint the media as a bully.

It was the proverbial killing of two bird with one stone. Reveal the embarrassing info that's going to come out anyways, and claim media mistreatment to go along with it.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #85 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

As a Canadian, I find the partisan bickering between Democrats and Republicans hilarious. The context of the arguments is that there is a supposed wide ideological gulf between the two parties. One is right, the other is left. One is liberal, the other is conservative.

I acknowledge there are some important policy differences between the two parties, but in the grader scheme of the political continuum, they're trivial.

Consider the following facts:

1) Both parties oppose gay marriage, and one of the parties keeps breaking promises for gay rights.
2) Both parties favour the death penalty.
3) Both parties are totally behind the military campaign in Afghanistan (other NATO countries are split).
4) Both favour violations of Americans' privacy rights.
5) Both favour strict pro-corporate copyright policies.

etc....

So there are some minor differences such as their positions on gun control, abortion and stem cell research. Nonetheless, from my point of view, both parties largely operate on a consensus.

I too find the partisan bickering to be hilarious. Well, that is when i'm not outraged and saddened by the unproductive quarreling.

But I don't think that debating specifics is just an American thing. Also, I would hate to live in a country that didn't find these things important. But damn, couldn't we have more civil and productive conversations?

Media used to be a unifying force. Everyone got the same nightly news so people got broad exposure to everything being reported at the national level. Now however, there are many more media outlets, each tailored to deliver the viewpoint already held by their viewers. What this means is that media is now having the opposite effect, it is isolating people from the views of others and reinforcing already well entrenched ideologies.

If a Democrat listens to only NPR or a Republican only watches Fox News, they are almost assured to become more extremist and convinced of their own ideals. This is worrisome but I don't know what the solution is. America is definitely becoming more divided and the hate between the two sides seems to grow with every passing year.

We're getting closer to conquering racism but we're sliding backward toward other forms of intolerance. AppleInsider forums are a perfect microcosm to demonstrate this. It maybe false observation on my part, but the threads here have become more and more worthless each year. The current state of discourse is downright pathetic. I don't think I've seen a productive thread in at least a year.
post #86 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

If a Democrat listens to only NPR or a Republican only watches Fox News, they are almost assured to become more extremist and convinced of their own ideals.

I know it's popular to say NPR is some bastion of liberalism, but I really find it quite even-handed. To compare NPR to Fox News is a bit beyond the pale.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #87 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

I know it's popular to say NPR is some bastion of liberalism, but I really find it quite even-handed. To compare NPR to Fox News is a bit beyond the pale.

LOL, i tend to agree. But I'm trying to be even handed here. My point was better made by not painting one side as worse than the other.
post #88 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

As a Canadian, I find the partisan bickering between Democrats and Republicans hilarious. The context of the arguments is that there is a supposed wide ideological gulf between the two parties. One is right, the other is left. One is liberal, the other is conservative.

I acknowledge there are some important policy differences between the two parties, but in the grader scheme of the political continuum, they're trivial.

What I find interesting is that, as a centrist, I see about as wide a gulf between my position and those of strict adherents of the political parties as they have between each other. It's not the distance, it's the absolutes...the SO narrow definitions. One inch to the side and you aren't on the same planet, figuratively.

US political party members seem to hate as a matter of course - I think they just hate each other for the sake of hating, just reams of hatred for those that don't agree with them.
post #89 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

LOL, i tend to agree. But I'm trying to be even handed here. My point was better made by not painting one side as worse than the other.

No problem. I tend to agree with you as well!
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #90 of 261
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Actually, I think the TPM article I linked to earlier put it better.

politicians and their staffers frequently have reason to dissemble, about issues far more important than an extra-marital affair. Too often, though, the press treats public statements from elected officials' offices -- especially those purporting simply to provide information, like the Appalachian Trail line -- as self-evidently accurate. It's as if, despite everything, some in the press can't quite bring themselves to believe that politicians might try to mislead people.

This conflates two different issues, personal and public. The press has an obligation to be naturally skeptical about claims with regard to public service and public resources. They have no such obligation nor reasonable rationale to employ such tactics on personal coverage. Is our level of confidence in our news organization really going to be heightened if they raise an eyebrow and ask if someone really had chicken for dinner last night?

Quote:
That's a doozy of an allegation right there. One for which you have only anecdotes, and we've seen how those easily run both ways.
And how does this relate to Sanford at all? They weren't false claims. In fact, they were all true. No one new where he was. The reason eventually stated was untrue.

Have we seen those anecdotes run both ways? I'd be happy to see the reverse examples.

As for how they relate to Sanford at all, even public officials have days and times where they are not fully on call or pressed into public service. Some of them even take vacations, (hard to believe I know.) Perhaps someone can be curious as to where they are but unless there is some public harm occurring, curiosity alone is not enough of a rationale.

Quote:
http://www.thestate.com/news-extras/story/838623.html

It's my understanding the state police wondered where the hell he was, and inquired. Are you really trying to say a Governor going incommunicado for several days without telling anyone where he was going and leaving no instructions in his stead it is not a newsworthy story? Really?

Your claim that there were no instructions is not correct. His office handled things as the ought to and gave appropriate responses. Claiming that some public official needs to jump in front of a camera whenever we demand it is not sound reasoning. I'm saying this goes both ways. Everyone needs down time. I'm not claiming it is appropriate to go have an affair on your down time but to claim that there are no contingencies and that his own office didn't handle this is a lie. Clearly there are up times and down times. The state handled their business and most people went home to thier families and enjoyed the weekend. Sanford didn't and ran off to screw someone. That is not personally appropriate but you make it sound like everyone who went off to recharge after this political battle was in the wrong, and that isn't right either.

Finally, no it wasn't newsworthy at all. The only reason it became newsworthy is because, as your own link notes, The State reporter was waiting there for Sanford to get off the plane and the plane had come from Buenos Aires. There isn't a way to talk yourself out of that and it was clear he was caught, hence it then became newsworthy. Everything before that was just someone pushing to have the governor found out.

Quote:
Really? Disappearing has no bearing on your service?

It does when the issue is making a decision about that service. Answering if you are humping your wife or someone else, or taking a crap on the toilet, not so much. If Sanford were missing out on undertaking some executive business, then your point would be valid. However the legislative business was done, there were no emergencies that occurred or were anticipated to occur and the guy went off to recharge. Again the manner chosen, not appropriate, but all politicians do this.

Quote:
1. Because obviously it was going to come out eventually anyways.

2. It was used to counter a claim that was not in the mainstream at all (and I notice you've pretty much dropped that claim) but to play the victim and paint the media as a bully.

It was the proverbial killing of two bird with one stone. Reveal the embarrassing info that's going to come out anyways, and claim media mistreatment to go along with it.

You might have a point if reality hadn't run completely contrary to all that you explain there.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #91 of 261
The number of people who chose to participate in this "poll" says volumes.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #92 of 261
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Nice try. But you're comparing the scrutiny given to a presidential candidate to the scrutiny given to a city council person. This isn't even a mayor that we're talking about.

If she were democratic or republican candidate for vice president of the nation, she'd be getting national coverage.

But anyway, the story is already being covered, just not commented on incessantly at the national level.

I wasn't aware she was running for president. Also her husband is pretty powerful in Congress if you weren't aware of that. (Though I'm sure you are but it doesn't help the spin.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

I too find the partisan bickering to be hilarious. Well, that is when i'm not outraged and saddened by the unproductive quarreling.

But I don't think that debating specifics is just an American thing. Also, I would hate to live in a country that didn't find these things important. But damn, couldn't we have more civil and productive conversations?

Media used to be a unifying force. Everyone got the same nightly news so people got broad exposure to everything being reported at the national level. Now however, there are many more media outlets, each tailored to deliver the viewpoint already held by their viewers. What this means is that media is now having the opposite effect, it is isolating people from the views of others and reinforcing already well entrenched ideologies.

If a Democrat listens to only NPR or a Republican only watches Fox News, they are almost assured to become more extremist and convinced of their own ideals. This is worrisome but I don't know what the solution is. America is definitely becoming more divided and the hate between the two sides seems to grow with every passing year.

We're getting closer to conquering racism but we're sliding backward toward other forms of intolerance. AppleInsider forums are a perfect microcosm to demonstrate this. It maybe false observation on my part, but the threads here have become more and more worthless each year. The current state of discourse is downright pathetic. I don't think I've seen a productive thread in at least a year.

The media wasn't so much unifying as they were the only available option. As they saying goes, how's your wife, and the reply is compared to what?

America is becoming more divided because people are practicing divisive politics. Obama has been no different. We aren't in this together. It is the 95 versus the 5. It is the speculators versus the people. It is main street versus wall street. You point a finger at a group and assign blame, don't be surprised if they push back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

The number of people who chose to participate in this "poll" says volumes.

I put up the poll and gave it an end date. People can't participate because it closed in roughly five days. Please explain the volumes you think this speaks, especially in light of that information, instead of just casting off a rude insinuation.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #93 of 261
Thread Starter 
The BRILLIANT Thomas Sowell chimes in today with a piece that hits on many of the themes I've noted as well. His conclusion, there might not be a recovery from such serious problems.

Quote:
A quadrupling of the national debt in just one year and accepting a nuclear-armed sponsor of international terrorism like Iran are not things from which any country is guaranteed to recover.

Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II. It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender--especially with people in control of both the White House and the Congress who were for turning tail and running in Iraq just a couple of years ago.

Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their grand-daughters to live under sharia law.

As some love to note, elections have consequences. The presumption that they will all be positive is in no manner guaranteed in fact, it is looking like quite the opposite.

Quote:
The "smart money" says that the way for the Republicans to win elections is to appeal to a wider range of voters, including minorities, by abandoning the Ronald Reagan kinds of positions and supporting more of the kinds of positions that Democrats use to get elected. This sounds good on the surface, which is as far as many people go, when it comes to politics.

A corollary to this is that Republicans have to come up with alternatives to the Democrats' many "solutions," rather than simply be nay-sayers.

I think we have only heard this on here about a million times as well. As Sowell notes, history shows different.

Quote:
However plausible all this may seem, it goes directly counter to what has actually happened in politics in this generation. For example, Democrats studiously avoided presenting alternatives to what the Republican-controlled Congress and the Bush administration were doing, and just lambasted them at every turn. That is how the Democrats replaced Republicans at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Ronald Reagan won two elections in a landslide by being Ronald Reagan--and, most important of all--explaining to a broad electorate how what he advocated would be best for them and for the country. Newt Gingrich likewise led a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives by explaining how the Republican agenda would benefit a wide range of people.

Neither of them won by pretending to be Democrats. It is the mushy "moderates"-- the "kinder and gentler" Bush 41, Bob Dole and John McCain-- who lost disastrously, even in two cases to Democrats who were initially very little known, but who knew how to talk.

Reagan won twice, Bush 43 won twice and Bush 41, Dole, and McCain, the RINO's, the Republican-lites, they lost or were one termers.

Again Bush 41 is the prime example more than any other. He was a New Englander, moderate in his views in all forms. He raised taxes, ran a U.N. sanctions war that followed Colin Powell's advice perfectly, had a clear objective and it was over with quickly while keeping relations intact and even using help from all our allies. He gave us Clarence Thomas but also gave us David Souter by liberal reasoning. He had a presidential approval rating as high as the low 90's and yet lost his reelection bid with just 38% of the vote to Bill Clinton who promised to cut taxes and fix the economy. The brief recession during the Bush presidency saw unemployment run as high as 7.8%.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #94 of 261
That article is absolutely shit. But hilariously shit.

Quote:
Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their grand-daughters to live under sharia law.

Well yes. But we should all be worried that the British won't reclaim the United States. Where will we be then. We should also be worried that the Norwegians won't invade Alaska and make it a communist republic.

This, however, is absolutely priceless, and convinces me that the Republican party is fucked beyond any redemption.

Quote:
The "smart money" says that the way for the Republicans to win elections is to appeal to a wider range of voters, including minorities

Yes. Yes, you fucking idiot, this is how EVERY ELECTION IN EVERY DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD IS WON. This is how the Democrats won. They made proposals. The Republicans declared them "socialist." Obama won anyway.

Quote:
Ronald Reagan won two elections in a landslide by being Ronald Reagan--and, most important of all--explaining to a broad electorate how what he advocated would be best for them and for the country. Newt Gingrich likewise led a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives by explaining how the Republican agenda would benefit a wide range of people.

Yes. And now Barack Obama has won by a landslide by doing exactly the same thing. The nation agreed with him.

And now, good lord, economic indicators are beginning to improve. It's too soon to say for sure that we're out of the woods, but there's actually positive news.
post #95 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

That article is absolutely shit. But hilariously shit.



Well yes. But we should all be worried that the British won't reclaim the United States. Where will we be then. We should also be worried that the Norwegians won't invade Alaska and make it a communist republic.

This, however, is absolutely priceless, and convinces me that the Republican party is fucked beyond any redemption.



Yes. Yes, you fucking idiot, this is how EVERY ELECTION IN EVERY DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD IS WON. This is how the Democrats won. They made proposals. The Republicans declared them "socialist." Obama won anyway.



Yes. And now Barack Obama has won by a landslide by doing exactly the same thing. The nation agreed with him.

And now, good lord, economic indicators are beginning to improve. It's too soon to say for sure that we're out of the woods, but there's actually positive news.

Quote:
It's too soon to say for sure that we're out of the woods

Talon8472 in the Cheney thread seems to think that 6 months is long enough to claim that Obama has failed with regard to the economy. What is it with these people that makes them think 6 months would be long enough to tell anything for sure?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #96 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Talon8472 in the Cheney thread seems to think that 6 months is long enough to claim that Obama has failed with regard to the economy. What is it with these people that makes them think 6 months would be long enough to tell anything for sure?

Failure is in the eye of the beholder.

There are folks that believe Bush failed in New Orleans in response to the hurricane there, even though state emergencies (up to Hurricane Andrew, anyway) are usually handled through the Governors office by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Suddenly they're national issues deserving of personal attention from the president. It didn't take 6 months to lay the blame at Bush's feet even though he declared an emergency 2 days prior to landfall. The reason Bush was criticized was that FEMA failed to anticipate the extent of the emergency and that it failed to provide a successful response.

Now, a failure to anticipate the extent of the emergency and an unsuccessful response is being attributed to Obama's administration for it's handling of the economic situation.

That's apparently the price to pay if you want to sit in the oval office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...agement_Agency
post #97 of 261
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

That article is absolutely shit. But hilariously shit.

Thanks for the deep reasoning. In reality though thanks for commenting on the article rather than the poster. For that, you get a response.

Quote:
Well yes. But we should all be worried that the British won't reclaim the United States. Where will we be then. We should also be worried that the Norwegians won't invade Alaska and make it a communist republic.

We had quite the long cold war to contain communism. Study "the continent" right now and you will see that massive immigration is being used to offset the lack of birthrate in most countries. As I often tease when discussing this with my brother, I say, America and Europe both have immigration issues, but at least our immigrants don't want to kill us or set up different courts.

So though offered in jest, you might be half-right.

Quote:
This, however, is absolutely priceless, and convinces me that the Republican party is fucked beyond any redemption.

No problem. That will make the gains that much sweeter.

Quote:
Yes. Yes, you fucking idiot, this is how EVERY ELECTION IN EVERY DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD IS WON. This is how the Democrats won. They made proposals. The Republicans declared them "socialist." Obama won anyway.

Conservatism is the natural state of the American people including most married women and most minorities. If the Democrats weren't constantly scaring them with false claims and -isms, they would vote their beliefs instead of their fears.

Obama has already gone against most of his proposals. Democrats offered nothing but criticism while they were in the minority as Sowell notes. When they did make gains, it was for promising to be better Republicans than Republicans. Obama declared he would end the war and use the savings to pay down the deficit, not quadruple it. Democrats in 2006 ran on PAYGO, not on massive spending, carbon taxes and taking over health care.

Quote:
Yes. And now Barack Obama has won by a landslide by doing exactly the same thing. The nation agreed with him.

And now, good lord, economic indicators are beginning to improve. It's too soon to say for sure that we're out of the woods, but there's actually positive news.

If I see a peanut in a turd, I don't call it a meal. Obama ran not on a policy, but on a personality, one that is quickly being worn thin with all the celebrity coverage. When America is done with that, they will be done with him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Talon8472 in the Cheney thread seems to think that 6 months is long enough to claim that Obama has failed with regard to the economy. What is it with these people that makes them think 6 months would be long enough to tell anything for sure?

Yeah what is is with these people. It is almost like they expect him to govern, expect his stimulus to stimulate, expect his projections to be predictive and to later match reality.

What jerks!

Don't these folks understand good intentions and a desire for utopia! How dare reality get in the way of that!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #98 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

We had quite the long cold war to contain communism. Study "the continent" right now and you will see that massive immigration is being used to offset the lack of birthrate in most countries. As I often tease when discussing this with my brother, I say, America and Europe both have immigration issues, but at least our immigrants don't want to kill us or set up different courts.

So though offered in jest, you might be half-right.

The proposition that Norway, a nation with a population of less than 5,000,000 and a standing army of 16,000, is a threat to America is preposterous. The notion that Europe is going to become Islamic betrays an utter incomprehension of European history and could only be stated by someone who has never been to Europe or spends far too much time on the internet.

Europe is increasingly secular for a reason. The threat you think you see is invented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

If I see a peanut in a turd, I don't call it a meal. Obama ran not on a policy, but on a personality, one that is quickly being worn thin with all the celebrity coverage. When America is done with that, they will be done with him.

This is absolutely nonsense. Obama was criticised during the election for 'socialist' domestic and foreign policy you're now trying to tell me doesn't exist.
post #99 of 261
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

The proposition that Norway, a nation with a population of less than 5,000,000 and a standing army of 16,000, is a threat to America is preposterous. The notion that Europe is going to become Islamic betrays an utter incomprehension of European history and could only be stated by someone who has never been to Europe or spends far too much time on the internet.

Europe is increasingly secular for a reason. The threat you think you see is invented.

Wow, that massive command of reasoning and facts certainly has done in my argument. NOT.

Norway alone does not have to be a threat to the United States. There is no reason to focus on it alone. The entire EU, if majority Muslim or even Muslim controlled would represent a nuclear capably country of well over 800 million people. Claiming that history is a factor that can overcome demography is patently ridiculous. As I love to note, those who have the kids make the rules. Culture is only one generation deep and can change quickly. The native population of Europe has a birthrate that is FAR below replacement levels.

Hysterically, you note that Europe is increasingly secular without pondering the effects of that. The native population has a birthrate as low as 1.2 in countries like Italy and Spain, countries that previously were Catholic and had a birthrate that reflected that fact. Instead the incoming Islamic immigrants have a birthrate that is well ABOVE replacement level and is often 2-300% higher than the native population

Your nice ad-hom about having never been to Europe aside, call me when they aren't tolerating Sharia courts and looking to have their decisions made legally binding. Call me when France isn't having to complain and legislate about the increasing number of women wearing burqas and when the whole continent is watching Mosques being built. Also I'm not declaring Islam as naturally radical but the groups that do not assimilate and seek separation will follow that belief to its conclusion and in my view, it isn't a good conclusion.

Quote:
This is absolutely nonsense. Obama was criticised during the election for 'socialist' domestic and foreign policy you're now trying to tell me doesn't exist.

I don't care about the caricatures the media created before and now after the campaign. You look at what I said when discussing things with me. You can also find plenty of articles that note it doesn't matter what Obama says because his constituents think him lying for political expediency is just part of him being clever. So when the homosexual community sees Obama not supporting gay marriage, they think he does but is lying to the religious community. The reverse is true as well with the religious community believing he is lying to the homosexual community. However now that he has to govern, the lies are revealed as are the sides. We will either truly have the troops home or we won't. We will either have green jobs, or greedy payoffs, we will either have don't ask, don't tell, or we won't. Platitudes, speeches and personal claims won't matter the second time around. They won't even matter six months from now.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #100 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Failure is in the eye of the beholder.

There are folks that believe Bush failed in New Orleans in response to the hurricane there, even though state emergencies (up to Hurricane Andrew, anyway) are usually handled through the Governors office by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Suddenly they're national issues deserving of personal attention from the president. It didn't take 6 months to lay the blame at Bush's feet even though he declared an emergency 2 days prior to landfall. The reason Bush was criticized was that FEMA failed to anticipate the extent of the emergency and that it failed to provide a successful response.

Now, a failure to anticipate the extent of the emergency and an unsuccessful response is being attributed to Obama's administration for it's handling of the economic situation.

That's apparently the price to pay if you want to sit in the oval office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...agement_Agency

That this is such a poor analogy, I don't even know where to begin ...

1) Katrina happened almost four years ago. The 2nd strongest Atlantic hurricane ever (Rita had higher sustained wind speeds (offshore for both)). Plenty of hindsight versus the current ongoing in situ situation. We entered this recession in December 2007.

Quote:
In December 2008, the NBER declared that the United States had been in recession since December 2007, and several economists expressed their concern that there is no end in sight for the downturn and that recovery may not appear until as late as 2011.[8] The recession is considered the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[9][10]

So 13+ months of the current recession happened under Dubya's watch. Plenty of blame to go around though.

2) Katrina did all it's damage in less than 24 hours, i. e. less than one day. Which moves slower, the world's economy or a tropical cyclone/typhoon/hurricane?

3) A better analogy would be the events that the Bush administration precipitated in the 7+ years following 9-11. Unfortunately, Obama has only served for 180 days.

Black Tuesday? That was in 1929, or ~80 years ago.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #101 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Wow, that massive command of reasoning and facts certainly has done in my argument. NOT.
.

Your post is considerably wrong. Your sources are clearly so partial as to be useless. You call me "hysterical" and suggest with a straight face that Europe is in danger of an Islamic take over. This is utterly ludicrous and not considered worthy of a moment's debate outside of the most paranoid right wing fora. It is a notion so ridiculous, indeed, that it can only be made by someone who has never been to Europe. That's not an ad hom, to use your favorite phrase, but a factual observation.

Muslim people in Europe are outnumbered by more than 720,000,000 people I see from a moment's googling. Italy today is 94% Catholic. You haven't been to Italy. I say this because if you had, you wouldn't bother to argue what you're arguing. Even assuming that every Muslim in Europe is a radical, indeed that every child born to Muslim parents will follow their parents' religion and that the only immigrants into Europe are Muslim... actually, I can't even be bothered to do the math. It's a ridiculous suggestion made from ignorance and argued from fear.
post #102 of 261
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

That this is such a poor analogy, I don't even know where to begin ...

1) Katrina happened almost four years ago. The 2nd strongest Atlantic hurricane ever (Rita had higher sustained wind speeds (offshore for both)). Plenty of hindsight versus the current ongoing in situ situation. We entered this recession in December 2007.

So 13+ months of the current recession happened under Dubya's watch. Plenty of blame to go around though.

2) Katrina did all it's damage in less than 24 hours, i. e. less than one day. Which moves slower, the world's economy or a tropical cyclone/typhoon/hurricane?

3) A better analogy would be the events that the Bush administration precipitated in the 7+ years following 9-11. Unfortunately, Obama has only served for 180 days.

Black Tuesday? That was in 1929, or ~80 years ago.

Here is the deal Frank, and I suspect you might even agree with me on this one.

You are right, Bush had the recession start on his watch and unemployment rose to 7% by the time he left office. It had gone from 4% to 6% during the election timeframe. Sure guys like me would point out the Democratic Congress during those final two years, and you wouldn't agree, but whatever in that regard.

The main point though would be that it would have been very hard for Bush to win a third term and his job approval dropped as the unemployment rate rose. The lack of fiscal control during his eight years as a definite negative as well and I'm sure that contributed to that declining job approval too.

Here is where guys like myself scratch our heads and see the logic train coming off the rails. Bush inherited a recession as well. The dot com collapse occurred right as he came into office. Bush had to fix it, and take responsibility to fix it . Obama just gets to pass blame.

Obama passed a stimulus package with the intent of limiting unemployment to 8%. Instead unemployment has risen to 9.4%. He simply declared that he couldn't have gotten it right because by his claim EVERYONE got it wrong.

Obama got it wrong.

Bush did implement tax cuts and has taken all the heat including heat from me for the fact the national deficit doubled during his term.

The scale of the Obama spending is so huge though that it is already raising government bond rates, it is crowding out the private borrowing that was supposed to be fixed by the bailouts, it is crushing the recovery before it can really get started. Adding that $787 billion is all on Obama. Go to a couple financial news aggregators for a week or two. Our president's policies are starting trade wars, they are causing people to stop buying bonds, it is making them demand a new reserve currency.

That has absolutely nothing to do with Bush.

Bush did not pass cap and trade legislation that notes that if industry flees in an attempt to circumvent it, the U.S. government will impose tariffs on the products coming in from the other country in violation of the WTO. It is Obama that did that much like how Canada filed a similar complaint related to the stimulus. This is on Obama.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Your post is considerably wrong.

Based on rainbows and butterflies I guess.

Quote:
Your sources are clearly so partial as to be useless.

Ad-homing the source is allowed by the board rules, but doesn't improve the argument. Claiming bias doesn't address the articles claims anymore than claiming the National Enquirer is a yellow journalistic rag, made Edwards not cheat.

Quote:
You call me "hysterical" and suggest with a straight face that Europe is in danger of an Islamic take over.

Actually -ly makes it an adverb which in no form modifies you, the noun. There are several good reasons to fear Islamic influence in Europe. I listed a few of them and you haven't addressed them.

Quote:
This is utterly ludicrous and not considered worthy of a moment's debate outside of the most paranoid right wing fora. It is a notion so ridiculous, indeed, that it can only be made by someone who has never been to Europe. That's not an ad hom, to use your favorite phrase, but a factual observation.

I've been to Europe and I wouldn't engage in the fallacy of claiming that it made me right or made you wrong. It is an attempted personal attack and the very definition of Ad hominem circumstantial.

Quote:
Muslim people in Europe are outnumbered by more than 720,000,000 people I see from a moment's googling. Italy today is 94% Catholic. You haven't been to Italy. I say this because if you had, you wouldn't bother to argue what you're arguing. Even assuming that every Muslim in Europe is a radical, indeed that every child born to Muslim parents will follow their parents' religion and that the only immigrants into Europe are Muslim... actually, I can't even be bothered to do the math. It's a ridiculous suggestion made from ignorance and argued from fear.

I'm speaking several generations from now. We are talking about 75-100 years out. Again, while I did the little vacation tour bit, I would never claim that 14 days in Europe made me right or wrong.

What is right is the math you rail against. You toss out a lot of phrases that allow you to justify closing your mind and avoid all reasoning on this matter. In the timeframe I am discussing, the vast majority of those 720 million people won't be alive. For example Italy's birthrate is a little over 1.2 depending upon the source. That is a fact and so is the fact that it takes 2.1 as a birth rate to maintain a stable population. It is also a fact that Muslim birthrates are well above replacement rates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Your post is considerably wrong. Your sources are clearly so partial as to be useless. You call me "hysterical" and suggest with a straight face that Europe is in danger of an Islamic take over. This is utterly ludicrous and not considered worthy of a moment's debate outside of the most paranoid right wing fora. It is a notion so ridiculous, indeed, that it can only be made by someone who has never been to Europe. That's not an ad hom, to use your favorite phrase, but a factual observation.

Muslim people in Europe are outnumbered by more than 720,000,000 people I see from a moment's googling. Italy today is 94% Catholic. You haven't been to Italy. I say this because if you had, you wouldn't bother to argue what you're arguing. Even assuming that every Muslim in Europe is a radical, indeed that every child born to Muslim parents will follow their parents' religion and that the only immigrants into Europe are Muslim... actually, I can't even be bothered to do the math. It's a ridiculous suggestion made from ignorance and argued from fear.

Don Melvin writes that, excluding Russia, Europe's Muslim population will double by 2020. He also says that in 2005, almost 85% of Europe's total population growth in 2005 was due to immigration in general.[17][19] Omer Taspinar predicts that the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim will shrink by 3.5%, due to the higher Muslim birth rate.[20] Esther Pan predicts that, by 2050, one in five Europeans will likely be Muslim.[20][21]

Professor Philip Jenkins of Penn State University estimates that by 2100, Muslims will compose about 25% of Europe's population. But Jenkins admits this figure does not take account of the large birthrates amongst Europe's immigrant Christians.[22] Additionally, this estimation depends more on the supposed inevitability of the increase of Muslim population in the West and one person's research on the future of Europeans. Therefore, while Jenkins' estimation should be considered in the process of predicting what it would be like to live in the West in the year 2100, it should also be raising doubts about the entire European population.

Other analysts are skeptical about the given forecast and the accuracy of the claimed Muslim population growth, since sharp decrease in Muslim fertility rates[23] and the limiting of immigrants coming in to Europe, which will lead to Muslim population increasing slowly in the coming years to eventually stagnation and decline. Others point to overestimated number and exaggeration of the Muslim growth rate.[24]


Tell me that that Muslims can be 20-25% of the population and still have no political clout or control. Sure things can change and everyone is speculating about the future, but you can't conjure human beings out of the air. When you take the numbers we have now and project the trends forward, that is where we arrive. If you think something will alter the trends, present that information instead of fixating about how many days you think I've spent in Italy.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #103 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Here is the deal Frank, and I suspect you might even agree with me on this one.

You are right, Bush had the recession start on his watch and unemployment rose to 7% by the time he left office. It had gone from 4% to 6% during the election timeframe. Sure guys like me would point out the Democratic Congress during those final two years, and you wouldn't agree, but whatever in that regard.

The main point though would be that it would have been very hard for Bush to win a third term and his job approval dropped as the unemployment rate rose. The lack of fiscal control during his eight years as a definite negative as well and I'm sure that contributed to that declining job approval too.

Here is where guys like myself scratch our heads and see the logic train coming off the rails. Bush inherited a recession as well. The dot com collapse occurred right as he came into office. Bush had to fix it, and take responsibility to fix it . Obama just gets to pass blame.

Obama passed a stimulus package with the intent of limiting unemployment to 8%. Instead unemployment has risen to 9.4%. He simply declared that he couldn't have gotten it right because by his claim EVERYONE got it wrong.

Obama got it wrong.

Bush did implement tax cuts and has taken all the heat including heat from me for the fact the national deficit doubled during his term.

The scale of the Obama spending is so huge though that it is already raising government bond rates, it is crowding out the private borrowing that was supposed to be fixed by the bailouts, it is crushing the recovery before it can really get started. Adding that $787 billion is all on Obama. Go to a couple financial news aggregators for a week or two. Our president's policies are starting trade wars, they are causing people to stop buying bonds, it is making them demand a new reserve currency.

That has absolutely nothing to do with Bush.

Bush did not pass cap and trade legislation that notes that if industry flees in an attempt to circumvent it, the U.S. government will impose tariffs on the products coming in from the other country in violation of the WTO. It is Obama that did that much like how Canada filed a similar complaint related to the stimulus. This is on Obama.



Based on rainbows and butterflies I guess.



Ad-homing the source is allowed by the board rules, but doesn't improve the argument. Claiming bias doesn't address the articles claims anymore than claiming the National Enquirer is a yellow journalistic rag, made Edwards not cheat.



Actually -ly makes it an adverb which in no form modifies you, the noun. There are several good reasons to fear Islamic influence in Europe. I listed a few of them and you haven't addressed them.



I've been to Europe and I wouldn't engage in the fallacy of claiming that it made me right or made you wrong. It is an attempted personal attack and the very definition of Ad hominem circumstantial.



I'm speaking several generations from now. We are talking about 75-100 years out. Again, while I did the little vacation tour bit, I would never claim that 14 days in Europe made me right or wrong.

What is right is the math you rail against. You toss out a lot of phrases that allow you to justify closing your mind and avoid all reasoning on this matter. In the timeframe I am discussing, the vast majority of those 720 million people won't be alive. For example Italy's birthrate is a little over 1.2 depending upon the source. That is a fact and so is the fact that it takes 2.1 as a birth rate to maintain a stable population. It is also a fact that Muslim birthrates are well above replacement rates.



Don Melvin writes that, excluding Russia, Europe's Muslim population will double by 2020. He also says that in 2005, almost 85% of Europe's total population growth in 2005 was due to immigration in general.[17][19] Omer Taspinar predicts that the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim will shrink by 3.5%, due to the higher Muslim birth rate.[20] Esther Pan predicts that, by 2050, one in five Europeans will likely be Muslim.[20][21]

Professor Philip Jenkins of Penn State University estimates that by 2100, Muslims will compose about 25% of Europe's population. But Jenkins admits this figure does not take account of the large birthrates amongst Europe's immigrant Christians.[22] Additionally, this estimation depends more on the supposed inevitability of the increase of Muslim population in the West and one person's research on the future of Europeans. Therefore, while Jenkins' estimation should be considered in the process of predicting what it would be like to live in the West in the year 2100, it should also be raising doubts about the entire European population.

Other analysts are skeptical about the given forecast and the accuracy of the claimed Muslim population growth, since sharp decrease in Muslim fertility rates[23] and the limiting of immigrants coming in to Europe, which will lead to Muslim population increasing slowly in the coming years to eventually stagnation and decline. Others point to overestimated number and exaggeration of the Muslim growth rate.[24]


Tell me that that Muslims can be 20-25% of the population and still have no political clout or control. Sure things can change and everyone is speculating about the future, but you can't conjure human beings out of the air. When you take the numbers we have now and project the trends forward, that is where we arrive. If you think something will alter the trends, present that information instead of fixating about how many days you think I've spent in Italy.

I'll take one item :
Quote:
Here is where guys like myself scratch our heads and see the logic train coming off the rails. Bush inherited a recession as well. The dot com collapse occurred right as he came into office. Bush had to fix it, and take responsibility to fix it . Obama just gets to pass blame.

Bush didn't get blamed for the the recession but for the way he handled it.

Obama seems be getting blamed for it. Also he hasn't been at it all that long and is already been proclaimed a failure by the right. Bush didn't really get the heat until we were asking " Why start a war now? " and " How come unemployment doesn't seem to be recovering with everything else? " And it was lagging badly. As a matter of fact that was one of the least typical recoveries ever. Remember " Hamburger manufacturing "?

Let's all have another feel good kick back check!

No one's passing the blame. If after a year or so if things don't start looking up I'm sure Obama willl get a fair amount of heat for it also.

I'm guessing you're just waiting for that instead of hoping for all of us to recover.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #104 of 261
Thread Starter 
Washington Post

Quote:
Employers kept slashing jobs at a furious pace in June as the unemployment rate edged ever closer to double-digit levels, undermining signs of progress in the economy, and making clear that the job market remains in terrible shape.

The number of jobs on employers' payrolls fell by 467,000, the Labor Department said. That is many more jobs than were shed in May and far worse than the 350,000 job losses that economists were forecasting.

Job losses peaked in January and had declined every month until June. The steep losses show that even as there are signs that total economic activity may level off or begin growing later this year, the nation's employers are still pulling back.

The unemployment rate, meanwhile, which is based on a separate survey of households, rose to 9.5 percent, from 9.4 percent. While it is now rising at a more measured pace than in the recent past, many economists continue to expect that the rate will surpass 10 percent by fall.

Don't worry, it isn't like we committed $787 billion on the backs of our children and grand children to avoid this pain.... oh wait.

Also don't worry because the "solution" to the lack of stimulus created by the first bill will be to double down in the second bill.

Need to add that nice updated graph of Obama projections versus reality.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #105 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


Professor Philip Jenkins of Penn State University estimates that by 2100, Muslims will compose about 25% of Europe's population.

So, in 100 years, Muslim people will be outnumbered by non-Muslims by a mere %75 of the population.

Yes. The Muslim takeover of Europe is upon us. Watch out America.


Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Other analysts are skeptical about the given forecast and the accuracy of the claimed Muslim population growth, since sharp decrease in Muslim fertility rates[23] and the limiting of immigrants coming in to Europe, which will lead to Muslim population increasing slowly in the coming years to eventually stagnation and decline. Others point to overestimated number and exaggeration of the Muslim growth rate.[24][/I]

...but those analysts don't read the right wing blogs that this poster does, and we can discount them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Tell me that that Muslims can be 20-25% of the population and still have no political clout or control. Sure things can change and everyone is speculating about the future, but you can't conjure human beings out of the air. When you take the numbers we have now and project the trends forward, that is where we arrive.

You have embarrassingly failed to come remotely close to proving that a Muslim take over of Europe is possible or imminent. Your own citations do your argument no service.

You like laughing smilies, right? These are for you.
post #106 of 261
Thread Starter 
RCM

Quote:
While doing nothing to boost demand, Obama's "stimulus" will depress PBI, and therefore employment. This is because the "stimulus" plan requires selling an additional $787 billion in government bonds. The money to buy these bonds will have to come from somewhere, and much of it will come from people who would otherwise invest in starting or expanding businesses. Indeed, the bonds will have to be priced so that this risk-free investment is more attractive to investors than their other alternatives.

In the fourth quarter of 2008, the Federal government ran a deficit of $303 billion (and therefore had to sell $303 billion of new bonds) and business investment fell by 21.7%. In the first quarter of 2009, the Federal deficit was $650 billion and business investment fell by 37.3%. The economy is being forced to invest in Barack's Bailout Bonds rather than in businesses that create jobs.

Virtually everything the Obama administration wants to do will have the effect of increasing unemployment. As bad as joblessness is now, be prepared for it to get much, much worse.

I guess we could complain that he is being dour but even Obama is predicting double digit unemployment and we know he is HOPEY and CHANGEY.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #107 of 261
Thread Starter 

Quote:
Overall, 52% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. That, too, is a new low for the President. Forty-seen percent (47%) now disapprove.

I'm guessing that popularity = right argument is going to suddenly and hypocritically discarded soon.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #108 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

[
I'm guessing that popularity = right argument is going to suddenly and hypocritically discarded soon.

You are trying to say that "popularity = right argument" is foolish... and you are presenting an OPINION POLL to back up it up.



And yet you have the nerve to accuse others of "hypocrisy."
post #109 of 261
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

You are trying to say that "popularity = right argument" is foolish... and you are presenting an OPINION POLL to back up it up.



And yet you have the nerve to accuse others of "hypocrisy."

I've never claimed that Obama's poll numbers make his positions right. I cite them for those that make that argument. That way when the numbers reverse, it will be hilarious to watch them suddenly discard their own argument. Then we will go from, "Republicans will never recover if they don't realize X which is why the majority of Americans support Obama" to....

I'm waiting for the second half of that. It will be fun to watch.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #110 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I've never claimed that Obama's poll numbers make his positions right. I cite them for those that make that argument. That way when the numbers reverse, it will be hilarious to watch them suddenly discard their own argument. Then we will go from, "Republicans will never recover if they don't realize X which is why the majority of Americans support Obama" to....

I'm waiting for the second half of that. It will be fun to watch.

Wait all you want. It won't matter in the long run. And even if it does happen it won't do anything for those out of touch republicans who don't realize it.

To be quite frank I expected Obama's numbers to drop. This economic crisis won't be solved in the short term as we've already told you.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #111 of 261
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Wait all you want. It won't matter in the long run. And even if it does happen it won't do anything for those out of touch republicans who don't realize it.

To be quite frank I expected Obama's numbers to drop. This economic crisis won't be solved in the short term as we've already told you.

I suspect that you are correct in declaring it won't matter in the long run.

However that is because the way these numbers are dropping, it will matter in the short term more.



Quote:
Overall, 52% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. Yesterday and today are the first time that the number of voters who approve of the Presidents performance has slipped below the 53% share of the vote he won last November. Forty-eight percent (48%) now disapprove.

Obama has also swung down to 49-41 approval in Ohio from 62-31 two months prior. Ohio is known as quite the bellweather state with regard to political matters.

Popular or unpopular doesn't make something right or wrong, but it does make it unpopular.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #112 of 261
Thread Starter 


Quote:
Overall, 51% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. Forty-eight percent (48%) now disapprove. For other barometers of the Presidents performance, see Obama By the Numbers or review recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.

A few more links of note...

RCP- Obama's Strategic Mistake

Quote:
This moment is calling for a focus on the economy. That's why Barack Obama has the top job. It's not because of cap-and-trade, not because of health care, not because of his magnetic presence on the campaign trail - but because the economy was shrinking at a 6.1% annualized rate by Election Day. Americans were voting against recession by voting for him. This gives him a claim to a mandate, which not every President enjoys. He now has an opportunity to put his stamp on the country's economic policy in the name of recovery. Yet he's not doing that. He encouraged the Congress to rush through a poorly designed stimulus package that he had little involvement in; now he has focused the legislature's time and attention on health care, which is a secondary concern right now.

I think this is a strategic mistake. My scan of the history of American politics does not indicate that we've been governed so much by "alignments" - the systems of 1860, 1896, 1932, 1968, and so on. Instead, I see a country that votes for growth. That's the true American ideology. Left, right, or middle - the average American wants prosperity. When the majority party fails to deliver growth after having been elected to do so - the electoral consequences can be significant.

Washington Post

Quote:
What both Obama and Biden were trying to explain away was the dissonance between their early assurances that the big stimulus package would hold the unemployment rate around 8 percent and Thursday's report showing it at 9.5 percent. The jobless rate is expected to rise further in the months to come, with some economists predicting that it will go above 10 percent for the first time since 1982.

It seems hard to square an assessment that the administration underestimated the severity of the recession and the assertion that the White House wouldn't have done anything differently had it known how bad things really were. There were some economists who warned that even a package as big as $800 billion was not enough to deal with the severity of the economy's collapse.

Washington Post - Titanic

My favorite one.

Quote:
The jobs report last week opened a long gash beneath the waterline of President Obama's legislative agenda. Few realize it, but a scramble for lifeboats is about to begin.

On closer inspection, the economic news, which seemed bad, is even worse. Not only did unemployment rise to 9.5 percent but wages fell, undermining the consumption needed to revive a consumption-driven economy. Unemployment increased among "breadwinners" -- married men and women who head households -- also making major family purchases more difficult. Recent increases in unemployment benefits and food stamps have helped many Americans pay for food and rent. Jobs, however, are what lead to the purchase of furniture, cars and homes. Paired with a decline in business investment, these trends make a second-half recovery less likely.

The stimulus package hasn't been very stimulating -- as many economists predicted. Pouring money into the economy through a thirsty sponge of federal programs -- the preferred method of Congress -- is slow and inefficient. In retrospect, all of the stimulus funds should have been given to individuals directly from the tap.

There are political implications of a weak recovery -- none of them good for the president.

Obama's spending ambitions would have been jaw-dropping even in the best of economic times. Federal spending this year is about 28 percent of gross domestic product -- a figure exceeded only when Franklin Roosevelt was fighting a global war against Germany and Japan. Along the fiscal path Obama has chosen (according to the Congressional Budget Office) our national debt will more than double in 10 years and will amount to 82 percent of the entire economy.

Initially, Obama counted on an atmosphere of economic crisis to grease the passage of any legislation he pronounced an economic need. But it hasn't worked out that way. Whatever their virtues, restricting carbon emissions and expanding the health entitlement do not constitute a direct response to America's financial and economic failures. No economic theory suggests that a round of new federal regulations and entitlements would result in a burst of economic growth.

Talk about out of touch. More Americans are home unemployed and the Democrats are figuring out how much more they can take from them in terms of cap and trade and health care while passing out pork that doesn't fix the economy or create jobs.

Watch those numbers continue to fall and most of all watch for that double digit unemployment number. No amount of presidential soothing and cooing will soften the psychological blow that will come from that. One out of ten will create a scenario where charisma, charm and teleprompters won't fix the problem.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #113 of 261
Thread Starter 
CNN-Economy could make Obama, Democrats vulnerable in 2010

Quote:
They are two presidents from different parties but have striking similarities.
President Obama maintains that investing in key areas such as health care will help stabilize the economy.

President Obama maintains that investing in key areas such as health care will help stabilize the economy.

Former President Ronald Reagan and current President Obama are incredibly popular, and both faced rising unemployment early on.

Reagan's experience could be instructive for Democrats today; the GOP lost 26 seats in the 1982 elections. Reagan's popularity could not trump double-digit unemployment.

"If we look back at 1982, as soon as the unemployment rate hit 10 percent, there was a political dynamic that changed significantly ... and it became much harder for the incumbent party to be able to make their case," said Daniel Clifton, head of policy research at Strategas, an investment strategy and policy research firm.

But Reagan was fighting joblessness, inflation and high interest rates. Obama has a full plate, but inflation and high interest rates are not on it.

Nonetheless, the jobless rate today is at 9.5 percent, which is above the peak of 8 percent the White House predicted earlier this year. The administration now concedes 10 percent is likely in the next couple of months.

This will especially be interesting to see. Many of these new Democrats are Blue Dogs or in conservative areas. I wonder how they will justify cap and trade, trillions in spending and "fixing" the economy by watching inflation raise to double digits after their "solution."

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #114 of 261
Thread Starter 
YouTube

A very cute video which includes a number of print sources detailing how the media covered the recovery under the Bush first term. It should be noted that some of the statements clearly hold him responsible from the very first day he took office.

It follows with numerous clips potraying the Obama-glee and spin about the stimulus. Enjoy.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #115 of 261
Maybe the positive coverage is because we're intoxicated by speed.
post #116 of 261
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Maybe the positive coverage is because we're intoxicated by speed.

Great video!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #117 of 261
Thread Starter 
Obama strong approval index still at -8.



People like to talk about the house effects of certain polls. There is also a link(PDF) to a study about the accuracy of various polling outfits with regard to the presidential election last year. Guess who came out on top?

1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*


Let's take a look at the cellar dwellers.

16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
20. Newsweek (10/22-23)

The left wing echo chamber can have Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann "analyzing" what the latest push poll from CBS/NY TImes and Newsweek means for Republicans, but eventually reality is going to prevail. These outlets are going broke reporting propaganda.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #118 of 261
I've never paid much heed to polls. Even if they are accurate, popularity is a fickle thing. If you ride the wave of popular sentiment, eventually you'll wipeout.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #119 of 261
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I've never paid much heed to polls. Even if they are accurate, popularity is a fickle thing. If you ride the wave of popular sentiment, eventually you'll wipeout.

Oh I agree. However it will be fun to knock out that last remaining plank of non-reasoning. The last bit will be hilarious to watch. We have pork=stimulus and debt = fiscal responsibility and now we will be able to add not popular = giving the American people what they want.

Rasmussen



This is quite a bit of time at -8. It is no longer a blip. The most accurate poll has Obama at this. Overall, 53% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Forty-six percent (46%) disapprove.

Even CBS
, the least accurate poll has him dropping 11 points. It won't be long until he is held fully responsible for his non-stimulating "stimulus" and people wake up and realize transfer payments aren't jobs.

The most important aspect of this though is right now there are people who won't take on Obama due to his popularity. Thus their criticism and the action it would bring is muted. Once that line is crossed, then people can truly tear into why this stuff doesn't work without worrying that some percentage of deluded people are going to misapply reasoning against them. It is like the first six months of a love affair. After that you wake up a bit to the problems and might even be willing to hear them from others.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #120 of 261
Thread Starter 
Washington Post

Quote:
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.

and...

Quote:
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.

It just keeps coming...

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › When is the United States going to recover from Democratic Rule?