Obama Pres summed up

Very good article.

I read the article and find some opinion of the writer in it.

Why, that must certainly be a first......

(08-13-2010 11:32 AM)bronco74 Wrote:  Obama Pres summed up

Very good article.

Eh, right wing drivel. Somebody else could post a just as meaningless piece of left-wing drivel. Obama's not that bad but he's not very good.

And I want the job as this guy's editor. Who were the Anciens? And why didn't Obama ace decisively? This guy is a professional writer? Check out number 10.

(08-13-2010 02:59 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(08-13-2010 11:32 AM)bronco74 Wrote:  Obama Pres summed up

Very good article.

Eh, right wing drivel. Somebody else could post a just as meaningless piece of left-wing drivel. Obama's not that bad but he's not very good.

And I want the job as this guy's editor. Who were the Anciens? And why didn't Obama ace decisively? This guy is a professional writer? Check out number 10.

His F7 key is broken.

(08-13-2010 11:52 AM)steer Wrote:  I read the article and find some opinion of the writer in it.

No kidding, it is an op ed.

(08-14-2010 05:23 PM)bronco74 Wrote:  

(08-13-2010 11:52 AM)steer Wrote:  I read the article and find some opinion of the writer in it.

No kidding, it is an op ed.

Than it's not an article. And you calling it "very good article" is misleading opinion too.

I notice that the author of this piece appears frequently on Fahks News. All the more reason for me to not read any farther.

Point #1- The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people

Health Care- American's poll over 60% against it
The AZ prop- 70% agreed with AZ, B.O. came out against it
Ground Zero Mosque- He spoke out in favor of it on Saturday. Now he's back tracking like a mother f#$ker as polling shows he's totally on the wrong side of that issu.
Marie Antonette's let them eat cake tour of Spain- A giant political faux pas.

Point #2- Americans have no confidence in B.O.'s decision making.

Quote:According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.

^Tell me folks. What don't you grasp about that poll? Tell me where his opinion comes into play?

#3 The United States is drowning in debt

Quote:The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035.

So you folks who think this guy is all bunk, don't think we're drowning in debt?

I'd like to hear you people who think he's b.s. tell which one of his points is false, and back it up. Not holding my breath on that one...............

Nobody called to see what my opinion is.

That tells you something right there.

If polls were the ultimate deciding factor, Al Gore wins in 2000.

(08-16-2010 08:24 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  If polls were the ultimate deciding factor, Al Gore wins in 2000.

Care to address the 10 points the guy makes in the article?

DEFLECTING

^

Not an article, it's a blog and not a very well written one. I think your recruiting articles rival that mess. Why don't you point out why you support his ten points in your own words first instead of challenging everyone here to take his points on and acting so above all this discussion? You're not, you jumped in with your backwoods logic, now you're pining for an argument with anyone now that it's late in the evening and the booze is flowing.

Now, once again, do YOU care to address your reference to polls being such an ultimate authority?

Quote:Not an article, it's a blog and not a very well written one.

^ Not a response and not very well written either

They're ten valid points. If they're so stupid, a bright guy like yourself should be able to explain what's wrong with them.

Quote:backwoods logic
you're pining for an argument
late in the evening and the booze is flowing.

^ This is what you do. Someone brings something of substance to the table, and you imply, "that's just dumb" and think you've made a solid argument. When that fails you resort to attacking the messenger.......................but what you rarely do is actually debate the points.

You brought nothing of substance other than to say "debate his points". If that's what you call "bringing to the table", everyone goes hungry. So, why do you cite polls in this case when you were so sure they were bs for Al Gore in 2000?

Quote:This is what you do. Someone brings something of substance to the table, and you imply, "that's just dumb" and think you've made a solid argument. When that fails you resort to attacking the messenger.......................but what you rarely do is actually debate the points.

You know, you bait with that, but be careful, you're the one who gets boxed in with your childish thought process and then starts name calling, cartoon posting, and mocking. When you get it in return, you get nasty and personal, then you get it in return and you pull out the victim card. It's like a script around here, and to that point, I haven't implied anything other than to question your penchant for citing polls to back up your hatred of everything BHO, and you're off on your tangent, fit throwing mission trying to get someone to engage you in a fight.

Nothing new here.

I pointed out three points that are based in things like polling data, CBO debt projections, etc.

The author gave 10 points and backed them with specific examples. You mean to tell me you can't address one single point, that your only point of debate is to call his ideas stupid because they differ from yours? That being the case you must have an opinion that differs with the authors, how bout sharing those opinions. What I don't get is if you have nothing of substance to offer, why even post?

Quote:You mean to tell me you can't address one single point, that your only point of debate is to call his ideas stupid because they differ from yours?

Where did I say that exactly?

Quote:I pointed out three points that are based in things like polling data, CBO debt projections, etc.

Idle bs and that's what I referring to, your penchant for citing polls at the be all end all to support your hatred of this administration.

Quote:What I don't get is if you have nothing of substance to offer, why even post?

You're the judge of what's substance? Seriously? Your flat out distortions of truth and spin in these debates on this board are your examples of substance? That drabble you post about bronco basketball and football, predicting greatness and professing how impressed each year hoping that one of them comes true is substance?

Get real.

Classic DB right here

CD

Quote:I pointed out three points that are based in things like polling data, CBO debt projections, etc.

DB

Quote:Idle bs and that's what I referring to, your penchant for citing polls at the be all end all to support your hatred of this administration.

The polls cited were cited in the article, I simply posted the quote from the article. Did you even read it before you started belittling it, and following it up with mudslinging? Do you even follow politics? I'm starting to wonder.

That blog is just a classic baiting thing. It's not journalism at all. It's just putting ten things up there that somebody can pick a fight over.

This is a method of confrontation where you pick your own battles.

Most of the points are so stupid they are not worth the time to talk about.