(04-27-2011 12:04 PM)TOGC Wrote:  You're the delusional one. The guy had a 49% approval rating from a Fox News poll earlier this month, and they're some of his biggest detractors.

First, in your stupidity, you assume Fox News deliberately skews their polls for a result. Second, see the gallup poll below. I'd say their daily poll is a little better than a poll "earlier in the month."

Obama Job Approval 44%

Quote:Unemployment has dropped from 10.1% in October 2009 to 8.8% in March. The DJIA bottomed out at 6500 in March 2009 and it currently sits at 12634 today.

Fail. The unemployment rate is 9.2%. And as I stated earlier, which I don't expect you to understand, that doesnt' account for those who have stopped looking. http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usun...rate]Linky

Quote:As for the healthcare bill, the majority want to tweak it not kill it.

The tweaks they want makes Obamacare no longer Obamacare. This was voted on junior in 2010. You can't spin it as if it's something Obama will lean on. The dems wouldn't even campaign on it.

Quote:And the incumbent has a huge advantage over the challenger. Obama has cash to spare from his first campaign, and he doesn't have any challengers for his party's nomination. The Republicans have to duke it out with each other, which costs a ton, and then against the POTUS, which costs even more.

Jimmy Carter and Bush '41 had all those advantages. How'd that work out?

Quote:He'll win reelection easily.

Possible. But the economic climate will have to be very different. My point is that you have no reasonable basis on which to make that claim. But then again you're not much on facts and reason, so that's not a surprise.

Wow. You just posted lie after lie.

(04-27-2011 12:17 PM)TOGC Wrote:  Wow. You just posted lie after lie.

Prove it.

1. You're saying that Obama's job approval rating according to Gallup isn't 44%?
2. You're saying that the unemployment rate isn't 9.2% as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for March?
3. You're saying the majority of Americans don't want the individual mandate stripped from Obamacare, which is the central piece of he legislation?
4. You're saying Jimmy Carter and Bush 41 didn't have the advantage of incumbancy when they ran or that they didn't lose reelection? You'll need to clarify.

Please point out my lies and provide evidence to back it up. I know you're not familiar with how that works, so get a third grader to help you.

I will say thank you for illustrating again why you're a troll and incapable of having a reasoned discussion.

The economic climate will be very different in November 2012 from what it is today, and that will ultimately decide things. I think it will be much worse, because I think the things Obama has done (like Shrub before him) are unsound and will eventually unravel. I think we are getting very close to everything unraveling. I think we've seen the positive impacts of TARP and stimulus and QE. Now we'll start to see the long-term effects, which are negative. And if there's one thing we don't need, it's bad news about the economy.

The numbers that are being bandied about to show how much better the economy is doing don't really have that impact on me. The stock market is up because US companies are making money overseas, not here. The official unemployment rate is down because people have stopped looking; the combined unemployment/underemployment rate is way too high.

Because of all the ins and outs in the unemployment rates, the one statistic that I think bears watching is the number of jobs added each month. We need about 150,000 net new jobs per month to tread water, about 250,000 to put a significant dent in unemployment. We've run a little above 200,000 for a couple of months, if we stay there we could be okay. But I think several trends underway right now could seriously undermine those numbers, starting with the oil price spike.

I don't think Iraq or Afghanistan will be resolved, and could be worse, and obviously we've got some downside exposure in Libya. But I think it'll be the economy that will overtake every other issue.

(04-27-2011 09:26 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 09:25 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-26-2011 02:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I agree he should have kept them...but what would they entail anyway? A bunch of letters from constituents? What would that prove or serve to vet him in anyway?

It's a safe bet there was much more than that in the records. There would be memos written by himself to other senators, letters from and too him not just from constituents but from lobbyists and special interest groups. They would provide insight into how he executed his office.

Quote:And there was no law that he had to keep anything was there?

It's not about a law requiring it. It's about a pattern that Obama has displayed to be a guy with no paper trail. Won't release his college papers or transcripts, unlike all other past presidential candidates, can't find his state Senate papers, votes "Present" more than he votes yes/no. All of it adds up to a guy who doesn't want people to know who he really is, rather he wants people to know what he tells them he is. Yes, politically it's great, especially when the media will aid him in the effort by refusing to go after those things. But it's a luxury no republican candidate would ever be afforded.

Quote:Anything he did in the state senate would have been recorded and in the public record I would imagine.

Any vote, sure. but that's it.

Lots of "present" votes were recorded.

129 out of the roughly 4,000 state senate votes is lots?

It's around 3%.

And do you know that a present vote is basically the same as voting no in Illinois?

Or do you prefer to keep using old debunked diversions?

I had to laugh this morning when the birth certificate was released. No, not at the announcement, etc. I had to laugh because (and this is not unusual) it took the Telegraph from the UK to remind people that this "birther" stuff actually was started by Hillary's camp during the 2008 primary. Not something that our media really wants to focus on - that those in Obama's own party had their doubts about him.

That issue is now over but I fully expect the Donald to continue hammering for the release of school records, etc. He's useful that way - anybody who thinks that Trump is a conservative hasn't checked him out.

I agree with Owl69/70/75 that what will be most important in the 2012 election will be the economy and that the outlook for it improving before then is rather grim.

(04-27-2011 12:24 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 12:17 PM)TOGC Wrote:  Wow. You just posted lie after lie.

Prove it.

1. You're saying that Obama's job approval rating according to Gallup isn't 44%?
2. You're saying that the unemployment rate isn't 9.2% as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for March?
3. You're saying the majority of Americans don't want the individual mandate stripped from Obamacare, which is the central piece of he legislation?
4. You're saying Jimmy Carter and Bush 41 didn't have the advantage of incumbancy when they ran or that they didn't lose reelection? You'll need to clarify.

Please point out my lies and provide evidence to back it up. I know you're not familiar with how that works, so get a third grader to help you.

I will say thank you for illustrating again why you're a troll and incapable of having a reasoned discussion.

1. I mentioned Fox News, which is biased towards conservatives. I made no mention of Gallup.
2. The Federal Reserve listed 8.8% for March.
3. I'm saying the majority don't want the healthcare bill removed, regardless of the lie propagated by conservatives. The majority want it altered. Same as any other major piece of legislation.
4. You listed two incumbents who lost. Go back 50 years or 100 years and tell me percentage-wise how many incumbents lost and you'll see it's a small percentage. Even Dubya, who had one of the worst approval ratings ever, someone managed a second term. Obama's approval rating is wayyyyyyyyyyy better than Dubya's was.

Go troll somewhere else you partisan hack.

(04-27-2011 01:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And do you know that a present vote is basically the same as voting no in Illinois?

Wow, just....wow.

(04-27-2011 01:35 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 01:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And do you know that a present vote is basically the same as voting no in Illinois?

Wow, just....wow.

Whatever!

I'm on my phone so I can't link a story, so I suggest you go to factcheck.org and look it up.

Bottom line, it's a common practice in Illinois and you know it!

(04-27-2011 01:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 01:35 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 01:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And do you know that a present vote is basically the same as voting no in Illinois?

Wow, just....wow.

Whatever!

I'm on my phone so I can't link a story, so I suggest you go to factcheck.org and look it up.

Bottom line, it's a common practice in Illinois and you know it!

Then why didn't he just f'n VOTE no? Trouble making a damn decision? Figures. He had about as much executive experience as my Lhasa Apso.

(04-27-2011 01:35 PM)TOGC Wrote:  1. I mentioned Fox News, which is biased towards conservatives. I made no mention of Gallup.

1. You provided zero evidence that Fox News skews their polls. My guess is you don't know how polls are taken, which is why you put forth such a stupid assertion. Also you cite one from a month ago that has him higher than one today, and somehow think that's more valid. Could be cause you're stupid.

Quote:2. The Federal Reserve listed 8.8% for March.

Since when does the Federal Reserve measure unemployment rate seperate from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics? Can you provide a link to this?

Quote:3. I'm saying the majority don't want the healthcare bill removed, regardless of the lie propagated by conservatives. The majority want it altered. Same as any other major piece of legislation.

Nice straw man junior. Problem is saying the majority don't want it repealed doesn't disprove the majority didn't want it. And the majortiy want the individual mandate removed, which essentially kills the entire bill because without the individual mandate there is no way to pay for it. People who are smarter than you, like the majority of the people on here, know this.

Quote:4. You listed two incumbents who lost. Go back 50 years or 100 years and tell me percentage-wise how many incumbents lost and you'll see it's a small percentage. Even Dubya, who had one of the worst approval ratings ever, someone managed a second term. Obama's approval rating is wayyyyyyyyyyy better than Dubya's was.

Wow, way to miss the point entirely. Would love to say I'm shocked, but I'm not. Incumbancy doesn't exist in a vacuum boo boo. Reelections are determined by many things, among them the success of a first term, economic conditions and the overall job approval rating of the incumbant.

Bush 41 and Carter both lost, largely due to economic times that weren't as bad as right now for 41, about the same or a little worse for Carter. The idea that Obama can some how magically win reelection in spite of economic conditions further illustrates your abject stupidity.

Bush's approval rating in 2004 when he was reelected - 53%
Obama's approval rating right now - 44%.

[qutoe]Go troll somewhere else you partisan hack.
[/quote]

Troll? Nope, that'd be you. See trolls spew off at the mouth with no facts to back them up. See I provided links to data to back up everything I said. I used established historical facts as well.

You on the other hand said I lied, and when asked to prove it, couldn't. That is why you are a troll junior.

Go back to the high school boards. You're way out of your league here.

(04-27-2011 01:35 PM)TOGC Wrote:  1. I mentioned Fox News, which is biased towards conservatives. I made no mention of Gallup.

1. You provided zero evidence that Fox News skews their polls. My guess is you don't know how polls are taken, which is why you put forth such a stupid assertion. Also you cite one from a month ago that has him higher than one today, and somehow think that's more valid. Could be cause you're stupid.

Quote:2. The Federal Reserve listed 8.8% for March.

Since when does the Federal Reserve measure unemployment rate seperate from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics? Can you provide a link to this?

Quote:3. I'm saying the majority don't want the healthcare bill removed, regardless of the lie propagated by conservatives. The majority want it altered. Same as any other major piece of legislation.

Nice straw man junior. Problem is saying the majority don't want it repealed doesn't disprove the majority didn't want it. And the majortiy want the individual mandate removed, which essentially kills the entire bill because without the individual mandate there is no way to pay for it. People who are smarter than you, like the majority of the people on here, know this.

Quote:4. You listed two incumbents who lost. Go back 50 years or 100 years and tell me percentage-wise how many incumbents lost and you'll see it's a small percentage. Even Dubya, who had one of the worst approval ratings ever, someone managed a second term. Obama's approval rating is wayyyyyyyyyyy better than Dubya's was.

Wow, way to miss the point entirely. Would love to say I'm shocked, but I'm not. Incumbancy doesn't exist in a vacuum boo boo. Reelections are determined by many things, among them the success of a first term, economic conditions and the overall job approval rating of the incumbant.

Bush 41 and Carter both lost, largely due to economic times that weren't as bad as right now for 41, about the same or a little worse for Carter. The idea that Obama can some how magically win reelection in spite of economic conditions further illustrates your abject stupidity.

Bush's approval rating in 2004 when he was reelected - 53%
Obama's approval rating right now - 44%.

[qutoe]Go troll somewhere else you partisan hack.
[/quote]

Troll? Nope, that'd be you. See trolls spew off at the mouth with no facts to back them up. See I provided links to data to back up everything I said. I used established historical facts as well.

You on the other hand said I lied, and when asked to prove it, couldn't. That is why you are a troll junior.

Go back to the high school boards. You're way out of your league here.

You really are an idiot.

(04-27-2011 05:32 PM)TOGC Wrote:  You really are an idiot.

Yes he is. He thought so highly of his post he had to post it twice!

(04-27-2011 06:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 05:32 PM)TOGC Wrote:  You really are an idiot.

Yes he is. He thought so highly of his post he had to post it twice!

Isn't that sweet. The biggest trolls on the forum are making nice.

As for me being an idiot. I would invite any impartial third party to examine our posts and make the determination as to the intellectual comparison between us. I have no doubt I'd come out on the better side of that. Sort of like if you put a Corvette next to a Cobalt.

(04-27-2011 07:01 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 06:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 05:32 PM)TOGC Wrote:  You really are an idiot.

Yes he is. He thought so highly of his post he had to post it twice!

Isn't that sweet. The biggest trolls on the forum are making nice.

As for me being an idiot. I would invite any impartial third party to examine our posts and make the determination as to the intellectual comparison between us. I have no doubt I'd come out on the better side of that. Sort of like if you put a Corvette next to a Cobalt.

You'd be a Gremlin.

(04-27-2011 07:01 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 06:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 05:32 PM)TOGC Wrote:  You really are an idiot.

Yes he is. He thought so highly of his post he had to post it twice!

Isn't that sweet. The biggest trolls on the forum are making nice.

As for me being an idiot. I would invite any impartial third party to examine our posts and make the determination as to the intellectual comparison between us. I have no doubt I'd come out on the better side of that. Sort of like if you put a Corvette next to a Cobalt.

They are right. You are an idiot.

(04-27-2011 02:33 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-26-2011 12:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/04/ridin...razor.html

That's among the worst articles I've seen from voxday.

voxday Wrote:Consider the two primary logical possibilities:

A) Obama is eligible and is hiding the evidence of his eligibility because questioning his eligibility makes his opponents look bad.

B) Obama is not eligible and is hiding the evidence of it because it proves he is not eligible.

Which makes more logical sense, especially in light of the fact that questioning his eligibility has now produced a #1 best-selling book and propelled a celebrity to an early pole position in the Republican primary? The logic of (A) doesn't stand because its foundation is flawed. Questioning his eligibility actually makes his opponents more successful and popular. Therefore, Obama is either wildly inept in not releasing the information or he simply cannot afford to release it as per (B).

I think we have the answer on this supposition...

Me thinks Trump fired whomever he used to determine that the birther strategy was a winning one.

LMFAO!

(04-27-2011 07:01 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 06:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 05:32 PM)TOGC Wrote:  You really are an idiot.

Yes he is. He thought so highly of his post he had to post it twice!

Isn't that sweet. The biggest trolls on the forum are making nice.

As for me being an idiot. I would invite any impartial third party to examine our posts and make the determination as to the intellectual comparison between us. I have no doubt I'd come out on the better side of that. Sort of like if you put a Corvette next to a Cobalt.

Well, I have to tell you, even if the third party didn't know that the reason I rarely post anything "intellectual" is because it it is a waste of time trying to educate you, they woul realize you are an idiot just by reading your "intellectual" posts.