Do you approve of President Obama's job performance?

[Billy000]

Sorry Bill, but you aren't at liberty to just casually dismiss a source just because it is right wing. You can only suggest it after you have pointed out enough of it's faults with the facts that an objective third party observer would conclude the source is wrong or wrong headed or deceptive too often to be believed.

I could just matter of factly and without any cause dismiss every source you'd ever introduce if I didn't agree with it.

The way Obama supporters deal with and consider information sources is what I believe is at the heart of why Obama has the support he does.

And somewhat more than than 55% of Obama's 2012 voters regret having done so.

Are you going to be an Obama Dead Ender?

Like Saddam's loyalists who knew the cause was lost but fought on til the very end because they had nothing to lose. They knew a Human Rights tribunal would convict and execute them. Maybe that's why they were called Dead Enders. They knew their destiny was execution so why not fight to the death/

But what explains the insane loyalty to Obama???

Ugh.

When it comes to issues like economics, political ideology must be largely not part of the conversation. Your sources distort the truth by not giving us all the facts.

Point them out.

No broad brush stroke condemnations.

Be specific.

What exactly am I supposed to dispute? Your first source is a general look at progressivism. Your third is a fucking YouTube video. Your second source is just a rehash of old republican taking points about Benghazi. What does Benghazi even have to do with progressivism in general? You dont even have am original thought out of all this. You're just regurgitating rightwing BS and coming to a grand conclusion about progressives in general.

Tell me if Obama's approval ratings are so telling, then why are the GOP's approval ratings so much worse?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If the damn Rs would stop their anti-American obstruction, a lot more could get done but -

I just posted this list ...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/341706-what-has-president-obama-accomplished.html

 

[Mojo2]

He was done pretty much what I thought he would do and turned out to be who I figured he was just your typical politician.

Sorry, what?

That's what he is. A politician.

If a Doctor comes in and cures your ills.

Do you go..well he did pretty much what I thought he would do. He was a typical Doctor..

Sorry I don't pretend he is a god who walks among us or have a Obama shrine in my house I see him for what he is.

This article is one of THE best to look insightfully at what Obama has done and why he's done it, that I have ever read. It isn't easily summarized so i will post a short excerpt and the link.

And for our liberal readers: If you read this article thoroughly from start to finish I will promise you will receive oral favors from the sexiest person of your preferred orientation and/or gender of your choice AND a bottle of your favorite liquor (less than $100) AND FIVE GRAMS of legalized herb to smoke or do with as you wish. (Check your local laws.) If you'll believe Obama's lies why not these lies of mine?

How Obama Thinks

Theories abound to explain the President’s goals and actions. Critics in the business community–including some Obama voters who now have buyer’s remorse–tend to focus on two main themes. The first is that Obama is clueless about business. The second is that Obama is a socialist–not an out-and-out Marxist, but something of a European-style socialist, with a penchant for leveling and government redistribution.

These theories aren’t wrong so much as they are inadequate. Even if they could account for Obama’s domestic policy, they cannot explain his foreign policy. The real problem with Obama is worse–much worse. But we have been blinded to his real agenda because, across the political spectrum, we all seek to fit him into some version of American history. In the process, we ignore Obama’s own history. Here is a man who spent his formative years–the first 17 years of his life–off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa.

A good way to discern what motivates Obama is to ask a simple question: What is his dream? Is it the American dream? Is it Martin Luther King’s dream? Or something else?

It is certainly not the American dream as conceived by the founders. They believed the nation was a “new order for the ages.” A half-century later Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of America as creating “a distinct species of mankind.” This is known as American exceptionalism. But when asked at a 2009 press conference whether he believed in this ideal, Obama said no. America, he suggested, is no more unique or exceptional than Britain or Greece or any other country.

Perhaps, then, Obama shares Martin Luther King’s dream of a color-blind society. The President has benefited from that dream; he campaigned as a nonracial candidate, and many Americans voted for him because he represents the color-blind ideal. Even so, King’s dream is not Obama’s: The President never champions the idea of color-blindness or race-neutrality. This inaction is not merely tactical; the race issue simply isn’t what drives Obama.

What then is Obama’s dream? We don’t have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father’s dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn’t writing about his father’s dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father.

So who was Barack Obama Sr.?

Continued at the link.

How Obama Thinks - Forbes

 

[Luddly Neddite]

When it comes to issues like economics, political ideology must be largely not part of the conversation. Your sources distort the truth by not giving us all the facts.

Point them out.

No broad brush stroke condemnations.

Be specific.

What exactly am I supposed to dispute? Your first source is a general look at progressivism. Your third is a fucking YouTube video. Your second source is just a rehash of old republican taking points about Benghazi. What does Benghazi even have to do with progressivism in general? You dont even have am original thought out of all this. You're just regurgitating rightwing BS and coming to a grand conclusion progressives in general.

Tell me if Obama's approval ratings are so telling, then why are the GOP's approval ratings so much worse?

Very telling is that some R's approval rating is lower in their own state than the president's.

McConnell comes to mind.

I think a lot of Americans are just fed up with the Rs working for other countries instead of their own. Not to mention the ongoing war they wage on most Americans - women, children, minorities, etc.

 

[Mojo2]

When it comes to issues like economics, political ideology must be largely not part of the conversation. Your sources distort the truth by not giving us all the facts.

Point them out.

No broad brush stroke condemnations.

Be specific.

What exactly am I supposed to dispute? Your first source is a general look at progressivism. Your third is a fucking YouTube video. Your second source is just a rehash of old republican taking points about Benghazi. What does Benghazi even have to do with progressivism in general? You dont even have am original thought out of all this. You're just regurgitating rightwing BS and coming to a grand conclusion about progressives in general.

Tell me if Obama's approval ratings are so telling, then why are the GOP's approval ratings so much worse?

"Billy, don't be a hero, don't be a fool with your life..."

I swear, when i read your post I hear the strains of this idiotic song over and over in my head.

What you are supposed to do is find exactly what it is about each of my sources that is incorrect or deceptive.

That is the only way you can dismiss them for cause.

Otherwise, even though they disagree with your point of view you must accept them as fact and as being valid comments and/or criticisms of your point of view, opinions or ideology.

"...don't be a fool with you life..."

Oops, there it goes again!!!

Dammit!

 

[Billy000]

Point them out.

No broad brush stroke condemnations.

Be specific.

What exactly am I supposed to dispute? Your first source is a general look at progressivism. Your third is a fucking YouTube video. Your second source is just a rehash of old republican taking points about Benghazi. What does Benghazi even have to do with progressivism in general? You dont even have am original thought out of all this. You're just regurgitating rightwing BS and coming to a grand conclusion about progressives in general.

Tell me if Obama's approval ratings are so telling, then why are the GOP's approval ratings so much worse?

"Billy, don't be a hero, don't be a fool with your life..."

I swear, when i read your post I hear the strains of this idiotic song over and over in my head.

What you are supposed to do is find exactly what about each of my sources that you find to be incorrect or deceptive.

That is the only way you can dismiss them for cause.

Other wise, even though they disagree with your point of view you must accept them as fact and as being valid comments and/or criticisms of your point of view, opinions or ideology.

"...don't be a fool with you life..."

Oops, there it goes again!!!

Dammit!

But if you are too lazy and dumb to come up with an original thought of your own, why should I go through the trouble disputing your copy and paste?

 

[Mojo2]

Point them out.

No broad brush stroke condemnations.

Be specific.

What exactly am I supposed to dispute? Your first source is a general look at progressivism. Your third is a fucking YouTube video. Your second source is just a rehash of old republican taking points about Benghazi. What does Benghazi even have to do with progressivism in general? You dont even have am original thought out of all this. You're just regurgitating rightwing BS and coming to a grand conclusion progressives in general.

Tell me if Obama's approval ratings are so telling, then why are the GOP's approval ratings so much worse?

Very telling is that some R's approval rating is lower in their own state than the president's.

McConnell comes to mind.

I think a lot of Americans are just fed up with the Rs working for other countries instead of their own. Not to mention the ongoing war they wage on most Americans - women, children, minorities, etc.

Leave it to YOU to try the ole Boomerang.

Taking a criticism that you must hear and endure and suffer from and defend yourself against regularly and hurl it back at Republicans even though everyone knows the only people who are working for other countries are you and your ilky fellows.

 

[Mojo2]

What exactly am I supposed to dispute? Your first source is a general look at progressivism. Your third is a fucking YouTube video. Your second source is just a rehash of old republican taking points about Benghazi. What does Benghazi even have to do with progressivism in general? You dont even have am original thought out of all this. You're just regurgitating rightwing BS and coming to a grand conclusion about progressives in general.

Tell me if Obama's approval ratings are so telling, then why are the GOP's approval ratings so much worse?

"Billy, don't be a hero, don't be a fool with your life..."

I swear, when i read your post I hear the strains of this idiotic song over and over in my head.

What you are supposed to do is find exactly what about each of my sources that you find to be incorrect or deceptive.

That is the only way you can dismiss them for cause.

Other wise, even though they disagree with your point of view you must accept them as fact and as being valid comments and/or criticisms of your point of view, opinions or ideology.

"...don't be a fool with you life..."

Oops, there it goes again!!!

Dammit!

But if you are too lazy and dumb to come up with an original thought of your own, why should I go through the trouble disputing your copy and paste?

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This is a textbook example of what is wrong with the Left.

Government is supposed to work to serve the needs of the people. It does not serve the needs better because it is new and flashy and fun and exciting and original.

On the contrary, that is one of the problems with government. Too much style and not enough substance.

I have cited sources that will give you good, honest, nourishing information that you would benefit from.

If it isn't original thought it is because the thing that makes these ideas GOLDEN and VALUABLE is that they are NOT entertaining. They are tried and proven to be true. To work and work well. They are not original. Too much of the left's ideas are fantasies they are trying to see if they can get to work.

[ TITLE: 11pm, JULY 25th 1967 ]

PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON: Law and order have broken down in Detroit, Michigan. Pillage, looting, murder…

VO: Only a few years before, President Johnson had promised policies that would create a new and a better world in America. He had called it “the Great Society.”

[ TITLE: President LYNDON JOHNSON, 1964 ]

JOHNSON: The Great Society is in place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind. It is a place where the City of Man…

VO: But now, in the wake of some of the worst riots ever seen in America, that dream seemed to have ended in violence and hatred. One prominent liberal journalist called Irving Kristol began to question whether it might actually be the policies themselves that were causing social breakdown.

IRVING KRISTOL: If you had asked any liberal in 1960, we are going to pass these laws, these laws, these laws, and these laws, mentioning all the laws that in fact were passed in the 1960s and ‘70s, would you say crime will go up, drug addiction will go up, illegitimacy will go up, or will they get down? Obviously, everyone would have said, they will get down. And everyone would have been wrong. Now, that’s not something that the liberals have been able to face up to. They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.

Silt 3.0: Baby It's Cold Outside (first half)

They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.

Your taste forthe nouveau is what got us the problems unleashed on America by LBJ in the 1960's. Problems that Libs STILL haven't fixed. Your taste for the new and exotic is what got us Obama and may explain why you are so slow to wean yourself from him.

You are over estimating the value of originality.

Well, in THIS arena old school is what's respected because we KNOW it works.

What you want politics to be is the latest episode of the Kardashians.

Maybe MTV will start a chatroom for those with your level of political sophistication and interest.

So, if that's the best you've got why not run along and let the adults carry on this discussion?

Hmmm, kay?

Oh, I don't mind if you listen in but when you try asserting your ideas and attitudes and opinions as carrying the same weight as a real adult's, well you become a nuisance.

Especially when you get pissy.

Ladies and Gents,

Haven't we had enough experimentation and originality?

Isn't it time we go back to what we know works???

 

[Billy000]

"Billy, don't be a hero, don't be a fool with your life..."

I swear, when i read your post I hear the strains of this idiotic song over and over in my head.

What you are supposed to do is find exactly what about each of my sources that you find to be incorrect or deceptive.

That is the only way you can dismiss them for cause.

Other wise, even though they disagree with your point of view you must accept them as fact and as being valid comments and/or criticisms of your point of view, opinions or ideology.

"...don't be a fool with you life..."

Oops, there it goes again!!!

Dammit!

But if you are too lazy and dumb to come up with an original thought of your own, why should I go through the trouble disputing your copy and paste?

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This is a textbook example of what is wrong with the Left.

Government is supposed to work to serve the needs of the people. It does not serve the needs better because it is new and flashy and fun and exciting and original.

On the contrary, that is one of the problems with government. Too much style and not enough substance.

I have cited sources that will give you good, honest, nourishing information that you would benefit from.

If it isn't original thought it is because the thing that makes these ideas GOLDEN and VALUABLE is that they are NOT entertaining. They are tried and proven to be true. To work and work well. They are not original. Too much of the left's ideas are fantasies they are trying to see if they can get to work.

[ TITLE: 11pm, JULY 25th 1967 ]

PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON: Law and order have broken down in Detroit, Michigan. Pillage, looting, murder…

VO: Only a few years before, President Johnson had promised policies that would create a new and a better world in America. He had called it “the Great Society.”

[ TITLE: President LYNDON JOHNSON, 1964 ]

JOHNSON: The Great Society is in place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind. It is a place where the City of Man…

VO: But now, in the wake of some of the worst riots ever seen in America, that dream seemed to have ended in violence and hatred. One prominent liberal journalist called Irving Kristol began to question whether it might actually be the policies themselves that were causing social breakdown.

IRVING KRISTOL: If you had asked any liberal in 1960, we are going to pass these laws, these laws, these laws, and these laws, mentioning all the laws that in fact were passed in the 1960s and ‘70s, would you say crime will go up, drug addiction will go up, illegitimacy will go up, or will they get down? Obviously, everyone would have said, they will get down. And everyone would have been wrong. Now, that’s not something that the liberals have been able to face up to. They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.

Silt 3.0: Baby It's Cold Outside (first half)

They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.

Your taste forthe nouveau is what got us the problems unleashed on America by LBJ in the 1960's. Problems that Libs STILL haven't fixed. Your taste for the new and exotic is what got us Obama and may explain why you are so slow to wean yourself from him.

You are over estimating the value of originality.

Well, in THIS arena old school is what's respected because we KNOW it works.

What you want politics to be is the latest episode of the Kardashians.

Maybe MTV will start a chatroom for those with your level of political sophistication and interest.

So, if that's the best you've got why not run along and let the adults carry on this discussion?

Hmmm, kay?

Oh, I don't mind if you listen in but when you try asserting your ideas and attitudes and opinions as carrying the same weight as a real adult's, well you become a nuisance.

Especially when you get pissy.

Ladies and Gents,

Haven't we had enough experimentation and originality?

Isn't it time we go back to what we know works???

I'm sorry. I wasn't listening. Are you done?

 

[Mojo2]

But if you are too lazy and dumb to come up with an original thought of your own, why should I go through the trouble disputing your copy and paste?

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This is a textbook example of what is wrong with the Left.

Government is supposed to work to serve the needs of the people. It does not serve the needs better because it is new and flashy and fun and exciting and original.

On the contrary, that is one of the problems with government. Too much style and not enough substance.

I have cited sources that will give you good, honest, nourishing information that you would benefit from.

If it isn't original thought it is because the thing that makes these ideas GOLDEN and VALUABLE is that they are NOT entertaining. They are tried and proven to be true. To work and work well. They are not original. Too much of the left's ideas are fantasies they are trying to see if they can get to work.

[ TITLE: 11pm, JULY 25th 1967 ]

PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON: Law and order have broken down in Detroit, Michigan. Pillage, looting, murder…

VO: Only a few years before, President Johnson had promised policies that would create a new and a better world in America. He had called it “the Great Society.”

[ TITLE: President LYNDON JOHNSON, 1964 ]

JOHNSON: The Great Society is in place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind. It is a place where the City of Man…

VO: But now, in the wake of some of the worst riots ever seen in America, that dream seemed to have ended in violence and hatred. One prominent liberal journalist called Irving Kristol began to question whether it might actually be the policies themselves that were causing social breakdown.

IRVING KRISTOL: If you had asked any liberal in 1960, we are going to pass these laws, these laws, these laws, and these laws, mentioning all the laws that in fact were passed in the 1960s and ‘70s, would you say crime will go up, drug addiction will go up, illegitimacy will go up, or will they get down? Obviously, everyone would have said, they will get down. And everyone would have been wrong. Now, that’s not something that the liberals have been able to face up to. They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.

Silt 3.0: Baby It's Cold Outside (first half)

They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.

Your taste forthe nouveau is what got us the problems unleashed on America by LBJ in the 1960's. Problems that Libs STILL haven't fixed. Your taste for the new and exotic is what got us Obama and may explain why you are so slow to wean yourself from him.

You are over estimating the value of originality.

Well, in THIS arena old school is what's respected because we KNOW it works.

What you want politics to be is the latest episode of the Kardashians.

Maybe MTV will start a chatroom for those with your level of political sophistication and interest.

So, if that's the best you've got why not run along and let the adults carry on this discussion?

Hmmm, kay?

Oh, I don't mind if you listen in but when you try asserting your ideas and attitudes and opinions as carrying the same weight as a real adult's, well you become a nuisance.

Especially when you get pissy.

Ladies and Gents,

Haven't we had enough experimentation and originality?

Isn't it time we go back to what we know works???

I'm sorry. I wasn't listening. Are you done?

I know. You were busy watching an episode of "My Little Pony." Yeah, you Bronies sure love that pink little equine don't cha?

Lots of originality there.

 

[Mojo2]

So who was Barack Obama Sr.?

He was a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He was a polygamist who had, over the course of his lifetime, four wives and eight children. One of his sons, Mark Obama, has accused him of abuse and wife-beating. He was also a regular drunk driver who got into numerous accidents, killing a man in one and causing his own legs to be amputated due to injury in another. In 1982 he got drunk at a bar in Nairobi and drove into a tree, killing himself.

An odd choice, certainly, as an inspirational hero. But to his son, the elder Obama represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anticolonialism. Obama Sr. grew up during Africa’s struggle to be free of European rule, and he was one of the early generation of Africans chosen to study in America and then to shape his country’s future.

I know a great deal about anticolonialism, because I am a native of Mumbai, India. I am part of the first Indian generation to be born after my country’s independence from the British. Anticolonialism was the rallying cry of Third World politics for much of the second half of the 20th century. To most Americans, however, anticolonialism is an unfamiliar idea, so let me explain it.

Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. As one of Obama’s acknowledged intellectual influences, Frantz Fanon, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, “The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races.”

Anticolonialists hold that even when countries secure political independence they remain economically dependent on their former captors. This dependence is called neocolonialism, a term defined by the African statesman Kwame Nkrumah (1909–72) in his book Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Nkrumah, Ghana’s first president, writes that poor countries may be nominally free, but they continue to be manipulated from abroad by powerful corporate and plutocratic elites. These forces of neocolonialism oppress not only Third World people but also citizens in their own countries. Obviously the solution is to resist and overthrow the oppressors. This was the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. and many in his generation, including many of my own relatives in India.

Obama Sr. was an economist, and in 1965 he published an important article in the East Africa Journal called “Problems Facing Our Socialism.” Obama Sr. wasn’t a doctrinaire socialist; rather, he saw state appropriation of wealth as a necessary means to achieve the anticolonial objective of taking resources away from the foreign looters and restoring them to the people of Africa. For Obama Sr. this was an issue of national autonomy. “Is it the African who owns this country? If he does, then why should he not control the economic means of growth in this country?”

As he put it, “We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.” The senior Obama proposed that the state confiscate private land and raise taxes with no upper limit. In fact, he insisted that “theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.”

Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father’s history very well, has never mentioned his father’s article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House.

How Obama Thinks - Forbes

 

[francoHFW]

Your problem is you think liberalism is socialism, and even more idiotic, communism, hater dupes.

 

[HenryBHough]

Your problem is you think liberalism is socialism, and even more idiotic, communism, hater dupes.

Liberalism, of it's own, is neither socialism nor communism.

The problem is that so many people who started out as practitioners of liberalism have graduated to the more senior -isms and failed to notice. One earmark of such folks is the propensity to classify as "hater dupes" those who have observed and noted the progression.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Hmmm.....Barry seems to be getting his ass kicked in this poll....only a few "true believers"...gee...go figure..looks like the national polls are, indeed, correct. The "progressives" are turning tail and running for the safety of Hillary's skirt-tails....

 

[william the wie]

Well the polls this November and two years later will tell the tale.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Well the polls this November and two years later will tell the tale.

Indeed, they will. And I predict an ass whooping for the democrats.

 

[william the wie]

Well the polls this November and two years later will tell the tale.

Indeed, they will. And I predict an ass whooping for the democrats.

Except for the Senate this year is a target poor environment. Also the flight of talent and capital from state exchange states plus blue/purple states in general now that ACA is in session is really unpredictable. Banking jobs are fleeing NYC, Chicago, SF and lesser banking hubs for lower tax locales such as Palm Beach, Salt Lake City and Austin. That will shift politics towards the blue in many red states prior to 2016.