Gallup: Most Americans favor Obama's economic proposals

[DontBeStupid]

Violation of at least 3 amendments in there: 1st, 5th, 10th.

He also overstepped the powers granted to him in Article 2, in violation of the powers given the Senate in Article 1.

Your first two examples were passed by Congress.
Your third was not a violation but an observation.
Your fourth does not violate the First Amendment because what you are saying didn't happen.

The targeting of Al-awlaki when the government didn't have enough on him to put him in jail for more than 15 years was passed by Congress?

The first item was passed by Congress at his behest and signed by him.

Catholic institutions who self-insure will not have to pay for services which violate Catholic tenets? Even if you are correct on that in spite of what I have heard to the contrary, he did violate the 1st amendment and then attempted to walk it back. He does not get credit for upholding the constitution when only public outcry holds him back from violating it.

The Supreme Court will be deciding over the course of the next several years how extensive Obama's abrogation of the Constitution has been.

You never mentioned Al-awlaki. And what you did mention was Catholics. Not Catholic Institutions. Big difference.

And if you think him signing legislation means he violated the Constitution, then you also need to think the people who passed it violated the Constitution as well. Do you think all of Congress violated the Constitution?

 

[Amelia]

Your first two examples were passed by Congress.
Your third was not a violation but an observation.
Your fourth does not violate the First Amendment because what you are saying didn't happen.

The targeting of Al-awlaki when the government didn't have enough on him to put him in jail for more than 15 years was passed by Congress?

The first item was passed by Congress at his behest and signed by him.

Catholic institutions who self-insure will not have to pay for services which violate Catholic tenets? Even if you are correct on that in spite of what I have heard to the contrary, he did violate the 1st amendment and then attempted to walk it back. He does not get credit for upholding the constitution when only public outcry holds him back from violating it.

The Supreme Court will be deciding over the course of the next several years how extensive Obama's abrogation of the Constitution has been.

You never mentioned Al-awlaki. And what you did mention was Catholics. Not Catholic Institutions. Big difference.

And if you think him signing legislation means he violated the Constitution, then you also need to think the people who passed it violated the Constitution as well. Do you think all of Congress violated the Constitution?

I mentioned depriving American citizens of due process. It is not my problem if you don't even recall when Obama has done so.

"And what you did mention was Catholics. Not Catholic Institutions. Big difference."

Wow. Grasping at straws there.

Yes, the people who voted for ACA voted to violate the Constitution. (Was that a trick question?)

 

[DontBeStupid]

I mentioned depriving American citizens of due process. It is not my problem if you don't even recall when Obama has done so.

Well, since I asked for examples and you didn't list this one, I would say it's your fault for not listing it.

"And what you did mention was Catholics. Not Catholic Institutions. Big difference."

Wow. Grasping at straws there.

Catholic = Person
Catholic Institution = Not a Person

Yes, the people who voted for ACA voted to violate the Constitution. (Was that a trick question?)

Nope. Just wanted to make sure you thought all of Congress and the President should be impeached.

 

[Amelia]

I mentioned depriving American citizens of due process. It is not my problem if you don't even recall when Obama has done so.

Well, since I asked for examples and you didn't list this one, I would say it's your fault for not listing it.

"And what you did mention was Catholics. Not Catholic Institutions. Big difference."

Wow. Grasping at straws there.

Catholic = Person
Catholic Institution = Not a Person

Yes, the people who voted for ACA voted to violate the Constitution. (Was that a trick question?)

Nope. Just wanted to make sure you thought all of Congress and the President should be impeached.

I did list an example. It is not my fault that you jumped to conclusions about the specifics.

Catholic institutions are composed of people. It is Catholic people who will have to be paying for the sterilizations and abortifacients.

Impeach?

If you don't want to continue this conversation, you can just come right out and say so. You don't have to go to the trouble of putting words in to my mouth.

 

[skookerasbil]

The proposals he laid out in the State of the Union, specifically.

Giving tax breaks to corporations who create domestic manfucturing jobs: 82% of those surveyed approve

Increasing Federal government spending for education and job training for the long-term employled: 75% of those surveyed approve

Pressuring China to allow fairer trade between the US and China: 69% of those surveyed approve

Increasing federal government spending to support the development of alternative energy sources: 64% of those surveyed approve

Increasing federal income taxes on upper-income Americans: 63% of those surveyed approve

Post-State of the Union Analysis

LMBO.....that like asking a sports fan, "Do you like the new uniforms?"


In the end, it'll all be about results in the election. Always is........and invariably, in a bad economy, the incumbent goes down hard.

$4.50 a gallon gas in 2 months? That should really help GDP levels.

 

[Billy000]

I mentioned depriving American citizens of due process. It is not my problem if you don't even recall when Obama has done so.

Well, since I asked for examples and you didn't list this one, I would say it's your fault for not listing it.


Catholic = Person
Catholic Institution = Not a Person

Yes, the people who voted for ACA voted to violate the Constitution. (Was that a trick question?)

Nope. Just wanted to make sure you thought all of Congress and the President should be impeached.

I did list an example. It is not my fault that you jumped to conclusions about the specifics.

Catholic institutions are composed of people. It is Catholic people who will have to be paying for the sterilizations and abortifacients.

Impeach?

If you don't want to continue this conversation, you can just come right out and say so. You don't have to go to the trouble of putting words in to my mouth.

And yet the vast majority of Catholics have used contraception at some point in their lives. Ever since this controversy began, Catholics' view of Obama hasn't changed.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I mentioned depriving American citizens of due process. It is not my problem if you don't even recall when Obama has done so.

Well, since I asked for examples and you didn't list this one, I would say it's your fault for not listing it.


Catholic = Person
Catholic Institution = Not a Person

Yes, the people who voted for ACA voted to violate the Constitution. (Was that a trick question?)

Nope. Just wanted to make sure you thought all of Congress and the President should be impeached.

I did list an example. It is not my fault that you jumped to conclusions about the specifics.

Catholic institutions are composed of people. It is Catholic people who will have to be paying for the sterilizations and abortifacients.

Impeach?

If you don't want to continue this conversation, you can just come right out and say so. You don't have to go to the trouble of putting words in to my mouth.

You listed four examples which I then commented on. You then brought up a 5th example and got all huffy that I hadn't commented on it before. But sure, I'm the one who jumped to conclusions.

And fine, we don't have to continue this if you don't want to. I understand why you wouldn't. After all, you just said that you think Republican members of Congress violated the Constitution, which would open them up to impeachment proceedings. That's a pretty bold statement.

The fact is, if Obama had done anything even remotely close to violating the Constitution, the GOP would have pounced and tried to impeach a long time ago. The fact that they haven't means one of two things. 1) They are all gutless or stupid, or 2) You're wrong.

 

[Amelia]

Well, since I asked for examples and you didn't list this one, I would say it's your fault for not listing it.


Catholic = Person
Catholic Institution = Not a Person


Nope. Just wanted to make sure you thought all of Congress and the President should be impeached.

I did list an example. It is not my fault that you jumped to conclusions about the specifics.

Catholic institutions are composed of people. It is Catholic people who will have to be paying for the sterilizations and abortifacients.

Impeach?

If you don't want to continue this conversation, you can just come right out and say so. You don't have to go to the trouble of putting words in to my mouth.

And yet the vast majority of Catholics have used contraception at some point in their lives. Ever since this controversy began, Catholics' view of Obama hasn't changed.

So? What does that have to do with Obama's violation of the first amendment?

The fact that many Catholic individuals choose to use birth control is not a justification to require Catholics to pay for things which violate the tenets of the Catholic church.

Neither is the fact that many Catholics will still vote for him.

Some people don't seem to mind Obama doing things which would have resulted in massive meltdowns if Bush had done them. That doesn't justify Obama doing them. It just makes the defense of the Constitution that much more challenging for years to come.

 

[Chris]

The proposals he laid out in the State of the Union, specifically.

Giving tax breaks to corporations who create domestic manfucturing jobs: 82% of those surveyed approve

Increasing Federal government spending for education and job training for the long-term employled: 75% of those surveyed approve

Pressuring China to allow fairer trade between the US and China: 69% of those surveyed approve

Increasing federal government spending to support the development of alternative energy sources: 64% of those surveyed approve

Increasing federal income taxes on upper-income Americans: 63% of those surveyed approve

Post-State of the Union Analysis

And in November most Americans are going to be voting for Obama.

 

[Billy000]

I did list an example. It is not my fault that you jumped to conclusions about the specifics.

Catholic institutions are composed of people. It is Catholic people who will have to be paying for the sterilizations and abortifacients.

Impeach?

If you don't want to continue this conversation, you can just come right out and say so. You don't have to go to the trouble of putting words in to my mouth.

And yet the vast majority of Catholics have used contraception at some point in their lives. Ever since this controversy began, Catholics' view of Obama hasn't changed.

So? What does that have to do with Obama's violation of the first amendment?

The fact that many Catholic individuals choose to use birth control is not a justification to require Catholics to pay for things which violate the tenets of the Catholic church.

Neither is the fact that many Catholics will still vote for him.

Some people don't seem to mind Obama doing things which would have resulted in massive meltdowns if Bush had done them. That doesn't justify Obama doing them. It just makes the defense of the Constitution that much more challenging for years to come.

If the majority is okay with it, I don't think it really matters.

 

[skookerasbil]

The proposals he laid out in the State of the Union, specifically.

Giving tax breaks to corporations who create domestic manfucturing jobs: 82% of those surveyed approve

Increasing Federal government spending for education and job training for the long-term employled: 75% of those surveyed approve

Pressuring China to allow fairer trade between the US and China: 69% of those surveyed approve

Increasing federal government spending to support the development of alternative energy sources: 64% of those surveyed approve

Increasing federal income taxes on upper-income Americans: 63% of those surveyed approve

Post-State of the Union Analysis

And in November most Americans are going to be voting for Obama.

Perhaps...........a distinct possibillity. Thankfully, we have something called the Electoral College and in the swing states right now, the imcumbent is getting his balls kicked in and now the prospect of $5 gas.

 

[Billy000]

The proposals he laid out in the State of the Union, specifically.

Giving tax breaks to corporations who create domestic manfucturing jobs: 82% of those surveyed approve

Increasing Federal government spending for education and job training for the long-term employled: 75% of those surveyed approve

Pressuring China to allow fairer trade between the US and China: 69% of those surveyed approve

Increasing federal government spending to support the development of alternative energy sources: 64% of those surveyed approve

Increasing federal income taxes on upper-income Americans: 63% of those surveyed approve

Post-State of the Union Analysis

And in November most Americans are going to be voting for Obama.

Perhaps...........a distinct possibillity. Thankfully, we have something called the Electoral College and in the swing states right now, the imcumbent is getting his balls kicked in and now the prospect of $5 gas.

I doubt Romney has a plan to lower the gas prices. I think it will be a level playing field when it comes to this issue.

 

[mudwhistle]

The proposals he laid out in the State of the Union, specifically.

Giving tax breaks to corporations who create domestic manfucturing jobs: 82% of those surveyed approve

Tax-cuts for the rich. No difference from Bush.

Increasing Federal government spending for education and job training for the long-term employled: 75% of those surveyed approve

More training programs for people that end up living with their parents.

Pressuring China to allow fairer trade between the US and China: 69% of those surveyed approve

All talk. He's sending hundreds of thousands of our jobs over there. He's put us in a position of weakness. He's not gonna talk tough to them.

Increasing federal government spending to support the development of alternative energy sources: 64% of those surveyed approve

More money for another Solyndra.

Increasing federal income taxes on upper-income Americans: 63% of those surveyed approve

After all of the spending programs his only solution is just tax the rich more. It's horseshit. He'll have to tax all of us more to pay for his bullshit.
Post-State of the Union Analysis

This has all been said before. There's nothing new about it. Spend more money and pay for it by taxing the rich. It's not a solution, but it sure sounds good to the sheeple.

 

[Billy000]

The proposals he laid out in the State of the Union, specifically.

Giving tax breaks to corporations who create domestic manfucturing jobs: 82% of those surveyed approve

Tax-cuts for the rich. No difference from Bush.



More training programs for people that end up living with their parents.



All talk. He's sending hundreds of thousands of our jobs over there. He's put us in a position of weakness. He's not gonna talk tough to them.


More money for another Solyndra.

Increasing federal income taxes on upper-income Americans: 63% of those surveyed approve

After all of the spending programs his only solution is just tax the rich more. It's horseshit. He'll have to tax all of us more to pay for his bullshit.
Post-State of the Union Analysis

This has all been said before. There's nothing new about it. Spend more money and pay for it by taxing the rich. It's not a solution, but it sure sounds good to the sheeple.

This was a sad response to my thread and I think you know it.

 

[Amelia]

And yet the vast majority of Catholics have used contraception at some point in their lives. Ever since this controversy began, Catholics' view of Obama hasn't changed.

So? What does that have to do with Obama's violation of the first amendment?

The fact that many Catholic individuals choose to use birth control is not a justification to require Catholics to pay for things which violate the tenets of the Catholic church.

Neither is the fact that many Catholics will still vote for him.

Some people don't seem to mind Obama doing things which would have resulted in massive meltdowns if Bush had done them. That doesn't justify Obama doing them. It just makes the defense of the Constitution that much more challenging for years to come.

If the majority is okay with it, I don't think it really matters.

Oh my.

Do you have any idea what you are supporting with that sentiment?

If the majority are for slavery in spite of the constitutionally-guaranteed protections, then slavery is still okay? For just one example ....



Wow.



This is why Republicans are fighting like hell to stop Obama. Obama's supporters actually believe things like what you said. As long as they are the ones in the majority.

They don't seem to remember that they won't be in the majority forever.

The Constitution must be protected for future generations even if Obama and his supporters feel they presently have no need for it.





And by the way, this is also why I am mad at Santorum for his religious pronouncements. With his own preaching and appearance of willingness to blur the line between church and state, Santorum is alarming people who don't want a Republican messing with the constitution any more than I want a Democrat shredding it. And with that he'll be handing the White House back to Obama to do more damage.

We're in deep deep trouble.

 

[Billy000]

So? What does that have to do with Obama's violation of the first amendment?

The fact that many Catholic individuals choose to use birth control is not a justification to require Catholics to pay for things which violate the tenets of the Catholic church.

Neither is the fact that many Catholics will still vote for him.

Some people don't seem to mind Obama doing things which would have resulted in massive meltdowns if Bush had done them. That doesn't justify Obama doing them. It just makes the defense of the Constitution that much more challenging for years to come.

If the majority is okay with it, I don't think it really matters.

Oh my.

Do you have any idea what you are supporting with that sentiment?

If the majority are for slavery in spite of the constitutionally-guaranteed protections, then slavery is still okay? For just one example ....



Wow.



This is why Republicans are fighting like hell to stop Obama. Obama's supporters actually believe things like what you said. As long as they are the ones in the majority.

They don't seem to remember that they won't be in the majority forever.

The Constitution must be protected for future generations even if Obama and his supporters feel they presently have no need for it.





And by the way, this is also why I am mad at Santorum for his religious pronouncements. With his own preaching and appearance of willingness to blur the line between church and state, Santorum is alarming people who don't want a Republican messing with the constitution any more than I want a Democrat shredding it.

We're in deep deep trouble.

The majority are not for slavery and never will be, so you cannot use that as a comparison. And just because there has been controversy over Obama and the constitution, it doesn't mean he wants to do away with it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Tax-cuts for the rich. No difference from Bush.



More training programs for people that end up living with their parents.



All talk. He's sending hundreds of thousands of our jobs over there. He's put us in a position of weakness. He's not gonna talk tough to them.


More money for another Solyndra.



After all of the spending programs his only solution is just tax the rich more. It's horseshit. He'll have to tax all of us more to pay for his bullshit.
Post-State of the Union Analysis

This has all been said before. There's nothing new about it. Spend more money and pay for it by taxing the rich. It's not a solution, but it sure sounds good to the sheeple.

This was a sad response to my thread and I think you know it.

What I know is that what the sheeple think is what you're OP was based off of, and that's sad.

They don't even pay attention to what he's saying. They just like the way it sounded. His address was total bullshit. Anyone who knows the way the economy works would be able to recognize that.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama has already said he's done working for the rest of the year. He's gonna spend the rest of the year making campaign promises.

The best thing he can do is nothing. He's the only president I can remember who's approval ratings go up when he does nothing, and the economy imroves as a result.

 

[Amelia]

If the majority is okay with it, I don't think it really matters.

Oh my.

Do you have any idea what you are supporting with that sentiment?

If the majority are for slavery in spite of the constitutionally-guaranteed protections, then slavery is still okay? For just one example ....



Wow.



This is why Republicans are fighting like hell to stop Obama. Obama's supporters actually believe things like what you said. As long as they are the ones in the majority.

They don't seem to remember that they won't be in the majority forever.

The Constitution must be protected for future generations even if Obama and his supporters feel they presently have no need for it.





And by the way, this is also why I am mad at Santorum for his religious pronouncements. With his own preaching and appearance of willingness to blur the line between church and state, Santorum is alarming people who don't want a Republican messing with the constitution any more than I want a Democrat shredding it.

We're in deep deep trouble.

The majority are not for slavery and never will be, so you cannot use that as a comparison. And just because there has been controversy over Obama and the constitution, it doesn't mean he wants to do away with it.

Very convenient rationalization, even if true about the majority's future feelings, and you can't guarantee the truth of it.

Where are you willing to draw the line? How much of the constitution is it okay to ignore without going through the channels of amending it?

I used to enjoy your threads. You have an interesting blend of sincerity and documentation. Mostly reasonable even though I sometimes have to squint to see the reason.

You abandoned reason here.

Your sentiment - if shared by enough people - is literally dangerous to the future of this country.

 

[Billy000]

Oh my.

Do you have any idea what you are supporting with that sentiment?

If the majority are for slavery in spite of the constitutionally-guaranteed protections, then slavery is still okay? For just one example ....



Wow.



This is why Republicans are fighting like hell to stop Obama. Obama's supporters actually believe things like what you said. As long as they are the ones in the majority.

They don't seem to remember that they won't be in the majority forever.

The Constitution must be protected for future generations even if Obama and his supporters feel they presently have no need for it.





And by the way, this is also why I am mad at Santorum for his religious pronouncements. With his own preaching and appearance of willingness to blur the line between church and state, Santorum is alarming people who don't want a Republican messing with the constitution any more than I want a Democrat shredding it.

We're in deep deep trouble.

The majority are not for slavery and never will be, so you cannot use that as a comparison. And just because there has been controversy over Obama and the constitution, it doesn't mean he wants to do away with it.

Very convenient rationalization, even if true about the majority's future feelings, and you can't guarantee the truth of it.

Where are you willing to draw the line? How much of the constitution is it okay to ignore without going through the channels of amending it?

I used to enjoy your threads. You have an interesting blend of sincerity and documentation. Mostly reasonable even though I sometimes have to squint to see the reason.

You abandoned reason here.

Your sentiment - if shared by enough people - is literally dangerous to the future of this country.

I'm irrational? You are talking like the constitution itself is in trouble. It's not.