Rasmussen: Obama drops to 48 percent
vict0r
hal
>
>
>http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
>
No one cares, rightards. Gallup and Rasmussen have been terribly
biased towards conservatives forever.
vict0r
Interesting. So now Gallup is biased toward conservatives too?
How about Quinnipiac?
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1397
1-20-2013
The only poll the Obamabots pay attention to now is the MSNBC poll that
only polls Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews viewers.
For whatever reason, the Messiah still has a 98.7% approval rating in
the Olbermann/Matthews "Thrill Up the Leg" poll. Odd.
Every other poll has Obama going down faster than Monica whenever BJ
walked into the Oval Office.
John Galt
towards conservatives" list. :-)
JG
hal
Nobody cares what you rightards think of Obama anyway. Quote all the
push polls you want. All you people can do is lie.
hal
wrote:
Nobody cares what you losers think anyway. Clearly you hated Obama
long before he became a victim of 8 years of Bush incompetence and
corruption. The really sad part is you right wingers are so desperate
to see Obama fail that you will gladly let this whole country go down
in flames rather than admit you've been wrong about everything.
>
>
>JG
John Galt
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:18:10 -0500, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> vict0r wrote:
>>> hal wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:11:11 -0600, "vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
>>>>>
>>>> No one cares, rightards. Gallup and Rasmussen have been terribly
>>>> biased towards conservatives forever.
>>> Interesting. So now Gallup is biased toward conservatives too?
>>>
>>> How about Quinnipiac?
>>>
>>> http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1397
>>>
>>>
>> Pretty soon, Hal will have every polling firm in American on his "biased
>> towards conservatives" list. :-)
>
> Nobody cares what you losers think anyway. Clearly you hated Obama
> long before he became a victim of 8 years of Bush incompetence and
> corruption.
Wow. Four straw men in two sentences. :-)
> The really sad part is you right wingers are so desperate
> to see Obama fail that you will gladly let this whole country go down
> in flames rather than admit you've been wrong about everything.
The objective, my confused friend, is that *america* doesn't fail.
Obama, Bush, and the other politicians are irrelevant when compared to
the importance of having a robust economy for our children to thrive in.
You don't get robust economies by massive government spending. It's bee
tried.
JG
John Galt
> In article <GFwOm.796$Td3...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com>,
> John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You don't get robust economies by massive government spending. It's bee
>> tried.
>
Farms? :-)
are where there has
> been massive government spending
for irrigation, railroads, highways, price
> stablisation, etc. Or that high tech companies are located where there has been
> massive government spending for universities, electricity grids, highways, etc.
> That would also explain the failure of TVA, Hoover Dam, ACE dredging of
> Mississippi, and so on.
>
> Sucks to be you, doesn't it.
Not in the least. In fact, by making such a puerile argument, I'd be
embarrassed to be you.
People of all political persuasions agree that infrastructure spending
is a legitimate and necessary function of government, since it is
necessary to support the ****free market****, and thus maintain the
standard of living of the United States of America.
Your attempt to co-opt what all agree on, and swap those "oranges" into
the discussion we were having on "apples", is juvenile, and a truly
perfect example of "moonbat logic."
Nice try, junior. Say "hi" to your high school teachers for me.
JG
hal
wrote:
>> The really sad part is you right wingers are so desperate
>> to see Obama fail that you will gladly let this whole country go down
>> in flames rather than admit you've been wrong about everything.
>
>The objective, my confused friend, is that *america* doesn't fail.
>Obama, Bush, and the other politicians are irrelevant when compared to
>the importance of having a robust economy for our children to thrive in.
>
>You don't get robust economies by massive government spending. It's bee
>tried.
>
You don't get robust economies by exporting all our jobs to overseas
sweatshops either, but that's exactly what your corporatist buddies
did.
>JG
hal
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <GFwOm.796$Td3...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com>,
> John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You don't get robust economies by massive government spending. It's bee
>> tried.
>
>That must be why the most efficient and productive farms are where there has
>been massive government spending for irrigation, railroads, highways, price
>stablisation, etc. Or that high tech companies are located where there has been
>massive government spending for universities, electricity grids, highways, etc.
>That would also explain the failure of TVA, Hoover Dam, ACE dredging of
>Mississippi, and so on.
>
>Sucks to be you, doesn't it.
Well put, but be careful how you confuse the wingers with facts.
There is little bwains might expwode.
It's always been so odd listening to wingers bitch about evil
socialism while they opening enjoy the benefits of socialism every
day.
>
>--
>Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be.
>Silver silverware - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
>Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
>Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
John Galt
"My corporatist buddies?" :-)
Dude. Capital flows to where it produces the most efficiently. We've
been seeing that happen in the US for decades, as manufacturing moved
from the high-cost north to the lower-cost south and west.
You don't need a "corporatist cabal" for that to happen.
You are right, through -- it's a drag on the economy; the problem is
that trying to stop it creates conditions even worse than letting it happen.
Sucks to be a high-cost producer, eh?
JG
John Galt
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:23:32 -0800, Once in a China Blue Moon
> <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <GFwOm.796$Td3...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com>,
>> John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You don't get robust economies by massive government spending. It's bee
>>> tried.
>> That must be why the most efficient and productive farms are where there has
>> been massive government spending for irrigation, railroads, highways, price
>> stablisation, etc. Or that high tech companies are located where there has been
>> massive government spending for universities, electricity grids, highways, etc.
>> That would also explain the failure of TVA, Hoover Dam, ACE dredging of
>> Mississippi, and so on.
>>
>> Sucks to be you, doesn't it.
>
> Well put, but be careful how you confuse the wingers with facts.
> There is little bwains might expwode.
>
> It's always been so odd listening to wingers bitch about evil
> socialism while they opening enjoy the benefits of socialism every
> day.
Now, go read my response, and admit you're a dunce for trying to
conflate two entirely different matters. :-)
JG
hal
wrote:
>Once in a China Blue Moon wrote:
>> In article <GFwOm.796$Td3...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com>,
>> John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You don't get robust economies by massive government spending. It's bee
>>> tried.
>>
>> That must be why the most efficient and productive farms
>
>Farms? :-)
>
>are where there has
>> been massive government spending
> for irrigation, railroads, highways, price
>> stablisation, etc. Or that high tech companies are located where there has been
>> massive government spending for universities, electricity grids, highways, etc.
>> That would also explain the failure of TVA, Hoover Dam, ACE dredging of
>> Mississippi, and so on.
>>
>> Sucks to be you, doesn't it.
>
>Not in the least. In fact, by making such a puerile argument, I'd be
>embarrassed to be you.
>
>People of all political persuasions agree that infrastructure spending
>is a legitimate and necessary function of government, since it is
>necessary to support the ****free market****, and thus maintain the
>standard of living of the United States of America.
OK Fair enough. So you accept government run services (socialism) if
you perceive it as benefitting the markets therefore The People.
So, by the same reasoning you gladly accept government run health care
because a healthy populace is more able to work, will miss less work
and be more productive thereby improving the markets and standard of
living. People having their insurance dropped and suffering and
dying from readily curable disease is NOT good for business.
Therefore you must be all in favor of socialized medicine for the good
of The People.
Thanks for helping to clear that up.
John Galt
No. "Socialism" isn't "government run services". "Socialism" is the
government owning the means of production. Look it up.
>
> So, by the same reasoning you gladly accept government run health care
> because a healthy populace is more able to work, will miss less work
> and be more productive thereby improving the markets and standard of
> living.
Straw man. Since there are ways to accomplish this without the insanity
of government run health care, this is not the "same reasoning."
As to the rest of the post, I'll leave you to your easily-refuted "logic."
JG
hal
wrote:
It sucks to be in a consumer driven economy where business doesn't
want to pay it's workers a living wage.
>
>JG
John Galt
> In article <fWxOm.259487$ua.1...@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com>,
> when massive government spending does help the economy (but that doesn't count).
It's never been argued that infrastructure spending is anything but
necessary for the functioning of the free markets -- until the moonbats
decide they can use it to make a case. Be my guest, as long as you
remember that the vast majority of those projects were enacted to assist
corporations in making a profit.
So, you're now on record as supporting government spending to help
corporations make a profit.
Glad to have you aboard. :-)
JG
>
> Amd you're still an asshole.
John Galt
No such thing. "Living Wage" is a leftist myth.
JG
>
>> JG
>
John Galt
> John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, you're now on record as supporting government spending to help
>> corporations make a profit.
>
>
Just making sure we're on the same page.
JG
hal
wrote:
Nonsense. Of course it is a thing. It is defined as how much someone
needs to make at their job to be able to survive in our economy. It
is defined as being able to make per hour a total monthly that will
cover rent, utilies, car/transportation, food, clothes, insurance,
miscellaneous. You know what it takes to live. Maybe a little left
over for recreation? So what about it? How many US jobs allow a
person to make enough to live a decent middle class lifestyle and
drive the economy that you freepers love?
>
>JG
>
>>
>>> JG
>>
hal
wrote:
You look it up, asshat. Socialism is NOT absolute. It does not mean
total control of all production, and only production. Socialism means
government run AND regulated production AND services. ANY services,
ie. police, fire, defense, environmental regulation, food and drug
regulation, national park, national forest, and BLM land management,
EDUCATION, both elementary, high school, and advanced degrees, road
and bridge (ie any infrastructure), power (electric and "nukulur")
generation and distribution. Everything is socialism, moron.
Look it up.
>>
>> So, by the same reasoning you gladly accept government run health care
>> because a healthy populace is more able to work, will miss less work
>> and be more productive thereby improving the markets and standard of
>> living.
>
>Straw man. Since there are ways to accomplish this without the insanity
>of government run health care, this is not the "same reasoning."
such as?
John Galt
How much is it?
It is defined as how much someone
> needs to make at their job to be able to survive in our economy.
Ah, so it changes constantly (precisely my point).
It
> is defined as being able to make per hour a total monthly that will
> cover rent, utilies, car/transportation, food, clothes, insurance,
> miscellaneous. You know what it takes to live.
I do. So, the "living wage" is the total of the cost of the shittiest
apartment, minimum utility usage, bus fare, a load of pasta, stuff from
the thrift store, transposed to an hourly rate?
We are talking about "living", right? Not "prospering."
Maybe a little left
> over for recreation?
I don't want to pay for it, sorry. I'll help pay for their education so
they can get a better job, but not for their recreation.
So what about it? How many US jobs allow a
> person to make enough to live a decent middle class lifestyle and
> drive the economy that you freepers love?
Plenty of jobs in allied health, but that's not the key point:
What you're missing is the classic "fishing vs. fish" analogy. I'll be
glad to help people learn to fish. I don't want to give them any fish,
however, if there are no strings attached. It's not in their long-term
best interests.
JG
>
>> JG
>>
>>>> JG
>
John Galt
Sez who?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
It does not mean
> total control of all production, and only production. Socialism means
> government run AND regulated production AND services.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
Nope, not seeing that in the definition, sorry.
ANY services,
> ie. police, fire, defense, environmental regulation, food and drug
> regulation, national park, national forest, and BLM land management,
> EDUCATION, both elementary, high school, and advanced degrees, road
> and bridge (ie any infrastructure), power (electric and "nukulur")
> generation and distribution. Everything is socialism, moron.
Moonbat Definitional Alert: In order to make the word "socialism" more
acceptable to people with common sense, try to redefine it to include
things that are in no way "socialism", but which people basically
consider good.
You're a liar. Of course, you've probably redfined THAT term to
"creative thinker", or something like that.
>
> Look it up.
>
>>> So, by the same reasoning you gladly accept government run health care
>>> because a healthy populace is more able to work, will miss less work
>>> and be more productive thereby improving the markets and standard of
>>> living.
>> Straw man. Since there are ways to accomplish this without the insanity
>> of government run health care, this is not the "same reasoning."
>
> such as?
For a fraction of price of this joke moving through Congress, sell the
uninsured a high deductible policy which includes annual checkups. You
solve the medical bankruptcy problem in the process, and the heath care
insurers will be glad to give the government a really good price on a
bulk set of the policies, I'm sure.
JG
John Galt
> John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Once in a China Blue Moon wrote:
>>> In article <JdyOm.262340$Jp1....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>,
>>> John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, you're now on record as supporting government spending to help
>>>> corporations make a profit.
>>> So?
>>>
>> Just making sure we're on the same page.
>
>
But you support government spending to insure that they do?
You have an irrational economic philosophy.
JG
John Galt
> John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Once in a China Blue Moon wrote:
>>> In article <tQyOm.229522$uO.1...@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com>,
>>> John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Once in a China Blue Moon wrote:
>>>>> In article <JdyOm.262340$Jp1....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>,
>>>>> John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you're now on record as supporting government spending to help
>>>>>> corporations make a profit.
>>>>> So?
>>>>>
>>>> Just making sure we're on the same page.
>>> We're not. I don't care if businesses make a profit or not.
>>>
>> But you support government spending to insure that they do?
>
>
You certainly laid out an impressive list of infrastructure projects out
there, without which business cannot prosper.
JG
John Galt
Me too. If businesses don't make profits, people don't have jobs, and
the government doesn't have money, and can't take care of anybody.
So your "I don't care if businesses make a profit" translates to "fuck
the people." That's just basic arithmetic.
Since the rest of your "argument" seems to depend on this myth that
there's some way for the government to take care of the people WITHOUT
profitable businesses providing jobs and tax revenues, I'll leave it
alone for the sake of humor.
JG
If an
> effective and most efficient way to serve the people is with a business, use the
> business. If businesses cannot serve the people's needs, fuck them and use the
> government.IF private farms use that irrigation to feed the people, then use
> private farms. If people starve because farmers refuse to grow food, seize the
> land and use collective farmers. What works, use.
>
hal
wrote:
retard.
>
> It does not mean
>> total control of all production, and only production. Socialism means
>> government run AND regulated production AND services.
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
>
>Nope, not seeing that in the definition, sorry.
programmed retard.
>
>
> ANY services,
>> ie. police, fire, defense, environmental regulation, food and drug
>> regulation, national park, national forest, and BLM land management,
>> EDUCATION, both elementary, high school, and advanced degrees, road
>> and bridge (ie any infrastructure), power (electric and "nukulur")
>> generation and distribution. Everything is socialism, moron.
>
>Moonbat Definitional Alert: In order to make the word "socialism" more
>acceptable to people with common sense, try to redefine it to include
>things that are in no way "socialism", but which people basically
>consider good.
what is socialism but government run services?
>
>You're a liar. Of course, you've probably redfined THAT term to
>"creative thinker", or something like that.
>>
>> Look it up.
>>
>>>> So, by the same reasoning you gladly accept government run health care
>>>> because a healthy populace is more able to work, will miss less work
>>>> and be more productive thereby improving the markets and standard of
>>>> living.
>>> Straw man. Since there are ways to accomplish this without the insanity
>>> of government run health care, this is not the "same reasoning."
>>
>> such as?
>
>For a fraction of price of this joke moving through Congress, sell the
>uninsured a high deductible policy which includes annual checkups. You
>solve the medical bankruptcy problem in the process, and the heath care
>insurers will be glad to give the government a really good price on a
>bulk set of the policies, I'm sure.
"sell the uninsured a high deductable policy"
Make that a really stupid retard.
John Galt
Moonbat alert: Facts, in the terms of actual accepted definitions of
terminology, must be rejected.
The conservatives, btw, have known of this behavior on the part of your
ilk for decades.
Fifteen-yard penalty for "failure to address the issue at hand."
JG