Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Journal)   Voters have hit the mute button on President Obama. They are no longer listening to him, and his approval numbers seem to be dropping by about a point every three weeks   (nationaljournal.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, President Obama, midterm elections, Republican parties, Republican  
•       •       •

1083 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jul 2013 at 10:09 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



205 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-31 09:15:25 AM  
Can we get 535 more mute buttons?
 
2013-07-31 09:22:08 AM  
I would imagine some of this is natural during this point in any prez' second term.  And it might also explain Obama's increased public speaking.
 
2013-07-31 09:24:51 AM  
The fact that he governs less like a president with extremes and more like a professional bureaucrat is probably the right thing after eight years of invasive foreign policy and reshaping of civil liberties.
The downside is that it makes for bad PR.
 
2013-07-31 09:27:36 AM  

hinten: The fact that he governs less like a president with extremes and more like a professional bureaucrat is probably the right thing after eight years of invasive foreign policy and reshaping of civil liberties.
The downside is that it makes for bad PR.


And with your opposition continuing to make outrageous and insane claims, it's probably not wise to give the exclusive use of the microphone.
 
2013-07-31 09:39:53 AM  

Diogenes: I would imagine some of this is natural during this point in any prez' second term.  And it might also explain Obama's increased public speaking.


Being a president means that every bill or decision you don't like is magnified by a voter's perception. For example I really don't like his blatant continuation of the Patriot Act policies.

Having said that, Obama has been an awfully good president who has been very obviously hamstrung by the Republican surge in 2010 and the resulting Republican stalemate and gerrymandering agenda.

Also, your blog sucks.
 
2013-07-31 09:47:15 AM  
I convinced that I'll never vote for the man ever again.
 
2013-07-31 09:49:59 AM  

bdub77: Being a president means that every bill or decision you don't like is magnified by a voter's perception. For example I really don't like his blatant continuation of the Patriot Act policies.


Stuff like that might be affecting me.  I've given up on certain things changing so I focus on what's still possible.
 
2013-07-31 09:51:36 AM  
Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.
 
2013-07-31 09:54:20 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: I convinced that I'll never vote for the man ever again.


You convinced, is you?
 
2013-07-31 09:54:31 AM  

chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.


Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.
 
2013-07-31 09:55:55 AM  

Diogenes: chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.

Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.


Yeah, almost as bad as Nancy Pelosi!
 
2013-07-31 10:00:35 AM  

chiett: But...But....


Yes, Yes, "quit hitting yourself." We get it.
 
2013-07-31 10:01:31 AM  
so, this time next year, his approval will be in the negative percentile?
 
2013-07-31 10:01:52 AM  

chiett: Diogenes: chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.

Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.

Yeah, almost as bad as Nancy Pelosi!


Oh, that's right.  I forgot we were living in Bizarro World where we measure accomplishment but how much we don't get done.
 
2013-07-31 10:03:57 AM  

chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.


let me put it this way for you

You need your car to get to work.  Your car doesn't start one day and you can't get to work.  Now, is it the car's fault for not starting or your fault because you can't drive a car that won't start?
 
2013-07-31 10:07:48 AM  

ManateeGag: chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.

let me put it this way for you

You need your car to get to work.  Your car doesn't start one day and you can't get to work.  Now, is it the car's fault for not starting or your fault because you can't drive a car that won't start?


 Well if I can't fix it myself it's my fault for hiring a mechanic who sucks!
 
2013-07-31 10:11:30 AM  
Well, he's certainly not going to win the next election if this keeps up.
 
2013-07-31 10:14:04 AM  

hinten: The fact that he governs less like a president with extremes and more like a professional bureaucrat is probably the right thing after eight years of invasive foreign policy and reshaping of civil liberties.
The downside is that it makes for bad PR.


This.

Diogenes: And with your opposition continuing to make outrageous and insane claims, it's probably not wise to give the exclusive use of the microphone.


That.
 
2013-07-31 10:14:42 AM  

bdub77: Diogenes: I would imagine some of this is natural during this point in any prez' second term.  And it might also explain Obama's increased public speaking.

Being a president means that every bill or decision you don't like is magnified by a voter's perception. For example I really don't like his blatant continuation of the Patriot Act policies.

Having said that, Obama has been an awfully good president who has been very obviously hamstrung by the Republican surge in 2010 and the resulting Republican stalemate and gerrymandering agenda.

Also, your blog sucks.


It's going to take me a long time to forgive the Democratic voters who decided the 2010 midterms weren't important and stayed home on election day.
 
2013-07-31 10:16:23 AM  
Obummer needs replacement next election fosho.
 
2013-07-31 10:17:10 AM  
Wise people these voters. He's utterly unlistenable. Read the transcripts if you must know what's going on.
 
2013-07-31 10:17:47 AM  

olddeegee: Marcus Aurelius: I convinced that I'll never vote for the man ever again.

You convinced, is you?


I is.
 
2013-07-31 10:18:11 AM  
Obama has been trying to work with the GOP for about 4 years too many.
 
2013-07-31 10:18:27 AM  
I've been disenfranchised with Obama recently and I'll never vote for him again. Id put money on the approval numbers for all elected officials are dropping at the same rate.
 
2013-07-31 10:19:12 AM  
This is going to kill his chances for reelection.

qorkfiend: It's going to take me a long time to forgive the Democratic voters who decided the 2010 midterms weren't important and stayed home on election day.


And you still have morons who justify it.  "I'm not voting until they get better / more progressive candidates."   Yeah, because Bob Smith the Democrat isn't Progressive/Liberal enough, you're going to let another Ted Cruz get in.  Brilliant plan there, dingus.
 
2013-07-31 10:20:39 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: I convinced that I'll never vote for the man ever again.


Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?
 
2013-07-31 10:21:32 AM  

MindStalker: Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?


Next Democratic president nominates Obama to the SCOTUS.  Book it, done.  Heads will explode!  It will be farking great!
 
2013-07-31 10:21:48 AM  

chiett: ManateeGag: chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.

let me put it this way for you

You need your car to get to work.  Your car doesn't start one day and you can't get to work.  Now, is it the car's fault for not starting or your fault because you can't drive a car that won't start?

 Well if I can't fix it myself it's my fault for hiring a mechanic who sucks!


This is very possibly the stupidest thing ever written in the English language.
 
2013-07-31 10:21:54 AM  
... and his approval numbers seem to be dropping by about a point every three weeks

When he leaves office his approval rating will be around -20%. Suck it libs.
 
2013-07-31 10:22:17 AM  

MindStalker: Marcus Aurelius: I convinced that I'll never vote for the man ever again.

Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?


Andrew Johnson was elected to the US Senate, and William Howard Taft was appointed to the Supreme Court.
 
2013-07-31 10:22:26 AM  

chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.


By 2 years do you mean about 4 months?  Are you chronologically challenged or just a liar?
 
2013-07-31 10:23:44 AM  
At this rate I doubt he will get re-elected.
 
2013-07-31 10:24:11 AM  

GoldSpider: MindStalker: Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Next Democratic president nominates Obama to the SCOTUS.  Book it, done.  Heads will explode!  It will be farking great!


Honest question: do you have to be a federally appointed judge at some lower level prior to being nominated for SCOTUS?
 
2013-07-31 10:25:11 AM  
Well then, GOP, I guess... mission accomplished?
 
2013-07-31 10:25:40 AM  
Obama doesn't, never has, and never will be able to effectively govern.

He's a career campaigner, and nothing else.

That's why all you Farklibs have been enthralled with him for the past 5 years, you're duped by charm and can't resist his turns of phrase. Meanwhile, all of America suffers.
 
2013-07-31 10:26:15 AM  

Poopspasm: GoldSpider: MindStalker: Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Next Democratic president nominates Obama to the SCOTUS.  Book it, done.  Heads will explode!  It will be farking great!

Honest question: do you have to be a federally appointed judge at some lower level prior to being nominated for SCOTUS?


No.  I think that was one of the things people were WTFing over with Harriet Miers nomination.  But I should confirm that.
 
Bf+
2013-07-31 10:26:25 AM  
He's clearly just campaigning for the next election.
That's it-- I'm voting Romney.
 
2013-07-31 10:26:43 AM  

Poopspasm: GoldSpider: MindStalker: Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Next Democratic president nominates Obama to the SCOTUS.  Book it, done.  Heads will explode!  It will be farking great!

Honest question: do you have to be a federally appointed judge at some lower level prior to being nominated for SCOTUS?


I'm pretty sure the answer is no, because I seem to recall some of our current justices haven't been judges.
 
2013-07-31 10:26:47 AM  

tallguywithglasseson: Well then, GOP, I guess... mission accomplished?


Considering they said their only concern was making him a one term president...not so much.
 
2013-07-31 10:26:54 AM  

Aristocles: Obama doesn't, never has, and never will be able to effectively govern.

He's a career campaigner, and nothing else.

That's why all you Farklibs have been enthralled with him for the past 5 years, you're duped by charm and can't resist his turns of phrase. Meanwhile, all of America suffers.



Login:Aristocles (Want to  http://www.fark.com/totalfarksignup?SponsorLogin=Aristocles" style="color: rgb(61, 61, 175); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153);">sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?) (What'sFark account number:868995Account created:2013-07-20 02:15:46Another baby ALT who hasn't gotten his troll teeth yet.
 
2013-07-31 10:27:08 AM  
We need to vote the bums out in Congress, unless we do that Obama will continue to be irrelevant.

This is up to us.
 
2013-07-31 10:27:46 AM  

Poopspasm: GoldSpider: MindStalker: Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Next Democratic president nominates Obama to the SCOTUS.  Book it, done.  Heads will explode!  It will be farking great!

Honest question: do you have to be a federally appointed judge at some lower level prior to being nominated for SCOTUS?


Here.
 
2013-07-31 10:28:43 AM  
I'm sure the American voter will gladly vote for another Bush-Cheney oil war.
 
2013-07-31 10:29:00 AM  

Poopspasm: GoldSpider: MindStalker: Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Next Democratic president nominates Obama to the SCOTUS.  Book it, done.  Heads will explode!  It will be farking great!

Honest question: do you have to be a federally appointed judge at some lower level prior to being nominated for SCOTUS?


No. In fact the Constitution doesn't make any stipulations, other than the justice is nominated by the President and confirmed by the US Senate.
 
2013-07-31 10:29:34 AM  

Aristocles: Obama doesn't, never has, and never will be able to effectively govern.

He's a career campaigner, and nothing else.

That's why all you Farklibs have been enthralled with him for the past 5 years, you're duped by charm and can't resist his turns of phrase. Meanwhile, all of America suffers.


Given what he has managed to accomplish despite the unprincipled opposition, I'd have to say he's governed even better than many of his priors.

But seriously, I'm growing to suspect you don't even believe the nonsense you post.  You're just playing a little game.
 
2013-07-31 10:30:27 AM  
mattfedder.com
 
2013-07-31 10:30:28 AM  

Poopspasm: GoldSpider: MindStalker: Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Next Democratic president nominates Obama to the SCOTUS.  Book it, done.  Heads will explode!  It will be farking great!

Honest question: do you have to be a federally appointed judge at some lower level prior to being nominated for SCOTUS?


No.
 
2013-07-31 10:30:53 AM  

Diogenes: Aristocles: Obama doesn't, never has, and never will be able to effectively govern.

He's a career campaigner, and nothing else.

That's why all you Farklibs have been enthralled with him for the past 5 years, you're duped by charm and can't resist his turns of phrase. Meanwhile, all of America suffers.

Given what he has managed to accomplish despite the unprincipled opposition, I'd have to say he's governed even better than many of his priors.

But seriously, I'm growing to suspect you don't even believe the nonsense you post.  You're just playing a little game.


Two Greeks arguing about rhetoric. And so it goes...
 
2013-07-31 10:31:04 AM  
As a warning, Aristocles is not posting in good faith, and is a self-admitted troll (though he wound up outing himself in a thread that got un-greenlit).

http://www.fark.com/comments/7856783/85539614#c85539614 and http://www.fark.com/comments/7856783/85540067#c85540067  for admissions.

Just, you know, before you waste any time on him.
 
2013-07-31 10:31:22 AM  

Aristocles: Obama doesn't, never has, and never will be able to effectively govern.

He's a career campaigner, and nothing else.

That's why all you Farklibs have been enthralled with him for the past 5 years, you're duped by charm and can't resist his turns of phrase. Meanwhile, all of America suffers.


You've already jumped the shark with this log-in.  You were pretty funny in the "RZA" thread, but it's gone downhill from there.
 
2013-07-31 10:31:34 AM  
This "National Journal" seems very... concerned.
 
2013-07-31 10:32:02 AM  
He is kinda a disappointment on some issues. He seems to be having that chased by a bear mentality where he feels like he only has to outrun the republicans who are morbidly obese and riding a hoverround with a bad wheel.
 
2013-07-31 10:32:02 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Two Greeks arguing about rhetoric. And so it goes...


It's "meta."
 
2013-07-31 10:32:29 AM  

Diogenes: Aristocles: Obama doesn't, never has, and never will be able to effectively govern.

He's a career campaigner, and nothing else.

That's why all you Farklibs have been enthralled with him for the past 5 years, you're duped by charm and can't resist his turns of phrase. Meanwhile, all of America suffers.

Given what he has managed to accomplish despite the unprincipled opposition, I'd have to say he's governed even better than many of his priors.

But seriously, I'm growing to suspect you don't even believe the nonsense you post.  You're just playing a little game.


He doesn't. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7856783/85539614#c85539614 and http://www.fark.com/comments/7856783/85540067#c85540067  for admissions.
 
2013-07-31 10:32:53 AM  

qorkfiend: It's going to take me a long time to forgive the Democratic voters who decided the 2010 midterms weren't important and stayed home on election day.


I curse them regularly. Also, I think the media played a large role in it. The backlash was less about Obamacare and mostly unemployment, although give credit to the Koch brothers and their 'grassroots' organization and getting out the vote. I hope the Democrats never forget the ground they gave up in 2010.
 
Bf+
2013-07-31 10:34:21 AM  

Aristocles: Obama doesn't, never has, and never will be able to effectively govern.

He's a career campaigner, and nothing else.

That's why all you Farklibs have been enthralled with him for the past 5 years, you're duped by charm and can't resist his turns of phrase. Meanwhile, all of America suffers.



You left out "Jesus Cried"
blog.zap2it.com
 
2013-07-31 10:35:21 AM  

Poopspasm: GoldSpider: MindStalker: Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Next Democratic president nominates Obama to the SCOTUS.  Book it, done.  Heads will explode!  It will be farking great!

Honest question: do you have to be a federally appointed judge at some lower level prior to being nominated for SCOTUS?


Nope.  You don't have to be any sort of judge.  Or go to law school.  Or be literate.  You just have to be alive.  The confirmation process may be difficult though.
 
2013-07-31 10:35:38 AM  

Felgraf: As a warning, Aristocles is not posting in good faith, and is a self-admitted troll (though he wound up outing himself in a thread that got un-greenlit).

http://www.fark.com/comments/7856783/85539614#c85539614 and http://www.fark.com/comments/7856783/85540067#c85540067  for admissions.

Just, you know, before you waste any time on him.


[iamjack'stotallackofsurprise.jpg]
 
2013-07-31 10:36:31 AM  

Diogenes: Aristocles: Obama doesn't, never has, and never will be able to effectively govern.

He's a career campaigner, and nothing else.

That's why all you Farklibs have been enthralled with him for the past 5 years, you're duped by charm and can't resist his turns of phrase. Meanwhile, all of America suffers.

Given what he has managed to accomplish despite the unprincipled opposition, I'd have to say he's governed even better than many of his priors.

But seriously, I'm growing to suspect you don't even believe the nonsense you post.  You're just playing a little game.


Game or no game, I whole-heartedly believe Obama's number 1 strength is campaigning, a distant second is killing foreign enemies.
 
2013-07-31 10:36:53 AM  

chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.


Are you counting the 6+ months that Al Franken couldn't sit in the Senate because Norm Coleman is not a fan of democracy when it doesn't go his way? Are you actually saying Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh are the same as Ron Wyden and Bernie Sanders? Are you actually counting Joe Lieberman as a Democrat?
 
2013-07-31 10:37:49 AM  

Diogenes: TheShavingofOccam123: Two Greeks arguing about rhetoric. And so it goes...

It's "mfeta."

 
2013-07-31 10:38:45 AM  

Felgraf: As a warning, Aristocles is not posting in good faith, and is a self-admitted troll (though he wound up outing himself in a thread that got un-greenlit).

http://www.fark.com/comments/7856783/85539614#c85539614 and http://www.fark.com/comments/7856783/85540067#c85540067  for admissions.

Just, you know, before you waste any time on him.


You forgot to copy/paste the date info from my profile. Farkers need to know that Aristocles is just a troll, sock-puppet, republican, teahadist, alt account created earlier this month.
 
2013-07-31 10:39:43 AM  
Obama will be fine. His supporters will continue to blame republicans for all of Obama's failings.
 
2013-07-31 10:40:41 AM  
Obama's approval ratings have not made any huge changes since he took office. They've usually ebbed and flowed about 5-10 points either direction of right in the middle.

Congress, on the other hand, has dove into single digits and has pretty consistently stayed below 20 percent ever since the big 2010 wave. Republicans, of course, deflect responsibility for that or blame the LIBERAL MEEEDIA.

Obama has been a B/B+ President, but being hamstrung by an obstructionist Congress will be how history sees his presidency. One wonders what the REAL reason Republicans have opposed every single thing he's tried to do is...
 
2013-07-31 10:42:00 AM  

GoldSpider: MindStalker: Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Next Democratic president nominates Obama to the SCOTUS.  Book it, done.  Heads will explode!  It will be farking great!


THAT will kill Rush Limbaugh, for sure.
 
2013-07-31 10:42:17 AM  

verbaltoxin: MindStalker: Marcus Aurelius: I convinced that I'll never vote for the man ever again.

Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Andrew Johnson was elected to the US Senate, and William Howard Taft was appointed to the Supreme Court.


John Quincy Adams was a member of the House of Representatives for something like 16 years.
 
2013-07-31 10:42:26 AM  

Mrbogey: Obama will be fine. His supporters will continue to blame republicans for all of Obama's failings.


If they didn't suck so hard he would have to step up his game too?
 
2013-07-31 10:42:51 AM  

Mrbogey: Obama will be fine. His supporters will continue to blame republicans for all of Obama's failings.


Like his failure to get laws passed in the House?
 
2013-07-31 10:44:06 AM  
One third of the country thinks most everything he says is the truth.  That's not accurate.

One third of the country thinks every other sentence he utters is a lie.  That's not accurate either.

The other third doesn't give a shiat for a variety of reasons.

I started out in the first group, dropped to the second, and have finally settled in with the latter.
 
2013-07-31 10:45:56 AM  

Aristocles: You forgot to copy/paste the date info from my profile. Farkers need to know that Aristocles is just a troll, sock-puppet, republican, teahadist, alt account created earlier this month.


Eh, I don't  know if you're a teahadist, but I do know you have no interest, apparently, in arguing in good faith, so it's not fair for folks to waste their time with you.

Life's so unfair that people call you out on your bullshiat, I know.
 
2013-07-31 10:47:08 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: One third of the country thinks most everything he says is the truth.  That's not accurate.

One third of the country thinks every other sentence he utters is a lie.  That's not accurate either.

The other third doesn't give a shiat for a variety of reasons.

I started out in the first group, dropped to the second, and have finally settled in with the latter.


Wow, and all it took was 5 years of throwing a hissy fit every day until you needed a nap. Am I supposed to start the slow clap now? I'm new at this.
 
2013-07-31 10:47:21 AM  

Aristocles: Obama doesn't, never has, and never will be able to effectively govern.

He's a career campaigner, and nothing else.

That's why all you Farklibs have been enthralled with him for the past 5 years, you're duped by charm and can't resist his turns of phrase. Meanwhile, all of America suffers.


My 401k and brokerage account could not disagree with you more. Suffer away you poor oppressed conservatives and just remember the war on Christmas starts soon so you better go buy some more guns and ammo.
 
2013-07-31 10:48:27 AM  

Mrbogey: Obama will be fine. His supporters will continue to blame republicans for all of Obama's failings.


What are his failings?  LIST THEM.
 
2013-07-31 10:49:40 AM  

Yes please: Poopspasm: GoldSpider: MindStalker: Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Next Democratic president nominates Obama to the SCOTUS.  Book it, done.  Heads will explode!  It will be farking great!

Honest question: do you have to be a federally appointed judge at some lower level prior to being nominated for SCOTUS?

Nope.  You don't have to be any sort of judge.  Or go to law school.  Or be literate.  You just have to be alive.  The confirmation process may be difficult though.


So we'd have to have a filibuster proof majority first?
 
2013-07-31 10:50:34 AM  

chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.


I see we are back to the ineffectual empty suit narrative.

Don't worry. Tomorrow, he will be the craft socialist imposter ramming health care reform down our throats and sending out his goon squads to implement international socialism to kill all the white people.
 
2013-07-31 10:51:47 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: One third of the country thinks most everything he says is the truth.  That's not accurate.

One third of the country thinks every other sentence he utters is a lie.  That's not accurate either.

The other third doesn't give a shiat for a variety of reasons.

I started out in the first group, dropped to the second, and have finally settled in with the latter.


...or, many people voted for him knowingly full well the man wasn't perfect, and could solve all of the country's problems within a 4-8 year period, but voted for him anyway because he seemed like the best choice of the running candidates, and the parties they represented.

Not everyone must alternate between absolutes and apathy. I think you should adjust your expectations of politics.
 
2013-07-31 10:52:30 AM  
I voted third party in the last election because I didn't want to support either candidate. Both of them had me terrified that they were going to further bad policies and continue to let Congressional status quos run rampant.

And here we are.

The most disappointing thing about Obama has been how he came in as a candidate who had a certain academic understanding of the US Constitution while also having an ability to connect with people and inspire leadership. He seemed like a modern JFK in 2008, and though I didn't buy into his hype then either (having already endured him as a senator in Illinois where he did next to nothing for his constituents aside from prep to run for president), I was optimistic that a national platform might do good things for him.

Instead, he's continued a lot of bad policies from the Bush era, shown an inability to get along with or to stand down an obstructionist Congress, and he's done the opposite of many of the points he campaigned on. It's pretty clear that the man is either a giant hypocrite or that he's beholden to the people who put him into power and that all of his rhetoric about hope and change was never a part of the plan. He's contributed to many millenials' lack of faith or interest in government (after inspiring them to get involved in 2008) and he's going to be remembered as a president who couldn't get anything accomplished aside from cracking down on whistle-blowers.

I wish Americans could learn from this and stop putting their faith in either of the two big parties. They're just two sides of the same coin, and both of them will do and say anything to hold on to their power. Next time, vote for the presidential candidate who stands up for what you believe in, not the guy (or gal) who got into the big money machine in exchange for his or her obedience.
 
2013-07-31 10:52:30 AM  

Mrbogey: all of Obama's failings.


which ones?  be specific.
 
2013-07-31 10:53:23 AM  

ManateeGag: Mrbogey: all of Obama's failings.

which ones?  be specific.


Failure to "lead".

/DRINK!
 
2013-07-31 10:55:26 AM  

coeyagi: Mrbogey: Obama will be fine. His supporters will continue to blame republicans for all of Obama's failings.

What are his failings?  LIST THEM.


1. Usurpation of Power
2. Worldwide apology tour.
3. Take guns. (GUNS!)
4. Socialism, Obamacare, governement in medicare
5. 9/11
6. gay marriage, sharia law, killing god etc
 
Bf+
2013-07-31 10:55:26 AM  

coeyagi: Mrbogey: Obama will be fine. His supporters will continue to blame republicans for all of Obama's failings.

What are his failings?  LIST THEM.


i1.cdnds.net
1) He's kinda wobbly...
2) He could provide more back support...
3) He's foreign made...
 
2013-07-31 10:55:38 AM  

Ned Stark: Wise people these voters. He's utterly unlistenable. Read the transcripts if you must know what's going on.


He is a better public speaker than George W Bush, admittly that is not a high bar. but it is something.
 
2013-07-31 10:57:43 AM  
NSA spying something something ....

Not kicking republican ass and not being aggressive enough with them.
 
2013-07-31 10:58:04 AM  

spongeboob: He is a better public speaker than George W Bush, admittly that is not a high bar. but it is something.


If I dare say something positive about GWB, his self-deprecation of his public speaking ability was usually pretty funny.
 
2013-07-31 10:58:06 AM  

Aristocles: Felgraf: As a warning, Aristocles is not posting in good faith, and is a self-admitted troll (though he wound up outing himself in a thread that got un-greenlit).

http://www.fark.com/comments/7856783/85539614#c85539614 and http://www.fark.com/comments/7856783/85540067#c85540067  for admissions.

Just, you know, before you waste any time on him.

You forgot to copy/paste the date info from my profile. Farkers need to know that Aristocles is just a troll, sock-puppet, republican, teahadist, alt account created earlier this month.


Well, it makes the choice between marking you in piss-yellow 3 with the label "troll and moron" and outright iggy so much easier.
 
2013-07-31 10:58:07 AM  

chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.


Yeaaaaah no.  Given that Franken wasn't sworn in until July 7th, Ted Kennedy's vote wasn't available until September 24th when Paul Kirk replaced him (giving the Dems 60 votes), and Brown won Kennedy's seat in Early 2010, they had a filibuster proof senate for about 14 weeks.  Given the GOP's penchant for filibustering pretty much everything, that doesn't leave all that much time to take advantage of said control.
 
2013-07-31 10:58:25 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: One third of the country thinks most everything he says is the truth.  That's not accurate.

One third of the country thinks every other sentence he utters is a lie.  That's not accurate either.

The other third doesn't give a shiat for a variety of reasons.

I started out in the first group, dropped to the second, and have finally settled in with the latter.


Curiosity makes me wonder what happened that you went from believing him to never believing him. Like, from a mindset type of perspective, how does this change actually happen?
 
2013-07-31 10:58:54 AM  

Gulper Eel: Can we get 535 more mute buttons?


Based on their knowledge level, I'd say 90% of the public come with a universal mute button pre-installed in their heads.
 
Bf+
2013-07-31 10:59:36 AM  
manbart:

heh-- Nice timing.
 
2013-07-31 11:00:23 AM  

chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.


Oh STFU till you do something about punks like Steve Kind, Ted Cruz, Louie Gohmert, etc.
 
2013-07-31 11:00:58 AM  
www.iruntheinternet.com
 
2013-07-31 11:01:30 AM  

Triple Oak: Zeb Hesselgresser: One third of the country thinks most everything he says is the truth.  That's not accurate.

One third of the country thinks every other sentence he utters is a lie.  That's not accurate either.

The other third doesn't give a shiat for a variety of reasons.

I started out in the first group, dropped to the second, and have finally settled in with the latter.

Curiosity makes me wonder what happened that you went from believing him to never believing him. Like, from a mindset type of perspective, how does this change actually happen?


He stares into the beautiful vapid eyes of Fox and Friends Floozies and is seduced by the power of derp to believe that Obama is the Anti-Christ and that his farts are the most toxic poison the world has ever seen or something.
 
2013-07-31 11:03:09 AM  

jjorsett: Gulper Eel: Can we get 535 more mute buttons?

Based on their knowledge level, I'd say 90% of the public come with a universal mute button pre-installed in their heads.


I think that is the Dean Chambers school of skewing there.

I'd make it 70%, or 40% Republican, 20% Democrat and 10% Independent.
 
2013-07-31 11:03:57 AM  

Aristocles: Felgraf: As a warning, Aristocles is not posting in good faith, and is a self-admitted troll (though he wound up outing himself in a thread that got un-greenlit).

http://www.fark.com/comments/7856783/85539614#c85539614 and http://www.fark.com/comments/7856783/85540067#c85540067  for admissions.

Just, you know, before you waste any time on him.

You forgot to copy/paste the date info from my profile. Farkers need to know that Aristocles is just a troll, sock-puppet, republican, teahadist, alt account created earlier this month.


Thanks I just Farked you as Aristocles is just a troll, sock-puppet, republican, teahadist, alt account  and I was able to copy and paste your own words.
 
2013-07-31 11:05:24 AM  

Waldo Pepper: ManateeGag: chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.

let me put it this way for you

You need your car to get to work.  Your car doesn't start one day and you can't get to work.  Now, is it the car's fault for not starting or your fault because you can't drive a car that won't start?

Did you try turning the key?


Have you checked the air in the tires lately?
 
2013-07-31 11:09:28 AM  

coeyagi: Mrbogey: Obama will be fine. His supporters will continue to blame republicans for all of Obama's failings.

What are his failings?  LIST THEM.


Are you implying that Obama doesn't have any failings?
 
2013-07-31 11:09:31 AM  

secularsage: I voted third party in the last election because I didn't want to support either candidate. Both of them had me terrified that they were going to further bad policies and continue to let Congressional status quos run rampant.

And here we are.

The most disappointing thing about Obama has been how he came in as a candidate who had a certain academic understanding of the US Constitution while also having an ability to connect with people and inspire leadership. He seemed like a modern JFK in 2008, and though I didn't buy into his hype then either (having already endured him as a senator in Illinois where he did next to nothing for his constituents aside from prep to run for president), I was optimistic that a national platform might do good things for him.

Instead, he's continued a lot of bad policies from the Bush era, shown an inability to get along with or to stand down an obstructionist Congress, and he's done the opposite of many of the points he campaigned on. It's pretty clear that the man is either a giant hypocrite or that he's beholden to the people who put him into power and that all of his rhetoric about hope and change was never a part of the plan. He's contributed to many millenials' lack of faith or interest in government (after inspiring them to get involved in 2008) and he's going to be remembered as a president who couldn't get anything accomplished aside from cracking down on whistle-blowers.

I wish Americans could learn from this and stop putting their faith in either of the two big parties. They're just two sides of the same coin, and both of them will do and say anything to hold on to their power. Next time, vote for the presidential candidate who stands up for what you believe in, not the guy (or gal) who got into the big money machine in exchange for his or her obedience.


Oh look. It's THIS guy. A case study of why we are in the mess we are.
 
2013-07-31 11:10:39 AM  

Yes please: coeyagi: Mrbogey: Obama will be fine. His supporters will continue to blame republicans for all of Obama's failings.

What are his failings?  LIST THEM.

Are you implying that Obama doesn't have any failings?


No, not any more than I am implying that your mother is a whore just because I respond back to you with a curt, insensitive response such as this.
 
2013-07-31 11:12:28 AM  

chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.


Why do you have to repeat known lies about controlling both houses for two years?
 
2013-07-31 11:13:08 AM  

hinten: The fact that he governs less like a president with extremes and more like a professional bureaucrat is probably the right thing after eight years of invasive foreign policy and reshaping of civil liberties.
The downside is that it makes for bad PR.


What's it like, being unable to determine the difference between "extreme" and "Middle-of-the-road Republican from the 90's?"
 
2013-07-31 11:13:54 AM  

Fart_Machine: chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.

Why do you have to repeat known lies about controlling both houses for two years?


Don't bother, I called him out on this about 40 posts ago.... SILENCE.
 
2013-07-31 11:16:00 AM  
Social conservative republicans will always hate him.  The drop in support is part due to the natural second term slump other POTUS see.

But more is that he has done nothing about the NSA and seemingly acted to support it, has let the extension for health care dangle for another year, talk like a more liberal democrat but nominates people within that industry to key positions regarding banking and IP issues, ect.

/He is acting with a souless bureaucrat while pretending to be a slightly liberal democrat.

//No, Romney would not been any better.
 
2013-07-31 11:17:41 AM  

Cataholic: [www.iruntheinternet.com image 750x500]


i61.photobucket.com

GOOD

 
2013-07-31 11:20:09 AM  
It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.
 
2013-07-31 11:20:44 AM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: hinten: The fact that he governs less like a president with extremes and more like a professional bureaucrat is probably the right thing after eight years of invasive foreign policy and reshaping of civil liberties.
The downside is that it makes for bad PR.

What's it like, being unable to determine the difference between "extreme" and "Middle-of-the-road Republican from the 90's?"


Is there a question in there somewhere? For whom?
 
2013-07-31 11:20:57 AM  

Diogenes: chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.

Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.


"Apply lotion to burned area"
 
2013-07-31 11:23:52 AM  
Uh, no.  His job approval has remained almost completely stable for months barring a few minor statistical fluctuations.  why is it every time we see a 1-2 point variance these stupid articles pop up?   http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/23/many-say-economic-recovery-is- s till-a-long-way-off/
 
2013-07-31 11:26:00 AM  

Aristocles: Obama doesn't, never has, and never will be able to effectively govern.

He's a career campaigner, and nothing else.

That's why all you Farklibs have been enthralled with him for the past 5 years, you're duped by charm and can't resist his turns of phrase. Meanwhile, all of America suffers.


global3.memecdn.com
 
2013-07-31 11:26:11 AM  

amiable: Uh, no.  His job approval has remained almost completely stable for months barring a few minor statistical fluctuations.  why is it every time we see a 1-2 point variance these stupid articles pop up?   http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/23/many-say-economic-recovery-is- s till-a-long-way-off/


Because if the right wing derposphere can get enough people to believe that Obama's approval rating is falling significantly, the mere reporting of this meta condition, in their opinion, will help diminish his approval further without actually having to do pesky things like analyze the actual politics of the day.
 
2013-07-31 11:27:12 AM  
Triple Oak:

Curiosity makes me wonder what happened that you went from believing him to never believing him. Like, from a mindset type of perspective, how does this change actually happen?

You leave the qualifiers out of my original post, so it's not that I "never" believe him.  But you're right, "every other sentence" is hyperbolic.

The turning point for me was the healthcare debacle.  When the democrats decided they needed his help in selling the bill to the public, he made some speeches that contained many demonstrable falsehoods.  I started, probably, over scrutinizing his public addresses. And who the fark wants to do that?  Not me.  I'd rather not listen, and just assume that he's spinning for his side, rather than spouting out and out falsehoods.
 
2013-07-31 11:27:43 AM  

Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.


I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.
 
2013-07-31 11:28:44 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Triple Oak:

Curiosity makes me wonder what happened that you went from believing him to never believing him. Like, from a mindset type of perspective, how does this change actually happen?

You leave the qualifiers out of my original post, so it's not that I "never" believe him.  But you're right, "every other sentence" is hyperbolic.

The turning point for me was the healthcare debacle.  When the democrats decided they needed his help in selling the bill to the public, he made some speeches that contained many demonstrable falsehoods.  I started, probably, over scrutinizing his public addresses. And who the fark wants to do that?  Not me.  I'd rather not listen, and just assume that he's spinning for his side, rather than spouting out and out falsehoods.


At least we know Joe Wilson's Fark handle now.
 
2013-07-31 11:29:46 AM  

Pick13: I've been disenfranchised with Obama recently and I'll never vote for him again. Id put money on the approval numbers for all elected officials are dropping at the same rate.


Is that just the really dryly delivered joke?
 
2013-07-31 11:30:21 AM  

Aristocles: Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.

I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.


Sure it should.  Morons are led to believe that Benghazi, Solyndra and IRS mean something.  Morons are led to believe that Obamacare is going to rape and murder their grandmother (not in 1990).  Morons are led to believe... well, I'll let you fill in the rest from first hand experience.
 
2013-07-31 11:31:10 AM  

coeyagi: Aristocles: Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.

I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.

Sure it should.  Morons are led to believe that Benghazi, Solyndra and IRS mean something.  Morons are led to believe that Obamacare is going to rape and murder their grandmother (not in 1990).  Morons are led to believe... well, I'll let you fill in the rest from first hand experience.


Morons are getting you to respond to them.
 
2013-07-31 11:31:31 AM  

chiett: his party had control of both houses for two years.


If you have to lie to make a point, then your point can't be trusted.
 
2013-07-31 11:32:44 AM  

chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.


and they got the ACA passed. pretty remarkable I can't think of any piece of legislation that is going to have a bigger affect on our day to day. he got plenty done in two years.
 
2013-07-31 11:34:35 AM  

chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.


Is this a copypasta from an Onion article?
 
2013-07-31 11:35:28 AM  

DarwiOdrade: coeyagi: Aristocles: Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.

I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.

Sure it should.  Morons are led to believe that Benghazi, Solyndra and IRS mean something.  Morons are led to believe that Obamacare is going to rape and murder their grandmother (not in 1990).  Morons are led to believe... well, I'll let you fill in the rest from first hand experience.

Morons are getting you to respond to them.


It's a slow day.  Just trying to figure out if we should label him as:

1) A "random"esque bridge toll collector that dumps and runs
2) A 5-pump chump who puts up a slight fight and then wanders away
3) An ALT who really wants you to believe he's a true believer
 
2013-07-31 11:36:20 AM  

Devo: chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.

and they got the ACA passed. pretty remarkable I can't think of any piece of legislation that is going to have a bigger affect on our day to day. he got plenty done in two years.


On the "but...but...Bush" front, Republicans controlled both houses and the Presidency for 5 years. The result? Runaway debt and spending (not ONE spending bill vetoed), and a near collapse of the United States.

Great job, Repubs!!!
 
2013-07-31 11:37:44 AM  
I suspect the echo-boomers have finally reached the age where idealism dies and reality sets in.
 
2013-07-31 11:41:36 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Triple Oak:

Curiosity makes me wonder what happened that you went from believing him to never believing him. Like, from a mindset type of perspective, how does this change actually happen?

You leave the qualifiers out of my original post, so it's not that I "never" believe him.  But you're right, "every other sentence" is hyperbolic.

The turning point for me was the healthcare debacle.  When the democrats decided they needed his help in selling the bill to the public, he made some speeches that contained many demonstrable falsehoods.  I started, probably, over scrutinizing his public addresses. And who the fark wants to do that?  Not me.  I'd rather not listen, and just assume that he's spinning for his side, rather than spouting out and out falsehoods.


Change "never" to "not", my point remains true.

So, too much fact-checking a politician? Do you believe half of what any of them say?

Bonus follow-up: If you don't care anymore, why are you wasting time in forums talking about it?
 
2013-07-31 11:42:11 AM  

coeyagi: DarwiOdrade: coeyagi: Aristocles: Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.

I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.

Sure it should.  Morons are led to believe that Benghazi, Solyndra and IRS mean something.  Morons are led to believe that Obamacare is going to rape and murder their grandmother (not in 1990).  Morons are led to believe... well, I'll let you fill in the rest from first hand experience.

Morons are getting you to respond to them.

It's a slow day.  Just trying to figure out if we should label him as:

1) A "random"esque bridge toll collector that dumps and runs
2) A 5-pump chump who puts up a slight fight and then wanders away
3) An ALT who really wants you to believe he's a true believer


The answer is always C, or in this case, 3
 
2013-07-31 11:42:54 AM  

Gulper Eel: Can we get 535 more mute buttons?


534.  My congressman is perfect.
 
2013-07-31 11:43:17 AM  
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-31 11:44:23 AM  

bgddy24601: verbaltoxin: MindStalker: Marcus Aurelius: I convinced that I'll never vote for the man ever again.

Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Andrew Johnson was elected to the US Senate, and William Howard Taft was appointed to the Supreme Court.

John Quincy Adams was a member of the House of Representatives for something like 16 years.


That's right! I thought there had to be another. The President's post-Executive lives could be quite interesting. Most retired, but a few mounted attempts for 2nd or 3rd terms, and some remained political meddlers until the ends of their lives.
 
2013-07-31 11:47:45 AM  
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-07-31 11:56:54 AM  

verbaltoxin: bgddy24601: verbaltoxin: MindStalker: Marcus Aurelius: I convinced that I'll never vote for the man ever again.

Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Andrew Johnson was elected to the US Senate, and William Howard Taft was appointed to the Supreme Court.

John Quincy Adams was a member of the House of Representatives for something like 16 years.

That's right! I thought there had to be another. The President's post-Executive lives could be quite interesting. Most retired, but a few mounted attempts for 2nd or 3rd terms, and some remained political meddlers until the ends of their lives.


Considering Obama's relatively young, as presidents go, and seems to believe wholeheartedly in public service, I could see him going back to the Senate.  Then again, with the crap he's had to deal with for 8 years, I wouldn't blame him if he just embraced obscurity and we never heard from him again.
 
2013-07-31 12:11:25 PM  

chiett: Diogenes: chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.

Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.

Yeah, almost as bad as Nancy Pelosi!


And that's where I write you off as an ignorant crackpot.
 
2013-07-31 12:12:44 PM  

HeartBurnKid: verbaltoxin: bgddy24601: verbaltoxin: MindStalker: Marcus Aurelius: I convinced that I'll never vote for the man ever again.

Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Andrew Johnson was elected to the US Senate, and William Howard Taft was appointed to the Supreme Court.

John Quincy Adams was a member of the House of Representatives for something like 16 years.

That's right! I thought there had to be another. The President's post-Executive lives could be quite interesting. Most retired, but a few mounted attempts for 2nd or 3rd terms, and some remained political meddlers until the ends of their lives.

Considering Obama's relatively young, as presidents go, and seems to believe wholeheartedly in public service, I could see him going back to the Senate.  Then again, with the crap he's had to deal with for 8 years, I wouldn't blame him if he just embraced obscurity and we never heard from him again.


Kingmaker. The Clintons have been doing it for years, and Obama is their successor. Should Hilary run again, she'll have the one-two punch of Bill and Barack on the campaign trail, raising tons of cash - the very best thing Obama does as a politician.
 
2013-07-31 12:13:05 PM  
Triple Oak: Zeb Hesselgresser: Triple Oak:

Curiosity makes me wonder what happened that you went from believing him to never believing him. Like, from a mindset type of perspective, how does this change actually happen?

You leave the qualifiers out of my original post, so it's not that I "never" believe him.  But you're right, "every other sentence" is hyperbolic.

The turning point for me was the healthcare debacle.  When the democrats decided they needed his help in selling the bill to the public, he made some speeches that contained many demonstrable falsehoods.  I started, probably, over scrutinizing his public addresses. And who the fark wants to do that?  Not me.  I'd rather not listen, and just assume that he's spinning for his side, rather than spouting out and out falsehoods.

Change "never" to "not", my point remains true.  I don't believe in absolutes.  I went from MOSTLY believing him, to MOSTLY not believing him.

So, too much fact-checking a politician?  By me? Yes.  By 'qualified individuals'? Never.Do you believe half of what any of them say?  YES, but I'm always hoping for MOSTLY.

Bonus follow-up: If you don't care anymore, why are you wasting time in forums talking about it?  It helps pass the time. Some of these guys are witty as hell, and I find much to laugh at here.  And finally, a part of me is all HOPE-ing for CHANGE, and if it happens, I don't want to miss it.
 
2013-07-31 12:15:05 PM  
I don't know how he's going to get re-elected with numbers like these...
 
2013-07-31 12:15:36 PM  
secularsage:
I voted third party in the last election because I didn't want to support either candidate. Both of them had me terrified that they were going to further bad policies and continue to let Congressional status quos run rampant. And here we are.

The most disappointing thing about Obama has been how he came in as a candidate who had a certain academic understanding of the US Constitution while also having an ability to connect with people and inspire leadership. He seemed like a modern JFK in 2008, and though I didn't buy into his hype then either (having already endured him as a senator in Illinois where he did next to nothing for his constituents aside from prep to run for president), I was optimistic that a national platform might do good things for him.

Instead, he's continued a lot of bad policies from the Bush era, shown an inability to get along with or to stand down an obstructionist Congress, and he's done the opposite of many of the points he campaigned on. It's pretty clear that the man is either a giant hypocrite or that he's beholden to the people who put him into power and that all of his rhetoric about hope and change was never a part of the plan. He's contributed to many millenials' lack of faith or interest in government (after inspiring them to get involved in 2008) and he's going to be remembered as a president who couldn't get anything accomplished aside from cracking down on whistle-blowers.

I wish Americans could learn from this and stop putting their faith in either of the two big parties. They're just two sides of the same coin, and both of them will do and say anything to hold on to their power. Next time, vote for the presidential candidate who stands up for what you believe in, not the guy (or gal) who got into the big money machine in exchange for his or her obedience.


Spot on about Obama, although I would add that since his administration is so very secretive that there are no doubt a few nasty surprises that will be sprung on us after he leaves office.

But about the third party stuff, just how is that going to happen? Hell money, and the lying TV ads and carefully placed PR disguised as news reports that it buys, sways even the local elections nowadays, and just about rules the state elections. The national elections are just a farce, a bad joke poorly told. They weed out anyone good in the first few primaries and only the corporate backed phonies remain by the conventions. It's why we keep getting these "a sh*t sandwich versus a bowl of puke" presidential election choices.

Simply voting third party as a protest vote is throwing your vote away until the system is changed. The question is "how do we change the system?" From within of course. But how can you change anything from within when you have a large percentage of the population effectively brain washed by the slanted propaganda from the two parties?
 
2013-07-31 12:16:18 PM  

chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.



FTFY: Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years 65 Days.

There was a Super Majority for 65 days before the 60th vote got ill.  Then, ignoring the will of the people and spreading blatant lies (Death Panels) that persist to this day, the GOP resisted and the Senate filibustered every attempt at voting on anything remotely important. Facts have a liberal Bias I know.  Republicans have also set records for filibusters. shiat, Mitch McConnell Filibustered himself.  Obama has done a lot to clean up the mess of the W term.  Don't even try to pretend there hasn't been baltant obstructionism that is completely unprecedented  in the History of our Country.  Since then, Republicans/Libertarians/Fascists have sacrificed our credit rating because they didn't know what it meant.

If you would like I can create a coloring book for you and your like to understand stuff.  Just repeating shiat doesn't make it true.
 
2013-07-31 12:23:30 PM  

Poopspasm: Honest question: do you have to be a federally appointed judge at some lower level prior to being nominated for SCOTUS?


Nope. Supreme Court Justice James F Byrnes, on the court from July '41 to October '42, never went to law school.

Or college.

Or high school.
 
2013-07-31 12:26:22 PM  
Well I'm convinced. I'm not voting for Obama as President ever again.
 
2013-07-31 12:26:46 PM  

chiett: Diogenes:
Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.

Yeah, almost as bad as Nancy Pelosi!


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not assume you're one of the many righties with a reflexive irrational hate for Pelosi.  Since she was my representative for about 16 years, I'm very familiar with her record. I'm not aware of her doing anything that could be called unprincipled.

So please do provide some examples.

Oh, and if you trot out that "pass it to find out what's in it" quote that gets taken out of context, you will look like an idiot.

Please proceed, chiett.
 
2013-07-31 12:32:41 PM  

h0lmesdaddy: chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.


FTFY: Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years 65 Days.

There was a Super Majority for 65 days before the 60th vote got ill.  Then, ignoring the will of the people and spreading blatant lies (Death Panels) that persist to this day, the GOP resisted and the Senate filibustered every attempt at voting on anything remotely important. Facts have a liberal Bias I know.  Republicans have also set records for filibusters. shiat, Mitch McConnell Filibustered himself.  Obama has done a lot to clean up the mess of the W term.  Don't even try to pretend there hasn't been baltant obstructionism that is completely unprecedented  in the History of our Country.  Since then, Republicans/Libertarians/Fascists have sacrificed our credit rating because they didn't know what it meant.

If you would like I can create a coloring book for you and your like to understand stuff.  Just repeating shiat doesn't make it true.


There was only a supermajority if you count Lieberman.  And considering he seems to have made it his mission to torpedo every legislative initiative the Democrats put forward, I don't see why you would.
 
2013-07-31 12:34:20 PM  

varmitydog: secularsage:
I voted third party in the last election because I didn't want to support either candidate. Both of them had me terrified that they were going to further bad policies and continue to let Congressional status quos run rampant. And here we are.

The most disappointing thing about Obama has been how he came in as a candidate who had a certain academic understanding of the US Constitution while also having an ability to connect with people and inspire leadership. He seemed like a modern JFK in 2008, and though I didn't buy into his hype then either (having already endured him as a senator in Illinois where he did next to nothing for his constituents aside from prep to run for president), I was optimistic that a national platform might do good things for him.

Instead, he's continued a lot of bad policies from the Bush era, shown an inability to get along with or to stand down an obstructionist Congress, and he's done the opposite of many of the points he campaigned on. It's pretty clear that the man is either a giant hypocrite or that he's beholden to the people who put him into power and that all of his rhetoric about hope and change was never a part of the plan. He's contributed to many millenials' lack of faith or interest in government (after inspiring them to get involved in 2008) and he's going to be remembered as a president who couldn't get anything accomplished aside from cracking down on whistle-blowers.

I wish Americans could learn from this and stop putting their faith in either of the two big parties. They're just two sides of the same coin, and both of them will do and say anything to hold on to their power. Next time, vote for the presidential candidate who stands up for what you believe in, not the guy (or gal) who got into the big money machine in exchange for his or her obedience.

Spot on about Obama, although I would add that since his administration is so very secretive that there are no doubt a few nasty surprises that will be sprung ...


I vote 3rd party, and it's for the reason you stated: it's a vote of no confidence in the two main parties. It's a "none of the above" vote. It's the only option closed to it in the ballot. But it's my choice because if I don't think the candidate or party has earned my vote, then I have every right to give it to some Green Party type who'll only get .1% of the popular vote.
 
2013-07-31 12:41:13 PM  

MisterRonbo: chiett: Diogenes:
Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.

Yeah, almost as bad as Nancy Pelosi!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not assume you're one of the many righties with a reflexive irrational hate for Pelosi.  Since she was my representative for about 16 years, I'm very familiar with her record. I'm not aware of her doing anything that could be called unprincipled.

So please do provide some examples.

Oh, and if you trot out that "pass it to find out what's in it" quote that gets taken out of context, you will look like an idiot.

Please proceed, chiett.


Okay, How's this jewel. "We need to pass it to find out whats in it"

Of course since you are one of the people who keep re-electing her, then I guess you are to blame also. So who is dumber the person who would expect people to swallow that line, or the one who does.
 
2013-07-31 12:43:18 PM  

chiett: MisterRonbo: chiett: Diogenes:
Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.

Yeah, almost as bad as Nancy Pelosi!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not assume you're one of the many righties with a reflexive irrational hate for Pelosi.  Since she was my representative for about 16 years, I'm very familiar with her record. I'm not aware of her doing anything that could be called unprincipled.

So please do provide some examples.

Oh, and if you trot out that "pass it to find out what's in it" quote that gets taken out of context, you will look like an idiot.

Please proceed, chiett.

Okay, How's this jewel. "We need to pass it to find out whats in it"

Of course since you are one of the people who keep re-electing her, then I guess you are to blame also. So who is dumber the person who would expect people to swallow that line, or the one who does.


farking CLASSIC! Got an actual spit-take laugh.
 
2013-07-31 12:46:40 PM  

DarwiOdrade: coeyagi: DarwiOdrade: coeyagi: Aristocles: Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.

I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.

Sure it should.  Morons are led to believe that Benghazi, Solyndra and IRS mean something.  Morons are led to believe that Obamacare is going to rape and murder their grandmother (not in 1990).  Morons are led to believe... well, I'll let you fill in the rest from first hand experience.

Morons are getting you to respond to them.

It's a slow day.  Just trying to figure out if we should label him as:

1) A "random"esque bridge toll collector that dumps and runs
2) A 5-pump chump who puts up a slight fight and then wanders away
3) An ALT who really wants you to believe he's a true believer

The answer is always C, or in this case, 3


The third option has to be the stupidest one for someone to do. If you have a strong stance in something, why the hell would you make a persona that believes and promotes the thing that you hate? Where is the sense in attacking and hurting your own farking argument? And this isn't in a way of reevaluating and fixing what you originally thought. This is supporting A and hating B in real life while making posts supporting B and attacking A. And after spending all that time hurting A to where people side with B or weaken support for A, you get pissed when B becomes the majority opinion, the exact opposite of what you really wanted?

If any left/liberal/center/moderate is making dozens of alts pretending to be the right and attack anything left of them, who do you possibly think you are actually helping in the end?
 
2013-07-31 12:49:50 PM  

NeverDrunk23: DarwiOdrade: coeyagi: DarwiOdrade: coeyagi: Aristocles: Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.

I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.

Sure it should.  Morons are led to believe that Benghazi, Solyndra and IRS mean something.  Morons are led to believe that Obamacare is going to rape and murder their grandmother (not in 1990).  Morons are led to believe... well, I'll let you fill in the rest from first hand experience.

Morons are getting you to respond to them.

It's a slow day.  Just trying to figure out if we should label him as:

1) A "random"esque bridge toll collector that dumps and runs
2) A 5-pump chump who puts up a slight fight and then wanders away
3) An ALT who really wants you to believe he's a true believer

The answer is always C, or in this case, 3

The third option has to be the stupidest one for someone to do. If you have a strong stance in something, why the hell would you make a persona that believes and promotes the thing that you hate? Where is the sense in attacking and hurting your own farking argument? And this isn't in a way of reevaluating and fixing what you originally thought. This is supporting A and hating B in real life while making posts supporting B and attacking A. And after spending all that time hurting A to where people side with B or weaken support for A, you get pissed when B becomes the majority opinion, the exact opposite of what you really wanted?

If any left/liberal/center/moderate is making dozens of alts pretending to be the right and attack anything left of them, who do you possibly think you are actually helping in the end?



Or they could just be an ass.
 
2013-07-31 12:57:14 PM  
How patriotic is Ginni Thomas? She walks around wearing a Statue of Liberty crown, that's how.

assets.motherjones.com
 
2013-07-31 12:58:47 PM  

Aristocles: Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.

I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.


It's a joke, son.  Because he can't by law run aga.........never mind.
 
2013-07-31 12:59:04 PM  

Diogenes: Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.


Sure they do, they're just awful principles.

Sort of an "... at least it's an ethos" kind of way.
 
2013-07-31 01:00:50 PM  

chiett: MisterRonbo: chiett: Diogenes:
Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.

Yeah, almost as bad as Nancy Pelosi!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not assume you're one of the many righties with a reflexive irrational hate for Pelosi.  Since she was my representative for about 16 years, I'm very familiar with her record. I'm not aware of her doing anything that could be called unprincipled.

So please do provide some examples.

Oh, and if you trot out that "pass it to find out what's in it" quote that gets taken out of context, you will look like an idiot.

Please proceed, chiett.

Okay, How's this jewel. "We need to pass it to find out whats in it"

Of course since you are one of the people who keep re-electing her, then I guess you are to blame also. So who is dumber the person who would expect people to swallow that line, or the one who does.


How come there's no period at the end of your quote? It's almost like there might be additional words in that sentence which change its meaning and debunk your already thoroughly debunked talking point.

The trolls are really phoning it in today. This is like batting practice.
 
2013-07-31 01:01:08 PM  

Diogenes: TheShavingofOccam123: Two Greeks arguing about rhetoric. And so it goes...

It's "meta."

μετά
 
2013-07-31 01:04:05 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: NeverDrunk23: DarwiOdrade: coeyagi: DarwiOdrade: coeyagi: Aristocles: Pappas: It's starting to look like he's not going to get elected in 2016.

I've read this silly comment made several times in this thread.

Here's the irony: Obama won the presidency on his campaign of "Not Bush," "Change," and "McSame." So, just because Obama's name might not be on the ballot, he's approval is not something that should be written off.

Sure it should.  Morons are led to believe that Benghazi, Solyndra and IRS mean something.  Morons are led to believe that Obamacare is going to rape and murder their grandmother (not in 1990).  Morons are led to believe... well, I'll let you fill in the rest from first hand experience.

Morons are getting you to respond to them.

It's a slow day.  Just trying to figure out if we should label him as:

1) A "random"esque bridge toll collector that dumps and runs
2) A 5-pump chump who puts up a slight fight and then wanders away
3) An ALT who really wants you to believe he's a true believer

The answer is always C, or in this case, 3

The third option has to be the stupidest one for someone to do. If you have a strong stance in something, why the hell would you make a persona that believes and promotes the thing that you hate? Where is the sense in attacking and hurting your own farking argument? And this isn't in a way of reevaluating and fixing what you originally thought. This is supporting A and hating B in real life while making posts supporting B and attacking A. And after spending all that time hurting A to where people side with B or weaken support for A, you get pissed when B becomes the majority opinion, the exact opposite of what you really wanted?

If any left/liberal/center/moderate is making dozens of alts pretending to be the right and attack anything left of them, who do you possibly think you are actually helping in the end?


Or they could just be an ass.


Good point. The internet was like a godsend for them.
 
2013-07-31 01:05:43 PM  

mediablitz: chiett: MisterRonbo: chiett: Diogenes:
Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.

Yeah, almost as bad as Nancy Pelosi!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not assume you're one of the many righties with a reflexive irrational hate for Pelosi.  Since she was my representative for about 16 years, I'm very familiar with her record. I'm not aware of her doing anything that could be called unprincipled.

So please do provide some examples.

Oh, and if you trot out that "pass it to find out what's in it" quote that gets taken out of context, you will look like an idiot.

Please proceed, chiett.

Okay, How's this jewel. "We need to pass it to find out whats in it"

Of course since you are one of the people who keep re-electing her, then I guess you are to blame also. So who is dumber the person who would expect people to swallow that line, or the one who does.

farking CLASSIC! Got an actual spit-take laugh.


O.M.G.  Did he really just do that?
 
2013-07-31 01:10:44 PM  

chiett: Well if I can't fix it myself it's my fault for hiring a mechanic who sucks!


Yeah, that's where your mangling of the analogy kind of shows just how inapt you've made it, don't you think?
 
2013-07-31 01:11:56 PM  
01/26/09 Obama's approval rating drops 15 percent in one week
04/06/09 The Obama honeymoon is officially over
04/28/09 Second-least-popular president in 40 years
07/09/09 Mr. Obama's popularity appears to be dropping
07/16/09 Obama's poll numbers dropping faster than an Air France jet in a thunderstorm
08/27/09 Obama's poll numbers continue to go down faster than Rosie O'Donnell chasing a fallen doughnut
12/23/09 Obama now more loathed than Bush was at the end of his second term.
01/02/10 As Obama's descending approval rating sets new records, Democrats whine about the pollster
10/21/10 News: Obama's approval ratings plummet to lowest ever. Fark: Still ahead of Clinton and Reagan
12/08/10 George W. Bush is more popular than Obama, this is not a repeat from 2008
03/30/11 Obama's popularity poll drops to record low. Again
06/27/11 Obama's poll numbers plunge to the lowest levels yet recorded on an index the author of this article seems to have just made up
08/16/11 Obama's approval rating - 40%, disapproval rating - 52%. At this point even Sarah Palin is starting to look pretty good
08/22/11 Obama says his low rating is ... *shakes Magic 8-ball* ... reflection of public unhappiness with Congress
06/18/13 The bad news: Poll data reveals President Obama's approval ratings are plunging. The good news: He most likely knew that already from PRISM data
07/31/13 Voters have hit the mute button on President Obama. They are no longer listening to him, and his approval numbers seem to be dropping by about a point every three weeks

He must be in the negatives by now
 
2013-07-31 01:20:25 PM  

MisterRonbo: So please do provide some examples.

Oh, and if you trot out that "pass it to find out what's in it" quote that gets taken out of context, you will look like an idiot.

Please proceed, chiett.


chiett: Okay, How's this jewel. "We need to pass it to find out whats in it"


workplacechoice.org
 
2013-07-31 01:20:27 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: He must be in the negatives by now


And yet, he will never ever be as unpopular as the Republicans in Congress.

Ever.
 
2013-07-31 01:42:59 PM  
Diogenes:

Oh, that's right.  I forgot we were living in Bizarro World where we measure accomplishment but how much we don't get done.

No, by how much we repeal!

And... wait, we haven't repealed anything?  Well, all these votes count as symbolic repealings, which is the best kind of repealing.
 
2013-07-31 01:49:13 PM  
Has anyone else mentioned that they won't vote for Obama in 2016, given his lousy poll numbers?
 
2013-07-31 01:51:15 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Has anyone else mentioned that they won't vote for Obama in 2016, given his lousy poll numbers?


2016? Hell, I'm not even voting for him in '014.
 
2013-07-31 01:55:26 PM  

NeverDrunk23: If any left/liberal/center/moderate is making dozens of alts pretending to be the right and attack anything left of them, who do you possibly think you are actually helping in the end?


The third option doesn't preclude the possibility that it's a plain old AW
 
2013-07-31 02:03:45 PM  

mediablitz: chiett: MisterRonbo: chiett: Diogenes:
Governing in a two party environment requires a principled opposition.  His opposition has no principles.

Yeah, almost as bad as Nancy Pelosi!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not assume you're one of the many righties with a reflexive irrational hate for Pelosi.  Since she was my representative for about 16 years, I'm very familiar with her record. I'm not aware of her doing anything that could be called unprincipled.

So please do provide some examples.

Oh, and if you trot out that "pass it to find out what's in it" quote that gets taken out of context, you will look like an idiot.

Please proceed, chiett.

Okay, How's this jewel. "We need to pass it to find out whats in it"

Of course since you are one of the people who keep re-electing her, then I guess you are to blame also. So who is dumber the person who would expect people to swallow that line, or the one who does.

farking CLASSIC! Got an actual spit-take laugh.


media1.break.com
 
2013-07-31 02:08:34 PM  

bdub77: Diogenes: I would imagine some of this is natural during this point in any prez' second term.  And it might also explain Obama's increased public speaking.

Being a president means that every bill or decision you don't like is magnified by a voter's perception. For example I really don't like his blatant continuation of the Patriot Act policies.

Having said that, Obama has been an awfully good president who has been very obviously hamstrung by the Republican surge in 2010 and the resulting Republican stalemate and gerrymandering agenda.

Also, your blog sucks.


Won't win any arguments on the internet like THAT! He's either literally the worst person to ever exist or the greatest leader this, or any, country has ever had!

/there is no median
//there is only STRAWMAN!
 
2013-07-31 02:23:37 PM  

h0lmesdaddy: chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.


FTFY: Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years 65 Days.

There was a Super Majority for 65 days before the 60th vote got ill.  Then, ignoring the will of the people and spreading blatant lies (Death Panels) that persist to this day, the GOP resisted and the Senate filibustered every attempt at voting on anything remotely important. Facts have a liberal Bias I know.  Republicans have also set records for filibusters. shiat, Mitch McConnell Filibustered himself.  Obama has done a lot to clean up the mess of the W term.  Don't even try to pretend there hasn't been baltant obstructionism that is completely unprecedented  in the History of our Country.  Since then, Republicans/Libertarians/Fascists have sacrificed our credit rating because they didn't know what it meant.

If you would like I can create a coloring book for you and your like to understand stuff.  Just repeating shiat doesn't make it true.


Good takedown of the blatant troll...+1 sir
 
2013-07-31 02:49:34 PM  
Paging Dr. Chiett, Dr. Chiett, please report to thread 7867738.  It appears you left a pair of scissors in the patient's stomach prior to suture.
 
2013-07-31 02:51:47 PM  
to a farklib, "troll" means "someone who likes something I don't like"
 
2013-07-31 03:12:06 PM  

chiett: Instead of Obama blaming everything on others why doesn't he just come out and say it.
"I cannot govern in a two party environment"


Of course you have to ignore that his party had control of both houses for two years.


But...But....Bush,  But.....But.....those mean old Republicans.


January 20, 2009- President Obama was sworn in with 58 Democratic Senators.
April 29, 2009-Senator Arlen Specter switches to Democrat. 59 Senators.
May 18, 2009-Senator Robert Bird is hospitalized. 58 Senators.
July 7, 2009-Senator Al Franken finally sworn in, after the GOP contested it for seven months. 59 Senators.
August 25, 2009-Senator Edward Kennedy dies. 58 Senators.
September 24, 2009-Paul Kirk fills in for Kennedy until elections can be held. 59 Senators.
February 4, 2010-Scott Brown (R) is sworn in. 58 Senators.

And because Obama never actually had a supermajority, these happened:

healthcaretrends.files.wordpress.com
msnbctv.files.wordpress.com

 But please, do go on about how the GOP doesn't obstruct our government.
 
2013-07-31 03:12:33 PM  

Aristocles: to a farklib, "troll" means "someone who likes something I don't like"


Weak troll, 1/10
 
2013-07-31 03:15:19 PM  
HAY I BET HE ISNT GOING TO WIN THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IF HE KEEPS THIS UP, AMIRITE GUYS?!!@!@

/BECAUSE YOU CANT BE PRESIDENT MORE THAN TWICE!
//SEE THE JOKE? ITS A JOKE!LOL!
 
2013-07-31 03:16:08 PM  
i'm starting to feel bad for the obama diehards. they've become so pathetic and wretched.

we get it. you were promised so much. you've become so emotionally invested. watching the downward spiral must be so devastating. but it's ok. it's all going to be... ok.
 
2013-07-31 03:18:23 PM  

ThatDarkFellow: HAY I BET HE ISNT GOING TO WIN THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IF HE KEEPS THIS UP, AMIRITE GUYS?!!@!@

/BECAUSE YOU CANT BE PRESIDENT MORE THAN TWICE!
//SEE THE JOKE? ITS A JOKE!LOL!


omg i get it that's a good one lolroflbbq ^__^
 
Bf+
2013-07-31 03:22:46 PM  

Aristocles: to a farklib, "troll" means "someone who likes something I don't like"


And to longer-term Farkers,
www.pawsru.org

You've already admitted that you're a troll, but why don't you try harder?
It couldn't possibly be that difficult.
 
2013-07-31 03:23:46 PM  

the_dude_abides: i'm starting to feel bad for the obama diehards. they've become so pathetic and wretched.

we get it. you were promised so much. you've become so emotionally invested. watching the downward spiral must be so devastating. but it's ok. it's all going to be... ok.


From Gallup

Bush - July 25-28, 2005:  44%

Obama - July 22-28, 2013   46%

Also, From Gallup:

Obama has lost 4 points since April.

That "downward spiral" settles it, potato afficianado: i am not voting for him into a third term!

Keep derpy, Farkcons, keep derpy.
 
2013-07-31 03:33:13 PM  

the_dude_abides: we get it. you were promised so much.


No kidding! Maybe I expected too much, but by now I figured the war in Iraq would be over, Bin Laden would be dead, we'd have passed major health care reform, the economy would be growing, and the deficit would be cut in half.

Deep down I knew it was over for Obama when he couldn't produce his long-form birth certificate.
 
2013-07-31 03:40:35 PM  
The thing I can see happening with Obama is that he becomes more forceful his last 2 years than most POTUS (depending on 2014 and if republicans keep digging their own graves).  Of course, that also requires democrats to not sit by just because it is a mid-term election.
 
2013-07-31 03:45:34 PM  
i understand your frustration. it's ok, your misguided self-righteousness and your snarky sense of humor will help you get through it. you're on the right side of history. this is just a rough patch.
 
2013-07-31 03:46:37 PM  

OhioUGrad: The thing I can see happening with Obama is that he becomes more forceful his last 2 years than most POTUS (depending on 2014 and if republicans keep digging their own graves).  Of course, that also requires democrats to not sit by just because it is a mid-term election.


I've already informed my derptastic Rep that I'll be voting against him in the primary and actual elections next time around.
 
2013-07-31 03:48:16 PM  

the_dude_abides: i understand your frustration. it's ok, your misguided self-righteousness and your snarky sense of humor will help you get through it. you're on the right side of history. this is just a rough patch.


Right side of history?  There isn't a specific issue being discussed here, you (insert word here to denote a lack of intelligence).  Presidents are put into a ranking, so there isn't a right or wrong attributed to it, you (insert another word here to denote a deficiency in mental faculties).
 
2013-07-31 03:51:48 PM  
that's the spirit, comrades! nancy will take back the house! and obama will become stronger than ever! and... and... THEN WE'LL SHOW EVERYBODY!
 
2013-07-31 04:03:03 PM  

Okay! All aboard the bananana boat!!

i466.photobucket.com

 
2013-07-31 04:13:05 PM  
I don't believe all you people who are threatening not to vote for Obama in 2016. You'll do it.
 
2013-07-31 04:21:23 PM  
FTA: I outlined five metrics to watch...: presidential job approval, consumer confidence, attitudes toward the Affordable Care Act, favorable and unfavorable attitudes toward the Democratic and Republican parties, and finally, the generic congressional ballot test. [Obama's] approval numbers seem to be dropping by about a point every three weeks.


Well, let's take a look at those metrics, shall we?

[Presidential Job Approval]
Not according to Rasmussen, or Gallup, or these guys

[Consumer Confidence]
Lynn Franco, Director of Economic Indicators at The Conference Board: "Consumer Confidence fell slightly in July, precipitated by a weakening in consumers' economic and job expectations. However, confidence remains well above the levels of a year ago. Consumers' assessment of current conditions continues to gain ground and expectations remain in expansionary territory despite the July retreat. Overall, indications are that the economy is strengthening and may even gain some momentum in the months ahead."
(Source: The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Survey

The Conference Board's index decreased to 80.3, the second-highest level since January 2008....
(Source: Bloomberg)

[Affordable Health Care Act]
A new CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever want the Affordable Care Act repealed. According to the poll, 36 percent of Americans want Congress to expand or keep the health care law while 39 percent want Congress to repeal it - the highest percentage seen in CBS News polls.
(Source: CBS)

Forty-two percent (42%) of Likely U.S. Voters have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of the health care law, while 53% view it unfavorably, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
(Source: Rasmussen)

[Attitudes toward the Democratic and Republican parties]
Americans still rate the Republican Party less favorably than the Democratic Party, 39% vs. 46%. But both parties' ratings are down from November 2012. The Democrats' rating dropped more, from 51% just after President Barack Obama won re-election. Americans' ratings of the Democratic Party are now more on par with readings earlier in 2012, while their ratings of the GOP are the lowest since May 2010.
(Source: Gallup)

The poll asked both self-described Democrats and Republicans - including "leaners" - if they think their own parties are taking things in the right or wrong direction. Democrats approved of their party's direction, with 72% saying leadership was taking the party in the right direction to just 21% who said it was taking things in the wrong direction.

But Republicans largely disapprove of their own party's leadership, as has been the case for quite some time now. Just 37% of self-identified Republicans and Republican "leaners" say leadership is taking the party in the right direction. Meanwhile, 52% say it's taking things in the wrong direction.

That's a big change from last August, when Republicans approved of their leadership by a 58-32 margin.
(Source: Pew)

[Congressional Ballot Test]
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 39% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for the Democrat in their district's congressional race if the election were held today, while 38% would choose the Republican instead. The week before, Democrats led by two - 40% to 38%.
(Source: Rasmussen)

So, that's 1 out of 5 he got correct. Heck, I'll be nice and give him 2/5, since the Congressional Ballot test was so close and the Dems only just got that slim 1-point lead.

Either way: no.
 
2013-07-31 05:52:01 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Well, let's take a look at those metrics, shall we?


you just wasted a bunch of time defending claims that were never made by cook. i know that you're in an emotional frenzy and have some misguided need to protect the president you've swooned over, but please, let's stick to reality. turn the rabid defense down and use your brain.

here's your false quote:

"I outlined five metrics to watch...: presidential job approval, consumer confidence, attitudes toward the Affordable Care Act, favorable and unfavorable attitudes toward the Democratic and Republican parties, and finally, the generic congressional ballot test. [Obama's] approval numbers seem to be dropping by about a point every three weeks."

that last bolded part appears much later in the article. you added it, out of sequence, to create a false context. why? oh yeah, because you're an intellectually dishonest twat like every other obama defender on fark. please do us all a favor and stop lying.
 
2013-07-31 06:09:19 PM  
The commentators on that site are actually saying that Obama's socialist policies are the cause for this.

I'm going to go bang my head against the wall until unconscious.
 
2013-07-31 06:13:01 PM  
Jesus. Wrong thread.

Banging my head against the wall again.

/Meant for the Investors article
 
2013-07-31 06:17:55 PM  

the_dude_abides: i'm starting to feel bad for the obama diehards. they've become so pathetic and wretched.

we get it. you were promised so much. you've become so emotionally invested. watching the downward spiral must be so devastating. but it's ok. it's all going to be... ok.


No substance, all butthurt.
 
2013-07-31 06:28:06 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: No substance, all butthurt.


really? so obama hasn't taken a major hit since the election? and his supporters aren't disappointed?
 
2013-07-31 06:43:20 PM  

the_dude_abides: ArcadianRefugee: Well, let's take a look at those metrics, shall we?

you just wasted a bunch of time defending claims that were never made by cook. i know that you're in an emotional frenzy and have some misguided need to protect the president you've swooned over, but please, let's stick to reality. turn the rabid defense down and use your brain.

here's your false quote:

"I outlined five metrics to watch...: presidential job approval, consumer confidence, attitudes toward the Affordable Care Act, favorable and unfavorable attitudes toward the Democratic and Republican parties, and finally, the generic congressional ballot test. [Obama's] approval numbers seem to be dropping by about a point every three weeks."

that last bolded part appears much later in the article. you added it, out of sequence, to create a false context. why? oh yeah, because you're an intellectually dishonest twat like every other obama defender on fark. please do us all a favor and stop lying.


Wait, sorry: you're right; I forgot a farking ellipsis. So go ahead and insert them yourself, or feel free to insert a closing quote and another opening quote so as to separate them as two, distinct quotations.

Now, how does that change anything, you reality-denying douche?

The claim, based on his 5 metrics, is wrong. Obama's numbers have not gone down "1 point every three weeks"; his job approval rating has fallen 4 points since two quarters ago (Gallup). Consumer confidence is up. Democrats are happier with their party than are Republicans with theirs, although both are just as likely (1 point is negligible) to vote for their party in their district's congressional race if the election were held today.

About the only thing people don't seem to like the Dems and Obama for, based on his 5 metrics, is the Healthcare Act.

So, what is your argument? That, somehow, lacking an ellipsis, my analysis of his 5 metrics:

ArcadianRefugee: Well, let's take a look at those metrics, shall we?


is wrong? That his declaration that "voters increasingly seem to have hit the mute button on President Obama" and "are no longer listening to him" is somehow made an accurate reflection of reality because of my missed punctuation? You have no defense against any of the accusations, so you attack my grammar? Really?!

Megyn Kelly's question to Karl Rove, "Is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?" seems to have a friend; it's not only math, but language you idiots use to make yourselves feel better.

Holy hell, you are an ijjit.
 
2013-07-31 06:45:06 PM  

the_dude_abides: that last bolded part appears much later in the article. you added it, out of sequence


PS: If "that last bolded part appears much later in the article" then how the fark can it be "out of sequence", you moran?
 
2013-07-31 06:53:00 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Wait, sorry: you're right; I forgot a farking ellipsis. So go ahead and insert them yourself, or feel free to insert a closing quote and another opening quote so as to separate them as two, distinct quotations.

Now, how does that change anything, you reality-denying douche?


because he's not saying every one of those metrics has gone down by 1 point every 3 to 4 weeks. he's saying obama's job approval rating has fallen by 1 point every 3 to 4 weeks since mid-january (which is, by the way, true). of course, you didn't catch that because you were in full-on froth mode. you still don't seem to comprehend that you've made a stupid straw argument. stop frothing and learn how to read better.
 
2013-07-31 06:57:57 PM  

Poopspasm: chiett: ManateeGag: You need your car to get to work.  Your car doesn't start one day and you can't get to work.  Now, is it the car's fault for not starting or your fault because you can't drive a car that won't start?

 Well if I can't fix it myself it's my fault for hiring a mechanic who sucks!

This is very possibly the stupidest thing ever written in the English language.


On the other hand, he hints at a solution I'd like to see implemented.

I'd like to see Obama hire a "mechanic"... to "fix" Congress.

Surely he has a few drone pilots in his employ...?
 
2013-07-31 08:10:35 PM  

the_dude_abides: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: No substance, all butthurt.

really? so obama hasn't taken a major hit since the election? and his supporters aren't disappointed?


No, not really. I mean, have you seen his approval ratings since 2009? They've been relatively steady around this margin.

Perhaps you should harmonize your statistical quirks, maybe study it out. Have you tried unskewing your polls?
 
2013-07-31 08:57:23 PM  

chiett: Okay, How's this jewel. "We need to pass it to find out whats in it"


www.gabitogrupos.com
 
2013-07-31 08:57:27 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: I convinced that I'll never vote for the man ever again.


At the rate he's going, nobody will vote for him come 2014.
 
2013-07-31 09:16:40 PM  

verbaltoxin: HeartBurnKid: verbaltoxin: bgddy24601: verbaltoxin: MindStalker: Marcus Aurelius: I convinced that I'll never vote for the man ever again.

Has any president in modern history gone on to run for any other electable office?

Andrew Johnson was elected to the US Senate, and William Howard Taft was appointed to the Supreme Court.

John Quincy Adams was a member of the House of Representatives for something like 16 years.

That's right! I thought there had to be another. The President's post-Executive lives could be quite interesting. Most retired, but a few mounted attempts for 2nd or 3rd terms, and some remained political meddlers until the ends of their lives.

Considering Obama's relatively young, as presidents go, and seems to believe wholeheartedly in public service, I could see him going back to the Senate.  Then again, with the crap he's had to deal with for 8 years, I wouldn't blame him if he just embraced obscurity and we never heard from him again.

Kingmaker. The Clintons have been doing it for years, and Obama is their successor. Should Hilary run again, she'll have the one-two punch of Bill and Barack on the campaign trail, raising tons of cash - the very best thing Obama does as a politician.


That and winning elections, right?
 
2013-07-31 09:19:20 PM  
he's pretty much failed hope and change

though republicans can share in aiding that failure.

Basically Obama is just proof that it doesn't matter who's president, cuz money rules your 'democracy' anymore.
 
2013-07-31 09:20:59 PM  

mrEdude: he's pretty much failed hope and change

though republicans can share in aiding that failure.

Basically Obama is just proof that it doesn't matter who's president, cuz money rules your 'democracy' anymore.


Good lord, how old are you, fourteen? Anyone who hasn't known this since 1968 is either just hatched or really retarded.
 
2013-07-31 09:23:47 PM  

the_dude_abides:
because he's not saying every one of those metrics has gone down by 1 point every 3 to 4 weeks. he's saying obama's job approval rating has fallen by 1 point every 3 to 4 weeks since mid-january (which is, by the way, true).


Oh, so now it's "three to four" weeks? Since January? Neither the number nor word "four" appear in his article, excepting as it appears as a digit in a larger number. Nor does the word "January", though I suppose if you do combine those two his statement is correct as far as numbers go. Let's see.

Gallup poll: Quarter 16 (from Nov 20th to Jan 20th I am guessing) to Quarter 18 ("which ran from April 20-July 19") shows a drop from 51.9 to 47.9 -- a drop of 4 points. 4. There's your 4. 4 times 3 = 12. Hell, we'll give you another 4: 4 * 4 = 16. 16 weeks; that brings us back to the end of March. What happened to everything before that? Wanna make it every five weeks? Six? If we start mid-Jan, his numbers should have dropped by 6.6 to 8.5 points; they haven't according to this poll. To make it "by about a point every three weeks" you'd have to go down to about 0.7 points per four weeks, giving you 4.55 points. So I suppose if you wanna round to your heart's content, that works.

Rasmussen gives you a little better: 56-57% in January, to 46% now. OK, so 10 points. Ouch; given that even a 3 point spread on both sides (raising him now, lowering him then) still results in a 4 point drop over that span. So that shows in his (the article's author's) favor.

But then we take a look at RealClearPolitics average; sure, he's dropped since mid-January. And before that he'd been up since Oct 2011. But that was down from the prior May.

So yes: factually, Obama's numbers are down since mid-January.

[Insert Futurama 'technically correct' image here]

But, "They are no longer listening to him"? Uh huh. They only "seem to have hit the mute button" in this guy's mind. Obama's numbers are still higher than they were in Oct '11 . . . which I will admit is pretty easy, considering how low they were then . . . but it looks like his numbers are simply fluctuating, and someone is just taking the part at the end. That's like the climate-change deniers who say "look! it's getting cooler" because the past could of years show a slight dip, despite the fact that the trend has been upward overall for the past 100 years.*

of course, you didn't catch that because you were in full-on froth mode.

You obviously don't know me if you think I froth. I'm not an "Obamabot" any more than I was a "Bushbot". But when I see people claim stuff that I feel is false, I look up data and I correct them. If "someone on the internet is wrong" is "frothy" to you, so be it; you may as well say it's pudding for all that it matters at that point.

What I am is bored and in front of a computer. And not yet drunk.

Also, I never claimed he was "saying every one of those metrics has gone down by 1 point every 3" (or 4) weeks; I merely posted them and then said, "no".

The article was simply meaningless; "it is far too soon to make any conclusions about what kind of election we will see" and "there is a chance they just might cancel each other out".

The headline? Trollerific (since it ignores the rest of the article, which bashes both sides (so vote Republican?)). And you

learn how to read better.

I'm thinking you should take your own advice.

So I am sorry if I ruffled your feathers by not realizing the guy was meaning four weeks instead of three, unless he was rounding 0.7 way the hell up for a measurement that works in tenths. I'm sorry that my regurgitation of factual data, along with the word "no" bothered some deep-rooted anxiety of yours.

So go have a drink. Hell have two. And stop trying to argue a point that doesn't exist.

And stop moving the goal posts.

* also note that I am not saying "global warming" is man-made, irreversible, or anything else; just saying it's occurring and illustrating how people cherry-pick data to "prove" their point
 
2013-07-31 09:41:33 PM  

Aristocles: to a farklib, "troll" means "someone who likes something I don't like"


No, it means "we're giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you aren't actually stupid enough to really believe the stupid shiat you just posted".
 
2013-07-31 09:57:02 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Oh, so now it's "three to four" weeks? Since January? Neither the number nor word "four" appear in his article, excepting as it appears as a digit in a larger number. Nor does the word "January", though I suppose if you do combine those two his statement is correct as far as numbers go.


go watch the vid, he says it all very clearly within the first 40 seconds. i'm not moving the goal posts and i'm not trying to be the word police. i'm just letting you know that you're wrong because you rushed to judgment.

here it is again, what you missed because you were busy having a frothy, kneejerk reaction: "number one, obviously, you watch the president's approval ratings. because midterm elections, they are to a certain extent, a referendum on the incumbent president. and he's been dropping, since say mid-january, about a point every 3 to 4 weeks."
 
2013-07-31 10:22:13 PM  
I think we can all agree that President Obama will be look at historically as one of the greatest Presidents in the history of the United States of America.
 
2013-07-31 10:27:56 PM  

the_dude_abides: that's the spirit, comrades! nancy will take back the house! and obama will become stronger than ever! and... and... THEN WE'LL SHOW EVERYBODY!


No, we should totally vote for Republicans. They are so darn good at governing.
 
2013-07-31 10:32:23 PM  
Jesus you people are partisan hacks. Obama is a race-baiting, murderous piece of shiat. He's worse than bush on civil liberties, and nearly as big a warmonger. Peoole like you are the reason things will never get better in this nation.
 
2013-08-01 12:15:38 AM  

coeyagi: Aristocles: Obama doesn't, never has, and never will be able to effectively govern.

He's a career campaigner, and nothing else.

That's why all you Farklibs have been enthralled with him for the past 5 years, you're duped by charm and can't resist his turns of phrase. Meanwhile, all of America suffers.


Login:Aristocles (Want to  http://www.fark.com/totalfarksignup?SponsorLogin=Aristocles" style="color: rgb(61, 61, 175); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153);">sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?) (What'sFark account number:868995Account created:2013-07-20 02:15:46Another baby ALT who hasn't gotten his troll teeth yet.


All the good trolls are gone.
 
2013-08-01 12:40:32 AM  
I, for one, love our new police state in which the top 1% are getting richer all the time. Hope n Change biatches!
 
2013-08-01 06:39:13 AM  

danwinkler: Jesus you people are partisan hacks. Obama is a race-baiting, murderous piece of shiat. He's worse than bush on civil liberties, and nearly as big a warmonger. Peoole like you are the reason things will never get better in this nation.


We should totally vote for Republicans, because they won't do those things!
 
2013-08-01 08:59:41 AM  
Not that it matters; he already fooled enough people into giving him a second term.
 
2013-08-01 11:49:58 AM  

graeth: Not that it matters; he already fooled enough people into giving him a second term.


President Romney really would have done great things for our country!
 
Displayed 205 of 205 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report