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.

(Washington Post)   Obama hits a new low in those who don't have an opinion of him. 59% hate him. 41% love him. 0% have no opinion   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 628
    More: Interesting, President Obama, GfK, disapproval  
•       •       •

3607 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2014 at 10:27 AM (16 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



628 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-27 01:53:27 PM

Stuart Wolfe: Long story short, the IRS slow-tracking tax-exempt status for conservative-sounding agencies while fast-tracking liberal-sounding ones


You sir, are a liar.
 
2014-03-27 01:56:28 PM

Mike_1962: Carter did no lasting damage to your country.


I have to disagree with this. It was under Carter that we started deregulating various industries and rolling back the New Deal. Granted, what occurred under Carter was nothing compared to shiat show that was the Reagan administration, but Carter got the ball rolling.
 
2014-03-27 01:58:37 PM

Slaves2Darkness: scotchlandia: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Deep Contact: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Deep Contact: JusticeandIndependence: Deep Contact: Actually liked him in the beginning of his first term. Now can't stand looking at him. Lying sack.

Just curious, what did he lie about?

If you want to keep your health insurance, you can, if you want to keep your doctor, you can.

You realize of course that the insurance companies orchestrated that.

No, of course you don't.

Then he's also an idiot.

Do explain, in depth, with citations, just how the president is supposed to regulate the insurance industry singlehandedly when being blocked by the most clueless, obstreperous congress ever 'voted' in?  Or at all for that matter?

I'll wait.

Why sould anyone explain that? Why the hell is the federal government regulating the insurance industry at all? Insurance should be regulated at state level in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, which provides that any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states. So the ACA is illegal unless it amends the constitution. Yes, I know the supreme court ruled on this. It's still wrong.

Shhh, don't worry someday there will be so few powers left to the states that we can drown the Tenth Amendment in a bucket. Federalism all the way baby, it is the only way to insure everyone gets a fair deal, or at least all farked at the same time in the same way.


Meh, states have become a pretty useless artifact as communication technology increased.
 
2014-03-27 01:58:55 PM

Stuart Wolfe: Benghazi - doesn't matter how I would have handled it, the fact remains Obama and his admin screwed up


DRINK!
 
2014-03-27 01:59:18 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: Baz744: Chris Ween: doubled99: The only reason anyone doesn't like Obama is because they are racists who can't stand a black man in charge. It's disgusting.

I only hate LeBron because he is black. Not because he keeps knocking my team out of the playoffs.

This is what liberals believe...about Fark conservatives.

What we really believe is that you don't like Obama because he's center-right, and you would prefer Teabagger right. But the reason you hate the moderate, mild mannered, even tempered, and mostly uncontroversial center-right president is because he's black.

And we are right.

Nah, you assume that the hate is for reasons we in the reality-based community can understand; it isn't.

All of the (anti-black) racists are anti-Obama, of course, because otherwise they're kinda doing racism wrong. But the converse isn't true.

My impression is that the frothing hate from residents of the right-wing reality bubble just stems directly from the content of the reality in that bubble. Obama's a do-nothing empty suit who's singlehandedly destroying the American way of life, after all; who *wouldn't* hate that?



And a communist marxist dictator supreme mao-ist muslim kenyan who hates liberty and freedom and wants to take our guns.  shiat if any of that were true I'd probably hate him too.
 
2014-03-27 02:00:39 PM

Mike_1962: You're welcome to your opinion, of course. Nonetheless, it is obviously informed by an influence apart from objective reality. Carter did no lasting damage to your country. He wasn't a great president because he tried to control all of the details, not because his policies were terrible. Reagan, on the other hand, was a talking head who pumped out jingoism while allowing his subordinates to lawbreak at an unprecedented level. Even Harding never had as many of his administration under indictment (and/or convicted) for felonies against the American people. That's not historical revisionism btw. It's public record. Unfortunately a large percentage of Americans can be swayed by jingoism because it absolves them of responsibility for reality. I feel regret for the progressive minds in your country, and wish them well, but as for the millions of willfully ignorant, emotionally swayed masses indoctrinated by propaganda I feel only pity. Most societies have a majority of citizens who don't pay attention to the details, but eventually vote in their own self interest from pragmatism alone. Your society has swallowed its own wartime rhetoric and propaganda about exceptionalism to the point that you don't just vote against your own self interest, and the interests of your country, you've come to believe in policies that harm you, your loved ones and your nation. I view the situation with contempt, but feel only pity for the manipulated.


Excellent response.
 
2014-03-27 02:01:49 PM

Agent Nick Fury: cameroncrazy1984: count_chimpula: Liberal knob gobblers are busy today, guess they have nothing else to do until their EBT cards reload at the beginning of the month.

Some of us make enough money to have a bit of leisure time now and again. I guess you don't know what that's like, what with your minimum wage job probably working 60 hours a week with no overtime. Sound about right?

The DMV is usually pretty slow on Thursday


You hang out at the DMV?
 
2014-03-27 02:02:51 PM

Mike_1962: steve42: I live in the south.  Since 2006, I have heard Southern Conservative Republicans mention Obama's race a few dozen times.  I've heard them mention his heritage probably twice as often.  I hear them discussing his politics daily.

I am a frequent Fark reader.  Since 2006, I have seen Obama supporters mention Obama's race a few thousand times.  I've never seen them mention his heritage.  I see them defending his politics daily.

Yet, somehow, believing he was unqualified for this (or any other) political office and unprepared for the task at hand makes me a racist instead of just a legitimately concerned citizen.

Once and for all, I could give a flying Fark what his race is,  I believe he is the worst president since Carter, and the damage he has done will have a longer-lasting effect. Unfortunately, the Republican party doesn't have Reagan waiting in the wings for this go-round..

You're welcome to your opinion, of course. Nonetheless, it is obviously informed by an influence apart from objective reality. Carter did no lasting damage to your country. He wasn't a great president because he tried to control all of the details, not because his policies were terrible. Reagan, on the other hand, was a talking head who pumped out jingoism while allowing his subordinates to lawbreak at an unprecedented level. Even Harding never had as many of his administration under indictment (and/or convicted) for felonies against the American people. That's not historical revisionism btw. It's public record. Unfortunately a large percentage of Americans can be swayed by jingoism because it absolves them of responsibility for reality. I feel regret for the progressive minds in your country, and wish them well, but as for the millions of willfully ignorant, emotionally swayed masses indoctrinated by propaganda I feel only pity. Most societies have a majority of citizens who don't pay attention to the details, but eventually vote in their own self interest from pragmatis ...


<3
 
2014-03-27 02:04:00 PM
Speaking of Mrs. C, here is my list of

Presidential Cousins


Cousins in bold, relationship in bold if not ludicrously circuitous.

George Washington6th cousin, 7 removes
Thomas Jefferson (unknown)
John Q. Adams I, 4th cousin 8 removes
James Monroe (yes)
James Madison, grand nephew of husband of 2nd cousin of wife of 1st cousin 10x removed
John Q. Adams II6th cousin, 6 removes
Martin Van Buren (unknown)
W.H. Harrison, (unknown)
John Tyler (possible, through the Taylors or Tylers?)
Polk (unknown)
Zachary Taylor (through the Taylors)
Filmore (unknown)
Pierce (unknown)
Buchanan (unknown)
Abraham Lincoln,  2nd cousin 9x removed of wife of paternal grandfather of husband of 3rd cousin 7x removed
Johnson (unknown)
Hiram Ulysses Simpson Grant,   8th cousin, 4 removes (ancestor came over in the same boat --the John and Mary, 1630, as many of mine)
Hayes (unknown)
James Garfield, 4th great grand nephew of wife of grand uncle of wife of 2nd cousin of husband of 5th great grand aunt
Arthur (allegedly born in Canada)
Cleveland (unknown)
Benjamin Harrison, Jr., 2nd cousin 8x removed of wife of paternal grandfather of husband of 3rd cousin 7x removed
Cleveland (unknown)
McKinley (unknown)
Teddy Roosevelt, 3rd cousin 5x removed of husband of 5th great grand aunt
William Howard Taft,1st cousin 3x removed of wife of 5th great grand uncle
Wilson (unknown)
Harding (unknown)
Calvin Coolidge, father-in-law of 5th cousin 3x removed of husband of 2nd cousin 3x removed of husband of 2nd cousin 8x removed
Herbert C. Hoover Sr., 2nd cousin 8x removed of husband of 2nd cousin 8x removed
FDR6th cousin, 5 removes
Elinor Roosevelt, 6th cousin, 5 removes
Harry Truman
, 3rd cousin of wife of 7th cousin 4x removed
Eisenhower (by marriage, otherwise unknown)
JFK (unknown)
Lyndon B. Johnson, 2nd cousin 2x removed of wife of 6th cousin 5x removed
Richard M. Nixon, 8th cousin, 4 removes
Jimmy Carter, unknown
Ronald Reagan, unknown
George H.W. Bush, 10th cousin twice removed
Bill Clinton, husband of 8th cousin or so
George W. Bush10th cousin, once removed
Barrack H. Obama
9th cousin, twice removed

Hillary Clinton
, about an  7th or 8th cousin or so through my well-known French Canadian 9th great-grandfather,  Gaspard Boucher, father of  Sieur Pierre Boucher, Seigneur de Bouchervill et de Gros-Bois;

She is also descended from my:
3rd cousin 7 times removed, Louise-Marie Beaudry,
4th cousin 6 times removed Jeane-Marie Pilet
5th cousin 5 times removed Catherine Godet

Conclusion:  I AM GETTING CLOSER TO THE WHITE HOUSE,
having gone for 6th cousin, 7 removes, to 3rd cousin, 7 removes to the possible next President in a bit over 200 years.Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha. My plan is working perfectly. Stay the course, Brantgoose, stay the course, move the pawns, move the pawns. I'll let you know what my secret plan was when I am President of the World. Narf! Zort!

Any red-blooded American boy can grow up to be President if he is WASP, right-of centre, a professed Christian, rich, a graduate of the right universities, a lawyer, or businessman, or General, Vice-President, or Senator, and related to one or all of the previous Presidents, and descended from prominent WASPs, and early 17th century settlers. As for us Canadians, we can only collect Presidents like baseball cards.

Not a bad collection of POTUS, though, for a Canadian. That's a bit of a handicap for the amateur genealogist. You have to pay extra to do research in the US or World. So far I have missed some of the worst and found some of the best. I'm happy to collect BAD Presidents as well. They are notorious at least. You have to have a few pirates or ax murderers in your family tree just for fun. The family romantics love pirates and red indians.

Oh, and I'm related to Mitt Romney (and Joseph Smith). Got a number of Presidential Losers which is also impressive in its own way. Ever hear of Adlai Stephenson? If you have, you are showing your age.
 
2014-03-27 02:06:37 PM

Lord_Baull: s2s2s2: I'd gladly trade a likable president for an effective one. Obama is fine, but I'd prefer we had campaign Obama.


I assume you mean before the GOP congress made it their priority to oppose every single one of Obama's policies.


You mean in late 2010, 2 years into his first term, after they were shut out of both the Stimulus and ACA?

I know liberals love rewriting history, but try just being a bit honest.
 
2014-03-27 02:07:23 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: For the last couple of years I've alternatively gotten a chuckle or very annoyed from those trying to extend the IndependentsTM meme beyond it's useful life. Sure there was a time when on Fark when it was very amusing when everyone seemed to be opposed to the Bush, including the people that put him into office.

But that ship has long sailed to the point that it's use means pretty much the opposite of what's intended.  Obama was elected twice, largely on his appeal to independents, with whom he performed much better than Gore or Kerry and his electoral performance in this group almost single handedly accounts for his improvement over the preceding Democratic nominees.  Moreover, the most searing criticisms, come from the left of Obama, rather than from the middle or the obviously politically motivated charges coming from the right.

So, while the meme is intended to suggest an unquestioning opposition to Obama, regardless of facts; what it reveals is quite the opposite: an unquestioning support for Obama, regardless of facts. It aims to dismiss criticisms based merely on alleged biases.  Yet, It denigrates the large segment of the country that actually is independent and actually does vote that way, and are largely responsible putting Obama in office in the first place.  Similarly, it's invocation summarily dismisses any criticisms to which the user prefer not to answer by labeling a criticism political instead of on policy, whether it is or not.  I've had it invoked against me and I haven't voted for a Republican in a federal election since 1994.

Obviously, no one is going to stop using the Fark Independents meme because I said so.  But you should at least know how you're representing yourself.  Depending on the context, it comes across as either hopelessly partisan, to the fullest degree any Fark Independent has ever been; and/or wholly ignorant of politics as it exists outside of Fark, i.e. the "no true independents" that helped elect Obama, twice.

The reason I ...


As long as Republican voters refuse to admit they're Republicans, the meme remains relevant.

Take my most recent use for example. noblewolf's "reasons" for disliking Obama are nothing more than debunked Republican talking points, yet he ends his post by denying that he's a Republican. It's horse shiat. You can clutch your pearls all you want, but if you want to take away my Fark Independent™ meme you're going to have to pry it from my cold dead hands.
 
2014-03-27 02:07:40 PM
 
2014-03-27 02:09:28 PM

brantgoose: Speaking of Mrs. C, here is my list of

Presidential Cousins


My mom's side has a line that goes back to the Harrison presidents. Give me twenty years, we can make a run...
 
2014-03-27 02:10:25 PM

Cletus C.: I have dared to be critical of the president in the past, but I fully support his "let's not go to war with Russia" position.


wait.  that's twice in one day.  am I dying?
 
2014-03-27 02:11:23 PM
And...

Shift change
 
2014-03-27 02:12:26 PM

Deftoons: Jeez, I wonder if this has anything to do with the disaster that is Obamacare or his half-hearted efforts on NSA spying.  Hmmmmmm...


Yes, because Daily Caller and Snowden are the wurd.

girrof ya buggah
 
2014-03-27 02:12:37 PM

Wendy's Chili: Stuart Wolfe: Long story short, the IRS slow-tracking tax-exempt status for conservative-sounding agencies while fast-tracking liberal-sounding ones

You sir, are a liar.


Yes, because Lois Lerner completely and truthfully testified before Congress totally clearing up any misunderstandings that may have occurred. Oh wait -
 
2014-03-27 02:12:52 PM

Wendy's Chili: Mike_1962: Carter did no lasting damage to your country.

I have to disagree with this. It was under Carter that we started deregulating various industries and rolling back the New Deal. Granted, what occurred under Carter was nothing compared to shiat show that was the Reagan administration, but Carter got the ball rolling.


You know what the difference between Carter and Obama is?

Obama ordered the extra helicopter.
 
2014-03-27 02:13:11 PM

garkola: But - but - wasn't Obama supposed to improve the standing of the US overseas?


Trust me, he did.
 
2014-03-27 02:13:46 PM

MyRandomName: Lord_Baull: s2s2s2: I'd gladly trade a likable president for an effective one. Obama is fine, but I'd prefer we had campaign Obama.


I assume you mean before the GOP congress made it their priority to oppose every single one of Obama's policies.

You mean in late 2010, 2 years into his first term, after they were shut out of both the Stimulus and ACA?

I know liberals love rewriting history, but try just being a bit honest.


No, I think he means January 2009, during his inaugural address, when Republicans adopted an official policy of opposing everything the President supported.
 
2014-03-27 02:14:16 PM

MyRandomName: You mean in late 2010, 2 years into his first term, after they were shut out of both the Stimulus and ACA?

I know liberals love rewriting history, but try just being a bit honest.


They weren't shut out of the ACA, they chose to sit it out.
 
2014-03-27 02:15:52 PM
One potential President I am unrelated to thus far is John McCain. His ancestors are mostly poor white Southerners on the far side of the Appalachians or Ozarks. My family entered North America in New France, New England and New Holland as well as Virginia and North Caroline, etc--pretty much the whole Eastern Seaboard, in fact. But few of my relations are in the Deep South. Enough to ensure that I have family in every State of the Union plus all of Canada, but relatively few. There are gaps in the coverage you could stick a small state in.

There is a connection to McCain (our former MP, the Honourable Fred McCain, is a distant cousin of the McCains of Texas, and the Presidential Candidate). He was one of the "Dinosaurs", a group of very, very right-wing MPs in Parliament at that time, many years ago. He is unrelated to the McCain frozen food family, and so, apparently am I. They are from Northern Ireland. I have found no blood connection to them except for social connections over the last century.

Dick Cheney, curse him, is another of my wacky American cousins, as is the famous conspiracist Lyndon Hermyle Larouche, Jr (6th cousin, 1 remove). Orrin Hatch, Senator from Utah, is another right-wing politician whom I added recently.

The point is, America is just one big unhappy family.

Keep the noise down to a dull roar please. We're trying to sleep up here in Canada.
 
2014-03-27 02:15:58 PM

Stuart Wolfe: Wendy's Chili: Stuart Wolfe: Long story short, the IRS slow-tracking tax-exempt status for conservative-sounding agencies while fast-tracking liberal-sounding ones

You sir, are a liar.

Yes, because Lois Lerner completely and truthfully testified before Congress totally clearing up any misunderstandings that may have occurred. Oh wait -


"Oh wait-" what?

Whaddaya got, liar man?
 
2014-03-27 02:17:31 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Mike_1962: Nutsac_Jim: Slaves2Darkness: Lord_Baull: A majority of Americans disapprove of the way he handles foreign policy. This diplomacy of his... why can't we invade and occupy a foreign country like the good ole days? I mean, that's why we HAVE a desert full of unused tanks, amiright?

Yeah, we should just fly over there in our C-190's or what ever we use to transport those tanks and kick them out over the tops of the Russian troops. Just use the tanks as gravity bombs, that will show them Commies that they can't compete with the US and should never try, because we are so rich we use excess tanks as gravity bombs.

Yes, because if you don't think Obama has done a good job on Ukraine, it means you want to bomb Moscow.

What should be done?

I'd start with supporting Ukraine.  Declaring you are going to ship Natty Gas to Ukraine in lieu of Ukraine shipping Russian gas.   Support Ukraine taxing any remaining Russian gas coming in, because Ukraine just lost all those revenue generating ports..etc.

Ship maybe 5000 mortors to ukraine, in case they want to prevent border crossings.

Maybe thinking about curtailing utilities shipped to ukraine, or taxing them some more.


OK. Natural gas is a constant requirement. You currently have no infrastructure to get it to them. Or Europe, for that matter. Never mind that it would be illegal until that ever obliging congressional consensus decides to lift restictions on imports. So, long term that would matter, but not now.
Taxing Russian gas? I don't even know what your getting at here, but if it's money, the GOP axed aid because they couldn't get a rider protecting their campaign donors anonymity.
Shipping them mortars? Ukraine has a significant military as it stands. It can't stand up to Russia, but mortars, or small arms are not an issue. They have plenty of those. You don't seem to realize that Ukraine is an arms exporter. It's one of their major industries.
 
2014-03-27 02:18:32 PM
CSB, my uncle was Gus Hall, 4 time presidential nominee of the CPUSA.
 
2014-03-27 02:21:09 PM

Geotpf: udhq: 47% support responding to the Ukraine invasion with sanctions, yet 57% disapprove of Obama for taking this exact course of action.

I'll just leave it at that.

I once saw a poll where more than a majority of people believed in both evolution and creationism (two separate questions in the same poll).  They even specifically defined the terms before asking the question in such a way that they were mutually exclusive, so there was no wiggle room there.


Interesting. Not to doubt, but a link would be great. It would be the perfect exemplar of cognitive dissonance.
 
2014-03-27 02:25:02 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: scotchlandia: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Deep Contact: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Deep Contact: JusticeandIndependence: Deep Contact: Actually liked him in the beginning of his first term. Now can't stand looking at him. Lying sack.

Just curious, what did he lie about?

If you want to keep your health insurance, you can, if you want to keep your doctor, you can.

You realize of course that the insurance companies orchestrated that.

No, of course you don't.

Then he's also an idiot.

Do explain, in depth, with citations, just how the president is supposed to regulate the insurance industry singlehandedly when being blocked by the most clueless, obstreperous congress ever 'voted' in?  Or at all for that matter?

I'll wait.

Why sould anyone explain that? Why the hell is the federal government regulating the insurance industry at all? Insurance should be regulated at state level in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, which provides that any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states. So the ACA is illegal unless it amends the constitution. Yes, I know the supreme court ruled on this. It's still wrong.

ok


LOL. As you unobtrusively merge into the shrubbery a la Homer...
 
2014-03-27 02:27:15 PM

Deep Contact: He also broke his promise to close Guantanamo Bay.


Gotta admit, you had me at first. Work of art...
 
2014-03-27 02:29:12 PM

ZAZ: If you look at the poll results linked from the article, the no opinion response rate is near 1%. Numbers may not add to 100% due to rounding error.

Obviously this is mostly partisan driven, not policy driven. Only 3% don't have an opinion on his handling of Ukraine. The split is the same as general approval. But skip forward to question RUS1 where the question is rephrased as too strong / about right / not strong enough. More people think his response is about right than have a favorable opinion of his response. 5% instead of 3% say they don't know. That's the result of changing the question from "do you like?" to "what would you do instead?"

I would like to see a question, do you intend to vote for or against Obama in 2016?


Came for the liberal excuses, leaving satisfied.

/when the data/poll numbers support liberals beliefs they are infallible
//when they don't, well its either because Americans are stoopid of the poll asked the wrong questions
///i.e. Nate Silver
 
2014-03-27 02:29:14 PM

Mike_1962: LOL. As you unobtrusively merge into the shrubbery a la Homer...


Heh.  I got to the unconstitutional part and just figured there was no reason to bother.

img.fark.net

;)
 
2014-03-27 02:30:34 PM

Wendy's Chili: Stuart Wolfe: Wendy's Chili: Stuart Wolfe: Long story short, the IRS slow-tracking tax-exempt status for conservative-sounding agencies while fast-tracking liberal-sounding ones

You sir, are a liar.

Yes, because Lois Lerner completely and truthfully testified before Congress totally clearing up any misunderstandings that may have occurred. Oh wait -

"Oh wait-" what?

Whaddaya got, liar man?

"Oh wait" - we have someone who did the total opposite.

I have an administrative official (using the loosest sense of the word) one Lois Lerner, who seems curiously unwilling to testify about the abuses done by the IRS under Obama and might face contempt charges. On the other hand, we have you who instead of defending Lois, the IRS, and Obama, has nothing but name-calling. If that's all you got, you lost the argument.

 
2014-03-27 02:30:38 PM

Mike_1962: Interesting. Not to doubt, but a link would be great. It would be the perfect exemplar of cognitive dissonance.


Not necessarily. Evolution says nothing whatsoever about the origin of life. That's a different field of study entirely. Most of the dissonance comes from young earth creationism, which is significant but not universal by any stretch, even in the US.

Old earth creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. The officially endorsed Roman Catholic understanding of creationism is divine-primed, old earth, but evolution as understood by biologists/biochemists from there.
 
2014-03-27 02:33:55 PM

Tyrano Soros: You libs think we hate Obama because of the color of his skin, but the truth is we'd hate him even if he was brown, red or yellow.


I totally believe that you would hate him no matter the color of his skin.  I also think his color allows your racism to slip out.
 
2014-03-27 02:34:07 PM

Rapmaster2000: garkola: But - but - wasn't Obama supposed to improve the standing of the US overseas?

I'm not sure if he was supposed to.  It might be that more people just hated Bush than like Obama.  So, in that sense, I suppose you're right.  Obama didn't do anything to improve America's image.  Americans improved their image by not voting for the other guy.

[l.yimg.com image 618x785]

Not doing so hot in Poland, though.  Obama forgot Poland.


It's always interesting looking at those numbers, as they're distilled to the point where taking them at face value is difficult.  What I mean by that is they're not discussing the variables at play - the launching of a war effort unseen for many years, the prolonging of that war effort, the doubt that creeps in after such things drag on, and then the inevitable 'wrapping up'.  The numbers don't necessarily tie themselves to the actions of a specific person - because of the war.  If Obama had been President during the initial attacks, the eventual efforts post-attack, etc.  there is nothing to say that the numbers wouldn't be similar to how they are for Bush.
 
2014-03-27 02:38:58 PM

Carn: 59% hate the politician they imagine Obama to be.  If he had an R next to his name and weren't quite so brown, he'd be the second coming of Ronnie St Reagan.  He's pretty close on the spectrum.


What Obama policies or directive are Reaganesque?  Evidence needed.
 
2014-03-27 02:39:45 PM

Truther: Came for the liberal excuses, leaving satisfied.

/when the data/poll numbers support liberals beliefs they are infallible
//when they don't, well its either because Americans are stoopid of the poll asked the wrong questions
///i.e. Nate Silver


Oh, I see your mistake: you think liberals are just as averse to objective reality as you are.....
 
2014-03-27 02:40:11 PM

skozlaw: Ned Stark: skozlaw: People who routinely respond positively to almost every major line item of the ACA but say they hate Obamacare

Only like 4% of the cookie is made up of peanuts! Its mostly sugar and eggs and I know you love both of those! Stop going into anaphylactic shock you hypocritical asshole!

Well, yes, the "this national law covering 300,000,000 people wasn't written specifically with me in mind and has a few things that don't directly benefit me so I don't like it" attitude is also incredibly stupid and frighteningly prevalent in this country.

cew-smoke: So, you can stop patting yourself on the back for your feelings of oh so worthy superiority.

Why don't you take a wild stab in the dark at what country I've lived my whole life in....


Get back here with those goalposts, mate.
 
2014-03-27 02:40:23 PM

MooseUpNorth: Mike_1962: Interesting. Not to doubt, but a link would be great. It would be the perfect exemplar of cognitive dissonance.

Not necessarily. Evolution says nothing whatsoever about the origin of life. That's a different field of study entirely. Most of the dissonance comes from young earth creationism, which is significant but not universal by any stretch, even in the US.

Old earth creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. The officially endorsed Roman Catholic understanding of creationism is divine-primed, old earth, but evolution as understood by biologists/biochemists from there.


Neil DeGrasse Tyson on "Cosmos" made a particular point about scientists not knowing how life originated. But did that stop creationist butt-hurt? Oh, no, it did not. I really think their resistance to the idea of God using physical laws to carry out creation (the big bang followed by evolution) is that they're just too dumb to learn about the science.
 
2014-03-27 02:40:34 PM

Stuart Wolfe: Wendy's Chili: Stuart Wolfe: Wendy's Chili: Stuart Wolfe: Long story short, the IRS slow-tracking tax-exempt status for conservative-sounding agencies while fast-tracking liberal-sounding ones

You sir, are a liar.

Yes, because Lois Lerner completely and truthfully testified before Congress totally clearing up any misunderstandings that may have occurred. Oh wait -

"Oh wait-" what?

Whaddaya got, liar man?

"Oh wait" - we have someone who did the total opposite.

I have an administrative official (using the loosest sense of the word) one Lois Lerner, who seems curiously unwilling to testify about the abuses done by the IRS under Obama and might face contempt charges. On the other hand, we have you who instead of defending Lois, the IRS, and Obama, has nothing but name-calling. If that's all you got, you lost the argument.


I don't really know what you're upset about.  The audit is STILL under review, nothing has been settled permanently, but Issa needs to stfu about thing he knows nothing about, and perhaps you could see that democrats want it looked into as well.  But republicans don't seem too concerned about looking at everything, just the one thing.


But, you'd rather bleat.
 
2014-03-27 02:41:16 PM

physt: Tyrano Soros: You libs think we hate Obama because of the color of his skin, but the truth is we'd hate him even if he was brown, red or yellow.

I totally believe that you would hate him no matter the color of his skin.  I also think his color allows your racism to slip out.


You should maybe re-read his comment, then determine if he was joking, then comprehend the joke, then apologize.
 
2014-03-27 02:41:47 PM

Mike_1962: Geotpf: udhq: 47% support responding to the Ukraine invasion with sanctions, yet 57% disapprove of Obama for taking this exact course of action.

I'll just leave it at that.

I once saw a poll where more than a majority of people believed in both evolution and creationism (two separate questions in the same poll).  They even specifically defined the terms before asking the question in such a way that they were mutually exclusive, so there was no wiggle room there.

Interesting. Not to doubt, but a link would be great. It would be the perfect exemplar of cognitive dissonance.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-E vo lution.aspx

53% believed that "Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life" was definitely or probably true and 66% believe that "Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" was definitely or probably true.

Note that "Definitely True" and "Probably True" were seperate choices (which I added up here), but the two definitions were still contradictory; you can't say something is probably black and probably white at the same time.
 
2014-03-27 02:42:32 PM

Stuart Wolfe: Wendy's Chili: Stuart Wolfe: Wendy's Chili: Stuart Wolfe: Long story short, the IRS slow-tracking tax-exempt status for conservative-sounding agencies while fast-tracking liberal-sounding ones

You sir, are a liar.

Yes, because Lois Lerner completely and truthfully testified before Congress totally clearing up any misunderstandings that may have occurred. Oh wait -

"Oh wait-" what?

Whaddaya got, liar man?

"Oh wait" - we have someone who did the total opposite.

I have an administrative official (using the loosest sense of the word) one Lois Lerner, who seems curiously unwilling to testify about the abuses done by the IRS under Obama and might face contempt charges. On the other hand, we have you who instead of defending Lois, the IRS, and Obama, has nothing but name-calling. If that's all you got, you lost the argument.


Her reluctance to testify doesn't make your lies true. Not only were liberal organizations NOT fast-tracked, the only 501(c)(4) applications that were rejected for being political were from liberal organizations.
 
2014-03-27 02:48:52 PM

udhq: Truther: Came for the liberal excuses, leaving satisfied.

/when the data/poll numbers support liberals beliefs they are infallible
//when they don't, well its either because Americans are stoopid of the poll asked the wrong questions
///i.e. Nate Silver

Oh, I see your mistake: you think liberals are just as averse to objective reality as you are.....


Liberal playbook 101 - deflect, deflect, deflect...
 
2014-03-27 02:48:58 PM

CivicMindedFive: Carn: 59% hate the politician they imagine Obama to be.  If he had an R next to his name and weren't quite so brown, he'd be the second coming of Ronnie St Reagan.  He's pretty close on the spectrum.

What Obama policies or directive are Reaganesque?  Evidence needed.


Making nuclear disarmament a major foreign policy plank. Using  Keynesian deficit spending to get out of a recession. Expanding employer-provided health insurance coverage. Apologizing and paying reparations for past U.S. wrongdoing.

Oh, wait, you asked for Obama policies. Never mind.

/If Teabaggers actually knew what Reagan did in office, they'd call him a socialist.
 
2014-03-27 02:49:56 PM
www.users.on.net

George W. Bush is a true example of a COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE. He will bring honor and decency back to the White House.

We agree that $1.25/gallon is a ludicrously high amount. George W.  Bush is a former Oil Man with many close ties to arab oil interests. He'll be able to talk with the middle east and truly be the Inside Man to ease the stress on struggling motorists.

America is in no way the world's police, and has no business going abroad sacrificing young american lives telling other countries how they should be doing things. George W.  Bush will put America first, and focus on true Homeland Security by dedicating his administration to a mighty MISSILE SHIELD.

We cannot have the proof... a smoking gun... to come in the form of a mushroom cloud. By building a Missile Shield, American families will be prototected from any and all harm from rogue nations. George W.  Bush will combat the true dangers of the 21st century, all the while helping families grow at home.

By encouraging deregulation in the private healthcare and banking industry, free market forces will ensure competition drives prices down, making private healthcare and the American dream of home ownership affordable to all. It is unamerican to inject the Government in other people's business, and it is a core Republican belief that Government should be so small as to be able to drown it in your bathtub. Privacy, above all, is the God-given right of Americans.

Vote Compassionate Conservatism.
Vote fiscal responsibility.
Vote small Government.
Vote GOP.

Vote Bush 2000
 
2014-03-27 02:50:34 PM
Truther: bleat bleat bleat bleat


Man, second shift sucks.
 
2014-03-27 02:52:14 PM

LazyMedia: Nah, there are WAY more people who hate Obama and think he's a soshaliss Muslim than there are racists who think that.


The belief that he's a Muslim is founded principally upon his race. People who think he's a half-breed Muslin and hate him for that reason are racists.
 
2014-03-27 02:52:39 PM

Truther: udhq: Truther: Came for the liberal excuses, leaving satisfied.

/when the data/poll numbers support liberals beliefs they are infallible
//when they don't, well its either because Americans are stoopid of the poll asked the wrong questions
///i.e. Nate Silver

Oh, I see your mistake: you think liberals are just as averse to objective reality as you are.....

Liberal playbook 101 - deflect, deflect, deflect...


I don't think you know what the word "deflect" means.
 
2014-03-27 02:53:21 PM

Lord_Baull: s2s2s2: I'd gladly trade a likable president for an effective one. Obama is fine, but I'd prefer we had campaign Obama.


I assume you mean before the GOP congress made it their priority to oppose every single one of Obama's policies.


This line of reasoning has always struck me as being a little too heavy on the 'have your cake and eat it' dissonance. The allegation that Republicans operate in full 'oppose everything Obama says or does, even if it's stuff we like' douchebag mode is often made and, given the evidence well justified. But the kicker is that, if that's really the case, then Democrats really have no grounds for treating Republican opinions as a relevant consideration in their own policy decisions. If they're going to object to whatever Democrats do, they stop being a viable excuse for Democrats not taking the stances they should. Can't have it both ways.

Take the ACA for example. Pretty much from day 1, Republicans made it plain they would have no part in the law - no matter what concessions were offered not a single R was going to vote for it, ever. Certainly that behavior was the height of dickishness for elected lawmakers, but it also gave the Democrats an opportunity to write a law free from the need to make concessions to Republicans. Yet still you see people defending aspects of the law, such as the lack of a public option, based on the notion that 'b..b..but Republicans opposed it'.

/I seem to recall this being the premise of a storyline in the West Wing, but can't remember the detail. Anyone remember it, as it's going to bug me otherwise?
 
2014-03-27 02:53:23 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Truther: bleat bleat bleat bleat


Man, second shift sucks.


I would have been skeptical about the assertion regarding "shifts" if I hadn't seen it for myself.  Quite odd.
 
Displayed 50 of 628 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report