Interesting article in the UselessA Today newspaper today, regarding the most recent Gallup Poll.  O'bama's approval rating has dropped below 50%, twn months into his presidency.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/11/obama-below-50-percent/1

For other presidents, they polled below 50% this far into their presidency:


Truman-11 months
Carter-13 months
Nixxon-25 months
Lyndon Johnson-29 months
Bush I - 36 months
Bush II-37 months
Eisenhower-63 months

I'd like to see the figures on Hoover.

Beck must be really happy, right now.

I wonder what McCain/Palin's would be?

:D

I wonder what McCain/Palin's would be?

:D



The thought of a McCain/Palin Administration is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY scary. http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/scared/scared0008.gif


http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/scared/scared0016.gif



Cat

The thought of a McCain/Palin Administration is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY scary. http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/scared/scared0008.gif


http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/scared/scared0016.gif



Cat


Agreeded.

Clinton remained in the 60s even throughout the impeachment.  Why?  Times were good.  The Right refused to give Clinton ANY credit for economic improvement (though they liked him for taking the dole money away from poor folks), and certainly the 90s boom was not entirely due to Clinton. 

However, now the Right is laying ALL the economic woes of the 00s squarely on Obama's shoulders, which is silly, silly, silly--but it's working. 

My problem with Obama is he appointed all the same wrong-headed Friedmanites who got us into all the trouble.  If you hired a contractor to fix your furnace and he blew the thing up, you wouldn't hire that contractor again, but that's what BHO did.
::)

However, now the Right is laying ALL the economic woes of the 00s squarely on Obama's shoulders, which is silly, silly, silly--but it's working. 

I noticed that they started doing that before he even took power.

He was always going to have a bumpy ride, given the utter sheeshstorm left for him, people's short-term memories and a right wing that's really out to get him.

Clinton remained in the 60s even throughout the impeachment.  Why?  Times were good.  The Right refused to give Clinton ANY credit for economic improvement (though they liked him for taking the dole money away from poor folks), and certainly the 90s boom was not entirely due to Clinton. 

However, now the Right is laying ALL the economic woes of the 00s squarely on Obama's shoulders, which is silly, silly, silly--but it's working. 

My problem with Obama is he appointed all the same wrong-headed Friedmanites who got us into all the trouble.  If you hired a contractor to fix your furnace and he blew the thing up, you wouldn't hire that contractor again, but that's what BHO did.
::)


I couldn't agree more!

Nowadays, people are very impatient (trust me when I say this...I'm not the only one). We want Hope...but it seems Hope has a price!

I couldn't agree more!

Nowadays, people are very impatient (trust me when I say this...I'm not the only one). We want Hope...but it seems Hope has a price!


Yeah, and that price is: All the hope you ever had in the first place!!!
:\'(

I heard on the CBS News the other night that only 7% of those polled believe that the "stimulus spending" created anywhere near the 640,000 jobs that the administration has been touting.  They then went on to cite any number of other polls that showed similar 9but not nearly as severe) disapproval.

Very odd for CBS News, which has served as honorary news media outlet for this administration.

I wonder if the media honeymoon is over, and if we will see the media starting to go on the attack? ???

Clinton remained in the 60s even throughout the impeachment.  Why?  Times were good.  The Right refused to give Clinton ANY credit for economic improvement (though they liked him for taking the dole money away from poor folks), and certainly the 90s boom was not entirely due to Clinton. 

However, now the Right is laying ALL the economic woes of the 00s squarely on Obama's shoulders, which is silly, silly, silly--but it's working.  My problem with Obama is he appointed all the same wrong-headed Friedmanites who got us into all the trouble.  If you hired a contractor to fix your furnace and he blew the thing up, you wouldn't hire that contractor again, but that's what BHO did.
::)
Id have to say the recession is really not Obama's fault its George W. Bush's first  and Barney Frank's fault second. Frank is lucky he in a liberal democratic state like Massachusetts or else he would be like Chris Dodd in fighting for his political life. This recession maybe take like 3-5 years to even return to 1996 like economically.

Reagan dropped to under 50% by this point in his presidency as well.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1109/Sub50.html

That comments section is just infuriating.  Bunch of people hoping that Obama fails and stuff like "You can't compare Obama to Reagan!  Reagan pulled us out of recession while Obama is sinking us further in!", ignoring the fact that recession actually got worse during Reagan's first two years in office and didn't improve substantially until his third.  As such, Reagan wasn't much better than Obama at this point in his presidency.  Don't mention that to the right-wingers though.

Reagan dropped to under 50% by this point in his presidency as well.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1109/Sub50.html

That comments section is just infuriating.  Bunch of people hoping that Obama fails and stuff like "You can't compare Obama to Reagan!  Reagan pulled us out of recession while Obama is sinking us further in!", ignoring the fact that recession actually got worse during Reagan's first two years in office and didn't improve substantially until his third.  As such, Reagan wasn't much better than Obama at this point in his presidency.  Don't mention that to the right-wingers though.
I;m aware that Reagen and Obama's approval rating are the same in their same times in their respective presidency's but Reagan never thought about Cap and Trade or proposed a 3 trillion dollar health care bill in his presidency that would increase health insurance premiums. Why would you think about a cap and trade proposal now maybe in 2007 but not now.

Id have to say the recession is really not Obama's fault its George W. Bush's first  and Barney Frank's fault second. Frank is lucky he in a liberal democratic state like Massachusetts or else he would be like Chris Dodd in fighting for his political life. This recession maybe take like 3-5 years to even return to 1996 like economically.


I will certainly agree that the recession is not O'Bama's fault, it began before he even took office.

However... The massive profligate spending that he is putting into place is sewing the seeds for long term financial disaster.  While I certainly am not an admirere of the Bush deficit spending, O'Bama is taking the deficit higher yet, with no apparent end in sight.

My opinion, two things are the major causes of this recession.  First, the deregulation of derivatives trading that allowed "naked credit default swap" markets to exist.  Secondly, the forced-march of Fannie and Freddie to lend money to people who could not afford it, because promotibg that nonsense made guys like Barney Frank look magnanimous.

In my opinion, the first cause was actually the worst.  Back in 1994 when I was at the University of Chicago, when the subject of "naked derivative trading" came up, people who tried to practice that were referred to as gamblers, scum bags and flim flam artists, and we studied how the various exchanges enacted rules to prevent such activity.  The credit default swaps are what really hosed up the financial markets in 2008 into 2009.

And yet... our Government has taken no steps to ban naked selling or credit default swaps.

I will certainly agree that the recession is not O'Bama's fault, it began before he even took office.

However... The massive profligate spending that he is putting into place is sewing the seeds for long term financial disaster.  While I certainly am not an admirere of the Bush deficit spending, O'Bama is taking the deficit higher yet, with no apparent end in sight.

My opinion, two things are the major causes of this recession.  First, the deregulation of derivatives trading that allowed "naked credit default swap" markets to exist.  Secondly, the forced-march of Fannie and Freddie to lend money to people who could not afford it, because promotibg that nonsense made guys like Barney Frank look magnanimous.

In my opinion, the first cause was actually the worst.  Back in 1994 when I was at the University of Chicago, when the subject of "naked derivative trading" came up, people who tried to practice that were referred to as gamblers, scum bags and flim flam artists, and we studied how the various exchanges enacted rules to prevent such activity.  The credit default swaps are what really hosed up the financial markets in 2008 into 2009.

And yet... our Government has taken no steps to ban naked selling or credit default swaps.


Although I agree that the deregulation and lending mortgage who couldn't legally afford it is what really hurt us in the long run, I believe that the initial cause of the recession is before that. The initial cause is the growing deficit from all the money spent on the War in Iraq, and all the tax cuts that W. Bush gave. Who's paying for the war? We all are. The deficit caused inflation and interest rates to rise. That is what caused those who could barely afford to pay the mortgage and credit card bills to suddenly not be able to, forcing many into foreclosure, which in turn added fuel to the fire. Although the recession did not officially begin until 2008 (actually Dec. 2007), we could see the signs of economic trouble as early as 2006, kind of like storm clouds approaching before the nasty storm hits.

Although I agree that the deregulation and lending mortgage who couldn't legally afford it is what really hurt us in the long run, I believe that the initial cause of the recession is before that. The initial cause is the growing deficit from all the money spent on the War in Iraq, and all the tax cuts that W. Bush gave. Who's paying for the war? We all are. The deficit caused inflation and interest rates to rise. That is what caused those who could barely afford to pay the mortgage and credit card bills to suddenly not be able to, forcing many into foreclosure, which in turn added fuel to the fire. Although the recession did not officially begin until 2008 (actually Dec. 2007), we could see the signs of economic trouble as early as 2006, kind of like storm clouds approaching before the nasty storm hits.


I'll buy your argument to a degree.  However, once the credit default swap problem happened, that event was like a gasoline tanker crashing into a small brush fire.  The collapse of the gambling game (known as credit default swaps) caused an immense and near-instantaneous cessation of credit markets.  With credit lines cut off (because the lending banks had pissed their money away covering their bad CDS bets), real estate sales came to a screeching halt and this caused housing prices to tank even further.

Just before all this was going on, I was consulting for an associate who was going to build a $400 million manufacturing plant.  His main investor was an east coast real estate mogul, who was going to finance the project by borrowing against his vast (and quite prime located) real estate holdings.  Almost immediately, the investor had to back out because nobody would lend him the money, specifically because his real estate assets suddenly became illiquid due to all of this mess.  (Note, the investor was not heavily in debt and was not playing any of those credit default swap games).

End result is that our project, which would have created 300 jobs, vanished.  I can only imagine how many times this story was repeated in other areas of the country, in other industries.  Job killer.

I will certainly agree that the recession is not O'Bama's fault, it began before he even took office.

However... The massive profligate spending that he is putting into place is sewing the seeds for long term financial disaster.  While I certainly am not an admirere of the Bush deficit spending, O'Bama is taking the deficit higher yet, with no apparent end in sight.

My opinion, two things are the major causes of this recession.  First, the deregulation of derivatives trading that allowed "naked credit default swap" markets to exist.  Secondly, the forced-march of Fannie and Freddie to lend money to people who could not afford it, because promotibg that nonsense made guys like Barney Frank look magnanimous.

In my opinion, the first cause was actually the worst.  Back in 1994 when I was at the University of Chicago, when the subject of "naked derivative trading" came up, people who tried to practice that were referred to as gamblers, scum bags and flim flam artists, and we studied how the various exchanges enacted rules to prevent such activity.  The credit default swaps are what really hosed up the financial markets in 2008 into 2009.

And yet... our Government has taken no steps to ban naked selling or credit default swaps.


You said it, mister!  And how!

I like how they call it "naked derivative trading" because it sounds like financial pornography, and that's exactly what it is!

Look, politics is like the Hell's Angels.  Nobody makes you join and you stand a good chance of getting thrown out with less than you had before if you do try to join.  However, if you get inside the clubhouse, you gotta understand the way we do things around here, and do 'em that way, and don't make no trouble for us no matter what you see...or else you'll be floating face down in the river, mofo, you dig?

So Obama did what he had to do to climb the ranks, and I'm sure he don't sleep too good at night over some of the things he had to do. 

As for Bawney Fwank, same thing.  Like I always say, and will continue to say, when you dance with the devil, the devil always leads. 
Sam Frank, Barney's father ran a truck stop in Jersey City where the elder Frank 'n' family practiced petty crimes such as alleged kickbacks and money laundering -- what my dad used to call "piddlysh*t" stuff.  Sam Frank did a spell in jail, and maybe it taught Barney the value of being an honest man, and maybe it taught Barney the value of not getting caught.  Maybe some of both.  I dunno.  When you consider the gay sex scandal Frank's political career survived and that barnacle-covered old fishermen from New Bedford vote for him nonetheless...well, I wouldn't tangle with Barney Frank...
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/peepwall.gif

...well, I wouldn't tangle with Barney Frank...
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/peepwall.gif


I certainly wouldn't turn my back to him.

Heck, at the beginning of the financial meltdown, he was STILL defending the gigantic golden parachutes that guys ar Fannie and Freddie were getting.

End result is that our project, which would have created 300 jobs, vanished.  I can only imagine how many times this story was repeated in other areas of the country, in other industries.  Job killer.


We're suffering from end-stage capitalism.  Stimulus package or no, I have no faith in our captains of industry -- nor should any many or woman trying to make a buck in this sorry old world.
::)

I wonder if the media honeymoon is over, and if we will see the media starting to go on the attack? ???

The sad thing is, McCain & Palin never had a media honeymoon, CBS took orders from their golden boy Obama to maliciously attack - immediately, downwind, and without stopping to get anything silly like the truth get in the way. Hopefully, now the guard dogs will turn on their pretend master. It would seem Obama can no longer preen in front of the mirror doing nothing while blaming all the nation's problems on Bush. They never were his fault anyway. In reality, responsibility lies with the Democrap CONGRESS!

Then again, if McCain & Palin had been treated fairly in the press, they'd be in office now, and the War On Terror just might be over. It does help that the 2-house mafia is starting to crumble, with more & more corrupt democrats resigning or refusing to run again.

Your Pal,
Doc
>:(

The sad thing is, McCain & Palin never had a media honeymoon, CBS took orders from their golden boy Obama to maliciously attack - immediately, downwind, and without stopping to get anything silly like the truth get in the way. Hopefully, now the guard dogs will turn on their pretend master. It would seem Obama can no longer preen in front of the mirror doing nothing while blaming all the nation's problems on Bush. They never were his fault anyway. In reality, responsibility lies with the Democrap CONGRESS!

Then again, if McCain & Palin had been treated fairly in the press, they'd be in office now, and the War On Terror just might be over. It does help that the 2-house mafia is starting to crumble, with more & more corrupt democrats resigning or refusing to run again.

Your Pal,
Doc
>:(



Oh PUL-EASE!!!!  That is just so ridiculous it is not even funny.  We know how Katie Couric used those "gotch questions" like "What newspaper's do you read".  ::)  As for the "War on Terror" would be over if McCain got in there, I highly doubt that. If McCain got in, this country would be in a MAJOR depression for one thing.


As for the Dems not running, in the Senate there are 5-but there are also 6 Repubs not running. In the House, there are 10 Dems & 13 Repubs not running. The Repubs have just become the Party of No. They want Obama to fail at any cost and it doesn't matter if the entire nation goes to Hell in a handbasket trying to achieve that goal. And it is people like who who buy into their lies that keeps them continuing with this strategy.

Open your eyes, Dude. You have a brain-USE IT!!! Really look into what these people on Fox Noise are telling you. Half of what they say is just made up and there is no basis to it.



Cat

Really look into what these people on Fox Noise are telling you. Half of what they say is just made up and there is no basis to it.

Oh, but I do, Cat. The made-up stuf you speak of are clips from NBC, ABC, CNN, and especially CBS, which Fox rebroadcasts so O'Reilly, Bck & Huckabee can tear them apart!

NOW THEN, if you ever bother to read the Constitution, you'd know that not all the power lies with the President. Checks And Balances are spread equally throughout the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives. However, seeing that at any one time, we have only ONE President and over 500 members of Congress, who do you think is more likely to force public policy through? Once our corrupt Congress overrides the President's veto of an unconstitutional law, only the Supreme Court can strike it down!

So, you still want to blame all the nonworking policies of our government on President Bush? The reason that happened so often is because no one actually watches C-SPAN(not even me) to see what congress is doing, they just saw President Bush on network news, and anyone on their camera becomes an easy target, so that's where the press and people aimed their venom.

The worst part is that the Constitution gives the people no course through the legal system to remove a corrupt President like the one we have now. Even scarier, any president becoming too powerful was seen by the Constitutional Convention as reason to remove him by armed force. THAT'S WHY THE BILL OF RIGHTS ALLOWS US TO BEAR ARMS! Thank God we've never had to do so in over 230 years, and pray that that fool Obama does not give us reason to break that record. It would be easier to use the truth to attack him in the media, and eventually force him to resign.

Your Worried Pal,
Doc
:-\\

Oh, but I do, Cat. The made-up stuf you speak of are clips from NBC, ABC, CNN, and especially CBS, which Fox rebroadcasts so O'Reilly, Bck & Huckabee can tear them apart!

NOW THEN, if you ever bother to read the Constitution, you'd know that not all the power lies with the President. Checks And Balances are spread equally throughout the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives. However, seeing that at any one time, we have only ONE President and over 500 members of Congress, who do you think is more likely to force public policy through? Once our corrupt Congress overrides the President's veto of an unconstitutional law, only the Supreme Court can strike it down!

So, you still want to blame all the nonworking policies of our government on President Bush? The reason that happened so often is because no one actually watches C-SPAN(not even me) to see what congress is doing, they just saw President Bush on network news, and anyone on their camera becomes an easy target, so that's where the press and people aimed their venom.

The worst part is that the Constitution gives the people no course through the legal system to remove a corrupt President like the one we have now. The scary part is, a president becoming too powerful was seen by the Constitutional Convention as reason to remove him by armed force. THAT'S WHY THE BILL OF RIGHTS ALLOWS US TO BEAR ARMS! Thank God we've never had to do so in over 230 years, and pray that that fool Obama does not give us reason to break that record. It would be easier to use the truth to attack him in the media, and eventually force him to resign.

Your Worried Pal,
Doc
:-\\



Oh man, you are more delusional than I thought.

Yes, I have read the Constitution. By indicating to remove Obama from office by force, according to the Constitution is TREASON!!!

Article Three, Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


I would like some PROOF that Obama is so corrupt. If you can give me proof other that Fox Noise, the Drudge Report, or Rush Limbaugh, I may believe it.



Cat

Nothing you just quoted classifies the armed removal of a corrupt President as treason. You act as though Obama is above the law!

Chief executive or not, any man working in the Oval Office is still bound by the Constitution and all other laws governing the country, and if he violates them(which ObamaCare does, BTW), he is still subject to arrest, prosecution, and trial by jury. His armed removal from the White House woulc simply constitute the Arrest, and possibly prosecution. JFTR, I have never stated that I wanted this to happen, just like presidential impeachment once was, it would be unprecedented, so if Obama angered the American people enough to do so, it would not be very much of a surprise. I rest my case.

Your Pal,
Doc
8)

Nothing you just quoted classifies the armed removal of a corrupt President as treason. You act as though Obama is above the law!

Chief executive or not, any man working in the Oval Office is still bound by the Constitution and all other laws governing the country, and if he violates them(which ObamaCare does, BTW), he is still subject to arrest, prosecution, and trial by jury. His armed removal from the White House woulc simply constitute the Arrest, and possibly prosecution. JFTR, I have never stated that I wanted this to happen, just like presidential impeachment once was, it would be unprecedented, so if Obama angered the American people enough to do so, it would not be very much of a surprise. I rest my case.

Your Pal,
Doc
8)



I have never said that Obama or ANY president is above the law. I am asking you to PROVE that he has broken the law. As for "ObamaCare" which doesn't exactly exist, is FAR from violating the Constitution. In fact, the Preamble states, that one of the purposes of government and Constitution is to "promote the general Welfare" which, in my book spells Health Care.


So, let me repeat myself: PROVE to me that Obama has broken the law-has violated the Constitution without using Fox Noise, the Dredge Report, and/or Rush Limbaugh as sources.



Cat

I have never said that Obama or ANY president is above the law. I am asking you to PROVE that he has broken the law. As for "ObamaCare" which doesn't exactly exist, is FAR from violating the Constitution. In fact, the Preamble states, that one of the purposes of government and Constitution is to "promote the general Welfare" which, in my book spells Health Care.


"Promote the general welfare" means cut taxes for the rich and hand our national sovereignty to multinational corporations.

Nothing you just quoted classifies the armed removal of a corrupt President as treason. You act as though Obama is above the law!

Chief executive or not, any man working in the Oval Office is still bound by the Constitution and all other laws governing the country, and if he violates them(which ObamaCare does, BTW), he is still subject to arrest, prosecution, and trial by jury. His armed removal from the White House woulc simply constitute the Arrest, and possibly prosecution. JFTR, I have never stated that I wanted this to happen, just like presidential impeachment once was, it would be unprecedented, so if Obama angered the American people enough to do so, it would not be very much of a surprise. I rest my case.

Your Pal,
Doc
8)


Peaceful transfer of power is one of the key reasons democratic systems work in the first place.  To overthrow a president through armed force to walk down a very slippery slope.  Also, violation of the Constitution depends on how one reads the Constitution: strict constructionist or loose constructionist.  If one goes with a strict constructionist viewpoint and applies your logic, then every president of the past hundred years or so should've been removed through armed force. 

Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan - none adhere to a strict constructionist view of the Constitution.  Neither will Sarah Palin or anyone else associated with the Tea Party movement.  It is VERY common to say one thing while out of power and then to do opposite when in power.  See: conservatives advocating fiscal conservatism out of office only to rack up big deficits when in office (if it's wrong for Obama to rack up deficits, then it's wrong for conservatives to do it as well).  Also see liberals being anti-Patriot Act out of power only to renew it while in power.

I hope you have some solid proof to back this up.

You should be fighting the system then, not attacking the president (Dem or Rep). But I guess attacking one president is much easier...

Watch any interviews with McCain or Palin by the mainstream news outlets during the campaign, and there's your proof. What could be more solid and incontrivertable as proof of corruption than what the perpetrators voluntarily put on the THE PUBLIC RECORD?

The first step to fighting the system is to get this liberal party puppet(who exploits the flawed system for his own benefit, and the public's expense) out of the White House! After all, it has been said that the country is the wagon, the voters are the drivers, the president is the HORSE(or in the case of Obama and the Clintons, the jack@$$!) The sooner we send a reformer into the Oval Office(Reagan or either of the Roosevelts would be our best historical example), the sooner we spotlight the flaws in the system and set about fixing them. I trust I am posting some Common Sense here.

Your Pal,
Doc
8)

P.S.: By commenting that it's easier to attack one president as opposed to the whole system, you proved my point about why the media tried to crucify Bush instead of the Democratic Circus(er, I mean CONGRESS)!

Ok, let me ask this for the THIRD time: PROVE to me that Obama has broken the law and/or violated the Constitution without using Fox Noise, the Dredge Report, and/or Rush Limbaugh as sources.



Cat

Watch any interviews with McCain or Palin by the mainstream news outlets during the campaign, and there's your proof. What could be more solid and incontrivertable as proof of corruption than what the perpetrators voluntarily put on the THE PUBLIC RECORD?

The first step to fighting the system is to get this liberal party puppet(who exploits the flawed system for his own benefit, and the public's expense) out of the White House! After all, it has been said that the country is the wagon, the voters are the drivers, the president is the HORSE(or in the case of Obama and the Clintons, the jack@$$!) The sooner we send a reformer into the Oval Office(Reagan or either of the Roosevelts would be our best historical example), the sooner we spotlight the flaws in the system and set about fixing them. I trust I am posting some Common Sense here.

Your Pal,
Doc
8)

P.S.: By commenting that it's easier to attack one president as opposed to the whole system, you proved my point about why the media tried to crucify Bush instead of the Democratic Circus(er, I mean CONGRESS)!


1. Those interviews in itself form no evidence that CBS were being paid to maliciously attack McCain/Palin, which is what you're suggesting.

2. You're bringing up even more accusations without backing them up with evidence.

3. Referring to people as 'bastards' or 'jack@$$es' is not what I would call common sense. And by doing so, you have lowered yourself even below the standards of the people you utterly despise. Where's the sense in that?

4. We all know that Bush was/is a saint. Absolutely no reason whatsoever to attack him. Thanks for reminding us. Not sure what this has got to do with the Obama approval ratings, though...

1. Those interviews in itself form no evidence that CBS were being paid to maliciously attack McCain/Palin, which is what you're suggesting.

2. You're bringing up even more accusations without backing them up with evidence.

3. Referring to people as 'bastards' or 'jack@$$es' is not what I would call common sense. And by doing so, you have lowered yourself even below the standards of the people you utterly despise. Where's the sense in that?

4. We all know that Bush was/is a saint. Absolutely no reason whatsoever to attack him. Thanks for reminding us. Not sure what this has got to do with the Obama approval ratings, though...



Sorry, you can't repeat a karma action without waiting 24 hours.


I owe you one.



Cat

Watch any interviews with McCain or Palin by the mainstream news outlets during the campaign, and there's your proof. What could be more solid and incontrivertable as proof of corruption than what the perpetrators voluntarily put on the THE PUBLIC RECORD?

The first step to fighting the system is to get this liberal party puppet(who exploits the flawed system for his own benefit, and the public's expense) out of the White House! After all, it has been said that the country is the wagon, the voters are the drivers, the president is the HORSE(or in the case of Obama and the Clintons, the jack@$$!) The sooner we send a reformer into the Oval Office(Reagan or either of the Roosevelts would be our best historical example), the sooner we spotlight the flaws in the system and set about fixing them. I trust I am posting some Common Sense here.

Your Pal,
Doc
8)

P.S.: By commenting that it's easier to attack one president as opposed to the whole system, you proved my point about why the media tried to crucify Bush instead of the Democratic Circus(er, I mean CONGRESS)!


You are aware that the Republicans controlled Congress for 6 out of Bush's 8 years right?  Moreover, the Republicans controlled Congress for 6 out of Clinton's 8 years as well.  Any blame that is placed on the Democrats (and they do share some of the blame, but definitely not all of it) must also then be placed on the Republicans who were in power during that time and passed those laws.  Also, I have to laugh at your mention of Reagan.  Reagan ran up enormous budget deficits and had an unemployment rate of 10%+ in his second year in office.  Those two things are bad when it happens with Obama, but apparently it was just fine under Reagan.  Not saying that Reagan didn't do some good things, I'm just saying that some of things that the Right hates about Obama also happened under Reagan.

Also, the media's agenda is not to humiliate Republicans and get Democrats to win office.  The media's agenda is profit and they get this profit when more people watch their news or buy their magazines or stuff like that.  Palin being extremely uniformed about politics was a big news story and was promoted as such to get more profit.  By way of comparison, Reverend Wright was a big news story for the Obamas.  Did the media sweep him under the rug?  No, they covered the Reverend Wright thing for days until the next big news story came around that they attached on to.  Nothing out of the ordinary there.  Some media outlets are liberal (MSNBC) but some are also conservative (Fox News) so any claim of a vast liberal media conspiracy is faulty.

You are aware that the Republicans controlled Congress for 6 out of Bush's 8 years right?  Moreover, the Republicans controlled Congress for 6 out of Clinton's 8 years as well.  Any blame that is placed on the Democrats (and they do share some of the blame, but definitely not all of it) must also then be placed on the Republicans who were in power during that time and passed those laws.  Also, I have to laugh at your mention of Reagan.  Reagan ran up enormous budget deficits and had an unemployment rate of 10%+ in his second year in office.  Those two things are bad when it happens with Obama, but apparently it was just fine under Reagan.  Not saying that Reagan didn't do some good things, I'm just saying that some of things that the Right hates about Obama also happened under Reagan.

Also, the media's agenda is not to humiliate Republicans and get Democrats to win office.  The media's agenda is profit and they get this profit when more people watch their news or buy their magazines or stuff like that.  Palin being extremely uniformed about politics was a big news story and was promoted as such to get more profit.  By way of comparison, Reverend Wright was a big news story for the Obamas.  Did the media sweep him under the rug?  No, they covered the Reverend Wright thing for days until the next big news story came around that they attached on to.  Nothing out of the ordinary there.  Some media outlets are liberal (MSNBC) but some are also conservative (Fox News) so any claim of a vast liberal media conspiracy is faulty.



Sorry, you can't repeat a karma action without waiting 24 hours.


I owe you one.


Daja vu all over again.  :D ;D ;D ;D



Cat

1. Those interviews in itself form no evidence that CBS were being paid to maliciously attack McCain/Palin, which is what you're suggesting.

2. You're bringing up even more accusations without backing them up with evidence.

3. Referring to people as 'bastards' or 'jack@$$es' is not what I would call common sense. And by doing so, you have lowered yourself even below the standards of the people you utterly despise. Where's the sense in that?

4. We all know that Bush was/is a saint. Absolutely no reason whatsoever to attack him. Thanks for reminding us. Not sure what this has got to do with the Obama approval ratings, though...


Henk, this is typical "Tea Party" mentality.  These are the kind of people who habitually tell the government not to mess with their medicare because that's "Socialism".  Ignoring the fact that medicare IS a government program.  They yell, they scream.  They threaten to hurt the President because they feel they have the right.  Their politics at best is not one of policy and communication but of bullyish rage.  This is what Doc Brown appears to think Americans want.  However what Americans want are solutions and to just be able to do that without hearing death chants and fear rhetoric.

1. Those interviews in itself form no evidence that CBS were being paid to maliciously attack McCain/Palin, which is what you're suggesting.

2. You're bringing up even more accusations without backing them up with evidence.

3. Referring to people as 'bastards' or 'jack@$$es' is not what I would call common sense. And by doing so, you have lowered yourself even below the standards of the people you utterly despise. Where's the sense in that?

4. We all know that Bush was/is a saint. Absolutely no reason whatsoever to attack him. Thanks for reminding us. Not sure what this has got to do with the Obama approval ratings, though...

I never said that CBS News was being paid off by Obama or his people, simply that they fell in love with him, and slanted their media coverage to benefit his campaign, and by extension themselves. Therefore, I have made no further accusations.

"Bastard" is merely a play on Obama's first name and what more and more people think of him, now that they see past the color and sex appeal to see he had no plan to improve the country beyond getting himself in the White House, and while he did not directly encourage the biased media coverage, he was a direct beneficiary and made no move to stop or condemn it. In legal circles, this is politically akin to receiving stolen property or witnessing a drive-by shooting and not reporting it. As for Jack@$$, that is simply a satirical statement on the Democratic party, the Clintons's personality, and the fact that the symbol of the party is in fact a jack@$$!

Finally, sonikuu is right that the press is usually interested in nothing but profit, and since the scandals of the Clinton years gave them more ratings and circulation than any political news since Wategate(but that's just an estimate), the networks and papers got pretty spoiled. Therefore, when faithful, patriotic, God-fearing George W. Bush came into the Oval Office, the well of scandal dried up and once the patriotic post-9/11 fervor died down, the press got mad over having nothing juicy to report on, so they resorted to attacking Bush for being too conservative a president for their liking. Then, when young, sexy, half-black Barack Obama came along, the press found a new cash cow and started milking him for all the novelty electing him would be worth, caring nothing of his track record of accomplishing NOTHING, getting elected to one office after another, but never doing the job he was assigned. As soon as he was elected to one office, he did no work and simply began campaigning for the next-highest office he could go for. Therefore, it could plausibly be argued(but not by me) that Barack Obama is NOT RIGHTFULLY the President of the United States, in that the people did not elect him, the media did!

In short, from Barack Obama, you ain't seen nothin'yet, and you should never expect to. The people rest.

Your Pal,
Doc
>:(

Doc - if I were you, I'd book yourself in with one.

You're hopelessly blinkered and biased and really quite laughably hypocritical.  Do you actually believe that tripe you write?

I never said that CBS News was being paid off by Obama or his people, simply that they fell in love with him, and slanted their media coverage to benefit his campaign, and by extension themselves. Therefore, I have made no further accusations.



Your Pal,
Doc
>:(




Let's see...




The sad thing is, McCain & Palin never had a media honeymoon, CBS took orders from their golden boy Obama to maliciously attack - immediately, downwind, and without stopping to get anything silly like the truth get in the way.


Your Pal,
Doc
>:(


No, you're right. You didn't say anything about CBS being paid. But you DID say they 'took orders', which doesn't sound like the loving kind of relationship you're now trying to portray.




"Bastard" is merely a play on Obama's first name and what more and more people think of him, now that they see past the color and sex appeal to see he had no plan to improve the country beyond getting himself in the White House, and while he did not directly encourage the biased media coverage, he was a direct beneficiary and made no move to stop or condemn it. In legal circles, this is politically akin to receiving stolen property or witnessing a drive-by shooting and not reporting it. As for Jack@$$, that is simply a satirical statement on the Democratic party, the Clintons's personality, and the fact that the symbol of the party is in fact a jack@$$!



You are seriously defending your choice of words..? I am stupefied.



Finally, sonikuu is right that the press is usually interested in nothing but profit, and since the scandals of the Clinton years gave them more ratings and circulation than any political news since Wategate(but that's just an estimate), the networks and papers got pretty spoiled. Therefore, when faithful, patriotic, God-fearing George W. Bush came into the Oval Office, the well of scandal dried up and once the patriotic post-9/11 fervor died down, the press got mad over having nothing juicy to report on, so they resorted to attacking Bush for being too conservative a president for their liking. Then, when young, sexy, half-black Barack Obama came along, the press found a new cash cow and started milking him for all the novelty electing him would be worth, caring nothing of his track record of accomplishing NOTHING, getting elected to one office after another, but never doing the job he was assigned. As soon as he was elected to one office, he did no work and simply began campaigning for the next-highest office he could go for. Therefore, it could plausibly be argued(but not by me) that Barack Obama is NOT RIGHTFULLY the President of the United States, in that the people did not elect him, the media did!

In short, from Barack Obama, you ain't seen nothin'yet, and you should never expect to. The people rest.


Sure. And there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

So, what questions were asked of McCain/Palin that were so much more biased and difficult than were asked of Obama/Biden?  As was stated before...Couric asking her what newspapers she reads?  Palin couldn't answer a question with a coherent answer to save her life.  I was actually pulling for her until I heard her speak....then I was embarrassed for her.  Choosing her as a running mate for McCain was the WORST thing the GOP did for McCain.

And, if you say Obama was a beneficiary of the media bias....are you saying if the tables were turned, ANYONE would've told the media to "back off" their competitor?  Yeah right!  What a pipe dream!

And, maybe you should check your facts on Obama's political experience....he had more political experience before becoming elected President than Dubya.....7 years as a state Senator and 4 as a US Senator.  Not to mention his history as a civil rights attorney and organizer before that.  What did Bush do?  Oh, that's right, he owned a baseball team and an oil company (and was investigated for insider trading, if memory serves).

So, what questions were asked of McCain/Palin that were so much more biased and difficult than were asked of Obama/Biden?  As was stated before...Couric asking her what newspapers she reads?  Palin couldn't answer a question with a coherent answer to save her life.  I was actually pulling for her until I heard her speak....then I was embarrassed for her.  Choosing her as a running mate for McCain was the WORST thing the GOP did for McCain.

And, if you say Obama was a beneficiary of the media bias....are you saying if the tables were turned, ANYONE would've told the media to "back off" their competitor?  Yeah right!  What a pipe dream!

And, maybe you should check your facts on Obama's political experience....he had more political experience before becoming elected President than Dubya.....7 years as a state Senator and 4 as a US Senator.  Not to mention his history as a civil rights attorney and organizer before that.  What did Bush do?  Oh, that's right, he owned a baseball team and an oil company (and was investigated for insider trading, if memory serves).


Karma +1. And welcome back! :)

Ok, let me ask this for the THIRD time: PROVE to me that Obama has broken the law and/or violated the Constitution without using Fox Noise, the Dredge Report, and/or Rush Limbaugh as sources.

Cat



Actually his adminstration's handling of the Chrysler bankruptcy was found by the Supreme Court to have violated established bankruptcy law.  The behavior of his "auto czars" and financial advisors in this matter were outrageous by any standard, and clearly violated the established rule of law in debt settlement.  Unfortunately by the time the Court made this finding, the point was moot and the secured debt holders had been flat-out screwed.

Oh... and we were too.  The end result of these machinations was that the US Government got 100% stiffed out of the TARP "Loan" to Chrysler.

And people in the USA complain about foreign governments subsidizing their manufacturers.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/12/16/supreme-court-erases-legal-precedent-for-auto-bailout/

And, maybe you should check your facts on Obama's political experience....he had more political experience before becoming elected President than Dubya.....7 years as a state Senator and 4 as a US Senator.  Not to mention his history as a civil rights attorney and organizer before that.  What did Bush do?  Oh, that's right, he owned a baseball team and an oil company (and was investigated for insider trading, if memory serves).

A little parting shot of reality. Obama was elected Senator from Illinois in November of 2006, meaning he served roughly ONE year(nowhere near four), and apparently spent most of that time writing two books of memoirs and no substantial legislation. Last I checked, that's not what we pay our senators for. And how many days in 2008 did he not show up at the Capitol because he was out making people swoon with those empty words "YES WE CAN"?

And since you asked, President Bush served in the National Guard(which Obama didn't), but killed far more people by signing execution orders for almost two terms as... what was it? Oh, yeah: GOVERNOR OF TEXAS!

You didn't know that? Boy, today's history books must really be dumbed down.

So There!
Doc
8-P

A little parting shot of reality. Obama was elected Senator from Illinois in November of 2006,

So There!
Doc
8-P


No, Barack Obama was elected senator in 2004, not 2006.

No, Barack Obama was elected senator in 2004, not 2006.

OK, my mistake. He still only served half a term. People keep comparing him to Kennedy, and he served in the Senate four times as long!
Doc
>:(

Actually his adminstration's handling of the Chrysler bankruptcy was found by the Supreme Court to have violated established bankruptcy law.  The behavior of his "auto czars" and financial advisors in this matter were outrageous by any standard, and clearly violated the established rule of law in debt settlement.  Unfortunately by the time the Court made this finding, the point was moot and the secured debt holders had been flat-out screwed.

Oh... and we were too.  The end result of these machinations was that the US Government got 100% stiffed out of the TARP "Loan" to Chrysler.

And people in the USA complain about foreign governments subsidizing their manufacturers.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/12/16/supreme-court-erases-legal-precedent-for-auto-bailout/



This is what happens when you let the banks and the corporations turn your government into a fast food drive-up window.  They just bark their demands into the the little speaker and drive up to the window and pick up the order.  You don't have a Constitution.  You have a menu of fattening goodies for the bigshots to pick from.  Who works behind the counter for minimum wage?  The American taxpayer!

Your pal,

Locked

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/crucified.gif

A little parting shot of reality. Obama was elected Senator from Illinois in November of 2006, meaning he served roughly ONE year(nowhere near four), and apparently spent most of that time writing two books of memoirs and no substantial legislation. Last I checked, that's not what we pay our senators for. And how many days in 2008 did he not show up at the Capitol because he was out making people swoon with those empty words "YES WE CAN"?

And since you asked, President Bush served in the National Guard(which Obama didn't), but killed far more people by signing execution orders for almost two terms as... what was it? Oh, yeah: GOVERNOR OF TEXAS!

You didn't know that? Boy, today's history books must really be dumbed down.

So There!
Doc
8-P
Obama served as an Illinois senator for 7 years representing the 13th District (Chicago) in the Illinois State Senate (1997-2004, although he was elected in 1996), not the US Senate...guess you missed that.  He started his presidential campaign in 2007 so a total of 10 years at the very least, not counting his years of activism prior to that...Bush started his presidential campaign in 1999 and became governor in 1995 so, heck, I'll even give you the time from when he was elected in 1994 until he officially "resigned" as governor in 2000, 6 years total political experience.  And, since when did the number of people you KILLED qualify you for becoming president?  Must be another reason you're so upset Obama won the Nobel PEACE prize (not that I think he really deserved it, but then again, I didn't choose him).

And, FYI, it has NOTHING to do with today's history books, I graduated from high school LONG before Bush was elected president.  Regardless, considering the fact that you totally disregard ANYTHING other that what Fox, Rush, or Drudge say, what difference would it make anyway?  You didn't know when Obama was elected US Senator or that he was an Illinois state senator before that and suggest that I'm the one who needs to check my facts?

That being said, am I happy with the way things are going in our country right now?  No.  However, it took a long time for things to get this bad and it's going to take a long time for things to get better.  Part of the problem is that people expect a "quick fix" for everything and that's just not reality.  It wouldn't matter WHO was elected president, there's no simple solution to pull the economy back from the brink of collapse.

^You Go Girl!!!  :)

I am sick to death of the people who think that Obama should have this cleared up the economic debacle he was left with.  Grow the F Up.  We are in the worst economic shape since the great depression, the only reason it doesn't look and feel the same is because of that great liberal social engineering scheme called unemployment compensation(bless it!), which was enacted after the great depression to keep people from starving to death.  That is why you don't see the Bonus Army being trampled by McArthurs' and Pattons' troops. 

^You Go Girl!!!  :)

I am sick to death of the people who think that Obama should have this cleared up the economic debacle he was left with.  Grow the F Up.  We are in the worst economic shape since the great depression, the only reason it doesn't look and feel the same is because of that great liberal social engineering scheme called unemployment compensation(bless it!), which was enacted after the great depression to keep people from starving to death.  That is why you don't see the Bonus Army being trampled by McArthurs' and Pattons' troops. 


Agreed, but I still think BHO knuckled under to the insurance companies.  He could have made just a wee bit more forceful a stand.  Anybody who would object doesn't like him anyway. 

Well, what really got us out of the Great Depression was WWII.  See, we have all these vast manufacturing plants in cities like Flint and Akron, and...oh...we don't have them anymore?  Oh well.  I guess we're screwed!
:o

I am sick to death of the people who think that Obama should have this cleared up the economic debacle he was left with.  Grow the F Up. 
Oh, really? Obama promised all during the campaign that he'd fix this mess he and his congressional cronies made, WHY THE HELL SHOULDN'T WE EXPECT HIM TO!?
And as for killing people, as governor Bush spent a lot of his time as governor(which you conveniently left out of your post) EXECUTING CONVICTED MURDERERS. So yes, he certainly did more for our public safety then than when he served in the guard. As for being president, two outlaw regimes were toppled, and his actions brought terrorists to justice by the thousands! NTM all the humanitarian work in Darfur(which, inexplicably, never made the news. Apparently the Rosie/Donald feud and Nick/Jessica divorce made for better ratings). But no, Bush walks away without even so much as a Thank you from most Americans, and an idiotic foreign power suddenly hands new guy Obama the Nobel Prize... for what!? He's never DONE ANYTHING! And he never will. So you keep kissing is @$$ all you want, but by 2012 when America is demanding the 'change' that he hasn't delivered, odds are you'll be the last one.

Doc
8-P

However, some things take longer than others, to change, when it comes to govern.

Sure, Obama may have messed up, but that's nothing compared to the cluset ****, that George W. Bush did.

Peaceful transfer of power is one of the key reasons democratic systems work in the first place.  To overthrow a president through armed force to walk down a very slippery slope.  Also, violation of the Constitution depends on how one reads the Constitution: strict constructionist or loose constructionist.  If one goes with a strict constructionist viewpoint and applies your logic, then every president of the past hundred years or so should've been removed through armed force. 

Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan - none adhere to a strict constructionist view of the Constitution.  Neither will Sarah Palin or anyone else associated with the Tea Party movement.  It is VERY common to say one thing while out of power and then to do opposite when in power.  See: conservatives advocating fiscal conservatism out of office only to rack up big deficits when in office (if it's wrong for Obama to rack up deficits, then it's wrong for conservatives to do it as well).  Also see liberals being anti-Patriot Act out of power only to renew it while in power.
The budget could have balanced under the Bush(W.) Administration if not for the 2 wars though. Bush(W.) should have passed a war tax somewhere in his 2 presidential terms to keep the deficiet under control or at least somewhat under control. Obama needs to cut it with wasteful spending I mean 5,224 earmarks for the 2010 budget and the government is 1.6 trillion dollars in debt?

Oh, really? Obama promised all during the campaign that he'd fix this mess he and his congressional cronies made, WHY THE HELL SHOULDN'T WE EXPECT HIM TO!?
And as for killing people, as governor Bush spent a lot of his time as governor(which you conveniently left out of your post) EXECUTING CONVICTED MURDERERS.



George W. Bush presided over 152 executions during his six years as governor, more than any other governor in United States state history.  Bush usually presented the case to the attorney general for review on the day of the execution.  He also mocked from of Karla Faye Tucker's plea for clemency whose death warrant in he signed 1998 (the infamous "please don't kill me" derision from 1999).  Even if you support capital punishment, Bush's methods and attitude is inhumane and unbecoming of a governor. 

Oh, really? Obama promised all during the campaign that he'd fix this mess he and his congressional cronies made, WHY THE HELL SHOULDN'T WE EXPECT HIM TO!?

Do you think he's got some kind of magic wand?  The biggest financial f***-up the world has ever seen happens *just before* he gets into power, and you're complaining because he's not turned the economy around in twelve months?

Get real, Doc.  There is nobody on the planet who could have taken over when Obama did and have a booming economy by now.  While you're living in some paranoid fantasy land, nursing your anti-Obama grudges, you won't get anywhere - snap out of it and try and get a little objectivity into your life.

Finally, sonikuu is right that the press is usually interested in nothing but profit, and since the scandals of the Clinton years gave them more ratings and circulation than any political news since Wategate(but that's just an estimate), the networks and papers got pretty spoiled. Therefore, when faithful, patriotic, God-fearing George W. Bush came into the Oval Office, the well of scandal dried up and once the patriotic post-9/11 fervor died down, the press got mad over having nothing juicy to report on, so they resorted to attacking Bush for being too conservative a president for their liking. Then, when young, sexy, half-black Barack Obama came along, the press found a new cash cow and started milking him for all the novelty electing him would be worth, caring nothing of his track record of accomplishing NOTHING, getting elected to one office after another, but never doing the job he was assigned. As soon as he was elected to one office, he did no work and simply began campaigning for the next-highest office he could go for. Therefore, it could plausibly be argued(but not by me) that Barack Obama is NOT RIGHTFULLY the President of the United States, in that the people did not elect him, the media did!


Your Pal,
Doc
>:(




I know this is just so ridiculous that I probably shouldn't even bother to respond to it but I just can't let this go. For one thing, I almost chocked when I read  "when faithful, patriotic, God-fearing George W. Bush came into the Oval Office" He is FAR from patriotic. Many of his programs are a violation of the Constitution. The Patriot Act is a violation of our Civil Liberties granted to us under the 10 Amendments.


And THIS line: "Barack Obama is NOT RIGHTFULLY the President of the United States, in that the people did not elect him, the media did!" is so absurd it is not even funny. How can the "media" elect him? Did the "media" go to the polls?

And once again you STILL did not answer my question.



Cat

As I recall, Obama got over half the popular vote and killed in the Electoral College...even in traditional "red" states like NC and IN.  The people had spoken!

As I recall, Obama got over half the popular vote and killed in the Electoral College...even in traditional "red" states like NC and IN.  The people had spoken!

Surprisingly enough, without help from dodgy voting equipment, hanging chads and electronic voting kit that didn't keep audit trails & can be hacked by a 10-year-old.

I know this is just so ridiculous that I probably shouldn't even bother to respond to it but I just can't let this go. For one thing, I almost chocked when I read  "when faithful, patriotic, God-fearing George W. Bush came into the Oval Office" He is FAR from patriotic. Many of his programs are a violation of the Constitution. The Patriot Act is a violation of our Civil Liberties granted to us under the 10 Amendments.


And THIS line: "Barack Obama is NOT RIGHTFULLY the President of the United States, in that the people did not elect him, the media did!" is so absurd it is not even funny. How can the "media" elect him? Did the "media" go to the polls?

And once again you STILL did not answer my question.



Cat
It's a good thing I hadn't just taken a drink because it would've been all over my keyboard when I read that as well :D  I think we'll be waiting forever for an answer because he has none, just drivel regurgitated from HIS "American Idol," Rush ;)

As I recall, Obama got over half the popular vote and killed in the Electoral College...even in traditional "red" states like NC and IN.  The people had spoken!

Surprisingly enough, without help from dodgy voting equipment, hanging chads and electronic voting kit that didn't keep audit trails & can be hacked by a 10-year-old.


And won by a large enough margin to erase any questions....must've been all those media outlets voting twice ;)

And won by a large enough margin to erase any questions....must've been all those media outlets voting twice ;)

(shh.. don't mention ACORN)

I know this is just so ridiculous that I probably shouldn't even bother to respond to it but I just can't let this go. For one thing, I almost chocked when I read  "when faithful, patriotic, God-fearing George W. Bush came into the Oval Office" He is FAR from patriotic. Many of his programs are a violation of the Constitution. The Patriot Act is a violation of our Civil Liberties granted to us under the 10 Amendments.


And THIS line: "Barack Obama is NOT RIGHTFULLY the President of the United States, in that the people did not elect him, the media did!" is so absurd it is not even funny. How can the "media" elect him? Did the "media" go to the polls?

And once again you STILL did not answer my question.



Cat


The people elected Al Gore in 2000, but the U.S. Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush!
::)

Can the media elect the President?  Well, it's generally true that whichever campaign outspends the other is the one who wins.  Hence, the aberration in 2000 the Supreme Court had to "fix."  The Obama campaign DID manage to outspend the McCain campaign and did win, but look at the cost.  As the late great Molly Ivins said, "You gotta dance with them that brung ya," and as I always say, "When you dance with the devil, the devil always leads."  Thus, Obama is owned by the financial sector and their interests.  However, he and his family are set for life, and he's not going to get re-elected in 2012, so he could betray the traitors and say, "We're going to get out of Afghanistan and we are going to pass to a public option and Wall Street can kiss my ass."  BUT he won't.  He's a total sell-out. 

As I recall, Obama got over half the popular vote and killed in the Electoral College...even in traditional "red" states like NC and IN.  The people had spoken!


The second(IN), I just happen to live in.

I was surprised that my state voted Blue for the first time in along while.