View Full Version : Obama gets slammed on by many for low poll numbers but Reagan gets a pass?
Interesting that Obama has about the same approval numbers as Reagan did - if you go to the link below, you'll see their lines on the chart are nearly identical.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124<wbr>922/Presidential-Approval-Cent<wbr>er.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx)
SassyLady
08-11-2011, 11:29 PM
Interesting that Obama has about the same approval numbers as Reagan did - if you go to the link below, you'll see their lines on the chart are nearly identical.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124<wbr>922/Presidential-Approval-Cent<wbr>er.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx)
You are not really trying to compare Obama with Reagan are you? Seriously???
red states rule
08-12-2011, 02:34 AM
You are not really trying to compare Obama with Reagan are you? Seriously???
Desperate people do deserate things. The same people who viliifed Ronald Reagan for the last 30 years now try to use him to prop up the falling Bamster
OMG -CP! How dare you compare Obama to Ronnie Raygun......Obama has not violated the constitution or usurped congressional authority by selling Arms to Iran in order to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua!
Gaffer
08-12-2011, 05:01 PM
OMG -CP! How dare you compare Obama to Ronnie Raygun......Obama has not violated the constitution or usurped congressional authority by selling Arms to Iran in order to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua!
Nope, he pushed through a bunch of unconstitutional laws. And had the guns walk program going strong, it still is apparently. Guns to Mexico and another batch going to Guatemala. Reagan got us into Granada, that was over in a week. Zero has us in Afghan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and soon Syria. Yeah, lets compare the two administrations. And I haven't even touched on the economy.
red states rule
08-12-2011, 05:03 PM
Nope, he pushed through a bunch of unconstitutional laws. And had the guns walk program going strong, it still is apparently. Guns to Mexico and another batch going to Guatemala. Reagan got us into Granada, that was over in a week. Zero has us in Afghan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and soon Syria. Yeah, lets compare the two administrations. And I haven't even touched on the economy.
I have to laugh when the Obama lapdogs try to compare Obama to Pres Reagan.
With all the hate the Obama drones show towards Pres Regan, they can't spin the fact Pres Reagan won re-election with 49 states.
Like they expect Obama to do the same in 2012
Nope, he pushed through a bunch of unconstitutional laws. And had the guns walk program going strong, it still is apparently. Guns to Mexico and another batch going to Guatemala. Reagan got us into Granada, that was over in a week. Zero has us in Afghan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and soon Syria. Yeah, lets compare the two administrations. And I haven't even touched on the economy.
There was an arms embargo to Iran and a ban by Congress for funding to the Contras...rewriting history will not help here.
Bush put us in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama put us in neither.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/01/233526/taxes-lower-reagan/
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/29/283515/even-after-proposed-hike-reagan-increased-debt-ceiling-twice-as-fast-as-obama/
Gaffer
08-12-2011, 05:40 PM
There was an arms embargo to Iran and a ban by Congress for funding to the Contras...rewriting history will not help here.
Bush put us in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama put us in neither.
It's against the law to sell guns to criminals and let them walk by the thousands. Just so you can use it as an excuse to crack down on gun ownership. There has been no rewriting of history. Your making false claims, how liberal of you. So I take it your a liberal in this thread?
I didn't say anything about what Bush did. I just commented that zero didn't get us out of any wars and has since added more wars to the list which is still growing.
Reagan defeated the soviets. Zero got a peace prize for what he might have done.
Zero is another carter, on steroids. Given time he can turn this country into another Greece and you won't have to move to the socialist utopia.
red states rule
08-12-2011, 05:42 PM
It's against the law to sell guns to criminals and let them walk by the thousands. Just so you can use it as an excuse to crack down on gun ownership. There has been no rewriting of history. Your making false claims, how liberal of you. So I take it your a liberal in this thread?
I didn't say anything about what Bush did. I just commented that zero didn't get us out of any wars and has since added more wars to the list which is still growing.
Reagan defeated the soviets. Zero got a peace prize for what he might have done.
Zero is another carter, on steroids. Given time he can turn this country into another Greece and you won't have to move to the socialist utopia.
Isn't it funny the last thing the left wants to talk about are the results of Obama's policies and would rather talk about things that hapened 30 years ago?
An example of what the libs do not want to talk about
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Foden20110810-Katrina Moment20110811040345.jpg
It's against the law to sell guns to criminals and let them walk by the thousands. Just so you can use it as an excuse to crack down on gun ownership. There has been no rewriting of history. Your making false claims, how liberal of you. So I take it your a liberal in this thread?
I didn't say anything about what Bush did. I just commented that zero didn't get us out of any wars and has since added more wars to the list which is still growing.
Reagan defeated the soviets. Zero got a peace prize for what he might have done.
Zero is another carter, on steroids. Given time he can turn this country into another Greece and you won't have to move to the socialist utopia.
FALSE CLAIMS? Are you shitting me? Its written in history, its a fact, look it up and on top of it you are changing the subject, how conservative of you.
I'm onto you though, when you or RSR can't win an argument you just throw out "lib"...............yeah, that and a quarter will get you some bubblegum.
OMG -CP! How dare you compare Obama to Ronnie Raygun......Obama has not violated the constitution or usurped congressional authority by selling Arms to Iran in order to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua!
Nah, he just sent American boots into Libya (http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/white-house/2011/03/obama-dispatches-cia-aid-libyan-rebels) and told Congress to go fuck itself.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/29/283515/even-after-proposed-hike-reagan-increased-debt-ceiling-twice-as-fast-as-obama/
et tu is not a defense
SassyLady
08-12-2011, 08:08 PM
OMG -CP! How dare you compare Obama to Ronnie Raygun......Obama has not violated the constitution or usurped congressional authority by selling Arms to Iran in order to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua!
Yeah, how dare you! That is totally unfair of you! Does Obama even know where Nicaragua is?
Oh, wait, if he did know he would fly down there and probably have a smoke and kneel in submission, instead of coming up with a clever plan to have one enemy take out another.
Yeah, how dare you! That is totally unfair of you! Does Obama even know where Nicaragua is?
Oh, wait, if he did know he would fly down there and probably have a smoke and kneel in submission, instead of coming up with a clever plan to have one enemy take out another.
Yeah............breaking the law in the process................probably should've been impeached for it, much more egregious than Bubba getting his pole smoked.
Its Ronny Raygun! He did do no wrong in the eyes of the dittoheads and even gets a pass on constitutional law breaks! Next thing will be how wonderful tricky Dicky was lol.
Nah, he just sent American boots into Libya (http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/white-house/2011/03/obama-dispatches-cia-aid-libyan-rebels) and told Congress to go fuck itself.
et tu is not a defense
Well at least he didn't lie about the reasons i.e. Bush and WMD.
You can't win this argument.
red states rule
08-13-2011, 04:13 AM
Speaking of lying - how about Obama promising not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 yr. The Obama drones don't want to talk about this
<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=360 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/104578" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
red states rule
08-13-2011, 06:22 AM
BTW, does anyone else remember in the days after the 1984 election the excuse the Dems and liberal media gave for the Dems humilating loss?
Now remember Pres Reagan won 49 states and the election was over by around 9 PM
Did the left and the liberal media admit the voters rejected Walter Mondales liberal agenda? Hell no. The excuse they gave was the public was bought into slick media and packaging
Seldom, if ever, do liberals admit they lost election. They nearly always offer the same excuses. The voters were stupid. The voters were racist. Rush Limbaugh and Fox News drowned out teir message. The election was stolen.
Most libs will never consider people reject tax and spend liberalsim. Their egos and arrogance preven the facts from getting thru
There was an arms embargo to Iran and a ban by Congress for funding to the Contras...rewriting history will not help here.
Bush put us in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama put us in neither.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/01/233526/taxes-lower-reagan/
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/29/283515/even-after-proposed-hike-reagan-increased-debt-ceiling-twice-as-fast-as-obama/
Its funny, never got any of the big RINOS here trying to prove these links wrong, probably because they can't and see their case against Obama sinking.
fj1200
08-15-2011, 01:15 PM
Its funny, never got any of the big RINOS here trying to prove these links wrong, probably because they can't and see their case against Obama sinking.
Those were written for simpletons like yourself to swallow. Krugman's hack status is pretty well cemented and to argue Reagan had higher rates than BO ignores that Reagan got them dropped from 70 to 28% while BO is working hard to drive them higher. You might also be wise to look at the deficits as % of GDP rather than debt limit increases.
Those were written for simpletons like yourself to swallow. Krugman's hack status is pretty well cemented and to argue Reagan had higher rates than BO ignores that Reagan got them dropped from 70 to 28% while BO is working hard to drive them higher. You might also be wise to look at the deficits as % of GDP rather than debt limit increases.
LMFAO!
"look people as the wild RINO thinks quickly to conjure up excuses to protect the beloved "R".
Hey Evil, hows my plan looking?:laugh2::laugh2:
fj1200
08-15-2011, 07:23 PM
Hey Evil, hows my plan looking?:laugh2::laugh2:
You're plan is to make hack statements easily rebuffed and look like an idiot? Well, you're rocking that one.
Sir Evil
08-15-2011, 07:34 PM
Could very well be the dumbest topic I have ever seen posted! :wtf:
Kathianne
08-15-2011, 07:42 PM
Those were written for simpletons like yourself to swallow. Krugman's hack status is pretty well cemented and to argue Reagan had higher rates than BO ignores that Reagan got them dropped from 70 to 28% while BO is working hard to drive them higher. You might also be wise to look at the deficits as % of GDP rather than debt limit increases.
You mean like this?
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/federal_deficit
deficits as % of GDP 1990-2011
http://i56.tinypic.com/5y5m9x.png
or this longer term one:
http://i55.tinypic.com/x4ncb5.jpg
The federal deficit has breached 10 percent of GDP four times in US history: during the Civil War, during World War I and World War II, and in aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008.
You're plan is to make hack statements easily rebuffed and look like an idiot? Well, you're rocking that one.
Try again Gomer...................but thanks for being one of the biggest............and dumbest contributors so far.
Could very well be the dumbest topic I have ever seen posted! :wtf:
Consider the source.
fj1200
08-15-2011, 07:47 PM
K,
The second one but that carries projection to 2016. The first one appears to show the total debt and not as a % of GDP. The second one seems low, I thought it was higher than 10%.
Kathianne
08-15-2011, 07:51 PM
K,
The second one but that carries projection to 2016. The first one appears to show the total debt and not as a % of GDP. The second one seems low, I thought it was higher than 10%.
Correct. While I put in 2011, the chart created through 2016. If you check source, you'll see it's not GAO or other government entity. I figure whatever measure they are using, it's consistent. If not, well it was free. ;)
Sir Evil
08-15-2011, 07:51 PM
Consider the source.
Didn't even check out the source as the title said enough. Perhaps I should have but just a stupid comparison to even consider.
Didn't even check out the source as the title said enough. Perhaps I should have but just a stupid comparison to even consider.
Once you see the thread author and see that its him, you gotta go into it the same way as you would a thread authored by Actsnoblemartin...............laughing.
Sir Evil
08-15-2011, 08:18 PM
Once you see the thread author and see that its him, you gotta go into it the same way as you would a thread authored by Actsnoblemartin...............laughing.
I assumed the thread author was just passing along the link, strange considering the thread authors avatar. Oh well, still not worth even clicking the link to read it.
I got to apologize to -cp, flaming deleted by staff.
My apologies -cp, even the great ones like me foul up now and then.
red states rule
08-16-2011, 03:54 AM
Those were written for simpletons like yourself to swallow. Krugman's hack status is pretty well cemented and to argue Reagan had higher rates than BO ignores that Reagan got them dropped from 70 to 28% while BO is working hard to drive them higher. You might also be wise to look at the deficits as % of GDP rather than debt limit increases.
The Obama lapdogs love Paul - since they all share the same liberal tax and spend views. They also share the same opinion that all dissent must be stamped out
The Cult That Is Destroying America
Watching our system deal with the <NOBR>debt (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)</NOBR> ceiling crisis — a wholly self-inflicted crisis, which may nonetheless have disastrous consequences — it’s increasingly obvious that what we’re looking at is the destructive influence of a cult that has really poisoned our political system.
And no, I don’t mean the fanaticism of the right. Well, OK, that too. But my feeling about those people is that they are what they are; you might as well denounce wolves for being carnivores. Crazy is what they do and what they are.
No, the cult that I see as reflecting a true moral failure is the cult of balance, of centrism.
Think about what’s happening right now. We have a crisis in which the right is making insane demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion.
So what do most news reports say? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent — because news reports always do that. And we have influential pundits calling out for a new centrist party, a new centrist president, to get us away from the evils of partisanship.
The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform — his only major change to government — was modeled on Republican plans, indeed plans coming from the <NOBR>Heritage Foundation (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)</NOBR>. And everything else — including the wrongheaded emphasis on austerity in the face of high <NOBR>unemployment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)</NOBR> — is according to the conservative playbook.
What all this means is that there is no penalty for extremism; no way for most voters, who get their information on the fly rather than doing careful study of the issues, to understand what’s really going on.
You have to ask, what would it take for these news organizations and pundits to actually break with the convention that both sides are equally at fault? This is the clearest, starkest situation one can imagine short of civil war. If this won’t do it, nothing will.
And yes, I think this is a moral issue. The “both sides are at fault” people have to know better; if they refuse to say it, it’s out of some combination of fear and ego, of being unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray.
It’s a terrible thing to watch, and our nation will pay the price.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/the-cult-that-is-destroying-america/
And out of Chapter 1 of Obamanomics, the country is not broke since we can borrrow more money!
To put this in context, you have to realize two things about the fiscal state of America. First, the nation is not, in fact, “broke.” The federal government is having no trouble raising money, and the price of that money — the <NOBR>interest rate (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)</NOBR> on federal borrowing — is very low by historical standards. So there’s no need to scramble to slash spending now now now; we can and should be willing to spend now if it will produce savings in the long run.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&hp
fj1200
08-16-2011, 08:19 AM
Correct. While I put in 2011, the chart created through 2016. If you check source, you'll see it's not GAO or other government entity. I figure whatever measure they are using, it's consistent. If not, well it was free. ;)
Wasn't criticizing, only noting. It looks pretty optimistic though IMO and projecting forward about 30 years would/should show the unfunded liabilities in the out years.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.