Only once has a sitting president won re-election with a less than 50% approval rating. According to Gallup, Obama is at 43%. So ragging on every republican candidate may not do a lot of good in the end.
Yes, but has the other choice ever looked so completely awful?
Ragging on the faults, failures & extremities may not fdo a lot of good for people who are willing to bend themselves into any shape in order to BEAT OBAMA lol!
First of all, how you doing? I haven't been around as much so haven't seen you in a while. Hope all is well.
Second, while Obama's approval rating might be low, I don't think the current crop of Republican candidates really fires up the swing voters. They may not feel Obama is the best choice, but they don't have to. They only need to feel he is the better choice.
It's difficult to guage the American attitude right now. Obama isn't inspiring people like he once was, but there is no clear following for the Republicans. Romney seems like he's the Man, but the fact that he is a Mormon may stop some Christians from voting.
I wonder if the voter turnout in the next election will be really low?
That would be Clinton, right?
"Fox News' alarmist coverage of rising gas prices extended all the way to the White House briefing room on Tuesday. During President Obama's first solo news conference since November, Fox News White House Reporter Ed Henry asked the president if he actually wants gas prices to go even higher. Obama mocked Henry's question.
"Ed, just from a political perspective, do you think the President of the United States, going into reelection, wants gas prices to go up even higher? Is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense?""
but to your point, yes, its entirely possible that we will return to the Neocon Bush era programs of tax cuts, more deregulation, more privatization, expanded military and war with Iran, Syria, and who ever else looks too swarthy - with the added bonus of passing the Cantor Budget, which privatizes Medicare, puts Medicaid into the hands of the states, and 'individualizes ' social security, all while enormously ramping up the national debt. Should the Republicans win the Senate and keep the house.
Did you check Romney's approval rating? It is 34%, Santorum is 24%, and Gingrich is 15%. Their ratings go lower the more people learn about them. Obama's is trending up as people learn about Republicans and the economy improves.
hi hg, haven't been around so much myself. Weather is gorgeous, roses are blooming, so between doing some painting, laying new floor, and spending as much time as possible outdoors, I try to pop in now and then.
david, that would have been Nixon.
And I think it will depend on the reasons that people get out and vote. Romney is way ahead of Obama on the economy. So if it's peoples pocketbooks, Romney has the lead. Once the primary dust has settled, and there is a clear candidate, then the fun will begin.
And no, I don't think the fact that Romney is a Mormon will have much affect. Though I do believe that Democrats will try to make it an issue. Remember when everyone thought the fact that JFK was a Catholic would prevent him from winning?
I just happened to run across that little historical tidbit. So we'll see in November.
Mrskjun, Romney's favorability is a historical low too BELOW even what McCain's was before the convention. Romney is not way ahead of Obama on the economy in polling and his economic plan cuts taxes on the wealthy, leaves the defense budget alone, makes Medicare a voucher program, and drives up the deficit higher than Obama. No one is mentioning his flawed sketchy economic plan because no other Republican has one either. Once the general election starts this will all change and he will have to get specific.
Mrsk ..why do think conservative writer George Will said the GOP should concede the presidency and concentrate on the winning the Senate? Romney's approval rating is lower than ANY candidate ever at 28% and sinking where as Obama is at 50%. I don't know where you got your statistics, but I watched MSNBC and CNN and that's what they said. I know your dial is set at Fox so...
It is too early to make any real predictions. Give it time. I think it is going to be close but I feel pretty confident that with the Republicans have to offer President Obama will pull it off to a win.
The Republicans are helping with the platform of birth control, abortion, women's rights, personhood etc stupidity.
I swear they want small government because they have small minds and small is the only thing they can understand.
This leaves me wondering what George W.'s rating was when he ran for reelection. I remember him being about as popular as a dog in the livingroom who had spent the morning rolling on a dead fish. Incumbency is hard to over come.
Note that there is no link.
Not that any of us would need to look it up in order to know that it's another falsehood.
You are right about Romneys approval ratings, but then you still have that split between four candidates. According to Gallup, at this point Romney would win 50% to Obama 46% and Obama and Santorum an essential tie.
And GWs approval ratings when he ran for re-election was 53%.
And lily, my statistics came from Gallup. And I doubt I watch FOX as much as you do.
maddie, conservatives are getting sick and tired of you calling them liars. And this one has had it up to her eyeballs. Now you just prove that I lied. I'll be waiting.And while you're at it, show us the proof that Romney cheated on his taxes. Or did you just make that up?
43% may have been Obama's lowest point a few months ago but he was at 50% approval a few days ago. Either that or Gallop is an outliar. As for religion being an issue, do the demos ever bring that up? only when it's a separation of state/religion issue or perhaps as a rebuttal to the repubs bringing it up first, which is usually every chance they get whether or not it's related to any topic in the news. Repubs cornered the religious wedge issue market decades ago.
There's an easy solution: Thou Shalt Not Lie.
Where is the link?
Link showing polls by a number of folks. Gallup shows 43% but they are the lowest of the bunch in that. Rasmussen for the same period shows 48%.
Here is a link that might be useful: real clear politics
esh, you can't use Rasmussens numbers. lily doesn't approve of them.
On all the networks I watched , except for FOX which never appears on my set..EVER, Obama's ratings are reported at 50%/51% and Romney's are going DOWN not up. The graph I saw had him at 32% ten days ago and is spiraling downward to 28%. 99% of ALL ads Romney made were negative. Shows he has nothing to say except smears.
Just wait if he pulls it off. He will defeat himself with his own words. The WH is chuckling at the prospect. There is FOOTAGE of him saying Obama should follow his example of Romney care in MA if he wants a good plan. The fun will begin. And Obama will not roll over like John Kerry. If negative is what Romney wants, that's what he'll get back ten fold.
It doesn't matter. All the links won't matter. All the graphs, charts, facts don't matter to Mrsk.
Mrsk will believe what link facts she will need to embrace anyway, so I say let her predict, let her announce, let her decide who will win and let her announce her decisions today and every day right up to the election day. It will keep her warm at night, sure in her wisdom regarding the future. This isn't the first time she has figured that she knew the will of the people and how they would wield it.
I'm sure people are keeping track of all her various predictions she has made..... since the last presidential swearing in, actually!
I say to the rest of you, don't make predictions, don't try to foresee and thus, announce the future...... just wait. Nov. will be here before we know it. Things will unfold as they unfold and things will be what they will be.
Let's not be held accountable next Nov. for what pronouncements we made way back in March when only children and fools figured they had the wisdom to see and understand all the variables of future events which would result in Obama losing the election.
What will be will be, and THEN we can discuss it.
She might be right!
Either way, the discussions after the election will be interesting.
Well mylab, if you wouldn't mind pointing out to me "my" predictions on any of these posts? I don't think I'm one of those making a prediction am I? Looks to me like I said, we'll see in November. And the only facts I gave came from Gallup, easy enough for anyone to ck them out. Your rant against me is unwarranted.
Rant? What rant?
I'm suggesting that people ignore your facts as you present them because your "facts" are so often so wrong or based on incorrect disinformation, Mrsk and also, no matter what we are discussing, I'm reminding people to keep in mind, while you talk about issues, that you have repeatedly stated that you would vote for and would rather Bush Jr win the next election if it meant Obama losing the election, despite the fact that you "hate war" and are "pro life".
Now how is that a rant? I'm just stating the facts as you have provided to me and drawing my own conclusions from those facts.
Just exactly as you do.
Things that happen once are usually considered more easily done the second time.
And as for the accusations toward Maddie... it's kinda like placing one's hand on a hot stove. If you don't like the feeling, don't do it again. Very simple.
The problem with fibbing is... the more it's done, the less apt anyone is to believe that person as time passes by and the fibs continue. Past records in permanent type tend to give life to facts.
Polls are only polls... some are skewed with purpose... the people will decide come election day. Just remember, though... the GOP is not exactly kissing babies and shaking hands... they're reaching into places they have no business, and angering a lot of groups.
What a desperate point to make. Obama's favorability has risen as dramatically in a few weeks as Romney/Santo/Gingrich's has fallen and we still have 8 months to go before the election.
jodik, are you joining maddie now in calling me a liar? I'd really like to get all my ducks in a row on this.
mylab, are you suggesting that Obama hates war more than any of us? Funny way of showing it I suppose. I would vote against Obama despite the fact that I am pro-life? I don't get that at all?
Yeah, Obama does hate war more than the war mongers, fists pounding the chest, bring it on GOP crowd. He and Michelle have been so involved with our military and see the horrible results ,but your pro LIFE crowd wants to start a another freaking war.
And KT is exactly right. What koolaid are you drinking? As I said I don't know what the idiots on FOX are saying, but every other news source says Obama's at over 50% now while the GOPers are going the other way.
Only happened once.....and your point would be?
Does that mean it can't happen again?
Does that mean that the odds are such that it can't happen again?
Does that mean the time is right for a second time?
What does that mean?
It means just what it says chase. Only one time in history has a sitting president been re-elected with approval ratings under 50%. I thought that was pretty clear and concise.
LOL lily, you were the one who claimed Gallup had the correct numbers, and that you would never trust Rasmussen because FOX used their numbers. So, I started using only Gallup. Make up your mind!!!
More distraction from the miserable candidates that are challenging Mitt Romney -- who appears to have his own unique set of liabilities should he be chosen as the GOP presidential candidate for 2012.
If I were a Republican, I would be concerned about the prejudice of my fellow party members against Mormons.
"It means just what it says"
Sorry Mrs. still don't get the significance of what that means. Only once has a black man been elected, only once a Catholic, only once a president who suffered from polio, only once .....
Still don't get the point of "only once"......it says nothing, it means nothing.
Mrsk..I don't remember saying I liked Gallup. I DO remember saying Rasmussen works for the GOP. I think it was an NBC poll I'm referring to saying Obama is 50%.But I heard it on CNN too.
Don't ask too many questions Chase, you will only confuse her further.
Outlier or outliar? LOL!
So.... your claim is essentially that Romney is going to win because he is ahead in the polls? Or, Romney will win because Obama won't win?
That's the good news for republicans? Romney will win because he is going to win?
Posted by nancy_in_venice_ca SS24 z10 CA (My Page) on
Wed, Mar 7, 12 at 15:17
Excuse me, I can't reconcile Nancy and "if I were a Republican." ;)
Oh, come on, Nancy, don't you know anything? Surely they're more prejudiced against a black candidate than a Morman one! (sarcasm abounding)
mylab, there was a time that you wrote probably some of the best posts on this forum. They were always well thought out, respectful of everyone's views, interesting to read. And I am being totally honest here. I am truly sorry to see you become like so many angry liberals here. "If you don't agree with me, you are just wrong and let me tell you exactly what it is that's wrong with you. And let me be clear, the problem is you, and let me tell you why!!" Just sorry to see you go there.
You are correct, what you just said is the truth.
I've changed and I see it in myself and I don't like it.
You, too, changed. A great deal. We both know it.
We all know it.
You aren't who you presented yourself to be and I no longer place your posts in the high esteem I once did because of it. And probably never will.
And all of this is the truth, too.
Interesting results in Ohio for the Republican primaries, Obama won.
Here is a link that might be useful: results
I guess you are right mylab, I am aware of the change in myself, I know exactly when it happened. I really thought people could disagree without calling those that disagreed with them ugly names, or liars. Not so on this forum. So it was a choice, to either have my feelings hurt, which at one time happened a lot. Or to see the name calling for what it was. I chose the latter. There is no one on this forum who has the power to hurt my feelings now. I've lost the respect for many that I at one time respected. And I don't have to take that &*%( from anyone again.
Surely they're more prejudiced against a black candidate than a Morman one!
The GOP candidate most likely will be Mormon, and prejudice could influence a number of GOP voters to sit out the November vote. As has been noted before in HT, many Protestant fundamentalists consider Mormons to be a cult -- enough so to overcome traditional anti-Catholicism to endorse Santorum as the not-Romney.
My bet is that there are not nearly as many conservatives prejudiced against Mormans as liberals hope there are.
My bet is there are many more conservatives that want Obama out than care what religion Romney practices.
My bet would be that if the election turned out to be Obama vs Cain it would have resulted in the lowest repub voter turnout in history.
I suspect that is true Demi. The question is, is there enough of them and what will the Independents do??
I'm not exactly sure what it is about Romney that makes him so unpalatable to the Republican base. However, if he is the nominee I think Republicans will rally around him. Generally he reflects mainstream conservative values.
Anyhow. it ain't over until it's over.
A better sentence Demi would be..... I'll bet there are many more racists out there that want Obama out than care what religion Romney practices.
We have all had our feelings hurt here. How we react to that fact is a choice which is up to each of us.
As long as you accept that you will get exactly what you choose to give Mrskj, then it's all the same to me. Your choice, all the way down the line.
I think Demi you are right about not nearly as many conservatives being prejudiced against the Mormon religion. I will be disappointed if this actually does become an issue with the conservative voter - but I don't think it will be an issue at *all*, personally. Liberals should not count on his Mormon religion as a plus for Obama.
I completely agree with your second bet, too.
I will go you one better - I bet there are a shocking number of conservatives that want Obama out and would vote for his opponent no matter what that opponent stood for if that is what it would take to get Obama out.
Even if the economic future was on a decent and steady upswing it has been on right through election time. Even if the jobless rate was at it's lowest point since it fell to pieces under your Bush.
Even if the opponent stated that he would start another two wars while he was in office for the sake of unemployment. Even if he said that women would no longer be welcome in the work force except for basic wage jobs in order to get all the men in this country well employed in the top jobs in order to 'rebalance' this country.
And even if he said that women would be denied the right to purchase their own birth control. Their spouse (spouse only) would have to purchase it, in person, for them.
I honestly and deeply believe that a shocking number of conservatives, including more shocking number of conservative women, would vote for Obama's opponent no matter what.
I think that is why we are hearing this crazy talk which the majority of conservatives are saying little, if anything about in a negative light. It's why Santorum can give those speeches about college education being "elitist" and unnecessary and get away with it with with few, if any conservatives speaking out about it.
Because hey - it appeals to more conservative voters who will maybe get out of the Lazy-boy and remember to vote and remember who to go and vote against!
I honestly believe that, Demi. And I am profoundly ashamed of those Americans who would do that - the same ones who went to those awful, embarrassing town hall meetings. The same ones who didn't say squat about all that terrible behavior at those town hall meetings.
This is what half or more of my countrymen have come to, they have convinced me, I believe it and I'm ashamed of it.
This isn't the country my father fought in WWII to protect. That country is gone now.
I think a lot of people will rally with him.
I believe Romney has a difficult time relating to people, it's an image problem I think. He's no Bill Clinton or George Bush, he's not someone you feel you could look in the eye and joke with and they'd get it or laugh. People need to feel that. I think a lot of people don't feel that from Barack Obama, either.
Romney has flip flopped--very few politicians have not, but if he's on the right side of the fence with most issues from this juncture on forward, most conservatives won't care about that at all.
I do feel that the main concern this year will be the economy, and I believe he does instill confidence in that arena, as well as others.
The question will be whether Barack Obama can do what he promised he would do between now and November, or whether things are the same or worse.
This election is about Barack Obama, not any Republican candidate.
Well, mylab, I'm sure you describe some people, but I don't think that many.
I don't know of anyone that would vote for another candidate under all of those circumstances. If that were the choice, most people would just stay home, because I think we're in big trouble if Obama gets another term, and we'd be in big trouble if a Republican candidate did all those things you mentioned.
....this whole blame game turns me off. I act a certain way because someone else "made me do it". People act and say what they do because that is who they are. Period.
Meanwhile back at the ranch ... Romney did not "sweep" and/or "lock it up" last night, and he still has to go "south".
We will all see how the southern voters embrace him in the primaries.
Lily hit the nail on the head.That kind of hatred will make them vote for a Mormon even though normally they would not.
Old video tapes of Romney's speeches without cherry picking make Romney unpalatable to the base.
New Speeches that contradict the old speeches make him unpalatable to tea partiers. The there are those deluded ones who consider him a moderate according to his own recent speeches I'm no moderate. Whats to like someone who should not pretend to have the common touch.
Just what his home state & are the trees the right shade of green height.
Here is a link that might be useful: if the scene were longer it's perfect
I guess my previously written words will have to be pondered to find meaning. Perhaps it requires reading again.
If it's about the economy, there is 1 thing I know with absolute certainty. Two years ago, when I stepped on the train between 4:45 -5pm to come home from work, I had my choice of seats. For the last 1-2 months, when I get on the train at 4:45 -5pm, I stand for the ride home.
More people are working. And that has nothing to do with Republican candidates.
Jmc, your posts are always a breath of fresh air to me........
$3.18 average price of gas in 2010
$3.74 average price of gas today
maybe that has caused an increase in train passengers.
Although I tend to be quite conservative I see the presidential race similar to the one in 2008. Lackluster GOP candidates while B.O. is a skilled communicator. My feeling is that a Cristie or Rubio is waiting it out until 2016.
What is the concern over the OP not providing a link? Perhaps our concerned neighbor to the north should occupy herself with a mooseburger and swear off HT forum for Lent.
No, the price of gas has nothing to do with train ridership. How do I know? because we train riders actually speak to each other. it's jobs, new jobs.
Mrsk, I wanted to come back and say that if there were one or two very specific things said that hurt your feelings so deeply due to their vile nature, I'm very, very sorry that I didn't speak up at the time against such statements. I don't recall them, I might not have read them but if I had and seen them for what they were, I would hope I would have spoken up.
If it was everything in general about the way of this forum and you felt that deeply hurt, I can't imagine for the life of me why you continued to participate after being so hurt.
I certainly wouldn't. I wouldn't feel "run off from this forum" in the least bit - not a chance of that. I would decide I was better than to participate in such a place, quietly find a place where I felt I wasn't treated unfairly and simply quit posting here out of my own choice - but if you chose to come back knowing that people would treat and speak to you in a way you find unacceptable, then that is most certainly a choice you live with, and apparently agreeably so.
I can't imagine what about such a place would appeal to you to want to stay. But in truth, I don't find you treated unfairly Mrsk, I find that you deliberately start things with the deliberate way of wording things and then sit back and claim that you are misunderstood or that everyone deliberately mis-reads you. Which is a point I disagree with you over.
But - if it was over one or two unacceptable,vicious and cruel personal things said to you as an innocent poster, said by one or two people, for that I really would be very sorry and extremely regretful that it was ignored by everyone else, especially if I was one who didn't protest.
I know really disgusting behavior and comments when I see it - I can only hope if this was the case at the time, I didn't read the thread and thus, missed the whole thing that you feel forced you into changing your character in this forum forever.
The message on FOX is Obama is the one to blame for higher gas prices. Play back one of their broadcasts when Bush was in the WH. 'It's a shame when Bush gets the blame for rising gas prices. Anyone with a brain knows the president does not control pricing'. There is so much footage of this kind of crap that I'd love to be on the Obama reelection committee for ads.
mylab, when I said that my feelings were hurt, please don't take that to mean it brought me to tears, or made me want to take to my bed. It was just the fact that I've always thought people could disagree with respect. Even vehemently disagree without name calling or accusations. It was really eye opening to find out that isn't so. That some people, like I said, through ignorance or being ill informed, simply make personal attacks. And if you point out that a personal attack is over the line, you are accused of playing the victim.
I truly think you are trying to understand, but until you have been on the receiving end I'm not sure you can. To have people denigrate where you live, ask personal questions regarding your employment, your financial status, etc. Question your motives and call you a liar if you say your motives are not what "they" claim your motives to be. I truly think the name calling is very over the line, no matter who you are.
But, no, all that said, there are some people here that I truly respect, and that includes people who I very much disagree with, but are able to articulate their position and discuss it without animosity or personal insults. And there have been times when these same people have made me rethink a position. And I enjoy the discussion with them.
"Still don't get the point of "only once"......it says nothing, it means nothing."
It's another way of saying the past informs the future.
Popularity polls is a strange way to chose a leader for your country. No one seems to question this.
If these polls are conducted the way every poll I seem to get on the phone these days, they are all "pushed" I have had some interesting discussions with the people asking the questions-they dont get to frame the questions but the questions are clearly framed to get a result.
"I believe Romney has a difficult time relating to people, it's an image problem I think. He's no Bill Clinton or George Bush, he's not someone you feel you could look in the eye and joke with and they'd get it or laugh. People need to feel that. I think a lot of people don't feel that from Barack Obama, either."
To chose the leader of the most powerful country in the world by whether or not you can share a joke is painfully..well there is no way to put it that wont offend a lot of people.
Exactly. I always thought because Bush was guy you'd have a beer with, vote for him???? Turns out he sure liked his beer to the point where he was a alcoholic, but the voters should have asked...does he have a brain :the answer would be a resounding NO!!
You are so right lily. I've always thought Obama was a likeable guy. Great family man as well. Lousy president. So, Romney may seem a little stiff, maybe we should change our criteria.
Posted by patriciae Z7PNW (My Page) on
Thu, Mar 8, 12 at 14:10
To chose the leader of the most powerful country in the world by whether or not you can share a joke is painfully..well there is no way to put it that wont offend a lot of people
No wonder you people are always chasing rabbit trails--your thought process obviously extrapolates, wrongly assumes, and jumps ten jumps into Neverland.
No one said, including me, that presidents should be selected by their personality.
I proffered why Romney wasn't being accepted as well by people, and there is something to a factor of likeability.
People may agree with a candidate's policies, but if they don't trust them, or are not comfortable enough with them to trust them, they are reluctant to support them.
Nothing more, nothing, less, and this inane assumption that people vote for a candidate only because of personality is just that--and appears to be a petty dig at me. It's okay, I'm used to it--it rolls off my back, Patricia. :)
However, maybe it's not so inane.
There are a lot people that voted for Barack Obama for the one reason that he is black. The actor Samuel Jackson admitted that not long ago.
I wonder if not having a job and no prospects and $4+ a gallon gasoline will cause those racists to reconsider this election.
Sure, I agree, a lot of people voted for Obama becase he was black. And he wasn't McCain with Palin as a running mate. And he was extraordinarily intelligent with the best education available in this country except for maybe Yale, depending upon who you ask. And because he made top grades while he was there. And because he was a Senator, and because he was everything that Bush and McCain wasn't, and never could be.
But if you want to think it's just because he was black, I say have fun and have at it. I understand you are grasping and angry - everything is improving when you were COUNTING on the fact that it would not - nothing has gone the way you assured us all that it would when Obama was sworn in three years ago. The country isn't panting for a conservative to take over again. And it isn't real happy with whats on the conservative menu for president either. But that's ok, if you think that now that we have our "black president" out of our system and will vote for a Romney or Santorum, I invite you to continue with that smug, comfortable thought process.
From what I heard on the moderate Republican program, Joe in the morning, the GOP is in DIRE straights right now with the line up they have offered up to the people and the moderate conservatives on that program are dismayed at the ultra conservative "anti contraception, make her get an ultra sound" garbage that is being thrown out. They have said that between the candidates to date and that garbage going on, it's no way to win a Presidency and that if the election was held right now, Obama would win by a landslide and he should win by a landslide. All this from a conservative panel, mind you. I'm sure this makes them all a bunch of RINOS for argument's sake, but that's ok, if that accusation is what makes you more comfortable, have at that, too.
Becaise this was said from a panel of moderate conservatives - which I believe makes up the majority of conservative voters in this country.
Am I, myself, comfortable now with how things stand for Nov?
Unlike some, what is going on *today* is meaningless. What is going on the month before the election, and the week before the election is everything, what is going on today is the lead into those all important times. But I also know that tomorrow and next week can bring in a very different set of circumstances.
If the economy and job situation continues to improve what is it exactly that the conservatives will have to talk about?
"I will make it even BETTER!"
Not exactly a winning speech.
"I will stop the OTHER war Bush (who we all voted for. Twice.) started!"
With Afghanistan due to shut down within the next year or so, those are hollow words.
"I will nuke Iran until it glows in the dark!"
Well....... that might actually be the winning combo of words to win all conservative voters over, but I guess we will have to wait and see.
If the conservatives continue to have their public nervous breakdown because the Presidential seat wasn't handed to them on a silver platter the way so many voters assumed it would be, then I think the democrats are in pretty darn good shape.
The wars are being shut down, Bin Lauden is now history, the economy is improving, the job situation is improving. Obama has actually done a fine job of cleaning up the conservative mess which was left behind. All in three years - pretty impressive for a black guy isn't it?
But things can most certainly change - and probably will - so I will wait and see what develops and see if it changes in a way that is better or worse for Obama. No one can know that yet.
Nov. is a very long way away. None of the guys in this conservative lineup might be the one Obama runs against. That actually wouldn't completely surprise me.
But oh - I do hope one of them will be. It will make the conversations in here more interesting.
Romney is the safer bet but Santorum would finally bring the all the ugly to the surface, forcing the conservatives deal with their darker issues, something I think would do this country a WORLD of good.
Clean that nasty abcess out, pack it with antibiotics to kill off every last nasty idea lurking, sew it up and then we could get on with progression we should be making in this new century rather than regressing for yet *another* decade into it.
Posted by mylab123 z5NW (My Page) on
Thu, Mar 8, 12 at 15:28
"I understand you are grasping and angry - everything is improving when you were COUNTING on the fact that it would not - nothing has gone the way you assured us all that it would when Obama was sworn in three years ago."
Mylab, how MANY times am I going to have to nicely ask you to stop putting words and motives in my mouth and assess what you think I feel and want?
I'm quite capable of doing so myself, so please, please, stop with it!
I am not angry at all, in fact, I often wonder if I'm the only non angry person that participates on this forum. I'm not pleased with the way this country is headed but I'm not angry. You have no idea where I am in my life but I can tell you, I don't get angry often, and if I do it's only for a moment or two and not about stupid politics or what any of you say or think (unless it is misrepresenting me like you just did).
I wasn't "counting" on a darned thing.
I can assure you things are going just the way I thought they would go when Obama was elected. The real damage comes if he is reelected. But I'm prepared. I sure hope the rest of you are.
Your words sound so sad Demi. I don't think you are able to read how you sound to most here, I think that has been your problem all along. You can't see yourself as others see you, you can see all your good points that you don't show to any of us but you can't see what it is you DO show to all of us.
You seem so afraid of the fact that we are better off than we were when Bush stepped down - which is exactly the question I ask myself before every election, just like Uncle Ronnie told us too.
Why do you seem so afraid? Because you keep denying the facts. Just because you close your eyes and say, "No! I won't look! I won't, I won't and you can't make me!" doesn't change the facts, it just makes you willfully ignorant of them.
Are we better off?
Will we be come Nov?
That remains to be seen. But if we are.....then what the HECK are you complaining about? Obama accomplished exactly what you kept telling us here that he couldn't/wouldn't.
But if he did, then everyone should rejoice. That means our country is better off.
Which is exactly the while *point* of it all......isn't it? Not your perception about it or your complaints about what he didn't do, but if, by looking at all the numbers, if we are better off now than we were when Bush was finished.....that is the whole point.
Unemployment is down.
Jobs are up.
Bin Laden is gone.
One war wrapped up, then other one on the way.
Bush's mess is slowly but surely getting cleaned up, and not by the conservaties who made the mess or the conservatives who supported them while the mess was getting made.
It's getting cleaned up by the black guy because he said he was smart enough to know how to go about getting the job accomplished and the vast majority of the country asked him to try to do it. So he did.
Deal with it.
You're the one that doesn't get it mylab.
Of course the financial situation is better.
I'm not interested in the media and White House's version of "it's all better now, don't worry."
I was concerned long before BUSH was in the White House and Obama has done nothing to assuage my fears, in fact he has intensified them.
You see, I look at the much larger picture, which is why I started the Utopia thread (which some understood and gave thoughtful insights) about exactly how much government, and how much private enterprise it would take--none, all of either or what combination, to make the world a utopia in their eyes. Not a utopia for themselves only. That nuance was lost on one or two, as usual.
So, yes, some things are better. For the short term.
I think not for the long term, particularly if we have four more years of this President.
They may not be better and could be worse if we elect a Republican candidate, I do not know.
So, talk about politics, talk about opinions, but you have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about me.
Matters not to me.
You should be talking about ideas instead of me anyway.
But that's not nearly as much fun, is it?
wow, demi, cry me a river!!
Unemployment is down? Have you seen the latest numbers? No, unemployment is up. A national debt that even our children and grandchildren will never be able to pay. And how much is his proposed budget this year? No, Bush and dem congress and senate is not getting cleaned up. It is worse now than when Obama took office.
And why should anyone be angry? Why should anyone "hate" Obama? This is politics, this is Hot Topics, we aren't saving the world here. We aren't even electing a president. We a giving our views. Nothing more, nothing less.
By the way, Mylab, I am NOT "willfully ignorant."
I don't talk to you that way and I don't put words in your mouth. I don't comment on your character or aver why you make statements you do, I don't assign motives to you or anyone else.
But so many of you judgmentally do that to me, and mrskjun and other conservatives.
This isn't a place to discuss topics and give one another the benefit of the doubt, this has become a place to be hateful and judgmental to other posters and advance a political or personal agenda at the expense of others.
I hope you're proud of yourselves.
I'm ashamed of some of you.
"I don't assign motives to you or anyone else"
Nonsense, you do it all the time.
"and advance a political or personal agenda at the expense of others."
Absolutely agree that this is done regularly by the conservatives as well.
"I'm ashamed of some of you."
....and that would matter to anyone except your children?
how short a memory you have.
perhaps you need to go back and read the legislation to protect thread
You called Kate and me delusional, me a liar "if you're telling the truth", made a nasty remark about someone's character who has never posted here, and continually responded to me in that condescending manner, calling me dear.
You wouldn't exaggerate, tell a falsehood and take out of context, now would you Chloe?
I had no quarrel with you, you started not on what I said but made comments about me.
I'll give it back to you if I'm inclined.
You comment on my posts, we're good.
You comment on me and my motives, we're not.
Chloe, you need to "watch your mouth!"
Only one time in history has a sitting president been re-elected with approval ratings under 50%. I thought that was pretty clear and concise.
mrsk: It's not really that clear. Since you didn't provide a link would you please elaborate? Are we talking about approval ratings taken just before the election, or are we talking about approval ratings 8 months before the election, or is this an average of approval ratings?
Jerz, you are asking too much. Like any direct question posed to this poster there will not be a direct answer.
Maybe deflection but most likely no response.
Speak for yourself chase. My my, I smell fear in the air. Circling the wagons are we? Afraid Obama is going to lose?
ABC/Washington Post polling shows Obama�s approval rating at 48 percent. Pollster Gary Langer writes: "In polling since 1940, just four previous presidents have started their re-election year with less than 50 percent approval. Only one of them won, Richard Nixon in 1972."
If one wants to use statistical info from the past in an attempt to predict the future, IE the upcoming presidential election, good luck with that idea and attempt.
Since GWB won his first term in office, courtesy of 1 vote by a supreme court justice, no one has been successful in using past statistics to predict an presidential election.
We've gone from "hanging chads, pregnant chads", court fights for recounts, SCOTUS determining the results of a presidential election.
We've had exit polls on election day have one set of results and the actual "raw people's vote" say exactly the opposite.
We've had a political party hijacked by bunch of right wing religious zealots that are attempting to circumvent the constitution with their own personal interpretation of it.
We've had a Black, OK Bi-Racial if that makes some of you feel better, Democratic candidate elected as President of the United States.
that was after a democratic primary where a prior First Lady of the United States, turned Senator, was also running in the Democratic Primary.
We've and opposition party, since the last presidential election, vow that the newly elected president would be a one term president no matter what they had to do, no matter what the cost including any and all damage done to this country and the people in it.
The opposition party known as the Republicans, IE the GOP. GOP that used to stand for "the grand old party", do everything humanly possible to stop congress from doing the "people's work" and they just don't care. The purpose is to destroy the existing presidential administration so that they can get control of everything again. To bad if what they are doing is bad for the people, bad for the country, long as it is good for them.
We've continued to witness the insanity of the "birthers" and their attempts to prove that the President of the US is not legally the president and there has been so kind of huge, huge conspiracy, coverup etc to keep this info a secret, hide the fact that the president isn't a US Citizen.
We've even had a really famous millionaire, TV reality show host, join the bandwagon as a "Birther"
and that's only some of what has gone on over the past 8 years and you think that the past history of elections can actually mean something now?
We've been enduring, and that is being polite using the word enduring, one of the most absurd "circus, dog and pony shows" Republican primary season in history.
We've been watching each one of them top the front runner list at least once and then fall, fall so badly that they fall out of the race and withdraw.
None of them have the support of the GOP top people. None of the candidates are really wanted by the voter, yet the remaining 4 keep going and going like the energizer bunny.
If it wasn't so sickly and pathetic, this "circus, dog and pony show" might actually be funny.
The fact remains that one of these candidates is no doubt going to be the Republican nominee for president and therefore a chance of becoming President of the United States.
Yup, there is a chance that one of them could actually win the election.
So on the GOP side, it starts out with which one of the characters in the "GOP show" is going to win.
More importantly, will the GOP actually survive as what it was or will it be under the total control of the right wing religious right?
When push comes to shove come Nov. will the Republican party come together and support a candidate that they honestly and truly have no use for, want nothing to do with, don't believe and/or trust.
Will they "hold their nose" so to speak and vote the party line? Will they stay home and tell the "grand old party" where to go?
Will there be enough boldness in all of them and a third party will emerge out of the chaos and mess that the GOP has allowed itself to get into?
In the mean time, all this talk about "it's only happened once", or what the polls are showing and anything else you can come up with in an attempt to predict what may or may not happen in Nov, is nothing more than a waste of time.
Statistics no longer work, they no longer apply when it comes to politics and elections anymore, least of all for President.
LIke it's always been and always said, "it ain't over till it's over" and "it ain't over till the fat lady sings" and "the voter will decide on election day"
Keep trying to predict all you want, it's going to blow up in your face, those are the only statistics that count now. the variables are far to great now, not like it used to be in the "good old days."
Thanks littleone. You saved me a lot of typing. I can just say ditto. MRSK didn't factor in the clown show we have witnessed.
Someone is desperate and it ain't the Dems. Republicans are actually saying that they should admit they can't win the presidency with these clowns and focus on Congressional seats. Guess they didn't mention that on Fox.
Another little tidbit of history for you. No president has ever won re-election with unemployment over 7.2% since FDR.
We'll see - that certainly doesn't mean it can't happen. And then they'll have to update the "hasn't happened since" statistics.
Mrs, I only checked numbers back to 1948. most years when the rate was higher than 7.2 were not presidential election years.
Bush senior was president in 1992 when the rate was 7.5 but he could not run again.
Regan won in 1984 with an unemployment rate of 7.5%
Ford lost to Carter in 1976 with an unemployment rate of 7.7 .....so this one works.
This grasping at cherry picked statistics seems particularly pathetic coming from those who generally reject statistics and misunderstand them. How many presidents have not been re-elected during a war? How many presidents have not been re-elected when their competitors all have favorability measures less than them? How many presidents have not been re-elected when their competitor's gap among women and hispanics is this large? How many presidents have not been re-elected when the base and many party leaders are calling for someone else to run? I could go on but you see what I mean.
I don't know kt, why don't you research that and get back to us.
Here is a link that might be useful: link
From your link, mrskjun:
But the context matters here. No president since FDR has won with a high unemployment rate because no president since FDR has had to govern at a time of a global economic crisis like the Great Depression or the Great Recession. The U.S. has seen plenty of downturns over the last eight decades, but financial collapses are fairly rare, produce far more severe conditions, and take much longer to recover from.
That is, the situation is untested.
And up until the 2000 election no president had the supreme court hand him the presidency.
To add to littleone's list, there are so many new things to influence politics today that were not relevant as recent as 12 years ago to skew results. The internet and mobile internet through phones is a whole new world that the delegates only have a vague understanding of. The voting population now includes the younger voters that do not even use landlines so the polls are not reflective of reality since polls do not use cell phones. Those same young voters are becoming activists in the whole picture and there is no way to predict their impact. Past information is not as relevant this time as more technology has happened in our lifetime than we can process.
Mrsk, since we are pulling up various precedents for presidential contests, lets look at the record for a party that presided over the start of an economic crash like Bush. Anyone remember Republican Hoover in the 1930's and what followed his leaving of a terrible mess for the Democratic President to clean up? Four terms of a Democrat. So using Mrsk's absurd premise of cherry picking pointless statistics, this factoid means we will re-elect Obama for 3 more terms. Twelve more years! Twelve more years! LOL!
Are you self soothing, mrsK? Are you so worried you need to post every scenario which might or might not happen? Did you factor in the fact Bush should never have been president in the first place. He was appointed by the clueless RIGHT Supreme Court. How did that work out for the country?
Wonder what your thread will be on November 7th? Or will you leave the country?
Nope lily...I'm a conservative, I love my country, I think it is the best place in the world to live. If Obama is re elected, I won't cry and knash my teeth. I'll continue enjoying my life and vote again in four more years. Will I be disappointed? Yes. I don't think this country will fare well with four more years of Obama. But no, unlike some, I would prefer to stay right here and work to make my country an even better place to live.
mrskjun, do you think the country would have fared better if McCain had been elected in 2008? If so, then could you please give a few reasons how you think it would be better today?
Such as - would we still be in Afghanistan or Iraq? Would be be in Libya or Syria? Would Osama Bin Laden still be alive? Would we have attacked Iran?
What about the economy? Are you confident that the employment numbers would be better, more people working? The deficit, would it be lower, tax revenues lower/higher?
Just wondering if you think it would have all turned out "better" and in what ways.
You don't think it would fare well with four more years of Obama and yet you would vote for BushJr again if it would help Obama lose the race.
You make no sense at all Mrsk. None. You complain endlessly that Obama didn't clean up the mess that Bushjr left behind, or, didn't clean it up quickly enough or correctly.
You state that you hate war but still, would vote for BushJr again if it would get rid of Obama, Bush who started both wars which you supported without question both times, and Obama which shut one down and is in the process of planning the shutdown of the other one in the next year or two.
I suspect it would do you a lot of good to sit down and carefully reassess, over a year or so, what it is you firmly believe and what it is you object about so dreadfully when it comes to Obama, the two parties and the conservative side you will vote for and support....and most importantly - WHY you will vote the way you will. Even after the fact, no matter who wins. I think you should reflect on your purposes and reasonings and assumptions you now take for granted about what is correct and right and what is incorrect and wrong, politically.
To me, just what I take from what you say here, you seem to defend the conservative position more than you seem to actively support or encourage it.
You seem to me to be contradicting yourself and don't even realize it.
I think your party loyalty is blind and that you knee jerk your political beliefs because you have never questioned if you still actually believe that what you think has actually worked out in the best interest of the country.
I'm not being ugly. I'm being reflective, I was once just like you - exactly - and then I started questioning myself because I began to have too many "huh?" moments about Bush jr during his first four years - too many times where I was only knee jerking a defense regarding him and the party and the whole conservative stand I always took and felt about what was best for our counrty instead of actually *supporting* it (which came as a shock to me realize and accept about myself)......
and then began to just quietly think and observe what had been going on with our country over my entire voting adult life - were we actually better off as a nation and as a people? Was the Conservatives actually accomplishing all they said that they could and elevating the living standards of the average working joe of this country? I couldn't see it, I only saw stagnation everywhere I looked - 25 years of stagnation without progression of a kind that actually made my life 25 years better.
Questiong....questioning some more and then my whole political belief system pretty much fell like a house of cards very suddenly when those WMD never showed up and I heard all the defense from the administration and most especially from conservative voters about how that wasn't important in the big picture.
Oh, that was VERY important, to me. Of the upmost importance. That house of cards really crashed big time.
It's hard to go there, though for most people. A lot of ego and the letting go of it is involved when it comes to changing one's mind about what one always vocally stood for and what one thought was right and good - right and good, almost without ever second guessing or questioning if that was still a viable stand to take in the changing world we live in.
I'm not being deliberately mean to you Mrsk, though you might be positive that this is my intent. I'm just suggesting that you take a look at what seems to me, just my take on it, to be very conflicting political beliefs you seem to hold close and dear.
Even if you become more firm in what it is you think is best for our country, it strikes me that you need to sort out conflicts which you seem to have regarding both Bush, Obama and your support of your preferred political alliances, if it isn't something you have already done fairly recently.
For sure it can't hurt, I think everyone should do so every ten or so years of their adult lives.
Things change, needs change, people change so solutions must change. If Obama loses this election I will watch carefully about how the winner will approach solutions for the problems facing this country, if he will leave me better off than he found me on election day.
If I think he does a fine job, then I will certainly admit it and temper the objection that I have had about conservatives seemingly inability to hold themselves personally responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place or to be vocally critical about their man, their party, - because at least they will have proved that finally they are good with some solutions - which is what is important for our future - which is the point of it all. For us to be better off.
I approve of the job Obama has done to a certain extent because I'm realistic about how bad it continued to get after his swearing in, how long the turn around had to take and I think that his aim was always to elevate this country and the people in it. So, I woudl vote for him again - most certainly over any conservative running for the office at this time - no doubt about that.
If a conservative winner does a much better job with all the issues that come his way and restores our financial standing in four years time, then I would vote for him again - unless he went down the road of making or supporting decisions about social issues so abhorrent to the rights of any group of American citizens which he is sworn to protect, that morality trumped financial security.
Morality always trumps finances when it comes to protecting the basic rights of all American citizens. Other than that, I would certainly carefully look, with open eyes, at how much better or worse we are at the end of four years if a conservative wins the election.
Just reflect Mrsk. That's all I hope you do. I don't even hope you change your mind, I only hope that you quietly look within with open eyes, because there is a lot of conflicting statements you are making that make me think you need to clarify from within.
And I will do the same.
Nicely put, mylab.
Though, from personal experience, if Romney is the GOP candidate and he wins the election, I can assure you that your life will not be better in 4 years,
You are one of his millionaire personal pals or one huge big business.
Otherwise, you are down and out, will suffer the consequences of his leadership, his so called, plans to build up the economy, jobs etc.
He's nothing but full of hot air, will not succeed in anything that he does and as for what he says he is, what he believes, etc. nothing, and I mean nothing can be believed when it comes out of his mouth.
and don't for a minute believe that he loves the State of MA or the people of MA, remember when he decided to go exploring his opportunities and deciding if he was going to run for president while he was governor of MA, he decided that it would be fun to ridicule and make fun of the state he was governor in and the people of MA.
Yup, MA and her residents became the butt of his jokes during his campaign the last time around.
He's about as conservative as a rat is leaving the sinking ship.
MrsK, you do have every right to believe as you do, but you really don't make a lot of sense in many of your reasons for your political support and fears of Obama as president for 4 more years.
The only thing that I see comes across with your beliefs is that you are angry, very angry that you may have to pay more in such things as taxes, your investments that you have will not give you the same amount of income as they would under a Republican because they may be more fairly taxed, and you appear to have some kind of obsession about the oil industry in the south in Louisiana and you are angry because the present administration is not ignoring the risks of off shore drilling, but rather taking a very cautious approach, especially after the BP disaster. Is this something that is affecting you financially that wouldn't happen with a Republican in office, any Republican?
Like mylab, I just don't understand where you are coming from, what your beliefs are, how they become so contradictory and you don't realize it.
Blind support of a candidate because he isn't someone else without showing real support for a candidate doesn't make a lot of sense to me, I doubt it makes sense to a lot of people.
We are trying to understand where you are coming from, why you believe as you do and make the statements that you do.
Help us understand.
mylab, there is one big difference between you and Mrs.
She is religious and you are not.
Being a "christian" and being republican go hand in hand.
the Democrats are a bunch of heathens and a good "Christian " could never vote for a bunch of heathens.
Wow, would you guys like to come and inspect my floors to see if they are up to snuff, laundry to make sure I don't have ring around the collar. How about examining my teeth to make sure they are in good shape. I'd like to make sure that you know everything that you "think" you know about me. How dare any of you to be so presumptuous.
You make accusations as to my character and beliefs and then come up with garbage like, help me understand, it's because she is a Christian, I'm conflicted?
Do you realize that many of these same questions I could ask of you? Yet you truly do believe that you are on the side of right. Nothing I could say would convince you how wrong you are, how very little you know about me.
I have to agree with Mrs here: if you need help in understanding her for the purposes of this forum and not for the nomination for HTer of the year I suggest you ease up with the accusation. Chloe's remarks are particularly egregious and spiteful even though they are meaningless. Would you care to explain your religion and how it influences your politics and why this is anyone else's business.
Answer the question put by my lab and littleone..You would vote for Bush JR ( despite the fact his name NEVER comes up once in the GOP debates) over Obama. Bush, the dumbest man ever to be elected president..on wait he wasn't , he was appointed, started two bankrupting wars and created a financial mess for Obama to inherit..and yet you'd still vote for him??? These good christian women, they follow the Fox propaganda to the polls.
Well I thought my questions were pretty reasonable ....
Gotta agree with Ink and mrs on this one....well part of it.
I would like to understand better how anyone could in good conscience vote for Bush again but the Christian thing is a bit over the top.
Lots of good Christian women are liberal or moderate conservatives, not all are tied to FOX or to the Republican Party. Just seems a bit of a low blow to me.
Yes they were esh, BUT.......Mrs doesn't answer any questions directly.
As much as I disagree with the Christian inference, Mrs response was still yet another of her deflections. Always a deflection , never an answer or a discussion.
Your right nothing you could say could convince me of much!
Do you realize that many of these same questions I could ask of you?
On principle I probably wouldn't respond or would respond to something else it's been pretty much my experience with many of your posts.
Observations are different than accusation I guess but I may be wrong on that also.
I found your Syria posting the most annoying K technique lately!
It might be a low blow, but the facts are the facts. I'm sure there are many religious women who are liberal, but the statistics of very religious women voting Republican is over the top. The Tea party crowd is for the most part religious and they love Newt or Santorum. Can't trust those Mormons. I think the fact that Romney will do poorly in the bible belt proves my point. In fact Romney does well in only ONE group of voters, those making over $100,000 a year.
As of March 1, 2012, 36% of Americans were registered Republicans, 32.4% were registered Democrats. hmmm, it looks like I might not be the only Republican in the world.
and how does the statistics of how many are republican and how many are democrat relate to mylab's very thoughtful post?
It doesn't. It's just more of the same. Continue to not answer the question.
Too bad. I got my hopes up while reading mylab's incredibly thoughtful post.
I've been reading and reading and reading...trying to find out why you think we are doomed if Obama gets 4 more years. Maybe I missed the post, but I can't find it.
So, I will ask the question (again).
What has Obama done that is so bad?
What has Obama not done that is so bad?
Is the country and the economy better now than it was 3 years ago? If not, in what way?
Did Bush leave the state of the union in good shape for the next President?
I'm speaking from my experience of living around fundamentalist christians that feel exactly that way.
They would never , ever, ever vote for a Democrat for the reasons I said. They are quite vocal about it.
If you are not one of them , then I apologize
jill, questions never get answered...never.
When Mrs first said she would vote for Brush again rather than Obama I asked her what Obama had done that was so egregious that she would vote for a man who needlessly sent more than 4000 young Americans to their death.......no answer.
When I asked her if she agreed with the Republicans defeating an amendment that would guarantee oil transported by Keystone stayed in the States...no answer.
When I asked her why the oil companies would sell their products at a lower cost than they could get on the world market...no answer.
There is never, ever, an answer just another deflection. One can only surmise it because she hasn't one.
Why we even bother is beyond me.
yes, chase, I've noticed that. I haven't been around these parts very long. Was hoping maybe all these questions had been answered in older posts that I didn't see. Guess that's not the case?
You're exactly right. Most fundamentalist Christians would never ever vote Democratic. I can't exactly fault them because never ever would I ever vote Republican. In fact in my life , I voted for one , Senator John Heinz, a liberal Repub. who was killed in a plane crash. You know... that hated Teresa Heinz's first husband. I did vote once independent for John Anderson when I was young and stupid and didn't think about wasting my vote.
It's the entire thrust of the fiscal phones post & the dripping sarcasm on it Jill
Ink, that message was not meaningless.
Granted it probably didn't add anything to that particular discussion, but it did make a point.
In retrospect I see that it was unnecessarily harsh.
Unless you live in the fundamentalist dominated south,as I have for 40 years, you can't possibly understand that for many people voting Republican that is the reason they do so. I stand by that statement.
My brother, who just happens to be a Lutheran pastor and lives in Vancouver and has never lived in the states, can't understand it either. He just doesn't "get" it.
It is not all Christians, it is fundamentalist "christians"
Remember I live in a state where in 2008 every single country went for McCain/Palin.
In the state where the senate passed a personhood bill and the heartbeat bill in the last month.
And in the state where Santorum just won the primary.
My mistake was to make the assumption that Mrs. was in that category.
Yes , it does seem to be true that fundamentalist Christians are overwhelming Republican and it seems they are inclined to the most socially conservative candidates.
My point was that like anything there is a spectrum and many Christians, including myself, fall into the liberal or moderate conservative category.
Mind you it is very different here...even our conservatives are liberal when compared to the States!
oh my, why don't one of you start a thread. You could title it, "Everything you need to know about what is wrong with mrskjun, whether it is true or not."
Do you mind if I send a link to this thread out to my friends? I'm sure they could all use a good chuckle.
Yes, VERY, VERY different there.
I should have said fundamentalist instead of just the generic christian.
The brother I mentioned from Vancouver is quite liberal. As you've mentioned before, Canadians could care less what religion their politicians are . I wish it was that way here.
I consider myself a Christian, although a non practicing one.
Hey, look, by MrsK's reasoning, Obama is a shoo-in.
Here is a link that might be useful: If Reagan did it...
Posted by chloe45 zone 61/2-7 (My Page) on
Fri, Mar 9, 12 at 18:26
"I consider myself a Christian, although a non practicing one."
What an oxymoron!
By definition, a Christian practices Christianity
I have seen a lot of things on this forum, but I have never ever seen as much arrogance, prejudice, and judgment as I have seen on this thread.
I'm just astonished--so many lines were crossed this time.
It's nice to know that some reasonable posters recognize it for what it is. Whatever it is, it is not right.
It's a shame is what it is.
Mrskjun, you didn't deserve those words.
Well, but some of us asked her nicely to expand on her opinions and she didn't reply. Ever.
Not saying she deserved anything.
But it is nice to reply when asked a direct question. And I am still hoping she might reply. I always reply when she asks ME a question.
Flannery O'Connor was here.
"The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it."
A distinction can be made between moderate Christians(some Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans) who often do vote Democratic, as opposed to Fundamentalist Evangelicals who are Tea-party types and can be depended upon to vote Republican. It's scary to some of us that the latter seem to be rising in numbers in the U.S.
Just sayin I know what Chloe is talking about first hand....
Thank you woodnymph.
Just sayin...I'm not a fundie, often vote democrat, just not on a presidential level since Carter. I happen to be a Methodist btw.
I feel like I keep repeating myself. Oh, wait, it's because I do. Let me try again.
"Flannery O'Connor was here."
Hulga lives here.
Here is a link that might be useful: Good Country People
jill - I have asked the same things. I don't know why mrskjun can't answer such basic questions when she is so adamant that Obama is destroying the country. It makes me think that no one has given her the guidance on WHAT to answer so therefore there can be no answer.
Prove me wrong, mrskjun.
I too have asked legitimate questions with regards to specific posts and gotten no response. If you are going to make statements on a board like this you need to be ready to back up those statements.
This question is one I posed that I particularly wish would be answered because I simply don't understand. I don't challenge Mrs right to hold this opinion I just am curious as to the reasons.
"When Mrs first said she would vote for Brush again rather than Obama I asked her what Obama had done that was so egregious that she would vote for a man who needlessly sent more than 4000 young Americans to their death.......no answer. "
Exactly, chase. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I thought this board was all about discussing those positions so each side can get a better understanding of the other side on an issue. I guess not everyone sees it that way.