Obama Approval Rating Now Below 50%, Currently 48.8%

[Topspin]

The question should be, how accurate are their "attacks". I am sick and tired of this "private enterprise vs. federal gov't" bullshit. Bottom line: we've seen the results of an unchecked private sector and a executive branch centralized gov't.

But instead of seeking the balance, everyone digs in their ideological heels. No wonder nothing gets better.

Obama's not even cutting the military budget, and he's exploding the domestic one exponentially.
The only thing that will save him from being the second coming of Jimmy Carter is an exposively growing economy.
Abscent that the republicans could win on the we're not Obama the spender. Can you imagine the replaying of Obama critisizing Bush's spending.

 

[Damocles]

Here's what I find interesting: Obama's based support is pissed at him because he's too busy bending over backwards to be "inclusive" and not anywhere near the "my way or the highway" mentality of the Shrub's reign. So logically, the neocons should all be happy as clams in beer because essentially he's carrying on many the Shrub's precedents in one form or another.

And yet, the neocons are STILL wailing like stuck pigs if Obama so much as sneezes.

Also, are the progressives, liberals, Dems, whatever, are NOT pointing fingers at their congressional and senatorial reps and raising hell and threatening to replace them with someone better. Instead, they answer polls that they're going to sit out the next round of elections.

Third party anyone?

If I hadn't spent the past 7 out of 8 years crapping all over Bush because of bad policy you might have a point, however I didn't like the policies when Bush was doing them, I like them even less when Obama makes them worse and calls it "change" and gives idiots "hope" without responsibility.

 

[christiefan915]

It's going to go even lower with his obvious weakness on Iran.

Yeah he's weak because he's not shouting "bomb bomb bomb Iran".

 

[meme]

Yeah he's weak because he's not shouting "bomb bomb bomb Iran".

well I feel safer for that..

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

That line right there is exactly it Top. Politicians need to put the structure in place that allows these people to flurish and then get the fuck out of the way. Nancy Pelosi or any other politician trying to claim they are creating all these jobs. No bitch you're not. It's the people Top pointed out who are.

No they aren't. That's ridiculous. Unemployment is at 10%. If there's one thing that the free market ISN'T doing right now, IT'S CREATING JOBS.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I saw the show to, obviously they are both big on our economy. I am too.
What Pelosi and company need to watch is they villanize any industry that makes huge profits, oil=evil, insurance=evil, auto=evil, banks=evil.
Who have they not attacked?

I villianize any industry or person that makes profit while not increasing productivity.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

well I feel safer for that..

It might come to that since Iran is defying us and giving us the finger. They also know Obama is weak and isn't a leader.

 

[christiefan915]

It might come to that since Iran is defying us and giving us the finger. They also know Obama is weak and isn't a leader.

"Defying" us? We're not the boss of Iran.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
The question should be, how accurate are their "attacks". I am sick and tired of this "private enterprise vs. federal gov't" bullshit. Bottom line: we've seen the results of an unchecked private sector and a executive branch centralized gov't.

But instead of seeking the balance, everyone digs in their ideological heels. No wonder nothing gets better.

Obama's not even cutting the military budget, and he's exploding the domestic one exponentially.
The only thing that will save him from being the second coming of Jimmy Carter is an exposively growing economy.
Abscent that the republicans could win on the we're not Obama the spender. Can you imagine the replaying of Obama critisizing Bush's spending.

Again, one can't carry on about the projected spending by Obama unless you look at what he's spending on and what he was left to deal with by the previous administration.

The Shrub & company along with Wall St. and bank chains royally fucked this country financially. Period...no ifs, ands or buts about it. Add to this the runaway military budget and two continuous military front actions. So ANYTHING that is done is going to be astronomical in cost.

There is and there will be a LOT that EVERYONE disagrees with regarding budget spending, but let's face it...at this point it's all monopoly money anyway.

 

[cawacko]

"Defying" us? We're not the boss of Iran.

We're not the boss of any country other than our own yet we are attempting to demand other countries meet our emissions requirements among other things for example. Why are we or why can we do that?

 

[Taichiliberal]

We're not the boss of any country other than our own yet we are attempting to demand other countries meet our emissions requirements among other things for example. Why are we or why can we do that?

demand? More like comply...just like we ask them to comply with the agree with various economic exchanges, etc. It's called negotiation.

 

[cawacko]

demand? More like comply...just like we ask them to comply with the agree with various economic exchanges, etc. It's called negotiation.

fair enough.

Edit: Weren't we pretty much doing the same with Iran? I'm no expert on Iran so I'm not going to claim I know everything going on but I don't think it takes a foreign policy expert to realize a nuclear armed Iran could cause quite a bit of trouble throughout the world.

 

[Beefy]

demand? More like comply...just like we ask them to comply with the agree with various economic exchanges, etc. It's called negotiation.

Demand and comply are from two different sides of the negotiation. Your post makes no sense.

Thats like saying ASK??!?! ASK?????!?!?! How about ANSWER!

Nonsensicle gibberish.

 

[christiefan915]

We're not the boss of any country other than our own yet we are attempting to demand other countries meet our emissions requirements among other things for example. Why are we or why can we do that?

You're preaching to the choir. I dislike the word "demand" when used in relation to the U.S. and other countries. We have no business demanding anything from anybody, and the opposite is also true. IMO.

 

[christiefan915]

fair enough.

Edit: Weren't we pretty much doing the same with Iran? I'm no expert on Iran so I'm not going to claim I know everything going on but I don't think it takes a foreign policy expert to realize a nuclear armed Iran could cause quite a bit of trouble throughout the world.

Anybody with nukes can cause trouble throughout the world. What sets Iran apart from the rest? Iran itself is also in range of nuclear attacks by a number of nearby countries, if it's so foolhardy as to launch.

 

[Good Luck]

What sets Iran apart from the rest?

For one, Iran has historically (and presently for that matter) suffered under unstable leadership. I have many more concerns toward nukes under the control of an unstable government than a stable one - even if the stable one is totalitarian in nature. I have even more concern if the nuke is to be controlled by and unstable leader with unilateral authority to use it.

 

[Epicurus]

For one, Iran has historically (and presently for that matter) suffered under unstable leadership. I have many more concerns toward nukes under the control of an unstable government than a stable one - even if the stable one is totalitarian in nature. I have even more concern if the nuke is to be controlled by and unstable leader with unilateral authority to use it.

Well if you're referring to Ahmadinejad, you may rest easy for he has no unilateral authority to use such a weapon, if Iran possessed it which it doesn't. Khameini is far more stable.

 

[Good Luck]

Well if you're referring to Ahmadinejad, you may rest easy for he has no unilateral authority to use such a weapon, if Iran possessed it which it doesn't. Khameini is far more stable.

But there has been unstable leaders with that power in authority over Iran before. There is no reason to believe there won't be again. The point is Iran is a different case than other nuclear powers due to their history of instability. There are not many governments founded on a philosophy that includes the principle of dying violently as a means to gaining paradise in the afterlife.

 

[Epicurus]

Just not sure how you can say they're particularly historically unstable, especially compared to the rest of the Middle East. The Persian Empire, modern Iran, existed in continuity with various dynastic families for almost three thousand years. From 1501 to the Islamic Revolution in 1979, there was a continuous monarchy, the last being the Shah. Since '79 the Islamic Republic has ruled.

I'm just not sure how you can say basically two governments in the last three thousand years is unstable.

Also it's doubtful whether or not Ahmadinejad really believes all that. In any case, his power as president is pretty much limited to domestic policy and making crazy statements to scare people like you. He has no authority to follow through on any of the sabre-rattling he engages in. Iran has had two Supreme Leaders since the Revolution, and they have both been individuals who railed against America in public and but were considerably more pragmatic in private negotiations. The people who are really in power, the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council, are not going to do anything to force the international community to unseat them.

 

[Good Luck]

Just not sure how you can say they're particularly historically unstable, especially compared to the rest of the Middle East. The Persian Empire, modern Iran, existed in continuity with various dynastic families for almost three thousand years. From 1501 to the Islamic Revolution in 1979, there was a continuous monarchy, the last being the Shah. Since '79 the Islamic Republic has ruled.

I'm just not sure how you can say basically two governments in the last three thousand years is unstable.

Also it's doubtful whether or not Ahmadinejad really believes all that. In any case, his power as president is pretty much limited to domestic policy and making crazy statements to scare people like you. He has no authority to follow through on any of the sabre-rattling he engages in. Iran has had two Supreme Leaders since the Revolution, and they have both been individuals who railed against America in public and but were considerably more pragmatic in private negotiations. The people who are really in power, the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council, are not going to do anything to force the international community to unseat them.

So the Islamic Revolution took place in spite of a stable government? That would set a historic precedent, wouldn't it? The only known successful revolution that took place under a stable government.

As for ancient history of Persia, you left out that those "various ruling dynasties" were quite often at war with each other.

The government under the Shah was not stable - it's why the U.S. under Ford felt compelled to support him. It is why the Islamic Revolution succeeded. Things in Iran have not exactly been quiet since the revolutyion either. Sure, most of it is loud-mouth sabre rattling to appease the anti-west factions. But it is still far and away not the environment into which one should shrug off the potential access to nuclear capability. And nukes aside, it is never a good idea to meet loud mouth saber rattling with the apparent weakness Obama has been showing. Some may take it into their heads that acting out on some of the saber rattling isn't all that big a threat to their seat of power.