- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Messages
- 44,814
- Reaction score
- 20,221
- Location
- A very blue state
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
True, but those elections didn't have one party dominated by wingnuts
I'd disagree about '68 for sure.
True, but those elections didn't have one party dominated by wingnuts
Have you seen another peanut farmer with a shot at a nomination? Community organizer is going to be a death sentence going forward.
No, but you were saying about Reagan was an actor AND had executive experience. It's not a distinction between Reagan and Carter. There are plenty, but that's not one of them.
When did I say anything about Obama's numbers and how they pertain in any way to Bush?
You may want to read my post in this thread that pertains to Obama's poll numbers before you say something that I never said.
I left room for you, I said many. Funny how you're joining in a thread that bashes Obama on his polling numbers claiming that they don't define Bush! Ok.
Yes, like I said, you've joined in bashing Obama in a thread that says Americans are fed up with him at 40%, and managed to through his wife under the bus too. If 40% is fed up, what's 22%?
If you don't want to live in this country, you don't have to.
What does his wife have to do with your claims about a post I didn't make comparing Obama's poll numbers to Bush's? Nothing.
I can post in any thread I want. As can you. I don't need to explain my reasons for posting in this thread to anyone. The topic was Obama's poll numbers. His poll numbers have nothing to do with Bush.
Neither do you. But the war of Northern Aggression was just that. Nothing more nothing less. Lincoln wanted to "unite" the nation by killing almost 800,000 Americans.
You misspelled "traitors"Neither do you. But the war of Northern Aggression was just that. Nothing more nothing less. Lincoln wanted to "unite" the nation by killing almost 800,000 Americans.
What place does bashing Michelle have in a thread about Obama's poll numbers. But if the thread is going to diminish Obama on a 40% approval, then Bush was sunk @ 22%.
You misspelled "traitors"
remind me agian which side fired the first shots at the battle of fort sumter?
If you don't like my response to a question asked to me by another poster, you should report the post.
Bush's poll numbers have nothing to do with Obama's poll numbers. Someone else may want to engage you in a discussion about Bush's poll numbers.
so basicly the only thing worthy of discussion of this thread is president obama's poll numbers, and by "discussion" i mean "repeatedly rant about how awful he is?"
You need to be reminded why?
Oh, so southerners are traitors? Really.
it was the south who fired the first shots of the civil war, by bombarding fort sumter.
And why?
Good deflection from the fact that Americans elected a B movie actor twice. The American electorate are quite surprising at times.
So, you don't know. OKBecause they were traitors
So, you don't know. OK
I would hope so. I wouldn't want to see any of those people in governemnt.
Haven't seen any presidential candidates with the last name of Bush, either
Oh well, Jeb
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/14643 AUGUST NBC-WSJ POLL.pdf
We constantly hear in here how Obama is doing such a great job from the progressive members. How when we say that the polls are against him, we are just not taking our information from the right sources, or we don't know how to read the polls....Well, here is a poll from NBC for God's sake....In all areas it seems that American's of ALL stripes are just fed up with this liar in office....
Domestically - 40% approve, 60% disapprove
Foreign policy - 30% approve 70% disapprove
Right track/Wrong track - 22% approve, 71% disapprove.....
etc...
This is clearly a contender, if not the winner of the absolute worst President this country has ever had.