Obama is a public servant. By the very meaning of the term.
He is Public Servant #1.
He doesn't need to take more tests (oh spell checker of me) either, he keeps flunking.
Rest. I'm using my kindle, the keyboard is small.
Kurt, you just hate Obama and nothing he does would be ok with you. Didn't you get vacation time? Besides it is always a working vacation. Your attitude is so ridiculous, it makes me laugh.
Michelle, the kids and I are having a wonderful time over here where we are so far away from you we can't hear all your bitching and screaming. Nancy is over on the Big Island staying in her $10k per night suite she stays in on a regular basis. We feel your pain, just as much as I feel the sunburn from the tropical sunshine.
OBTW, we are broke again, please tell Congress to raise the debt ceiling another $1.2T. It seems that the $2T y'all gave me last August that was supposed to last until 2013 is gone already. I guess I know as much about economix as I do shovels. P'shaw. I kinda spent it already. You know how it is when you don't pass a real budget for 2 years now going on 3. Harry over in the Senate simply refuses to bring it up for a vote. You'd think as President I could do something about that an all, but I can't do that and keep getting all those primo Tee times on all these fabulous golf courses. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get that 8 o'clock start ? I mean really, between all the fundraising and golf and basketball and baby kissing, I don't have much time left over.
And just as I am getting a rest, I've got to spend all the coming time working on my college hoops predictions for the NCAA's in March. Where does all the time go ? Oh, and what about all the butterflies we use to make ink for the money I keep printing. What are we going to do if they go extinct ? Wait, I know ! We can implant chips in everyone and stop using cash !!!!! I bet if we order enough the Chinese will give us a deal ...
Mahalo and Mele Kalikimaka from Oahu !
Yer bud and 99% er,
Barry
It's not only desirable but necessary that the President gets some test time. And he is not a slave or a servant. Your post is petty and ridiculous.
Michelle, the kids and I are having a wonderful time over here where we are so far away from you we can't hear all your bitching and screaming. Nancy is over on the Big Island staying in her $10k per night suite she stays in on a regular basis. We feel your pain, just as much as I feel the sunburn from the tropical sunshine.
OBTW, we are broke again, please tell Congress to raise the debt ceiling another $1.2T. It seems that the $2T y'all gave me last August that was supposed to last until 2013 is gone already. I guess I know as much about economix as I do shovels. P'shaw. I kinda spent it already. You know how it is when you don't pass a real budget for 2 years now going on 3. Harry over in the Senate simply refuses to bring it up for a vote. You'd think as President I could do something about that an all, but I can't do that and keep getting all those primo Tee times on all these fabulous golf courses. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get that 8 o'clock start ? I mean really, between all the fundraising and golf and basketball and baby kissing, I don't have much time left over.
And just as I am getting a rest, I've got to spend all the coming time working on my college hoops predictions for the NCAA's in March. Where does all the time go ? Oh, and what about all the butterflies we use to make ink for the money I keep printing. What are we going to do if they go extinct ? Wait, I know ! We can implant chips in everyone and stop using cash !!!!! I bet if we order enough the Chinese will give us a deal ...
Evasive: failing to acknowledge your inaccurate use of quotes mis-attributing words to me that I did not say. Then having the temerity to get upset about the content of my posts after I have to point out to you the obvious. Evasive. Willfully ignorant. Disingenuous. Pick one.
I thought I covered that, but here it is with more clarity: ALL: Beaker did not type the words I put in quotes. I put those there to express my view of his sentiments which I thought were pretty obvious. Apologies to any/all who were misled. Beaker wrote:
Don't care.
Fine, then you won't mind if I continue to be your huckleberry.
Ha. Speaking of evasive. Your grasp on acknowledging the facts is tenuous a best. Small wonder you have a nebulous understanding of what it is I believe, and what it is I've actually said. Yes, we've been down that road before, and you revealed yourself for all to see.
Might want to try a little harder to hide that contempt.
Where have I been evasive? You're the one who won't post your own words and the hides behind "not my words, take it up with them".
Yes, I have open contempt for your posting style. Mostly because I think a) you can do better, and b) I think it would be a lot nicer if you did. I gladly admit to prodding you a bit because I'd like to see change. It's probably futile, but your political posts are becoming pretty redundant lately.
You should be much more careful in your use of quotes. I have said no such words.
That's why I said sentiment. I would never bother trying to quote you on something so large. Your much to evasive for that. But your sentiment on the subject is evident to all, so I'm pretty comfortable making statements about it.
Beaker wrote:
Yes, it's all merely an exercise for fun for you. This is why I can't be bothered to discuss much with you at all. HAND
And what exactly is it for you? Run away along now and go find some more hot air to re-post.
Once again, these are not my numbers. Please take your concerns about the numbers presented up with Gallup.
Much you very thank.
But you keep posting them with the sentiments of "worst president ever" and "cant possibly stand up to republican X in the general".... Even you seem to realize the holes in your underlying presumptions, because you aren't willing to put down anything beyond a cut and paste of someone else's thoughts.
At least I'm willing to try to draw the (thinly veiled) conclusion that you want. What you've posted so far just doesn't support it. And it's fun watching you keep trying.
Well, the last minute brinkmanship high chair banging by Cantor and Boehner will be remembered. Even the Republicans are aware that the unemployed suddenly pay very close attention to politics. And the hypocrisy over insisting the Pay Roll tax cut be paid for, yet not so for the Debt-Busting Bush Tax Cuts is beginning to resonate. Its time these guys linger in the dirty di@pers they make.
But you have posted several charts/polls comparing him (I'm assuming unfavorably) to past presidents based on his numbers. But if anything the data shows that most presidents get re-elected despite the numbers. 50% isn't a magic threshold, and all of the presidents are within a pretty slim range. Bush 1 and Clinton were both at 51% on the decline from November and one got re-elected and the other didn't. Carter was at 53%, why didn't he get re-elected? How about Bush 1 at 51%? (all numbers from your posts). I think your analysis need more analysis, your causality links don't seem to be holding up.
You also said: "Obama won't be seeing an uptick in December", and yet here we are, he's seen an uptick in December. Honestly, I don't think it means much. I just think it's humorous to point out the flaws in your analysis. Your normally much more solid than this, your desire to bash Barry has diminished the quality of your content.
Go re-read that post. Gallup said: " ...but if it does not increase significantly this month, he will be the first elected president in Gallup records to be below 50% in December of his third year in office."
"President Barack Obama’s job approval rating has been hovering near the fault line between probable re-election and probable “one-term” presidency. "Bottom line, as you can see: Presidents with job approval ratings below 48% tend to lose their bids for re-election. Presidents with ratings at the 48% level (for George W. Bush) or above 50% for the rest, tend to win. As noted, there are not many cases to work with here. As seen with Truman, exceptions can occur. But if Obama is at 50% or higher next October, it certainly would not be too risky to hypothesize that he has a better than 50-50 chance of winning re-election. And if his job approval rating is down at 43%, where it is now, his chances of winning re-election are probably lower than 50-50." :popcorn:
But you have posted several charts/polls comparing him (I'm assuming unfavorably) to past presidents based on his numbers. But if anything the data shows that most presidents get re-elected despite the numbers. 50% isn't a magic threshold, and all of the presidents are within a pretty slim range. Bush 1 and Clinton were both at 51% on the decline from November and one got re-elected and the other didn't. Carter was at 53%, why didn't he get re-elected? How about Bush 1 at 51%? (all numbers from your posts). I think your analysis need more analysis, your causality links don't seem to be holding up.
You also said: "Obama won't be seeing an uptick in December", and yet here we are, he's seen an uptick in December. Honestly, I don't think it means much. I just think it's humorous to point out the flaws in your analysis. Your normally much more solid than this, your desire to bash Barry has diminished the quality of your content.
Well, the last minute brinkmanship high chair banging by Cantor and Boehner will be remembered. Even the Republicans are aware that the unemployed suddenly pay very close attention to politics. And the hypocrisy over insisting the Pay Roll tax cut be paid for, yet not so for the Debt-Busting Bush Tax Cuts is beginning to resonate. Its time these guys linger in the dirty di@pers they make.
So for presidents that have had an uptick in polls between November and December of year three, he's in the same boat as Nixon, Reagan, Carter, and GWB. I'd say that is 3 to 1 for re-election assuming I'm reading Beaker's numbers correctly.
