Why is this man smiling?

[Observer]

Oh boy, you don't want to get into this one, do you?

Here's the difference, Pepsi... I wasn't trying to make funof Obama or demean him because of his appearance. I wqas commenting on Velleity's comment about how his demeanor is one of the few things he actually has going for him. I was merely pointing out the fact that Obama's demeanor is often not exactly what one would call "dignified".

You Leftists however, spent years making fun of President Bush's appearance, often comparing him to a chimpanzee. That of course, is because by and large, you are nothing more than a herd of assholes with ears.

[IM2]

I was thinking more along the lines of, “Because he hoodwinked a slew of liberals into voting for him, he hasn’t delivered, and he knows he’s locked into his position for another three years no matter how incompetent he is.”

THE RASSMUSSEN POLL, WORLD NET DAILY AND INFORMATION FROM SUCH SOURCES HAVE NO MERIT.

I think he has prioritized things. For example, gays are going to have to wait until he gets some of the work on the economy done. After all it does no good to get rid of don't ask don't tell if we are in a depression. He also has the matter of two wars to deal with. So then given thse realities there are some things that have to wait.  He has 4 years to keep his promises, and not 10 months.

So claiming he has not delivered is actually inaccurate since he has not served a full term yet. Hell, he has not even served a year. And since hi sjob approval rating seems to stay between 55 -60 percent, or live in a fantasy if you really think what you have posted.

Hoodwinked is when a group of people actually believe that an individual such as Sarah Palin is actually qualifed to lead this country.

[IM2]

Observer,

Here's the difference, Pepsi... I wasn't trying to make funof Obama or demean him because of his appearance. I wqas commenting on Velleity's comment about how his demeanor is one of the few things he actually has going for him. I was merely pointing out the fact that Obama's demeanor is often not exactly what one would call "dignified".

You Leftists however, spent years making fun of President Bush's appearance, often comparing him to a chimpanzee. That of course, is because by and large, you are nothing more than a herd of assholes with ears.

GW Bush was a dumb ass who ran this country into to ground. Thats his legacy at this point. You righties supported this, and now are complaining about what the next guy is doing who is actually being forced to clean up a mess made by your choice for leadership.

So your opinion on anything really has no merit. It doesn't. It's all the same old silly claptrap that has been repeated by your side since Reagan.

[Velleity]

I wqas commenting on Velleity's comment about how his demeanor is one of the few things he actually has going for him.

This is a bald-faced lie. I never said that Obama's demeanor was one of the few things going for him, and you have a lot of gall considering that all you have to do is go back a few posts to see what I actually said.

Ha! And you're trying to claim that I'm "desperate?" You can't even muster a good lie to support your baseless assertions.

[Observer]

This is a bald-faced lie. I never said that Obama's demeanor was one of the few things going for him, and you have a lot of gall considering that all you have to do is go back a few posts to see what I actually said.

Did you not say it was on his "strong points" or something to that effect?

Since he has so few of those, my post was quite accurate.

[Mornac]

[IM2]

The rasmussen poll does not count.

[Observer]

Rasmussen does indeed "count"... at least as much as any other poll and more than most. Rasmussen is consistently the most accurate of the political polls. This is largely because Rasmussen targets "likely" voters instead of just "eligible" voters.

I am not much of a fan of polls. I think they are used far too often to actually influence the stupid and gullibe (which explains why so many Leftists can't live without them). However, IF you are going to use polls as indicators of public opinion, Rasmussen is the one to use.

[Velleity]

Obs, what counts is the poll taken on election day. Everything else is pretty much an if, and, or a but, and you radical rightists are losers unless and until you can show that you can win elections.

I'm far from convinced at this point. The fact that the left is taking heat is a reflection of the fact that you've failed so miserably in the recent past. Given your stature as the party of no, and no one, your future is still dubious at best.

So, yeah, you've got so much to gloat about right now. 

[johnhp]

Observer,

Rasmussen does ask oddly deceptive questions.  For instance in a poll on the Fort hood Shootings Rasmussen asked the following:

"Should the [Ft. Hood] shooting incident be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act or by civilian authorities as a criminal act?"

You should know why this is deceptive; it is the fallacy of the false dilemma.  Civilian authorities, let's say the FBI, investigate terrorist acts.  A terrorist act is a criminal act, it has no category on its own that would allow for a different kind of investigation.  The very question he asks is wholly deceptive.  Why does he suggest that if the FBI, for instance, investigates the incident it will not investigate it as a terrorist act?

[johnhp]

Vell,

This poll only measures strongly approve or disapprove not just regular old approval/disapproval.

[IM2]

No Observer, the Rassmussen poll does not count.

Like Vel said, only one poll actually counts, and that poll is held on election day.

[Mornac]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124610/Brief-Uptick-Obama-Approval-Slips.aspx

[ivanm]

Observer,

Rasmussen does ask oddly deceptive questions.  For instance in a poll on the Fort hood Shootings Rasmussen asked the following:

"Should the [Ft. Hood] shooting incident be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act or by civilian authorities as a criminal act?"

You should know why this is deceptive; it is the fallacy of the false dilemma.  Civilian authorities, let's say the FBI, investigate terrorist acts.  A terrorist act is a criminal act, it has no category on its own that would allow for a different kind of investigation.  The very question he asks is wholly deceptive.  Why does he suggest that if the FBI, for instance, investigates the incident it will not investigate it as a terrorist act?

Terrorist acts have special kind of implication that common criminal acts do not have.  Unless a criminal act is part of a mobster assoc. it does not have the far reaching implications of a jihadic terrorist act. Criminal acts typically do not have the objective of harming and conquering large numbers of people like the Islamic extremists do. 

[ivanm]

--I'm not hoping and praying for failure; I'm simply observing it.

That is not a smile  Mornac.  He is constipated and is having gas pains.     He is so full of shit that it will take a stick of dynamite to move him.