E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
With the Iowa caucuses too close to call in a three-way race that Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum are in contention to win, it's worth digging into the entrance numbers. And they offer three different storylines to explain a victory by each.
1) Young voters and independents: If Paul wins, he can thank younger voters. He is winning 48% of caucus-goers ages 17 to 29, who make up 15% of all GOP participants -- up from 11% four years ago. Second, he can thank independents -- almost half of whom are backing Paul. And third, he's getting 34% support from first-time caucus-goers.
2) Electability and the economy: If Romney wins, according to the entrance polls, it will be due in large part to electability. A plurality of participants -- 31% -- say the quality that matters most to them is the ability to beat President Obama, and Romney gets 49% from that group. On the other hand, Romney gets just 1% from the 26% who are looking for a true conservative, and he gets just 11% from those looking for a nominee with a strong moral character.
The economy also is benefiting Romney -- with four in 10 saying it's the issue that matters the most to them, and he wins 34% from that group.
3) Evangelicals: If Santorum wins, it will be due to strength among evangelical caucus-goers who rallied around him. Nearly six in 10 say they are evangelical or born-again Christians, and Santorum is getting 32% of that vote -- compared with 19% for Paul, 14% for Newt Gingrich and Romney, and 13% for Rick Perry.
And among the 47% who describe themselves as "very conservative," Santorum is getting 34% -- versus 16% for Paul, 14% for Gingrich and Romney, and 13% for Perry.
Leave a Comment:
The status quo will basically prevail coming out of Iowa. Ron Paul is certainly a surprise if he actually wins, and Santorum has proven his surge is legitimate, but no one is going to take a serious lead in the race and pull away from the pack, Romney remains the frontrunner and the likeliest nominee, but he is vulnerable to committed opposition and attacks from the right. Three tickets have been punched for New Hampshire and beyond. The evangelicals and right-wing have stood up to Romney. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Not a good one in the bunch ... the far right ... including the far right tv & radio nuts ... have destroyed the GOP and have limited their field to shysters and fools!
And Bush didn't help ... to say the least!!!!
I love it! The longer these clowns keep dousing each other with seltzer water and bopping each other with giant hammers the better it is for Democrats.
You betcha JohnB! I hope the circus drags out all the way to June!
Did you caucus tonight?
GOP bombs Iraq, Democrats bomb Libya, _______— bomb Iran, and the CIA bombs Ethiopia, Yemen, and basically where ever they want to. It really doesn't matter; nether does -16 trillion dollars as we continue to give billions to Lockheed Martin and Northup Grumman (aka the "job creators").
Afraid not, though I really would've lied to have seen the President's message. Work ran past time to close the doors tonight.
feisty -- you mean like it did for the democrats 4 years ago?? you guys are pulling anything out to make it look like what is happening is so different this year. you do recall that edwards, clinton and obama got 89% of the vote with obama getting only 32%. iowa is the first and just like 4 years ago it will drag on and on until we have one republican left standing. whether they talk about the republican needing ojt (biden about obama) or who do you trust at 3 a.m. (clinton about obama) it will work out to a unified candidate that will take on obama on his record which obama is clearly trying to run away from and blame everything on congress. all that does is emphasize that obama does not have what it takes to lead the country. many polls now show that 70% of Americans do not like the direction our country is heading. that is very clearly an indictment of the man now leading.
Who is the Man - You mean, the United States Military as ordered under the president of the United States (as commander and chief), performs military operations in said countries right? Reagan, Bush, Clinton, the Great Liar, and Obama correct?
Where is this -16 trillion dollar coming from? I do agree, that we are giving billions though to the industrial military machine that should be used for many other programs.
As for the current circus clowns campaigning in my home state of Iowa. It won't matter which of you wins the state, or the republican nomination. None of you are qualified for the White House.
Correct, the president now apparently has authority to attack any country without consent of congress; your guy did and all the "clowns" will do it.
I must be confused with the 16 $trillion$ bailout from the federal reserve throughout the Bush and Obama presidencies; our national debt will be -16 trillion in a few months though.
Hey james, your wrong, Obama doesnt need and has not ran away from anything. The 70% you speak of that are not happy, are upset with the republican obstructed congress, not Obama. Nice try on the SPIN.
Olrock- Talk about spin...take a look in the mirror.
BTW posters, the article wasnt about obama's failures as a loser president. We all know we are 17 trillion in debt and counting - half was added on the last 3 years putting people on foodstamps with horrible domestic and foreign war policy and doing nothing to revive the housing market outside of glib speaches. Romney will likely win as he is the only safe play for repubicans and we can all hope he has some conservative in him. The idea that Ron Paul or Santorum etc is going to get elected without a barrel full of money is ridiculous. Most voters respond to negative campaigns and their attention spans are about 2 days. The idea of a national discourse on anything is retarded. Cut taxes -- cut spending--- give us all jobs by bla bla. Its all money and who has it and who is trying to get it. America is going down fast and we all know it.
Jolly, the current debt is $15.3 Trillion, http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The National debt was $11.9 Trillion when Obama took office
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Your numbers don't add up. You forgot to mention that George Bush doubled the debt, it was $5.8 Trillion and he left with $11.9 Trillion, but that doesn't include the additional $5 Trillion for Iraq or another $5 Trillion for the Medicare Drug Plan or the $4 Trillion for his Tax cuts for the wealthy.
Jake: Please don't confuse Jolly with facts. Jolly obviously has been sipping the "tea" that Fax news has been brewing.
@Jolly Joker -
Wow! Are your facts skewed!! Please check your sources again. If American is going down it will be because the people who have the means to fix it would prefer it to fall. How to fix that? Tilt the game to the people with the desire to get something done.
santorum is phony, and so is rommney, the thin veneer they lay on is dishonest and transparent, and i dont know why people with electibility are enamoured with romney, he's very similar to obama in terms of policy
Romney would disagree with you on that...then again Romney would disagree with himself on that.
And in the meantime, Obama's approval ratings took another dive this week...(again)
A dive to numbers so low that it has been 55 YEARS since a president was re-elected with an approval rating so low...so your confidence is understandable (LOL).
Nice try, liar. How about this for the history of approval ratings:
Why don't you go back to Fox News and post your crap? Oh, that's right, they don't allow comments, troll.
How long has it been since a President had the gift of an opposition party near single digit approval ratings?
Oh yeah...never before.
Good night,
I like how you simply call me a liar, and MY FACTS lies without even debating the point. How typically lib of you. How pathetic, at least attempt to dispute them (even though you can't because it's true). GO LOOK IT UP YOURSELF. No incumbent president has ever been re-elected with approval ratings as low as Obama's. So, go watch some more MSNBC, and get your 'facts' from them, instead of actually studying the history, IDIOT.
John B,
your argument, as with most libs, is a logical fallacy and straw man at that. Obama is not running against the entire opposition party (oh, and do you mean the opposition party that the American people voted to their largest midterm election victory SINCE WWII????). He will be running against Romney, who is neck and neck with Obama in current polls. And Romney will have a little under a year to hammer Obama on his dismal record of failure, especially with the economy. It should be fun to watch the year-long bashing!
(Crickets chirping) Yep, thats what I thought, trolls.
A little quick to declare victory, aren't you? If you look at my history you'll see that I consistently haven't posted during working hours for quite some time.
In answer, you can't pretend that the unpopularity of Republicans is of no importance, especially given their rapidly declining approval ratings. Yes, Romney is running competitively against President Obama at this time...at a time when the President has been taking a beating for over 3 years and Romney remains a relative unknown. As for the economy...it's continuing to improve. It was improving more rapidly before the Teapublicans took over the House, went sluggish for nearly a year, and now it's starting to pick up again. Like it or not the American people hold Republicans partially responsible for that also. Especially job-killing vampires from the financial sector like Romney.
The young vote going for Paul seems to be more of a vote against the status quo than a vote for Paul. If this holds up, he very well could get the republican nomination.
There is not enough of the youth of America to elect Paul. I don't think all of the voting youth would be enough. Plus some of them are not that stupid.
The non-information age (FOX, MSNBC, CNN watchers) die off, the youth mature and have children, and then these children will be told how our media manipulated the presidential election process when their parents were in their twenties. Live it up while you can.
I definitely agree that many of the votes for Ron Paul are really just a vote against the status quo, meaning elected officials who simply tow the party line and do what is in the best interests of the party and its few large contributors. People truly want change in their elected officials - that is why people voted for Obama, and that is what people are looking for in Ron Paul! However, the sad reality is that it will be very difficult to effectuate such a change without changing the system that is causing these problems to persist.
The two parties in power in the United States have become so entrenched and have amassed so much excessive power that they essentially can no longer be removed from government. And, as that has occurred, the two parties have moved increasingly far from the center, becoming diametrically opposed on essentially every issue. Because most Americans actually reside rather close to the center, this forces Americans to simply vote for the candidate that they dislike the least as opposed to the candidate that they actually feel represents their interests and ideals. This is true in both primary and general elections.
The excessive power and overentrenchment of the Reps and Dems is due in large part to the campaign finance system and balloting rules that these parties have installed for themselves, which 1) keeps these parties in power, 2) ensures that no third party can ever become a legitimate option, and 3) causes elected representatives to focus only on the needs and desires of the party with which they affiliate and the few large organizational contributors to those parties, so that the representative can ensure that he or she has sufficient funding for the next reelection campaign.
This is not how a democracy is supposed to operate. Our representatives are supposed to focus on the needs of their constituents and not the party itself. I encourage everyone to check out the American Overhaul Act at www.americanoverhaulact.org, which proposes a set of Constitutional amendments designed to correct the systemic deficiencies that are allowing these problems to persist. The Act is focused on six areas of concern: Federal Election Campaign Reform, Elimination of Party Favoritism, Congressional Compensation Limits, Congressional Term Limits, Congressional Size Limits, and Federal Budget-Deficit Reform. Please check it out, and, if you agree with the proposals, show your support for the Act, and also share it with your friends and family so that we may continue to gain the support needed to cause our government officials to take notice of this Act.
Those Paulites had better be looking behind the curtain. The talk about personal freedom and pulling back on the military might sound great, but the guy is an open ally of the John Birch Society and an opponent of civil rights for racial minorities, gays, and women. He also has a long LONG list of totally cockamamie ideas like getting rid of safety equipment in cars and eliminating air conditioning for our troops in the Middle East.
Ron Paul is a flake of the first order.
tbart, if that is what you honestly take away from listening to the guy then you are as dumb as a bag of hammers.
You're right on target, tbart. I had an uncle who was in the JBS...everything Paul says is straight from their manifesto.
Who Is The Man - Fine, I'm a carpenter and I do have a bag of hammers. HOWEVER, maybe you could edify us on which of my points on 3.4 is in error? Or maybe you just accept that they are all correct but that just doesn't matter? Or what? come on now, we are all waiting....
The media edits Ron Paul out....I believe he poses a great threat in being correct.
Gladly;
You purporting that Paul is "an open ally" of the JBS is like calling you a supporter of a (god forbid) Santorum presidency. You may respect democracy enough to tough it out though you might not be an openly homophobic, anti-abortion, and pro-war person; The JBS might have some core issues about economics and small government that align with Paul but that hardly means he is racist or sexist.
Having air condtioning in a war zone where we shouldn't even be fighting is nonsense; heck why don't we make it more attractive by building a water park at every base close enough to the equator.
Prove the "getting rid of" automotive safety statement because that is totally false.
You draw conclusions from baseless assumptions handed to you by your TV no?
uhh no. I read, do not watch TV any more than necessary.
As far as Dr Paul emoting on Automotive Safety, Raw Milk, and other Presidential subjects, try this:
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/ron-paul-on-raw-milk-to-auto-safety/6bxzhhg?cpkey=a13423d0-7eb7-4152-987b-c02330f44b3d%7C%7C%7C%7C
Main Idea is that we could save Big Bux by eliminating the National Highway Safety Administration cuz Americans are smart enough to decide whether to buy the safety equipment or not. So...no seat belts, air bags or crashable bumpers unless the customer orders same. Sounds like eliminating the requirement is a lot like eliminating the equipment.
Huhh? Not following you at all there, but Ron Paul appears on the masthead of the John birch society, as flaky a group as has ever crawled out from under a rock in this country. Consider this from the Good Doctor:
So what else WITM? The AC for our troops? Whatever, guy. I don't think they should ever have been sent to Iraq, but you know what? It happened. Eliminating their AC is so absurd-stupid-clueless that it really makes me question the stability of anyone who would propose it. And Ron paul did propose it.
What else you got? Not much??
Yeah, its a federal crime to sell a bottle of raw milk but its legit to limit and probably subsidize the California dairy industry to a few massive "farms" that put milk cows on some automated rotary cow milking machine and pollutes the environment with incredible amounts of nitrogenous runoff and stench.
No federal automotive safety regulations doesn't translate to NO safety at all; are 12 air bags a requirement or a feature? Don't you think its a decision to be made by the consumer? After all its them that are driving the car and they can text, drink, eat, and drive seatbeltless after all.
the AC thing was directed to Iraq specifically and its stupid to have a $700 million pseudo-capitol in a country in which the goal was to install a real democracy; however stupid it appears to have been to begin with. More money well spent? How about we upgrade all our embassies to 4 star resorts.
If Ron Paul is racist because of the JBS organization than you are a homophobe, warmongerer if Santorum is elected president. If you don't get it then, again, bag - of - hammers.
The Ron Paul vote is a vote for freedom...both with civil liberties, but more with Financial Freedom! We are tired of these deficits and realize our future is horrible if these clowns keep spending like there's no tomorrow.
Anyone against RON PAUL is against the constitution because that is ALL HE STANDS FOR.
The young vote went to Dr. Paul because we realize what's happening and we're the ones who are going to have to pay it back.
RON PAUL 2012
Sorry, but "Dr." Paul is what we call a Nutbag!
Plus, why does the guy hate America, or is it just American Jews, American Blacks, American Women, American Gays, etc. Oh, Sorry, Paul does like rich white American men, particularly those who have never served their country and those who never would serve this nation. Smile Ronzo, that was the sound of Iran's nuke going off.
Hmmm....not following you too well there. The Good Doctor is openly allied with the John Birch Society so that makes me "...a homophobe, warmongerer if Santorum is elected president."?? No, I don't think so. Your mama never tell you that you would be know by the people you hang out with?
Nobody has to use secondary sources for info to paint Ron Paul as a wingnut. He provides plenty of that with his own mouth.
And like I say, as a pro carpenter, I do have a bag of hammers. Each has its purpose and is good at what it does. There has to be a lesson in there.....
Rick Santorum said the falsity, again, "they hate us because we're free". People of the world aren't as dumbed down without MSNBC and FOX. They see us elect someone like nonfreedom anti-abortion, anti-gay, and pro-war Santorum and we're all seen as over aggressive, intolerant idiots. Get it?
Iranian scientists are enemy combatants to Rick Santorum even though they are members of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and haven't provided any evidence of subversive behavior since 2003.
Of course, Iran hasn't done anything....
Other than to fund terrorism across the globe, take American hikers hostage, openly tell the world they will destroy Israel once they get a nuclear bomb, deny the Holocaust, kill their own protestors and commit human rights violations, threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz affecting one-sixth of the world's oil, and threaten the U.S. Navy to stay out of the Persian Gulf, and elect president's whom call for the destruction of Israel from the face of the earth. Nope, Iran is completely innoncent, never done a thing....
WITM - I think you may have me mistaken for a Santorum supporter, which I most definitively am not.
Obama 2012 - Learn To Live With It
I mean, exactly. Obama's approval rating numbers certainly show he is a slam dunk for re-election. LOL.
A 1954 CIA led coups and repercussions from ancient history followed distantly by what sounds like mostly THREATS to me from both sides. Iran is as big of a real threat as Iraq was; its being over dramaticized and politicized.
Roanoke -
Reagan approval Jan 84 right at 50% - he won.
Clinton approval Jan 96 at 46% - he won
Bush approval Jan 04 at 49% - He won
Obama approval Jan 12 at 47% - I think you should stock up on aspirin, you are gonna need t.
Obama 2012
http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Reagan#.TwTMtDU2-uI
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.usa.gallup/012696.shtml
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/12/gallup-obamas-approval-rating-at-five-month-high/1
Tbart, the below article is from Gallup, doing polls since 1935 and probably the most respected non-partisan polling agency in America:
December 2, 2011
Obama's November Approval Weak From Historical Perspective
Only Carter had lower job approval during November of his third year (and Carter lost)
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- President Obama's 43% average job approval rating last month ranks as one of the lowest for an elected president in November of his third year in office. Only Jimmy Carter had a lower rating, at 40%. But Carter's rating surged in late November 1979 because of a rally in support after the onset of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and he averaged above 50% in December. All recently elected presidents were at or above 50% in December of their third year in office.
Obama's November average is improved from his 41% averages in August, September, and October, but looks weaker from a historical perspective. His job approval rating has been highly stable in recent weeks, 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.
Though all recent elected presidents were at or above 50% 11 months before they faced re-election, the trajectory of their ratings differed.
Carter and the elder George Bush are the two recent presidents who were defeated for election to a second term in office.
Obama's current ratings are closest to those of Gerald Ford, a president who was not elected in his own right but sought re-election. Ford's job approval rating averaged 43% in November and December 1975. Ford was narrowly defeated for re-election by Carter the following November.
The other two unelected presidents who ran for re-election, Harry Truman (54% in November-December 1947) and Lyndon Johnson (76% in December 1963), were above 50% roughly a year before facing voters for the first time. Johnson had just become president after the assassination of John F. Kennedy -- hence, his high approval ratings -- while Truman had been in office for nearly three years after Franklin Roosevelt's death.
Implications
Gallup finds that presidents are generally re-elected if their approval rating at the time of the election is at least 50%, though George W. Bush was re-elected with a 48% approval rating in 2004. Thus, Obama's current 43% job approval rating is not an encouraging sign for his re-election prospects.
I also notice that you cite Obama's approval rating from JANUARY 12 OF LAST YEAR!! LOL!! You do realize he has had a lot of failure, golfing, and vacationing since then right???
His current approval rating, not the daily, but the fluctuating monthly rating hovers around 44% (It was as low as 41% last week and has been as high as 47% this week).
So yeah, looks like YOU might need that aspirin, eh? Especially because his approval rating will continue to stay in the dumps as he does nothing to fix the economy(other than to spend taxpayer dollars) and unemployment stays over 8%, for 33 consecutive months, the longest streak since WWII. Talk about headaches....Bring on the election, no Hussein in 2012.
We will see what we see. The main benefit of polling is to discern a trend, not a snapshot. Despite the earnest yearnings of the TP types, the economy and Obama's numbers are trending up. The chaos on the Repub primaries does not help their trendlines at all.
Also, I note you are quoting the Gallup numbers from early Dec. Since then, there has been substantial improvement. Again, it's not so much specifically where the numbers are at a particular time as much as where they are moving. And Obama's are moving up.
Not a big surprise, tbart. One of the regular features of Roanoke's postings is to cherry pick data in order to support his points.
You guys are silly.
A poll is a reflection of the attitudes of the people. A daily or weekly poll is much more fluid and not as telling. You 'claim' that Obama's numbers are moving up. Not true. His quarterly average, which is a much better indicator, still hovers around 43-44%. Notice how last week, his approval rating jumped to 50% which is historically where it needs to be for re-election, but then by the end of the week, it had dropped 9 points to 41%. Now it is back up, slightly, again. Either way, the average for the quarterly is around 43-44%, which is right where Repubs want it.
Again, you 'claim' things, like the economy, are getting better. Really? How so? Unemployment is STILL at 8.5% up from 8.4% last week. Unemployment has been over 8% for 33 straight months now, a modern day record. Underemployment is STILL over 18%, which is huge and very disappointing. Economic outlook? Only 35% feel it is getting better, while a whopping 60% feel that it is getting WORSE. Economic Conditions? Only 12% feel that it is good, while another whopping 45% feel that it is POOR.
So much for substantial improvement, eh?
Oh, and John B, all you do is cherry pick comments, make a silly random insult or comment, and then leave. You show, post after post, that you have nothing to say...other than to be a mouthpiece...
Much to the dismay the Repubs, we are not having a presidential election this month. It won't be until November, kiddies.
Wake up and smell the corruption
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2012/01/ron-paul-many-people-who-watch-this-whole-video-change-their-vote.html
What hype. LMAO
So far, the results seem to be as confused as the candidates have been.
Paul is off the wall.
Mitt is full of .
Santorum for sanity,this is what I believe we are witnessing.
Rick Santorum's top priority is no gay marriage, no abortion, no open gays in the military, and definitely no active duty homosexual and married men providing abortions when they should be shooting Iranians (covertly of course).
@whoistheman;The ball is rolling on all those issues,nooone will stop that progress.I am just saying he seems to be the most level headed.
Santorum is just another candidate who happens to not be Romney. Democrats are laughing.
While Repubs laugh at Obama's continuous record of complete failure. HAHAHAHAHA.
And yet somehow he's already managed to keep 159 promises he made to the public. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
John, you do know that Obama made over 500 promises during his campaign right? LOL! Using your 159 'kept' promises, that means Obama only keeps .318% of the promises he makes. Or, in other words, Obama lied to us all 68% of the time during his campaign. Good stuff, thanks for sharing. I certainly plan on voting for someone with a proven record of breaking 68% of the promises he makes, while using those promises to get elected. WOW.
That's actualy 159 kept, 50 kept with compromises, 176 in the works, 65 stalled, only 56 broken. That's actually a 41% success rate, btw. Awfully quick to accuse people of lying, aren't you? Especially for someone with a track record of cherry picking and misrepresenting data.
Now, let's take a look at how the GOP is doing. Nine promises kept as listed here; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/
That would be 28% by your own system of measurement, pretty lame for a group that promised to "take our country back" and deliver "jobs, jobs, jobs."
John,
You keep citing an incredibly biased source as if it were a bastion of objective truth. You fail.
"Study finds PolitiFact rates Republican statements false 3 times the rate of Democrats
A February 2011 studypublished by the University of Minnesota’s Smart Politics news site, a part of the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, finds a significant bias on the part of PolitiFact in favor of statements made by Democrats: “That means a supermajority of falsehoods documented by PolitiFact over the last year – 76 percent – were attributed to Republicans, with just 22 percent of such statements coming from Democrats.” -----LOL. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
A glance at the most recent PolitiFact ratings by the Oregonian would definitely support findings of a pro-Democrat bias.
The University of Minnesota’s Smart Politics study especially calls out “how statements are selected” by PolitiFact: “there remains a fundamental question of which statements (by which politicians) are targeted for analysis in the first place. A Smart Politics content analysis of more than 500 PolitiFact stories from January 2010 through January 2011 finds that current and former Republican officeholders have been assigned substantially harsher grades by the news organization than their Democratic counterparts.”
There is actually a ton out there, research-wise, on the massive bias of Politifact...but you get the gist.
Your usage of the GOP is rather silly. Did the GOP have a supermajority for 6 months? Did the GOP control all THREE phases of our government (house, senate, and presidency) for TWO YEARS until 2010 like the Democrats did? Did the GOP make over 500 promises to get elected? See how silly your argument is? The GOP STILL only controls one aspect of government, the House, while the Dems STILL control BOTH the Senate and the Presidency. So you cannot accurately even attempt to compare the two...at all. To attempt to do so is silly and desperate, but nice try at deflecting from the real issue, eh?
On Obama...by your own BIASED NUMBERS FROM POLITIFACT,HE ONLY KEEPS 41% of THE PROMISES HE MAKES!! LOL. Plus, he has had THREE years of data entered into that equation, not just the single year the Repubs have had in the House. Nice try John, but your massive amount of half-truths are not made any truer by using an incredibly biased source like Politifact. Thanks for playing, though.
So much for cherry picking eh John? Please, stop lying.
Roanoke, that's because claims by Conservatives ARE lies more often than claims by Liberals, and in particular Moderates...and most Democrats are actually Moderates. For proof let's look at the current "Pants on Fire" listing for Politifact. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/
Newt Gingrich - "No federal official at any level is currently allowed to say ‘Merry Christmas.’"
Newt Gingrich - Says Freddie Mac, electric co-ops and credit unions are all "government sponsored" enterprises.
Michele Bachmann - "After the debate that we had last week, PolitiFact came out and said that everything I said was true."
Michele Bachmann - Says Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, "put into place socialized medicine."
Newt Gingrich = Says the congressional ethics investigation against him was conducted by "a very partisan political committee" in a way that "related more to the politics of the Democratic Party than to ethics."
Newt Gingrich - People can use food stamps "for anything," including "to go to Hawaii," and even millionaires can qualify.
Mitt Romney - Says Barack Obama said, "If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose."
Herman Cain - China is "trying to develop nuclear capability."
Michele Bachman - China is "trying to develop nuclear capability."
Conservative chain email - Barack Obama is the "First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space."
Conservative chain email - Medicare monthly premiums will go up to $104.20 in 2012 and $247.00 in 2014 due to "provisions incorporated in the Obamacare legislation, purposely delayed so as not to 'confuse' the 2012 re-election campaigns."
Conservative Facebook posting in wide circulation - Congressional Republicans have introduced dozens of bills on social issues and other topics, but "zero on job creation."
Conservative pundit Fred Karger - "If a President Romney got a call from the president of the (Mormon church), he has no choice but to obey. It is obedience over family and country."
Jon Huntsman - "The IRS is already planning on 19,500 new employees to administer" Obama’s health care mandate.
Michele Bachmann - "President Obama has the lowest public approval ratings of any president in modern times."
Rick Perry - "The federal government has not engaged in (border security) at all."
See a theme here? All lies. Not open to interpretation, not a matter of opinion, lies. Conservatism isn't about consistency of thought or principle, it's a series of narratives designed to sell policies beneficial to the wealthy elites.
John, LOL!!!
Your post shows how silly and desperate you are!!! You do not argue ANYTHING SUBSTANTIVE. You merely make an extremely subjective and incredibly weak pseudo-intellectual argument....And it's absolutely hilarious to see you quote Politifact, AGAIN, as some bastion of proof, when there are numerous studies out there (like the one I quoted for you) that show that Politifact is A LIBERAL NEWS SOURCE and cannot be trusted for objective truth. Hilarious, yet you use them to "prove truth." You liberals really take hypocrisy to a new level. I have not witnessed such weakness in a long time. It's fun to watch!
What, you dont think I could go to Fox News and find a massive list of examples of Democrats lying over the last year??? LOL!!! I dont do that though, because that would be a silly, subjective, opinionated argument, devoid of objective, substantive thought.
Thanks again for showing us what the liberal base is made of...just desperate pseudo-intellectuals who will do anything to deflect from Obama's massive amount of broken promises and failed record for three long years. Thanks John!
Just arrived home from the Democratic Caucus. Having been to many since I returned but this was a first to have President Obama speak to all democratic caucus attendees directly in a live-feed and then answer questions from selected districts. It was exciting.
I'm guessing that many precincts are just winding up so results are still preliminary for republicans.
jody,
Sounds like a great Democratic caucas.
Tell us about the livefeed with Obama speaking.
Meanwhile the republicans are in a three way race. Fighting for the soul of the Republican Party.
What soul? Did I miss something? When did the GOP get a soul?
Ron Paul 2012
None of these guys will win the election next year. I will keep watching though, can't miss the laughs.....
what a bunch of crap, we need someone to help us all get back to work! im from chicago born and raised obama is not the answer, u.s. dont know chicago politics . rommney is the answer , just use your good old common sense,you young kids voting for first time need to read a few history books. this is serious s#@^ we need to get it fixed and nowwwww!!!
This may be our last chance to save the constitution. It seems the people are waking up.Look out big gov. here they come!
Oh Man! I hope Bachman gets enough votes to stay in this thing. She is fun to watch.
Maybe you should ask yourselves why you support your candidate. America cannot afford to play the blame game and "hope" things will get better, it is time for action
Well, Iowa seems to have a wide assortment of candidates: a fool, a bigot, and a hypocrite lead. Still available, temporarily, are a fascist and the latest version of an idiot hick from Texas (mandatory, in Republican primaries). How could this nation be so blessed? If any of these embarrassments are actually elected President of the USA, it will surely suffice as punishment for our sins.
just as we are experiencing now with obama. he cannot apologize enough or bow low enough to the world. he is embarrassed with America. i am completely disenchanted with him and his lies. we need someone that can be trusted to sit in the white house beginning next january and that is certainly not obama.
Henry III - absolutely hilarious post and right on the money. Applause
James - Obama has not embarrassed America. He has begun to repair our image on the world stage. A most fine legacy left by that renegade BUSH who was defined by many in the world as the biggest threat to peace. Obama has certainly not done every right, but I can and will vote this man as he is 100X better than any other individual running for President.
The President has never apologized for America. And he never bowed lower than someone else who was bowing to him, in accordance with local custom.
All that stuff is nonsense.
James: For three decades, I have traveled most of the world, on business. I spent eight years embarrassed by our inept, arrogant, foolish, incompetent governance under the Little Bush administration. Our enemies never like us, but they thought we were a joke while Bush was the figurehead for the Neo-Cons. Our friends were distraught, and amazed at our stupidity. Now, with a respectable and intelligent President, we can hold our heads up, and enjoy some respect, at last. Please don't help the ignorant reactionaries elect another Republican fool.
Havn't been punished enough henry?? In case you didnt notice things are not going so well under the encumbent. He is a fool, bigot and hypocrite all rolled into one.
henryIII,
I experienced the same feedback when I was in Europe, Mexico and Central America.
I remember in Ireland, a couple, sitting next to us in a pub, started a conversation with us about how they had faith in the US when Obama was elected President. I know that our image has only improved with Obama in the white House.
All that money pissed away out in the cow pastures and corn fields of Iowa. And for what? A dead man. Another who thinks he died in the 19th century. And finally, a man who thinks he's Gods half brother. What a damn mess!
Sorry 'bout that, but when all the candidates are badly flawed a badly flawed winner becomes inevitable.
Henry,
Respectable and intelligent? How do you know Obama is intelligent? What were his grades in school? What was his GPA? What courses did he study? Just give me his GPA from Occidental. No? Okay, just give me his GPA from Columbia. No? Ok, then just give me his GPA from Harvard, and the GPA he used to get into Harvard. No? Okay, then just let me read his graduate thesis. No? Hmmm...cant find any of those records eh? It's because our 'intelligent' president has refused to allow ALL of that to be released. I wonder why, since he is sooo intelligent? What possibly could there be to hide?
I know, since Obama wont release any of his academic records, lets go on things he has said, since he is so intelligent. First, we all know he cant function without a teleprompter, and when he doesnt have one, bad things happen. We all remember, "I've been to 57 states, and I only have two more to go." LOL!! Wow, you would think someone as intelligent as our own President would know how many states are in this country. Or, how about "I would like to award this medal to Navy CORPSE-MAN" instead of Corpsman. Really? CORPSE-MAN (and he said it TWICE, once is an accident, twice is just a complete idiot that obviously cannot read)???? For a Harvard grad? 57 states, for a Harvard grad??? WOW. How intelligent.
And what friends in the world were so happy at Obama's election? Hmmm? Which countries? Because, if you look around, we are in no better foreign policy shape than we have ever been. Russia? He bowed to them, shut down our strategic missile defense system, and then got NOTHING back from the Russians. They laugh at us now. Iran? Laughs at us. China? Laughs at us. Mexico? Laughs at us. The entire Middle East? Laughs at us. Sure, look at all the wonderful respect having a complete failure in the White House for the last three years has earned us. Good stuff. Gotta love your false propaganda.
He graduated Magna Cum Laude from an Ivy League School. Even 74% of those who graduate from Ivy League schools can't manage that.
That's OK, keep up with your empty Conservative talking points. Americans are getting tired of listening.
No John, my point was merely a transparency point. A man who refuses to release this basic information, information most normal citizens are required to release for any new job, goes to directly show the hypocrisy of Dems and Obama; especially considering Obama promised to run the "most transparent administration in history." How can you people then sit there and not see the hypocrisy of a man who says something like that but refuses to release his general undergraduate college transcripts? For a man that is a supposed intellectual, why not release them? Either way, its funny to note, that on the transparency promise, Obama has utterly failed. Just ask liberal journalist Helen Thomas, ya know, the head of the White House Press Corps for decades who excoriated Obama two years ago for his MASSIVE amount of control and complete LACK of transparency, she said "...we have never had this in the White House before, this level of control..." And she had been covering the White House since NIXON! LOL. So, you see his failure to even release his records were a tell-tale sign that he was never going to keep his promise about running a transparent White House. Yet, you liberals blindly dismissed his lack of transparency, all caught up in platitudes of 'hope' and 'change.'
Oh, and finally, it's interesting to note that Obama graduated magna cum laude at Harvard. Well, he did NOT graduate with honors from Columbia, which means that he had a 3.3 GPA or below. So, tell me John, how does someone with a 3.3 "B" average, get into the most selective law school in the entire county? Hmm? Yeah, that's what I thought...
Empty talking points? No, objectively looking at facts and asking questions. I realize you libs don't like Repubs nosing around, looking for truth, eh?
Please produce a credible source for the Helen Thomas quote, as well as college transcripts for both major candidates in the last 5 presidential elections.
Good luck with that.
John,
you mean like this quote: "On July 1, 2009, Thomas commented on the Obama administration's handling of the press, "we have had some control but not this control. I mean I'm amazed, I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and you have controlled... She also said that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press as much as President Obama." --From Wikipedia, but I am sure you will now just say Wiki is secretly biased and working for the Republican party. LOL!!!!!!
There is a lot more on Thomas/Obama, John. Do you selectively just NOT remember the Helen Thomas and Chip Reid issues when they are going after Robert Gibbs because OBAMA WAS CALLING REPORTERS THE NIGHT BEFORE AND GOING OVER QUESTIONS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ASK HIM at the next days press conference????? HAHAHA, just unbelievable. So much for transparency!!!! Again, thanks for playing.
Ronald Reagan finished college with a 3.0 and released his transcripts. George H.W. Bush finished Yale with a 3.3 and released his transcripts. Bill Clinton finished Georgetown with a 3.4 and released his transcripts. Al Gore finished Harvard with a 2.2 and released his transcripts. John Kerry and George W. Bush BOTH released their transcripts from Yale, with Bush having a 2.35 and Kerry having a 2.34. Joe Biden and John McCain also released all or most of their transcripts.
Thanks for the luck! All the above info is public information if you are willing to seek the truth, and willing to spend the time. YOU obviously are just a mouthpiece...not willing to look for the truth. You only regurgitate what the liberal media spoon-feeds you.
John,
A little more from uber-liberal Helen Thomas. And, let's remember, she had been in the White House Press Corps longer than ANYONE:
(CNSNews.com) - Following a testy exchange during Wednesday’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.
“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.
“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”
Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.
“When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you,” Thomas said.
“I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well--for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame."
So, you see John, calling reporters the night before to discuss questions and answers, forcing reporters to send in emails to the administration so they can screen answers before the press conferences, all things that have never been done before: Obama's promise to run the most transparent administration in history was....A LIE.
I already did my research. That's why I knew the BEST you could come up with was the former Conservative News Service, now known as Cybercast News Service in an attempt to hide the fact that they're just a mouthpiece for Conservative lies and propaganda owned by Media Research Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercast_News_Service
Media Research Center, meanwhile, receives its funding from many of the most notorious Conservative funders of misinformation and outright lies. http://66.39.128.35/index.php?title=Media_Research_Center
As pointed out above, Conservatism isn't about consistency of thought or principle, it's a series of narratives intended to sell policies beneficial to the wealthy elites.
Btw, you've been caught lying many times in the past...where can someone actually find all those college transcripts you claim to have been released?
John,
No, again, as usual, you are reaching...big time. I merely quoted the source from where it originally came from. You dared me to find the quote, acting like it didnt exist, I went out and foundit, and instead of debating the point or just eating crow like you should have, you then attempt to deflect again and make the argument about the source...what a fool!! If you have a problem with the source, then go to youtube, as there is a wonderful clip of the exchange between Gibbs and Thomas. But, you are right, CNS news and myself just collaborated together and made the entire thing up!!! LOL!! We made up all the quotes by Gibbs and Thomas, we made up the video, and everything else!! Do you see how weak you are??? What does CNS have to do with Helen Thomas excoriating the Obama administration for their massive amount of control, MORE control then even Richard Nixon??? LOL!!! See, you cant even debate the point because you realize that you have been destroyed BY OBJECTIVE TRUTH. So, instead of being a mouthpiece, try learning and researching yourself, it'll keep you from looking so foolish in the future.
Oh, and I am sick of doing your research for you. I never said I found all those transcripts, I did not look for the transcripts. I merely researched those presidents college' GPAs, which are all easily found, which means they at least released that aspect of their college record. Like I said John, if you take the time to find the truth, usually you can find it. I like doing this, instead of being like you and simply being spoon-fed ideology without any truth. Why bother giving you a link when you will simply see that I was right, thus you will continue to deflect and simply call the source biased or a source that is covertly working for the GOP. LOL!! Go learn John, as you very weak. All you do is call people liars, like a typical liberal. You have NO substance or truth whatsoever. YOU are what is wrong with this country.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
Peace.
:)))))))))))))))))))
all these comments are in joking fashion, obamascare taxation without lubrication. is it 2012 yet. people please we need a change i got grandkids that are gonna be scr@$#d if this dont get fixed rommney all the way!
Who was joking?
I used to like Romney--until he began to tell untruths about President Obama. It's fair to criticize him for things he actually said or did, but when Romney and his campaign resort to outright lies in order to get elected, he proves himself unworthy of being entrusted with the highest office in the land.
Ummmm....go back and look at all the outright lies Obama told during the campaign, in order to get elected. Lies and broken promises is what makes up the majority of Obama's term...
Sure, why don't we...you go first.
Yes. Lets.
Do you wanna go big, like excoriating Bush for Gitmo and military tribunals, to keeping Gitmo open, continuing tribunals, and recently signing the defense bill that has liberal groups, the ACLU, and liberal publications denouncing him for it...
Or do you want to go for smaller ones, like campaigning on the promise of upholding the DOMA, only to do an about-face as president and tell the DOJ to know longer try cases pertaining to the DOMA...
Your choice...there are hundreds I can choose from, I can do this all day...
President Obama didn't flip flop on closing Gitmo, Republicans managed to prevent the closure through filibuster. This Conservative misrepresentation of the facts always makes me smile. Why aren't Conservatives proud enough of what they've done to want the fats out?
Oh, and he didn't promise to defend DOMA, he promised to get rid of it. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/02/indefensible.html
Next?
No John,
You see, Obama and the Dems had a filibuster-proof SUPERMAJORITY FOR SIX MONTHS. They never closed Gitmo! So...you fail. Again, nice try, while calling others liars. And nice attempt at blaming Repubs, when the DEMS could have done whatever they wanted FOR SIX MONTHS!!! LOL.
The Doma? Then why did Obama and the DOJ uphold the Doma in Jan 2009, only to flip flop one year later??????
"In its brief, the Justice Department argues that the federal government should maintain its current laws on marriage while the states experiment with their own marriage laws. DOMA, the Justice Department argues, "is supported by an interest in maintaining the status quo and uniformity on the federal level, and preserving room for the development of policy in the states."
Next?
The imaginary "super majority" that you and other Conservatives always claim depended on the vote of Joe Lieberman, a hawk who endorsed John McCain for President and was rejected at primary by the Democratic Party.
As for DOMA, Presidential candidate Barack Obama said;
"Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does," http://www.thenation.com/blog/37234/obama-and-doma-will-president-do-right-thing
He upheld his constitutional duty to uphold the law until court precedent made it clear that the law wouldn't hold up to legal scrutiny. After that the Justice Department wisely decided to stop wasting the American tax payers money defending bad policy.
Nice try.
Okay, so the DOMA was just bad Democratic policy implemented by Democrat Bill Clinton, but now...it's bad. Okay, I get it. You libs can never make up your mind!! LOL!!!
And, again, NOOOOO. GO back and research the Democrat supermajority. It existed for nearly six months from the beginning of Obama's term, and was ONLY lost when Scott Brown won Ted 'the murderer' Kennedy's seat...thus taking away the Dems 60th filibuster-proof vote...FOOL!! How do you think Obamacare was passed WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE?!?! It's called...a SUPERMAJORITY!! Geeez. Don't you know ANYTHING??? Your complete lack of knowledge while calling others liars is simply astounding...
People like you, who intentionally disseminate completely false information, are very dangerous...
Thank you for your ad hominem attack, I'm deeply flattered.
The theoretically filibuster proof majority lasted a total of 10 legislative weeks, from the time Republicans stopped obstructing the seating of Senator Franken to the time when Senator Kennedy became too ill to be present, and passed away. Even during that period Independent Senator Joe Lieberman was a reliable Republican vote on any subject involving national defense.
I've already shown you on other threads that Affordable Care passed the Senate ONLY through the vote of Republican Senator Olympia Snowe. Consider that as you take offense that I've questioned your veracity.
Great application of the Rovian technique of projection...
I already showed you that Olympia Snow did NOT vote for Obamacare. YOU ARE LYING. She only voted to allow it out of comittee, so it could be researched, debated, and discussed more. She DID NOT VOTE FOR IT IN ITS FINAL STAGE BECAUSE SHE WAS DISGUSTED AT WHAT IT TURNED OUT TO BE. I POSTED HER COMMENTS FOR YOU SEVERAL TIMES ON OTHER THREADS. I guess you will just continue to LIE, AS USUAL.
Thanks for admitting that the bill wouldn't have moved forward without the vote of Olympia Snowe. See you next time.
LOL!
Yes, thanks for admitting that you are actually lying since Snowe was merely giving time to debate the bill. Go back and research her actual vote on the passage of Obamacare. She voted NO!!
JOHN IS A LIAR EVERYONE. HE IS TRYING TO PLAYING SEMANTICS AND IS USING HALF-TRUTHS. I HOPE EVERYONE SEES THAT. PLEASE GO BACK AND RESEARCH THE VOTES THAT PASSED OBAMACARE, AND SEE FOR YOURSELF IF SNOWE VOTED FOR IT. YOU WILL SEE THAT SHE DID NOT, NOR DID ANY REPUBLICAN. THIS MAKES JOHN A MASSIVE LIAR.
Thanks for letting us see your fibs John. You always do this, so I am not surprised.
Wow, your personal attack is a serious violation of Newsvine COH. If you can't stick to facts and rational debate just admit it. The FACT is that Affordable Care would have died without Senator Snowe's vote to invoke cloture;
Roanoke, seems to me the lack of truth comes from you and not John B. Seems to me, Roanoke, that you are the one not telling the truth and you, indeed, have violated the COH. That said, I won't flag you because your own words speak volumes about you and say nothing about John B.
Gitmo was not closed because Congress refused to fund closure of it. The defense authorization bills passed specifically tied President Obama's hands. Guess you overlooked the "outrage" from republican legislators, their daily dose of anti-Muslim hatred, the fear-mongering about terrorists being set free in this country while disregarding that no one has ever escaped from a US maximum security prison, not to mention that some democrats bought the fear from the right and aided the GOP's effort to keep Gitmo open.
Jody,
You mean the lies I posted about Obama's economic team? The quotes from Paul Krugman, the quotes from Larry Summers? The quotes from Helen Thomas? The supermajority the Dems had in which they did not close gitmo or pass a budget or anything else productive? All just lies by me right??? John calls every post of mine an untruth, then I prove to him, WITH QUOTES FROM OBAMA'S OWN ADVISORS, but somehow I am still a liar, right Jody? I quote Helen Thomas, but John calls me a liar. Right, John? But no, you guys can call me a liar all day, but when I provide evidence, then display John as the liar, I am the one who is in violation. See how hypocritical you dems are??
Again, in his last post, John is playing semantics. IN THE FINAL VOTE ON OBAMACARE, NO REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT TO PASS. Even Johns own quote above says it was the FIRST OF THREE PROCEDURAL VOTES. I have posted Snowes comments about allowing it out of cloture before, but John conveniently forgets this. Snowes comments, and I am paraphrasing, were essentially voting for it out of cloture to allow it to be discussed and debated more. Then she goes on to say that SHE DID NOT VOTE FOR IN ITS FINAL TALLY BECAUSE SHE SAW HOW MUCH OF A JOKE IT HAD BECOME, she saw that no ONE HAD READ THE BILL. LOL!!! But John, as a liar will do, makes it sound as if she voted for it in its final passage. SHE DID NOT. But, I am the liar. LOL. You libs are hilarious.
The Democrats never had a super majority. There was Lieberman, plus about 4 "blue dog" democrats; like Nelson (Nebraska) Byah (Indiana) and two other senators.
Roanoke1 simply does not know what he is talking about.
I never claimed Senator Snowe voted for the final bill. I said consistently that the bill would not have survived cloture without Olympia Snowe's vote.
Once it crossed that threshold it required only a simple majority vote...something which Republicans claimed to be the only valid measure of a bill or political nominee throughout the Bush years.
http://www.ourfuture.org/filibuster-flip-flop
Conservatism isn't about consistency of thought or principle. It's a series of narratives intended to sell policies beneficial to the wealthy elites.
Semantics. You can call them 'blue dog' all you want. The bottom line is the end of their title is DEMOCRATS. Democrats who voted FOR Obamacare, while NOT ONE Republican voted for Obamacare (even though John keeps lying and attempting to make it sound like Snowe voted for it).
The Dems had a supermajority for a hand full of months at the start of Obama's term. Most Dems don't even refute this (except for the pseudo-intellectual one's such as yourself Ron, and John).
John,
Here is your comment from above: "I've already shown you on other threads that Affordable Care passed the Senate ONLY through the vote of Republican Senator Olympia Snowe."---NOTICE HOW THE WORD CLOTURE IS NEVER MENTIONED IN THIS SENTENCE BY YOU. YOU MAKE IT SOUND AS IF IT PASSED, FINALLY, BY A VOTE BY SNOWE IN THE SENATE. And now you act as is you never made it sound like Snowe's vote was somehow a decisive vote on Obamacare. Any more half-truths for us? John, your lies are showing.
Now who's splitting hairs? Naturally you're neglecting to include the links I provided that went DIRECTLY to the subject of cloture.
Face it, when the best you can do is argue and misrepresent such tiny points there's no point in continuing. You've lost.
Nope, John, this is you LYING AGAIN. Notice, the quote I referenced by you above, "I've already shown you on other threads that Affordable Care passed the Senate ONLY through the vote of Republican Senator Olympia Snowe" was POSTED BY YOU ON FRIDAY AT 1:41pm. YOU DO NOT POST ANY LINKS OR MAKE REFERENCE TO SNOWE AND CLOTURE UNTIL SUNDAY AT 12:23pm. So, you make the false reference two days ago, I call you on it, and then 48 hours pass, and only THEN do you make reference to Snowe and cloture...and then whine about it and act like you had made this reference all along...
I won long ago when you refused to research things on your own, when I provided objective truth and quotes from three different members of Obama's "team", etc etc. You merely called everything a lie, like a typical incompetent lib always does. Or you whined about sources or told half-truths etc etc. I just enjoy watching your liberal head spin. In terms of arguing with a liberal such as yourself, I won long before our conversation ever started...LOL!!
I think I see the problem here. You're actually John Cleese. http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php
Ahh, there it is. And now the liberal turns to insults. LOL! The sure way to know you have won the argument. Thanks, John!
ItsAboutTime.........................I agree with you :-). I have been unemployed for 33 monts, but not blaming PRESIDENT OBAMA for it. I will vote for him in 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Expect to be unemployed for another 48 months then!!!
I'm guessing that you like being unemployed then Kay. Much of his agenda is contributing to and directly causing our unemployment problems. When the government finally can't borrow any more and collapses maybe you will get a real understanding of what he's been doing. Think about it - no medicare, no social security, no welfare, no food stamps, no benefits for our military families, and no Obamacare.
If we keep going like we are it's definitely going to happen. It's just a matter of when.
Yes,
Obviously Kay is enjoying the unemployment benefits given to her for years now by hardworking Americans. Why would she want to get a job when she can just re-elect Obama and get another four years of FREE LIVING off the backs of hardworking taxpayers. Your welcome, KAY!
Blame the victim...stock in trade for Conservatives.
Then you get all in a huff when people call you heartless.
Nope,
just pointing out the liberal base. "Hey, I havent had a job in 33 months, dont want one, dont need one. And Im gonna vote for the man who has done nothing to improve my chances of getting one. I dont need to work, Obama will just keep extending my unemployment benefits." Studies also show a direct correlation with extending unemployment benefits to the unemployed NOT finding jobs. Yeah...good stuff. Nice try Johnny. We should just do it the Democrat/Obama way, and keep throwing taxpayer dollars at the problem and hope it gets better instead of actually fixing it.
Kay never said she didn't want a job or didn't need one. Now you've moved from misrepresenting the facts to lying.
Where's your study that shows a correlation between extending unemployment benefits and not finding jobs? Given your track record with facts back up would be in order.
Really John, do you EVER research ANYTHING ON YOUR OWN? I am sick of doing your work for you, since you are a typical lazy DEM who will not seek the truth himself. There are many studies out there that prove my point in regards to unemployment benefits actually extending unemployment. You deflect, like a typical liberal, by telling me to 'prove it' in every point I make. And then, EVERY TIME, I go back and PROVE IT. Yet, you should know this information if you ever even attempted to stay abreast of political issues and research things yourself. It is obvious that you do not, which is why all you do is spew party-line rhetoric with NO SUBSTANCE. LOL.
study from the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank.
Economic Advisor to Obama and self-described Liberal, PAUL KRUGMAN:
Larry Summers, the outgoing Chairman of Barack Obama’s National Economic Council:
Let me know when your liberal head stops spinning....LOL.
You've provided only words, and your words have proven to be consistently unreliable. WHERE are your sources?
LOL!! John the Parrot,
Do you see how pathetic you are???? Do you see how weak you are???
You are soooo liberal, and you are soooo desperate to believe that I am lying, that you are left with essentially accusing me of making up entire paragraphs and statements from members of Obama's former economic team!! LOL!!
Like I said, I am NOT doing your work for you. If you doubt that ANY of the quotes I have provided for you are not true, then GO BACK AND RESEARCH THEM YOURSELF, mouthpiece.
It's fun to destroy your arguments with statements from Obama's own team!! And you can't believe it, your ideology refuses to let you believe it, so you are forced to lash out with desperate, pathetic, and false accusations. LOL! Its fun to watch your liberal head spin!! Now, go read and learn on your own, so you don't look so foolish the next time we go head to head. LOL!!
I asked my question for a reason...I already know you're cherry picking the data. It's what you do. Consider the opposite side of the equation...additional economic activity due to people who would otherwise have no money being able to waste it on things like food and shelter;
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/kelly-evans-on-unemployment-insurance-in-the-wall-street-journal/
Oh look, I've cited my sources as required by good netiquette...something else that's been pointed out to your repeatedly. We already know why...it helps you to hide your spurious and unreliable sources.
More silly, false, and desperate claims and accusations from you. It's quite amusing that you dont actually dispute the quotes that I posted from two former members of Obama's economic advisory team, after questioning their truthfulness. I guess you went and did the research and found that I was exactly right, eh? LOL!! Oh, your continued failure is fun. Spin away, Johnnie, spin away... LOL! Its fun to watch the steam coming off your head...
And you've refused to debate the proven fact that the benefits to the greater economy of increased economic activity caused by unemployment benefits is major while the disincentive to work is minimal.
Your quotes out of context and without sources being cited for purposes of research are a tired and lame attempt to manipulate the conversation. Even your accusation is weak as my quote with cite above DIRECTLY REFUTES your claim from Conservative myth that unemployment is purely a drain on the economy.
The only unemployment that's been a drain on the economy has resulted from the 3 decades long failure of Supply Side economics.
You are right John, Paul Krugman and Larry Summers, BOTH FORMER MEMBERS OF OBAMA"S ECONOMIC TEAM JUST DONT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. You obviously know more about economics than they do. LOL!!!!!
Nothing was out of context. That is all you ever say when I find quotes from your own party members that directly refute your pathetic lies. Then, instead of eating crow, you piss and moan that it was taken out of context because that is your only hope to escape without looking like a complete fool. But actually, it just makes you look even worse.
Still nothing about the Helen Thomas quote (or quotes), eh? I guess I just took all of those out of context too!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! See how weak you are?
Let's go in reverse order, since I've already addressed the Helen Thomas quote. I've already stated that your source is a Conservative spin machine. Find me a real source and I'll address it.
You've implied that Larry Summers made the comments you quoted in reference to the current situation. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's from a 1990 article he wrote, referring to the situation AT THAT TIME. You're also ignoring significant factors within the article, such as the fact that availability or unavailability of unemployment insurance artificially affects the NUMBERS that are calculated in ways that don't reflect ACTUAL unemployment. You're also selectively ignoring comments like the below;
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Unemployment.html
You're also cherry picking the Krugman work, naturally. You've omitted the related passage;
"In the United States, these benefits replace only a small fraction of a workers income and expire after only 26 weeks."
http://books.google.com/books?id=dpTBdNGGrtUC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dq=Public+policy+designed+to+help+workers+who+lose+their+jobs+can+lead+to+structural+unemployment+as+an+unintended+side+effect.+.+.+.+In+other+countries,+particularly+in+Europe,+benefits+are+more+generous+and+last+longer.+The+drawback+to+this+generosity+is+that+it+reduces+a+worker%E2%80%99s+incentive+to+quickly+find+a+new+job.+Generous+unemployment+benefits+in+some+European+countries+are+widely+believed+to+be+one+of+the+main+causes+of+%E2%80%9CEurosclerosis,%E2%80%9D+the+persistent+high+unemployment+that+affects+a+number+of+European+countries.&source=bl&ots=GjITvAlrOx&sig=EHg1Lr6yIH-D3wBYq4SNwI8I5h0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BdUJT9-rMse1gwf824mjAg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Public%20policy%20designed%20to%20help%20workers%20who%20lose%20their%20jobs%20can%20lead%20to%20structural%20unemployment%20as%20an%20unintended%20side%20effect.%20.%20.%20.%20In%20other%20countries%2C%20particularly%20in%20Europe%2C%20benefits%20are%20more%20generous%20and%20last%20longer.%20The%20drawback%20to%20this%20generosity%20is%20that%20it%20reduces%20a%20worker%E2%80%99s%20incentive%20to%20quickly%20find%20a%20new%20job.%20Generous%20unemployment%20benefits%20in%20some%20European%20countries%20are%20widely%20believed%20to%20be%20one%20of%20the%20main%20causes%20of%20%E2%80%9CEurosclerosis%2C%E2%80%9D%20the%20persistent%20high%20unemployment%20that%20affects%20a%20number%20of%20European%20countries.&f=false
In this case you've taken out a critical sentence which changes the entire tenor of the passage in order to mislead regarding the meaning of Paul Krugman's writing.
That's why I'm always after you for sources. It's also why you refuse to provide them.
No John,
Again, you show your foolishness. The paper by Krugman was written well before Obama. And also, you are talking about the US only having 26 weeks of unemployment, well, we've extended it multiple times under Obama, to 99 weeks!!!! HUGE DIFFERENCE!! LOL. Nice try. Geez, your pseudo-intellectualism is astonishing, as you post a comment from Krugman that proves my point! LOL
On Helen Thomas, you show your supreme ignorance. Just because it was reported on by a conservative news organization means her comments were never said?? So CNS news and myself just made up all of those comments by Thomas?? YOU ARE SO PATHETIC. Go research it yourself then, because it is obvious you dont want the truth. You want the full transcript, then go to youtube...WHERE YOU CAN WATCH THE EXCHANGE WITH GIBBS AND THOMAS. I have already told you this in other posts, but you choose to ignore this. You dont want to go look it up and watch Thomas go after Obama and Gibbs because you know what Im saying is true. Its hilarious to watch you attempt to tapdance away from it. Again, go watch the exchange yourself instead of being a pathetic, ignorant, mouthpiece who runs from the truth.
And yet you continue to deny the words put before you;
Given that unemployment in recessions is involuntary, UI clearly props up a fragile economy by providing people involuntarily unemployed by the recession with needed money to spend, stimulating the economy. Without that spending MORE people become unemployed.
Which is why 99 weeks has never been intended to be more than a temporary change in policy, lasting only until the larger economy is clearly on solid footing. Until that point the impact of extended UI benefits is insignificant because there aren't nearly enough jobs for everyone to be employed anyway.
That's the point Conservatives consistently overlook. Telling people to "just go out and get a job" is nothing but a way to wash your hands of people in need until we approach a level where there are enough jobs to go around.
And Obama is trustworthy, doesn't lie? Give me a break! And the only thing "green" about his policies is the color of the money laundered through the "green" shell corporations. The stimulus worked well......... it stimulated the Obama war chest !
A vote for Obama will insure 48 more months of unemployment!
Sorry informed I was too slow on the draw there!
These republican posts bashing Obama are weak and lame. Just like their Iowa caucus. The shameful page in american political history continues.
Shameful is what Obama has accomplished the last 3 years. Thanks Dems! Thanks for all the hope and change! It's been a wonderful, magical experience. Let the shame last another 4 years!! Let unemployment stay above 8% another 4 years!! Let Obama polarize the nation for another 4 years!! Let Obama continue to play class warfare and demonize 'the rich' for our countries' problems! Let Obama and the Dems continue to NOT EVEN CREATE A BUDGET! Let's have four more years of golfing and lavish vacations on the taxpayer dime! Woo-hoo!!! Its been great so far for all of us! 4 more years! 4 more years!!
I know they would lie. This is progda.