PERB In Need of Banner
PERB In Need of Banner

Obama's radical past coming back to haunt him

Previous Thread Next Thread
D

DavidMR

New member
Mar 27, 2009
872
0
0
The Gallup organization, the most respected of American pollsters, finds that President Obama's approval rating is on an upward trend.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153194/Obama-Job-Approval-Rating-Reaches-Weekend.aspx


March 12, 2012

Obama's Job Approval Rating Reaches 49% Over Weekend

Increase occurs as economic confidence becomes sharply more positive
by Frank Newport PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama's job approval rating rose to 49% in the three-day period from Friday through Sunday, building on an upward trend that began the middle of last week. Obama's current approval rating is the highest measured since early February, and before that the highest since June 2011.
 
E

Elmore

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2011
2,466
1,105
113
North Shore
DavidMR said:
The Gallup organization, the most respected of American pollsters, finds that President Obama's approval rating is on an upward trend.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153194/Obama-Job-Approval-Rating-Reaches-Weekend.aspx


March 12, 2012

Obama's Job Approval Rating Reaches 49% Over Weekend

Increase occurs as economic confidence becomes sharply more positive
by Frank Newport PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama's job approval rating rose to 49% in the three-day period from Friday through Sunday, building on an upward trend that began the middle of last week. Obama's current approval rating is the highest measured since early February, and before that the highest since June 2011.
Click to expand...
I find these polls don't mean too much. A few months ago when the employment numbers were worse and the global economy was in turmoil he was not very popular. So much can happen between now and the fall. I do expect the global economy to take the headlines again and not for good reasons. It will be tight but I expect Obama to win again. I don't see Romney having much of a chance debating with Obama on many issues.
 
E

Elmore

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2011
2,466
1,105
113
North Shore
Someone like Romney, who is not "conservative enough" for some Republicans, is the ideal candidate to represent the party. He can get the undecided vote and even though he is not the poster boy for Tea Partiers, he's more conservative than a Democrat so he will get their vote...even if it is reluctantly.

If only they could put a muzzle on Hannity and Limbaugh maybe they would regain some of the credibility they had during the Reagan era.
 
D

DavidMR

New member
Mar 27, 2009
872
0
0
Elmore said:
I don't see Romney having much of a chance debating with Obama on many issues.
Click to expand...
Agreed, polls can move around in ways that leave a person wondering. For Romney it will be especially difficult for him to debate Obama on health policy, since he brought in a similar policy in Massachussets to the one Obama brought in federally.
 
W

whoisjohngalt

Member
Aug 4, 2009
147
1
18
Vancouver area
PeaceGuy said:
Not withstanding Al's discussion of the impact of ownership, I do have to ask how you can consider the 'Liberal' media consistently presenting views that support 'Liberal' political issues & persons in a good light and do not do so for "Conservative' issues & persons is an "egregious double standard" whereas Fox News consistently presenting views that support 'Conservative' political issues & persons in a good light and do not do so for "Liberal' issues & persons is not an "egregious double standard".

I agree that very little that passes as news in print and on the air is really news and that folks gravitate towards the entertainment that fits their sensibilities. I just wonder how folks can see clearly the sins of one media group without seeing that their favourites are no different? Or rather to take the position that certain actions of a group that one does not support are blatantly obvious and bad, but that those same actions in a group that they have aligned themselves with are unnoticed or seen as a positive feature.
Click to expand...
In my view, the important difference between FOX and the others is that FOX wears its bias on its sleeve and makes no bones about it, whereas the others actually present themselves as being impartial.
 
D

Devo

Member
Aug 16, 2003
316
0
16
Canada
whoisjohngalt said:
In my view, the important difference between FOX and the others is that FOX wears its bias on its sleeve and makes no bones about it, whereas the others actually present themselves as being impartial.
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74181.html

Does this guy ever take responsibility for his own actions? With Obama its always somebody else's fault. Wait until this fall when the videos are released and people find out his real past.
 
E

Elmore

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2011
2,466
1,105
113
North Shore
whoisjohngalt said:
In my view, the important difference between FOX and the others is that FOX wears its bias on its sleeve and makes no bones about it, whereas the others actually present themselves as being impartial.
Click to expand...
MSNBC is pretty much equally biased. Republicans aren't watching that station and Democrats are not watching FOX. It's all quite silly.

Looney Toons like Hannity on one side and Sharpton on the other side do their respective parties a disservice IMO.
 
W

whoisjohngalt

Member
Aug 4, 2009
147
1
18
Vancouver area
PeaceGuy said:
No media outlet has ever been impartial. Impartial is the wrong word since it would require the regurgitation of raw data without any attempt to place it in context of provide any analysis or interpretation. Balance is the value to aim for, and not just the superficial balance that a lot of media practices by giving both sides of an issue equal time and equal emphasis. To be useful, media should explain all sides of an issue but also a reasoned analysis as to why one perspective should be preferred. The media consumer can then compare the analysis of multiple journalists to arrive at an informed position on the issue.

This requires viewers to encounter a number of trained journalists with a variety of views & ideas bringing their biases with them. Watching the CBC, one gets a fairly even number of conservative pundits and liberal, A recent study covering all news broadcasts over a couple of years found that there were a few percent more conservatives than Liberal, folks like Rex Murphy, but still within spitting distance of even. So if your one source of news was the CBC, you get close to a balance of political view points.

On Fox, how does the split go for conservative versus liberal pundits? If it is your only source of news, as is the case for many people, where do you even hear that there are dissenting views & different ideas? How can you use your reasoning abilities to arrive at your own position if you only ever hear the discussion from one point of view?

This is the danger to society of media being honed to a particular view. Almost all people are lazy & have little time to seek out a variety of views left or right. Without the audience seeing an actual debate between pundits of equal weight but differing views, there is little grist for the mill of reason. Without being presented with a variety of views, their world becomes an echo chamber like Goebbels' propaganda machine. It's not that Goebbels never told the truth or always got the facts wrong, its that news agencies always make a few mistakes & occasionally get the facts wrong. In a monoculture of opinion, those errors seldom come to light on that news outlet.
Click to expand...
I totally agree that one should seek out many different sources of news and opinion before forming one's own opinion. I certainly don't think it is healthy to get all of ones news from Fox (or MSNBC for that matter). What I don't accept is the mainstream American media's overt liberal bias. This bias is also clearly seen in most of pop culture and on college campuses.

At the end of the day, in a free society such we like to think we live in, the role of privately owned media is not to present a balanced view or to further the interests of society. It is to make money for its owners/stockholders. If the majority of consumers of media prefer not to hear contrary viewpoints to their own then we can expect to see more of the same type of activist media.
 
J

juniper

New member
Apr 11, 2006
407
2
0
Re the subject of Obama's youth, the following article just appeared and may be of some interest to some: "What The Mailman Knows About Ayers And Obama" in American Thinker, 19 March 2012 by Jack Cashill. While youthful excesses may need to be forgiven, this article generates a good deal of concern. Who sponsored Obama at Harvard Law, how did he get in given his previously very mediocre school and college records, who paid, who were his influences, and, finally, why has he seemingly covered up so much of his past?

It's not that he has done anything obviously radical but creeping socialism in the USA and his rearing back from American exceptionalism (very unpatriotic and unwise given that the USA is/was the arbitrator of world order) makes me rethink my previous statement in this thread.
 
J

juniper

New member
Apr 11, 2006
407
2
0
Re "'Birther crap'": It's not off the table yet. Seems that some view the birth certificate produced by Obama may have been a partial forgery.
 
B

Big Dog Striker

New member
Nov 17, 2007
1,537
1
0
Big Dog Striker said:
Not surprise that you will see most of this cheap stuff thrown at Obama - actually it serves as the barometer of the US economy. When the economy improves and jobs increase south of the border that when the GOP starts bringing out the authencity of Obama's birth certificate, their Kenya stories, and the super-worned out Muslim connection. Now, Americans you really pop the champagne open and lets the good times roll when the GOP starts calling Obama a Satanist, the Anti-Christ, or a Wiccan. :pound:
Click to expand...
Oops! the economy of the US is improving again and getting better. :pound:
 
D

Devo

Member
Aug 16, 2003
316
0
16
Canada
juniper said:
Re the subject of Obama's youth, the following article just appeared and may be of some interest to some: "What The Mailman Knows About Ayers And Obama" in American Thinker, 19 March 2012 by Jack Cashill. While youthful excesses may need to be forgiven, this article generates a good deal of concern. Who sponsored Obama at Harvard Law, how did he get in given his previously very mediocre school and college records, who paid, who were his influences, and, finally, why has he seemingly covered up so much of his past?

It's not that he has done anything obviously radical but creeping socialism in the USA and his rearing back from American exceptionalism (very unpatriotic and unwise given that the USA is/was the arbitrator of world order) makes me rethink my previous statement in this thread.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right. Every other president releases their marks except Obama. What does he have to hide? There has always been this notion that Obama is of superior intelligence. I am still waiting to see some evidence of this. It is absolutely painful to watch him without his teleprompter.

I guarantee you that this time around Obama is going to be extensively and properly vetted. He will have the Romney machine as an opponent this time and not the weak John McCain.
 
D

Devo

Member
Aug 16, 2003
316
0
16
Canada
PeaceGuy said:
I'm not sure that school marks are a great indicator of one's intelligence. Perhaps it is a myth, but I recall being told that Albert Einstein's school grades were not too good and yet there is little doubt that the man was intelligent. I'm not calling Obama another Einstein, just pointing out that the measure selected is probably not a particularly valid one. It would likely be better to judge on the wisdom of his current actions and ideas than dig for sketchy test scores from his adolescence.
Click to expand...
I agree that a persons marks, or the lack of a college/university degree, is not an accurate measure of intelligence or predictor of future success. Many of us have fathers or grandfathers that never even graduated from high school. Many of these men went on to be very successful in life and were certainly not dumb.

My issue with Obama is hypocrisy. Not a week goes by where he isn't criticizing someone for their lack of transparency. A President releasing his college/university marks is certainly not that unusual. Why does Obama refuse to release his?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Previous Thread Next Thread
Vancouver Escorts
Top Bottom