Comments by open_eyes
Previous | Page 2 of 282 | Next
Posted on November 14 at 10:16 a.m.
One last try to make it simple:
Bush certainly alienated many in his own party, and across all demographics his popularity suffered, no doubt about it. But if one claims that he was hated across all demographics more or less, one would expect to see numbers closer than 66 to 6. Instead, one finds that, although he was not popular among any group, (even among his own party 66 should be considered low) - we find that one group stand out as being way, way, way, way, way lower than any other. Only 6% of Dems approved. VERY demographic.
And if one makes the claim that all the disapproval of Obama is coming from very specific demographics, one would expect to find numbers similar to what Bush had - one demographic way, way, way unhappier than the others. But the numbers show the opposite. His popularity is sinking, as the polls show, "This is a broad-based decline, not focused among specific demographic or political groups". You can't even find nearly as many Republicans disapproving of Bush as Democrats disapproved of Obama. 18% - 3 times as many, and 12% of those who consider themselves VERY conservative Republicans still approve (twice as much as Dems).
So sure, there's always SOME truth to the claims, but when you compare them side-by-side, the numbers ain't pretty...... but they don't lie, either.
Posted on November 14 at 10:05 a.m.
Once again..... since you seem to be completely blind to the point..... we are referring to talking about assassination, murder, etc. NOT general comedy. Don't know how much plainer I could possibly make it.
And as someone with a math minor, your "not pretty math" statements really don't make sense. First he drove tons of people from the party, but since the party had shrunk it doesn't mean much. But the other party is bigger, but turning nearly all of them against him doesn't mean much either. I really have no clue what you are trying to say there. I think what you are saying is nothing means anything. (???). I never denied he drove tons of people from the party (and I know some Dems who voted for Obama who are very unhappy with our sitting president at this time, as well). What I said (and is plain to see) - is that this "broad demographic of hate" you claim is much more centered, and on Independents (and Dems in particular) - than you admit. The numbers don't lie - and as you say, they ain't pretty.
Even if an incumbent has 100% approval among his own party, elections are usually decided by the Independents, and at times how many of the other side you can get to cross the line, since neither party has over 50% of the country registered. Given his 6% approval among Dems and 24% among Independents, its obvious they felt he would be no help whatsoever in trying to appeal to those that could and would tip the election. There was enough dislike of the other candidate by both sides that they each could pretty much count on the majority of their party - but since neither side has a majority, they needed the ind/crossovers.
That's just common sense.
McCain actually got 90% of the registered Republican vote and 10% of the registered Democratic vote, Obama got 89% of the Dem & 9% of the Republican. So by both percentage and total numbers (since the GOP is smaller) - more Dems voted for McCain than Repubs voted for Obama. Interesting.
Posted on November 14 at 9:20 a.m.
Out of all the people who post here, you are the only one who constantly feels the need to repost page after page of what has already been posted. And I'm not the only one that has complained. Would you like me to link others? I've been on many, many other forums and never, ever, have I seen as much reposted in a month as you do in one day. Occasionally when referring to an older post someone will copy as the thread may have wandered but apparently you don't think anyone here can figure it out from one post to the next. Especially coming from someone who has "cried" often about "walls of text" - rather hypocritical, isn't it. And I didn't come outright and call you a liberal any more than you do me a conservative - I said you've given insight into liberal thinking - which isn't anymore so than saying one's conservative side is showing - so maybe you should quit crying and so much yourself and be honest about it.
And you haven't checked very often, apparently. I can show you plenty of instances of Bush being burned in effigy, if you like. (Actually have linked in the past). WAY more recent than Salem. You should really try harder to stay up on current events ;-)
Posted on November 13 at 10:02 a.m.
I link from all sorts of different places, because sometimes.... certain news orgs seem to not want to report things, or claim ignorance (Remember ABC's Charles Gibson not knowing anything about ACORN? Big.... WOW).....
And I've seen you often allude my posts to conservative views, etc - wasn't too long ago you made a remark about my "conservative side showing" - so forgive me for not thinking you're being very honest when you claim you don't label me.
Speaking of irritating, I also remember you were going to stop cut/pasting entire chunks every single time you post. How's that been working out for you?
As for "checking the factoids" about Bush driving conservatives away........ I even POSTED facts showing that. If you didn't spend so much time repeating pages of posts like a parrot you might read closer......
Posted on November 13 at 9:55 a.m.
Funny thing about that comedy, goodoleboy..... not very many people found it as funny as you think. And I am happy to learn that someone actually DID get upset about it and look into it. Glad to hear it. I rescind my earlier statements that things like this are always dismissed. At least in THIS particular case they weren't.
"The portrayal outraged some viewers, who in turn contacted CBS. Others contacted the U.S. Secret Service to inquire about whether the parody constituted a threat.
Not only do such actions legally constitute a threat, but, according to a Secret Service agent who spoke with WorldNetDaily, the agency takes all such threats seriously -- regardless of who makes them or whom they are directed against.
The clip may have been aired as a news parody, "but we don't find such parodies very amusing," said Special Agent Jim Mackin, a spokesman for the Secret Service. The agency has been assigned to protect Bush and his running mate, Richard B. Cheney, throughout the campaign.
Mackin said the Secret Service was made aware of the "SNIPERS WANTED" parody shortly after Kilborn aired it last Friday night, one day after the close of the Republican National Convention. Since then, he said, agents have been in contact with Kilborn and CBS after verifying the authenticity of the clip.
"I can't go into any details, but I can tell you that we have investigated this matter and whether or not there was any harmful intent behind it," Mackin told WorldNetDaily on Wednesday.
He also declined to comment on CBS' reaction to the clip or whether action would be taken against the network generally or Kilborn specifically.
Others were clearly upset by the broadcast, however.
Ray Sullivan, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, seemed nonplussed about the CBS broadcast, telling WorldNetDaily, "Though no one here has actually seen it, it does appear that it was in poor taste."
"As to the security issue, we don't discuss Gov. Bush's security and we're prepared to let others judge the legalities of the incident," he added.
However, CBS offices in New York released a statement to WorldNetDaily apologizing for the incident.
During the Aug. 4 broadcast, "an inappropriate and regrettable graphic was briefly presented on the screen during an 'In the News' item about George W. Bush's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.
"This graphic -- which was not accompanied by any remarks from Mr. Kilborn -- should not have been included in the telecast," said CBS spokeswoman Rosemary Keenan in the statement. "CBS and Worldwide Pants, which produces the program, deeply regret this incident."
Keenan said CBS was "concluding a review of this matter" and pledged to "take appropriate action when this process is complete."
Of course, I've pointed out other instances which were not all "just some drunk", but you seem to be in an infinite loop on those and the comedy angle so I'll just let the rest go.
Posted on November 13 at 9:49 a.m.
Sorry...... got so carried away cut/pasting ala echoboy I forgot to actually post anything of my own! LOL
Posted on November 13 at 9:48 a.m.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 12, 2009 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not sure who CNS is - did you mean CNN? Sorry, I don't understand your point there....
Have seen you use it quite a few times, has a conservative slant and yet have also seen chide others for linking websites that tip in the other direction. Can link the posts if you like.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 12, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Not everyone is a comedian.... the Nobel "Peace" prize winner telling groups she would like to murder Bush is not a stand-up comedy routine. But I think, for once, you've explained it quite well. What you're telling us is that people (at least those on the left) find it extremely funny to talk about murdering a Republican president. But somehow they don't think its funny if you do the same comedy about a Democrat one. (I personally don't think jokes that go that far are funny no matter WHO they are about). Not only have you explained it quite well, but we've gotten some valuable insights into the minds and thinking processes of liberals. Thx!"
Society determines what is funny because what is funny generates ratings and sells ads. You keep bryinging up partisianship where it is not applicable. SNL parodied Clinton all the time, people thought it was funny, they did Bush, people thought it was funny. When they get a guy that can do a good Obama guess what? Back during the elections they tried to do Obama skits, they just did not garner any ratings in comparison to the Palin and McCain parodies. Humor is an odd thing, and liberals are not restricted to being the only ones with "sick" sense of humor. Good grief next you are going to suggest to me that all audiences are all liberals, sorry bud, there are independents and conservatives driving those ratings too.
PS. Stop trying to label me, it irritates me, I don't label you so please afford me the same courtesy.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 12, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"And I am using my common sense. I just tried to honestly examine your claim he had the gift of being hated across party lines, and had people from all spectrums that hated him. Well of COURSE he did. BIG DUH. However........ it seems an overwhelming chunk of the disapproval........ came from a specific demographic (66% approval from one group....... 6% from another....... )"
Go look at the factoids out there showing how many people the conservatives think Bush drove from the Republican party to independents. Independents are becoming more and more critical to elections, 66% of republicans currently means nothing if you can't carry the independents and a few Dems.
Posted on November 12 at 3:19 p.m.
And I am using my common sense. I just tried to honestly examine your claim he had the gift of being hated across party lines, and had people from all spectrums that hated him. Well of COURSE he did. BIG DUH. However........ it seems an overwhelming chunk of the disapproval........ came from a specific demographic (66% approval from one group....... 6% from another....... )
And I tried to examine your claim that Obama's disapproval only comes from specific demographics. But his approval is dropping pretty much across all demographics. And even now, there are multiple times more conservative Republicans that still support Obama than Dems that supported Bush. So maybe when we look at it closer, we should say things like....... Democrats were pretty much nearly unanimous in their disapproval of Bush, but Republicans still have several times as many that support Obama as Dems that supported Bush. In other words, there's no single group as united in their dislike of Obama as Dems were in their dislike of Bush. I look at that and have a little trouble figuring out how one is way more demographic than the other. Seems nearly just the opposite.
Well, I don't know how else to present arguments and debates other than backing up what I say with what means are possible. I guess I could just sit here and spout some pie-in-the-sky claims as fact like I heard BillyBob down at the bar say that Obama intends to secretly inject all Republicans with swine flu, and it must be fact because BillyBob never lies, but no thanks, I prefer to at least try to find some stronger evidence for support than BillyBob. Even though he's a really nice and friendly guy ;-)
Not sure who CNS is - did you mean CNN? Sorry, I don't understand your point there....
Posted on November 12 at 3:17 p.m.
I think what you said was exactly what I said. Literally. LOL.
After wading thru your "walls of text" you mention so often as being annoying, I finally found where you replied ;-)
Reagan first had a massive tax cut, then raised them back. I think there are times for tax hikes as well as tax cuts. (As does Obama, apparently). I agree that the super-rich in this country are not paying their share, I've said that repeatedly on other threads. I'm all for growing the middle class. Question is where is this line at?
Not everyone is a comedian.... the Nobel "Peace" prize winner telling groups she would like to murder Bush is not a stand-up comedy routine. But I think, for once, you've explained it quite well. What you're telling us is that people (at least those on the left) find it extremely funny to talk about murdering a Republican president. But somehow they don't think its funny if you do the same comedy about a Democrat one. (I personally don't think jokes that go that far are funny no matter WHO they are about). Not only have you explained it quite well, but we've gotten some valuable insights into the minds and thinking processes of liberals. Thx!
I never said there weren't plenty of conservatives unhappy with Bush. As a matter of fact, I POINTED OUT that nearly 4 in 10 lost confidence in him over his immigration proposals. Please read closer next time, instead of just blindly cut/pasting paragraph upon paragraph upon paragraph, while complaing often about disliking "walls of text". ;-)
Posted on November 14 at 10:22 a.m.
The difference is when I put up articles they aren't word-for-word the very same article that someone posted 2 minutes earlier. Nobody has to read anything if they don't want to but at least they don't have to wade thru line after line to find something new.
And maybe I was implying that you gave valuable insight into only your liberal thinking half or side. What's the difference? People can call me conservative all they like, I side with them more often than not, but I've also quite pointedly here sided with the opposing view at times. So?
On Constitutional amendment