The tea party might be running out of steam.
The approval rating for the 2-year-old movement fell to 32 percent in a CNN/Opinion Research corporation poll released Wednesday, the lowest it’s been since CNN first polled on the tea party in January 2010.
They're "cooling" on the president:
President Barack Obama’s approval rating and prospects for reelection have plunged to all-time lows in a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.
Half of the registered voters surveyed for the poll think that the president does not deserve a second term in office, while 41 percent say he does. In another Quinnipiac poll released just four weeks ago, 45 percent said the president did not deserve reelection, while 47 percent said he did.
What can we learn from this? That Americans aren't happy campers right now.
25 comments:
What else can we learn?
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" - Churchill.
Keep your government hands off my Medicare!
I am curious how many Tea Partiers you have actually spoken to, Mazenko.
Most of the ones in my area understand that serious cuts are going have to be made across the board. They don't expect government handouts and know that entitlements need to be addressed now before they collapse. They are all about a smaller, less intrusive government.
Neko,
Uhmm .... how about .... lots? And I read the commentary and listen to the Tea Party Caucus and follow their comments on blogs and attend my local town halls and .... Wait a minute - why am I justifying myself?
Most Americans agree on cuts - they just can't agree where, and few truly understand how the money is allocated. Just like Congress has an approval rate below 30%, but Congress has a 90% retention rate. And most Americans believe public schools are a mess, but 85% approve of their kids school and teachers and their own education.
For once you're right mazenko....53%of the voting public voted for an incompetent man-child in 2008....a typical Obama voter
"I never thought this day would happen. I won’t have to work on puttin’ gas in my car. I won’t have to work at payin’ my mortgage. You know. If I help him [Obama], he’s gonna help me."
Video here: http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_supporter_if_i_vote_for_obama_i_wont_have_to_pay_for_gas_pay_my_mortg/
I think Americans are just tired!!! Too much crap going on, and not enough time and energy to deal with it all!
A former newspaper editor and tea partier in my neighborhood wrote a local commentary after he had surgery, noting it as his first serious health care procedure. He praised his insurance company and doctors, and then proceeded to rant about how he always paid his premiums and people without insurance simply lack personal responsibility and a willingness to pay their premiums. This was followed by an attack on the Affordable Care Act.
I asked him about my neighbor who lost her house and business following her stroke because her insurance dropped her and she can no longer secure coverage despite always paying her premiums for decades. I asked about my son’s third grade classmate whose life threatening blood condition led to his family being dropped by three insurance companies before the ACA put an end to the practice. I asked about my dad’s recent excellent health care with a hip replacement which was paid for by Medicare because he and my mom were dropped by their insurance despite decades of paying their premiums. I wondered how a news editor could have no knowledge of hundreds of cases like this reported in his paper. I wondered how he didn’t know the history of Medicare – how it was passed because the elderly were uninsured and uninsurable and sliding it poverty. I wondered how he missed the AARP lobbying for entitlement protection and how the GOP simultaneously claims Medicare will bankrupt us but slams the Democrats for “killing grandma” by proposing cost-cutting reforms. He had no answers but made passing statements to the need for “market-driven reforms.”
Now, I AGREE with many criticisms of the ACA – but many of the components are absolutely indispensable. Too many Americans decry the current state of government because they never lived during the Gilded Age. They’ve lived their entire lives in the comfort of Progressive reforms which are invisible to them, and they pretend that the market naturally functions that way. Americans are like a nation of manic-depressives whose condition is so well-controlled because of medication that they believe they are “doing fine on their own” and can stop taking their pills.
My favorite tea partier is my neighbor who is an activist member of the Colorado Union of Taxpayers (CUT). He decries entitlement spending and argues Americans should be using HSAs (I have one for my family) as a way of cutting costs and using market controls. I asked him if he had an HAS.
“No, I’ve got something even better. I’ve got the best benefits around.”
Really, I asked him. What’s that?
“Veterans benefits,” he said with a huge grin.
Yes, Neko, I speak with plenty of tea partiers. And I stand by Churchill’s quote.
Mike, you are so right. W. Bush won the country with 48% and 50% of voters who foolishly allowed him to implement tax, spending, and foreign policies that drove the American economy right off the cliff. They voted for tax policies that gutted revenue and produced zero job growth during a recession. They voted for tax policies that produced zero net gain in economic growth after a decade. They voted to expand Medicare at the same time they were cutting revenue. They voted to support nearly a trillion dollars worth of war, while cutting taxes and refusing to pay for the war. The voted for billions in corporate welfare while the companies were creating economic WMDs. They bought shaky securities and took out mortgages that they could never repay. They supported ridiculously low interest rates and a fool who implemented them.
Yeah, Mike, you and I, along with Winston Churchill, have pretty much nailed the intelligence of the average voter.
I love how the media and the leftist politicians try to pigeonhole the Tea Party. First we are violent, then we are racist, then we are all white, then we are this or that or the other. I have met people from every income level, every ethnicity, every background and age that are part of this movement. And for everyone clearly identified there are others who choose to avoid confrontation by not publicly proclaiming their political wills and allowing their votes to do the speaking for them. What many on the Left and in the DNC have failed to grasp is that most Tea Party advocates are just as angry with Republicans that failed due diligence on the economy as we are at Democrats. The problem for the Democrats is that they have the power of the White House and a resident there that continues to promote a laissez-faire attitude toward an economy that is heading rapidly over a cliff. The same old fixes won't do. But when the DNC speaks, it speaks from the weakness of their own failure to pass a budget, their insistence on a bulky, unread and overwhelming healthcare mandate and a continued attitude of elitism that dismissed middle class income earners at their own peril. So go ahead and underestimate us. It will just make the coming election wave that much sweeter.
Yes Mazenko, because veterans didn't do anything to actually earn their benefits.
And you are going to rail against Bush about his taxing, spending, and foreign policy? Obama anyone?
You are apparently so ideologically blind, you need a cane and a dog.
No, W.R. I was pointing out the other side of Mike's comment. I agree with many current criticisms - but I won't exonerate Bush or McCain or Gingrich et al.
And this isn't about veterans earning the benefits. I have no problem with veterans benefits or Medicare. I have a problem with his argument that all Americans should have HSAs because we can't afford to fund seniors.
I'm unaffiliated and vote Republican and Democrat equally. I'm a true moderate, and you're a fool if you think you can judge my "ideology." I don't vote ideologically - I vote facts and numbers. Your comments clearly reveal you're the ideological one.
You're in over your head if you want to argue with me.
1/2
the net....Final Four in Houston and I'm working a mother load of OT. That being said, it's time for the LAW.
BACK BLAST AREA CLEAR!
Mike pace yourself man....won't want a heart attack this early into Obamacare. I wonder if there will be set of fib boards out there for you if something goes wrong.
Mike, you are so right. W. Bush won the country with 48% and 50% of voters who foolishly allowed him to implement tax, spending, and foreign policies that drove the American economy right off the cliff.
You nonsensical ramblings aside, yes GW Bush won the elections by that much. Now (and this is a repeat request) some specifics of these policies if you can? As I recall the American economy went into recession in August 2000 (defined as two consecutive quarters with negative economic growth). BTY Mike who was President in 2000....oh yea Billy Clinton. Afterwards Bush had to deal with 911...something that likely would have not have happened if Slick had accepted Bin Lauden from the Saudi's....or given the order to kill him.
BTY unlike the current man-child in the White House who likes to put his feet on the Resolute Desk Bush governed pretty much as he campaigned.
They voted for tax policies that gutted revenue and produced zero job growth during a recession. They voted for tax policies that produced zero net gain in economic growth after a decade.
Ok what exactly are those revenue numbers:
Federal Revenue (billions) (source: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/numbers#usgs302)
2001 1145.4
2002. 1006.4
2003 925.4
2004 998.4
2005 1225
2006. 1397.8
2007 1533.7
2008. 1450.1
Yes I see falling revenue until late into the Bush first term...but significant growth until the end of the second. Don't looked like gutted revenue to me.
Employment numbers. (source http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5 5 4.9 5 5 5 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5
2008 5 4.8 5.1 4.9 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.3
Remember B Hussein Obama saying pass my slush fund, err stimulus bill and unemployment will not go over 8%.....how that hope and change working out for you?
They voted to expand Medicare at the same time they were cutting revenue.
Here we go again:
Social Insurance Taxes 2001: 694 billion. 2008: 900.2 billion (source: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/numbers#usgs302)
They voted to support nearly a trillion dollars worth of war, while cutting taxes and refusing to pay for the war.
I refute your premise. There is no such thing as unfunded war because there is no such thing as a funded war. Wars are always funded by public debt, be it war bonds or treasury bills.
The voted for billions in corporate welfare while the companies were creating economic WMDs. They bought shaky securities and took out mortgages that they could never repay. They supported ridiculously low interest rates and a fool who implemented them.
Mike, who is "they"? The Straw Man argument is beneath you. BTY what is an economic Weapon of Mass Destruction? Define it please. Not to mention the corporate welfare you rambled about. As I recall Bush would not assist Enron in 2001 because he wouldn't have the government interfere like that in the market. I wish he would have remembered that in the fall of 08 and we would have avoided the TARP program and GM and Chrysler would still be private companies. If Bush would have let the car companies go through bankruptcy reorganization Obama would not have federalized them, the UAW contracts would have been reset under court order (hopefully...you never know with a judge) and tens of thousands of people would still be employed. Notice Mike, no straw man.
Yeah, Mike, you and I, along with Winston Churchill, have pretty much nailed the intelligence of the average voter.
No argument ignorance is a danger to a republic. But the left thrives on it....it can't exist without it.
1/2
No, W.R. I was pointing out the other side of Mike's comment. I agree with many current criticisms - but I won't exonerate Bush or McCain or Gingrich et al.
Not that I could understand it. If you had criticisms of B Hussein Obama I didn't see them. I actually pointed out issues with Bush. McCain? He has been a minor player except to annoy the conservatives in the country in general and screw up progress in the Senate. Gingrich? Selling books and a possible candidate for the Republican nomination but let's be honest he's not been a big player since leaving the Congress.
And this isn't about veterans earning the benefits. I have no problem with veterans benefits or Medicare. I have a problem with his argument that all Americans should have HSAs because we can't afford to fund seniors.
Mike I searched Darren's blog to see if I've ever said "...all Americans should have HSAs because we can't afford to fund seniors." because I've never said that (or words to that effect). If you can show that on RotLC, A Cop's Watch or A Teacher's View for that matter, show us.
I've often said a HSA is a useful tool for medical finance for younger people. Generally they do not need a full policy like Blue Cross but they need a major medical policy which you can get for relatively little (I.e. less than 1000 a year). Mike one of the things the Internet has done is lower the cost of term life insurance. How you ask? Well you can go on the Web and choose from hundreds of companies for whatever suits you the best. Now what did Obamacare (Affordable Care Act...Churchill would wretch but another Brit named Orwell would love it) do to increase the choices people have in health insurance? Nothing. Unlike the individual mandate which is blatantly unconstitutional allowing all 1300 insurance companies that offer health policies was not a desire to the leftists who shoved it through the Congress. Because the purpose of Obamacare is to bankrupt the private health care industry and drive us to single payer. Do you want evidence:
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
Then state senator Barrack Hussein Obama, source http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/
2/2
I'm unaffiliated and vote Republican and Democrat equally. I'm a true moderate, and you're a fool if you think you can judge my "ideology." I don't vote ideologically - I vote facts and numbers. Your comments clearly reveal you're the ideological one.
It's not a question of Republican or Democrat but Conservative and Liberal. I've looked at you postings on your blog and RotLC and the only Republicans you have seemed to admire is Lindsey Graham and those like him. He's the definition of a RINO is Graham and the only reason he is a senator from SC is because the state has an open primary. Liberals vote for him to make sure a true conservative doesn't make it on the ballot. Sorry, you are definitely left of center.
You're in over your head if you want to argue with me.
You're not arguing, i.e. debating Mike. You are ranting and a personal insult like calling someone a fool is not needed here. While I was searching RotLC I saw debates you were in where you disagreed, made your points and were a lot more civil. Let's get back to that and more specific points in your posts.
Regarding HSAs, I was referring to my neighbor. Not about you, Mike.
The term RINO is ideological and biased rather than rational. It's not GOP or Dem or liberal vs. conservative. The average American is moderate, as I am.
My concern is that I can't find many rational "conservatives" in the GOP, as they cling to unstable supply-side policies and laissez-faire regulation that has created precarious economic policies for the past twenty-five years.
Your numbers do nothing to refute the criticism of the Bush economic policies and the revenue loss compounding growing debt and deficits for ten years. At least not to people fully informed on fiscal policies. Harvard economists Gregory Mankiw (Bush economic advisor) and Martin Feldstein argue as much. So does Joseph Stiglitz as well as Paul Volcker. I'll trust their analyses over yours - but you keep up with your amateur econ analysis that is preconceived. As Thoreau wrote, "we perceive that which we already half believe."
CDOs and other derivatives are the economic WMDs. Read up on them in books by Josephy Stiglitz and Charles Morris.
Teaching argumentation as I do, and publishing regularly in the paper, I trust my understanding of arguments, debates, rants, and informal blogosphere banter. But thanks for the feedback.
Always a pleasure.
One other thing, Mike.
Your term life insurance comment and the internet competition reveals a profound misunderstanding of the health care economy. If you think you can compare life/home/auto insurance and health insurance, then I can't "argue" with you because you are ideologically deluded. That's the most serious problem in the GOP right now.
Health care spending/claims is in an entirely different hemisphere than other insurance. Most people never make claims on auto/home/life policies. And situations requiring those claims can almost never be life changing/life threatening/bankruptcy causing problems.
No amount of competition is going to change that situation. And the complexities of health care and technology have not led to a lowering of costs, as such progress has in any other area. It's not about a lack of competition among companies. It's a system far more complex than that.
First of all, it's a CNN poll.
Secondly, if Americans are truly 'cooling' to the Tea Party, it's because they are disappointed that the newly elected Tea Party candidates are not being tough enough with the Liberals in the House, or with the despicable RINOS in the Senate.
Finally, if they are 'cooling' towards the President, then they are beginning to realize that The Clothes Are Wearing No Emperor.
But it's a CNN poll...I mean, really.
Sorry I mistook your points being about your neighbor. Need a third pot of coffee.
Second, spare us the arrogant teacher look down you nose attitude please...you are dealing with adults in the blog, not children. You pushed out your point with no support and expect it to be accepted as coming from the burning bush. Sorry it don't work that way outside of academe. You criticize Bush saying he "gutted" tax revenue and I show you tax returns facts over his term that refute that. Same with payroll taxes...and how did he cut them...their rate has remained the same since the 83 Social Security reform. But your only answer is "Your numbers do nothing to refute the criticism of the Bush economic policies and the revenue loss compounding growing debt and deficits for ten years.". That's someone pushing an unsupported premises and expecting it to be accepted face value. Sorry but if you want that go back to the kids table.
I've read two of you editorials in the Denver Post on the need for more vocational training in high schools and they were quite good. You supported your statements with facts of employment, pay and job openings. Good stuff. Please take that kind of format here.
There were a lot of issues with Bush I have a problem with...TARP, trying for an amnesty program, not needs testing Medicare or at least the prescription drug program, not finding a veto pen until year seven of his administration. Now Mike your turn. Give us a few things you disagree with from the Obama reign of error? Seizing the car companies?...choking off domestic energy?...seizing one sixth of the US economy with Obamacare,,,monthly deficits that rival Bush's yearly ones....can you see anything with your moderate/non-ideological view he's done wrong? I think we all know the answer but come Mike you can at least give us a token criticism.
Also on you comments on medical insurance being different from auto, home, life etc you are way off. Maybe you should look up how insurance is structured . You spread the risk over a large group of people.
Everyone pays in and the assets pay for the benefits when needed. Now again Mike the only thing that has been shown to reduce cost is more competition and choice. Example of what not to do. Rhomnycare in Massachusetts. Since passing their mini Obamacare with individual mandates, lots of regulation on what must be covered, etc health insurance and health care costs have skyrocketed. Governor Mitch Daniels has used HSAs to lower cost for state employes medical insurance. A perfect fit,, no. But unlike Obamacare you have options. Also for some reason you don't seem to like options ....
Finally Mike stop with the non-ideological crap you push here. We know each other only from writing but you're writing has shown you as left of center in the American political spectrum. If the only Republicans you can find agreement with are liberals like Graham you're not a moderate. I'm a proud conservative....I proclaim it. I am a thinking man and make judgements....you have to in the real world. If you are yourself moderate you must not make many judgements....you can dwell on the rest
Wow, you take a long time to generate a response:
My comments are quite civil and astute on this and other blogs and the word "fool" in response to RW's comment should not generate such indignation from you whose comments are quite derisive and even border on racist at times ... but whatever.
Economists on lower "revenue" from 01/03 cuts:
http://swordscrossed.org/node/1671
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=507
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html
And words from Mankiw (who advised on the policy)
"It is also important to be aware of how these deficits arose. About half of the change in the fiscal outlook since the President took office is attributable to the weak economy, including the stock market. About a quarter is due to higher expenditures, mainly on homeland security and defense. The last quarter is due to REDUCED REVENUE from the tax cuts."
If you think auto claims and health care can be compared, I can't convince you otherwise. But the premium to payout differential is an entirely different economy. Thus, you should probably review the separate industries and actuarial tables on the difference.
I support the Deficit commissions recommendations which the White House has failed to implement. I prefer a simpler tax code that lowers all rates but means tests deductions and counts every thing equally as "income." I preferred the market driven Healthy Americans Act, as opposed to the 2000 page ACA - but I'll take the benefits of the ACA over no progress at all. I opposed the whole Race-to-the-Top scam for education reform. I opposed bailing out any multinational banking conglomerate. I support shrinking the federal workforce by eliminating redundant agencies. I oppose the expansion of military contracting. I oppose any expansion of NASA's budget.
Like most Americans, I’m moderate, meaning I acknowledge the importance of a strong central government, but I don’t want it to be too large or intrusive. I’m a Burkean/Hamiltonian conservative who believes in the traditional institutions of society, and the role of government in preserving that stability to “promote the general welfare.”
Thus, I support public education and believe in equal opportunity. While I am uneasy about the use of public funds for private education (particularly because they are exclusive), I don’t immediately oppose them, and I support charters/magnets/open enrollment. I am not in a union, but I support the right to collective bargaining, and I don’t naively blame unions for all the problems in education, knowing as Darren points out, about all the cultural reasons for struggling students.
Like most Americans, I support individual liberties with regulations. I believe in gun rights and don’t think “guns cause crimes,” but I support restrictions/regulations. I don’t favor abortion and would never choose it, believe it should be rare and restricted, but not outlawed. I don’t support drug legalization but I believe in decriminalization with a focus on treatment. I don’t base public policy on religious ideals, so I support extending legal rights of marriages, preferring civil unions, to same sex couples, and I support protecting homosexual rights as civil rights.
I don’t view public/foreign policy based on ideology, but on pragmatism. I’m not a fan of nation building and an intrusive foreign policy –but I am not an isolationist. I preferred the NATO mission in Serbia to the second US intervention Iraq. The US tax code is too convoluted and allows too many loopholes. I don’t believe in subsidies for huge agribusinesses or energy companies. I think all Americans should bear the tax burden, but I believe the growing oligopoly is a concern. I oppose public policy that creates dependence, and I believe liberals have screwed up public housing, aid to dependent children, foster care, and Medicaid, among other things.
All these points, Mike, align me with the average, moderate American. However, my knowledge of public policy often leads me to an awareness that government is not the bogeyman many think it is. I don’t think earmarks or foreign aid or food stamps are a “huge” part of our budget. And I tend to understand infrastructure and public health/safety spending more than most.
Thus, while I am squarely in the middle, Mike, you are more of a libertarian extremist who judges policy based on ideology not real world conditions.
Sorry Mike but your snide remark aside, some people (like cops) don't work 9-5 with weekends off. I've worked over 50 hours since Thursday ...Final Four in Houston so it's when I actually had three hours to relax this afternoon I drafted a response. Now after some more overtime on my Sunday off I'm watching The Kennedy's, drinking a beer and typing.
Calling someone a fool is an insult and saying "you're in over your head..." shows an overblown since of self worth not supported by facts at hand. Example, you go back to the same liberal claptrap that any criticism of Barrack Hussein Obama mmm mmm mmm is racism. An example please. Is it because I call him B Hussein Obama, BO, Barry? Sorry but if it wasn't beneath the pale to refer to President George W Bush "Bush Junior" or "Bush the Younger", using his middle name, or initials or the name he used in school is not beneath civil political discord. Or is it I have a color problem? Not that he's black but he's red...yes wanting to "spread the wealth around" pretty much shows you as a socialist. What he's done since January 09 shows it...but your non-ideological eyes have a problem seeing it.
Again if you are a free thinking man you can answer the question I have presented you more than once. Give me one thing that ignorant man-child has done wrong since becoming president, in your humble opinion. Fact of life man, if you ain't screwing something up from time to time, you ain't doing anything right all the time.
Neko, you're back! Any thoughts?
Mike, please tell me you're not running for office. After watching The Kennedy's premiere and reading this I have a chill up my spine...and only so much booze. It sounds like a campaign speech of a leftist politician trying to not answer a question and is nothing but tripe.
FYI more people call themselves conservative as opposed to moderate. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-Conservatives-Outnumber-Moderates-Liberals.aspx.
More to the point of your post, or lack thereof. ",,,promote the general welfare..."you think maybe Hamilton would take offense at the modern version of "provide the general welfare"? But more to the point you don't take a stand on anything but higher taxes, environmental regulations or unions. Platitudes like "The US tax code is too convoluted and allows too many loopholes. " and "I preferred the NATO mission in Serbia to the second US intervention Iraq" mean what...what in your specific thinking would improve the tax code....what do you believe justifies deployment of an army overseas? Similar vein, what are we shooting up Libya? I have yet to hear B Hussein Obama, Mrs Bill Clinton or Obama aid Samantha Power (you know the anti-semite rumored to be the next National Security Advisor or Sec of State) explain this.
Again you're dodging basic questions an informed person can answer.
I refer to my comments on "facts not in evidence".
Mike, you're right - I was being snarky, as I thought was amusing for the situation, as was my initial comment to WR whose slam on me seemed rather snide and unwarranted.
If you don't see your comments on race and religion as negative, so be it. But if a man of African descent walks in to a room, and you say "Hey there, Black Man," you've inappropriately made race part of the equation. It doesn't excuse it to shrug and say, "But I just pointed out the obvious. I mean, he is black, isn't he?"
Because of the negative and inaccurate criticism of President Obama regarding heritage, your focus on his "muslim-sounding" middle name is intended to generate and reflect prejudice. Your use of initials "B.O." is similarly crass and juvenile, and your feigning innocence is beneath the standards you are claiming for this forum.
Regardless, you haven't responded to the long list of details I offered about my criticism of the president or my refutations of your points, nor have you acknowledged the explanation of my views and their moderate nature. So, why don't we just put it to rest for now.
I'm sure Darren will have another post soon on which we'll have much to disagree.
Thanks.
Mike
If you want to end the thread, so be it...soon enough we will cross jabs...but I won't let you leave a few false impressions.
If you don't see your comments on race and religion as negative, so be it. But if a man of African descent walks in to a room, and you say "Hey there, Black Man," you've inappropriately made race part of the equation
I'm not the one who brought race into the thread....you did. A common leftist trick....just calling any criticism of a liberal minority politician based on his color and trying to put the critic on the defensive and dodge questions...you know, like when i ask you if you have any criticism of Obama and you decline to answer but you say there is racism in the question. Yes, I make comments satirizing his name....just like those of you on the left make snide comments of the names of Bush's, Reagan, et all. Hell the insults Sarah Palin has had to endure would make the NOW scream from their hind legs if they we're directed to Mrs. Bill Clinton. But because the author is a leftist and target is a conservative it's not beyond the palewhen Bill Maher calls Palin a "c(;:"
Yes, I do show the man dis-respect...he has earned it. But more than the fact I criticize him for his policies, something you have declined to do...and there is plenty to criticize. Also, you and yours should man up...being in the arena you take abuse...stop whining.
I declined to answer your defense of your views because they, for the most part, gibberish.
Until we et again......
Post a Comment