2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

It didn't fit with his narrative.

Why does the Congressional approval numbers matter? I can't vote for or against a rep from another district - let alone another state. How do these national polls for Congress tie back to the local polls for the various pols within those voters' district? People from my district might approve of Congress at a 10% clip, but if we approve of our senators and house rep at a rate of more thant 50%, then the national polls mean nothing. I'd wager it's that case for the vast majority of Americans. That means the situation is unlikely to change in the near term for the vast majority of voting districts. National approval ratings for Congress mean next to nothing.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Why does the Congressional approval numbers matter? I can't vote for or against a rep from another district - let alone another state. How do these national polls for Congress tie back to the local polls for the various pols within those voters' district? People from my district might approve of Congress at a 10% clip, but if we approve of our senators and house rep at a rate of more thant 50%, then the national polls mean nothing. I'd wager it's that case for the vast majority of Americans. That means the situation is unlikely to change in the near term for the vast majority of voting districts. National approval ratings for Congress mean next to nothing.

As faulty logic as your "Congress passed the ACA in a lame duck session" statement in another thread.

If a political party is less popular than toe fungus, that has an effect. At some point, no matter what's going on with the other side, voters have to have some level of comfort with you. The GOP brand is in the toilet. Want proof? Look no further than 1) the VA off year elections concluded last week, and 2) the ND and MT Senate races from 2012, where generic Republican congressmen ran in big Romney states....and lost. They didn't lose because of some Todd Akin-like scandal. They lost because of their party ID.

Hubris is a dangerous thing. In 1992 Dems redrew the districts. They lost in 1994. In 2002-2004 GOoPers redrew the districts. They lost in 2006. There is no such thing as a gerrymandered lock on Congress and while I enjoy seeing their approval in single digits, one would think they'll try to adopt policies that get them back up above the magical 10% approval line.

 

[walrus]

They ought to as the football games are usually boring contests involving Detroit and Dallas that nobody cares about as neither team has contended for a title in like 20 years. Can anybody picture Tony Romo playing for the Super Bowl?

PS - walrus, I noticed you left Congress' 9% approval rating out of your post. I wonder why that was?

People have already caught on when it comes to congress,it took awhile to figure out Obama .

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Sarah Palin says the Pope is a liberal. Goes to show how out of touch she is.

If she thinks the Pope is liberal, wait until she gets a load of this Jesus character!

 

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

People have already caught on when it comes to congress,it took awhile to figure out Obama .

It would just as logical to say he is surprisingly popular compared to other politicians.

 

[walrus]

It would just as logical to say he is surprisingly popular compared to other politicians.

If you like, but in the last few weeks its gone down considerably. Outright lying will do that.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Sarah Palin says the Pope is a liberal. Goes to show how out of touch she is.

If she thinks the Pope is liberal, wait until she gets a load of this Jesus character!

And Obama and the United States are a Socialist Country, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Foxton]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

If you like, but in the last few weeks its gone down considerably. Outright lying will do that.

Ya! It's Obama telling a lie when the health insurance companies are the ones deciding to cancel junk plans that won't make them money anymore, as though this is a new thing. And the people who are losing them aren't gullible morons for shelling out money month after month for feel good plans that would leave them in ruin if they ever needed to visit a doctor for a cold.

It's really not that surprising that this talking point has taken off with republicans. Maybe if you say it enough you'll get one of those trickledown treats.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Ya! It's Obama telling a lie when the health insurance companies are the ones deciding to cancel junk plans that won't make them money anymore, as though this is a new thing. And the people who are losing them aren't gullible morons for shelling out money month after month for feel good plans that would leave them in ruin if they ever needed to visit a doctor for a cold.

It's really not that surprising that this talking point has taken off with republicans. Maybe if you say it enough you'll get one of those trickledown treats.

Much better to let you and the rest of the smarta*ses decide for them what they need. With fines for not doing what they're told.

 

[walrus]

Ya! It's Obama telling a lie when the health insurance companies are the ones deciding to cancel junk plans that won't make them money anymore, as though this is a new thing. And the people who are losing them aren't gullible morons for shelling out money month after month for feel good plans that would leave them in ruin if they ever needed to visit a doctor for a cold.

It's really not that surprising that this talking point has taken off with republicans. Maybe if you say it enough you'll get one of those trickledown treats.

You rationalize it anyway you like. He flat out lied

 

[Foxton]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

You rationalize it anyway you like. He flat out lied

Like I believe you really care about a politician telling a "lie" and not just who said it. You must be pretty busy getting worked up over all the lies not just from one person... right?

 

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

You rationalize it anyway you like. He flat out lied

I confess I have not followed the issue much, but what credible proof is there that Obama knew what he was saying was incorrect? The certainty with which you say he "flat out lied" tells me you are not just speculating.

 

[Slap Shot]

I confess I have not followed the issue much, but what credible proof is there that Obama knew what he was saying was incorrect? The certainty with which you say he "flat out lied" tells me you are not just speculating.

No, never that.

 

[walrus]

I confess I have not followed the issue much, but what credible proof is there that Obama knew what he was saying was incorrect? The certainty with which you say he "flat out lied" tells me you are not just speculating.

So he didn't know what was in his signature legislation?

 

[Foxton]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

So he didn't know what was in his signature legislation?

When did he say that and when was the final bill put in front of him to sign?

Could you also explain why you're ignoring the grandfather clause that does in fact allow these junk insurance plans to continue as long as the insurance company is willing to offer them?

Obama has a reasonable point: His health care law does take pains to allow Americans to keep their health plan if they want to remain on it. But Obama suggests that keeping the insurance you like is guaranteed.

In reality, Americans are not simply able to keep their insurance through thick and thin. Even before the law has taken effect, the rate of forced plan-switching among policyholders every year is substantial, and the CBO figures suggest that the law could increase that rate, at least modestly, even if Americans on balance benefit from the law’s provisions. We rate Obama’s claim Half True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-says-under-his-health-care-law-those-/

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

So he didn't know what was in his signature legislation?

I think the proper standard for veracity to apply here is the same one we apply to Neville stating repeatedly, (including six times in a whimpering speech before the UN) that the Benghazi attackers were dozens of Libyan Siskels and Eberts out for a stroll, armed with crew serve weapons. It's all from the same barnyard.

 

[Old Priocless]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

I think the proper standard for veracity to apply here is the same one we apply to Neville stating repeatedly, (including six times in a whimpering speech before the UN) that the Benghazi attackers were dozens of Libyan Siskels and Eberts out for a stroll, armed with crew serve weapons. It's all from the same barnyard.

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi...Ira Magaziner, Ira Magaziner, Ira Magaziner...blah blah, blah blah, blah blah. That's all it is with you, isn't it? I've said this before and I'll say it again - who gives a sh*t? The Ambassador to Libya is not an important position. I'm quite pleased that His Holiness, Barack I just let the neoCONS bleat away until all of this conspiracy nonsense blew over. Ira Magaziner hasn't been a relevant figure since Clinton. Time to find something else to whine about, conservaginas.

 

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

So he didn't know what was in his signature legislation?

If he didn't, that's on him, because he should be accountable. But you sounded certain that he lied, and I assumed you were not just being careless with your words.

Or perhaps it was just your subtle way of illustrating what you are claiming Obama did?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi...Ira Magaziner, Ira Magaziner, Ira Magaziner...blah blah, blah blah, blah blah. That's all it is with you, isn't it? I've said this before and I'll say it again - who gives a sh*t? The Ambassador to Libya is not an important position. I'm quite pleased that His Holiness, Barack I just let the neoCONS bleat away until all of this conspiracy nonsense blew over. Ira Magaziner hasn't been a relevant figure since Clinton. Time to find something else to whine about, conservaginas.

You know, responding to trolls (even unoriginal, extraordinarily trollish trolls) can be hazardous to your health. So I'll assume you're just being true to your job description by suggesting (as you have twice) that it doesn't matter if our ambassador to Libya was murdered because, after all, that's not a very important post. I would guess that even libtards who've been amused by your excretions are made uncomfortable by that psychotic nonsense.

Since you seem to know who Ira Magaziner is why not let Princess know. He's ignorant and proud of it.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

If he didn't, that's on him, because he should be accountable. But you sounded certain that he lied, and I assumed you were not just being careless with your words.

Or perhaps it was just your subtle way of illustrating what you are claiming Obama did?

With Oblahblah the buck stops short of the Oval. Always. Either he's the smartest guy in any room (who has claimed more than once that he knows more than the people who work for him) or he's not. Either he's truthful or he's not. He's on videotape from a couple of years ago talking about knowing that millions of Americans will lose their coverage because of Oblahblah Care. Subsequently he made dozens of statements about "you can keep your plan." Why not apply to him the standard that you've applied to Bush in deciding whether or not he was being truthful? Then report back to us.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_...ns-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite