Cliff you are being very inconvenient with facts.

---

We'll gladly swap you Abbott for Obama.

Cheers.

Cliff you are being very inconvenient with facts.

In which way? Facts are facts.

---

I don't buy computers, I build them!!

Cliff you are being very inconvenient with facts.

In which way? Facts are facts.

Yes, facts are facts and you brought some up. That makes it difficult for some posters.

---

We'll gladly swap you Abbott for Obama.

Cheers.

Murdoch was more than enough and you took nothing in return.

---

Cliff you are being very inconvenient with facts.

In which way? Facts are facts.

Yes, facts are facts and you brought some up. That makes it difficult for some posters.

Those facts would cause Dull some problems. ;-)

Cheers.

Cliff you are being very inconvenient with facts.

In which way? Facts are facts.

Yes, facts are facts and you brought some up. That makes it difficult for some posters.

I really hate getting riled up about how the Tea Party/Republicans have disrespected and treated this president since he first announced he was running for office. Fifty years after LBJ signed the Civil Rights bill into law and 49 after he signed the Voting Rights Act http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abraham-h-foxman/thoughts-on-the-50th-anni_b_5551233.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices&ir=Black%20Voices we still have to put up with this crap. Hell South Africa has had more success getting rid of their apartheid problems then we have with ours. The right-wing leaning Supreme Court carved out the most potent part of the Voting Rights Act because their buddies in the South lost big time to Obama, not once but twice by both whites and blacks and it is freaking them out. Within a couple of hours after the court announced their decision all of the Southern states enacted their so call race neutral VOTER ID laws, many of which have been revoked because they were found unconstitutional and the rest will be struck down eventually, and the rest of the Republican controlled states immediately followed in lock step. Unfortunately, this congress will not do anything to fix it and you can bet your bottom dollar that if the republicans take over the Senate in '15 or the presidential office in '16, we can probably kiss the whole thing good-bye and it's back to the 40s & 50s.

LBJ was correct when he said that by signing the those two acts into law that we would lose the Democratic party in the south for at least a generation. He was more correct then he realized at the time. All of the Democratic party that wanted to keep things the way it was went over to the Republican party and that party, the party of Lincoln has never been the same since, in fact it has gotten worse. When you think about how much he has accomplished during his time office, against all odds, and I do mean AGAINST ALL ODDS, it really is remarkable. But they still will not be satisfied until they are able to put a '*' next to his name in the history books. If they could manage it, they would wipe the entire eight years of his administration completely out of the history books as if it never happened.

---

I don't buy computers, I build them!!

#1) Barack Obama.

This national public opinion study brought to you by Quinnipiac University.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us07022014_U73jabn.pdf

While everyone is claiming that PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSIEN OBAMA is the most unliked imperial king/dictator in U.S. history according to the rants, lies and misinformation of the right-wing crackpots and dubious polls, remember this.

You should have read the survey. You really should have.

Your pile of straw is going to look rather silly when you do.

I did. And I know what is says.

They didn't just ask one question. So if they are presenting lies and damn crackpot lies then the answer to another question must also be a lie. Am I correct?

I might ask you to read it and see if you are man enough to post the results of that other question and tell us how crow tastes. But I won't keep everyone else waiting for Sisyphus to finish.

The other question was, "Who is the best president since WWII?"

Without further delay:
#5 Harry Truman
#4 Barack Obama
#3 John F Kennedy
#2 Bill Clinton
#1 Ronald Reagan

So there you have it Cliff. A big false lie that Obama is in the top five! Now how do you reconcile that with your instantaneous unfounded hate filled belief that the poll is biased political BS?

So if the rest of you care, this poll really measured how divisive the debate is. Where jerks dominate and not one shred of truth enters. Pure bile and hatred spews. Because it doesn't match my world view it is a lie!

Sounds like a lot of posters in this forum. Hermetically sealed minds. No oxygen, no life.

Oh note, I didn't post a reporters interpretation of the pole as the source, such as http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/07/obama-the-worst-president-since-wwii-see-how-he-stacks-up/ I posted the actual poll so there would be no mistake. But if you refuse any learning or mind expansion, you are as good as dead. I know there are a few readers here who actually have open minds. I just wish there were more.

---

#1) Barack Obama.

This national public opinion study brought to you by Quinnipiac University.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us07022014_U73jabn.pdf

While everyone is claiming that PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSIEN OBAMA is the most unliked imperial king/dictator in U.S. history according to the rants, lies and misinformation of the right-wing crackpots and dubious polls, remember this.

You should have read the survey. You really should have.

Your pile of straw is going to look rather silly when you do.

I did. And I know what is says.

They didn't just ask one question. So if they are presenting lies and damn crackpot lies then the answer to another question must also be a lie. Am I correct?

I might ask you to read it and see if you are man enough to post the results of that other question and tell us how crow tastes. But I won't keep everyone else waiting for Sisyphus to finish.

The other question was, "Who is the best president since WWII?"

Without further delay:
#5 Harry Truman
#4 Barack Obama
#3 John F Kennedy
#2 Bill Clinton
#1 Ronald Reagan

So there you have it Cliff. A big false lie that Obama is in the top five! Now how do you reconcile that with your instantaneous unfounded hate filled belief that the poll is biased political BS?

So if the rest of you care, this poll really measured how divisive the debate is. Where jerks dominate and not one shred of truth enters. Pure bile and hatred spews. Because it doesn't match my world view it is a lie!

Sounds like a lot of posters in this forum. Hermetically sealed minds. No oxygen, no life.

Oh note, I didn't post a reporters interpretation of the pole as the source, such as http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/07/obama-the-worst-president-since-wwii-see-how-he-stacks-up/ I posted the actual poll so there would be no mistake. But if you refuse any learning or mind expansion, you are as good as dead. I know there are a few readers here who actually have open minds. I just wish there were more.

You know the funny thing about most polls of this or any type, they is usually a very small sample of people in them, in this case 1,446. From this they extrapolate to the rest of the country.

If you had been truly following the posts in this thread you will have seen that what I quoted was a snippet of a previous post that put him as the worse, not the best. So your rant is moot. Yes, I did read the poll, probably before you did, and the results are mostly down party lines as was expected when I started to read it. Did you notice that the questions numbered in the text skipped a whole bunch of questions. It starts with 1, skips 2 thru 34 and picks up again at 35. I wonder what questions 2 thru 34 were.

I wouldn't count Reagan, the father of trickle down economics - which still hasn't trickled down as the #1 president. Trickle-down has caused more harm to the middle class then almost anything else, except maybe the destruction of the unions and the start of out-sourcing of jobs. The out-sourcing of jobs overseas where the pay is almost non-existent was a specialty of Mr. Mitt Romney. Oh, I forgot Reagan raised quite a lot taxes if I recall.

Now, on the other hand, Bill Clinton took the damage that George H. W. Bush, read my lips - no new taxes, created and ended his administration with a 1 billon + dollar surplus, with a mixed congress I might add.

George W. Bush and his cronies blew that surplus away with the made up war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which President Obama has pulled us out of one and working on doing the same with the other. He didn't even try very hard to find Osama bin Laden. He stripped the middle class with taxes, but gave the 1% a whole lot of breaks/cuts in taxes. When asked about it he stated he had other things to think about. BTW George H.W. Bush did raise taxes, and quite a lot of them, so that his administration and this country could function normally.

Out of all the presidents listed in the poll, the only republican that can come close to being in the top five is Dwight David Eisenhower. The reason being that he created the inter-state highway system and put hundreds of thousands to work after the war. And, he got idea from Germany's Autobahn in WWII.

Richard Nixon - Tricky Dick, Gerald Ford & Jimmy Carter, I don't know why they are on the list, maybe you can fill me in. The only things I can say about Tricky Dick is Watergate and Son Tay.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, oh how the good do die young. His biggest mistake was the Bay-of-Pigs mission. His biggest achievement would have been the Civil Rights Act, but somebody knocked him out of the box before he could get it done. And, he did try very hard to keep out of Vietnam.

Lyndon Baines Johnson was a master in getting congress to do the right thing. His most masterful stoke of genius was stating that the greatest memorial to Kennedy was to pass the Civil Rights Act, congress passed it and it became law on the 2nd of June, 1964. His next great achievement was to get the Voter Rights Act into law a year later. Yes, Vietnam was a big heavy cross that he bore, which is why he didn't run for reelection. I would put Kennedy and Johnson tied for second.

Now we get to Barack Obama, the African-American, college educated, constitutional law professor, who happens to have a Moslem last name, raised by his white mother and white grandparents in a christen faith; who slipped through the cracks so to speak. The right-wing nuts started talking trash about him from the second that he announced he was running for president. The hate and venom that has been thrown at this man since day one has been out of this world. If you tell enough lies loud enough and long enough people will start to believe them. Have you listened to Rush Limbaugh, the father of right-wing nuts radio? If you follow him closely, you will notice that just about everything that comes out of his mouth is being repeated by the Tea Party/Republicans either the same day or the next. A case in point, Sgt. Berdaghl. There were a lot of Republicans that praised the fact that he was released via a trade and was coming back to the U.S. As soon as Limbaugh heard about this he went into a rant, Faux News picked up on it, and all of those tweets were pulled within 2 days. The misinformation coming from him and Faux News day after day after day will eventually get to a lot of people, especially the Tea Party/Republicans. There's a reason why many on the left call him the head of the Tea Party/Republican party.

Most of the Tea Party/Republican party members of congress did not attend his first inauguration, they were holed up in a nearby restaurant plotting to make sure he was a one term president and John Boehner has been running that script since then. Just about everything this president has attempted to do with this congress has been thrown back in his face by the Tea Party/Republican party. If he is the worst president since WWII, then how in the he(^%ll did he get elected for a second term by both whites and minorities? He couldn't have brainwashed them all. When you take a person's strong suit and turn it against him and shout it loud enough and long enough, people will start to believe you.

But with all of this, the economy is improving, slowly, steadily, but it is still growing and Wall Street is at an all time high. 8.7 million jobs steady job growth since almost day one, Wall street at an all time high is quite a feat for these last six years. This has happened with a president that is hated by the right. BTW, it usually takes 10 years to recover from a recession/depression to get to this point. Most presidents in their second term has a very low rating, but that's okay facts don't matter to some. If Mitt Romney had become president, we would most likely have gone the complete austerity route professed by the Tea Party/Republicans and we would have ended up like Greece and others. But instead, President Obama held his ground. The Tea Party/Republican party has never, and I mean never acknowledged anything that he has done. They keep hollering about jobs, jobs, jobs, but when if ever will they bring the bi-partisan jobs bill that the Senate sent over, to the floor for a vote?

Yes, the poll does show how divisive the debate is, but let me ask you a question and I would love to hear your answer. If Barack Obama was white, would he have gotten the same disrespect from the stone wall party of NO that Obama has received. Here's another one. If the Tea Party/Republican party had even tried to work with President Obama, how much further along in this recovery would you think we would be?

---

I don't buy computers, I build them!!

All very good points there Cliff.

Cheers.

I really hate getting riled up about how the Tea Party/Republicans have disrespected and treated this president since he first announced he was running for office. Fifty years after LBJ signed the Civil Rights bill into law and 49 after he signed the Voting Rights Act http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abraham-h-foxman/thoughts-on-the-50th-anni_b_5551233.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices&ir=Black%20Voices we still have to put up with this crap. Hell South Africa has had more success getting rid of their apartheid problems then we have with ours. The right-wing leaning Supreme Court carved out the most potent part of the Voting Rights Act because their buddies in the South lost big time to Obama, not once but twice by both whites and blacks and it is freaking them out. Within a couple of hours after the court announced their decision all of the Southern states enacted their so call race neutral VOTER ID laws, many of which have been revoked because they were found unconstitutional and the rest will be struck down eventually, and the rest of the Republican controlled states immediately followed in lock step. Unfortunately, this congress will not do anything to fix it and you can bet your bottom dollar that if the republicans take over the Senate in '15 or the presidential office in '16, we can probably kiss the whole thing good-bye and it's back to the 40s & 50s.

LBJ was correct when he said that by signing the those two acts into law that we would lose the Democratic party in the south for at least a generation. He was more correct then he realized at the time. All of the Democratic party that wanted to keep things the way it was went over to the Republican party and that party, the party of Lincoln has never been the same since, in fact it has gotten worse. When you think about how much he has accomplished during his time office, against all odds, and I do mean AGAINST ALL ODDS, it really is remarkable. But they still will not be satisfied until they are able to put a '*' next to his name in the history books. If they could manage it, they would wipe the entire eight years of his administration completely out of the history books as if it never happened.

Hi Cliff,

here is an interesting cut and paste of an article I found on the internet a little history of the 1960's:

Why the Civil Rights Act couldn’t pass today



It was a painful tableau: The bipartisan leaders of Congress linking hands in the Capitol Rotunda and swaying to the strains of “We Shall Overcome” as they commemorated the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi sang along with the crowd, but Mitch McConnell and John Boehner’s lips were frozen in silent, self-conscious smiles.

The climate in today’s Washington is so different from the one that produced what many scholars view as the most important law of the 20th century that celebrating the law’s legacy is awkward for Republicans and Democrats alike. Neither party bears much resemblance to its past counterpart, and the bipartisanship that carried the day then is now all but dead.

Congress is deadlocked on every big question, from immigration reform to a grand bargain on taxes and spending, so it’s hard to believe the two parties once cooperated to address the single most controversial domestic issue of the day — legal equality for the races — or that Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill 50 years ago Wednesday, in the middle of a presidential election year. Now Boehner is suing President Barack Obama for failing to faithfully execute the laws, and Reid inveighs daily about the Koch brothers’ contributions to GOP causes.

The current congressional leaders gathered last week not to honor Johnson — or any of the legislative leaders who actually passed the landmark law — but to award a posthumous Congressional Gold Medal to The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his wife, Coretta Scott King, whose crusade helped create the climate that made the bill possible. In his life, racial tensions helped make King such a polarizing figure that both Johnson and John F. Kennedy worried about seeming too close to him, but in martyrdom and myth, he is the only politically safe ground on which present day leaders could unite.

Yes, Reid paid tribute to the bill’s Republican floor leader, Thomas Kuchel of California (though he mispronounced his name as KEE-chul, not KEE-kul). And Boehner invoked the crucial role played by his fellow Ohio Republican, Rep. William McCulloch, in helping Kennedy and Johnson pass the bill, but the very next day, Boehner betrayed McCulloch’s bipartisan legacy by announcing his intention to sue Obama for usurping congressional powers.

“The Republican Party today doesn’t really honor its past,” said Geoffrey Kabaservice, author of “Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party from Eisenhower to the Tea Party.” “The Republican Party that had been ceased to be sometime in the 1980s, and the modern party — the radical conservative party — not only has little or no interest in honoring its history, it is actively hostile to it.”

Part of the problem is this: Although the Civil Rights Act passed the Senate by 73-27, with 27 out of 33 Republican votes, one of the six Republicans who voted against it was Barry Goldwater of Arizona, who weeks later became the GOP’s presidential standard-bearer and started the long process by which the Party of Lincoln became the party of white backlash, especially in the South. Today, Republicans hold complete legislative control in all 11 states of the Old Confederacy for only the second time since Reconstruction.

Current GOP Chairman Reince Priebus has hired dozens of black and Latino field organizers, and he himself has made the rounds to historically black colleges and universities in an effort to launch College Republican chapters there. “Having bipartisanship on campus and giving our students options is really important,” he told a gathering at Central State University near Dayton, Ohio, in May.

But the position of the GOP’s congressional wing on issues from immigration, to voting rights, to the minimum wage (while helping to rack up Republican victories in individual districts) is broadly alienating to most African-American voters. So are efforts at the state level to impose new voter identification laws or other limits on access to the ballot box that disproportionately affect black voters. All that makes it hard for today’s GOP to lay plausible claim to its undisputed legacy on civil rights.

At the same time, the Democratic Party’s stance on civil rights has steadily shifted from the color-blind approach of 50 years ago — a belief that if blacks and whites were granted equal standing at the ballot box and in public spaces and the workplace, justice would prevail — to an emphasis on color-conscious remedies like affirmative action and social programs that redistribute wealth.

“Republicans have never gotten on board with that last piece,” Kabaservice said, “and so Democrats now almost have to define Republicans as anti-civil rights.”

Indeed, Democrats have seized that viewpoint, sharpening their civil rights rhetoric against Republicans to the point where bipartisanship on the issue has all but disappeared. Obama himself has found it difficult, and even politically dangerous, to discuss questions of race too frankly in public, and he issued an anodyne proclamation in honor of the bill’s anniversary, pledging to “renew our commitment to building a freer, fairer, greater society” but making no mention of the Republicans’ crucial role in its passage.

At a forum at the Library of Congress the same day as the Rotunda ceremony — co-sponsored by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) to commemorate LBJ’s role in passing the bill — few if any Republicans were in attendance, and Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) made a fiery speech, noting that “the Red South” could yet be vanquished if hundreds of thousands of unregistered black voters signed up and cast ballots for Democrats.

The forum was interrupted by examples of the attention-deficit disorder so common to Congress’ three-day workweek (Pelosi ducked in before rushing to an event on pediatric AIDS; Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) ducked out to attend a book signing for his own memoir) that some who might have most benefited from the message were not there to hear Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.). Fifty years ago, as a young leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, Lewis endured vicious beatings from racists, but he chose to recall that era’s “coalition of conscience,” and of the role of Republicans like Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-Ill.) in passing the bill. Asked by the panel’s moderator, Johnson’s former aide, Tom Johnson, to explain how that coalition fell apart, Lewis confessed that he had no ready or easy answer.

It fell to Johnson’s daughter, Lynda Johnson Robb, to remind the audience that one top Republican, House Minority Leader Charles Halleck (R-Ind.) actually lost his leadership for daring to work too closely with her father in the support of civil rights and other measures, to the ire of his conservative caucus.

Indeed, to a degree astounding to modern partisan sensibilities, Republican congressional leaders effectively neutralized civil rights as a political issue in 1964, by cooperating with northern Democrats to pass the bill, instead of torturing the opposing party by letting it fall victim to its internal divisions on civil rights. And Halleck was not the only Republican to pay a price.

Four years later, on the night of Robert Kennedy’s assassination in 1968, Kuchel, the Senate’s Republican whip, who had tirelessly supported civil rights, lost the California Republican primary to Max Rafferty, the conservative state superintendent of education. Rafferty charged that Kuchel was a creature of Washington, too consumed with national issues, not loyal enough to Republican orthodoxy and out of touch with the folks back home. Eric Cantor’s recent defeat is a reminder that some things haven’t changed in 50 years.

Perhaps the most pointed question of the week was asked by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who mused aloud about what King and his contemporaries would think of today’s climate in the capital. “Would they not challenge us,” he wondered, “to come together across lines of party and geography in a great cause?”

But the “great cause” Levin went on to cite — restoration of a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court struck down last year — is given no chance of passing the House, despite co-sponsorship from Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) for creating new criteria for determining which states must obtain approval from the Justice Department before changing their voting laws.

“There are no real Republican leaders on civil rights or voting rights, aside from Sensenbrenner,” said Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and author of the Election Law Blog. “And it’s only going to get more awkward, because we’re coming up on the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The anniversaries of all these just serve to show how different things are today.”

Bryon, there are many articles like that out there for people which to look and be educated about what has/is happened/happening in this country. Having been born just after WWII, I'm probably older than most of the posters here, so what I am speaking about is not just running my mouth, it's from actually living through these times. My great-grand parents were slaves and my grandfather on my father's side was a share cropper in Kentucky before moving to Ohio. Most of my older relatives in Kentucky and Tennessee were share croppers and were REPUBLICANS, until the Civil Rights era and they switched parties. They and the ones near my age lived through the horror and terror of the three cousins Klu, Klux & Klan.

Some of the first Air Force bases that I was stationed at were in the south in the mid-60s and I almost got arrested for using the front men's room, which happened to be whites only, the very first night I arrived in Louisiana. Good enough to defend the country, but you must go out back to take a p9(&^&%%ss.

African-Americans have contributed so much to the building of this great country of ours, and to the world in general, that I don't have the time to list them all, but we are still looked down on as something beneath most whites. Here are a few examples:

1) Washington, D.C. was mostly constructed on the backs of blacks, as was a good portion of the highways and byways of this country.

2) Automated traffic lights was created by a black man.

3) The radio/teletype communications used by our railroads was created by a lowly porter.

4) One of the unions for railway conductors and porters was created by black porters who demanded better pay, etc.

5) Your PB&J sandwich that you enjoyed in your youth, and most likely still do today, and 100+ other uses for the peanut was developed by a black man.

6) During WWII, one of the most decorated squadrons/groups in the Army Air Force was the Tuskegee Airmen. This group of African-Americans, though deemed at first not to be intelligent enough to fly something as advanced as a fighter plane, according to a secret study by the Army War College, was THE ONLY GROUP that DID NOT LOSE AN AIRCRAFT to enemy action. While most white pilots flew off to claim victories on German fighters who attacked the bomber formations them defenseless, the Tuskegee Airmen made it a point to stay and protect the bombers. This happened after they showed what they could do during the landings on Sicily. The 1000 plane raid on Berlin was in part successful due to the Tuskegee Airmen. Originally they were not even assigned a part in the raid, but when some white pilots found out they raised a fuss and requested that they be included. At first they were limited to the beginning stage of the flight to Berlin, but when their white replacements did not show, they continued on to Berlin and back. The only way people back in the states knew about most of what they did was through the black press. Most of white America knew nothing about them, I wonder how come. BTW, one of the chief instructors of the Tuskegee Airmen was a black pilot who taught himself to fly because no white pilot would teach him how. The last time I looked he still lives in Tuskegee, Alabama and flies most every day even though he's in his 80s.

7) Publishing - Essence, Jet, and many others. On of the most prolific authors of children stories died just last week.

8) Alexandre Dumas was a French black man whose mother was from Haiti, authored the Three Musketeers and the Count Of Monte Cristo.

9) Music - The first music genre that was created solely in U.S. was the Blues and Jazz. Blues was essentially created from the songs that slaves sang in the fields. Outside of the popularity among the minorities here, it was and still is greatly appreciated in Europe. Rock & Roll, Rhythm & Blues was initially one genre, created by blacks.

10) The first African-American president, who has turned the economy of this country around in record time. A man hated so much by the right, not by his policies, but by the fact that a black man was in a position of power over them. If you can recall, one of the first LIES AND DISINFORMATION created by the Tea Party/Republicans, Rush Limbaugh, Faux News, etc. was that he was an angry black man coming to enact revenge on the great white population. If you don't believe me - do some research. Another was and still is to this day - birthism. There has never been in the history of this country a demand to see a candidate's birth certificate, and when finally produced it was claimed to be false. Even though he was born in Hawaii to a white mother, making him a citizen of this country twice, once because he was born in America, but also to an American mother. Making him a natural born citizen. Another was/is, is that he's un-American, he doesn't understand how to be an American. Born Hawaii, spent much of his youth in Kansas, went to a universities, graduated with honors, but is not an American - give me a break.

Yes many blacks voted for Barack Hussein Obama, along with a good many whites and other minorities, not just because he was black, which in itself was historic, but because he had a vision to take this country forward out of the mess that George W. Bush created in his 8 years in office. Not only did they vote for him once, but twice which is again is another great mark in history. He has brought this country back from the brink. He is not a saint, just a good man. Yes, the Democrats have come down hard on President Obama, but it's not for what he has done, but for what he hasn't done as many have thought he hasn't done enough. But you can only do so much when faced with a major branch of the federal government going against him since day one, instead of attempting to work with him.

So, do not talk to me, and you know who you are - I do not need to mention who, about hate filled rhetoric unless you know what you are talking about and have experienced it yourself first hand.

---

I don't buy computers, I build them!!

Thank you Cliff for your good post. BTW I think I have senority on you I was born 1940 :)

Best Wishes
Byron

#1) Barack Obama.

This national public opinion study brought to you by Quinnipiac University.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us07022014_U73jabn.pdf

He's still in office with all the negative media attention from the right still focused on him. I wonder what they will think of Obama after 10 years, when he is no longer as much in the media spotlight and the people are less influenced by what their particular news station has to say about him this time.

I'm sure he'll never be considered a good president, but I'm also pretty sure he won't be considered the worst.

#1) Barack Obama.

This national public opinion study brought to you by Quinnipiac University.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us07022014_U73jabn.pdf

While everyone is claiming that PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSIEN OBAMA is the most unliked imperial king/dictator in U.S. history according to the rants, lies and misinformation of the right-wing crackpots and dubious polls, remember this.

You should have read the survey. You really should have.

Your pile of straw is going to look rather silly when you do.

I did. And I know what is says.

They didn't just ask one question. So if they are presenting lies and damn crackpot lies then the answer to another question must also be a lie. Am I correct?

I might ask you to read it and see if you are man enough to post the results of that other question and tell us how crow tastes. But I won't keep everyone else waiting for Sisyphus to finish.

The other question was, "Who is the best president since WWII?"

Without further delay:
#5 Harry Truman
#4 Barack Obama
#3 John F Kennedy
#2 Bill Clinton
#1 Ronald Reagan

So there you have it Cliff. A big false lie that Obama is in the top five! Now how do you reconcile that with your instantaneous unfounded hate filled belief that the poll is biased political BS?

So if the rest of you care, this poll really measured how divisive the debate is. Where jerks dominate and not one shred of truth enters. Pure bile and hatred spews. Because it doesn't match my world view it is a lie!

Sounds like a lot of posters in this forum. Hermetically sealed minds. No oxygen, no life.

Oh note, I didn't post a reporters interpretation of the pole as the source, such as http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/07/obama-the-worst-president-since-wwii-see-how-he-stacks-up/ I posted the actual poll so there would be no mistake. But if you refuse any learning or mind expansion, you are as good as dead. I know there are a few readers here who actually have open minds. I just wish there were more.

You know the funny thing about most polls of this or any type, they is usually a very small sample of people in them, in this case 1,446. From this they extrapolate to the rest of the country.

Take a class on statistics and probability theory. 1446 is plenty to read the entire country.

If you had been truly following the posts in this thread you will have seen that what I quoted was a snippet of a previous post that put him as the worse, not the best. So your rant is moot. Yes, I did read the poll, probably before you did, and the results are mostly down party lines as was expected when I started to read it. Did you notice that the questions numbered in the text skipped a whole bunch of questions. It starts with 1, skips 2 thru 34 and picks up again at 35. I wonder what questions 2 thru 34 were.

Should be obvious, since the answers are broken down by sex, age group, party ... they had to ask those questions, but you can continue to have your conspiracy delusion.

Yes, the poll does show how divisive the debate is

I think your sniped rant does a better job

but let me ask you a question and I would love to hear your answer. If Barack Obama was white, would he have gotten the same disrespect from the stone wall party of NO that Obama has received.

He is a Chicago politician, so my guess is it would have been much worse. They would have been free to attack him on a personal basis without being called racist. Only the dixiecrats spoke up this time.

Here's another one. If the Tea Party/Republican party had even tried to work with President Obama, how much further along in this recovery would you think we would be?

Since Geroge W. Bush made the recovery happen, bail out of GM and Wall Street, I'd expect we would have gone into depression that would not end for a few decades. Remember Obama is a Chicago politician, his only prior work experience is in taking bribes and ACORN forcing CRA loans onto borrowers who default. Because of his ACORN, he may bear personal responsibility for creating the recession. Maybe he really is on par with Nixon and Harding? Like a fireman who is an arsonist?

OBW ...

Did you notice that the questions numbered in the text skipped a whole bunch of questions. It starts with 1, skips 2 thru 34 and picks up again at 35.

Wipe that hate out of your eyeballs and look again. It skips 1 & 2, has 3, skips 4 to 34. If I had to guess Q1, are you willing to take a survey? Q2 do you work for a survey company?

Now as your bias, if you go down to Q36 you will note this is a tracking poll, and in June 2006 George W Bush was the worst president. Obama was a n/a then. So how did he go from n/a to worst in such a short time frame? Be elected?

Now on Q35, June 2006, has Harry Truman in the number 4 spot, of course Obama in a n/a. 1 through 3 are in the same order. So it looks like Reagan, the president who signed the second largest tax increase in history is number one.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/biggest-tax-increase-in-history/
Read my lips, second biggest tax increase in history.

Oh, as to Rusty Lintball, I don't find the drug addict's comedy show to be funny. I do find tragic how many people take it seriously.
On Rupert Murdoch's opinion a/k/a Faux Politics, completely ignorable. Fox News does seem able to be fair and balanced when reporting any subject other than Rupert Murdoch's opinion, usually because they are just quoting some other source, e.g. AP. I guess that is how they attract so many democrat viewers. Madison avenue marketing is such a wonderful subject. Fill with a strong emotion and make piles of cash. Its more obscene than a sex film.

---

Gary after reading the poll I come away with 2 conclusions.
The first is that the public has a very poor recollection of history and the second is that pulic opinion is very partisan.

---

Gary after reading the poll I come away with 2 conclusions.
The first is that the public has a very poor recollection of history and the second is that pulic opinion is very partisan.

BINGO!

---

Since Geroge W. Bush made the recovery happen, bail out of GM and Wall Street, I'd expect we would have gone into depression that would not end for a few decades. Remember Obama is a Chicago politician, his only prior work experience is in taking bribes and ACORN forcing CRA loans onto borrowers who default. Because of his ACORN, he may bear personal responsibility for creating the recession.

Yes, Bush did start the recovery effort along with the bailout of two of the three big automakers and Wall Street, but he waited until the absolute end of his administration to do it and it was left to Obama to see it through. And, when Obama attempted to strengthen it he was basically shot down by the House, even though he was able to strengthen it a little.


Ah, Acorn again.. You just might want to take a little history lesson about A.C.O.R.N http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now - no where in their history did they force CRA loans on borrowers. Actually it was a couple of traders from the big banks that cooked up that whole scam. Did you know that even though the national organization of A.C.O.R.N has been defunct and out of existence for several years now, the House last month still voted to defund it.

Oh, as to Rusty Lintball, I don't find the drug addict's comedy show to be funny. I do find tragic how many people take it seriously.
On Rupert Murdoch's opinion a/k/a Faux Politics, completely ignorable. Fox News does seem able to be fair and balanced when reporting any subject other than Rupert Murdoch's opinion, usually because they are just quoting some other source, e.g. AP. I guess that is how they attract so many democrat viewers.

I also find it tragic that so many people take him and Faux News so seriously. Unfortunately, they are mostly those who only take a very need a very low standard of information to form the basis of their news, which usually end up being from the right-wing portion of our society. As far as Rupert Murdoch's Faux News is concern, they are very far from being fair and balanced. They pounce on Obama almost as much as Limbaugh. While the greater majority of mainstream media celebrated the jobs reports the other day, this is how Faux News handled it on their web site
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/03/fox-news-job-figures-downplayed_n_5555037.html?utm_hp_ref=media - fair & balanced? You got to come up with something better.

---

I don't buy computers, I build them!!

Thank you Cliff for your excellent post and I have learned much from your post.

BTW I think I have senority on you I was born 1940 :)

Best Wishes
Byron
Vancouver
Canada

Ah, Acorn again.. You just might want to take a little history lesson about A.C.O.R.N http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now - no where in their history did they force CRA loans on borrowers. Actually it was a couple of traders from the big banks that cooked up that whole scam. Did you know that even though the national organization of A.C.O.R.N has been defunct and out of existence for several years now, the House last month still voted to defund it.

Read up ...
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/03/community-reinvestment-act-mortgages-housing-opinions-contributors-peter-schweizer.html
From your wiki ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now#Predatory_lending_and_affordable_housing
also wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Reported_relationship_to_the_2008_financial_crisis
Please note the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is partisan.

I think when history gets written half a century from now it will be called a factor, but not the leading factor. ACORN and Obama were part of that factor.

Oh, as to Rusty Lintball, I don't find the drug addict's comedy show to be funny. I do find tragic how many people take it seriously.
On Rupert Murdoch's opinion a/k/a Faux Politics, completely ignorable. Fox News does seem able to be fair and balanced when reporting any subject other than Rupert Murdoch's opinion, usually because they are just quoting some other source, e.g. AP. I guess that is how they attract so many democrat viewers.

I also find it tragic that so many people take him and Faux News so seriously. Unfortunately, they are mostly those who only take a very need a very low standard of information to form the basis of their news, which usually end up being from the right-wing portion of our society. As far as Rupert Murdoch's Faux News is concern, they are very far from being fair and balanced. They pounce on Obama almost as much as Limbaugh. While the greater majority of mainstream media celebrated the jobs reports the other day, this is how Faux News handled it on their web site
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/03/fox-news-job-figures-downplayed_n_5555037.html?utm_hp_ref=media - fair & balanced? You got to come up with something better.

Go read my words again and process for meaning. Rupert Murdoch's opinion a/k/a Faux Politics != Fox News, repeat AP story.
If you watch, I hope no one does, you find Faux politics on 55 minutes per hour and Fox News on 5 minutes. You have to engage your brain to separate them. On their website it is easier to separate them as Rupert Murdoch's opinion a/k/a Faux politics is tagged with politics.

---