Users who Dugg This
Sandy Landers
709 Followers
Sandy Landers
709 Followers
bobosmitor
5476 Followers
bobosmitor
5476 Followers
Shovelbaby
2110 Followers
sandylandersJun 23, 2010
Wow! What took so long?
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
Shut the f**k up, SandyLanders.
omgscienceJun 24, 2010
Well when the uneducated can't formulate a counter argument to a topic they usually resort to dribble such as "shut the f**k up" in a attempt to hide their mental inadequacy. As so primitively displayed by filolif.
ramfire98Jun 24, 2010
"Shut the f**k up, SandyLanders."
That one hell of an intelligent post, shortbus. /s
quaestor44Jun 24, 2010
You must work for the government huh?
gizram84Jun 24, 2010
I love when dumb liberals get all angry like this. I'm cheesing ear to ear right now.
cariboubarbiespJun 24, 2010
I've been saying for years now that Barack Obama is ruining this great country of ours, and its up to us brave and fearless Tea Partiers to oust him from his eternal presidency. Thankfully, I, and my running mate, Mitt Huckindal, will restore America's greatness, fiscal balance, and Judeo-Christian foundation when we are elected in 2012!
- Sarah H. Palin
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gizram84Jun 24, 2010
I believe that black people deserve a free ride in this country. I believe that working should only have to be done by the white rich people and their money should be confiscated by the Federal Government. I believe Federal Government has the power to decide who gets their money taken from them and who gets free money in return. I believe a health care fix means fining people who don't purchase insurance policies from large corporations.
-Barack Obama
musicmagiJun 24, 2010
wow you are really deluded..
weaksnycJun 24, 2010
and racist, apparently. Who's to say that black people have cornered the "free loading American" market? There are plenty of white (and other races) who are lazy pieces of s**t... Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJun 24, 2010
Caribou, apparently it's your life's mission to deride Palin and those with whom you disagree rather than actually ever having a salient point of your own. That's fine, I guess- an easy target for a demonstrably poor marksman. But it it's hard to deny the fact that President Obama is losing the confidence of the majority of Americans at an `increasingly rapid pace.
Perhaps that's the reason you prefer obfuscation.
ramfire98Jun 24, 2010
A lot of supposition and speculation you got there, BarbieCarribou.
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
It's hard (especially for liberals) to admit they were hoodwinked.
elranzerJun 24, 2010
Brought to you by Murdoch Media.
Yeah, that's credible.
atomheartmotherJun 24, 2010
You do realize that Murdock supported Hillary Clinton in the last presidential election, right, and that she's a Democrat?
atomheartmotherJun 24, 2010
"ahm, Murdoch supported her because he thought she would lose."
That hardly sounds feasible, since he supported her as far back as 2006. How could he know she would lose back then? No one knew who Obama even was.
"...actuality it was really nothing more than simply wanting another Clinton in the White House, the same way Republicans wanted to get another Bush in there."
Wait. On the one hand Murdoch wanted her to lose but in the next breath the GOP wanted her in there? Doesn't make sense.
The reason he supported Clinton is because he likes her, and he's a lot more moderate than people think. It's not fair to to claim he influences his media outlets with his own personal biases and then not look at where he stands on his personal politics.
ramfire98Jun 24, 2010
Would you feel better if it was brought to you by George "I got mine, screw you" Soros?
ultimisJun 24, 2010
"but that hope went straight down the crapper right after her disastrous and now infamous Couric interview."
Actually as polls showed during the election very few democrats that supported Hillary came over to support Palin. This was even before the Couric interview. Palin did swing many independent voters; that is the reason McCain/Palin were up 3-5 points over Obama. What killed the ticket was the financial collapse and McCain's easily quotable "I'm not good on the economy". Obama was able to pretend that he had a clue on how the economy works, which he obviously doesn't.
bobosmitorJun 24, 2010
"For the first time, more people disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance than approve. And 57% of voters would prefer to elect a new person to Congress than re-elect their local representatives, the highest share in 18 years."
Times are changing. The gleam is off the crown.
oxidaneJun 24, 2010
'bout damn time. american politics has been so complacent the past few decades...
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
Past glory : "I can do great things. Look what I can do! Elect me and let me prove it."
Recent crap : " "Look at how bad the other guy is and elect me!"
inetroadkillJun 24, 2010
He might be doing better right now if the person he campaigned as was the same person currently occupying the white house. Obama abandoned most of his election platform once he took the oath of office.
vision777Jun 24, 2010
He didn't abandon it most of what he can do has to pass congress. We don't have a single ruler system. Most running for president go in with the intention of doing what they say but then they run into the bureaucracy that is our system of government. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
oxidaneJun 24, 2010
@vision, that sort of makes the president pointless. he's just another guy with an opinion.
trdrstvJun 24, 2010
"most of what he can do has to pass congress."
You mean the same congress where the Democrats have a larger majority than the republicans have held since 1923 ? If he were to rally "the troops", they can rubber stamp anything they want though see how healthcare reform passed.
wpjmurrayJun 24, 2010
@trdrstv, you're assuming the Democrats are mindless puppets like the Republicans.
oxidaneJun 24, 2010
@wpj, theyre all mindless puppets.
ultimisJun 24, 2010
I love how democrats keep pointing to Bush like he had a free reign. Pretty much all of Bush's social issues died and those that passed were highly comprimised with democrats like NCLB. NCLB was mostly written by Ted Kennedy.
He was sucessful in getting what he needed for the war on terrorism because the whole country listed that as the most important issue; both democrats and republicans supported him.
betteroffedJun 24, 2010
I don't know why you're being buried. In general, I'm an Obama supporter, but they're just stating the facts here: His approval rating is down.
ferretmanJun 24, 2010
Saw this one coming, didn't we?
Interesting...as I recall similar stories about Bush had hundreds of Diggs and practically had a permanent spot on the front page. Hmmmmm....
dayal911Jun 24, 2010
You're being dugg down for making a true statement.
That shows you the education level of Diggers.
itsrattlesnakeJun 24, 2010
Truth doesn't necessarily bring more diggs. Often times, it is the other way around.
kclorelei39Jun 24, 2010
dayal911, I think it only shows you the maturity level of Diggers.
ferretmanJun 24, 2010
Heheheheheh....thanks Daya, good point.
zardayJun 24, 2010
Are you guys not on digg?
falconearJun 25, 2010
zarday: They are, but they're EXEMPT for being considered Diggers...I guess by the fact that their views are in the vast minority here. Or something.
trollbaneJun 24, 2010
I'm not going to deny that digg has a more liberal than not slant, but isn't the fact that a story like this made it to the front page at all testament to the fact that we're not completely biased?
mnocketJun 24, 2010
Perhaps, but what typically happens is that as soon as a negative Obama story makes it to the front page a hoard of diggers show up and it gets buried in a matter of minutes. We'll have to see if this story stays on the front page for more than an hour.
theinformerJun 24, 2010
Not completely = 99%?
crazedchemistJun 24, 2010
The whole liberals bury every anti-obama front page story off the front page is completely bulls**t. I have never seen it happen, yet you act like its a regular occurrence.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
liberty56Jun 24, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
1sammyJun 24, 2010
"force"? Really? So you would rather stick with fossil fuels until it runs us into the ground? What nefarious ends is he trying to achieve? Perhaps he's in the pocket of the powerful windmill lobby. Your tin foil hat is a little crooked, there.
phydeaux70Jun 24, 2010
You cannot legislatively create a market for alternative fuels. If it was cost effective and profitable it would be done already.
What is running us into the ground is us paying foreign countries for our fuel. We have plenty here in the U.S. that has been put 'off limits' for consumption. We can't drill in shallow waters, can't drill up north, can't use our coal the way we want because of carbon issues, can't create nuclear plants because of spent fuel disposal. We are being pushed because of the environmentalists.
You may not like it but that's the truth.
zarchonJun 24, 2010
phydeaux70, you are a voice of reason. I do not understand the thinking of those who have dugg you down. I wish they would respond with what it was you said they disagree with.
oxidaneJun 24, 2010
gee, what a surprise.
xistew13ixJun 26, 2010
Wow that is funny as hell
edstateJun 24, 2010
At this point he's just oozing "newbie". He doesn't seem in control, and his little oratorical tricks have worn off.
More importantly, his larger promise –that the behemoth Federal Government could work magic, fix all problems, and make live fair for all... if it's only in the right people's hands– has been proven false. In a big, big way.
Not that I want my President to look bad. I'm not liking what's going on with him, and his administration.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ratherstupidJun 24, 2010
"At this point he's just oozing "newbie". He doesn't seem in control, and his little oratorical tricks have worn off."
I enjoy your factual statements.
"More importantly, his larger promise –that the behemoth Federal Government could work magic, fix all problems, and make live fair for all... if it's only in the right people's hands– has been proven false. In a big, big way."
Exaggerate much?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gizram84Jun 24, 2010
It was an opinion, not a fact. I'm not sure we have the scientific capabilities to measure the amount of "newbie" oozing from one's body.
ultra200Jun 24, 2010
He is spot on with his view Obama is in way over his head
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
WSJ, burried
gizram84Jun 24, 2010
What a surprise. You see a valid, lucid, study about the people's opinion of Obama and his inadequacies and your response is to ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist, and move on with your day, knowing full well that you're just an ignorant piece of s**t who clings to pure fantasy.
You must really live in bliss when you simply ignore everything you don't agree with.
f**king pathetic.
cariboubarbiespJun 24, 2010
I agree, and I have compiled a list of sources that can be relied on for unbiased information:
- The Wall Street Journal
- Rasmussen
- The National Review
- The Bible (the new Christian one, and selected tracts of the old Jewy one)
- WorldNetDaily.com
- FreeRepublic.com
The rest (New York Times, Reuters, AP, Katie Couric, etc) are a bunch of liberal propaganda.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theinformerJun 24, 2010
Watch the documentary "Indoctrinate U". You get a clear view of how the people that are all for "different opinions" and "diversity" are anything but.
paultripJun 25, 2010
Did your mommy teach you such nice language? My you must be proud of yourself. I am very impressed by you. Wow Is this Glenn Beck? Or a wanna be?
gizram84Jun 25, 2010
@paultrip
Care to address the content of my claim? No, instead you decide to open that hole in your face and blurt out more ignorant, regurgitated Rachel Maddow garbage.
Nothing I even said indicated that I support or abhor Obama (though it wouldn't be hard to guess). My entire point was that this is a realistic study. The people are not happy with the repugnant leader they so sheepishly voted for. The typical, ignorant liberal response: Ignore it and it will go away.
If you're going to reply to one of my comments, have some f**king balls and counter argue me. Don't try to insult me with your unoriginal banter somehow comparing me to Glenn Beck.
thegreenspanputJun 24, 2010
lol wat?
dayal911Jun 24, 2010
A WSJ/NBC poll.
God, you're just a blind partisan hack. Why don't you try to refute the article instead of just trying to hide the truth.
No wonder you weren't good enough for 1st tier universities.
theinformerJun 24, 2010
"If it doesn't follow my worldview, I bury my head."
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
But huffpo was dugg up?
quaestor44Jun 24, 2010
Its sad that you ignore one of the few good newspapers left at the behest of partisanship. I'm also amazed that someone who probably considers himself intelligent would willfully consign themselves to ignorance.
Wake up, ZackRichington.
gotbannedagainJun 24, 2010
Americans are a fickle bunch, period. Most don't understand how the economy works or how job growth occurs. People also seem to be under the impression that one man can repair our broken economy in just a few years time. It's not like the US is the only place suffering, either - it's been a global economic downturn.
Just like it wasn't solely Bush's fault for the collapse, it can't be solely Obama's policies that will just fix it overnight.
gizram84Jun 24, 2010
"Most don't understand how the economy works or how job growth occurs."
Obama is the leader of that group of people.
hewhopoopsJun 24, 2010
Riiiiiight...
vision777Jun 24, 2010
He doesn't have the ability to tell business owners to stop hording cash and start hiring. If you want a dictator that is all powerful then you need to fight to change your form of government.
gizram84Jun 24, 2010
@vision777
What are you talking about? Who said anything about Obama telling business to hire people? I completely agree that he doesn't have the power to tell private business do that. I would never want a president to have that power.
My point is, Obama is f**king clueless when it comes to incentivizing the hiring of people. All he did was create temporary government and union positions, while raising taxes. This deadly mix is why the economy is still struggling and why unemployment is not getting better. He should have loosened (or eliminated) the payroll tax that small business is drowning in to promote real private job growth.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zardayJun 24, 2010
Most economists are of the impression that any tax cuts made during recessions/depressions will only be saved by businesses and no hiring will take place. This has been shown many times over and over.*
But this is pretty deep into the economics literature so I wouldn't expect too many people to know of it, which explains why most people have no idea what they're talking about.
*I'm usually a supply-sider but the way the economy works during recessions is completely different from how it usually works, and this is a fact.
deftone1516Jun 24, 2010
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS NOT THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH!
thegreenspanputJun 24, 2010
MaynardJK? Have you ever read "Keynes the Man"? - google it. He was a terrible economist, but prescribed massive intervention which is why academic economists love him. It gives them jobs.
maynardjkJun 24, 2010
I haven't. I'll check it out.
maynardjkJun 24, 2010
My username has nothing to do with Keynes btw.
trollbaneJun 24, 2010
Meh, there's stupid people in every democracy. Americans just seem to be louder.
scientistblahJun 24, 2010
The majority of American voters don't know wtf they're talking about. People just like to bitch. Obama isn't doing a terrible job, people just have ridiculous expectations. It wouldn't matter what he was doing right now, people would be complaining about it.
thegreatone2009Jun 24, 2010
Amen Scientist, no matter who is in office, people will continue to bitch and moan....
pgoetzJun 24, 2010
Good comments. It seems to me that Obama is doing as good a job as anyone could as far as jobs and the economy go. The right wingers don't seem to realize this, but his budgeting principles (i.e. figuring out how to bring down the deficit) are about as good as we can expect to get, too. He could do a little better (but not much) on environmental issues, and gets a giant F for fail on undoing the executive power grab and loss of civil liberties that the Bush administration brought us.
zardayJun 24, 2010
I couldn't agree more. People think Obama is the one calling the shots on the economy too. No way! He has a team of Ivy League educated economists from both sides of the political spectrum guiding his every move. Personally I couldn't think of any people more suited for the job of fixing our train wrecked economy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
maynardjkJun 24, 2010
"The right wingers don't seem to realize this, but his budgeting principles (i.e. figuring out how to bring down the deficit) are about as good as we can expect to get, too."
That is some funny stuff right there.
Oh wait, you weren't jokingComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonJun 24, 2010
"Our last president was able to singlehandedly start two wars, pass the Patriot Act, open Gitmo and torture a bunch of people, and give out a massive bailout. He must have been Superman."
Singlehandedly? Ever heard of Congress? Nearly all of these things you listed were supported by a majority of politicians in both parties.
The bailout was written and sponsored by a Democrat for Christ sakes... it's time to realize both parties are f**king us over.
maynardjkJun 24, 2010
Read my comment again. I was making fun of all of the people that blamed everything on Bush but are now pissed off when the other side is doing the same thing to Obama.
deftone1516Jun 24, 2010
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS NOT THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH!!
gerrylazloJun 24, 2010
Wow. A News Corporation property has something negative to say about Obama. What a crazy world!
hewhopoopsJun 24, 2010
Right. Because the media is sooooooo liberal. Which is why we're at war in Iraq, because the media pushed for it and war in the Middle East is undoubtedly in the liberal agenda.
linuxpersonJun 24, 2010
"Right or wrong, the Vietnam war was a product of two world superpowers and not necessarily a liberal or conservative thing."
You are correct, both liberals and conservative support an interventionist foreign policy. LBJ was a liberal Democrat and it was he who expanded the Vietnam war into the cluster f**k that we now know it as.
thegreenspanputJun 24, 2010
A News Corporation property or the people who took the poll? Grow up, hippie.
dayal911Jun 24, 2010
A WSJ/NBC poll.
Can you even read?
wasabibombJun 24, 2010
Online polls are worth the pixels they're printed on- absolutely nothing.
dayal911Jun 24, 2010
So now it's an online poll?
That doesn't even address the point.
The original comment was "A News Corp property......"
How is NBC News Corp property?
perrymJun 24, 2010
News. owns NBC now?
shewflyshewJun 24, 2010
That's because everyone knows the conservative economics of the last 30 years was all his fault.
thegreenspanputJun 24, 2010
"That's because everyone knows the conservative economics of the last 30 years was all his fault."
Are you retarded? We've had central banks implementing Keynesian policies - good times and bad - since the 40's.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
That's what happens when you elect a flashy, good-looking, well-spoken young upstart with no executive political experience (I don't care what party you are). For a while it feels great and we all congratulate ourselves for "progressing" something, but the reality-crash is devastating.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Jun 24, 2010
Try that's what happens when no matter what you try to get done the minority party in Congress will obstruct, obfuscate and delay it. Obama can't even ask a willing foreign oil company whose negligence has destroyed the entire Gulf of Mexico to put $20 billion in an escrow account over 4 years without Republicans decrying his actions.
When will the so-called conservatives start standing up for American instead of their own pet ideologies?
oboshoeJun 24, 2010
I don't think you understand what ***MINORITY PARTY*** really means.
If Obama was a leader, he would have trouble **WITH HIS OWN SUPER MAJORITY PARTY ***
guyincognitooJun 24, 2010
Except for the fact that the democrats don't have a super majority.
treehugger87Jun 24, 2010
The Democrats would have a majority right not *if* Democrats were all in lock step with each other like the Republicans are. Democrats do not agree on a lot of issues. As we have seen, getting Democrats to agree on anything takes a lot of arm twisting and good old-fashioned bribery. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
itsrattlesnakeJun 24, 2010
They have nobody to blame but themselves for losing it.
bluto36Jun 24, 2010
so you have to payoff and bribe democrats to get them to vote your way?
frakkinbastardJun 24, 2010
It's time for president Obama to do something bold, something cool, something that will make everybody respect him and recognize his strength. I believe he should beat someone up, maybe. Put on the gloves and pummel some shmuck, say that Biden guy, into a bloody pulp. Maybe strangle him a little, and then throw his body onto Marine One's propellers and dye his hair with the shmuck's blood. I think that would be awesome.
Then he could grab a chainsaw and go Colombian on BP's execs. That too would be awesome.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
phydeaux70Jun 24, 2010
Perhaps next time we decide to elect a President we will elect somebody that has some executive experience?
Not only is Obama a novice, but his staff is as well. No surprise here at all, the press didn't vet this guy and gave him a free pass, and anybody who said anything about his was labeled a racist.
Nope...he just isn't very good at this job....period.
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
Keep repeating this crap and maybe it will come true!
((Idiot.))
phydeaux70Jun 24, 2010
It isn't crap, it's truth. And nothing will make you believe it until he is actually voted out of office. So when that happens what will your excuse be?
If we all loved what he was doing the Democrats would be looking to gain more seats this fall. We don't, and they won't.
Probaby difficult for you to follow, but I am secure in my position and don't need to embellish to make you see otherwise. Time will tell......but I already know, you're wrong.
oboshoeJun 24, 2010
It's true whether it is said or not.
The question is, when will you face reality?
chuckdeesJun 24, 2010
You have no idea what you are talking about. Obama hired a lot of former Clinton staffers. Just like Bush hired a lot of Reagan and Bush Sr. staffers.
Did he hire a former equestrian judge to run FEMA? Remember heckuva job brownie?
bikes2workJun 24, 2010
The problem with claiming he has no "executive experience" is, in the next breath, a huge number of Americans say how much they love that f**king retarded imbecile Sarah Palin.
And if you say at least she has "executive experience" , then I implore you to either tie your tubes, or cut your balls off immediately.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
phydeaux70Jun 24, 2010
lol. No..I'm not a Palin fan, there are plenty of other reasons to not want to elect her. I do not mean to infer that a person who has Executive experience is the only qualification. I'm just saying that among the other qualifications, executive experience is one I think is necessary.
yerrrp85Jun 24, 2010
I'm liberal and I still like Obama, but the man needs to do more to lower the deficit and to stop spending more money!
Also, the way he shoved that healthcare thing down everyone's throats wasn't cool either. He should focus purely on cutting the deficit and helping the economy. All these other projects can wait until the economy is back on track.
flashingcurserJun 24, 2010
Are you sure you're a liberal?
kamtsaJun 24, 2010
Why not? He is consistent with the definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
yerrrp85Jun 24, 2010
Yeah, I guess I can't be liberal and support things like not needlessly invading the wrong country, or legalizing weed, if I believe we shouldn't be spending money we don't have.
Spending money we don't have isn't 'liberal' it's stupid.
flashingcurserJun 24, 2010
@kamtsa
Classical liberalism hasn't existed in 100 years, the term you're looking for is Libertarianism.
@yerrp85
Again check out libertarianism. Libertarians are against needless wars and their cost to the tax payer, they are for legalizing marijuana and very much against spending money that we don't have. American liberals, as opposed to 'classical liberals', believe that wealth equity (redistribution) is more important than economic growth.
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
stop spending =/= liberal
vikasmediaJun 24, 2010
Why any special reason after so long time??
therightsideJun 24, 2010
His community organizing skills are just starting to shine through
treehugger87Jun 24, 2010
Does this mean that all of the paid consultants trolling Digg, Reddit et al get a bonus for successfully distributing their propaganda?
dilbert111Jun 24, 2010
Are you more upset with the poll results or that people are talking about the poll results?
Obama is floundering....he is out of touch and uncommunicative. McCrystal and aids said Obama only spoke with him one time in a 70 day span. For a president at war that is ridiculous. Are there bigger issues keeping his attention? Its not the gulf spill....the same is being said there....he seems too busy to be engaged.....what the hell is he doing if NOT focusing on the war or the gulf spill? Its not the economy...we are just wobbling around there.
So what IS he doing? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kamtsaJun 24, 2010
As a paid consultant you should know.
oboshoeJun 24, 2010
lol at the thought that diggers have jobs.
skywiseJun 24, 2010
Treehugger87 = butt hurt Democrat.
theinformerJun 24, 2010
You mean the Obama myrmidons?
It's a fact that Obama's campaign sent out numbers of people to infiltrate news sites such as Digg, Reddit, and Slashdot to try their best to make sure only positive stories about Obama were shown. Critical stories were dugg/voted down. Quickly.
After paying attention to what happened to stories on Digg during the 2008 election cycle, I'd have to say that there is a good chance this is what really was going on.
treehugger87Jun 24, 2010
Facts are more than just your own ideas of what happened. When somebody says "it's a fact" it is incumbent on that person to provide evidence of that fact. Otherwise people just assume that you are full of s**t.
I was busy on digg during the 2008 election season. I probably commented 500 times in a short 2-3 month period. I buried and dugg thousands of stories. I did this not because I was a "fan" of Obama - I voted for McKinney and the Green party - I did it because I felt the need to fight back against the made up bulls**t that the right was pushing on the public. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crcurranJun 24, 2010
@Treehugger87
QFT
ultimisJun 24, 2010
You didn't quote.
sirmitchellJun 24, 2010
Keep clinging to your conspiracy theories, jackass.
hammurabeeJun 24, 2010
Get outta of Iraq, Afghan, cut defense spending, control the corporations, stop oil spill focus on economy, and maybe this won't be an end of an era.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
digg2point0Jun 24, 2010
"stop oil spill"
How?
Everyone wants Obama to stop it... but no one wants to mention how.
This is 5 miles underwater. The pressure down there is immense. It is extremely difficult to work at that depth and pressure. So until a time where you can come up with a solution to stop the leak, kindly stfu about crying for Obama to stop the leak.
Also, it is NOT a spill. It's a LEAK. It is LEAKING from the ground.
A spill would be if a container (like a ship) or pipe ruptured and and leaked oil until they could turn it off or seal it. It is leaking, it will continue to leak, there is no shut off.
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
5 miles? It's one mile under. I agree with the rest of your post, but that's a GIGANTIC overstatement.
themanthemythJun 24, 2010
he can create a presidental task force (look it up) dedicated to stopping the oilflow. hire the best and brightest around the world.
Get them together and use them
obviously the current people are idiots
digg2point0Jun 24, 2010
You're right, my mistake and grabbed the wrong numbers.
It CAN drill down over 5 miles (35,000ft or 6.6mi), but was only drilling at a depth of 5,000ft (0.94mi) off the coast of Louisiana.
Still... working 1 mile down is very difficult and my point stands.
digg2point0Jun 24, 2010
*"I made a mistake and..."
@TheManTheMyth: Right... because all those 'best and brightest' are just sitting around with their thumbs up their asses waiting for the call from Obama.
Pretty sure that BP doesn't just hire random Joe's off the street to solve their problems.
While I'm not happy with the way BP has been doing things, I'm pretty confident that they have some of the best people working on a solution... I just have a feeling they've been trying for recovery rather than stoppage in the beginning.
kiljoy001Jun 24, 2010
What best and brightest lol ?
scientistblahJun 24, 2010
Wow, Obama must be pretty blind, a typical digg user figured out how to fix the country and Obama hasn't.
/s
jessicawintersJun 24, 2010
Can't wait to vote for Palin next year. This president has been an obama-nation.
chuckdeesJun 24, 2010
Obvious troll is obvious.
lemurdaddyJun 24, 2010
Palin/LaRouche 2012, eh, Jessica?
enki25Jun 24, 2010
I hope all of you idiots do vote for Pailn, it will guarantee Obama reelection, no matter how bad his approval ratings are.
balser6Jun 24, 2010
Yeah, vote for her next year. One year ahead of the election in 2012. That'll work.
mothrogJun 24, 2010
/s? Please?
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
While he is driving the boat ashore, I'm not sure Palin would be a better captain of the ship.
drich255Jun 24, 2010
There are a lot of potential candidates. I wouldn't mind Palin at all, but she isn't my first choice. Romney would be one of my first choices. Senator Paul Ryan would also be great. He is young enough, though, to where he can wait for when the time is right.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dralhaJun 24, 2010
FTA: "overwhelming majorities of adults favoring stronger regulation of the oil industry"
After eight solid years of faith-based, no-regulation, no-oversight, no-accountability, anything-goes, look-the-other-way voodoo economics policies rooted in the lunacy of libertardianism, which ended up decimating the global economy, heavy regulation of the vile capitalists is sorely needed, especially for those capitalists whose main task is to destroy the planet for profits. Regulation and oversight are the chains that keep the beast of capitalism in check and under control.
Unfortunately, too many of those same vile capitalists infest the halls of government, mere puppets who eagerly accept bribes through the legal bribery system known as "lobbying." There is little chance that effective regulations will ever pass in such a corrupt environment.
theexitwoundJun 24, 2010
"After eight solid years of faith-based, no-regulation, no-oversight, no-accountability, anything-goes, look-the-other-way voodoo economics policies rooted in the lunacy of libertardianism, which ended up decimating the global economy, heavy regulation of the vile capitalists is sorely needed, especially for those capitalists whose main task is to destroy the planet for profits. Regulation and oversight are the chains that keep the beast of capitalism in check and under control."
Agree with this completely. Well stated.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dilbert111Jun 24, 2010
The cornerstone of the economic problem is that liberal govt policy forcing banks to make home loans to those who were not credit worthy. This drove prices up because of the easy access to people who didn't have the financial sense to understand that their personal debt load was unsustainable and that the loan plans the banks were handing them were a rip off. I will agree with you that from this flow of money all kinds shady banking loans were made but the reason it was possible was because the banks were force to make substandard loan decisions.
rocketboynjJun 24, 2010
Does Rupert write this stuff himself?
kamtsaJun 24, 2010
The results of this poll are consistent with other polls.
De nile' ain't just a river.
wasabibombJun 24, 2010
Online polls are worth the pixels they're printed on- exactly nothing.
theinformerJun 24, 2010
It's an WSJ/NBC poll. Get your facts straight.
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
Why we voted for Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC79WhGdBXM
Do you really want a bitch who couldn't name a newspapers she read as a VP?
How about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRuBdW0yBUY&feature=related
wombat767Jun 24, 2010
I am not a Sarah Palin fan, so please don't read to much into this. That being said, it's not like Biden hasn't made just as big of blunders. Biden gave away the position of his own secret bunker.
mclaincauseyJun 24, 2010
I don't like Sarah Palin, but calling her a "bitch" isn't helping you make your case any more than typing in all caps.
zarchonJun 24, 2010
And yet, while you speak the unadulterated truth, your Digg total is going down. Truth doesn't matter here. Knock Palin, worship Obama, positive Digg total. It's a simple formula really.
selfarchitectJun 24, 2010
coming from someone who lives in faux america, f**k THE BITCH!
idontevenJun 24, 2010
LOUD NOISES
kamtsaJun 24, 2010
@thirdaccount, you are easily distracted.
The alternatives were Clinton and McCain, not Palin.
lonestarlizardJun 24, 2010
Obama was the one who said he had visited almost all 57 states. Do we really want a president who doesn't even know how many states his country has?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wasabibombJun 24, 2010
He said that once, and it was clearly a verbal stumble- "Over the last fifteen months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states, I think — one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to … my staff could not justify it."
If you can't see that he meant to say 47 states... well, there's simply no helping you, I'm afraid.
wasabibombJun 24, 2010
So I guess you didn't much care for me bringing in facts, quotes, and logic into your little rant against Obama, @LoneStarLizard?
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
What do remembering Supreme Court cases and newspaper titles have to do with leadership? Your criticism is superficial, just like Obama's leadership qualities.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mothrogJun 24, 2010
Being able to remember Supreme Court cases has a lot to do with understanding the legal traditions of the country, and being unable to name a single newspaper shows that she is completely uniformed about the world since she's clearly never read nor picked up a paper. I don't know about you, but I kinda want an executive that actually understands law and is informed about the world.
freezo1994Jun 24, 2010
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
click that soccer button
ultimisJun 24, 2010
I can link to a dozen youtube videos of Obama being a moron in interviews. I can link to hundreds of youtube videos of Biden putting his foot in his mouth over and over again. On pretty much every foreign policy case that came up during the election cycle Obama either took several days to formulate a response or was out right wrong when he spoke about it. He was embarassingly stupid when spoke about the Russian tensions with the U.S. The difference was that Palin was just a VP candidate and had no powers; and Obama was running for President the most powerful position in our country.
I'm sure if I placed 95% of digg user in the same interviews that Obama and Palin went into and all of them would do much worse.
"Do you really want a bitch who couldn't name a newspapers she read as a VP?"
I don't read newspapers; I use internet news sources on a daily basis. Supreme court cases are highly contraversial; so making a statement puts you in the cross hairs of some Americans. politicians in general don't want to alienate potential voters if they can help it. I think it is obvious from that interview that she was trying to dodge the question. I've seen her do it multiple times in different interviews. She just isn't as smooth as Obama is when he avoids answering a question (which he does ALL the time).
zippy757Jun 24, 2010
This isn't meant to be an Obama bashing, but the reality is that he, and his entire administration, are experts on campaigning, but are rookies on execution. It will be 2 to 3 more years before this team is seasoned.
As a retired senior executive, I remember how smart I thought I was when I became an executive. It took me about 5 years before I really understood how to manage at that level. Obama is going thru the same learning curve.
I think a good answer for the US would have been a balanced candidate, somewhere between McCain and Obama, i.e. seasoned, yet with ideas of change.
jfitz369Jun 24, 2010
In theory I agree with you but overall I think the system is so crooked that we're lucky anything ever gets done regardless of who is in office. And how I see it, more experience just means you're probably more corrupted.
lonestarlizardJun 24, 2010
As much as people complained about Palin's lack of experience, at least with the Republicans the inexperience was not at the top of the ticket. Obama came into this position with no executive experience whatsoever.
alarchyJun 24, 2010
What "executive experience" did McCain have?
Besides being really old.
ultimisJun 24, 2010
Military experience Alarchy. This of course does not count his decades of working for and with Presidents of the United States. Obama had no experience besides his state senate record. He barely was in the Senate before campaiging for the presidency.
zelgadissJun 24, 2010
A hostile congress that is stuff 50% by the party of "no" doesn't help much either.
fredfredricksonJun 24, 2010
You guys tried the whole "Obama is inexperienced" thing 2 years ago and it didn't work then. It's not going to work now.
ultimisJun 24, 2010
More like we're proven right now. You guys tried the whole "Hope and Change" thing to avoid his lack of experience. Now it is clear that lack of experience has resulted in one failure after another.
fredfredricksonJun 24, 2010
Because hope is such an awful thing to have, right?
Typical ignorant conservative, wanting nothing but the worst possible outcome.
unclefireJun 28, 2010
"Hope" doesn't get s**t done. Action and Leadership does.
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
Oh really? Yesterday this was at the top of Digg.
Why Has Obama's Approval Held Steady Despite the Oil Spill?
http://digg.com/d31UeDu
FTA: "A recent batch of polls reveal that President Obama's job approval has remained steady over the last two months despite his presiding over the biggest environmental catastrophe in our nation's history."
Opinion columns are so helpful these days. /s Too bad people still confuse them with real journalism.
v3n0mJun 24, 2010
Yes, it's been steadily low.
alarchyJun 24, 2010
48% approval (the WSJ/NBC poll in this article) isn't terrible; considering the outgoing President bottomed at 22%.
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
FTA: "Obama's job approval on June 18 stood at 48.1 percent, virtually equal to his 47.9 percent rating on April 23, the day of the spill. His disapproval rating has also changed very little on average, moving to 47.4 on June 18 from 46.9 on April 23."
An approval rate of 48% is low? That's enough to win an election. I would have called it average, ho-hum, mediocre, O.K., fair, adequate, moderate, or eve asi-asi if felt like practicing Spanish. However, I would not have thought it was "low".
nanukkJun 24, 2010
Im not saying that there is nothing to criticize in my country, but looking at the state of american press is pretty scary. I need to double check about everything i read from american news sources because of the conservative/democrat bias. Dont get me wrong, there are biased journalism in here too, but the amount of it is nowhere near american levels.
No political system is perfect, but imo, your two party system has created status quo-goverment that just drives the citizenry against each other while career politicians enjoy their wealth supported by biggest lobbying industry in the word. Nothing changes when the party in power changes. There is no way smaller party could compete with gop/dems or even change the way they do things.
In my country, there has been couple of new parties(pirate party being one, nationalistic/EU critical party being another) in recent years which have forced the bigger parties to change their habits a bit. The bigger parties need to keep their eyes in these small but growing parties and actually deal with the issues those smaller parties feel are important if they dont want to lose power. in USA, the big two can pretty much ignore what smaller parties say, because them replacing either one of those huge institutions is pretty much impossible.
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
@V3noM
FTA: "Obama's job approval on June 18 stood at 48.1 percent, virtually equal to his 47.9 percent rating on April 23, the day of the spill. His disapproval rating has also changed very little on average, moving to 47.4 on June 18 from 46.9 on April 23."
An approval rate of 48% is low? That's enough to win an election. I would have called it average, ho-hum, mediocre, O.K., fair, adequate, moderate, or eve asi-asi if felt like practicing Spanish. However, I would not have thought it was "low".
lutzautoJun 24, 2010
good thing we all know WSJ is another right wing spin-propagating extension of news corp, and that this is most likely lies
theinformerJun 24, 2010
What about NBC? It's a WSJ/NBC Poll.
ostracizeJun 24, 2010
"People also seem to be under the impression that one man can repair our broken economy in just a few years time"
Or... like...one man can repair a broken economy at all
oboshoeJun 24, 2010
Well who gave them that Impression?
oboshoeJun 24, 2010
"this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"
-Barrack Obama on his nomination as Democratic Party Presidential candidate.
GOSH.
Why would people how such a high impression?
nishanthkJun 24, 2010
Implemented a health care system to give 30 million american's health care and over the next 10 years reduce federal spending on health care
Pushing for regulations for green energy, and improvements in green cars. And for moving away from an overbearing oil industry.
As he said, he sure did begin to do those things. To complain that you don't see the results in 24 hrs is just ignorant. Any legislation that goes through takes years to have a significant effect. If it doesn't work in 4 or 5 years then complain. But until then stop spewing mindless drivel.
oboshoeJun 24, 2010
24 hours?
It's been 18 months and he hasn't done squat.
You did make me laugh at 4 or 5 years though. What convenient timing for your Dear Leader!
thumper13Jun 24, 2010
But that's what the guy on that President show did in one hour.
Come on Obama....why so long!!!!!#$!@$!#$!#$!#$!
zarchonJun 24, 2010
You are wrong. One man and his policies can fix the economy in a few years. Ronald Reagan fixed Jimmy C's mess in a little over a year and the economy was worse that it was when Obama came into office.
I know, the left hates Reagan and loves Carter so my Digg count will pay the price, but I was there. I lost my house under Carter. Things got better under Reagan, and they got better rather quickly.
garbagedumpJun 24, 2010
Obama = Lazy
musicmagiJun 24, 2010
garbagedump = racist
mothrogJun 24, 2010
MusicMagi = dumbass
kclorelei39Jun 24, 2010
playing the racist card is the new Godwin's Law.
jareddennisJun 24, 2010
Good morning Rupert!
miffelplixJun 24, 2010
I'm losing confidence in the American people. Instead of engaging in a civil, principled debate on the serious issues facing our country, they've done nothing but scream, slander, and whine.
zarchonJun 24, 2010
Actually some of us don't see it the same way you do. Does that make us wrong? In your eyes perhaps. I actually come to Digg to get my to get my fill of screaming, slandering, and whining. I am sure those on the left doing it here don't see it as such. It's just a different point of view. Yours is negative.
oboshoeJun 24, 2010
I have to say,
I haven't lost any confidence in Obama whatsoever.
I saw him for what he is BEFORE the election.
ultimisJun 24, 2010
I saw him for what he is before people thought he could beat Hillary. Sadly everyone focused on Clinton and let this guy get a free ride.
frostman3dJun 24, 2010
Obama will go down in history as one of the worst President's in history. Right down there with George Bush.
frostman3dJun 24, 2010
and Jimmy Carter.
zarchonJun 24, 2010
In reality neither president comes close to being the worst in history. You should read some history. As for the last 60 years you have Jimmy Carter as the worse president. That probably gets me dugg down here on Liberal Digg but it is true. Double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, double digit interest.
If that statement about Carter didn't get me buried then this one will. Obama is most likely going to surpass Jimmy "the Peanut" Carter before his term is over. The amount of money he spent has to lead to hyper inflation. He has to raise taxes due to how much he spent. This slows the economy. He is going to raise taxes on energy to such an extent it will change the way Americans live and not for the better.
kaiosamaJun 24, 2010
Can the WSJ, Newscorp, and Rupert Murdoch STFU for at least a day.
Oh, and for the record, neither Rupert Murdoch nor Newscorp represent America.
dayal911Jun 24, 2010
Look at all the brainwashed partisan hacks (98% of Diggers) on here burying the article because it's WSJ.
If they had actually read the article, they would see that it's a WSJ/NBC poll.
Too bad they don't teach reading comprehension in 3rd tier universities.
dayal911Jun 24, 2010
bury the truth, that's all you little idiots can do.
bsmangJun 24, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
bsmangJun 24, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
nishanthkJun 24, 2010
Too bad they don't teach statistics in top tier universities... Any news poll, regardless of what organization is pretty much garbage. No one does a statistically sound poll, its all used to back stories they want to write.
The questions asked in the poll address issues that judge Obama for more than hes accountable for. If they had asked questions about specific policies and Obama's decision on them the questions may be valid for a poll.
And then it seems they are polling an increasing number of Republicans and a decreasing number of Independants, so this would make their comparative percentages over time skewed unless they normalized for that in their graph.
I'm not saying that its bad just because its WSJ/NBC, ALL NEWS POLLS are bad. None are done accurately, and none represent anything significant, any numbers you see in a news poll can basically be thrown out the window.
dayal911Jun 24, 2010
"Any news poll, regardless of what organization is pretty much garbage."
So, all those polls that showed Bush with a low approval rating were garbage?
"And then it seems they are polling an increasing number of Republicans and a decreasing number of Independants, so this would make their comparative percentages over time skewed unless they normalized for that in their graph. "
Source? Oh, that's just your uneducated opinion, okay.
"The questions asked in the poll address issues that judge Obama for more than hes accountable for. If they had asked questions about specific policies and Obama's decision on them the questions may be valid for a poll."
They are asking him about his policies and how he's handling the issues today we're facing.
For example, the oil spill. It's not HIS fault there's a giant leak. Nobody's saying that. People are, however, disappointed that it took 6 weeks to determine who's "ass to kick" over the spill.
People aren't blaming him for the economy either. They're unhappy with how things have been handled since he's gotten in office.
I don't know if you're dumb, or if you're just making things up to try to discredit a story that shows Obama in a negative light.
nishanthkJun 24, 2010
"So, all those polls that showed Bush with a low approval rating were garbage?"
Yes.
"Source? Oh, that's just your uneducated opinion, okay."
FTA: Click on the graphic about the poll.
"They are asking him about his policies and how he's handling the issues today we're facing.
For example, the oil spill. It's not HIS fault there's a giant leak. Nobody's saying that. People are, however, disappointed that it took 6 weeks to determine who's "ass to kick" over the spill."
No they aren't, they ask a specific question. Which is FTA: "Do you approve or disapprove of the job Obama is doing as a president?" "All in all, do you think things in the nation are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel things are off on the wrong track?" "Do you generally approve or disapprove of the job Obama is doing handling the economy?" "Do you generally approve or disapprove of the job Obama is doing handling foreign policy?" If I were to answer any of those question, I would say both approve and disapprove depending on what part of each thing you are referring to. None of those questions reflect specifically to the handing of the spill, or any of his policy decisions. They are just garbage overall questions that have too many variables for any educated person to give a valid opinion on with just an approve or disapprove.
"People aren't blaming him for the economy either. They're unhappy with how things have been handled since he's gotten in office."
IMO, I don't disagree with you, i just dont see this article as "the Truth" as you claim it to be. It's very possible that the general public is pretty 50/50. I think its more towards disapproval currently, but not by far. Nor do I think it'll stay that way very long.
"I don't know if you're dumb, or if you're just making things up to try to discredit a story that shows Obama in a negative light."
I don't know if you're dumb, or don't read articles and just support anything that agrees with your opinion.
dayal911Jun 24, 2010
Thank you for proving my point, Nishant.
These questions are NOT asking more than Obama's accountable for, which is what you said in your first statement.
They are asking him how people rate his policies on certain issues as a whole. I fail to see how Obama is not accountable for his policies.
Show me one single report on a poll that showed Bush's negative approval rating, where you responded by saying "polls are junk".
bluechips23Jun 24, 2010
This is coming from WSJ - the new Fox News of the online news media.
dayal911Jun 24, 2010
WSJ/NBC.
Learn to read, retard.
oboshoeJun 24, 2010
"Just 44% of Obama voters—those who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 or told pollsters they intended to—now express high interest in the midterm elections. That's a 38-point drop from this stage in the 2008 campaign."
November will be a shocking suprise to many Diggers.
jokerhlJun 24, 2010
Yes indeed the Democratic victory should surprise us. Learn to use spell check BTW.
oboshoeJun 24, 2010
You illustrate my point perfectly.
fredfredricksonJun 24, 2010
It'll mostly be a surprise for the conservatives here who think they've got some kind of sure win coming up.
oboshoeJun 24, 2010
Sure win?
nah. But a complete turnover isn't needed.
Just pushed the balance over a few degrees is all that is needed to transform Obama into a lame duck - and THAT is a virtual certainty.
Obama can barely pass anything with Super and near Super majorities.
With both sides agreeing the Dems will lose seats, Obama will finally be neutered.
fredfredricksonJun 24, 2010
Nothing is certain in politics, but I highly doubt will see a sweeping change in November. Americans might be dumb, but we haven't yet forgotten how poorly this country was handled by Republicans recently.
bbjohnnytJun 24, 2010
Why Obama was elected. A good read:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1439172072
bbjohnnytJun 24, 2010
Why all the digg downs? I guess it's painful to discover you've been a used like a cheap whore.
irvman21Jun 24, 2010
"I don't think he's handling it. He doesn't seem to be doing anything. He just talks."
this is what happens when you elect someone solely based off his ability to read from a TelePrompTer. All he knows how to do is talk and spend.
rocketboynjJun 24, 2010
What other Polls, Washington Post, Fox News?
They just found 72 more bodies under the World Trade Center. You should go over to that story and comment that was Clinton's fault.
Or, go to the story about the 2005 Pentagon audit that found 2.3 Trillion dollars missing and write that Obama's TARP loans which are being paid back are worse...
Relax, no one is denying anything. My friend who works at WSJ says it is a totally different newspaper and less of one since Murdoch bought it. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7Jun 24, 2010
Governments have been in existence for over 5000 years. Yet governments still haven't gotten it right. What can possibly make anyone think 5001 will be the turning point?
The paraphrase above is from this 15min vid. It lays out the framework for the philosophy that government does not work, as it relates to the BP spill. There are many more resources that logically and factually support this view (it's an entire philosophy), all available on his youtube channel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lu1pJPqHv0
njdoo7Jun 24, 2010
Can people digging down provide some insight as to why they disagree with critically examining the role of government? People used to think the world was flat, aka people get things wrong until they critically examine those wrongs beliefs.
frogkingJun 24, 2010
Maybe, just maybe, some people are "losing confidence" because he's not liberal ENOUGH? In full disclosure, I voted for Obama. Things are getting better, just not as quickly as people seem to think it should. Have I lost confidence? Maybe a little, but I still don't regret for one minute voting for him. Has my approval of Obama gone down? Yes, but only because I want him to keep doing what he is doing, just more of it and faster.
njdoo7Jun 24, 2010
"Things are getting better, just not as quickly as people seem to think it should."
Woah..what world do you live in? We are on the path to a government default, we are still slaughtering innocents in Afghanistan on a daily basis, the monetary supply has increased substantially, a new unsustainable health-care policy was put in place, hardly any private jobs are being created, taxes are increasing, etc. This is hardly "better," unless you're only thinking about yourself and not the future of our children.
zarchonJun 24, 2010
What has he done that you want more of? I have no clue. Is it kiss more rings? Close more Gitmos? Raise more taxes? Spend more money? Talk more? Play more golf? Sign more Patriot Acts? Lie? Bribe more Congressmen? Take over more of the private sector?
mymindgrapesJun 24, 2010
Obama is a disaster. He knows nothing of foreign policy, economy, crisis management... The list goes on and on. His solution to everything is to talk and spend. He was elected by idiots who got caught up in his "change" campaign and now everyone will pay the price until next election. I hope to heaven that Americans get someone to run for the Republicans who isn't Sarah Palin.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fredfredricksonJun 24, 2010
"Obama is a disaster. He knows nothing of foreign policy, economy, crisis management..."
What did John McCain or Sarah Palin know about any of these things? Together, the best these two could come up with for foreign policy is "I can see Russia from my house" and "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
"His solution to everything is to talk and spend."
So what's the brilliant plan that you have that doesn't involve speaking to (and trying to reassure) the American public, or spending a single cent? We'd all love to hear it. I'm sure it's pure gold.
thegreatone2009Jun 24, 2010
Seriously, why is everyone complaining over how Obama isn't doing a good job? I promise you if McCain would have won the election, we would be in the EXACT same situation, but instead of the WSJ posting these poll results it would be the Huffington Post. Our government have been so ineffective its mind-boggling why we even bother with the ultra-clusterf**k of partisan conflicts in our Congress, and the lack of knowledge of how our government works. It really begs the question of why should we even care of being involved in politics at all. Of course there will be those saying its our right and that many have died over it all, and that is true and I whole-heartedly agree but whats the point in even exercising that right when everyone is so incompetent in fulfilling their duties to their nation and the people that many of the people could began to care less about it? With all this madness going on it seems the best option for those exiting their higher-level education would just leave the country in order to pursue a better life without all the madness that is going on here. Like many would say USA:Love it or Leave it....steadily, many are taking the latter, and quite frankly I don't blame them.
zarchonJun 24, 2010
You can promise all you want but you truly don't know. Here, let me prove it. I promise you if McCain would have won the election, we would NOT be in this exact same situation. There, I, being just as much an expert as you, have just countered your argument. I am not saying McCain would fare any better, only that it would be different. As for everything else you said, I agree.
thegreatone2009Jun 24, 2010
Touche, I'll give you that one lol
nogeroJun 24, 2010
If Bush wasn't elected we wouldn't be bankrupt as a country right now. We wouldn't be in two wars.
zarchonJun 24, 2010
nogero, you are naive to say the least. The economy under Bush was good for 7 of his either years. Also, per history, a war economy is a good economy. I am not saying we need a war or more war or war is good or any other way you may turn that. I am just saying that historically war makes for a good economy. The Federal government spending money we don't have is bad "per history". FDR had the same spending policies as Obama and historians are now saying he prolonged the "Great Depression" by years with his spending policies. It took WWII to pull us out. I am just talking historically so please don't get bent because history doesn't side with your political views.
errdayimhustlinJun 24, 2010
Obama and McCain are both s**t-sandwiches.
hydroplaneJun 24, 2010
Give someone who's never held down a job in his life the supreme executive position of the land and watch what happens. Sounds like a bad fox reality show.
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
bush sure did suck, didn't he?
zenmojoJun 24, 2010
I thought we were talking about Bush, too.
drcrankJun 24, 2010
I don't suppose America being down in the dumps could have anything to do with the trillion plus dollars they wasted on war over the past ten years while seeing no benefit from it...
nogeroJun 24, 2010
Note all the above comments that are from paid conservative agents, referring readers to youtube videos. They just happened to have a youtube link in their copy buffer.... just coincidence I am sure....yeah right. This movement is a plot by Republicans and News Corp.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 24, 2010
...and at this same point in his presidency, Reagan was at 35%
Big whoop. The only approval rating that matters is the one on election night.
athosrunJun 24, 2010
No doubt. I've lost faith in Obama, because he continually sides with corporate stooges, much like the ones that write for the Wall Street Journal.
skinturtleJun 24, 2010
US are citizens are never satisfied with whoever is leading in the White House. It certainly doesn't help when the country is pretty much divided between republicans and democrats.
hammurabeeJun 24, 2010
It's 5000 feet deep, so can you explain to me why are corporation (big oil) already working on wells that are 10000, 15000 feet deep ?
It seems that they can't manage problems at 5000 shouldn't someone at least try to stop them ?
MARX was right corporations at one point will rule governments !
diggemsmackJun 24, 2010
Man. I can't believe someone's quoting MARX now. Was it only a matter of time??
shewflyshewJun 25, 2010
I love how Americans have to discuss socioeconomics in a vacuum, as if Marx never existed. His theories obviously had an impact on human history-- do you base a whole society on them? Of course not.
Marx did predict a lot of what is happening in his discussions on "Late Capitalism." Capitalism is the best system, but unbridled capitalism threatens to destroy our quality of life.
garhentJun 24, 2010
Thank God we've got an Australian who bought the WSJ to tell Americans what to believe.
bbqribsJun 24, 2010
People are digging this down and blowing it off as Fox News crap, but pretty much every single poll out there is showing declining support of Obama and abysmal ratings for Congress. Pew Research, Rasmussen, USA Today's, etc....
You can't blow the rest of them off as "Faux News" and Rupert Murdoch fluff. Sorry.