And You Thought Hatt Values Had Dropped

[Sparky1]

Just be glad you didn't invest in Obama commemorative victory plates. I saw these in a local Walgreen's over the week-end and had to laugh at the irony.

 

[captddis]

so you bought four instead of one?

 

[SKYCHENEY]

Are those paper plates?

 

[Jaxfishgyd]

I would hold out a few more months, think how cheap they will be then !!

 

[chris piazza]

I am surprised that those plates and HIM have lasted this long! His value (polls) have fallen just like the plates.


Chris
Superior Nights 53C

 

[Sparky1]

so you bought four instead of one?

Nope, I bought 24 and saved myself almost $360. They'll be a big hit with the boys at the skeet range next Saturday. If a pellet even gets close, it'll bust into a trillion pieces.

PULL!!!

 

[Boatsb]

So they are as solid as his economic theory.

 

[stormchaser]

I am surprised that those plates and HIM have lasted this long! His value (polls) have fallen just like the plates.


Chris
Superior Nights 53C

huh? President Obama is holding onto a 67 percent approval rating in the latest Research 2000 nationwide survey. CNN's "poll of polls", which averaged seven national surveys, last week gave Obama a 61 percent approval rating, described as "a pretty robust level of support" by CNN polling director Keating Holland.

At the same point in their administrations, George W. Bush had a 58 percent approval rating, Bill Clinton was at 53 percent, George H.W. Bush at 56 percent, and Ronald Reagan at 60 percent.

 

[Brian Degulis]

You left out JIMMY CARTER another democratic icon his ratings were very high early on also.


Brian

 

[captddis]

huh? President Obama is holding onto a 67 percent approval rating in the latest Research 2000 nationwide survey. CNN's "poll of polls", which averaged seven national surveys, last week gave Obama a 61 percent approval rating, described as "a pretty robust level of support" by CNN polling director Keating Holland.

At the same point in their administrations, George W. Bush had a 58 percent approval rating, Bill Clinton was at 53 percent, George H.W. Bush at 56 percent, and Ronald Reagan at 60 percent.

of course Cnn can be completely trusted and accurate! The number I saw was 59% and dropping.

 

[newinlet]

For that price I am gonna buy 10 or so and use them for our barbeques on the hook in MV. Talk about a good laugh over a few adult beverages !!

 

[stormchaser]

of course Cnn can be completely trusted and accurate! The number I saw was 59% and dropping.

You must be joking...whether you would trust a CNN pole is totally irrelevent...it wasn't their data...they averaged the 7 major National Polls...I'd trust their number far more than any single poll. Care to share your accurate and trustworthy source?

 

[captddis]

You must be joking...whether you would trust a CNN pole is totally irrelevent...it wasn't their data...they averaged the 7 major National Polls...I'd trust their number far more than any single poll. Care to share your accurate and trustworthy source?

why bother, you always back peddle on your statements the next day.

 

[SKYCHENEY]

Who cares about approval ratings. You know what they say, "The masses are *sses." This is why we have a representative republic and not a true democracy. The people are not capable of governing themselves. Unfortunately, it appears that those who should know better are not doing a very good job either.

 

[stormchaser]

You argument is a logical fallacy. Whether I backtrack or not is irreverent to the issue at hand. I explained my position and provided evidence to back my point. So far you have shown nothing.

Or maybe, just maybe, how about admitting you were wrong. You didn't read that the info I posted about CNN was not their poll but simply an average of the 7 largest national polls. You posted that CNN wasn't to be trusted without really reading what had been posted. It was a pretty simple mistake, but choosing to not admit it simply compounds it.

 

[stormchaser]

Unfortunately, it appears that those who should know better are not doing a very good job either.

No kidding...this is very frustrating...are there NO good leaders ANYWHERE in our gov't? So far, I'm not seeing any.

 

[Brian Degulis]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stormchaser
Clearly you didn't bother to actually READ anything I've posted. I have been quite clear that I do not believe this is the fault of ANY president. (Quote Stormchaser)

I assume you know that the market dropped 43% drop in less than 1 year under idiot Bush and war criminal Chaney. On January 20, 2009 the DOW was at 8,279.63 So, until the market drops to 4,719.66...complaining that this is all Obamas fault only make you look like you don't actually know the facts...or simply choose to ignore them. (Quote Stormchaser)

Obama isn't doing a great job, that I'd agree with, but he's still 10,000x better than the previous administration. THEY are the reason we are where we are...hopefully Obama can fix it, but if not, we should find domeone who can in 2012. (quote Stormchaser)

.[/quote]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave
Saraswati
1980 53MY
Baltimore, MD

You argument is a logical fallacy. Whether I backtrack or not is irreverent to the issue at hand. I explained my position and provided evidence to back my point. So far you have shown nothing.

Or maybe, just maybe, how about admitting you were wrong. .

Good Advice Stormchaser YOU SHOULD TRY IT ONE DAY

Brian

 

[stormchaser]

I admit it, you convinced me that it is not the fault of any administration. I was wrong to blame it on Bush. Feel better? Now again, captddis' argument that I backtrack is purely a non sequitur.

 

[captddis]

See you already backtracked. You libs are so predictable.
Check Rasmussen 56% and dropping last time I looked.

 

[stormchaser]

Knock it off with the deductive fallacies, non sequitur arguments and Ad hominems. It really makes you look far less intelligent than you probably are. And I'm not falling for it, just like I didn't last time. I won't stoop to your level.

As far as Rassmussen is concerned...that is one of the 7 that CNN was reporting on! So...by your argument, Rassmussen must be inaccurate and unreliable because CNN used their data...or the CNN data must be good sicne it used Rassmussen...one or the other, take your pick.