Has Obama Just Insured A 2nd Term?
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
Babagounj
Strength through joy
(Digital Spy) - Oprah Winfrey reportedly does not plan to publicly support Barack Obama in the 2012 US presidential election.
Winfrey supported Obama’s campaign in 2008, holding a highly publicised political rally for him during his presidential challenge.
According to a Gallup poll conducted before the rally, Winfrey’s favourable ratings fell from 74 to 66% while her unfavourable ratings jumped from 17 to 26%.
Her TV show ratings also fell following the event.
A source has told PopEater that Winfrey doesn’t want to do anything to alienate viewers now that she has launched her OWN network.
Winfrey supported Obama’s campaign in 2008, holding a highly publicised political rally for him during his presidential challenge.
According to a Gallup poll conducted before the rally, Winfrey’s favourable ratings fell from 74 to 66% while her unfavourable ratings jumped from 17 to 26%.
Her TV show ratings also fell following the event.
A source has told PopEater that Winfrey doesn’t want to do anything to alienate viewers now that she has launched her OWN network.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
To be fair, didn't we have the "surge" in 2009 and 2010?
moreluck
golden ticket member
It doesn't matter what military plan was around.....whoever is the "head" at the time has the responsibility. Obama has been the Teflon Leader since '08. When is he ever responsible for anything ?? As soon as something goes well, he'll be at the head of the pack with his chest out and taking credit....Hey boo, you can't have it both ways.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
My point was that an increased number of "boots on the ground" will unfortunately cause an increase in the casualty rate. The chart shows a marked increase in the number of casualties in 2009-10 which I believe is when the surge had taken place; however, there was no explanation of why there was a marked increase on the chart which may lead the casual observer to think it was due to poor leadership when in fact it was due to the surge.
But charts and cartoons don't require indepth thought. And to question them only gets more of the "i hate Obama" response rather than an attempt to see what is behind the numbers.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Try these numbers....................
(CNS) – The federal debt increased $54.1 billion in the eight days preceding the deal made by President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) to cut $38.5 billion in federal spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, which runs through September.
The debt was $14.2101 trillion on March 30, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and $14.2642 on April 7.
Since the beginning of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, 2010, the national debt has increase by $653.4 billion.
The debt was $14.2101 trillion on March 30, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and $14.2642 on April 7.
Since the beginning of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, 2010, the national debt has increase by $653.4 billion.
Lue C Fur
Evil member
moreluck
golden ticket member
It's a big name in polling.........B.O.'s falling in polls is because he's not a leader, he's a reactionary!
moreluck
golden ticket member
This quote came from the Czech Republic. We have a lot of work to do.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
trplnkl
555
Maybe I think like people from a eastern-bloc country, but I have thought what he said, long before reading this post.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
I'm sure a "Berkeley Poll" would be just as biased. I'm just pointing-out the obvious fact that Rasmussen has a conservative bias and does not provide an accurate picture of public opinion.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
