here is an article
When your supporters look at what you've done and cry , you're in trouble.
And Speaker Pelosi is still saying that the Democrats will not lose control of the House.
Obama hasn’t dug us out of Bush’s recession and 2 wars fast enough. That’s the problem.” – David Letterman
The intellect of the Democrat party!
Seriously, it's worth remembering that the financial collapse came as a result of the housing market crisis, which the Republicans tried to prevent with banking reform several times, but the Democrats blocked it each and every time. The collapse came on the Democrats' watch; they took over as a result of the 2006 elections.
Obama has lost support largely because the Democrat legislation which he has supported is harmful to the economy, killing jobs and diverting money from the private sector (which creates wealth and enduring jobs) to the government, which is a parasite.
Scholar it is a waste of bandwith trying to get voters to understand that it is not GWB's fault. They can't wrap their mind around the fact that GWB
had a Democrat controlled Congress his last 2 years and they did the same thing the Republicans are doing now which is to do anything but pass
anything that would make the President or his party look good.
That and the fact that Barny "make housing affordable to everyone" Frank is the head of the Finance Comitee. Truth about Barney Frank
How many "voters" do you think read these boards?
Thick skin is what you need Red. Read, digest, forget and ignore.
Hmm? Or was that my school years?
Seriously though, I guess it might be more difficult what with you being a Yank, but for me, it's a case of you know what you're getting, so you know how to deal with it. It's not like posts are overly repulsive, major difference of opinions, yes, full of bile and abusive, no, not really. Same old same old, yes.
It would be a shame if posters deserted the boards because of anti-anything rants.
It's a shame that an American would come on a BRITISH based message board and slam the Democratic party like he does.
Especially after repeated requests to stop by said Brits.
Gee, I can remember when a certain member of a country and western trio made a slam about Bush in England and they were pillared back here in the states.
Guess it depends on which party the president is from if you can make remarks against them.
I would draw your attention to the fact that it is a persistent pattern that you have. For someone with an oft quoted attention deficit disorder you don't seem capable of moving your focus to something more interesting instead. Normally people with ADD find it difficult to concentrate on the one thing all the time.
If scholar has a medical condition and is able to produce a doctors note to verify it, then I think perhaps we should all try to be a bit more tolerant of his ludicrous posts.
It's not on our minds though as we are not Americans and as we have now all pointed out only 3 of you who have voting rights and
regularly post here are.
To the rest of us it's just D U L L...
I think it's fair to say that there are people that don't always agree with your views, but at least you are making an effort to post and people
have the option of not reading what you post of choosing not to reply, if they feel strongly about it.
You also need to bear in mind that you will receive criticisms concerning what you post, particularly if you haven't taken the trouble to do some basic research before posting, one example of that was your thread concerning CF light bulbs.
That said, you shouldn't be deterred from posting, we desperately need members that are willing to take an active part in the forums.
Just musing. Even though this is primarily a board consisting of my English brethren, the thread is clearly labeled American Politics.
I find it interesting that considering that even though many Englishmen and ladies have great disdain for America and Americans that they seem to enjoy participating in the discussion of American politics.
I too grow tired sometimes of Scholars long drawn out narratives but I neither reply or comment in any way so as to not prolong the discussion. The more comments, aggravating remarks made tend only to continue and escalate the posting.
Interesting and self condemning is MM's response to my post to Scholar suggesting he reduce his posting "How many "voters" do you think read these boards? " If you are not a voter and you are posting on this thread I wonder why? Is it only to throw barbs at the
Americans, encourage more lengthy anti Obama posts or just to make mean spirited derogatory posts?
Since my ancestors came from Yorkshire and I have relatives who still live there, I consider myself of English heritage. During my visit last fall, I was fortunate to meet and associate with many wonderful and gracious English people. Fortunately I have the ability to understand that the one or two I met who were not so friendly probably do not represent the majority.
Therefor I see no purpose to participate in a forum where I disparage a Country or it's people based on my limited contact with them. I can only hope that the other participants will have the same consideration and compassion for me that I have for them.
Gee, Giron, what have you been eating??? That post was almost intelligent!
Oh, and one that I happen to agree with, BTW.
Sounds like my way of "catching up" too, DAZ, I rarely look at the forum, just at he recent posts.
Sounds like my way of "catching up" too, DAZ, I rarely look at the forum, just at he recent posts.
You don't know what you're missing.
I have on occasion expressed my dissatisfaction with the President but I don't feel it has been to the excess or even to the level that GWB was
berated during his last couple of years by everyone on the board.
If the problem with the board seems to be just one person, why has no one been able to come up with a solution. My self, if you banned mention of anything to do with American politics would not hurt my feelings a bit. I get enough of that on the news every day. I find it perplexing that if it is such a problem that no one has been able to find a solution to the detriment of the board and other members.
Take a stand before all that's left is 5 of us voicing our displeasure about the content of the posts. Just my 2 cents.
I'd just like to say - well done Boner Obama, keep it up.
I would have liked to have had an influx of new people, too.
KF is set up in such a way that, so long as the posts are not deceitfully labeled, there is no reason for anyone to read a post they don't care to read. If someone posts about sewing, and I don't like posts about sewing, I don't click on the sewing posts. I DON'T jump into a thread I don't like, and then complain that I am in a thread I don't like, and berate any posters in the thread. I just "tune to another channel" in KF, one that I think I may like.
I may come across a dozen articles critical of Obama and/or the Democrats each day, but I don't post about all those topics; instead, I am very
restrained and highly selective. Just now, I checked the "today's" page and found that there are six topics on the page, two of which were
orginated by other posters. Of the four that I started, two are bits of silliness when a candidate misspoke and when a candidate was listed as "Rich
Whitey", another commends Democrat Senator Schumer for his work to get early ballots to servicemen. Only one of the six post topics started out in
any way negative toward Obama, and that was a factual observation about how HIS SUPPORTERS HAVE BEEN DESERTING HIM (I do commend him when he does
well, such as when he alloed the navy to shoot three pirates, but I would hardly call myself a supporter. The point of the article is that many
people who voted for him have decided they don't like what has been happening. That's his own doing.)
Incidentally, he does have two years yet in which to turn things around. President Reagan was not greatly popular two years after he became President. It took some time for his tax cuts and spending restraint to bear fruit in a booming economy.
They were pointed in this direction so yes I'd say it was a conscious decision.
To be perfectly honest, if I were looking for a photography forum I'd go for a specialised site, not here.
KF is more of a general chat site, nothing wrong with that, of course.
Yes I know. Our serious photographers don't post here often but if we think about it, there is a lot of "chat" about the photos and other things by these posters.
Yes, but we have a lack of active members, so wouldn't it be logical for them to choose a more active site ?
Not to those of us who are pro-KF.
All the people that regularly post here are ' pro-KF ', but the fact that we don't seem to attract many new members is surely a concern, isn't it ?
I took the cold shower but no one was available to do the birching. I asked my girlfriend and she thought I said bitching so I had to listen to her for 3 hours. Worse than the birching.
It's an easy mistake to make.
Damn, that's bad luck Delanti. My sympathies!
[bad img]http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1807/662279n7oeum9.jpg[/bad img]
I thought Matilda was the one with the birch, though, you'd have to ask Giron about that, he seems to know almost everything. We really only have one member here that thinks he knows everything, but we won't mention his name, will we.......RW!!!
Some 57% of voters said they were more willing to take a chance on a candidate with little political experience. More than a quarter said they’d be happy to vote for somebody with views that “seem extreme.” The poll—which found that Republican voters are a lot more enthusiastic about voting this time around than Democrats—is largely good news for the GOP, though with 78% of respondents saying that they believe congressional Republicans should compromise to get things done, it points to potential trouble ahead within the party if a sizable number of Tea Party candidates get elected.
I appreciate your thoughtful, serious post, Carter.
The idea of the Republicans compromising to get things done could be a real challenge in two ways:
1--It is a real problem to compromise on things that are harmful. In this fragile economy, who in good conscience can compromise by agreeing to destroy 100,000 jobs in the health insurance industry, or the oil industry, or the coal industry, instead of destroying 200,000 jobs as an uncompromised bill proposes to do? President Obama said during the campaign that he would tax coal burning power plants out of existence. Where would be the compromise--tax them so badly that electricity rates would double to cover the increased taxes?
Polls indicate that most Americans oppose the Democrat health plan that was passed. Among other things, it increased the cost of health care, gave more control to government, gave a financial incentive to employers toward dropping good health insurance plans (because the payment the government will accept is less than the cost of good health insurance), took $682 billion from Medicare (for senior citizens), and increased Medicaid (which requires the states to share in paying for a greater number of poor people). It also incorporates bribes which favor certain states above all the rest, which was necessary to buy the votes of their Senators. A good compromise would be to repeal this beast, and instead to pass measures that really do bring down the cost of health care. Two ways to do this: allow health insurance to be bought across state lines, and enact tort reform which would prevent outrageously high malpractice suits from inflating health care costs (by defensive medicine, and by increasing the cost of malpractice insurance).
2--Compromise requires a measure of co-operation from the Democrats. Some liberals think that measures which have been passed are already too weak, already a compromise. It is not uncommon for politicians to think, "If we settle for a lesser measure, we'll never get what we really want."
It is worth remembering that under Reid as Democrat leader in the Senate, the final health care bill was written secretly in his office--he didn't allow the committee process, which would have allowed the Republicans to offer improvements. Up to now, the Republicans have been locked out.
When the Republicans did well in a congressional election during President Clinton's administration, Clinton adjusted his aims toward policies where the Republicans could find common ground. If President Obama and the Democrat leaders would do the same, compromises could indeed be reached. But, to this point, when Obama has asked Republicans to work with him, he has meant he wants them to agree to his party's proposals.
You wouldn't be Scholar's mate, would you Carter? Scholar will be over the moon to receive an "intelligent" reply to one of his O'Bummer posts.
Sorry, no cigar.
When specifically asked to be a part of drafting health care reform, the repubs instead stonewalled the process.
[bad img]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/redwolf5150/spidermonkey_fullpic_artworktest.gif[/bad img]
[bad img]http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7857/11430333dsj98ko.jpg[/bad img]