And you are in denial of the obvious.

Hey, use the PM function. Works great. :up:

Sure this thread title shouldn't be:

"New record in political threads"? :hmm:

Me and 75% of the country, I suppose? :rotfl:

That's actually an ad-hominem attack.

75%? How do you figure?

No resignation yet (i haven't watched any local news though). The media coverage (was) is pretty funny.

One news station had their phone system totally melt down from all the calls b*tching about how thet weren't covering BO and wasting their time on such a trivial story.:o The reporter was upset and said they had been covering bo since 4am and ALL of the other stations had dropped coverage of obama's big day.

He hasn't been to any city meetings in 2 days.

I think that is liberal math:88)

sounds more like a tax rate:o .

Actually, I was referring to this. I was off by 3%. I'm sure that's a capital offense akin to being a liberal. See, this represents the optimism the country has in it's President. So when I'm told by Demon that I'm in "denial of the obvious" because I don't buy his rhetoric, I must be joined by the other 72% of Americans that agree, as I do, that President Obama will do a lot of good for this country, and we will be left better off than we have been as a result of the train wreck of a Presidency under Mr. Bush, who has never done anything wrong because it was all Clinton's fault.

Gotta go to the beach now. But I sure will miss you guys this weekend. :yep:
-Gallup

Well as has been demonstrated, Mr. Obama got elected through voter ignorance, and emotion. So yes, a multitude of Americans are in denial if they believe that Mr. Obama's "spreading of wealth" platitudes, increased taxes and regulations, and more government interventions will result in anything positive. Many Americans don't even know the consequences of closing Gitmo with no policy in place to deal with the enemy combatants being stored there. They just know that they want it closed. And Obama's naivety in playing to the emotional base here, while making them feel "hope" and "confident", will likely lead to greater danger for American security. That statistical sample showing Obama voters knowledge, showed they thought Republicans currently controlled Congress. I guess because they thought if Bush is President, Republicans have to be in control of Congress. :shifty:

You are foolish if you think public confidence percentage equals the potential of a Presidents performance. Obama has not so much as run a hot dog stand and you fools made this guy with no experience in anything the POTUS. Sounds to me like you guys have taken an enormous risk with our country, and viewing the behaviors of the Obama drones at pre-election political rallies proved to me beyond all doubt that ignorance and emotion was the only thing in abundance there.

P.S. And yes. Mr. Clinton could have chosen to pursue terrorists and terrorism as a policy. Instead of the weak responses we did see from his administration. But, the Europeans loved us back then...right? That's all that matters to you. Means nothing to me. Had Clinton done the right thing, it might have prevented 9/11. If you can't see that, you have only proven yourself unable to view policy in the proper context if it overlaps a Democrat President's term in Office. And ultimately, I'm beginning to understand that voters of the left cannot see it. Not just that they're in denial of fact.


Edited to add: Interesting link in the context of Obama's Gitmo decision.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/...e.1-414168.php

Freed Saudi becomes Qaeda chief.