The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Dems favorable rating free-falls

Orlandude

JUB Addicts
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Posts
4,695
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Orlando
I can only guess you're one of those few people who allow polls from ONE polling source to influence your thinking. And your point is?

If you must obscess about ever-changing polls, why not demonstrate something meaningful, like a comparative of the top 5 polling sources.

Apart from that, a poll is a "snapshot" of what a select group of people are thinking at a given period of time. Take the poll again tomorrow and the results will never be the same. Point being, that's exactly why most past Presidents took no stock in polls and most people don't because it is now widely known that polls are simply tools for partisan bickering. Who cares.
 
WOW, every time a different poll indicates that Obama is dropping in popularity, the left wingers come out of the woodwork saying that the poll takers are in the pockets of the right.

Is there any poll-taker that you would believe??
 
Watching the 700 Club the other morning, they were giving an "in-depth-report" on health care reform. Pat Robert's son (whatever his name is..... can't think of it right now) informed the man who was espousing the evils of the death panels that there is so much misinformation out there and where can his viewers go to get the actual TRUTH about health care reform.

This person said you can find the actual truth at: the 700 Club website and Fox News.

You can't tell me that these two sources wouldn't be a little skewed?

How many times to the right wingers scream "the liberal media" when there is something reported about them with their hands in the cookie jar..

:eek: And you didn't throw up?

The mainstream media has a certain liberal bias, though it isn't consistent. But the "700 Club"?!

That's not even apples and oranges, it's... apples and orangutans!
 
You both are right.

Why is Obama's popularity falling? That's easy to answer: We Americans have never been known for our patience. I remember similar drops in the polls in both the Reagan and the Clinton administrations.

That stems back from the Depression era, when presidents waved their wands over Congress, and suddenly the was a chicken in every house, and pot in every garage.












Or something like that.
 
There aren't any wars or national tragedies to get excited about.

People are anxious and disappointed.

We have one war which is a national tragedy. I'm reminded of that every time I drive one of the local highways, because there's a monstrous sign in flat black and blood red, giving the American death toll in Iraq, and asking "For what?"

Or are you suggesting that people have gotten numb, so there's no excitement?
 
o Unemployment: closing in on 10%. The true unemployment rate is somewhere between 15-22% (At the peak of the Great Depression, unemployment was 25%)

o Long-term unemployment is higher than at any time since the Great Depression.

o Real wages are in decline.

I don't think most Americans are sitting around on the chaise longues by the pool, asking their butler, Jeeves, if there isn't something they can clutch their pearl about. Much of America is troubled, deeply troubled by what they are experiencing in their own lives -- real lives, not imagined lives. [-X

I'll second that -- though unemployment here passed into double digits long ago, even by official figures.

That's a realm where the stimulus package infrastructure spending is almost literally saving lives: our county got more money than any other in the state, and more per capita than most in the nation, for infrastructure, because we've needed it so badly -- and when time to apply for those dollars came along, the county commissioners merely had to pull a stack of files out, enough to fill a truck, of work that's been needed for much more than a decade. Now when I drive that highway with the sign reminding me of Bush's Folly, I see construction happening, or completed, that isn't just making the road smoother, but safer for all, and aiding flood safety in the river the route follows, improving fish habitat (and thus helping protect jobs), and stronger to carry heavier traffic (which is already bringing back tourists who used to avoid the place) -- and I see faces that a month or two ago were lining up at the soup kitchens, instead out there holding signs, tamping fill (there aren't enough machines to do all the work, now!), sweeping fresh pavement, and all the pesky little tasks necessary for repairing, rebuilding, and improving a winding rural highway through forest land.
Word is they waived union rules, so they could get people employed (yes, Virginia, unions really do get in the way of people having work!) immediately, and get more people employed (no more starting wage of $18/hr, going to $24 after the first week and $36 after the first month).

It's a bit of an eye-opener to walk by an outdoor table for a local cafe and see/hear a gal in tears because she's able to stop for a 75-cent cup of coffee and split a 50-cent apple fritter with her toddler for the first time since spring, because her husband is now working at $12.50/hr on maintenance the county hadn't been able to do for the last ten years or more -- that wage being his second step up, from minimum to $10/hr, and if he gets moved to another project when this one's done he'll be getting $15/hr.
And if you can't see people rejoicing in an income at that level, you're out of touch -- I hear real anger and bitterness at unions that think their people are entitled to $90/hr, when every fifth person on the street here is unemployed, and more anger at Obama for thinking that people making $250,000 a year should be protected from tax increases (most folks around here think that anyone making half that is very well off).

Unfortunately -- and this is a point at which the "Dems favorable rating" is hurt, here anyway -- in spite of the work on highways and all, every fifth person on the street is unemployed, and it's obvious to just about everyone that there are a lot more things needed for our infrastructure.


BTW: that last fact is where the infrastructure stimulus here and the useless ones in Japan part ways, and hopefully ours will prove a real stimulus: Japan was polishing a superb infrastructure, whereas in the U.S. a great deal of the work is serious repair and improvement -- and there's enough left that isn't being done that if half the stimulus money were diverted to infrastructure it wouldn't all get done (just as an example, our county could use $250 million easily, just repairing and upgrading roads that don't carry modern traffic, have no shoulders, have lanes narrower than today's RVs, etc., and another $100 million replacing, repairing, and upgrading railroads that are no longer serviceable or safe... and that doesn't even begin to address water channels or port facilities. We've steadily lost jobs due to the deteriorating infrastructure; fixing it all would not only provide immediate jobs but restore lost, and provide new permanent ones).
 
Not to "one up" you but the U/E rate in RI is higher than Oregon -- 12.9% vs. 11.7%. And in a way, unemployment is a very personal experience -- if you're without a job, the unemployment rate is 100%; have a job and the U/E rate is zero percent. But I guess what I find alarming is that there's no "good news" on the horizon to suggest that America can come up with the 8 million jobs that are needed to recover from this recession. Add to that pain is the 10% of homeowners who are behind on their mortgages. I mean, it's one thing to lose a job, quite another to lose one's home and that is happening all over America.

Sorry -- I meant "here" as the northern Oregon coast, and my county specifically. We passed 10% U/E about inauguration time, IIRC, and nearly double that before the stimulus money hit here; thanks to it, I think we're going to avoid officially passing 20%.
Of course the official numbers (not surprisingly) lie; the number of people who have given up, or who have given up and left the county, or have lost their homes and left, or have turned to camping out in the woods, if counted would put the figure at 25% or more. And that doesn't consider the ones who have cousins with dairy farms, who are now "not unemployed" because they're getting a place to sleep in the barn, and meals on the porch, in return for taking care of all the scum jobs not even the Mexicans want to do (like climbing down in the manure tank to inspect the walls....).

Considering homes, it was reported recently that housing prices in the area (northern and central Oregon coast) are starting to go back up. Perversely, that's resulted in fewer houses on the market; rather than people returning to the market, some who are in are pulling out to wait for even better prices. I suspect that will, in turn, feed the price rise. It's good news for my mom, whose retirement savings are in the house (soon to go on the market), but bizarre to many.

And it begs the question: why isn't the government doing something substantial about it? I mean, Bush and Obama and Congress tripped over each other to bail out their backers on Wall Street, but what about Main Street? Where are the jobs programs? Where, as you allude to, are the major public works programs?

I suggest a constitutional amendment:

Congress shall pass no law granting preference, privilege, or aid to any corporation or other entity engaged in commerce, or to any person not entitled to vote, or related to a voter by recognized union or by blood.

Follow it immediately by this one:

1. No donations to politicians, or to political causes, shall be permitted, save by those persons who are entitled to vote.
2. No donations to political issues or elections within a state shall be permitted by any not maintaining residence within that state.
 
I suggest a constitutional amendment:

Congress shall pass no law granting preference, privilege, or aid to any corporation or other entity engaged in commerce, or to any person not entitled to vote, or related to a voter by recognized union or by blood.

Follow it immediately by this one:

1. No donations to politicians, or to political causes, shall be permitted, save by those persons who are entitled to vote.
2. No donations to political issues or elections within a state shall be permitted by any not maintaining residence within that state.

God I got all tingly there for a second. I personally would vote for these amendments in a flat second. It's honest, it's straight forward, and it would never pass lol but its an awesome thought.
 
i love the back/forth here

or rather back ............

suggesting that pres. obama is NOT less popular than before is well silly

yet the 85 will tell you ..............

silly stuff

course with the country (despite the good dow news) still in economic malaise if not crisis if not almost recovery ....................... PEOPLE ARE SCARED

thus the pres. approval is slipping

it would be the same if mccain had won

the people love you before u govern

then they see that you're not perfect

course Pres. Obama has had his share of slip ups - health care ram a lam a ding dong, prof gates and white cop plus

everyone does

as for pelosi and crew - well they're just not likeable ;)

much easier to be throwing stones than getting them thrown at you

did the 85 like that??? ;)
 
Chance and Wilie love you guys. Let's team up and give them them the pure hell they so richly deserve.
 
There aren't any wars or national tragedies to get excited about.

People are anxious and disappointed.

What??? Ask our military if there are any wars going on right now; and we are in the middle of one of the nation's worst recessions. there is plenty to be getting excited about
 
^ One makes their opportunities.

In 1929, there was no war looming, there was no bin-Laden, there was simply pain.

America is begging, simply pleading to be lead -- not mislead -- lead. You see, America by now knows the difference. I cannot think of more fertile ground for presidential greatness than now.

And where are we going to find this greatness!!! From our current president who can't handle being criticized and who governs like he is still in campaign mode!! Or maybe you are waiting for the 2012 election to bring us new leadership!! :)
 
I can't read one of your posts without laughing, you seriously crack me up. And good points. It just seems compared to the Repubs, the Democratic party as a whole bit the dust. Perhaps they are just back on the ground after being placed on a pedistal for a brief period.

Both parties are disasters in herd form.

I'd dearly love to see the Republicans crumble into history between now and '12, if only the Democrats would follow suit!
 
And where are we going to find this greatness!!! From our current president who can't handle being criticized and who governs like he is still in campaign mode!! Or maybe you are waiting for the 2012 election to bring us new leadership!! :)

There's no chance for greatness, because the money men don't want greatness, they want pliability.

If we want greatness, we have to get the corporations, unions, churches, clubs, associations, and the like barred from donating to campaigns.
 
But then who would govern? haha

The people?
That would be nice, for a change.

Personally, I think that real liberalism is best represented by the Libertarians, and real conservatism by the Constitutionalists; give them a chance.

Better yet -- change the House of Representatives into a body where state representatives are chosen proportionally by party across each entire state. I suspect we'd soon see some real representation of the people, with at least five parties seating reps from California; a rebirth of regional parties wouldn't surprise me then, either (Rocky Mountain Party? Great Plains Party?).
 
Ok. I dig your liberty thing. But isn't banning private enterprise from exercising its will by donating to whomever a little authoritarian? If we people don't like the candidates they support we can shop, worship, associate somewhere else.

You ascribe an attribute of an intelligent being to an activity!

"Private enterprise" is something engaged in by people. It is the people who have a will; why should those who own or run a business get a greater measure of expression of that will?

This is supposed to be "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". No business, no union, no church, no club, or any such thing, is "the people"; they are subsidiary creations. To permit those subsidiary creations their own "voice" is to decree that some people are more equal than others.

"One man, one vote" is a popular principle; "one man, one voice" is far more important.

If you want to call limiting participation in the political process to the people "authoritarian", so is having a Constitution in the first place.
 
Don't they pay taxes, are subject to laws and have an interest in who gets elected? Their profits are theirs and can be spent how they or shareholders wish. True?

There's no "they" in a company to have any interest. Interests pertain to individuals, and to nothing else except by dubious extension -- an extension truly valid only if the interests within the group referenced are unanimous.

Let's take the Gay Thimble Company, with 100 shareholders, as an example: issue W is coming up on the ballot, and would affect the production of Gay Thimbles, so the manager decides it's in the company's "interest" to give support to the side most favorable to the GTC, so he writes and sends off a check.
Now, suppose that shareholders #s 12, 37, 42, and 69 disagree with the manager. A person might say that democracy should prevail, so they have to go along. However, political speech is not a matter of democracy! What has really happened here is that 12, 37, 42, & 69 have been coerced into supporting a political position with which they do not agree. Their free speech has not been just silenced; it has been used against them!

But more: where did the money for that political speech come from? Why, from the labors of the employees. That means that their labors are being used to support a certain political position, without even seeking their consent -- in essence, they are being used to support a political agenda.

But what if the Gay Thimble Company's shareholders and employees alike are unanimous in their stance on issue W? Should the manager then go ahead with the check?
No -- because the GTC isn't a person, and has no right of political speech in the first place. If the employees and shareholders want to support a political position, let them get together and form a PAC, and do it from there. And again, no, because the money came from all the customers who bought gay thimbles -- and did anyone bother to tell them that they weren't just purchasing a product, but a political position along with it?

The thing is that there are only individuals, and any time we forget that we are taking steps away from liberty. For any corporate entity, whether company, union, church, club, or whatever to give money to a political cause is to steal some of the sovereignty from all the individuals involved, from shareholders to employees to customers. The principle that you own yourself sorts it out: when someone makes a decision on my behalf without my consent, or enlists me in providing support to some cause without my consent, my self-ownership has been violated; I have been enslaved to someone else's will.
And since slavery is immoral, in the end involvement in politics by corporate entities is immoral.
 
Where do you get your information from? Because I'm calling bullshit on you.I don't believe a word you have to say in relation to labor and unions. Like for instance here. Who gave you ''the word'' that union men get their salaries doubled after the first month.

Quite simple: I lived with three guys one summer who got hired by the highway department. All I did was describe the progression they went through, in one summer.




I don't know who's really out of touch here.The meth fiend girl who hasn't been out of the house in a year, or people like you who think $12.50 an hour is great money..

That comes out to $500.00 a week BEFORE taxes. That's not that gooda job.There are 3 people to house ,clothe and feed on the maybe $375.00 a week that's left.

You're also out of touch with what's on the screen in front of you -- totally apart from your meth fantasy.

You clearly don't know what it's like to have no income at all, and then suddenly have one. If you did, you'd understand why people in that position rejoice.


Now they are up to $90.00 an hour?It must be their second month..:rolleyes:

I don't know what month the union folks that local people complain about are in. I do know that when plumbers put in the pipes for a therapeutic bath/shower unit for my dad, my parents got charged over $300/hour for the efforts of three workers, none of whom was actually a full plumber. And when a real plumber came to clean out a drain line, he billed at $130/hr.

By any rational standard, that's extortion.

As usual, thanks for clarifying the Libertarian/Republican position Kuli.

It wasn't anyone's position; I was reporting on the situation where I live.

Seems perhaps you lack sufficient compassion to get the point that there are people out here hurting so bad that a job, any job at all, is like a gift from Heaven.
 
Kulindahr is one of my favorite JUBbers, but on the topic of unions, he can't be relied on to be objective. For reasons known only to him, he holds a deep-seated, almost vicious hatred for them.

To be fair, he himself would probably admit this.

I hold a hatred for the ones which are nothing but greed machines, operating off the belief that they are entitled to skim off even more than the traffic will bear, regardless of the well-being of others.

But if you've followed my posts, you'll recall me ripping some new ones in a few of our Republican fellows for claiming that unions are worthless, have never accomplished anything good, should be banned, etc.


Actually, it's similar to my stance on corporations: massive ones should have obstacles thrown in their path as a matter of course, and should be regarded with suspicion by all sensible people, while small business should be aided and encouraged by all -- sometimes even the government.


So my opposition isn't to unions, it's to greed.
BTW, my exposure to the greed of unions came primarily in Flint, Michigan (auto workers), and Kearney, Nebraska (railroads). My exposure to the need for unions came primarily in St. Louis, Missouri, and Miami, Florida.
 
Back
Top