The "Thrill Is Gone"-The Collapse Of Obama-mania

[fmccap]

[BlackHorse]

 

Sure, but data shows that all the "liberal indoctrination" rhetoric is just that. Attending a liberal college and studying under liberal professors does not make people "turn liberal".

 

 

What data? All I see is your claim and that's not data.

[the_spaniard]

What data? All I see is your claim and that's not data.

 

 

Students tend to adopt their parents socio-political affiliations:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5962112

 

College students shift to the left between ages 18 and 34, but then again so do non-college students:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2315520

 

College students more likely to maintain religious affiliations (NOT lose religion) than non-college grads:

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/social_forces/v085/85.4uecker.html

 

Some food for thought:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00074.x/full

__________________________________

One of several studies indicating that college students who have a relatively high interest in maintaining group-based social hierarchies (Social Dominance Orientation--SDO) are more likely to enroll in so-called hierarchy-enhancing majors such as business and criminal justice and less likely than others to enroll in hierarchy-attenuating majors such as education and social work. Other studies also show that political conservatives in general have a relatively high interest in SDO. So SDO might be a factor in the disproportionally, as well as a preference for practical vocations.

 

I think the three bigger questions are:

1.) Why is academia dominated by liberal professors (over 75%)?

2.) Why do liberal students go on to get more PHDs?

3.) Why conservatives attack higher education but have no desire to participate in teaching it? (Or if they do, is there a liberal bias against hiring conservative professors?)

 

Again I am going to buy into funded, peer-reviewed studies before I buy into the Intercollegiate Studies Institute - a hard-right leaning "institute" (No academic credentials) conducted it's own study (not peer-reviewed) in their own journal (not peer-reviewed) that (Surprise!) believes that colleges are liberal indoctrination zones.

 

Check out the ISI Journal as described on their web-site:

"Modern Age has been America's leading conservative quarterly for more than a half century. The journal has been dedicated to “conserving the best of our civilization" since the great conservative thinker Russell Kirk founded the publication in 1957."

 

 

Nope. No political agenda there.

 

I am for equal distribution of liberal/conservative/independent professors in academia. I went to a very liberal college for my second undergrad and it drove me nuts. Just do it in real Academia, not through propaganda outlets like the ISI and Fox News.

Edited February 12, 2014 by the_spaniard

[the_spaniard]

 

Completely anecdotal, but one of my brothers was a pretty staunch conservative before he became a college professor. Now he's quite the opposite. :shrug:

 

Not saying it would never happen, Nick. There are always anecdotal examples.

 

I have a colleague that is really conservative, went through the same ultra-liberal-hippy-paradise undergraduate college I went through, got his degree in Archaeology (subset of liberal field of anthropology) and remains just as conservative today. There were several folks like that in the department. He and I used to go shooting together at a local outdoor range. He was a hard-core black-powder guy.

[Langston Hughes]

And the knee jerk response will be, "Well it's better than Bush's 32%."

 

You mean 25% don't you? I mean since your using Gallup polling, it would be correct to use Bush's Gallup numbers, am I right?

 

George W. Bush's Low Point: 25% (three times; most recent: Oct 31-Nov 2, 2008)

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

 

You mean 25% don't you? I mean since your using Gallup polling, it would be correct to use Bush's Gallup numbers, am I right?

 

 

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx

If I was trying to cite Bush's lowest ratings, you'd be right. But in this case, I stated what I intended.

 

Thanks for playing.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Even yesterday's Obama doesn't like today's Obama.

 

Funny, though. Once he got in office, the abuses he accused Bush of doing.......is what he is doing today.

 

 

 

 

 

[cal50]

Even yesterday's Obama doesn't like today's Obama.

 

Funny, though. Once he got in office, the abuses he accused Bush of doing.......is what he is doing today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bypassing congress is unconstitutional ?

From a constitutional scholar ?

 

The HELL you say!

 

 

 

This woman nails them pretty well.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIMucHfUMyg

[Langston Hughes]

Now conservatives care what Europeans feel about our President? When they were calling for War Crimes against bush and protesting the Iraq invasion you conservatives gave a fuck less, so it should stay that way.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Now conservatives care what Europeans feel about our President? When they were calling for War Crimes against bush and protesting the Iraq invasion you conservatives gave a fuck less, so it should stay that way.

Now, see. I would have thought you'd say...."you conservatives couldn't gave a fuck less,".

 

Glad you made your point.

[NickF1011]

Now conservatives care what Europeans feel about our President? When they were calling for War Crimes against bush and protesting the Iraq invasion you conservatives gave a fuck less, so it should stay that way.

 

I think the point is more the world sees how much of an ass both Bush and Obama are. Admit they are both failures and we can move on.

[cal50]

 

I think the point is more the world sees how much of an ass both Bush and Obama are. Admit they are both failures and we can move on.

 

 

 

Or the same people that hated Bush are cheerleaders for Obama while Obama expands on many of the Bush policies but are too foolish to see or admit it.

Cant see the forest thru the trees........pretty funny.

Edited February 14, 2014 by cal50

[Imawhosure]

 

 

 

Of the same people that hated Bush are cheerleaders for Obama while Obama expands on many of the Bush policies but are too foolish to see or admit it.

Cant see the forest thru the trees........pretty funny.

 

And with Nick, I agree almost 100%. This is the 3rd term of Obama, not the second. Mr. Bush was Obama lite in his second term for sure, and Mr Obama has double, tripled, quadrupled down on it.

 

You can call Mr Bush and Mr Obama anything each of you like, but there is little doubt that this period in history, will go down as 1 period split between 2 men, and history will not report well on them.

 

Let me be totally honest and fair here---------->

 

1. just because someone is your guy or gal, that doesn't mean you have to agree with them, or the outcome that their policies incurred.

 

2. republicans/conservatives/anyone else can claim all they want that the democrats in congress with their ridiculous housing policies caused the collapse of the market, but it was the BUSH ADMINISTRATION, and he knew it if you watch all the videos posted. Just because Barney Frank said there wasn't anything wrong does NOT get Bush off the hook. It is plainly obvious that Bush knew there was a problem, just by the questions he asked of those in Fannie/Freddie Mac.

 

In other words----------->just as Bush is responsible because he didn't do enough; Obama is responsible because he is doing to much. They both knew/know it, and what more evidence does anyone need.

 

3. ergo-------->this time in our history will not be looked upon well; from both the politicians who did/continue to do this to us, and "We The People" that elected the same garbage, 3 times in a row. (2nd term of Bush, 1 and 2nd term of Obama) In fairness to both republicans and democrats, neither entity knew that the 2nd term of Bush was going to change dramatically, nor did democrats actually know what they were getting when they elected Obama the 1st time. This won't be the case if Hilly actually gets the nomination, because her idiocy was what started this Obamacare debacle in the 1st place.

 

4. No matter how hard anyone tries, if you look at the second term of Bush, and the 2 terms of Obama, they have very little if anything in common with Reagan and Clintons highly successful economic models. It makes absolutely ZERO difference why those 2 Presidents had the models they did, or what outside forces caused those policies to be what they were......including the other political partys influence...........because what the success of those two administrations tells us is--------->we are off course, and terribly so. When a democratic administration and republican administration are successful, and they are both much closer to each other than they are to the second term fail administration of GW, and both term failures Barack Obama...........then it is time we all realize that we as a country should go into survival mode, and stop being in political mode. If we as a nation do not see this, then we deserve the disaster we will end up getting in the end.

[cal50]

Bush was bad but Obama is far worse.

 

Good luck getting fan-boy's of either party to acknowledge it or change party line blind support.

[FiredMotorCompany]

What I want to say when I think about the RE-ELECTION of Obama.....

 

Kinda reminds me of Sam Kinison.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[FiredMotorCompany]

This is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel....with a shotgun and a shallow barrel.

 

The "shiny" has worn off. The icing is gone from the cake. The popped corn is gone and only un-popped ones are left. The rose is wilted. The campfire has burned out. The cereal is soggy. The ice cream is melted.

The fires are cold. The thrill ran down Chris Matthews leg, not up.

 

And when was the last time we had a "fainter" when HIS HIGHNESS spoke at a public event?

 

 

 

 

Poll: 71% of Obama voters, 55% Democrats 'regret' voting for his re-election

 

Over seven in 10 Obama voters, and 55 percent of Democrats, regret voting for President Obama's reelection in 2012, according to a new Economist/YouGov.com poll.

Conducted to test the media hype about a comeback by 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, the new poll found voters still uninspired by Romney, but also deeply dissatisfied with Obama who has so far failed to capitalize on his victory over 15 months ago.

The poll asked those who voted for Obama's reelection a simple question: “Do you regret voting for Barack Obama?”

— Overall, 71 percent said yes, 26 percent no.

— 80 percent of whites said yes, 61 percent of blacks said no and 100 percent of Hispanics said yes.

— 84 percent of women said yes, and just 61 percent of men agreed.

— 55 percent of Democrats said yes, as did 71 percent of independents.

 

[FiredMotorCompany]

When California is in the midst of a critical water shortage, you can depend on leadership from the top.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or not.

 

Just don't use that "corporate jet" to fly to drought stricken California to play golf on a course that blows through 1,000 of gallons of water per day..... to keep the greens....well, green.

 

 

 

[FiredMotorCompany]

Susan Rice on "Meet The Press" today...

 

David Greggory: "Is the United States on the side of the protesters?"

 

Susan Rice: "The United States is on the side of the Ukrainian people. And the Ukrainian people have indicated from the outset, three months ago when this began, that, that, uh, President Yanukovych at the time, his decision to turn away from Europe was not the choice of the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainian people, um, expressed themselves peacefully, they were met with violence. Uh, and that did not, uh, end well for Yanukovych."

 

 

 

 

With the revelations of NSA spying, drones over US territory, political dissent met with government iron-fisted tactics of intimidation, accusations, interference and IRS manipulations, does anyone believe, naively in my opinion, the US government under Obama would be held to the same standard as it holds Ukraine?

[Imawhosure]

Susan Rice on "Meet The Press" today...

 

David Greggory: "Is the United States on the side of the protesters?"

 

Susan Rice: "The United States is on the side of the Ukrainian people. And the Ukrainian people have indicated from the outset, three months ago when this began, that, that, uh, President Yanukovych at the time, his decision to turn away from Europe was not the choice of the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainian people, um, expressed themselves peacefully, they were met with violence. Uh, and that did not, uh, end well for Yanukovych."

 

 

 

 

With the revelations of NSA spying, drones over US territory, political dissent met with government iron-fisted tactics of intimidation, accusations, interference and IRS manipulations, does anyone believe, naively in my opinion, the US government under Obama would be held to the same standard as it holds Ukraine?

Ummmmmm, why do you always ask questions for which they have no answers? If they do answer, it will be an attack on you........or me.....or blame it all on Bush.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Imawhosure

[FiredMotorCompany]

In a slightly sideways association, Piers Morgan is quitting CNN because.....

 

"America turned on me".

 

I disagree. He was never reflecting America. Only the loud mouth liberals.

 

Or, could it be related to "News Of The World" wire tapping?

[Langston Hughes]

With the revelations of NSA spying, drones over US territory, political dissent met with government iron-fisted tactics of intimidation, accusations, interference and IRS manipulations, does anyone believe, naively in my opinion, the US government under Obama would be held to the same standard as it holds Ukraine?

 

IRS manipulations?? You still beating that dead and untrue horse?

 

I'm not sure that anyone cares if you think people are naive given your paranoia, but what iron-fisted tactics are you referring to?

Edited February 24, 2014 by Langston Hughes

[Langston Hughes]

Ummmmmm, why do you always ask questions for which they have no answers? If they do answer, it will be an attack on you........or me.....or blame it all on Bush.

 

Why does he always ask leading questions that are from way out there in conspiracy land that none of us have joined him in?

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

Why does he always ask leading questions that are from way out there in conspiracy land that none of us have joined him in?

You seem to be the only one who cannot grasp the concept.

 

And you deflect rather than respond to the "open ended" question....

 

"does anyone believe, naively in my opinion, the US government under Obama would be held to the same standard as it holds Ukraine?"

[Langston Hughes]

You seem to be the only one who cannot grasp the concept.

 

And you deflect rather than respond to the "open ended" question....

 

"does anyone believe, naively in my opinion, the US government under Obama would be held to the same standard as it holds Ukraine?"

 

It's not deflection. You said a whole bunch of shit and I disagree with the ridiculous stuff. I am allowed to comment on what i would like, and do not have to accept what you wrote about the "Iron-fisted tactics" just because you put a question mark at the end.

 

And once again your intellectual dishonesty comes out, as you know that is not a open ended question at all. It's a loaded question and a closed one at that.

 

FiredMotorCompany, on 23 Feb 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

With the revelations of NSA spying, drones over US territory, political dissent met with government iron-fisted tactics of intimidation, accusations, interference and IRS manipulations, does anyone believe, naively in my opinion, the US government under Obama would be held to the same standard as it holds Ukraine?

Edited February 24, 2014 by Langston Hughes

[Langston Hughes]

By the way what is the standard that the Ukraine is being held too? You posted some blah, blah blah stuff by Susan Rice, but i didn't hear a standard in there so i can't answer yes or no to it. And closed question are those answered with a yes or no, not open ended.