Congressional approval at all time low

kamikazi89 · 08-06-2011, 08:46 AM

Views of Congress, tea party reach new low in poll | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Quote:

The marathon negotiations that led to the debt ceiling deal seemed to leave an indiscriminate trail of casualties in Washington. And now a new opinion poll has proven as much, with public views on the debt showdown dealing severe hits to all parties--centrist compromisers and principled hardliners alike.

Not all the anger is necessarily aimed at Washington, however. Public perception of the tea party movement, which many see as the driving force that kept Republicans from voting to raising the debt ceiling without implementing unprecedented spending reductions, is at a record low. In a New York Times/CBS poll released Friday, 40 percent of respondents said they held an "unfavorable" view of the movement, up from 29 percent before the debt negotiations began in April, and higher than any number since pollsters started asking the question last year. One in five respondents said they approved of the tea party, down from 26 percent a few months ago.

Congress, as usual, fared the worst. The legislative branch almost never gets high marks from the public, but never before has it earned this level of disapproval. Eighty-two percent in the poll said they disapprove of how members of Congress are doing their jobs--the highest such rate since 1977, when the poll was first taken.

President Obama, on the other hand, was the only one to really escape the negotiation process without deeply damaging blows to his perception, the poll suggested. Almost half (48 percent) said they approve of the way Obama is handling his job as president, a number that has remained stable since late 2009.

Click here for the full results from the poll.

churn baby churn

The Rev · 08-06-2011, 10:59 AM

On the other hand, approval of naked chicks is still strong.

The Rev

Roach · 08-06-2011, 06:45 PM

^ nice

‪(1/6) American Debt‬‏ - YouTube

I hope jfk watches the whole 6 videos.

kamikazi89 · 08-06-2011, 06:57 PM

Crash adds to growing questions about war in Afghanistan | Exclusives - Yahoo! News

Quote:

By Yochi J. Dreazen
National Journal

The deadly crash of a U.S. helicopter in eastern Afghanistan earlier today will fuel the growing questions about the Obama administration's handling of the long war—and the public's nagging sense, evident in recent polls, that the conflict is simply not worth its enormous human and financial cost.

Military officials are continuing to probe why the American Chinook helicopter went down in eastern Afghanistan's volatile Wardak province early Saturday, killing at least 31 U.S. troops in the largest single-day loss of American forces since the Afghan war began in 2001. More American troops died in the crash than have typically been killed in entire months of the grueling conflict.

The Taliban immediately claimed responsibility for shooting down the helicopter, and three military officials in Afghanistan told National Journal that early indications were that the chopper had been taken down by a surface-to-air missile. In a written statement, the U.S.-led military coalition in Afghanistan said there had been "enemy activity" in the areas of the crash but that the exact cause remained under investigation.

(TEXT: Obama on deadly Afghan crash: 'We will draw inspiration from their lives')

The crash comes amid a spate of grim news from Afghanistan, the Obama administration's primary national-security focus. National Journal reported last week that the number of IED attacks in the country soared to a record high of 1,600 in June, killing dozens of coalition troops, because of the free flow of bomb-making materials from neighboring Pakistan. A recent government watchdog report, meanwhile, found that an inability to properly control the billions of dollars of American aid flowing into Afghanistan every year means some of that money could be inadvertently fueling the Afghan insurgency.

The rapidly rising U.S. death toll in Afghanistan—paired with a lack of discernible military progress there—is raising new questions about President Obama's war policy. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama accused then-President George W. Bush of shortchanging the Afghan war effort in favor of the Iraq War and promised to significantly boost U.S. troop levels if elected. Since taking office, Obama has more than tripled the number of American forces in Afghanistan, including a surge of 33,000 U.S. reinforcements last year.

Obama administration officials defended the unpopular Afghan surge by arguing it was essential to eradicating the lingering al-Qaeda presence in the country. After the killing of Osama bin Laden, by contrast, a senior administration official told reporters that that the U.S. hadn't "seen a terrorist threat emanating from Afghanistan for the past seven or eight years," seemingly undercutting the main White House justification for the war's escalation.

(RELATED: U.S. focus shifts to Eastern Afghanistan)

When he announced the surge in December 2009, Obama also promised to begin withdrawing the troops roughly 14 months later. The timetable was opposed by senior Pentagon and military officials, who argued in internal White House debates that a firm drawdown deadline would embolden the Taliban while persuading Afghanistan's jittery neighbors—most notably Pakistan—that the U.S. was looking for a fast exit.

The pace of the coming drawdowns has also alarmed many top military commanders. Earlier this summer, Obama said 10,000 of the surge troops would withdraw by the end of the year, with the remaining 23,000 returning home by September 2012. That was a much faster withdrawal than had been recommended by Gen. David Petraeus and other top military officials, who warned that it would jeopardize nascent battlefield gains and allow the Taliban to regroup. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers last month that Obama's drawdown plans were "more aggressive and incur more risk than I was originally prepared to accept."

Privately, senior military commanders have said in recent interviews that they believe the drawdown pace was dictated by Obama's desire to show that he was winding down the unpopular war in advance of next fall's presidential elections.

There is little doubt that Americans have tired of the war, already the longest in U.S. history. A June poll by the Pew Research Center found that a majority of Americans, for the first time, want troops to return home as quickly as possible. The survey found that 56 percent of Americans favored such a withdrawal, up from 40 percent a year earlier. Two-thirds of Democrats said troops should leave quickly, up from 43 percent in June 2010, and the number of independents with the same views increased 15 percent from last year.

Even among Republicans, long the most stalwart backers of the war, the Pew survey found clear signs of fatigue. In June 2010, 65 percent of Republicans said troops should remain in Afghanistan until the country's security situation stabilized; by June 2011, that number had fallen to just 53 percent.

Afghanistan has vexed foreign policymakers for centuries, and Obama is no exception. The president has said he remains committed to the war and envisions keeping tens of thousands of troops there until 2014. He has given military commanders the additional troops they requested and publicly stood by them even as the Pentagon's expansive counterinsurgency strategy has failed to show clear results. But Obama has long since lost his own party when it comes to the war, which majorities of the public now oppose.

Regardless of what proves to have caused today's helicopter crash, Obama will soon need to decide how important the Afghan conflict is to him, and how hard he should fight to reverse the ongoing declines in American support for the war. For the moment, momentum does not appear to be with the president, either here at home, or on the battlefields of Afghanistan.

Visit National Journal for more political news

deadhead94 · 08-06-2011, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rev

On the other hand, approval of naked chicks is still strong.

The Rev

I approve of this message.

Jester4yall · 08-06-2011, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rev

On the other hand, approval of naked chicks is still strong.

The Rev

me too deadhead

stoneric · 08-07-2011, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamikazi89

Crash adds to growing questions about war in Afghanistan

Watch the hawks come out in full force on this being a reason why we can't leave. We musn't let these "insurgents" take out our elite killers without somebody paying dearly. Meanwhile back home grandma and grandpa better get used to eating cat food.

Roach · 08-07-2011, 10:38 AM

you know it's almost laughable.

When the russians were defeated in Afghanistan, it was because of American supplied stinger surface to air missiles, among other arms.(watch "Charlie Wilson's War")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgx5WkwSJzU

What do you want to bet, Afghani's are either now using Russian equivalents, or they figured out a way to get power to those original stingers. (battery packs only last about a year)

What goes around comes around, in American foreign affairs.

DdC · 08-08-2011, 09:48 PM

teabagging
April 13, 2009 Urban Word of the Day

The insertion of one man's sack into another person's mouth. Used a practical joke or prank, when performed on someone who is asleep, or as a sexual political act.

To have a man insert his scrotum into another person's mouth in the fashion of a teabag into a mug with an up/down (in/out) motion.

An adult act performed by consenting republican/conservatives on each other to express their fake outrage to imaginary tax increases (most of these idiots actually just got a tax break)

During this act one republican/conservative nut job (pun intended) drops his pants in public and slowly lowers his scrotum into the eager mouth of another right wing nut lover.

Some basic Teabagging participation rules

1: Participants have to be very low income (preferably on welfare)

2: Participants have to be avid Fox News watchers (this makes certain the participants are brainwashed to the extent of being borderline retarded)

3: Participants have to be republican/conservative

On 04/15/09 (Tax Day) broke ass republicans throughout the country gathered in public and performed mass teabagging on each other for hours while complaining about some imaginary tax increases

The Bush Iraq War

How did the U.S. government lead its people to war?

**SageTree** · 08-09-2011, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rev

On the other hand, approval of naked chicks is still strong.

The Rev

Damn Rev.... you got people who never posted in here before to speak up with that POLEitical PRICKaghada! Nice yob!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DdC

Holy 'funny as hell' Batman!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

kamikazi89 · 08-09-2011, 10:15 AM

Cornel West & Tavis Smiley on Obama:

Quote:

"He’s rightly associated much more with the oligarchs than with poor people," says West. Adds Smiley, “I don’t think the president would be hurt necessarily, the country certainly would not be hurt, by a primary challenge that would refocus him on what really matters. It would refocus him on what’s happening to too many people in this country. It would refocus him on a more progressive agenda.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by stoneric

Watch the hawks come out in full force on this being a reason why we can't leave. We musn't let these "insurgents" take out our elite killers without somebody paying dearly. Meanwhile back home grandma and grandpa better get used to eating cat food.

Quote:

Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense: "We owe them our deepest gratitude for their willingness to put their lives on the line, for their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of their nation. But we also must pledge to them and to their families that we will never cease fighting for the cause for which they gave their lives; the cause of a secure and safer America."

stoneric · 08-09-2011, 01:51 PM

Told ya. Of course everyone knew that.

Dr. Nick Nasty · 08-10-2011, 05:28 PM

Roach · 08-10-2011, 06:43 PM

green party is interesting, but like Ron Paul himself said, Unless you have at least 100 million in support, you're not even a contender.

08-06-2011, 10:59 AM	#2 (permalink)
The Rev Clear Light Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: In my head, somewhere. Posts: 17,867 Thanks: 5,019 Thanked 5,421 Times in 2,865 Posts	On the other hand, approval of naked chicks is still strong. The Rev __________________ Budforce - My Friend August 29, 1973- May 25, 2012

08-08-2011, 09:48 PM	#9 (permalink)
DdC Decade Yahookan Join Date: Feb 1999 Location: Santa Cruz,CA,USA Posts: 2,117 Blog Entries: 5 Thanks: 51 Thanked 607 Times in 399 Posts	Being optimistic, Congressional disapproval at all time high... teabagging April 13, 2009 Urban Word of the Day The insertion of one man's sack into another person's mouth. Used a practical joke or prank, when performed on someone who is asleep, or as a sexual political act. To have a man insert his scrotum into another person's mouth in the fashion of a teabag into a mug with an up/down (in/out) motion. An adult act performed by consenting republican/conservatives on each other to express their fake outrage to imaginary tax increases (most of these idiots actually just got a tax break) During this act one republican/conservative nut job (pun intended) drops his pants in public and slowly lowers his scrotum into the eager mouth of another right wing nut lover. Some basic Teabagging participation rules 1: Participants have to be very low income (preferably on welfare) 2: Participants have to be avid Fox News watchers (this makes certain the participants are brainwashed to the extent of being borderline retarded) 3: Participants have to be republican/conservative On 04/15/09 (Tax Day) broke ass republicans throughout the country gathered in public and performed mass teabagging on each other for hours while complaining about some imaginary tax increases The Bush Iraq War How did the U.S. government lead its people to war? __________________ Al Capone and Watergate were red herrings to divert the countries attention from the Fascist acts of eliminating competition. Booze/Ethanol then Ganja//Hemp.

08-10-2011, 05:28 PM	#13 (permalink)
Dr. Nick Nasty Reactionary Radical Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: New York/New Jersey Metro Wasteland Posts: 1,049 Blog Entries: 5 Thanks: 653 Thanked 364 Times in 232 Posts	__________________ "I do not wish any mass at all, but honest men only, lovely, sweet, accomplished women only."-Emma Goldman

08-10-2011, 06:43 PM	#14 (permalink)
Roach Victoria Aut Mors Join Date: Dec 1999 Posts: 7,184 Thanks: 2,372 Thanked 1,987 Times in 1,509 Posts	green party is interesting, but like Ron Paul himself said, Unless you have at least 100 million in support, you're not even a contender. __________________ לזיין את הקופים

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

08-09-2011, 01:51 PM	#12 (permalink)
stoneric bougeman Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 5,646 Thanks: 704 Thanked 1,512 Times in 1,067 Posts	Told ya. Of course everyone knew that.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)