TROLL said:
lol.. responding to a statement with an exaggerated point is far from logical.. nobody is debateing gravity, so stick to the topic..
yup... but in office, you seem to not mention listening to the voice of the people.. the president's position is electoral and as such, must serve what the people want.. all u mentioned was getting invaded and overthrown.. and i dont understand how our economy is 'good' when our deficet is the biggest its been in a long time and if china were to call in the debt owed, we would be collapsed.. yet were doing good??
LOL.. the problem with this statement is trying to asscociate a president's job with a judges.. even the judge listens to both sides of the arguement during deliberations and cross examinations.. however, this president seems to not understand that part of his job..
id be willing to bet that medicinal marijuana users would grow if it were legal on the federal level.. der, no wonder its 0.03 percent of the pop.... i used it as an example anyway and you tried to turn it into another strawman..
LOL.. if its only people from 'crap states' that complain about the president, do the majority of americans live in crap states?? because its the majority that are not supporting him, harry..
isnt it funny tho, if i were to move to a smaller city, sure the taxes and cost of living will be lower.. BUT SO WILL THE WAGES... its an economic quagmire in itself...
its funny.. one of my conservative co-workers was reading over my shoulder and started laughing at you because you think that bush is really a conservative... and he wants me to add thats why a lot of the people in his own base are not supporting him..because the people who are still supporting what he's doing arent looking at issues in context and only through political favoritism.. (this guy supports the war btw)
You bore me. You really do. I don't know why I keep responding when you keep using the same tactics, and missing the same points, over and over and over again, and nothing ever changes.
You ask me about supporting an unpopular president; I make the point that not supporting gravity will not make a dropped object float in the air; you say some garbage about exaggeration and sticking to the topic.......WHY?
You complain about the president; I compare the Presidency to "drive fast enough and don't hit anybody", pearing down the job functions to only the essential; you start talking about the defecit, and China, and serving the people.........WHY?
You speak about the good-cop/bad-cop going on; I explain to you that 98% of things get done on a state level and that we prefer our Presidents to be handicapped and handcuffed; you again speak about considering opinions and that this president doesn't "seem" to understand that...........WHY?
You've missed the same 3 points a total of about 6 times now. How many more times will it take you to get it?
This isn't about what something "seems", or the defecit, or China, or taking advice from Senators/Representatives.
1) I don't give a fuck what a bunch of snot-nosed brats, bitches and punks think about this president. I have found that the more intellectually honest a person is, the more likely they are to give this president the leeway and additional consideration that the office of president merits.
2) No president can be considered a failure unless they, a) get us invaded and overthrown, or b) slow the economy to a halt...this president has done neither. Capitalism continues. The ability to amass capital remains unimpeded.
3) Our president is the chief executive in name only. We prefer it that way. We don't want him to be able to say something, and it is, whether he consults the majority or not. We LOVE red tape, especially at the federal level; and to argue that we don't would demonstrate pure, unadulterated ignorance.
Then we come to stuff like this....
"LOL.. if its only people from 'crap states' that complain about the president, do the majority of americans live in crap states?? because its the majority that are not supporting him, harry.. "
After I explicitly state: "It's always the people from crap states that complain about the Federal Government and President.....
and people from good states that complain about things that really matter."
When your State and Local politicians are taking care of business, you will find that less people will complain about Senators, Representatives and Presidents. That is the way it has always been. So it makes sense that, in a state that is almost always falling apart, like California, that disapproval of the President would be higher than usual. That alone is no indication that he is not doing his job effectively.....it just means people are pissed off, and they want someone to blame. Even ignorant people know the President's name and are familiar with a good amount of his politics; but don't always know their own governor or their politics.....so...
This is a bit old, but I want you to look at it:
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/State50StateGovernor061120.htm
Weighted average...51% approval rating.
In Blue states...59%.
In Red States...54%.
This during a time when the President's approval rating is about half that.
The point, of course, is that the more familiar we are with a Politician; the more we realize that he/her "isn't" doing their job to our impossible expectations; the more we realize how little they've actually done in their 5 or 10 or 20 years of service.....the more likely we are to disapprove of them, more on a personal than professional level.
So we arrive at...
"isnt it funny tho, if i were to move to a smaller city, sure the taxes and cost of living will be lower.. BUT SO WILL THE WAGES... its an economic quagmire in itself..."
Doesn't work that way.
When you live in a big city, you go to the schools in your neighborhood. If your neighborhood is poor.....guess what? Your school is going to be shit. When you live in a smaller city, ALL of the schools are funded well. That's the way things go.
Not to mention, in bigger cities there's more crime, drugs, temptation to drop out of school, etc etc. All around, it's just plain worse. Along with higher wages comes, not only a higher cost of living, but the other things: car alarms, flood insurance, guns, pepper spray, and all of the other little things you don't have in smaller cities. Not to mention all the higher taxes you pay to fund sports teams, highway projects and all kinds of other shit.
Regardless.....it all makes sense: we live in a capitalistic society, therefore, our biggest cities are going to have the most capital, and the most potential to earn capital. It stands to reason that if you aren't in the business of amassing capital (say, you're low-skilled or don't want to work "hard").....
you shouldn't fucking live in a major city. But some people are so attatched at the hip to their friends, and family, and this, and that, that they just won't leave, even if it would be much better for them.
Bottom line:
People like to blame their idiocy on other people, starting at the top. In this case.....the President. At a time when idiocy is at an all time high (and personal responsibility at an all time low), it makes sense that we'd point the finger at the President and call him the biggest idiot of all.
(I won't bother with Medical Marijuana or your-friend-the-conservative, because those are the real red herrings. You need to go do some research, because you're throwing out a lot names of fallacies, and its evident you don't have a clue what they mean.)