Turdy: I responded DIRECTLY to the only salient statement you made: Obama being "less aggressive" which is: #1 false. #2 not necessarily a 'good` thing! Sometimes direct action is DEMANDED. And yet Obama fiddles, stalls and kicks the can down the road...
I argue because I refuse to let BULLIES ruin my day! I confront them with facts and truth, it literally drives them insane with rage! They (you) literally have NO ANSWER to facts and truth. So they expose themselves for what they (you) are: hate-filled idiots with no backbone.
"In your mind you are an expert. Opinion will never change."
I have an opinion on MANY things, that`s true. I`ve RARELY claimed to be an "expert" on anything. You WRONGLY INFER this? That`s your problem. You only display your own stupidity by shrieking and screeching over nothing like you did...
Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:36:57 AM
A@monkeyspankn: The keyword is: at this point in their Presidency. Yes, at the END Bush had lower numbers, but that's meaningless. It`s like saying Bush`s numbers in 2002 were MUCH HIGHER, correct? Year #5 comparison is what counts.
@Ogden: That`s what`s commonly called "a joke" ok? MSM `news` often compared Bush to ridiculous, non-political people in attempts to ridicule him. Again, at this point in their Presidency, not "all time highs or lows" which are meaningless.
Despite the MSM shilling for him 24/7? Obama`s numbers are BAD. Period!
Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:09:55 AM
I can't stand Obama, but this is Republican propaganda. Bush had a 25% positive, 75% negative rating in 2007. You can google that, so there`s one un-truth. Obama`s 40% is a little higher than Bush`s 25%. Once again we have polls.