On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:32:57 -0700 (PDT), rb608 wrote:

On Mar 13, 10:57*am, wrote:
Um, the period from Inauguration Day until, oh, say, mid-March...

So similar chronology is all you need for a valid analogy? The states
of the economy, the nation's security, and the world have no bearing?

None what so-****ing-ever - there could be Martians swimming in the Mall, bin
Laden could be discoing with Paris Hilton in Vegas on MTV, and the Germans could
be invading France, and it would have no bearing on the first coupla-few
months...


Uh, yeah...so, what was it like living in total, complete isolation from about,
oh, say, birth until yesterday...?

Uh, yeah...so, what is it about substance that causes you to go
straight to ad hominem instead of addressing the actual issues?

What "substance?" You offered a bunch of pro-Obama/anti-Bush whining.


If you actually look objecti...well, so that's out, but if you simply look at
the historical numbers, you'll see that just about all "modern" US Presidents
start out somewhere north of 50 and south of about 60 and stay at about there,
_averaged_ with some up/down spiking, for at least a few months. *Hell, if
he...oops, He...wasn't somewhere about 55%, something would be _really_ wrong.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. The data is the data. The WSJ's
presentation is the lie.

Uh, right.


"Disgusting?" *Why? *It's normal.

Alas, it *is* normal for the right wing. It's disgusting to me.

Then grow the flock up - not _EVERYTHING_ is racist. Maybe you took Michelle
Obama's writing a wee bit too seriously...or you're a kindred, racist spirit.


What problem?

The problem of public confidence in the economy and the President's
ability to improve it.

The President (in general, not specifically Obama) is way down on the list of
those who could boost public confidence right now.


Sorry, but I have actual work to do today, so I'll have to EOT at
that.

Oh, well then, nevermind.

It won't matter if would have helped or not, then,
R

Joe F.