moonbattery.gif


« Connecticut Bureaucracy Moves to Annex Catholic Church | Main | Feds Go After Sheriff Joe »


March 10, 2009

Obama Gets an F Even From MSNBC Readers

The slobbering love affair with the Moonbat Messiah is prevalent throughout the establishment media, but reaches the apex of absurdity at MSNBC, where even the thinnest pretense of professionalism is sacrificed to obsequious idolatry of Chairman Zero by the likes of Chris Matthews, who gets a thrill up his leg when he hears our Dear Leader read a teleprompter. You would think that a poll on MSNBC's website asking readers to grade BHO's performance would produce an A+ average. But liberals have had 50 days to get a taste of just how big a mess they've gotten us all into. The current results:

msnbc-poll.jpg

For all the extravagant hype, the bloom is off the rose in less than two months.

Hat tip: Jawa Report, on a tip from Burning Hot.

Posted by Van Helsing at March 10, 2009 9:52 PM

Comments

I think that this may be best explained by the likes of us watching Matthews, Maddow, and Olbermann as much as the average Liberal. Just for the humor and "trainwreck" qualities...

Adding up the other responses kind of supports the theory. We do seem to know the second they say something incredibly silly.

Please note however, that I'm not saying that this is a bad thing.

Posted by: Evil Monk at March 11, 2009 1:37 AM

This should surprise no one. But watch the future, I predict Chairman Zero will hit new highs, that F will look good.

Posted by: Unicorn Fart at March 11, 2009 3:07 AM

Uh, wow you guys are gullable. Website polls don't count because anyone can vote on them as many times as they want. The day before the election, AOL';s website poll showed McCain with 89% of the vote. Dumbasses.

The only polls that mean anything are scientific polls where each person only gets to vote once.

Here's a list of all the scientific polls, in which people are called at random and only get one vote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/#rcp-avg-904

Even Fox nes has Obama's job approval rating at 63%.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 11, 2009 5:00 AM

From: http://beta.morons.org/tally-ho/article/read/3849;jsessionid=aP9MkCvrSIb8GBWjMo


Pope John Paul II has publicly announced the Catholic Church's efforts to ensure the European Union "makes a clear reference to Europe's Christian heritage" in the proposed new EU Constitution.

At the same time, the Pope, the titular Leader of the Catholic Church, has publicly denounced Canadian and European efforts to legalize same-gender marriage, stating through a spokesman (spokespriest?), "We want to protect the sanctity of marriage, the union of family. The Catholic Church is fighting back against those who want to legalize gay marriage. The Pope says he wants marriage to forever be between a man and a woman."

On the face of it, these positions seem to fall directly in line with traditional Catholic teachings.

And that is what scares the hell out of me.

Since this site is not "journalism," I am permitted to color my "reporting" with my own opinion, so, here they come:

I fail to understand how the Pope or any emmisary from the Catholic Church can stand up and speak on these subjects with anything resembling a straight (no pun intended) face, and furthermore, am flabbergasted that members of this Church continue to have any faith in their "leaders."

Yo, Mr. Pope, sir? Would you mind much following your own spirtual tenets and taking the frigging plank out of your eye? Then you might actually see better that this isn't a speck in ours.

This is the same organization that actually actively thwarted investigations into the criminal activities of pedophile priests.

Let's face it: The documents revealed in the investigation of the behavior of the Church in regards to pedophile priests reveal this organization to be nothing more than a criminal gang. As if the world needed any further proof; The Inquisition, The Crusades, the fostering of Nazism and protection of Nazis during the second world war...all of these examples should be evidence enough.

Although it will never happen, what should happen is this: the Federal Prosecutor in Massachusetts should file RICO charges against the Catholic Church for fostering and hiding this criminal behavior in a systematic manner, crossing not only state lines but borders and continents.

I have always been leery of organized religion. Now I am flat out convinced the Catholic Church is an evil, criminal organization that must be disbanded.

- JT

Posted by: Festivus at March 11, 2009 5:17 AM

The Catholic Church for a long time was in denial the problem existed. The infestation of liberal theologians and priests in the Church starting in the 1960s made things even worse. The church has taken steps to rid itself of homosexuals, which its now taking heat for.

Another huge problem is the secular public schools where increasing numbers of union teachers are engaging sexual relations with their students. This is a far bigger problem. Not a week goes by I dont read about some teacher being charged with statutory rape. Even women are getting in on the act and surpassing men. I suggest the NEA be declared a criminal enterprise under the RICO statutes and be disbanded immediately. Any teacher caught having sex with a student should be immediately sterilized or castrated and imprisoned for life.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 11, 2009 5:36 AM

Actually Anon at 5:00 a.m., you can't vote twice. I just tried. Responses 100,675 60% F.

Posted by: Karin at March 11, 2009 5:46 AM

You can vote more than once if you remove the cookie from your web browser.

But the real explanation is that most CNBC viewers are too busy getting stoned to make it to the website or are too busy twittering each other about the Messiah.

Its the same deal with the What Obama Means to Me site.

Posted by: Name at March 11, 2009 6:00 AM

That bit about the polls is absolutely right. Online polls don't count when anyone could have voted innumerable times. Scientific polls are the only ones with any validity to them, and there is NO scientific poll, from any newspaper or TV station, that has Obama's approval numbers as less than 55%.

But what does this web page have but lies? Your way of life is dying. The Economist is one of the most respected conservative publications in the world, and in the past year, they've endorsed Barack Obama and promoted the re-institution of the assault weapons ban. This month their issue calls for the end of the drug war.

As Obama's administration is showing, the left isn't going anywhere, we're not moving from the left, but the RIGHT is becoming increasingly moderate, except for a small percentage of neo cons which constitute Rush Limbaugh's audience. And man are they mad now as they see their fellow conservatives run from them, rats on a sinking ship.

Let's look at this page. The only way your threads get above 20 replies is when you have non conservatives putting up half the posts.

Also, this web page doesn't require you to register. OBVIOUSLY this is so users can post and repost under different monikers, making your numbers look inflated. But even with this attribute, you guys can't get more than a handful of posts on any thread. My guess is there's probably only about 4 people who actually agree with and frequent this website and they just post under different names so it looks like there's a whole twenty of you. Oh, that'll show us.

Yeah, you guys just get on that revolution. The rest of us are quaking in our boots. You 4 will surely topple Obama.

Posted by: Pat at March 11, 2009 6:18 AM

Pat why don't you get in line to kiss your tin Gods's ass, and drink somemore Koolaid. When Chairman Zero tanks he's gonna take you with him, and unfortunatly the rest of the country.

Posted by: Unicorn Fart at March 11, 2009 6:23 AM

Now that I think about it, even if I were to take it at face value and believe there actually ARE twenty of you (which I don't), I actually have almost 3 times as many friends on facebook (and this is only people I know in real life as well, not just random online buddies) as this entire web page has members.

My cousin's DOG has a page on Friendster ( and yes, I do think that's lame) and the DOG'S webpage has over twenty members. You guys actually cannot get more traffic than a Dog's web page. Ahahahaha!!!

Posted by: Pat at March 11, 2009 6:45 AM

Unicorn's Fart, Anonymous, etc., if you hate this site/conservatives so much, why do you come here? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

Posted by: MST at March 11, 2009 7:01 AM

When can I start saying "I told you so?"

Posted by: Merrihands at March 11, 2009 7:02 AM

Wow...60+ "friends" on Facebook. I'll bet that makes you a real popular guy with the ladies when you crawl out of your mommy's basement at night.

Posted by: Pauly at March 11, 2009 7:03 AM

you realize in the circles who voted for this sham of a potus, "F" simply means fine?

Posted by: nancz at March 11, 2009 7:09 AM

Pat

Keep adulating the man and notching his pedestal even higher. The resounding thud sound will be louder when the time comes.

Posted by: Pete at March 11, 2009 7:14 AM

With the MSNBC demographic, Obama probably gets a "F" because he hasn't had George Bush hung on national TV yet.

Posted by: Beef at March 11, 2009 7:22 AM

Pat,
It's the quality of friends not the quantity. Just because you get every freaky freaky on the internet is nothing to brag about,well maybe for you it is.

Posted by: Farmer Ted at March 11, 2009 7:23 AM

Now that I think about it, even if I were to take it at face value and believe there actually ARE twenty of you (which I don't), I actually have almost 3 times as many friends on facebook (and this is only people I know in real life as well, not just random online buddies) as this entire web page has members.

My cousin's DOG has a page on Friendster ( and yes, I do think that's lame) and the DOG'S webpage has over twenty members. You guys actually cannot get more traffic than a Dog's web page. Ahahahaha!!!


Posted by: Pat at March 11, 2009 6:45 AM

Yeah, but have you met any of them face to face?

Posted by: Big_Daddy at March 11, 2009 7:32 AM

Yes, Pat, Zero has 56% overall approve on Rasmussen. However, you are glossing over the fact that the Strongly disapprove number is steadily growing strong, (32%, up from 13% at inauguration) and these are the vocal, pissed off people who will come out in droves in 2010 to put some reins on this idiot. Assuming the Capitol hasn't been blown up.

Index down from +30 to +6 and holding for several days.

BTW, 56% is not that great. Not a mandate that we've all become loony lefty moonbats in this country.

Posted by: Karin at March 11, 2009 7:37 AM

and P.S. Votes are up to 106,513 with 72% giving a D or F. You don't really think it's one or two guys sitting there keeping on disabling his cookies and voting over and over? I doubt that.

Posted by: Karin at March 11, 2009 7:40 AM

As has been pointed out already, this was a non scientific poll in which anyone could vote as many tiems as they wanted.

HERE is another poll ALSO reported by MSNBC, for the same time period as this online poll, conducted in a scientific manner by the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493021/

It reports a 68% approval rating, with 47% reporting that they view Obama "very varborably"


Denial apparently is not a river in Egypt here.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 11, 2009 9:07 AM

In spite of the fact I actually had something else I needed to do, I spent the time to read more than 15 pages of comments. I was encouraged that negative comments with specific reasoning seem to exceed (and be more well received) than the give-him-a-chance, it's-all-Bush's-fault, criticism-is-racist, support.

Posted by: bertie at March 11, 2009 9:20 AM

Pat, I think I should point out that there's no registration and little moderation here because we're Conservatives

Individuality, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and the free exchange of ideas are things we actually believe in; they're not just buzzwords that we toss around for propaganda purposes.

Quite a few conservatives have a healthy distrust of authority; we believe in individuality, not collectivism. Having to "register" to speak one's mind seems a bit antithetical to our beliefs. It's something you have to do in Cuba or North Korea, not America.

Odd, isn't it, that it's the 'progressive' sites that force you to submit your information to 'the man' for approval? And if your opinions dont jibe with the moderators, your comments get scrubbed or you get banned? And here for the last 8 years I was led to believe that the progressive Left was the vanguard of freedom & opposition to the Bush Police State.

Conversely, I also find it odd that it's here on a mean ol' "Neo-Con New World Order Fascist Hate Monger site" where anyone can say anything without fear of being gagged (as long as it isn't purely offensive and meaningless, ala Dino). I've always been told by your side that it's the mean ol' conservatives that want to squash dissent under their hob-nailed jackboot of oppression... Funny how reality turns out to be the diametric opposite of what liberals constantly howl about.

Actually, not so funny. Not surprising at all.

Posted by: hiram at March 11, 2009 9:26 AM

That MSNBC poll is nonscientific and absolutely meaningless.
This kind of posting without a disqualifying comment dilutes but does not destroy the credibility of this site. Most posters here would understand when a poll is not valid.
I'm not sure about huckster Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly employs the same quasi-polling methods on a nightly basis for entertainment purposes, but its unclear whether he understands the total meaningless of his viewer's opinions with respect to the national stage.
Unfortunately posting invalid polling data (tiresome isn't it, that this junk comes from mainstream liberal media?) just opens up the floodgates for victorious trolls like "Pat"

Posted by: Fiberal at March 11, 2009 10:18 AM

Posted by: Pat at March 11, 2009 6:45 AM

Since you have no idea how many people frequent this site your entire argument is just a strawman argument. And, aside from that, I fail to see what "popularity" has to do with anything. That's a very sophomoric line of reasoning.


Posted by: Kevin R at March 11, 2009 11:15 AM

Oh, now I get it Pat. You see this like a child would see it. The topic is Obama's performance and your response is: Obama's not the one that's unpopular - you're the one's that are unpopular. LOL!!!

Posted by: Kevin R at March 11, 2009 11:29 AM

Keep posting, trolls... your salty tears sustain us. Your anguish is our lifeblood.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 11, 2009 12:20 PM

Like Bertie, I read the comments, which may be a better indicator than the poll itself. Somebody has to take the time to compose. The comments line up with the graph, easily.

Posted by: Karin at March 11, 2009 1:12 PM

I hope after four years of his rule everybody will be so tired of obama they wont even want to hear his awful name ever again

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at March 11, 2009 1:16 PM

Since when has political acumen come from simply being popular?

Politics should never be a fucking beauty contest. It should be about ability.

In that, Obama fails miserably but popularity is all the libtards can think about and the only thing that is 'substantive' about Chairman Zero that they can point to.

Sad, really.

Posted by: SK at March 11, 2009 5:04 PM

Regardless of the MSNBC poll, some of the hard-core Obama fans have to deal with the shock that he is not in fact perfect, the rest of the country and world doesn't love him, and that's he gone back on many of the campaign promises he made, just like any other politician would.
I mean, seriously- did people expect any different?

Posted by: Murff at March 12, 2009 3:32 AM

The results now show that the A's response is more popular. More people who disagree had better vote!!

Posted by: CLM at March 13, 2009 5:33 AM