|
|
Post by dgriffin on Feb 23, 2009 0:29:11 GMT -5
 Obama tops Jesus in heroes pollROCHESTER, N.Y., Feb. 20 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama succeeded Jesus Christ on a Harris Poll that asked American adults whom would they call heroes, poll data indicated Friday. In the first such survey, in 2001, Jesus was first, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., was second and former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was third. Obama wasn't mentioned. Now, after the president, Jesus and King, the new top 10 includes former U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Abraham Lincoln; U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; former President John F. Kennedy; hero airline pilot Chesley Sullenberger; and humanitarian Mother Teresa. God was 11th, the poll said. The most mentioned reason for making the list (89 percent) was "Doing what's right regardless of personal consequences." Poll officials said the survey was conducted among 2,634 U.S. adults who answered spontaneously in contacts Jan. 12-19. uticadailynews.com/index.php/vivvo_general/3260.htmlWho said we're watching too much television?
Well, at least there were no current Hollywood idiots in the top ten. |
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Feb 23, 2009 9:56:17 GMT -5
I have always admired Nixon. My all time favorite is St. Francis of Assisi ( as a reformer of the Church he had the balls to confront the bastards)
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Feb 25, 2009 19:36:46 GMT -5
Good grief. Why was Dubya on that list? Because he put this country in the toilet or because he allowed his cronies to stick it to the working class without even using Vaseline?  |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 25, 2009 21:00:41 GMT -5
Why was Dubya on that list?
....guess a moral compass and sense of duty just doesn't count for much anymore...........
|
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Feb 25, 2009 21:20:57 GMT -5
Good grief. Why was Dubya on that list? Because he put this country in the toilet or because he allowed his cronies to stick it to the working class without even using Vaseline? This might come as a shock, but there are people in the world that...gasp...don't agree with your "views", such as they are. But you knew that. |
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Feb 25, 2009 22:08:19 GMT -5
While I had little faith in GW's economic policies or his diplomatic ability to get along with others, I DID always feel safe in my bed at night with his administration in charge of the war on terror, and our country's defense.
I am a little shakey waiting to see what Obama and his administration are going to do, and how they are going to work with the Generals in the field. Obama is a great orator, but is he a strategest? Does he even understand military matters? It is my hope that he will work with the military, and not simply "keep a promise to bring our troops home," if it means pulling them out too quickly and giving up that ground that many have died to gain.
I see the pentagon being able to withdraw our troops within the next couple of years, but to place a date on it would be less than responsible. I don't see as much news coverage of the war, and I am afraid that Obama is putting it on the back burner in order to fill he airwaves with his economic strategy. Both of those issues need to stay center stage, and both are equally important to the future of our country as well as Iraq.
|
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Feb 26, 2009 0:51:39 GMT -5
I am a little shakey waiting to see what Obama and his administration are going to do, and how they are going to work with the Generals in the field. Obama is a great orator, but is he a strategest? Does he even understand military matters? It is my hope that he will work with the military, and not simply "keep a promise to bring our troops home," if it means pulling them out too quickly and giving up that ground that many have died to gain. The Iraq policy the current administration is due to announce later today is...tada...the same as Pres. Bush's. A slow drawdown based on maintaining security followed by a 50K man force until current treaty obligations are satisfied in 2011. After that, who can tell? Although I'm willing to bet American troops will still be in Iraq when Pres. Obama leaves office. Six months ago a long term troop presence in Iraq was "warmongering". Now it's "prudent". Six months ago the Department of Justice's battle to maintain executive privilege was "fascism". Now the same lawyers are making the same arguments and it's a "vital constitutional issue". Six months ago the President's surge in troops was "senseless". Today the President's surge in troops is "necessary and needed". Six months ago a multi-billion dollar bank bailout was "crony capitalism". Today, an even larger bailout, championed by men in the administration who were employed by the very same special interests getting bailed out, is "part of America's future". The only thing more embarrassing than the amazing about face in news coverage, and the opinions of the less-than-critical thinkers, is how predictable this all was. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Feb 26, 2009 5:59:45 GMT -5
And six months ago faith-based initiatives applauded in Obama's inaugural speech were under Bush labeled as the beginning of a Theocracy.
Small wonder. As with most thorny problems, intelligent (enough) leaders will often differ little in their solutions. I always said the Democrats wouldn't change much in Iraq.
It's sickening to watch politicians get on separate sides of the issues ... not with a fair hearing of the alternatives in mind, but instead with a disappointing self interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Feb 26, 2009 9:45:11 GMT -5
I figured Obama would change his stance on the war once he got into office, because then he was privy to info that he was not before he became pres.
I just couldn't believe Dubya would be put in the same category as those others! I also saw a list where he & Hoover were at the absolute BOTTOM of all the presidents in popularity. So, I guess it's all a matter of where we get these lists from.
|
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Feb 26, 2009 10:53:20 GMT -5
I figured Obama would change his stance on the war once he got into office, because then he was privy to info that he was not before he became pres. That argument would make some sense if Presidential candidates didn't receive exactly the same intelligence briefings as the sitting President. Mr. Obama had the same facts as Pres. Obama. He just chose not to point out that he would wholeheartedly embrace Mr. Bush's Iraq policies while on the campaign trail. Indeed. "Daily Kos" and "Democratic Underground" probably aren't the reliable sources of information you appear to believe them to be. |
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Feb 26, 2009 12:27:10 GMT -5
Geez, Gear. Have I done something to piss you off? If I say something's white you'll automatically say it's black.
No, my husband googled "Popular Presidents" & came up with that list.
Whip me, beat me, make me write bad checks.
|
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Feb 26, 2009 12:56:25 GMT -5
Geez, Gear. Have I done something to piss you off? If I say something's white you'll automatically say it's black. Please don't take it personally. You're just a convenient example of a particular mindset. |
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Feb 26, 2009 20:03:40 GMT -5
If he topped Jesus than he must have really topped Hitler. Both preached nationalism and a need for all people to under the rule of one.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Feb 26, 2009 20:27:02 GMT -5
[In my best Jim Carrey imitation]: Allriiiighty then..
|
|
