[E90SoFlo]

11series and scotch please tell me?

[NYCGP]

Originally Posted by E90SoFlo

11series and scotch please tell me?

no matter what they say... you should completely disregard their answers and just keep repeating your question over and over again. Don't forget, each time you repeat yourself, you should sound more and more condescending.

[driersheets]

sadly. everyone in this presidential race sucks

[balmain]

Originally Posted by E90SoFlo

11series and scotch please tell me?

Do you really think those figures would be any different if another man were to be president?

I hate politics but I must say -- Obama isn't a magician. Name one single world leader that has completely pulled their country out of this depression?

....waiting.

He has done a decent job "cleaning up" after the mess he came into. Job growth is slow, but it's much better than the 100s of thousands that we were losing per month under the previous administration.

[xbook]

Well seeing as how a lot of that debt was accrued prior to Obama taking office, I would say it's not the best data to prove your point.

[OldArmy]

Obama is only responsible for the good stuff, everybody knows that. It's just mean spirited to call attention to anything beyond the unicorns and skittles. Bad conservative!

[pt]

What's Obama cleaning up again?

Prosecutions for Bank Fraud Fall Sharply



http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-fall-sharply/

See also:
Prosecutors Faulted on Failure to Charge ‘Bandits’ in U.S. Market Collapse
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...bandits-.html#

[GregTheStig]

As someone who still supports him, I think he could be doing a better job. As far as the debt goes, I believe he's not fully responsible for the increases we're seeing in his administration. By that I mean he's not sending us further into debt by what he signs into law, rather he's just not ending what Bush started. The NY Times posted something a while back that showed that Bush-era policies were responsible for a vast majority of that number, and Obama's accounted for less than a trillion (which is still a lot).

Not trying to beat a dead horse here by saying that it's all Bush's fault, but he really had a big role in it and Obama is guilty of not doing enough to stop it. In my mind


And jobs:


p.s. sorry that image is so damn big

[GregTheStig]

Originally Posted by pt

What's Obama cleaning up again?

Like I said above, Obama isn't cleaning up as much as he should. That doesn't mean he's responsible for it all. Good facts there

[cmk227]

The guy is just a liberal nut. The man continues to do more to destroy the economy than help.

Saving $1.2T from increase gov't spending is still a deficit. The truth would be deficit decreasing by $1.2T.

[pt]

Originally Posted by GregTheStig

Like I said above, Obama isn't cleaning up as much as he should. That doesn't mean he's responsible for it all. Good facts there

I agree - and hope my post isn't construed as assigning responsibility to him for it all. At the end of the day, Bush just about doubled the national debt - Obama has done no such thing.

Given the spike in fraud that caused (in part) the economic problems we're facing, and the lack of prosecutions by both Bush and Obama admins, it's just further evidence that republican = democrat as they both support the folks that supported them - the country be damned. Disappointing, isn't it?

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by cmk227

The guy is just a liberal nut. The man continues to do more to destroy the economy than help.

False on both accounts. You don't seem to understand what a liberal is, but you apparently have been brainwashed to call someone a liberal when you don't like them. Now why don't you stop the childish namecalling and actually present some facts?

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Obama is only responsible for the good stuff, everybody knows that. It's just mean spirited to call attention to anything beyond the unicorns and skittles. Bad conservative!

Can't debate, so you're back to this crap again. Ever heard of a strawman?

[cmk227]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

False on both accounts. You don't seem to understand what a liberal is, but you apparently have been brainwashed to call someone a liberal when you don't like them. Now why don't you stop the childish namecalling and actually present some facts?

I guess you are the liberal that I offended. Maybe I should call him a socialist would that make you feel better.

Our country is heavy in debt and the president only solution is to spend more money. He will lose re-election period.

You and I will have different option and the way we will solve it is by voting next Nov.

[driersheets]

Originally Posted by cmk227

I guess you are the liberal that I offended. Maybe I should call him a socialist would that make you feel better.

Our country is heavy in debt and the president only solution is to spend more money. He will lose re-election period.

You and I will have different option and the way we will solve it is by voting next Nov.

none of the republican candidates are good

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by driersheets

none of the republican candidates are good

Perhaps true, at least in part, for some. Doesn't matter.

This will be a vote against the incumbent for many, not so much for a dream candidate. All political sparring and B.S. aside, there are many who feel that this president was a mistake, an aberration and that he is truly and fundamentally wrong for America. No amount of arguing will change that.

And the incessant parsing of wiki and google harvested factoids on the part of some is just tedious and of no consequence.

Everybody has already decided, it's just a matter of waiting for election day.

[driersheets]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Perhaps true, at least in part, for some. Doesn't matter.

This will be a vote against the incumbent for many, not so much for a dream candidate. All political sparring and B.S. aside, there are many who feel that this president was a mistake, an aberration and that he is truly and fundamentally wrong for America. No amount of arguing will change that.

And the incessant parsing of wiki and google harvested factoids on the part of some is just tedious and of no consequence.

Everybody has already decided, it's just a matter of waiting for election day.

i really dont trust any of the candidates or the president to be honest. i would rather put it in the hands of obama than romney, gingrich and perry.

its not obamas fault though. i blame congress. democrat and republicans.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by cmk227

I guess you are the liberal that I offended. Maybe I should call him a socialist would that make you feel better.

I believe what I said is that you don't understand the words you're throwing around, not that I'm offended. You clearly don't understand what a liberal or a socialist is. You just use the words as a knee-jerk mechanism to categorize people whom you don't like.

Originally Posted by cmk227

Our country is heavy in debt and the president only solution is to spend more money. He will lose re-election period.

Our country's problem was a recession that was nearly a depression, and as most economists correctly asserted, the stimulus got us out of it.

As to whether or not enough people will feel that they should just be handed good-paying jobs, and therefore won't vote to re-elect him, we'll see.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

there are many who feel that this president was a mistake, an aberration and that he is truly and fundamentally wrong for America. Everybody has already decided, it's just a matter of waiting for election day.

Disagreeing with Obama's policies does not equate with your statement. Those who truly feel what you're expressing, and have already decided, are at odds with the idea of this man as president, which in my opinion is irrational.

I'll accept (but disagree with) one who says that the stimulus (which was successful) should have been replaced by trickle-down economics (which has never actually worked, and would take years anyway).

I'll accept (but disagree with) one who says that the healtcare reform pay-in mandate (which actually eliminates decades of freeloading that repubs have complained about) should be replaced with some other form of cost control (as of yet unspecified by repubs).

But I can't accept your categorization of Obama without some justification. And I'm well aware that you don't give a rat's ass what I think, but I'm merely stating that I don't believe the justification has been put out there, should you decide to enlighten us. Because right now, it sounds an awful lot like Sarah Palin's "real Americans" mumbo-jumbo.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Perhaps true, at least in part, for some. Doesn't matter.

This will be a vote against the incumbent for many, not so much for a dream candidate. All political sparring and B.S. aside, there are many who feel that this president was a mistake, an aberration and that he is truly and fundamentally wrong for America. No amount of arguing will change that.

And the incessant parsing of wiki and google harvested factoids on the part of some is just tedious and of no consequence.

Everybody has already decided, it's just a matter of waiting for election day.

The next election will be interesting for sure. The current Republican field of candidates is a disaster on many levels. All but 2 candidates are proving to be unserious if not down right laughable beyond the Republican base. Reasonably they must be considered unelectable. Of the 2 candidates that can compete credibly in a general election, one, John Huntsman has been completely overlooked and ignored and the other, Mitt Romney is despised by the Republican base.

While many Republicans hate Obama they also hate Mitt Romney who will likely be their nominee. Obama's likeability factor among independents, Democrats and Republicans combined is probably double that of Mitt Romney. I'm not saying Obama has it in the bag by any strectch. But because of this weak field of candidates the Republicans now have a huge mountain to climb in an election year in which they should be down hill sledding. It will be very interesting.

[NYCGP]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

False on both accounts. You don't seem to understand what a liberal is, but you apparently have been brainwashed to call someone a liberal when you don't like them. Now why don't you stop the childish namecalling and actually present some facts?

really...? You and 11series call everyone that doesn't agree with you a teabagger... and you have the nerve to call someone else brainwashed? Obamacare, Libtard, Teabagger, etc. They are all stupid insults that get thrown around this section of the forums frequently...





I'm voting for Thomas Jefferson Johnson.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by NYCGP

really...? You and 11series call everyone that doesn't agree with you a teabagger... and you have the nerve to call someone else brainwashed? Obamacare, Libtard, Teabagger, etc. They are all stupid insults that get thrown around this section of the forums frequently...

Easy there... I think you missed my point. I'm fine with the word "liberal", but Obama's been a moderate president, not a liberal, and not a liberal nut.

As I've previously pointed out, he's pro-NRA, and moderate on the military, the environment, gay rights, energy, taxes, social programs, etc. The cries of liberalism are merely propaganda posturing.