A series of Questions for the GOP/TEA Party supporters in this forum...

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

I sincerely would like to ask the following questions and hopefully get a valid and honest response:


1) Do you accept and respect our Voting system?

No. The electoral college is antiquated, and was only adopted because even our founding fathers placed little trust in the unwashed masses.

2) Do you guys/gals love America?

Moronic question.

3) Is your hate for Obama a hidden racial agenda?

Another moronic question. On Bush's first inauguration, the traditional walk down Pennsylvania Avenue had to be stopped because so many people were throwing food, garbage, and even human feces at Bush. So if you want to talk about hatred, go look at your typical liberal.

I don't give a crap about Obama's color. What I do care about is the fact that every single idea he has is a really bad idea.

And spare me the history lesson the debt ceiling. Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling when Bush was President, then suddenly decided it was a good thing when he was President. That makes him a hypocrite.

Furthermore, your little history lesson is asinine, and an excellent example of everything that is wrong with partisan politics in general. For nearly a century now, we have done nothing but accumulate debt. We have LONG since passed the point at which pointing fingers will do any good. Guess what? Democrats and Republicans have both buried us under a mountain of debt. The task now is to stop spending ourselves into oblivion and pay back what we have stolen from our children. I don't give a rat's ass who balances our budget, as long as it gets balanced. I don't give a rat's ass which President starts paying down our debt, as long as it gets paid down.

As long as morons like you are more interested in pointing fingers than they are in finding solutions, we will just keep kicking the can down the road. We will keep giving every President, and every Congress license to continue to spend us into oblivion as long as they don't spend as much as the last guy.Is that really how you think we should be running things?? We give Obama a pass as long as he doesn't spend as much as Bush?? (Too late actually, he already has).

If I had previously held any respect for Obama, his hysterical temper tantrum over the sequester wiped it out.

Lastly, I voted for Kerry in 2004, and voted a straight Democrat ticket in 2004, and did it again in 2006. So did alot of people, which is why Republicans got their clocks cleaned. Want to know why? Because the GOP was spending money like a bunch of drunken sailors. I couldn't tell the difference between them and liberals, so I voted to fire them. When I don't like how the leaders I elected handle the business of the nation, I won't hesitate to fire them.

Now tell me, when have you ever gone against the Democrats because you didn't like what they were doing? Ever? Even once?

4) Are their any policies or anything that Obama has done that you support ?

I would respect Obama for changing his stance on gay marriage. However, he only did it for political points, so his reversal means nothing to me. Aside from that, no, not one of his policies has been a good idea.

1) So you think any political election specifically the Presidential is a sham????

2) It's not a moronic question- when you have people like RUSH hoping Obama fails or a Representative that calls him a liar at a SOTU address or when you have politicians stating on record:"let's make Obama a one term President.." instead of let's hope Obama brings jobs and prosperity to our country sounds to me that you have a negative agenda. If I work for ACME corporation and I flat out say I hope the CEO of ACME corporation fails- am I really being supportive of my company? Because of the CEO fails it's going to trickle down to the employees in the same way f the POTUS fails people are going to fail- they usually go hand and hand.

3) I am calling Bullshit and your analogy with Bush- I don't condone throwing anything at the POTUS- but you had millions of Americans with good reason that believed BUSH stoled that election- it doesn't help when the state in question is ran by your little brother. However, Obama won fair and square twice and you still had the racist innuendos and Obama being compared to Hitler.

Also, you want to talk about Flops are you fucking kidding me??? Romney was the king of flip flops- but let's take George Bush's flip flops:

Free Trade

During the 2000 presidential election, Mr. Bush championed free trade. Then, eyeing campaign concerns that allowed him to win West Virginia, he imposed 30 percent tariffs on foreign steel products from Europe and other nations in March 2002.

Twenty-one months later, Mr. Bush changed his mind and rescinded the steel tariffs. Choosing to stand on social issues instead of tariffs in steel country – Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia – the Bush campaign decided it could afford to upset the steel industry rather than further estrange old alliances.


Homeland Security Department

President Bush initially opposed creating a new Department of Homeland Security. He wanted Tom Ridge, now the secretary of Homeland Security, to remain an adviser.

Mr. Bush reversed himself and backed the largest expansion of the federal government since the creation of the Defense Department in 1949.


Same-Sex Marriage

During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush said he was against federal intervention regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. In an interview with CNN's Larry King, he said, states "can do what they want to do" on the issue. Vice President Cheney took the same stance.

Four year later, this past February, Mr. Bush announced his support for an amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as being exclusively between men and women. The amendment would forbid states from doing "what they want to do" on same-sex marriage.

Citing recent decisions by "activist judges" in states like Massachusetts, Mr. Bush defended his reversal. Critics point out that well before the 2000 presidential race, a judge in Hawaii ruled in December 1996 that there was no compelling reason for withholding marriage from same-sex couples.

Remember George H. Bush campaign slogan:"Read my lips no new taxes...." and remind me again if George H. Bush raised taxes or not????

[CuteOldGuy]

Winning an election does not make the winner right on every issue, nor does it insulate him/her from criticism. I admit. I want Obama to fail. If Obama succeeds, we will have much less freedom. I wanted Bush to fail for the same reason. I feel this way precisely because I love America. I despise what these mainstream "electable" politicians are doing to her. The ultra rich and powerful run this country now, for the sole benefit of themselves. Bush, Obama, and many others are simply puppets for the system. We have a government of the cronies, by the cronies, and for the cronies. That is not America.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I admit. I want Obama to fail.

Hanoi COG, my kind and generous offer still stands. A one-way, first class ticket, to Beautiful Downtown Damascus. Custom made for you!

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I sincerely would like to ask the following questions and hopefully get a valid and honest response:


1) Do you accept and respect our Voting system? The way the rules are written everyone over 18- that isn't a convicted felon has the right to vote for the candidate of their choice- depending on which candidate receives the majority electorate vote- that candidate wins. Ok, Obama won twice- as the old saying goes spoils goes to the victor- why are you guys still bitching? America voted and it appears that they(voters) want to go with Obama's agenda- point blank move on.
You simplified the process to the point that it is hardly recognizable. Every state and party has their own little quirks that add to our system of voting. Basically, the found wanted the people to vote for the House, the states to appoint the Senate, and both the House and Senate elected the President and Vice-President. Over the years that has changed. The first to go was the election of the President and Vice-President by the elected representatives of the people. They installed an electoral college (which I still support. A popular vote election could conceiveably be won with only 7 states) because they wanted the winner to look impressive and, yes, they didn't trust people to have the particular knowledge to vote for the most important office in the country. So where does that leave us today and your question? Everyone over 18 who has not been convicted of a felony or judged to be unbalanced can vote according to the rules of the state where they reside and ONLY the state where they reside. That means a congressman wins a plurality of the vote, a senator wins a plurality of the vote, and the president wins the electoral college (not the popular vote) and we don't even think about the VP slot much anymore. Whoever wins (according to the rules), wins and they get the job. They DO NOT get ultimate power. The Constitution limits what they can do by naming the powers of the elective office, placing limits on those powers, and by putting the three branches of government at odds with each other (gridlock was designed into the system, someone tell Obama). When the founders wrote the Constitution there were no parties (or factions as they were called). They elected the man (sorry ladies). Early representatives did wonder what would happen if two of the three branches ended up controlled by the same party. They didn't think it was going to be good. They were right.

2) Do you guys/gals love America? I am being very serious with this question because base on the threads you post specifically Whirlaway it's hard for me to conclude that you love this country. I wasn't a big fan of Bush- mainly due to the Iraq War- but I still and always will love this country and wish Bush the best- I didn't wake up every morning looking for Bush to fail or hoping the UE rate would skyrocket. I mean I honestly believe guys like JD, IIFOR, LexusLover would be delighted if tomorrow we were in a Depression they would laugh and point fingers at Obama. It really scares me when you guys post negative comments about Obama- it's one thing not to like Obama but it's another thing to wish the country would go down the sewer all because the POTUS has a "D" behind his name. Again, Whirlaway takes the cake- Whirlaway you voted for Obama in 2008- you dmitted you didn't vote forMcCain and I am sorry I don't believe that in the biggest election in many years that you voted for some obscure Green Party Candidate. So since you admitted you didn't vote for McCain in 2008 I am going to believe you voted for Obama. I don't think you know the difference between your government and your country. When I did my service it was voluntary. I raised my hand and swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. There is nothing there about a country. Are you willing to go out on a limb and say that all military people are disloyal?
If you truly think that then you have some mental problems or you are unable to accept that we can love our country but not our chief executive. You have no idea about what you're screeching about. My country is enshrined in our Constitution which is something that people like you have so many problems with. The Constitution shackles our government and not the people but you would have it the other way. Based on some of things that you have supported and said, it is questionable that you love this country. You love a country that does not exist and that the founders wanted to prevent from coming into existence. Take a look at the D'Souza movie. He interviews Ward Churchill the fake Indian at the University of Denver. D'Souza asks if he would, if he had the power, drop a nuclear bomb on the United States. Churchill says he would. That seems to be your position.

3) Is your hate for Obama a hidden racial agenda? Yes, I went there and many people feel the same way- Bush was spending like a liberal during his years and Govt expanded more under Bush than any other POTUS yet where was the TEA party rallies demonizing Bush???? Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times and George W. Bush raised it 7 times- yet after Obama raised it for the 1st time the GOP/TEA party went APE Shit crazy!! Why? here's the history of the debt ceiling:

• The debt ceiling has been changed 104 times since 1944 - 94 increases and 10 decreases
• It has been raised 54 times by Republicans, 40 times by Democrats
• Ronald Reagan increased the debt ceiling by 18 times, followed by Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson by 10 times and George Bush Sr by 9 times
• So far, Barack Obama has raised the debt ceiling by six times - less than George W Bush's 7 times
This is really strange, the debt ceiling has nothing to do with race or can't you see that. Maybe you should look up the stories where conservatives opposed debt ceiling increases under Bush, Clinton, Bush, and even Reagan. Where any of them other than white? As for Obama, he is half white so maybe we're opposing the white, golf playing half. Like I said though, the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the race of the POTUS. It has to do with math, economics, and common sense. You can't keep spending money without worrying about paying it back someday. Especially when you borrow (Obama) the money to reward your people today with the property of people from tomorrow. Oh, and debts ceilings are executive orders. They are not one equals one. Each one is different. Bush raised the debt from 5,808 trillion in 2001 to 10, 225 trillion in 2009. You can call that a 4.417 trillion dollar increase (over eight full years with two wars and the aftermath of 9/11) or slightly less than 100%. Obama has raised, with his six increases, the debt from 10,225 to ~17.663 in 2014 (June) or 7.438 trillion in only five years which puts him on target to increase the debt to 22,125 trillion in eight years or an increase of OVER 100% after both wars have been shut down and there was no 9/11 to deal with. Obama, white, black, or plaid is a fiscal joke.


4) Are their any policies or anything that Obama has done that you support ? Romney in his words said he after 4 years could get the UE rate to 6% that was Romney's goal- well what do you know it's currently at 6.3% with a little less than 2 years to go- barring some economic catastrophe Obama will have the UE rate below Romney's projected goal of 6 percent. Imagine what the UE rate would be had the gridlocked Republicans passed some of Obama's bills that would have surely lowered UE rate- remember the Jobs bill?
Oh and don't feed me that crap that UE rate is much higher than 6.3 percent because it doesn't take into account the people who gave up looking for jobs- well when the UE rate was 5 percent you could use that same logic that people gave up looking for jobs- so that argument is out the window.

Actually you can't ignore that argument just because you want to. You can argue percentages but when you look at actual people (not numbers, people) there are over 92 million people unemployed or underemployed. You can't argue with that number. That is the number that your taxes come from, that is the number that moves an economy, that is the misery index that Jimmy Carter talked about but you digress. You asked if there is anything that Obama has done that I support and then you throw in unemployment....Obama has done a couple of things that any president would have done under the circumstances but would have done it differently. He had Bin Laden killed. Any president would have done that but I think smart president would have captured Bin Laden and NOT told the world for a time. That would be a major strategic advantage but Obama was playing politics and not going for a real win. Actually I can't think of something else that Obama has done that really affected anything important. He did not raise the stock market, he did not reduce unemployment (whether you believe in the bogus number or not), he did not fight the war on terror (that was the SEALs who did the killing and put their lives on the line). No, Obama has done next to nothing that I support. Why don't you list some of his accomplishment and we'll go over them tomorrow?


I expect you to answer a series of questions in the near future.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

1) So you think any political election specifically the Presidential is a sham????

2) It's not a moronic question- when you have people like RUSH hoping Obama fails or a Representative that calls him a liar at a SOTU address or when you have politicians stating on record:"let's make Obama a one term President.." instead of let's hope Obama brings jobs and prosperity to our country sounds to me that you have a negative agenda. If I work for ACME corporation and I flat out say I hope the CEO of ACME corporation fails- am I really being supportive of my company? Because of the CEO fails it's going to trickle down to the employees in the same way f the POTUS fails people are going to fail- they usually go hand and hand.

3) I am calling Bullshit and your analogy with Bush- I don't condone throwing anything at the POTUS- but you had millions of Americans with good reason that believed BUSH stoled that election- it doesn't help when the state in question is ran by your little brother. However, Obama won fair and square twice and you still had the racist innuendos and Obama being compared to Hitler.

Also, you want to talk about Flops are you fucking kidding me??? Romney was the king of flip flops- but let's take George Bush's flip flops:

Free Trade

During the 2000 presidential election, Mr. Bush championed free trade. Then, eyeing campaign concerns that allowed him to win West Virginia, he imposed 30 percent tariffs on foreign steel products from Europe and other nations in March 2002.

Twenty-one months later, Mr. Bush changed his mind and rescinded the steel tariffs. Choosing to stand on social issues instead of tariffs in steel country – Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia – the Bush campaign decided it could afford to upset the steel industry rather than further estrange old alliances.


Homeland Security Department

President Bush initially opposed creating a new Department of Homeland Security. He wanted Tom Ridge, now the secretary of Homeland Security, to remain an adviser.

Mr. Bush reversed himself and backed the largest expansion of the federal government since the creation of the Defense Department in 1949.


Same-Sex Marriage

During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush said he was against federal intervention regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. In an interview with CNN's Larry King, he said, states "can do what they want to do" on the issue. Vice President Cheney took the same stance.

Four year later, this past February, Mr. Bush announced his support for an amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as being exclusively between men and women. The amendment would forbid states from doing "what they want to do" on same-sex marriage.

Citing recent decisions by "activist judges" in states like Massachusetts, Mr. Bush defended his reversal. Critics point out that well before the 2000 presidential race, a judge in Hawaii ruled in December 1996 that there was no compelling reason for withholding marriage from same-sex couples.

Remember George H. Bush campaign slogan:"Read my lips no new taxes...." and remind me again if George H. Bush raised taxes or not????

What does Bush having done have anything to do with what Obama has done and then you complain about the other Bush's actions. You still have Bush derangement syndrome. By the way, up until 2012 Obama and Hillary both supported that idea that marriage is between a man and a woman.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Obama has done a couple of things that any president would have done under the circumstances but would have done it differently. He had Bin Laden killed. Any president would have done that but I think smart president would have captured Bin Laden and NOT told the world for a time. That would be a major strategic advantage but Obama was playing politics and not going for a real win. Actually I can't think of something else that Obama has done that really affected anything important. He did not raise the stock market, he did not reduce unemployment (whether you believe in the bogus number or not), he did not fight the war on terror (that was the SEALs who did the killing and put their lives on the line). No, Obama has done next to nothing that I support. Why don't you list some of his accomplishment and we'll go over them tomorrow?


I expect you to answer a series of questions in the near future.

Mitt Romney was not in favor of spending billions of dollars to go after Bin Laden. So, any President except Mitt would have gone after Bin Laden. From the link.

that April, when he told The Associated Press that "It's not worth moving heaven and Earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."

JD, for such a student of history, you can have selective memory lapses.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/politi...den/index.html

You say Obama did not raise the stock market. It's true he wasn't on the trading desk of some Wall Street brokerage firm pressing the buy and sell button. He had Paulsen bail out all the big banks (Chase, Citygroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc) in February 2009 so they could start making loans to small businesses again. Let's not forget the bailout of AIG, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Freddy Mack and Fannie Mae, GM, Chysler and others. Of course the debt went up, where do think the money came from to bail out all these companies who went bankrupt trading unregulated securities in 4th quarter 2008.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Can you show me some TEA Party rallies where they were outraged by Bush spending????

Those old white honky Tea Goobers who are now bitching about Bush and his spending...(to justify their bitching about Obama's spending) gladly took the unpaid for $700 billion Medicare Part D prescription drug program benifit with open arms!

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

So you think any political election specifically the Presidential is a sham????

You have a remarkable talent for reading words that aren't there. By the way, if the electoral college had been done away with decades ago as it should have been, then Gore would have won since he won the popular vote. Given that I voted for Bush, that would mean that my personal choice would have lost the election. The fact that I essentially benefited from the electoral college in 2000 does not change the fact that it is a relic of bygone days and needs to go away.

2) It's not a moronic question- when you have people like RUSH hoping Obama fails or a Representative that calls him a liar at a SOTU address or when you have politicians stating on record:"let's make Obama a one term President.." instead of let's hope Obama brings jobs and prosperity to our country sounds to me that you have a negative agenda. If I work for ACME corporation and I flat out say I hope the CEO of ACME corporation fails- am I really being supportive of my company? Because of the CEO fails it's going to trickle down to the employees in the same way f the POTUS fails people are going to fail- they usually go hand and hand.

Yes, actually it is a moronic question. It goes without saying that all Americans who are passionate enough about the political process to keep themselves reasonably informed about current events in order to engage in political discourse do so because they care enough about their country to want to be involved in its functioning. That even means morons like you love your country. The difference between you and I is that you have really bad ideas about what is best for our country, and I don't.

3) I am calling Bullshit and your analogy with Bush- I don't condone throwing anything at the POTUS- but you had millions of Americans with good reason that believed BUSH stoled that election- it doesn't help when the state in question is ran by your little brother. However, Obama won fair and square twice and you still had the racist innuendos and Obama being compared to Hitler.

Oh my God. More finger pointing and hysterical lessons. Err, historical lessons I guess. You asked if my dislike of Obama had racial overtones. I gave you my reasons why it doesn't, and also gave you an example that demonstrates that liberals hated Bush long before he ever set foot in office. This is like debating with a 5 year old. Your response to everything is "Well Johnny did it too!!!"

Yes, I wanted Obama to be a one term president. I am not happy with the idea of our country being led by an incompetent moron. I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that you were rather hoping that Bush would also be a one term president. In fact, you probably wanted that so much that you voted for Kerry, didn't you? It is ok to admit it. The reason we HAVE elections is so that we have the opportunity to either re-hire those politicians we approve of, or fire those politicians we don't approve of.

Yes, I also wanted Obama to fail to implement his agenda, particularly his centerpiece item - Obamacare. Why? Because it is a really bad idea. I am not in the habit of cheerleading for policies that are going to do far more harm than good. I am just weird that way. Apparently, that is what separates those of us who are sentient from the unwashed lemming masses, referring of course to liberals.

It is kind of weird though. I can't seem to remember very many liberals doing cartwheels in the street to drum up support for any of Bush's policies. I don't know, I guess the expectation that we are supposed to blindly follow the President's lead no matter what only comes into play when there is a Democrat in the White House. Dammit, someone should have told me about that particular clause in the How To Be An Armchair Politician Handbook.

I also didn't want the astoundingly idiotic "Cash for Clunkers" bill to pass Congress. Bummer for me, it did anyways. Nor did I want the massive boondoggle facetiously referred to as a stimulus package to pass through Congress. Again, bummer for me and my grandchildren, it also passed, creating a trillion dollars in debt while funneling billions of dollars into the pockets of cronies, unions, and more or less any pocket available that would assure that no actual jobs would be created.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Basically, the Founders wanted the people to vote for the House, the states to appoint the Senate, and both the House and Senate elected the President and Vice-President. Over the years that has changed. The first to go was the election of the President and Vice-President by the elected representatives of the people. They installed an electoral college (which I still support. A popular vote election could conceiveably be won with only 7 states) because they wanted the winner to look impressive and, yes, they didn't trust people to have the particular knowledge to vote for the most important office in the country.

Well put, but it's necessary to reiterate that without the benefit of modern media, most citizens had no idea -- they indeed lacked "the particular knowledge" of -- who the candidates for national office were. Hence, voters voted for electors, men who were often esteemed citizens in the voters' own locale whom the voters did know. Those electors, in turn, would vote for the candidates based on personal knowledge of the candidates or in accordance with advice given by other equally distinguished men who better knew the candidates. And we are in agreement as to why the Electoral College is still important.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Of course the debt went up, where do think the money came from to bail out all these companies who went bankrupt trading unregulated securities in 4th quarter 2008.

Hello stupid, do you pay attention to anything? In fact, TARP (the source of the bailouts) has generated a profit for the US Treasury. In other words, TARP did not increase the debt; it contributed to reducing it below what it otherwise would be!


The Bailout Scorecard

Last update: Jul. 3, 2014

Altogether, accounting for both the TARP and the Fannie and Freddie bailout, $611B has gone out the door—invested, loaned, or paid out—while $387B has been returned.

The Treasury has been earning a return on most of the money invested or loaned. So far, it has earned $265B. When those revenues are taken into account, the government has realized a $40.7B profit as of Jul. 3, 2014.


https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Obama... had Paulsen bail out all the big banks (Chase, Citygroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc) in February 2009 so they could start making loans to small businesses again.

Wrong again, dumbfuck. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson bailed out the big banks in Oct. 2008 while Bush was still in office. Paulson didn't serve under Obama. So if you think the bailouts raised the stock market, then you should give the credit to Bush (instead of just blaming him for the crash).

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Actually you can't ignore that argument just because you want to. You can argue percentages but when you look at actual people (not numbers, people) there are over 92 million people unemployed or underemployed. You can't argue with that number. That is the number that your taxes come from, that is the number that moves an economy, that is the misery index that Jimmy Carter talked about but you digress. You asked if there is anything that Obama has done that I support and then you throw in unemployment....Obama has done a couple of things that any president would have done under the circumstances but would have done it differently. He had Bin Laden killed. Any president would have done that but I think smart president would have captured Bin Laden and NOT told the world for a time. That would be a major strategic advantage but Obama was playing politics and not going for a real win. Actually I can't think of something else that Obama has done that really affected anything important. He did not raise the stock market, he did not reduce unemployment (whether you believe in the bogus number or not), he did not fight the war on terror (that was the SEALs who did the killing and put their lives on the line). No, Obama has done next to nothing that I support. Why don't you list some of his accomplishment and we'll go over them tomorrow?


I expect you to answer a series of questions in the near future.

JD the UE debate is very simple- here are the FACTS that you are no one can deny:

When Obama took office the UE rate was spiraling out of control- many economist had it in the mid to upper teens with worst case scenario it could have hit mid 20's.
So either MCCain or Obama would have had to face that debacle- obviously Obama won so there were 3 outcomes regarding his administration approach to the UE issue.

Outcome 1: Economy would continue to spiral out of control with UE reaching 25 percent.

Outcome 2: Economy would be at a stalemate and stay at anywhere between 10 to 15 percent.

Outcome 3: Economy would hit a plateau and than drop drastically over the years until economy improves.

Now JD tell me which of these 3 outcomes happened???? Again I repeat for the millionth time- your POTUS candidate Mitt Romney- Billionaire Mitt Romney who supposedly has a great sense of how to run a business and an economy said in his words that if he were POTUS his policies would have the UE rate at 6 percent by the end of 2016. Here is his quote: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...-in-first-term

It is July 2014 with a year and 5 months remaining and Obama has the UE rate at 6.3 which in all likelihood even the most pessimistic economist believe that the economy is improving and will be below 6 percent by end of 2016 at it's current pace.
You can throw all the Bullshit about the numbers don't tell the truth - it doesn't account for those who stopped looking for work(the line Whirlaway uses every time their are good job growth numbers) blah blah- if the UE rate was 4 percent you could have a pessimistic economist say well it's much higher than 4 percent because it doesn't attribute those who stop looking- you can always use that outlier.
Fact of the matter is Obama avoided us from going into a Deep recession or a Depression that's something you can't deny- and oh it does help that under the Obama adminstration there's been record breaking dow averages.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

JD the UE debate is very simple- here are the FACTS that you are no one can deny:

When Obama took office the UE rate was spiraling out of control- many economist had it in the mid to upper teens with worst case scenario it could have hit mid 20's.

As usual, you are making this shit up and pulling numbers out of your ass. I challenge you to name a single reputable economist who went on the record in Jan. 2009 predicting that unemployment would climb to 15%-25%.

In Jan. 2009, the head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, issued a report projecting the impact of the stimulus plan then under consideration (and enacted the following month). This report forecast that in the absence of the stimulus, the unemployment rate would climb to 8.5% in 2009 and keep rising to peak at around 9% in 2010. With the stimulus, it predicted the rate would peak at just under 8% in 2009. The report also stated: "Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."

So Obama's own economic advisers were saying the worst-case private forecasts ranged up to 11%. Where do you come up with "mid to upper teens with worst case scenario it could have hit mid 20's"?

You say "here are the FACTS that... no one can deny"? Well, dumbass, I just called bullshit on your make-believe "facts".

You truly have no credibility on this board. I wince at every post you make here.

.

[Yssup Rider]

Ignorant fuck. Period.

get a job, Junior.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Mitt Romney was not in favor of spending billions of dollars to go after Bin Laden. So, any President except Mitt would have gone after Bin Laden. From the link.

that April, when he told The Associated Press that "It's not worth moving heaven and Earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."

JD, for such a student of history, you can have selective memory lapses.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/politi...den/index.html

You say Obama did not raise the stock market. It's true he wasn't on the trading desk of some Wall Street brokerage firm pressing the buy and sell button. He had Paulsen bail out all the big banks (Chase, Citygroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc) in February 2009 so they could start making loans to small businesses again. Let's not forget the bailout of AIG, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Freddy Mack and Fannie Mae, GM, Chysler and others. Of course the debt went up, where do think the money came from to bail out all these companies who went bankrupt trading unregulated securities in 4th quarter 2008.

Remember the epic words of someone, "you didn't build that" and that includes the stock market. You're watching one of the biggest bubbles in the world growing large each day. Remember your words when that bubble pops.

If you try to remember what Romney really said was that he was not prepared to spend all that money to kill or capture one man. He never said that he would blow off the killing of Bin Laden. Those are your words. Of course by the time of the election Bin Laden was dead (or so Obama said) and the point is moot. Of course, Romney talked about catching Bin Laden so he understood the dynamic of not killing him outright. Too bad Obama doesn't think that strategically. Of course Obama thinks that Russia or China are not rivals. Remember his words to Romney in the debate. "The 80s want their foriegn policy back." Romney was right, Obama was wrong.