President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Rockindeano]

I don't pretend to be an economist, but I do know the resurgence for the DOW as indeed happened on Obama's watch. Dude needs as much credit as he can possibly get.

Fair enough. Then he needs to eat unemployment and job losses, too. Like I told Monker, you can't blame all of the negative on Bush and, at the same time, cherry pick the positives.

Yes he does and no he dopesn't. FACT- He did inherit those horribly high numbers. He has had two years to knock them down. he has had an opposing party balking his every move. Summation? He gets a C on Unemployment.

I'm all for blaming whomever is wrong. Being completely unbiased, this poor fucker may very well be in under his head, but I am not sure if Bill Clinton himself could have pulled us out from under the tidal wave of crap Bush took us under. fair?

What about the Congress? Dems controlled it for two years...and BLOCKED everything Bush wanted to do...including reigning in Freddie and Fannie...fair?

Absolutely fair.

[Rockindeano]

I don't pretend to be an economist, but I do know the resurgence for the DOW as indeed happened on Obama's watch. Dude needs as much credit as he can possibly get.

Fair enough. Then he needs to eat unemployment and job losses, too. Like I told Monker, you can't blame all of the negative on Bush and, at the same time, cherry pick the positives.

Yes he does and no he dopesn't. FACT- He did inherit those horribly high numbers. He has had two years to knock them down. he has had an opposing party balking his every move. Summation? He gets a C on Unemployment.

I'm all for blaming whomever is wrong. Being completely unbiased, this poor fucker may very well be in under his head, but I am not sure if Bill Clinton himself could have pulled us out from under the tidal wave of crap Bush took us under. fair?

We have never recovered from the manufacturing recession that Bush inherited in 2001. Unions pushed for higher and higher wages and we became less and less competitive. What happened? All of those jobs went overseas ... and they're never coming back. Unions and the in-the-pocket democrats that serve them (not the people as a whole) have single-handedly destroyed our country and most its jobs. This explains it a bit better and they're all facts:

For American manufacturers, the bad years didn't begin with the banking crisis of 2008. Indeed, the U.S. manufacturing sector never emerged from the 2001 recession, which coincided with China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Since 2001, the country has lost 42,400 factories, including 36 percent of factories that employ more than 1,000 workers (which declined from 1,479 to 947), and 38 percent of factories that employ between 500 and 999 employees (from 3,198 to 1,972). An additional 90,000 manufacturing companies are now at risk of going out of business.

Long before the banking collapse of 2008, such important U.S. industries as machine tools, consumer electronics, auto parts, appliances, furniture, telecommunications equipment, and many others that had once dominated the global marketplace suffered their own economic collapse. Manufacturing employment dropped to 11.7 million in October 2009, a loss of 5.5 million or 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs since October 2000. The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941. In October 2009, more people were officially unemployed (15.7 million) than were working in manufacturing.

When a factory closes, it creates a vortex that has far-reaching consequences. The Milken Institute estimates that every computer-manufacturing job in California creates 15 jobs outside the factory. Close a manufacturing plant, and a supply chain of producers disappears with it. Dozens of companies get hurt: those supplying computer-aided design and business software; automation and robotics equipment, packaging, office equipment and supplies; telecommunications services; energy and water utilities; research and development, marketing and sales support; and building and equipment maintenance and janitorial services. The burden spreads to local restaurants, cultural establishments, shopping outlets, and then to the tax base that supports police, firemen, schoolteachers, and libraries.

Cite your source please. To say that the entire problem is due to unions is ridiculous. Unions do serve a purpose..to a certain extent. I am in one, and I can tell you that unions often over reach and cause harm to the employer. I absolutely get that, however, unions also provide job security to many deserving hard working people.

[Saint John]

Cite your source please.

"The American Prospect Liberal Intelligence"

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art ... ufacturing

To say that the entire problem is due to unions is ridiculous. Unions do serve a purpose..to a certain extent. I am in one, and I can tell you that unions often over reach and cause harm to the employer. I absolutely get that, however, unions also provide job security to many deserving hard working people.

Unions are bullshit. No good worker needs one ... but bad workers do! Who in their right fucking mind is going to fire a good employee??? Unions will fight tooth and nail for bad employees, because firing them means a new employee and less dues ($$$). Dean, they destroyed and made us non-competitive in virtually every industry and brought the steel industry, the auto industry and labor in general to its knees. Not to mention that our educational system is totally fucked up because unions harbor horse shit teachers. Unions suck. Period.

[conversationpc]

Carter was less then mediocre....

However, as bad as the economy was, he did not leave it near a depression. He did not leave us fighting two wars we can not really 'win', one we had to exaggerate and make excuses for even starting. He also DID make attempts to get us off of our oil addiction, instead of ignoring it or adding to it.

Carter was not what the country needed....but he was no where near as horrid as W.

I disagree. A lot of people think Carter played an instrumental role in strengthening two of the world's worst threats to global security, meaning he played a role in bringing down the Shah of Iran and, as an ex-President, the crap deal he made as an unauthorized ambassador to North Korea in '94 by making a deal to give them billions of dollars in nuclear technology and oil in exchange for a "promise" not to develop nuclear weapons. I can't believe he was even dumb enough to think they ever had any intentions of keeping that promise. Both of those major screw ups are arguably as bad and possibly worse than the two wars Bush got us into.

[Monker]

Quit lying. I did not give Obama 'credit' for anything.

"It is a simple fact that the Dow recovered under Obama."

You're inferring credit right there.

No, you are allowing your imagination to run away with you.

I am stating a simple fact. A fact that you simply can't accept.

I'm not a political nut like the rest of you. I lean right, but I don't really give a fuck who wins. So much so, that I didn't even bother voting a few weeks ago.

Anyway, who do you credit the aforementioned Dow's recovery to?

Why do I need to 'credit' anybody? The TARP funds started under W, and continued under Obama. Without that influx of $'s there would have been a depression. However, it was half-assed and did not have enough oversight and wasted a lot of $'s. Bailing out the auto industry was also the right thing to do...and W passed that on to Obama - doing NOTHING about it. The Obama stimulus has had no real measurable effect.

So, Bush gets huge F+...the + only because he had one or two brain cells left to do TARP. Obama has put forth a B for effort and C- for effect. He gets that because he, and the Democrats as a whole, allowed the health care debate to dominate the political discussion for an entire year. If he had put health care off and concentrated on the economy and financial reform, the Democratic party would probably not have lost so badly a few weeks ago.

The Dow recovery happened because of bailing out the financial industry - but also simply because of the passage of time. So, neither side gets a lot of credit from me.

[Monker]

I don't pretend to be an economist, but I do know the resurgence for the DOW as indeed happened on Obama's watch. Dude needs as much credit as he can possibly get.

Fair enough. Then he needs to eat unemployment and job losses, too. Like I told Monker, you can't blame all of the negative on Bush and, at the same time, cherry pick the positives.

Yes he does and no he dopesn't. FACT- He did inherit those horribly high numbers. He has had two years to knock them down. he has had an opposing party balking his every move. Summation? He gets a C on Unemployment.

I'm all for blaming whomever is wrong. Being completely unbiased, this poor fucker may very well be in under his head, but I am not sure if Bill Clinton himself could have pulled us out from under the tidal wave of crap Bush took us under. fair?

We have never recovered from the manufacturing recession that Bush inherited in 2001. Unions pushed for higher and higher wages and we became less and less competitive. What happened? All of those jobs went overseas ... and they're never coming back. Unions and the in-the-pocket democrats that serve them (not the people as a whole) have single-handedly destroyed our country and most its jobs. This explains it a bit better and they're all facts:

For American manufacturers, the bad years didn't begin with the banking crisis of 2008. Indeed, the U.S. manufacturing sector never emerged from the 2001 recession, which coincided with China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Since 2001, the country has lost 42,400 factories, including 36 percent of factories that employ more than 1,000 workers (which declined from 1,479 to 947), and 38 percent of factories that employ between 500 and 999 employees (from 3,198 to 1,972). An additional 90,000 manufacturing companies are now at risk of going out of business.

Long before the banking collapse of 2008, such important U.S. industries as machine tools, consumer electronics, auto parts, appliances, furniture, telecommunications equipment, and many others that had once dominated the global marketplace suffered their own economic collapse. Manufacturing employment dropped to 11.7 million in October 2009, a loss of 5.5 million or 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs since October 2000. The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941. In October 2009, more people were officially unemployed (15.7 million) than were working in manufacturing.

When a factory closes, it creates a vortex that has far-reaching consequences. The Milken Institute estimates that every computer-manufacturing job in California creates 15 jobs outside the factory. Close a manufacturing plant, and a supply chain of producers disappears with it. Dozens of companies get hurt: those supplying computer-aided design and business software; automation and robotics equipment, packaging, office equipment and supplies; telecommunications services; energy and water utilities; research and development, marketing and sales support; and building and equipment maintenance and janitorial services. The burden spreads to local restaurants, cultural establishments, shopping outlets, and then to the tax base that supports police, firemen, schoolteachers, and libraries.

Cite your source please. To say that the entire problem is due to unions is ridiculous. Unions do serve a purpose..to a certain extent. I am in one, and I can tell you that unions often over reach and cause harm to the employer. I absolutely get that, however, unions also provide job security to many deserving hard working people.

Exactly...manufacturing was doomed as soon as labor went global, and became cheap for the industry.

How does he explain IT jobs being lost to outsourcing? IT is not a unionized industry.

[Monker]

Cite your source please.

"The American Prospect Liberal Intelligence"

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art ... ufacturing

To say that the entire problem is due to unions is ridiculous. Unions do serve a purpose..to a certain extent. I am in one, and I can tell you that unions often over reach and cause harm to the employer. I absolutely get that, however, unions also provide job security to many deserving hard working people.

Unions are bullshit. No good worker needs one ... but bad workers do! Who in their right fucking mind is going to fire a good employee???

Any employer who has a choice between a $40/hr US employee and a $20/hr (or less) out sourced employee has a choice...no matter how good the US employee is, no matter what industry, unionized or not.

[conversationpc]

Unions are bullshit. No good worker needs one ... but bad workers do! Who in their right fucking mind is going to fire a good employee??? Unions will fight tooth and nail for bad employees, because firing them means a new employee and less dues ($$$). Dean, they destroyed and made us non-competitive in virtually every industry and brought the steel industry, the auto industry and labor in general to its knees. Not to mention that our educational system is totally fucked up because unions harbor horse shit teachers. Unions suck. Period.

I'm far happier working for non-union companies than ever was when I was a member of a union. Unions dumb down the workplace for everyone else, in my opinion.

[Monker]

Carter was less then mediocre....

However, as bad as the economy was, he did not leave it near a depression. He did not leave us fighting two wars we can not really 'win', one we had to exaggerate and make excuses for even starting. He also DID make attempts to get us off of our oil addiction, instead of ignoring it or adding to it.

Carter was not what the country needed....but he was no where near as horrid as W.

I disagree. A lot of people think Carter played an instrumental role in strengthening two of the world's worst threats to global security, meaning he played a role in bringing down the Shah of Iran and, as an ex-President, the crap deal he made as an unauthorized ambassador to North Korea in '94 by making a deal to give them billions of dollars in nuclear technology and oil in exchange for a "promise" not to develop nuclear weapons. I can't believe he was even dumb enough to think they ever had any intentions of keeping that promise. Both of those major screw ups are arguably as bad and possibly worse than the two wars Bush got us into.

Blah, blah, blah. Every president has this kinda shit under his watch. Reagan and Bush once called Osama bin Ladin a "Freedom Fighter" and supported him. Saddam was once our ally in the region and had the support of Reagan...and papa-Bush even continued to support him AFTER he gassed his own people. How many times does it take to learn the lesson that bad people are bad people - even if they share a common enemy for the moment.

But, W is the one who not only did all of things I said above, but also limited our rights with the Patriot Act, used 9/11 as a constant political tool to have his way with congress, and used fear tactics in politics through his entire presidency.

W is the worst president to ever hold the office.

[Seven Wishes2]

What about the Congress? Dems controlled it for two years...and BLOCKED everything Bush wanted to do...including reigning in Freddie and Fannie...fair?

First of all, a 50-50 split with one Independent does NOT constitute a majority, especially in the era of filibusters. Democrats are usually spineless, so the nature of their acquiesence made it possible for Republican agendas to dominate the last two-year session of the Bush Presidency.

The GLBA was passed with near unanimity by the House and Congress, so no party is lacking in culpability for the consequent causalities of that disastrous legislation.

Bush’s appointees de-regulated the housing industry and oversight of banks, insurers, lenders, and credit raters. The overwhelming majority of subprime loans after 2000 were made by unregulated mortgage companies, and to high-income borrowers to boot, not the low- and middle-classes - and were issued by PRIVATE lenders, NOT Freddie and Fannie.

http://traigerlaw.com/publications/The_community_reinvestment_act_of_1977-not_guilty_1-26-09.pdf

Also, 85% of all failed loans in the past decade were issued by financial insitutions NOT governed by the CRA, so you can throw that theory out the window, too.

[conversationpc]

Carter was less then mediocre....

However, as bad as the economy was, he did not leave it near a depression. He did not leave us fighting two wars we can not really 'win', one we had to exaggerate and make excuses for even starting. He also DID make attempts to get us off of our oil addiction, instead of ignoring it or adding to it.

Carter was not what the country needed....but he was no where near as horrid as W.

I disagree. A lot of people think Carter played an instrumental role in strengthening two of the world's worst threats to global security, meaning he played a role in bringing down the Shah of Iran and, as an ex-President, the crap deal he made as an unauthorized ambassador to North Korea in '94 by making a deal to give them billions of dollars in nuclear technology and oil in exchange for a "promise" not to develop nuclear weapons. I can't believe he was even dumb enough to think they ever had any intentions of keeping that promise. Both of those major screw ups are arguably as bad and possibly worse than the two wars Bush got us into.

Blah, blah, blah. Every president has this kinda shit under his watch. Reagan and Bush once called Osama bin Ladin a "Freedom Fighter" and supported him. Saddam was once our ally in the region and had the support of Reagan...and papa-Bush even continued to support him AFTER he gassed his own people. How many times does it take to learn the lesson that bad people are bad people - even if they share a common enemy for the moment.

But, W is the one who not only did all of things I said above, but also limited our rights with the Patriot Act, used 9/11 as a constant political tool to have his way with congress, and used fear tactics in politics through his entire presidency.

W is the worst president to ever hold the office.

You can quit going on and on and on about Bush. It's a tired road. The Patriot Act should be called the Shit Act and I've been against it ever since it was signed into law.

Carter is the worst President ever in this country, worse even than Bush.

Oh, and you do realize that Obama campaigned against the Patriot Act but then allowed it to be made permanent on his watch, right?

[Seven Wishes2]

Let's see. Per the CBO:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11766

The federal national debt DECREASED by 3.3% under Carter.
INCREASED by 20.6% under Reagan.
INCREASED by 7.9 % under Bush Sr.
DECREASED by 9.7% under Clinton.
INCREASED by 27.1% under Dumbya.

There was more of a deficit (as a percentage of the GDP) under Reagan, Bush Sr., and Dumbya (average of -5.5% with 20 years of GOP Presidents, as opposed to an average of -1.4% with Democratic Presidents in 12 years).

Yeah, Republicans sure know all about reigning in spending and controlling the debt and the deficit.

Now you have these Tea Baggers spouting on and on about balanced budgets. When it has been proven beyond question that trickle down economics does not work, these yahoos are still insisting upon ensuring the ultra-rich still get tax breaks. Simply returning the richest 2% of Americans to the same rate they paid under Reagan would save $700 billion - yet they refuse to look at that. Instead, they endorse plans to INCREASE spending on defense while simultaneously slashing education and healthcare budgets.

It's really mind-boggling that the right-wing propaganda machine has been so brutally efficient in pulling the wool over enough of the eyes of the collective to even be in a position to legislate.

[RedWingFan]

T-Shirt ideas...

"I voted for Obama and all I got was crotch groping"

Classic!

[conversationpc]

Let's see. Per the CBO:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11766

The federal national debt DECREASED by 3.3% under Carter.
INCREASED by 20.6% under Reagan.
INCREASED by 7.9 % under Bush Sr.
DECREASED by 9.7% under Clinton.
INCREASED by 27.1% under Dumbya.

Presidents bear SOME responsibility, however...Let's see the entire story.

Under Reagan...Complete Democrat control of both the Senate and House of Representatives.
Under Bush Sr...see above
Under Clinton...Complete Democrat control of the Senate, Republican control of the House from '95 till the end of his term.
Under Bush Jr...Republican control of Senate & House through 2006. Democrat control of Senate & House from 2006.

Now you have these Tea Baggers spouting on and on about balanced budgets. When it has been proven beyond question that trickle down economics does not work...

You think EVERYTHING you believe in, no matter how ungrounded in reality it is, is "proven fact". Trickle-down economics does work. When the job creators are doing better, people under them do better as well.

...these yahoos are still insisting upon ensuring the ultra-rich still get tax breaks.

They aren't getting a tax break. They would simply be avoiding a tax hike and paying the same rate they've been paying for the last several years.

Instead, they endorse plans to INCREASE spending on defense while simultaneously slashing education and healthcare budgets.

All three areas should be subject to spending cuts.

It's really mind-boggling that the right-wing propaganda machine has been so brutally efficient in pulling the wool over enough of the eyes of the collective to even be in a position to legislate.

If the Democrats had their way, they'd be sticking their finger IN the eyes of those who supposedly have wool pulled over it right now.

[RossValoryRocks]

Let's see. Per the CBO:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11766

The federal national debt DECREASED by 3.3% under Carter.
INCREASED by 20.6% under Reagan.
INCREASED by 7.9 % under Bush Sr.
DECREASED by 9.7% under Clinton.
INCREASED by 27.1% under Dumbya.

There was more of a deficit (as a percentage of the GDP) under Reagan, Bush Sr., and Dumbya (average of -5.5% with 20 years of GOP Presidents, as opposed to an average of -1.4% with Democratic Presidents in 12 years).

Yeah, Republicans sure know all about reigning in spending and controlling the debt and the deficit.

Now you have these Tea Baggers spouting on and on about balanced budgets. When it has been proven beyond question that trickle down economics does not work, these yahoos are still insisting upon ensuring the ultra-rich still get tax breaks. Simply returning the richest 2% of Americans to the same rate they paid under Reagan would save $700 billion - yet they refuse to look at that. Instead, they endorse plans to INCREASE spending on defense while simultaneously slashing education and healthcare budgets.

It's really mind-boggling that the right-wing propaganda machine has been so brutally efficient in pulling the wool over enough of the eyes of the collective to even be in a position to legislate.

Could you point me to the data post 2000? It isn't in the link you provided, or anywhere else on the site for that matter.

[slucero]

Carville hitting the POTUS below the belt...

"If Hillary gave him [Obama] one of her balls, they'd both have two," Democratic strategist James Carville told the Christian Science Monitor at a breakfast on Thursday morning.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... e_two.html

[Monker]

You can quit going on and on and on about Bush. It's a tired road.

I didn't bring it up....and you are the one who joined in with the Carter comment. Talk about a 'tired road'.

The Patriot Act should be called the Shit Act and I've been against it ever since it was signed into law.

To be expected from the worst president in the history of the country. Then he adds Homeland Security...one more huge government agency that was not needed. The number of bad policies W was for is endless.

Carter is the worst President ever in this country, worse even than Bush.

He may be worse then Bush...But, not W. NO WAY. Carter did not leave the country in the horrid state that W did.

Oh, and you do realize that Obama campaigned against the Patriot Act but then allowed it to be made permanent on his watch, right?

Like i said, he shouldn't have been paying so much attention to health care.

[Monker]

Why should anybody take anything you say seriously? I asked you for one simple thing - post the inflation rate for the past year....and all you can do is cherry pick propaganda. Where is it LieFinder?

Bush got what he really wanted passed...all he had to do is somehow attach 9/11 to it. He was very good at McCarthyism.

Let's see. Per the CBO:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11766

The federal national debt DECREASED by 3.3% under Carter.
INCREASED by 20.6% under Reagan.
INCREASED by 7.9 % under Bush Sr.
DECREASED by 9.7% under Clinton.
INCREASED by 27.1% under Dumbya.

Presidents bear SOME responsibility, however...Let's see the entire story.

Under Reagan...Complete Democrat control of both the Senate and House of Representatives.
Under Bush Sr...see above
Under Clinton...Complete Democrat control of the Senate, Republican control of the House from '95 till the end of his term.
Under Bush Jr...Republican control of Senate & House through 2006. Democrat control of Senate & House from 2006.

Now you have these Tea Baggers spouting on and on about balanced budgets. When it has been proven beyond question that trickle down economics does not work...

You think EVERYTHING you believe in, no matter how ungrounded in reality it is, is "proven fact". Trickle-down economics does work. When the job creators are doing better, people under them do better as well.

...these yahoos are still insisting upon ensuring the ultra-rich still get tax breaks.

They aren't getting a tax break. They would simply be avoiding a tax hike and paying the same rate they've been paying for the last several years.

Instead, they endorse plans to INCREASE spending on defense while simultaneously slashing education and healthcare budgets.

All three areas should be subject to spending cuts.

It's really mind-boggling that the right-wing propaganda machine has been so brutally efficient in pulling the wool over enough of the eyes of the collective to even be in a position to legislate.

If the Democrats had their way, they'd be sticking their finger IN the eyes of those who supposedly have wool pulled over it right now.

Dave, Bush did not have Repub control of the Senate in 2001 and 2002 thanks to jumping Jim Jeffords, he had to contend with a Majority Leader Daschle for those first two years of his term so really Bush oly had 2003,04 05 and 06 in his hands majority wise. 4 of his 8 years he had formidible opposition.

[slucero]

Looks to be about 7% - 9%

[conversationpc]

Like i said, he shouldn't have been paying so much attention to health care.

Paying attention to health care had nothing to do with the Patriot Act being made permanent. He knew damn well that it was going to expire and did nothing to stop it from doing so. It's even more shameful than Bush and the Republicans ramming it through Congress in the first place.

[Seven Wishes2]

Dave, the problem is, there isn't any data to support the trickle-down theory.

When Ronald Reagan was sworn in, the median household income was $48,976. In 2006, the last year US Census numbers were available, it was $58,407, a growth of $9,431 (all in figures adjusted to 2006 dollars). Of that growth, 83% is attributable to the eight years under a Democrat. Republicans account for only 17%.

http://money.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977174033

Both Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, the former and current chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, have warned about the destabilizing effects of too much concentration of wealth and income on our economy and the related social consequences. Simply put, trickle down economics doesn’t work, but trickle up economics is alive and well.

http://mandatemedia.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/19/growth_by_admin_8006.jpg

I've already shown the debt and deficits ALWAYS increase under Republicans. Most economists agree trickle-down does not work.

1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.
2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.
3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.
4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html

[Seven Wishes2]

Like i said, he shouldn't have been paying so much attention to health care.

Paying attention to health care had nothing to do with the Patriot Act being made permanent. He knew damn well that it was going to expire and did nothing to stop it from doing so. It's even more shameful than Bush and the Republicans ramming it through Congress in the first place.

He didn't have the votes, Dave. He was also too busy trying to save this nation from the ruinous Administration of Dumbya. And no - not overturning legislation that would have been filibustered had he attempted to do so is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being "more shameful" than the GOP forcing (via reconciliation, of course) legislation that deprived Americans of some of their most basic civil liberties. Stop swallowing the party load.

[slucero]

except $48,976 (in 1981 dollars - Reagans 1st year) adjusted to 2006 dollars = $107,371.00

and $58,407 (in 2006 dollars adjusted to 1981 dollars) = $26,641.66


hmmmmm looks like a falling median income not rising..

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

[Seven Wishes2]

Dude...wow. Did you not read what was said? Those figures are in ADJUSTED DOLLARS. That means the adjustments HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE. You would have fit right in at Enron.

Wow. Hello, McFly!

[slucero]

my bad dude I missed that... my apologies

No need for the Enron comment... libtard...

[conversationpc]

Like i said, he shouldn't have been paying so much attention to health care.

Paying attention to health care had nothing to do with the Patriot Act being made permanent. He knew damn well that it was going to expire and did nothing to stop it from doing so. It's even more shameful than Bush and the Republicans ramming it through Congress in the first place.

He didn't have the votes, Dave. He was also too busy trying to save this nation from the ruinous Administration of Dumbya. And no - not overturning legislation that would have been filibustered had he attempted to do so is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being "more shameful" than the GOP forcing (via reconciliation, of course) legislation that deprived Americans of some of their most basic civil liberties. Stop swallowing the party load.

Bullcrap...Obama put up NO OPPOSITION to the Patriot Act being made permanent. Not only that but he voted yes to reauthorize it in 2006 while still a Senator.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00029

Now wipe that load off your face. Hello, McFly!!!

[Seven Wishes2]

Apples and oranges, Dave. Stop trying to "catch" me when in fact you have not.

His agenda as President has nothing to do with something he voted for as a Senator. My point was HE DID NOT HAVE THE VOTES to overturn the PA in the past two years.

Man, when you guys are wrong about something, you're just in such a hurry to point fingers or change the subject.

[conversationpc]

Apples and oranges, Dave. Stop trying to "catch" me when in fact you have not.

His agenda as President has nothing to do with something he voted for as a Senator. My point was HE DID NOT HAVE THE VOTES to overturn the PA in the past two years.

Man, when you guys are wrong about something, you're just in such a hurry to point fingers or change the subject.

Listen, dimwit...It has everything to do with it and the subject wasn't changed at all. The point is he was against it while running for Congress and then, once elected to office, did completely the opposite (go figure). He's never really been against it. Once he figured out he could use that crap legislation to his advantage, he did what any greedy, self-serving politician would do.

By the way...No one has to "catch" you doing anything. You do such a good job at tripping over your own crap piles. At least the other liberals on this forum usually have a FEW facts behind them when they make a statement.

[Seven Wishes2]

By the way...No one has to "catch" you doing anything. You do such a good job at tripping over your own crap piles. At least the other liberals on this forum usually have a FEW facts behind them when they make a statement.

That's a tired old fallback, Dave. Everything I have posted here the past few weeks has been backed by pure, solid, 100% truthful fact. It's an easy way for you to avoid having to confront ugly truths, but it holds no water. Believe me, I could go back to the last page and pick apart every comment you made, disseminate everything, and prove you wrong, but I can't be bothered.

[Memorex]

By the way...No one has to "catch" you doing anything. You do such a good job at tripping over your own crap piles. At least the other liberals on this forum usually have a FEW facts behind them when they make a statement.

That's a tired old fallback, Dave. Everything I have posted here the past few weeks has been backed by pure, solid, 100% truthful fact. It's an easy way for you to avoid having to confront ugly truths, but it holds no water. Believe me, I could go back to the last page and pick apart every comment you made, disseminate everything, and prove you wrong, but I can't be bothered.

What I have seen, which surprised me a little. is that both administrations have gone to court to defend tactics outlined in the Patriot Act. What the administration does now, and has fought for, is actually more than what Bush had. That was actually something that made me realize that in many ways, we are dealing with two sides of the same coin in many instances. No Administration wants to give up the power they have been given. I can't think of anything, off hand, that this administration has done to reduce any of its powers.

So whether or not you like the Patriot Act or any other Presidential powers, the fact is every administration tries to increase them, in fact they fight hard to keep them, and this administration is no different. Like I said, for all the complaints, I can;t think of anything this Admin has done to give anything back (water-boarding aside).