President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Monker]

Facts are facts...

Not in politics. Facts are things those with a political agenda use to manipulate the opinion of others.

and of people are smart enough to know this, but stupid enough to ignore the facts... then they deserve what they get...

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

And, that is what I am getting at.

If the figures are purposely manipulated or simply omitted... in an effort to influence "how people think", regardless of the party.... then it matters, but only if one cares.

If facts and figures mattered so much in a presidential race, Ross Perot would have been President.

People are going vote for how they feel..not for some unemployment number, or adjusted unemployment number. In fact, the more tricksy you get with the numbers the more they will decide to hold on to their precious feelings. It just doesn't matter. If a person was laid off in 2009 and now has a job...do you really think they care about anything else?

[quote[
Based on your logic (and opinion) then:

• Informed = Looney.
• Uninformed = Intelligent

[/quote]

And, according to you, a person's own personal experience is irrelevant and should be over-shadowed by 'facts' that contradict it.

[quote[..enjoy your oblivion.[/quote]

You're the one preaching the oblivion....not me.

The bottom line is the more time that passes, the more likely the recovery is going to gain traction. You are not going to be able to push this issue as you are now. The more people believe a recovery is happening, the more comfortable they are spending, which drives the recovery and allows companies to hire even more. THAT is what I think will happen.

[slucero]

Facts are facts...

Not in politics. Facts are things those with a political agenda use to manipulate the opinion of others.

and of people are smart enough to know this, but stupid enough to ignore the facts... then they deserve what they get...

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

And, that is what I am getting at.

If the figures are purposely manipulated or simply omitted... in an effort to influence "how people think", regardless of the party.... then it matters, but only if one cares.

If facts and figures mattered so much in a presidential race, Ross Perot would have been President.

People are going vote for how they feel..not for some unemployment number, or adjusted unemployment number. In fact, the more tricksy you get with the numbers the more they will decide to hold on to their precious feelings. It just doesn't matter. If a person was laid off in 2009 and now has a job...do you really think they care about anything else?

Based on your logic (and opinion) then:

• Informed = Looney.
• Uninformed = Intelligent

And, according to you, a person's own personal experience is irrelevant and should be over-shadowed by 'facts' that contradict it.

..enjoy your oblivion.

You're the one preaching the oblivion....not me.

The bottom line is the more time that passes, the more likely the recovery is going to gain traction. You are not going to be able to push this issue as you are now. The more people believe a recovery is happening, the more comfortable they are spending, which drives the recovery and allows companies to hire even more. THAT is what I think will happen.

uhuh... except according to the numbers... i.e. the facts... spending isn't actually happening... to the point that the CBO just lowered their expectation of GDP.. (remember 70% of GDP is consumer SPENDING) to 2.0 by Q42012....

Contrary to what you may think or "feel".... Its actual DEMAND that will result in companies actually hiring, because they hire based as a response to factual demand representation (orders for goods, services, etc... )... and neither demand or consumer spending are increasing, nor are the factual projections... so companies are not hiring... and that is why we are seeing the BLS manipulations get more outlandish...

..What you "believe" or "feel" will not matter one fucking iota if companies do not see demand that will result in them hiring.. and until then the lies being hawked by the MSM and the drivel you are postulating are just that...

[Monker]

Facts are facts...

Not in politics. Facts are things those with a political agenda use to manipulate the opinion of others.

and of people are smart enough to know this, but stupid enough to ignore the facts... then they deserve what they get...

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

And, that is what I am getting at.

If the figures are purposely manipulated or simply omitted... in an effort to influence "how people think", regardless of the party.... then it matters, but only if one cares.

If facts and figures mattered so much in a presidential race, Ross Perot would have been President.

People are going vote for how they feel..not for some unemployment number, or adjusted unemployment number. In fact, the more tricksy you get with the numbers the more they will decide to hold on to their precious feelings. It just doesn't matter. If a person was laid off in 2009 and now has a job...do you really think they care about anything else?

Based on your logic (and opinion) then:

• Informed = Looney.
• Uninformed = Intelligent

And, according to you, a person's own personal experience is irrelevant and should be over-shadowed by 'facts' that contradict it.

..enjoy your oblivion.

You're the one preaching the oblivion....not me.

The bottom line is the more time that passes, the more likely the recovery is going to gain traction. You are not going to be able to push this issue as you are now. The more people believe a recovery is happening, the more comfortable they are spending, which drives the recovery and allows companies to hire even more. THAT is what I think will happen.

uhuh... except according to the numbers... i.e. the facts... spending isn't actually happening... to the point that the CBO just lowered their expectation of GDP.. (remember 70% of GDP is consumer SPENDING) to 2.0 by Q42012....

Contrary to what you may think or "feel".... Its actual DEMAND that will result in companies actually hiring, because they hire based as a response to factual demand representation (orders for goods, services, etc... )... and neither demand or consumer spending are increasing, nor are the factual projections... so companies are not hiring... and that is why we are seeing the BLS manipulations get more outlandish...

..What you "believe" or "feel" will not matter one fucking iota if companies do not see demand that will result in them hiring.. and until then the lies being hawked by the MSM and the drivel you are postulating are just that...

You're wrong. Most people look and the technobablle you write and don't get it and don't care. By election time, none of this is going to matter. We are not a country of Vulcans. We are a country of Smeagol's who only care about their precious selves.

[RossValoryRocks]

We are not a country of Vulcans. We are a country of Smeagol's who only care about their precious selves.

I don't know about the rest of it...but you are completely right here Monker. Which is why the entitlement mentality is so strong these days. After all why work when the "rich" will support you if you don't want to??? Why educate yourself and work to achieve when the government will be the great equalizer of outcome and ensure no one is too poor or too rich, because that is the only "fair" way to do it.

[slucero]

We are talking about 2 different things...

1. People (Smeagals) "feeling better" may very well get Obama re-elected. It's why I said "for those who care" in my previous post... Its a given that politicians manipulate and/or lie about facts to gain office from a populace more interested in the Super Bowl than the Economy. However,

2. "feeling better" will not result in consumer spending (demand) and as a consequence "feeling better"will not result in more companies hiring people...

There will be no economic turnaround until hiring returns... and simply feeling better about things will not make that occur.. the numbers indicate otherwise regarding that.

[conversationpc]

Meh. If the unemployment rate is under 7.8% or so come election time, Obama wins. If it hovers where it is, Romney wins. No further debate needed. Either way, you get a career bullshit artist who will strive to maintain the political status quo. They're equally uninspiring. If Ron Paul wasn't such the (occasional) loon, a third party could actually have an impact in 2012.

Obama should start to be very concerned with his re-election chances regardless of what the unemployment rate is. He's pissed off Jewish voters with his Administration's treatment of Israel and now he's pissed off both the Catholic voters AND Hispanic voters (largely Catholic) by his Administration pushing religious organizations to provide "healthcare" services that they are religiously and morally opposed to providing.

[Monker]

Meh. If the unemployment rate is under 7.8% or so come election time, Obama wins. If it hovers where it is, Romney wins. No further debate needed. Either way, you get a career bullshit artist who will strive to maintain the political status quo. They're equally uninspiring. If Ron Paul wasn't such the (occasional) loon, a third party could actually have an impact in 2012.

Obama should start to be very concerned with his re-election chances regardless of what the unemployment rate is. He's pissed off Jewish voters with his Administration's treatment of Israel and now he's pissed off both the Catholic voters AND Hispanic voters (largely Catholic) by his Administration pushing religious organizations to provide "healthcare" services that they are religiously and morally opposed to providing.

That kinda stuff isn't going to make one bit of difference at all. The entire 'health care' for churches was done a long time ago and if it really meant anything, the churches would have made an issue of it THEN...not Republican candidates doing it NOW.

The truth is this has been the worst nomination process I have ever seen either party run...It will be a miracle if Republicans win.

[conversationpc]

That kinda stuff isn't going to make one bit of difference at all. The entire 'health care' for churches was done a long time ago and if it really meant anything, the churches would have made an issue of it THEN...not Republican candidates doing it NOW.

Monker, some DID make an issue of it back before the bill passed, which was followed by a HUGE media campaign by supporters of the healthcare bill telling people that it was all lies that the bill would mandate religious organizations to provide coverage for those types of products and/or services. Everyone who warned about it was poo-pooed and made to look like a crazy alarmist. Now we find out that those of us who warned about it were actually correct.

Now it doesn't sound so absurd that Nancy Pelosi said they needed to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it. There are even now members of Congress who say they would now have voted against the bill if they'd known that the Obama administration was going to push this agenda against organizations morally and religiously opposed to it. This has nothing to do with Republican candidates "doing it NOW". Those candidates didn't pick up on it well until after this story broke in the press over two weeks ago or so.

[Seven Wishes2]

Obama has his biggest lead over Romney since polling started...it now stands at 7%. As the economy goes...

Trust me...a couple of months of negative growth and Romney will be back on top. This is far too predictable.

[Monker]

That kinda stuff isn't going to make one bit of difference at all. The entire 'health care' for churches was done a long time ago and if it really meant anything, the churches would have made an issue of it THEN...not Republican candidates doing it NOW.

Monker, some DID make an issue of it back before the bill passed, which was followed by a HUGE media campaign by supporters of the healthcare bill telling people that it was all lies that the bill would mandate religious organizations to provide coverage for those types of products and/or services. Everyone who warned about it was poo-pooed and made to look like a crazy alarmist. Now we find out that those of us who warned about it were actually correct.

Now it doesn't sound so absurd that Nancy Pelosi said they needed to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it. There are even now members of Congress who say they would now have voted against the bill if they'd known that the Obama administration was going to push this agenda against organizations morally and religiously opposed to it. This has nothing to do with Republican candidates "doing it NOW". Those candidates didn't pick up on it well until after this story broke in the press over two weeks ago or so.

Go ahead, lets see Republicans run on issues that only a small fraction of people care about. It's not like they have anything to lose. If Romney is nominated the entire health care issue is a bust anyway for his party.

The bottom line is most people don't care about these type of issues. They care about themselves, if they are working and if they feel good about the future. If things are feeling good, Obama wins...if not, he may lose. As it looks right now, Republicans have very little chance of winning.

[conversationpc]

Go ahead, lets see Republicans run on issues that only a small fraction of people care about. It's not like they have anything to lose. If Romney is nominated the entire health care issue is a bust anyway for his party.

The bottom line is most people don't care about these type of issues. They care about themselves, if they are working and if they feel good about the future. If things are feeling good, Obama wins...if not, he may lose. As it looks right now, Republicans have very little chance of winning.

You'll be wrong about most people not caring about the issue with government enforced provision of contraceptives, abortion-causing drugs, etc. Catholic voters are one of the top five voting blocks in the country and the vast majority of them that I am familiar with are incensed about the Obama administration doing this. Besides this issue, you must be looking at the polls through LSD-enhanced glasses. Head-to-head in recent polls, Romney has been neck-and-neck with Obama, within the margin of error in most polls. I'm not a Romney fan or even really a marginal supporter but to say he has no or little chance of winning just isn't reflective of the facts.

[Monker]

Go ahead, lets see Republicans run on issues that only a small fraction of people care about. It's not like they have anything to lose. If Romney is nominated the entire health care issue is a bust anyway for his party.

The bottom line is most people don't care about these type of issues. They care about themselves, if they are working and if they feel good about the future. If things are feeling good, Obama wins...if not, he may lose. As it looks right now, Republicans have very little chance of winning.

You'll be wrong about most people not caring about the issue with government enforced provision of contraceptives, abortion-causing drugs, etc. Catholic voters are one of the top five voting blocks in the country and the vast majority of them that I am familiar with are incensed about the Obama administration doing this. Besides this issue, you must be looking at the polls through LSD-enhanced glasses. Head-to-head in recent polls, Romney has been neck-and-neck with Obama, within the margin of error in most polls. I'm not a Romney fan or even really a marginal supporter but to say he has no or little chance of winning just isn't reflective of the facts.

At this point, the polls are meaningless. You are the one on drugs if you actually believe that any poll today can possibly predict with any accuracy how things will be at election time. A poll at this time does not prove any facts at all. The fact is Obama hasn't even started campaigning. That fact in itself is pretty meaningless.

Romney is the Republican version of John Kerry, except he is even less liked by his own party. He excites his base even less then McCain did, he is more of a moderate then McCain was. I personally know of a few Republicans who are so against Romney that they are looking at third party candidates, and say the same about Newt. The nomination process Republicans are going through is damaging their own chances. It looks like a circus and the candidates are a bunch of clowns.

[conversationpc]

At this point, the polls are meaningless. You are the one on drugs if you actually believe that any poll today can possibly predict with any accuracy how things will be at election time. A poll at this time does not prove any facts at all. The fact is Obama hasn't even started campaigning. That fact in itself is pretty meaningless.

How about using some actual reasoning skills? I didn't say the polls today would hold true by the time the election occurred. OBVIOUSLY I'm talking about today, not November. However, the polls have been trending about the same for several months now. Unless something drastic changes in Obama's favor by November, he's going to have a hard time getting re-elected if his administration continues alienating people in his own voting base.

It looks like a circus and the candidates are a bunch of clowns.

If the Republican candidates are clowns (they are), Obama is the ringleader.

[donnaplease]

Go ahead, lets see Republicans run on issues that only a small fraction of people care about. It's not like they have anything to lose. If Romney is nominated the entire health care issue is a bust anyway for his party.

The bottom line is most people don't care about these type of issues. They care about themselves, if they are working and if they feel good about the future. If things are feeling good, Obama wins...if not, he may lose. As it looks right now, Republicans have very little chance of winning.

You'll be wrong about most people not caring about the issue with government enforced provision of contraceptives, abortion-causing drugs, etc. Catholic voters are one of the top five voting blocks in the country and the vast majority of them that I am familiar with are incensed about the Obama administration doing this. Besides this issue, you must be looking at the polls through LSD-enhanced glasses. Head-to-head in recent polls, Romney has been neck-and-neck with Obama, within the margin of error in most polls. I'm not a Romney fan or even really a marginal supporter but to say he has no or little chance of winning just isn't reflective of the facts.

At this point, the polls are meaningless. You are the one on drugs if you actually believe that any poll today can possibly predict with any accuracy how things will be at election time. A poll at this time does not prove any facts at all. The fact is Obama hasn't even started campaigning. That fact in itself is pretty meaningless.

Romney is the Republican version of John Kerry, except he is even less liked by his own party. He excites his base even less then McCain did, he is more of a moderate then McCain was. I personally know of a few Republicans who are so against Romney that they are looking at third party candidates, and say the same about Newt. The nomination process Republicans are going through is damaging their own chances. It looks like a circus and the candidates are a bunch of clowns.

Make up your mind...

[Monker]

Go ahead, lets see Republicans run on issues that only a small fraction of people care about. It's not like they have anything to lose. If Romney is nominated the entire health care issue is a bust anyway for his party.

The bottom line is most people don't care about these type of issues. They care about themselves, if they are working and if they feel good about the future. If things are feeling good, Obama wins...if not, he may lose. As it looks right now, Republicans have very little chance of winning.

You'll be wrong about most people not caring about the issue with government enforced provision of contraceptives, abortion-causing drugs, etc. Catholic voters are one of the top five voting blocks in the country and the vast majority of them that I am familiar with are incensed about the Obama administration doing this. Besides this issue, you must be looking at the polls through LSD-enhanced glasses. Head-to-head in recent polls, Romney has been neck-and-neck with Obama, within the margin of error in most polls. I'm not a Romney fan or even really a marginal supporter but to say he has no or little chance of winning just isn't reflective of the facts.

At this point, the polls are meaningless. You are the one on drugs if you actually believe that any poll today can possibly predict with any accuracy how things will be at election time. A poll at this time does not prove any facts at all. The fact is Obama hasn't even started campaigning. That fact in itself is pretty meaningless.

Romney is the Republican version of John Kerry, except he is even less liked by his own party. He excites his base even less then McCain did, he is more of a moderate then McCain was. I personally know of a few Republicans who are so against Romney that they are looking at third party candidates, and say the same about Newt. The nomination process Republicans are going through is damaging their own chances. It looks like a circus and the candidates are a bunch of clowns.

Make up your mind...

What are you talking about? I have not cited a single poll in this conversation...in fact, I don't think I have quoted a single Presidential poll on any forum anywhere. If you go back to after the first Republican debate, I have done nothing but say "where did you guys get these clowns?" They are just a bunch of loony losers.

The one who needs to make up his mind is Romney as I don't think there is a single issue he hasn't changed his mind on.

[donnaplease]

Polls are only as reliable as the organization doing the polling, which in this day and time means that none of them are worth a damn. But, you can't say "as it looks now" is legit but call out Dave's current info as meaningless. Because "as it looks NOW" is just as meaningless. All it takes is a natural disaster, a man-made disaster ( ) or a major change in the economy for this thing to be turned totally on it's ass between now and November.

I'm not passionate about Romney. Newt doesn't stand a chance. I like Santorum but I don't think he's got what it takes to pass the national test (although I really respect his values system from what I know of it). Ron Paul... scary. O'bummer might be in for another 4 years. Yuck.

[parfait]

Polls are only as reliable as the organization doing the polling, which in this day and time means that none of them are worth a damn. But, you can't say "as it looks now" is legit but call out Dave's current info as meaningless. Because "as it looks NOW" is just as meaningless. All it takes is a natural disaster, a man-made disaster ( ) or a major change in the economy for this thing to be turned totally on it's ass between now and November.

I'm not passionate about Romney. Newt doesn't stand a chance. I like Santorum but I don't think he's got what it takes to pass the national test (although I really respect his values system from what I know of it). Ron Paul... scary. O'bummer might be in for another 4 years. Yuck.

I honestly don't understand how anyone in the 21st century can like a person like Santorum. He would gladly throw your soldiers into another unnecessary war, equated homosexuality with sodomy, does not believe in a right to privacy and thinks climate change and evolution is bullshit. Newt is another one I don't get how anyone could even think about voting for - the guy's a hypocritical, disgusting adulterer.

Mitt seems alright - a bit elitist for some maybe. Ron would get my vote. This is 2012 but it seems the Republican Party is moving backwards in time.

[Rockindeano]

Polls are only as reliable as the organization doing the polling, which in this day and time means that none of them are worth a damn. But, you can't say "as it looks now" is legit but call out Dave's current info as meaningless. Because "as it looks NOW" is just as meaningless. All it takes is a natural disaster, a man-made disaster ( ) or a major change in the economy for this thing to be turned totally on it's ass between now and November.

I'm not passionate about Romney. Newt doesn't stand a chance. I like Santorum but I don't think he's got what it takes to pass the national test (although I really respect his values system from what I know of it). Ron Paul... scary. O'bummer might be in for another 4 years. Yuck.

Not to pick on you Donna, but every one of you who said polls are meaningless right are 100% wrong. The campaigns are taking internal polls for a reason. The key word to look for now is the word "trend" or "trending." The needle is clearly trending to the Democrats and Obama. Obama's numbers are ticking upwards. What, 15 or so months of continuos job growth? Bin Laden dead. Khadaffi dead. Iraq war, OVER(Promise kept). The guys foreign policy gets an A+ with absolutely zero doubt(largely due to the exceptional job Hillary is doing at State). Also remember that national polls are the ones that maybe would be called meaningless, because we don't vote popular vote. The electoral college is the key. With Obama up big in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and up at all in North Carolina and Virginia? Wow. Game over by 9:00PM eastern time. He won't even need the west coasts 4 guaranteed states.

If I were a republican, I would be worried shitless about holding the House. Boehner is the most unliked politician in Washington. The House is at a 7% approval rate under his "leadership." LOL, this is going to be a complete reversal of 2010.

Oh and wait til the commercial comes out about Mitt taking his dog Seamus on a 13 hour car trip from Boston to Ontario, Canada. Dude put him on top of the car in an airtight crate! The dog was so traumatized, that during the trip, Willard's kids saw brown liquid pouring down the back window. Seamus was shitting diahrea. What's Mitt do? He pulls over to gas station, hoses off his sled, and rejoins the highway. Oh and the story was broken and written by Fox News. Google Romney dog on car, and you will be amazed at what you see. This is a dog loving nation. You don't think this will affect his chances? Here- http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/ ... president/

One more note about polls and being meaningless or not. Romney's numbers have stayed the same the last year, going from 22% to 33% or so. That tells you the party isn't excited about him. Now who wants to tell me polls are meaningless?

[mmberry301]

(I'm an Independent not Republican or Democrat)

Neither Obama or any of the Republican candidates are leaders...period.

None of them should be President.

Sadly in the last 15 years I personally have not seen many people (men or women) that could or should be be qualified to our leader.

Whether you are liberal or conservative don't bother hitting me with talking points about who's president has done what under their watch.

We need leaders....not politicians.

I'm Mark Berry and I approved this message

[Rockindeano]

(I'm an Independent not Republican or Democrat)

Neither Obama or any of the Republican candidates are leaders...period.

None of them should be President.

Sadly in the last 15 years I personally have not seen many people (men or women) that could or should be be qualified to our leader.

Whether you are liberal or conservative don't bother hitting me with talking points about who's president has done what under their watch.

We need leaders....not politicians.

I'm Mark Berry and I approved this message

Fuck you and your numbers request. You going to tell me Bill Clinton wasn't a fucking leader? Join a drug rehab center immediately.

[Monker]

Polls are only as reliable as the organization doing the polling, which in this day and time means that none of them are worth a damn. But, you can't say "as it looks now" is legit but call out Dave's current info as meaningless. Because "as it looks NOW" is just as meaningless. All it takes is a natural disaster, a man-made disaster ( ) or a major change in the economy for this thing to be turned totally on it's ass between now and November.

I'm not passionate about Romney. Newt doesn't stand a chance. I like Santorum but I don't think he's got what it takes to pass the national test (although I really respect his values system from what I know of it). Ron Paul... scary. O'bummer might be in for another 4 years. Yuck.

Not to pick on you Donna, but every one of you who said polls are meaningless right are 100% wrong. The campaigns are taking internal polls for a reason. The key word to look for now is the word "trend" or "trending." The needle is clearly trending to the Democrats and Obama. Obama's numbers are ticking upwards. What, 15 or so months of continuos job growth? Bin Laden dead. Khadaffi dead. Iraq war, OVER(Promise kept). The guys foreign policy gets an A+ with absolutely zero doubt(largely due to the exceptional job Hillary is doing at State). Also remember that national polls are the ones that maybe would be called meaningless, because we don't vote popular vote. The electoral college is the key. With Obama up big in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and up at all in North Carolina and Virginia? Wow. Game over by 9:00PM eastern time. He won't even need the west coasts 4 guaranteed states.

If I were a republican, I would be worried shitless about holding the House. Boehner is the most unliked politician in Washington. The House is at a 7% approval rate under his "leadership." LOL, this is going to be a complete reversal of 2010.

Oh and wait til the commercial comes out about Mitt taking his dog Seamus on a 13 hour car trip from Boston to Ontario, Canada. Dude put him on top of the car in an airtight crate! The dog was so traumatized, that during the trip, Willard's kids saw brown liquid pouring down the back window. Seamus was shitting diahrea. What's Mitt do? He pulls over to gas station, hoses off his sled, and rejoins the highway. Oh and the story was broken and written by Fox News. Google Romney dog on car, and you will be amazed at what you see. This is a dog loving nation. You don't think this will affect his chances? Here- http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/ ... president/

One more note about polls and being meaningless or not. Romney's numbers have stayed the same the last year, going from 22% to 33% or so. That tells you the party isn't excited about him. Now who wants to tell me polls are meaningless?

The polls are "meaningless" because they are all based on "if the election were held today...". Well, it's not held today...if it were, we would have already known who the Republicans nominated and Obama would have been campaigning against that person for months. What people seem to be missing is understanding that Obama has really not even STARTED his campaign against the Republicans. So, the polls are not a prediction at all of what will happen in November.

And, IMO, none of the Republicans are electable. I said that after I saw the first debate...Romney is a flip flopper who comes across exactly like John Kerry. And, he keeps gaffing his words as bad as Biden does. In addition, he excites the Republican base even less then McCain did. In an election that Republicans were desperate to find somebody would could beat Obama, they put forth a bunch of clowns who have no chance of winning.

[Rockindeano]

And, IMO, none of the Republicans are electable. I said that after I saw the first debate...Romney is a flip flopper who comes across exactly like John Kerry. And, he keeps gaffing his words as bad as Biden does. In addition, he excites the Republican base even less then McCain did. In an election that Republicans were desperate to find somebody would could beat Obama, they put forth a bunch of clowns who have no chance of winning.

Yeah, ain't that the truth. They're an embarrassment. However, answer me this. If Obama is so easy to defeat, why did their "Big Guns," Christie, Palin and Jeb Bush all sit this one out? The best guy they had was Huntsman, but he was China Ambassador under Obama so he was fucked from the get go. The GOP is just a sideshow. I love watching these guys on a daily basis make asses of themselves.

[slucero]

(I'm an Independent not Republican or Democrat)

Neither Obama or any of the Republican candidates are leaders...period.

None of them should be President.

Sadly in the last 15 years I personally have not seen many people (men or women) that could or should be be qualified to our leader.

Whether you are liberal or conservative don't bother hitting me with talking points about who's president has done what under their watch.

We need leaders....not politicians.

I'm Mark Berry and I approved this message

Fuck you and your numbers request. You going to tell me Bill Clinton wasn't a fucking leader? Join a drug rehab center immediately.

You still doing drugs D-No?

Clinton (and Congress) is directly responsible for the banking collapse you fucking retard... he signed the law that enabled the deregulation of the banking industry..

[Monker]

(I'm an Independent not Republican or Democrat)

Neither Obama or any of the Republican candidates are leaders...period.

None of them should be President.

Sadly in the last 15 years I personally have not seen many people (men or women) that could or should be be qualified to our leader.

Whether you are liberal or conservative don't bother hitting me with talking points about who's president has done what under their watch.

We need leaders....not politicians.

I'm Mark Berry and I approved this message

Fuck you and your numbers request. You going to tell me Bill Clinton wasn't a fucking leader? Join a drug rehab center immediately.

You still doing drugs D-No?

Clinton (and Congress) is directly responsible for the banking collapse you fucking retard... he signed the law that enabled the deregulation of the banking industry..

The bottom line is the economy thrived under Bill Clinton...and did nothing but struggle and collapse under 12yrs of daddy and mini-Bush. Funny how the financial industry had major issues under BOTH Bush's...S&L's under daddy, and the entire financial industry under mini-Bush. Two bookends of recession and bad economy surrounding some of the most prosperous years of your lifetime.

And, as for throwing the banking colapse onto Clinton...mini-Bush had years to reverse that if it was such a huge problem. You can say that the setup happened under Clinton...but mini-Bush allowed it to get out of control and cause a huge, huge, economic issue. Talk about lack of leadership.

[slucero]

Gotta love the unemployment number the BLS (Bureau of Lies and Smoke) released today.... up by 243,000, purportedly the biggest increase since 2006.

Yet - the actual survey number showed a decrease of 1.177 million jobs.

Using BLS data:

• the US civilian non-institutional population was 242,269 in January, an increase of 1.7 million month over month:
• apply the long-term average labor force participation rate of 65.8% to this number (because people are not retiring as the popular propaganda goes: in fact labor participation in those aged 55 and over has been soaring as more and more old people have to work overtime, forget retiring), and you get 159.4 million: that is what the real labor force should be. The BLS reported one? 154.4 million: a tiny 5 million difference.
• Then add these people who the BLS is purposefully ignoring yet who most certainly are in dire need of labor and/or a job to the 12.758 million reported unemployed by the BLS and...

you get 17.776 million in real unemployed workers.

What does this mean?

That using just the BLS denominator in calculating the unemployed rate of 154.4 million, the real unemployment rate actually rose in January to 11.5%.

Compare that with the BLS reported decline from 8.5% to 8.3%. It also means that the spread between the reported and implied unemployment rate just soared to a fresh 30 year high of 3.2%.


In the world of government data, down can be up.

I want to get on that plan - how does one exit the labor market? It is a stunning figure (all told) when you think about how many people have stopped looking. If i lost my job, I couldn't stop looking under any circumstance. I'd have to work 4 jobs and sell my blood. I just don't know how people afford to give up. I understand there are some benefits, but even at two years, what then?

And I'll ask what I asked before - where are all the news stories of the unemployed? With such high unemployment, you'd think you would see more food line, homeless, etc. In the early 80's it seems it was all they showed on TV. Now - I never see it. It's just odd to me.

If you watch mainstream media... you'll never hear the stories...

The facts are there, they get reported once.. then buried because it does not "sell"... BTW there are 45 Million on food stamps... that's why there are no food lines.. the WSJ reported it: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/11/ ... od-stamps/

MSM wants to control the perception process... look at how they purposely avoided Ron Paul in the beginning of their coverage... skipping over even the mention of his name...

It's also why and how a sitting president can tout 250,000 jobs at the expense of 1.2 Million people no longer being counted as a good thing... the MSM not reporting "all the facts" allows the president to do the same...

The bottom line is that none of these figures matter. What matters is if people 'feel' things are getting better or worse.

A very similar argument was used by Democrats against Reagan during his reelection...and I'm sure we all know how that turned out.

IMO, by election day, saying we are still in a recession and all this doom and gloom talk is going to sound loony.

Actually.. Clinton, Bush and multiple Congresses share the blame, but you don't care about Congress cause yer too wrapped up in your hate for anything that isn't Democrat...


Its spin if I say Bush is culpable.. and if you say he is its fact... lmao..

I provide fact.. you call it spin.. and you provide your opinion and call it "FACT"..

pull your head out... or better yet.. leave it in.. and breathe deeply.. you obviously like the smell....

[Monker]

(I'm an Independent not Republican or Democrat)

Neither Obama or any of the Republican candidates are leaders...period.

None of them should be President.

Sadly in the last 15 years I personally have not seen many people (men or women) that could or should be be qualified to our leader.

Whether you are liberal or conservative don't bother hitting me with talking points about who's president has done what under their watch.

We need leaders....not politicians.

I'm Mark Berry and I approved this message

Fuck you and your numbers request. You going to tell me Bill Clinton wasn't a fucking leader? Join a drug rehab center immediately.

You still doing drugs D-No?

Clinton (and Congress) is directly responsible for the banking collapse you fucking retard... he signed the law that enabled the deregulation of the banking industry..

The bottom line is the economy thrived under Bill Clinton...and did nothing but struggle and collapse under 12yrs of daddy and mini-Bush. Funny how the financial industry had major issues under BOTH Bush's...S&L's under daddy, and the entire financial industry under mini-Bush. Two bookends of recession and bad economy surrounding some of the most prosperous years of your lifetime.

And, as for throwing the banking colapse onto Clinton...mini-Bush had years to reverse that if it was such a huge problem. You can say that the setup happened under Clinton...but mini-Bush allowed it to get out of control and cause a huge, huge, economic issue. Talk about lack of leadership.

I don't recall defending bush in my post to D-No...

And its a fact that Clinton signed the Act... so he and Congress are to blame..


Try not using strawman arguments next time and maybe your opinion will count.

It's not opinion...it's fact.

FACT: Both Bush's terms ended in recession and economic collapse.
FACT: Clinton's time as President was one of the most prosperous of our time.
FACT: YOU said, "\Clinton (and Congress) is directly responsible for the banking collapse."
FACT: I did NOT say you defended Bush, but was responding to your statement I quoted above by stating the below facts:
FACT: Bush had YEARS to do something about the deregulation of banks and chose to do nothing...THAT is a demostrated lack of leadership. Signing a bill is NOT a demonstrated lack of leadership.
FACT: By Bush NOT doing anything about deregulation for YEARS shows that he shares in the blame for the collapse
FACT: Your inability to recognize the above fact shows your bias towards Bush and against Clinton.

Opinion: mini-bush was the worst leader this country has ever had. Daddy Bush was the most mediocre leader this country has ever had. Clinton was one of the best leaders this nation has ever had. He replaced JFK as the icon that modern Democrats strive to emulate...that is not an easy task. Too bad Republicans can't find a rival for Reagan.

[slucero]

(I'm an Independent not Republican or Democrat)

Neither Obama or any of the Republican candidates are leaders...period.

None of them should be President.

Sadly in the last 15 years I personally have not seen many people (men or women) that could or should be be qualified to our leader.

Whether you are liberal or conservative don't bother hitting me with talking points about who's president has done what under their watch.

We need leaders....not politicians.

I'm Mark Berry and I approved this message

Fuck you and your numbers request. You going to tell me Bill Clinton wasn't a fucking leader? Join a drug rehab center immediately.

You still doing drugs D-No?

Clinton (and Congress) is directly responsible for the banking collapse you fucking retard... he signed the law that enabled the deregulation of the banking industry..

The bottom line is the economy thrived under Bill Clinton...and did nothing but struggle and collapse under 12yrs of daddy and mini-Bush. Funny how the financial industry had major issues under BOTH Bush's...S&L's under daddy, and the entire financial industry under mini-Bush. Two bookends of recession and bad economy surrounding some of the most prosperous years of your lifetime.

And, as for throwing the banking colapse onto Clinton...mini-Bush had years to reverse that if it was such a huge problem. You can say that the setup happened under Clinton...but mini-Bush allowed it to get out of control and cause a huge, huge, economic issue. Talk about lack of leadership.

I don't recall defending bush in my post to D-No...

And its a fact that Clinton signed the Act... so he and Congress are to blame..


Try not using strawman arguments next time and maybe your opinion will count.

It's not opinion...it's fact.

FACT: Both Bush's terms ended in recession and economic collapse.

Never said it didn't....

FACT: Clinton's time as President was one of the most prosperous of our time.

Never said it wasn't....

FACT: YOU said, "\Clinton (and Congress) is directly responsible for the banking collapse."

I did and its a fact. Most economists point to that legislation as the starting point for the 2008 collapse...

FACT: I did NOT say you defended Bush, but was responding to your statement I quoted above by stating the below facts:

FACT: Bush had YEARS to do something about the deregulation of banks and chose to do nothing...THAT is a demostrated lack of leadership. Signing a bill is NOT a demonstrated lack of leadership.

Clinton studied economics at Oxford.. so signing a bill that repeals an existing Act that came about as a result of an Congressional investigation into the cause of a economic collapse - when there was clear empirical evidence that the some conditions would have the same results... is a monstrous demonstration of a lack of leadership, and also a validation of Einsteins Theory of Insanity...

Obama even challenged the act and that it led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of something banned since the Great Depression.



FACT: By Bush NOT doing anything about deregulation for YEARS shows that he shares in the blame for the collapse

Never said he didn't.. and I agree he shares the blame... as does Congress

FACT: Your inability to recognize the above fact shows your bias towards Bush and against Clinton.

No.. I'm not biased at all.. Bush was an idiot.. however .. you wish to make this a Dem vs. Rep thing.. when it's clearly a leadership thing... but whatever..

Opinion: mini-bush was the worst leader this country has ever had. Daddy Bush was the most mediocre leader this country has ever had. Clinton was one of the best leaders this nation has ever had. He replaced JFK as the icon that modern Democrats strive to emulate...that is not an easy task. Too bad Republicans can't find a rival for Reagan.

Again - you wish to make this a Dem vs. Rep thing.. when it's clearly a leadership thing...

Face it - you're a partisan hack... you can't see the wrong in a leader regardless of political party.. just admit it and you'll feel better...

[conversationpc]

Obama's new budget...Increasing debt AT LEAST for the next several years. More of the same...Gotta love it.

[Rockindeano]

Obama's new budget...Increasing debt AT LEAST for the next several years. More of the same...Gotta love it.

He is going to reduce the defecit by 4 TRILLION fucking dollars in ten years. He is also correct that you cannot only cut spending- there needs to be a combination of tax revenue and cuts.

The GOP won't like this, but they're fucked this year anyway. they are going to be anally raped come November. Should be nice.

[conversationpc]

Obama's new budget...Increasing debt AT LEAST for the next several years. More of the same...Gotta love it.

He is going to reduce the defecit by 4 TRILLION fucking dollars in ten years. He is also correct that you cannot only cut spending- there needs to be a combination of tax revenue and cuts.

The GOP won't like this, but they're fucked this year anyway. they are going to be anally raped come November. Should be nice.

He hasn't delivered so far. I'll believe it when I see it.