President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[RossValoryRocks]

Only you could think that a party that has an eighteen seat defecit in the Senate and does nothing else except make the rich richer whilst never once attempting to work with the current Administration is in a position of power.

If you don't think Democrats will make a point of noting this in the fall elections, you're even more out of touch than I suppose. The just-say-no policy is working right now because people are frustrated and have been misinformed by the Right. Once it becomes apparent that all progress was stalwarted because of the GOP's sardonic approach, it will come back to haunt them.

Wishful thinking??? Given your name that is pretty funny. And your "misinformed" statement is pretty fun too, since all you do is parrot the democrat talking point du jure.

And there is NOTHING wrong with the rich getting richer, if everyone aspired to becoming such then we wouldn't be in the shit we are, too many don't care about getting rich, they only care about what the US Government is going to give them for free next.

An English major you may be, but a keen observer of the REALITIES of politics you are not. The republicans will win back the house in November...and while not winning the Senate will make it much closer than it is.

[S2M]

Alleged purveyors of the written word......

[Ehwmatt]

Just wanted to check in, havent been following the last several days, but this is how stupid politics is in a microcosm:

President Obama is catching heat from Nevada lawmakers and business leaders regarding his comments Tuesday criticizing trips to Las Vegas.

During the president's town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire, he discussed the need to curb spending during tough economic times. "When times are tough, you tighten your belts," the president said. "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college."

His statement Tuesday drew sharp criticism from Nevada lawmakers. "The President needs to lay off Las Vegas and stop making it the poster child for where people shouldn't be spending their money," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. "Las Vegas is suffering through one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, and we cannot afford for the President to bring us down any further," added Republican Senator John Ensign. "Nevada has one of the most distressed economies in the country, and the President has done little to focus on job creation over the past year. Discouraging people from coming to our state to make a political point adds insult to injury," said Republican Congressman Dean Heller.

Now this is just stupid. I loathe Obama, but gimme a break. The guy is speaking figuratively and frankly, a lot of people would do worse than heed that simple common sense advice, including some businesses. These fuckers from Reid to Ensign to Heller need to find something else to worry about

[Saint John]

And there is NOTHING wrong with the rich getting richer

That's become a villification over the last half century or so. Pride is sorely lacking in the Democratic community. Rather than aspiring to work hard and make it, they're taught that they're victims of the big bad rich wolf. Anything to "buy" votes ... chock full of promises of free money and added benefits for doing less. Perhaps it's also "the hard working harder" and "the smart working smarter" rather than "the rich getting richer"? Democrats, by and large, are lazy inner-city, government-dependent, leeching trashballs that don't want to work. And it's been that way for a long, long time.

[7 Wishes]

Seriously, Stu? I have critizied more Democrats and left-leaning policy in general than anyone else on this forum.

While I don't agree with most of what you say, I don't ever attempt to put you down or berate you simply because your opinions run contrary to mine.

And if you're ignoring the information I provided on Page 71, then you're missing the point and avoiding the truth - when it comes to trickle-down economics. IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK.

[RossValoryRocks]

Seriously, Stu? I have critizied more Democrats and left-leaning policy in general than anyone else on this forum.

While I don't agree with most of what you say, I don't ever attempt to put you down or berate you simply because your opinions run contrary to mine.

And if you're ignoring the information I provided on Page 71, then you're missing the point and avoiding the truth - when it comes to trickle-down economics. IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK.

IF trickle down doesn't work, neither does Trickle UP economics my friend, and I question your sources on the page 171 load of crap you posted.

As for attack the left, ha...occasionally, maybe you find something to bitch about, usually when they are not marching lock-step with the liberal agenda.

When give someone something it doesn't matter to them, when they EARN it it matters.

You demonize people getting rich and staying that way...I say again there is NOTHING wrong with that...all you and your lib talking points do is cause class envy, and that is complete bullshit.

Work to get rich, and see what kind of hours and sacrifices have to made to achieve that goal and then see what it is like to lose a huge percentage of that to people who didn't earn it and shouldn't feel entitled to it, but are.

[7 Wishes]

I demonize people FOR toeing the liberal party line.

I hold in contempt the ACLU, PETA, and other aberrations of the Democratic platform.

Dude, my "source" is the fucking Treasury Department! Look it up yourself!

[G.I.Jim]

I demonize people FOR toeing the liberal party line.

I hold in contempt the ACLU, PETA, and other aberrations of the Democratic platform.

Dude, my "source" is the fucking Treasury Department! Look it up yourself!

I definitely agree with you about PETA and the ACLU. What complete wastes of flesh!

[Rick]

I demonize people FOR toeing the liberal party line.

I hold in contempt the ACLU, PETA, and other aberrations of the Democratic platform.

Dude, my "source" is the fucking Treasury Department! Look it up yourself!

I definitely agree with you about PETA and the ACLU. What complete wastes of flesh!

+ ∞

[G.I.Jim]

I demonize people FOR toeing the liberal party line.

I hold in contempt the ACLU, PETA, and other aberrations of the Democratic platform.

Dude, my "source" is the fucking Treasury Department! Look it up yourself!

I definitely agree with you about PETA and the ACLU. What complete wastes of flesh!

+ ∞

Hey buddy! Long time no-see!!! So is that an agree or disagree... your life depends on the answer.

[Rick]

I demonize people FOR toeing the liberal party line.

I hold in contempt the ACLU, PETA, and other aberrations of the Democratic platform.

Dude, my "source" is the fucking Treasury Department! Look it up yourself!

I definitely agree with you about PETA and the ACLU. What complete wastes of flesh!

+ ∞

Hey buddy! Long time no-see!!! So is that an agree or disagree... your life depends on the answer.

Howdy Jimbo!! That means I agree infinitely.

[RossValoryRocks]

I demonize people FOR toeing the liberal party line.

I hold in contempt the ACLU, PETA, and other aberrations of the Democratic platform.

Dude, my "source" is the fucking Treasury Department! Look it up yourself!

No...your sources were interpretations of what the treasury dept said...Slate...Washinton Post...etc etc...

Post the link to the actual Treasury Department study...then maybe you will have something.

[Rockindeano]

The republicans will win back the house in November...and while not winning the Senate will make it much closer than it is.

Back away from the crackpipe Stuey. I haven't laughed out loud like this in a long time. I woke Wyatt up from a deep slumber.

[RossValoryRocks]

The republicans will win back the house in November...and while not winning the Senate will make it much closer than it is.

Back away from the crackpipe Stuey. I haven't laughed out loud like this in a long time. I woke Wyatt up from a deep slumber.

Nice to see you answer some posts...wait and see my friend...and yes yes I know you called '08...but Obama's and Dem's over all piss poor record the last few years are going to kill them.

Watch and see...

Oh and since you are answering posts why don't you trot on over to the global warming thread and answer my thoughts there? What does the truth hurt?

[Lula]

I demonize people FOR toeing the liberal party line.

I hold in contempt the ACLU, PETA, and other aberrations of the Democratic platform.

Dude, my "source" is the fucking Treasury Department! Look it up yourself!

defending rush limbaugh, oliver north, larry craig, and jerry falwell is toeing the liberal line? the aclu protects individiual liberties. biiig difference.

[separate_wayz]

Only you could think that a party that has an eighteen seat defecit in the Senate and does nothing else except make the rich richer whilst never once attempting to work with the current Administration is in a position of power.

If you don't think Democrats will make a point of noting this in the fall elections, you're even more out of touch than I suppose. The just-say-no policy is working right now because people are frustrated and have been misinformed by the Right. Once it becomes apparent that all progress was stalwarted because of the GOP's sardonic approach, it will come back to haunt them.

Obama's had two problems.

Obama's first problem has been with moderate Democrats, not with Republicans. Democrats in the Senate -- like Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Max Baucus of Montana, in particular -- have been loathe to jump on the ObamaCare bandwagon (and reluctant to support other initiatives and policies as well, such as Obama's EPA designating carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant). Republicans (as you say in first paragraph) have been in no position of power, other than rhetorical. This is entirely the Democrats' show.

Obama's second problem is with himself. Obama-the-Candidate is at odds with Obama-with-the-President. Like it or not, that's how moderates and independents see it. And as Gallup pointed out, Obama is the most polarizing first-year president ever.

If you don't think Democrats are "running for the hills" (to use Obama's own apt words), you haven't been paying attention to current events. Senate Democrats in trouble (meaning: running barely ahead, or actually behind presumed challengers) now include "safe" seats like Russ Feingold (WI), Evan Bayh (IN), Patty Murray (WA), and even Barbara Boxer (CA). (Add to that these Democrat seats: IL, DE, NV, PA, AR, and CO). Only one Republican Senate seat could even be possibly thought a real toss-up: Ohio, where George Voinovich is retiring. And even here, Rob Portman is running ahead of both his possible Democrat challengers.

In the so-called generic congressional ballot, Republicans are running (depending on the poll) between 5 and 9 points ahead of the Democrats (and historically Republicans exceed that poll on election day). This is unprecedented, even in 1994.

If Americans don't want to hear that "progress has been stalwarted" (I think you mean thwarted), then why are they solidly choosing Republican candidates, even those deep in blue-state territory??

I'll stick with my original prediction from a month ago. Republicans pick up 7 seats in the Senate (bringing them to 48 ), and they pick up net 35 seats in the House (bringing them to 213). November 2, 2010 will be a bad night for Democrats, as things stand right now.

[separate_wayz]

The republicans will win back the house in November...and while not winning the Senate will make it much closer than it is.

Back away from the crackpipe Stuey. I haven't laughed out loud like this in a long time. I woke Wyatt up from a deep slumber.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/fe ... _headlines

At the moment, Republicans are doing exceedingly well with their election prospects, considering that they are at a 59-41 deficit in the Senate.

It would be almost optimal for the GOP to come close to 50 seats in the Senate (but fall short), and 218 seats in the House (but fall short). That way, the Democrats would control both chambers -- but in actuality in name only. Tiny Democrat majorities in both (say with 52 seats in the Senate, and with 222 seats in the House) would make both chambers essentially ungovernable as Democrat-led bodies. But Democrats would still have to take responsibility for running Congress (since they'd still technically be the majority party), and Obama would be denied the scapegoat of blaming "GOP obstructionists" in Congress.

If the GOP takes 50 seats, look for Joe Lieberman as an Independent to caucus with the GOP, thereby giving the GOP control over committee chairmanships and subcommittee chairs.

[RossValoryRocks]

The republicans will win back the house in November...and while not winning the Senate will make it much closer than it is.

Back away from the crackpipe Stuey. I haven't laughed out loud like this in a long time. I woke Wyatt up from a deep slumber.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/fe ... _headlines

At the moment, Republicans are doing exceedingly well with their election prospects, considering that they are at a 59-41 deficit in the Senate.

It would be almost optimal for the GOP to come close to 50 seats in the Senate (but fall short), and 218 seats in the House (but fall short). That way, the Democrats would control both chambers -- but in actuality in name only. Tiny Democrat majorities in both (say with 52 seats in the Senate, and with 222 seats in the House) would make both chambers essentially ungovernable as Democrat-led bodies. But Democrats would still have to take responsibility for running Congress (since they'd still technically be the majority party), and Obama would be denied the scapegoat of blaming "GOP obstructionists" in Congress.

If the GOP takes 50 seats, look for Joe Lieberman as an Independent to caucus with the GOP, thereby giving the GOP control over committee chairmanships and subcommittee chairs.

When they had unassailable majorities in the Sentate (Up until Scott Brown got elected) and the House (they still do) they couldn't get anything passed...they can't get some of thier own members to step up and do anything, because their own members know if they vote yes on some of these unpopular items they will be gone.

[hoagiepete]

The republicans will win back the house in November...and while not winning the Senate will make it much closer than it is.

Back away from the crackpipe Stuey. I haven't laughed out loud like this in a long time. I woke Wyatt up from a deep slumber.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/fe ... _headlines

At the moment, Republicans are doing exceedingly well with their election prospects, considering that they are at a 59-41 deficit in the Senate.

It would be almost optimal for the GOP to come close to 50 seats in the Senate (but fall short), and 218 seats in the House (but fall short). That way, the Democrats would control both chambers -- but in actuality in name only. Tiny Democrat majorities in both (say with 52 seats in the Senate, and with 222 seats in the House) would make both chambers essentially ungovernable as Democrat-led bodies. But Democrats would still have to take responsibility for running Congress (since they'd still technically be the majority party), and Obama would be denied the scapegoat of blaming "GOP obstructionists" in Congress.

If the GOP takes 50 seats, look for Joe Lieberman as an Independent to caucus with the GOP, thereby giving the GOP control over committee chairmanships and subcommittee chairs.

When they had unassailable majorities in the Sentate (Up until Scott Brown got elected) and the House (they still do) they couldn't get anything passed...they can't get some of thier own members to step up and do anything, because their own members know if they vote yes on some of these unpopular items they will be gone.

And why do you think they'll be gone? The common man still has vote and therefor a voice. That is somewhat refreshing news.

[separate_wayz]

Hoo boy....did they manipulate the numbers to keep Unemployment below 10%?

Survey says!

U.S. May Lose 824,000 Jobs as Employment Data Revised: Analysis

Feb. 3 (Bloomberg Multimedia) -- The U.S. may lose 824,000 jobs when the government releases its annual revision to employment data on Feb. 5, showing the labor market was in worse shape during the recession than known at the time.

Click here for a Bloomberg Multimedia interactive visual analysis of the economy’s job losses.

The downward revisions have been known to some perceptive economists since October. The revisions come from adjustments to the so-called Birth/Death Model that attempts to plug figures for jobs created/destroyed by companies not captured by the statistical sampling that the Bureau of Labor Statistics does.

This really wasn't a surprise (or at least shouldn't have been to reasonable people). By mid-2009, the birth/death numbers should have been massively contracting for months, and they weren't. Believe it or not, BLS was still showing net jobs created in finance, real estate, and construction through mid-2009, which is total garbage of course. Those were all statistical apparitions and are now vanishing.

[Lula]

was there a discussion about the ass whoopin handed out in baltimore? it was refreshing to see obama remind us of the level of his intelligence and that he can indeed speak without the use of a teleprompter. i have only been able to catch bits 'n pieces, but i'd say the gathering of republicans and obama did not go as the repubs had wanted. loved it!

[RossValoryRocks]

The republicans will win back the house in November...and while not winning the Senate will make it much closer than it is.

Back away from the crackpipe Stuey. I haven't laughed out loud like this in a long time. I woke Wyatt up from a deep slumber.

Oh yeah ya think so???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/ap_ ... s_analysis

Enjoy! The President isn't a total disaster, if he can pull a Clinton he may actually get second term...but Pelosi and Reid need to go, and it looks like they just might!

[Rockindeano]

Hoo boy....did they manipulate the numbers to keep Unemployment below 10%?

Survey says!

U.S. May Lose 824,000 Jobs as Employment Data Revised: Analysis

Feb. 3 (Bloomberg Multimedia) -- The U.S. may lose 824,000 jobs when the government releases its annual revision to employment data on Feb. 5, showing the labor market was in worse shape during the recession than known at the time.

Click here for a Bloomberg Multimedia interactive visual analysis of the economy’s job losses.

You're a dumbass. The economy is already getting better. You just make sure to keep voting for those "Great Americans" who constantly say "no" and offer zero ideas and/or substance to the debate. How proud you must be when you see them in action, sitting on their hands when Obama talks about the needs for jobs, and good ideas, and shaking their collective heads when he makes valid, strong points. You must feel so happy. Congratulations.

[RossValoryRocks]

Hoo boy....did they manipulate the numbers to keep Unemployment below 10%?

Survey says!

U.S. May Lose 824,000 Jobs as Employment Data Revised: Analysis

Feb. 3 (Bloomberg Multimedia) -- The U.S. may lose 824,000 jobs when the government releases its annual revision to employment data on Feb. 5, showing the labor market was in worse shape during the recession than known at the time.

Click here for a Bloomberg Multimedia interactive visual analysis of the economy’s job losses.

You're a dumbass. The economy is already getting better. You just make sure to keep voting for those "Great Americans" who constantly say "no" and offer zero ideas and/or substance to the debate. How proud you must be when you see them in action, sitting on their hands when Obama talks about the needs for jobs, and good ideas, and shaking their collective heads when he makes valid, strong points. You must feel so happy. Congratulations.

Do you go and download the democrat's talking points every day, or do they just fax them to you?

[lights1961]

Hoo boy....did they manipulate the numbers to keep Unemployment below 10%?

Survey says!

U.S. May Lose 824,000 Jobs as Employment Data Revised: Analysis

Feb. 3 (Bloomberg Multimedia) -- The U.S. may lose 824,000 jobs when the government releases its annual revision to employment data on Feb. 5, showing the labor market was in worse shape during the recession than known at the time.

Click here for a Bloomberg Multimedia interactive visual analysis of the economy’s job losses.

You're a dumbass. The economy is already getting better. You just make sure to keep voting for those "Great Americans" who constantly say "no" and offer zero ideas and/or substance to the debate. How proud you must be when you see them in action, sitting on their hands when Obama talks about the needs for jobs, and good ideas, and shaking their collective heads when he makes valid, strong points. You must feel so happy. Congratulations.

just like the DEMS did to W...

oh I love the dont go to Vegas thing...even in context about either saving for kids college and NOT going to Vegas... what he really means is dont spend your money on travel at all... can you imagine if he would have said save for your kids college, dont go on spring breakor dont go on cruises... just fool talk... Americans can spend their $$$ anyway they want too... even if it spells trouble down the road...

BTW... Transportation secratary should lose his job today from saying dont drive your toyotas... and if the break parts were made in the same plant here in the US that the gas pedals were made... HMMMM just saying.. ... I would think there would be conspiracy theory coming soon...

[Rockindeano]

Do you go and download the democrat's talking points every day, or do they just fax them to you?

You're smarter than what you just posted. Pull your head out of your ass. You know damned well I think and speak for myself.

[7 Wishes]

Sure, you do. But any Democrats here are just parroting "what we're told to think" - right, Stu? Even though our opinions are far more divergent than yours. Whatever.

[Rockindeano]

BTW... Transportation secratary should lose his job today from saying dont drive your toyotas... and if the break parts were made in the same plant here in the US that the gas pedals were made... HMMMM just saying.. ... I would think there would be conspiracy theory coming soon...

What? The Transportation Secretary is 100% correct in saying don't drive Toyota's made within a specific time span. Look, Toyota is a secretive company. They delayed and delayed this recall for a long time. They knew this could be a headache and they tried to hide it and bury it. He was directly quoted as saying, "we're not done with Toyota yet." The public's safety is his concern and responsibility. Outstanding job on his part.

As for your claim about the Dems saying "no" to W? You are right. They did and for the most part, offered nothing in the way of ideas at all. They were wrong, as are the Pubs now. However, it doesn't make right does it? I wish the Dems would have said "no" to the war. They were spineless for that. To allow that Bufoon and Rumsfeld to take us to bullshit war with nary a decent plan is unacceptable.

[separate_wayz]

Hoo boy....did they manipulate the numbers to keep Unemployment below 10%?

Survey says!

U.S. May Lose 824,000 Jobs as Employment Data Revised: Analysis

Feb. 3 (Bloomberg Multimedia) -- The U.S. may lose 824,000 jobs when the government releases its annual revision to employment data on Feb. 5, showing the labor market was in worse shape during the recession than known at the time.

Click here for a Bloomberg Multimedia interactive visual analysis of the economy’s job losses.

The downward revisions have been known to some perceptive economists since October. The revisions come from adjustments to the so-called Birth/Death Model that attempts to plug figures for jobs created/destroyed by companies not captured by the statistical sampling that the Bureau of Labor Statistics does.

This really wasn't a surprise (or at least shouldn't have been to reasonable people). By mid-2009, the birth/death numbers should have been massively contracting for months, and they weren't. Believe it or not, BLS was still showing net jobs created in finance, real estate, and construction through mid-2009, which is total garbage of course. Those were all statistical apparitions and are now vanishing.

The real question going forward is: will the Obama administration manipulate the labor participation rate to keep unemployment from going above 10%?

The labor participation rate is the ratio between the sum of employed + unemployed, divided by the labor force population.

By changing the definitions involved with whom constitutes the labor force, the government can effectively change the rate of participation in the labor market, and the rate of unemployment.

[RossValoryRocks]

Do you go and download the democrat's talking points every day, or do they just fax them to you?

You're smarter than what you just posted. Pull your head out of your ass. You know damned well I think and speak for myself.

Notice the wink and the lol, get over yourself dude. I know you can't help the fact the the dems are coming to MR to get their talking point from YOU!