Do you notice the strategy from the "volunteer" Obama supporters

[blastoff]

It's hit Mitt. He's weird, he's going to bring us back to Reagan (HURRAH!), BLAH BLAH BLAH.

NOTICE what they aren't doing and CAN'T DO?

They can't give us reasons to vote for Obama.

When all one side has is desperate attacks, flinging mud desperately, hoping something will stick, and they can't give you any positives for their guy, you see a side that knows they are probably going to lose.

All we need now is Obama to give a malaise speech!

They drag out the same playbook every four years. Why not? Plus, the dimwit base sort of expects it.

Here's a couple of Golden Oldies I heard last week on the Ed "Slutz" Schultz TV gig, in conversation with his stablemate, Martin Bashir. In ranting about Mitt's gonna take us to war with Iran - invade 'em for God's sake - Marty repeatedly bellowed about RAMBO Romney! Can you believe it? How many Republicans have proudly worn the left's Rambo Ribbon? Ah, an esteemed group for sure.

Next, fast Eddie slipped the p-card from the bottom of the deck. Does anyone really think this guy Romney is a good idea if a 3a.m. PHONE CALL awakens the president of the United States? Ah, it seems like only yesterday Hillary's folks were dealing the phone card in the direction of the woefully and haplessly inexperienced Barry Obama in '07.

LOL...all they've got is his record to run on, or Plan B. And B stands for But...as in anything and everything But!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Bin Laden is dead.

So there is that.

Only problem is, Panetta admitted it was the Bush policies that really got him.

Osama bin Laden killed: CIA admits waterboarding yielded vital information - Telegraph

CONFIRMED: CIA Chief Panetta Admits Info From Waterboarding Led US to Osama Bin Laden (Video) | The Gateway Pundit

Well of course there are "no accomplishments" if you deliberately ignore them you dishonest hack.

If you want to lie, knock yourself out. Then be surprised when no one is fooled by it.

How am I "lying" by quoting a liberal who wants to admit it was a Bush policy that got the info they needed?

Who's the partisan hack here?

Typical liberal! You can't have a civil discussion, because the minute you bring up the FACTS, they meltdown and start calling names. They can't debate on the merits, becaue they HAVE no merits, just talking points and attacks.

 

[teapartysamurai]

If I remember correctly GHW Bush was voted out of office after only 1 term and that GW Bush certainly didn't leave office with "5% unemployment and a ROARING economy."

Well let's examine that!



http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp

Economic Performance of Presidential Administrations

Funny, when did the unemployment rate go up? AFTER OBAMA TOOK OFFICE!

Now let's look at the Deficit!

US Federal Deficit As Percent Of GDP

2001 -1.25
2002 1.48
2003 3.39
2004 3.48
2005 2.52
2006 1.85
2007 1.14
2008 3.18
2009 9.91
2010 10.64

US Federal Deficit by Year - Charts Analysis

Economic Performance of Presidential Administrations

You were saying?

I'm saying that Barack Obama had the decided disadvantage of inheriting the results of 8 years of George Bush's economic policies.

The graph dramatically shows that George Bush and the Republicans can never be accused of leaving the American economy in the same good shape that they inherited it from Bill Clinton and the Democrats!

ALL YOU ARE SAYING is in spite of the indisputable evidence all the problems started AFTER OBAMA BECAME PRESIDENT, that all you have is the typical "it's Bush's fault" talking point and so you will double down on that, despite it being so laughable.

Keep on saying it's Bush's fault libs. Tell me how that works for ya, in November!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It's hit Mitt. He's weird, he's going to bring us back to Reagan (HURRAH!), BLAH BLAH BLAH.

NOTICE what they aren't doing and CAN'T DO?

They can't give us reasons to vote for Obama.

When all one side has is desperate attacks, flinging mud desperately, hoping something will stick, and they can't give you any positives for their guy, you see a side that knows they are probably going to lose.

All we need now is Obama to give a malaise speech!

It's part of the obama plan to lure in young voters who weren't born or too young to remember the disaster of the Carter years. The democrat fiction is that things were great under Carter and Reagan destroyed all the progress made. Romney is going to take us back to Reagan and then they'll tell you just how bad it was under Reagan. None of it will be true, but some folks are just easily led.

Gee......lemme try........

In December....after the Bush tax-cuts (finally) rot-off-the-vine....we'll be returning to.....

...St. Bill's RATES!!!!

You remember those gloriou$/pro$perou$....

....CLINTON YEARS....

.....right????

Now, TRY to compare ReRon's....

....Record-Setting Presiduncy.

You can run-along, now.......

 

[teapartysamurai]

It's hit Mitt. He's weird, he's going to bring us back to Reagan (HURRAH!), BLAH BLAH BLAH.

NOTICE what they aren't doing and CAN'T DO?

They can't give us reasons to vote for Obama.

When all one side has is desperate attacks, flinging mud desperately, hoping something will stick, and they can't give you any positives for their guy, you see a side that knows they are probably going to lose.

All we need now is Obama to give a malaise speech!

They drag out the same playbook every four years. Why not? Plus, the dimwit base sort of expects it.

Here's a couple of Golden Oldies I heard last week on the Ed "Slutz" Schultz TV gig, in conversation with his stablemate, Martin Bashir. In ranting about Mitt's gonna take us to war with Iran - invade 'em for God's sake - Marty repeatedly bellowed about RAMBO Romney! Can you believe it? How many Republicans have proudly worn the left's Rambo Ribbon? Ah, an esteemed group for sure.

Next, fast Eddie slipped the p-card from the bottom of the deck. Does anyone really think this guy Romney is a good idea if a 3a.m. PHONE CALL awakens the president of the United States? Ah, it seems like only yesterday Hillary's folks were dealing the phone card in the direction of the woefully and haplessly inexperienced Barry Obama in '07.

LOL...all they've got is his record to run on, or Plan B. And B stands for But...as in anything and everything But!

I'm trying to remember which lib on this forum (I think it was rdean but don't quote me) that pulled out the old 1980 chestnut that Romney would get us in a war with Russia!

That's what libs said about Reagan in 1980 and 1984. We just laughed at them, especially in 1984.

I remember when Reagan made fun of it in a Christmas Address, when he announded he had just declared the Soviet Union illegal, "the bombs start dropping in five minutes . . . just kidding!"

And the IDIOT Democrats tried to use it in a campaign ad to show "Reagan's war mongering and irresponsibility!"

I laughed my butt off!

When liberals go back to recycling failed arguments from 30+ years ago, YOU KNOW THEY ARE DESPERATE!

I sense the smell of disaster for Dems already. Who knows what will happen, but I can't see this changing unless Romney really does something INCREDIBLY STUPID--which of course can happen. We will see!

 

[KevinWestern]

Oh gee, why would we want to go back to Bush?

We only had lower than 5% unemployment and a ROARING economy.

Who would want to go back to that?

TeapartySamurai - Didn't the entire U.S. economy collapse in 2007-2008 at the very tail end of the Bush Presidency, leaving the United States in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, all while we were entangled in two extraordinarily costly wars, and a National Debt in the trillions due to ill-timed tax-cuts?

Why would we want to go back to that? I know I don't want to. It's going to take us decades to climb out from that mess......
.

You are forgetting the direct role Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had in that, and how Bush tried sevral times to keep it from happening:

Plus, the downturn didn't START until Democrats took the Congress in 2007.

Bush did all he could to stop the mess from happening. It was DEMOCRATS who blocked any reform to keep it from happening, and once they took control of Congress WENT FULL TILT toward that abyss.

Unfortunately, voters didn't get that in 2008. Now they are waking up to the disaster they voted for themselves in 2006 and 2008.

I can't wait for November.

Come on Samurai, you don’t really think that the Democrats taking office in 2007 were the cause of the recession, do you? The recession was at least a decade or so in the making, with major failures during both the Clinton years and Bush Jr. years to prevent it from happening.

With regards to Bush Jr., it was observed that as early as 2003/2004 the economy was growing at an unsustainable rate. Too many loans were being given out, and too many Americans were taking on debt that they would never be able to repay. Regulation to prevent fraud was a joke - virtually non-existent. And instead of investing in infrastructure and programs that helped the middle class at this time, Bush instead focused largely on passing policies that put more money in the pockets of top income earners.

Now, I’m fine with tax cuts to the wealthy, but there’s a time and place for them. Unfortunately, 2001/2003 wasn’t that time, namely because the economy was on the brink of destruction and we were engulfed in two costly wars.

Do you think this country in 1942 would ever DREAM of enacting a tax cut during WW2? What changed since then?

 

[Papageorgio]

In spite of the Republicans, President Obama was able to put enough works in place that we avoided the Second Great Republican Depression.

We now have the beginnings of a Health Care System. Maybe if we add considerable more to it, and make it universal single payer, we can end being the industrial nation that pays twice as much, gets an inferior product, fails to cover all of our citizens, then brags about it.

And then there is the little matter of Bin Laden and the Al Queda. Bush had seven years to do it in. President Obama got it done, and the Al Queda in pretty much in it's death throes.

When the GOP finished in 2008, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month, and all the markets were in a nosedive. Now we are gaining 300,000 jobs a month, and the markets are in much better shape. A slow slogging recovery, but a recovery, none the less.

A mandated health care system, taking away American's basic freedom of the right to choose. I wasn't aware that the GOP controlled Congress in 2008, as most knowledgeable people would realize though, this recession has been in the works since the last depression, but don't let facts get in the way. As far as a recovery? I'm waiting for a second recession, the place I work at closed down.

 

[teapartysamurai]

TeapartySamurai - Didn't the entire U.S. economy collapse in 2007-2008 at the very tail end of the Bush Presidency, leaving the United States in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, all while we were entangled in two extraordinarily costly wars, and a National Debt in the trillions due to ill-timed tax-cuts?

Why would we want to go back to that? I know I don't want to. It's going to take us decades to climb out from that mess......
.

You are forgetting the direct role Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had in that, and how Bush tried sevral times to keep it from happening:

Plus, the downturn didn't START until Democrats took the Congress in 2007.

Bush did all he could to stop the mess from happening. It was DEMOCRATS who blocked any reform to keep it from happening, and once they took control of Congress WENT FULL TILT toward that abyss.

Unfortunately, voters didn't get that in 2008. Now they are waking up to the disaster they voted for themselves in 2006 and 2008.

I can't wait for November.

Come on Samurai, you don’t really think that the Democrats taking office in 2007 were the cause of the recession, do you? The recession was at least a decade or so in the making, with major failures during both the Clinton years and Bush Jr. years to prevent it from happening.

With regards to Bush Jr., it was observed that as early as 2003/2004 the economy was growing at an unsustainable rate. Too many loans were being given out, and too many Americans were taking on debt that they would never be able to repay. Regulation to prevent fraud was a joke - virtually non-existent. And instead of investing in infrastructure and programs that helped the middle class at this time, Bush instead focused largely on passing policies that put more money in the pockets of top income earners.

Now, I’m fine with tax cuts to the wealthy, but there’s a time and place for them. Unfortunately, 2001/2003 wasn’t that time, namely because the economy was on the brink of destruction and we were engulfed in two costly wars.

Do you think this country in 1942 would ever DREAM of enacting a tax cut during WW2? What changed since then?

You don't give a shred of evidence to back anything you say up, where as I gave a ton of evidence.

And I didn't say it only started in 2007.

Bush tried more than once to reform Fannie and Freddie starting in 2001. Democrats blocked it every time. I already gave the evidence.

All you are giving is the ludicrous liberal talking points about tax cuts for the rich and your assumption tax hikes means more revenue to the government whereas tax cuts means less.

That could not be more untrue.

Case in point. The "surplus" that Clinton enjoyed in the 90s didn't happened until AFTER the Republicans took Congrss and they forced Clinton to cut Capital gains.

If you don't believe me, look at my Deficit/Surplus chart again and it will back up everything I say.

 

[jgarden]

Well let's examine that!



http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp

Economic Performance of Presidential Administrations

Funny, when did the unemployment rate go up? AFTER OBAMA TOOK OFFICE!

Now let's look at the Deficit!



US Federal Deficit by Year - Charts Analysis

Economic Performance of Presidential Administrations

You were saying?

I'm saying that Barack Obama had the decided disadvantage of inheriting the results of 8 years of George Bush's economic policies.

The graph dramatically shows that George Bush and the Republicans can never be accused of leaving the American economy in the same good shape that they inherited it from Bill Clinton and the Democrats!

ALL YOU ARE SAYING is in spite of the indisputable evidence all the problems started AFTER OBAMA BECAME PRESIDENT, that all you have is the typical "it's Bush's fault" talking point and so you will double down on that, despite it being so laughable.

Keep on saying it's Bush's fault libs. Tell me how that works for ya, in November!

"The indisputable evidence" shows that George Bush inherited a budget surplus 0f 1.25% in 2001 and left with budget a deficit of 9.91% (2009) with the US economy and world in jeporady.

If George Bush/Mitt Romney had inherited the same US economy that the Republicans left Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2009, "teapartysamurai" would be whistling a different tune!

"

 

[Papageorgio]

It's hit Mitt. He's weird, he's going to bring us back to Reagan (HURRAH!), BLAH BLAH BLAH.

NOTICE what they aren't doing and CAN'T DO?

They can't give us reasons to vote for Obama.

When all one side has is desperate attacks, flinging mud desperately, hoping something will stick, and they can't give you any positives for their guy, you see a side that knows they are probably going to lose.

All we need now is Obama to give a malaise speech!

It's part of the obama plan to lure in young voters who weren't born or too young to remember the disaster of the Carter years. The democrat fiction is that things were great under Carter and Reagan destroyed all the progress made. Romney is going to take us back to Reagan and then they'll tell you just how bad it was under Reagan. None of it will be true, but some folks are just easily led.

Gee......lemme try........

In December....after the Bush tax-cuts (finally) rot-off-the-vine....we'll be returning to.....



You remember those gloriou$/pro$perou$....

....CLINTON YEARS....

.....right????

Now, TRY to compare ReRon's....

....Record-Setting Presiduncy.

You can run-along, now.......

More BS from the left. When the left controlling Congress, and with Obama's big promise of ending the tax cuts, why didn't the Democrats eliminate them three years ago, why did they wait?

 

[teapartysamurai]

I'm saying that Barack Obama had the decided disadvantage of inheriting the results of 8 years of George Bush's economic policies.

The graph dramatically shows that George Bush and the Republicans can never be accused of leaving the American economy in the same good shape that they inherited it from Bill Clinton and the Democrats!

ALL YOU ARE SAYING is in spite of the indisputable evidence all the problems started AFTER OBAMA BECAME PRESIDENT, that all you have is the typical "it's Bush's fault" talking point and so you will double down on that, despite it being so laughable.

Keep on saying it's Bush's fault libs. Tell me how that works for ya, in November!

George Bush inherited a

GW. inherited a recession after the dot com bubble burst and then worse 9/11 hit.

YET, Bush managed to bring us to full employment and a roaring economy.

In comparison, all Obama has done for four, along with his liberal minions, is that he's helpless because "Bush did it!"

 

[NYcarbineer]

We give you positives every day here. You just choose to ignore them. Try harder.

You guys do....that is true
Pundits do as well.

But when it comes to political ads approved by Obama? Bin Laden is about all he's got.

Why are people like you conveniently ignoring the fact that the 'Biden' ad made reference to the success of the auto 'bailout'?

 

[jgarden]

Well let's examine that!



http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp

Economic Performance of Presidential Administrations

Funny, when did the unemployment rate go up? AFTER OBAMA TOOK OFFICE!

Now let's look at the Deficit!



US Federal Deficit by Year - Charts Analysis

Economic Performance of Presidential Administrations

You were saying?

I'm saying that Barack Obama had the decided disadvantage of inheriting the results of 8 years of George Bush's economic policies.

The graph dramatically shows that George Bush and the Republicans can never be accused of leaving the American economy in the same good shape that they inherited it from Bill Clinton and the Democrats!

ALL YOU ARE SAYING is in spite of the indisputable evidence all the problems started AFTER OBAMA BECAME PRESIDENT, that all you have is the typical "it's Bush's fault" talking point and so you will double down on that, despite it being so laughable.

Keep on saying it's Bush's fault libs. Tell me how that works for ya, in November!

George Bush inherited a 1.25% budget surplus from Bill Clinton and left Obama with a 9.91% deficit in 2009.

"Teapartysamurai" conveniently omitted the charts showing "Real GDP Growth," "Job Creation"and "Stock Market and Presidents" during the Bush Administration.

http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm

 

[NYcarbineer]

ALL YOU ARE SAYING is in spite of the indisputable evidence all the problems started AFTER OBAMA BECAME PRESIDENT, that all you have is the typical "it's Bush's fault" talking point and so you will double down on that, despite it being so laughable.

Keep on saying it's Bush's fault libs. Tell me how that works for ya, in November!

George Bush inherited a

GW. inherited a recession after the dot com bubble burst and then worse 9/11 hit.

YET, Bush managed to bring us to full employment and a roaring economy.

In comparison, all Obama has done for four, along with his liberal minions, is that he's helpless because "Bush did it!"

Unemployment was 4% when Bush got elected and Bush never saw 4% again, you idiot.

 

[KevinWestern]

You don't give a shred of evidence to back anything you say up, where as I gave a ton of evidence.

And I didn't say it only started in 2007.

Bush tried more than once to reform Fannie and Freddie starting in 2001. Democrats blocked it every time. I already gave the evidence.

All you are giving is the ludicrous liberal talking points about tax cuts for the rich and your assumption tax hikes means more revenue to the government whereas tax cuts means less.

That could not be more untrue.

Case in point. The "surplus" that Clinton enjoyed in the 90s didn't happened until AFTER the Republicans took Congrss and they forced Clinton to cut Capital gains.

If you don't believe me, look at my Deficit/Surplus chart again and it will back up everything I say.

Samurai – Your prior post stated that the Democrats took the senate in 2007, before the downturn, as if that was the cause of the recession. I was just pointing out that it wasn’t the cause of the recession.

Also, I have nothing against tax cuts, so long is that they are well timed. Problem was that the Bush tax cuts weren’t well timed at all. After going to war, the President should have removed or suspended the tax cuts – it would have been the fiscally responsible thing to do. The government needs money in a time of war at that specific moment; not down the road, not in 20 years, but in that moment in time.

If the government doesn’t have the money to foot the bill for the war, it will run into debt, which is exactly what happened. Pair that with an exploding economy in 2007ish, and you end up with the massive amount of debt that we have today. Sure Obama is responsible for some of that debt, but the Bush Administration set the country up for failure.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are they that hard to find?

Yeah, that explains this:

Why Is Mitt Romney So Incredibly Weird?
Mitt Wins So What Does That Say? What's The Message?
Hey, Mitt; ya missed a spot.
Republicans are the problem
Mittens is rewriting history
Why are Republicans desperate to have a billionaire "elite" to run their lives

Just right off the front page of this Politics Board.

That's all you libs do!

You fail. The fact that many people point out the negatives with your guy does not erase the fact that we post positives about our guy. Your OP is shit. Try harder.

Yeah? Give me the Pro-Obama threads off the front page of this board?

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to post them.

I think we see who's posting is sh**!

:

All you do is start troll threads attacking liberals because you can't come up with any way to positively advocate for Romney,

mostly because you conservatives got screwed when the moderate establishment GOP blew you off and nominated who they wanted.

In short, the Tea Party got pwned.

 

[rightwinger]

So I'm also waiting for the Obama campaign ads that support his accomplishments during his three and 1/2 years as POTUS. 2 of which included a Democrat house and senate. Could someone please post a link or video of that ad??

They produced a 20 minute video showing Obamas accomplishments. Narrated by Tom Hanks. I'm sure you can find it on YouTube

 

[teapartysamurai]

You don't give a shred of evidence to back anything you say up, where as I gave a ton of evidence.

And I didn't say it only started in 2007.

Bush tried more than once to reform Fannie and Freddie starting in 2001. Democrats blocked it every time. I already gave the evidence.

All you are giving is the ludicrous liberal talking points about tax cuts for the rich and your assumption tax hikes means more revenue to the government whereas tax cuts means less.

That could not be more untrue.

Case in point. The "surplus" that Clinton enjoyed in the 90s didn't happened until AFTER the Republicans took Congrss and they forced Clinton to cut Capital gains.

If you don't believe me, look at my Deficit/Surplus chart again and it will back up everything I say.

Samurai – Your prior post stated that the Democrats took the senate in 2007, before the downturn, as if that was the cause of the recession. I was just pointing out that it wasn’t the cause of the recession.

Also, I have nothing against tax cuts, so long is that they are well timed. Problem was that the Bush tax cuts weren’t well timed at all. After going to war, the President should have removed or suspended the tax cuts – it would have been the fiscally responsible thing to do. The government needs money in a time of war at that specific moment; not down the road, not in 20 years, but in that moment in time.

If the government doesn’t have the money to foot the bill for the war, it will run into debt, which is exactly what happened. Pair that with an exploding economy in 2007ish, and you end up with the massive amount of debt that we have today. Sure Obama is responsible for some of that debt, but the Bush Administration set the country up for failure.

Again, you are NOT stating fact, just your misinformed opinion.

I've already proved you are dead wrong, so why continue?

You know why you do? Because that's what libs do. When their arguments are blown away by the facts, they just double down and keep on blathering the same thing, as if their arguments haven't been defeated.

No matter how you try to claim you don't mind tax cuts, IT'S OBVIOUS YOU DO, and your points about that are WRONG and have already been PROVED WRONG.

NEXT!

 

[teapartysamurai]

You fail. The fact that many people point out the negatives with your guy does not erase the fact that we post positives about our guy. Your OP is shit. Try harder.

Yeah? Give me the Pro-Obama threads off the front page of this board?

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to post them.

I think we see who's posting is sh**!

:

All you do is start troll threads attacking liberals because you can't come up with any way to positively advocate for Romney,

 

[teapartysamurai]

So I'm also waiting for the Obama campaign ads that support his accomplishments during his three and 1/2 years as POTUS. 2 of which included a Democrat house and senate. Could someone please post a link or video of that ad??

They produced a 20 minute video showing Obamas accomplishments. Narrated by Tom Hanks. I'm sure you can find it on YouTube

You mean this one? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aR1ekUSfyU]Barack Obama, The Road We Really Traveled - YouTube[/ame]

The popups in the video come from legit sources and prove every thing in the video is a complete lie!