For Obama Supporters

[Mac1958]

.

Well, if we have to know what we're talking about, this board won't be ANY fun.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

Well, if we have to know what we're talking about, this board won't be ANY fun.

.

You may be right. But it would be refreshing if people would have some minimum standards for accuracy.

 

[candycorn]

Whenever Obama's numerous failure's are mentioned, the first liberal responses are usually to tell us that Obama's agenda has been obstructed by the Republicans and that is why he hasn't been successful. If in the unlikely event Obama were to be re-elected, how do you think that would change? The House will be held by the Republicans and the Senate may go Republican as well. Can any of you really want 4 more years of this economy?

We'll have largely the same economy regardless who the President is. The last Republican President delivered us a $700B bail out and what republicans now euphemistically refer to a "difficult situation". The previous Democrat had 8 years of peace and prosperity. So either a President has a magic wand or he doesn't right (SPOILER ALERT; He doesn't).

The only good thing we'd see is that if Romney were to get elected, the debt ceiling would be elevated whenever it suited him so we wouldn't have these high noon showdowns in a Romney administration. I will give you that. Republican "principles" are made of the same material that wind socks are made out of.

Back to your topic though; neither man will make much of a difference until Congress becomes a functional body once more. That won't happen until we change the rules in Congress which is to say, we need to write the rules for them. That won't happen until we realize living under a 225 year old document is pretty silly.

No, the only thing a President can really do is issue some orders and appoint some judges. I think a center-left administration is a way to go which is why I support Obama.

So you're not a fan of the U.S. Constitution? Somehow, that doesn't surprise me. My opinion is that we're in this much of a mess because we DIDN'T pay enough attention to following the constitution.

I actually am a huge fan of the Constitution. I do know that it is silent in some areas that now need amplification. The founders did not intend for political parties to become so domineering that the people's business does not get done. Harry Reid is a scumbag and basically has vetoed bills himself by not permitting votes. It's the same thing Mitch McConnell would be doing if the situation were reversed.

Being a fan of something or someone means knowing it or them. I know we need to further perfect the document to force Congress to work. There are plenty of ideas I have for that--

• Redistricting done by random draw of zip codes instead of party bosses drawing political boundaries
• Forcing a full up or down floor vote on any legislation passed by the other chamber within 60-90 days of such passage
• Forcing TV/Radio/Newspapers to offer free advertising to any federal-level elected post every 2 years; this would remove the need for Congressmen and women to raise such staggeringly high amounts of money.

But thank you for at least giving a real reason for you to support Obama. I think Romney would appoint judges more in line with the constitution but at least you have a reason.

I started 2 threads detailing that reason.

The whole issue is a crock of shit though--"in line with the constitution"...puh-leeze.; Look, Issac is hammering Louisiana at this point. Seven Years ago, it was Katrina. A few years after that, IKE effected my family down in Texas. Florida had 3 hurricanes hit it in a month or maybe it was one summer. South Carolina was hit hard by Andrew if I recall.

FEMA was on site in all these cases. For all it's flaws and imperfections, we're better off with FEMA than without it.

If you're a strict constitutionalist; FEMA would not exist. Neither would NASA.

Chew on that.

 

[Oldstyle]

.

Well, if we have to know what we're talking about, this board won't be ANY fun.

.

You may be right. But it would be refreshing if people would have some minimum standards for accuracy.

Do those minimum standards for accuracy apply to yourself, Lone?

You just accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about...without giving a single example of WHAT you think I'm so ignorant about. Would you care to back up your contention WITH some examples of my ignorance...or are you content to make sweeping statements?

 

[Oldstyle]

Your desire to get rid of the filibuster because you don't like the fact that it's been used to hold up legislation that folks of your political persuasion proposed shows me that you don't understand the purpose of the checks and balances that the Founding Fathers built into our political system. You talk about "me" not knowing what I'm talking about when in fact it's "you" that's speaking from an uniformed position.

 

[Warrior102]

I'm not voting for him....

Writing in Hitler hasn't worked so far for you - but do keep trying, shitbrain.

 

[driveby]

Do Obama supporters really want 4 more years of high unemployment, record deficits, high energy prices and constant uncertainty about the future?

yes. less you forget the mess we had pryor to Obama, losing 800k jobs a month. Does that ring a bell? The problem is while you an yell and scream about President Obama all day long, fact is you cant sit here and point out any Republican who has done a better job in the past 30 years.

Obama has little control over energy market that bows at the alter of speculation and hyperbole, we all lose in the energy market.

there is always uncertainty for the future, Obama has little to do with this fact.

Correct, the problems started surfacing right around early 2007, what happened to Congress in that approximate time frame? .......

 

[bobcollum]

I'm not voting for him....

Writing in Hitler hasn't worked so far for you - but do keep trying, shitbrain.

Shit, that was weak.

 

[healthmyths]

Do Obama supporters really want 4 more years of high unemployment, record deficits, high energy prices and constant uncertainty about the future?

yes. less you forget the mess we had pryor to Obama, losing 800k jobs a month. Does that ring a bell? The problem is while you an yell and scream about President Obama all day long, fact is you cant sit here and point out any Republican who has done a better job in the past 30 years.

Obama has little control over energy market that bows at the alter of speculation and hyperbole, we all lose in the energy market.

there is always uncertainty for the future, Obama has little to do with this fact.

You wrote: "you forget the mess we had pryor to Obama, losing 800k jobs a month"
BIGGEST FU...KING LIE!!!
FACT THAT IS THIS " 818,000 job loss that took place during his final month in office, January 2009."
ONE MONTH!!! WORST MONTH NOT EVERY MONTH AS YOU AND OTHER IDIOTS REPEAT!!!

FactCheck.org : Obama’s Economic Sleight of Hand

Obviously YOU'VE forgotten:
1) Dot.com bust cost $5 trillion in lost market value.. this means every year for 30 years now starting in 2000 the federal revenue is less then $166 billion written off against income taxes??? Was that Bush's fault?
2) Did YOU forget that 9/11 occurred and it cost $2 trillion over the next 30 years again $66 billion will NOT BE PAiD.. was that Bush's fault?
3) Worst hurricane SEASONS@@ cost $1 trillion in next 30 years another $33 billion in LOST tax revenue because businesses, roads, homes, etc. destroyed!

DO YOU understand NONE of that was Bush's fault! $266 billion a year in LOST federal revenue! DO YOU understand and NOT one dollar the fault of Bush!

NOW IN spite of that..
1) There WAS ONE MONTH
jobs end number of
of year (000) new workers % increase
2001...... 131,826 41 0.03% Dot.com bust, 9/11 occurred $5 trillion in real losses, 18,000 businesses
2002...... 130,341 -1,485 -1.13% 9/11 residual losses
2003...... 129,999 -342 -0.26% tax cuts began
2004...... 131,435 1,436 1.10%
2005...... 133,703 2,268 1.73%
2006...... 136,086 2,383 1.78%
2007...... 137,598 1,512 1.11%
2008...... 136,790 -808 -0.59%
2009...... 130,807 -5,983 -4.37% absolute worst losses in in 28 years!
2010...... 129,818 -989 -0.76%

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

Well, if we have to know what we're talking about, this board won't be ANY fun.

.

You may be right. But it would be refreshing if people would have some minimum standards for accuracy.

Do those minimum standards for accuracy apply to yourself, Lone?

You just accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about...without giving a single example of WHAT you think I'm so ignorant about. Would you care to back up your contention WITH some examples of my ignorance...or are you content to make sweeping statements?

Boring me to death by demanding that these inaccuracies be pointed out to you OVER AND OVER!!!!!

Your answer mystifies me, Wolf. Didn't Barack Obama HAVE super majorities when he took office?

NO! He did not have a fucking super majority when he took office. That is inaccurate.

The Four-Month Supermajority | The Washington Independent

What did he accomplish with those? Passage of a health care reform bill that doesn't cut health care costs?

Yes it does....according to those who know about these things. You are inaccurate.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1006571

Passage of a stimulus bill that didn't work?

The stimulus definitely worked. You are inaccurate.

Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject - The Washington Post

Passage of the GM bail out that leaves us holding stock that is worth half of what it was when we bought it?

You fail to mention that is saved our economy. Funny guy.

I'm sorry but Barry HAD his chance to fix things and he failed miserably.

He did not fail. You are not accurate.

As for getting rid of the filibuster? The Founding Fathers deliberately constructed our political system so that small majorities could not ram through legislation that they wanted over the objections of the minority party. Be careful what you call for. As much as you don't like it when the "other side" uses a filibuster against "your side" it is a protection to prevent the passage of extreme legislation. If you're pro-choice it is the thing that will protect Roe Vs Wade even if conservatives control the government.

The filibuster rules are determined by the Senate at the start of each Congressional Session. The founders had not envisioned this tool. It was not used until the 19th century.

A Brief History of Filibusters - TIME
You are wholly inaccurate.

 

[Immanuel]

whenever a republican problem is pointed out it is deflected back to the left.
Whenever a democrat problem is pointed out it is deflected back to the right.
Rarely are the actual topic discussed between opposing parties.

The right blocks the left, and the left blocks the right. Rare is it anyone works with anyone anymore or see's eye to eye on an issue. Thus why congress is below 10% approval, And yet they dont give a shit, and you people keep voting the same morons in everytime.

I hadn't gotten the idea that you had finally dumped the Democratic Party. I thought for sure that you were still one of the ones that would vote Obama and whatever Democrat appeared on your ticket come hell or high water.

So, are you really not planning on voting for the same morons this time around?

Immie

sigh these stupid questions are getting old. I didnt vote for Obama last time nor will i this time. Neither party holds my set of values. Its actually insulting this is the best you people can offer.

You people? Another racist liberal?

Um, the best we can do? I don't support either Romney or Obama so what the hell are you talking about.

Like I have said, I have never once seen you say anything negative against your liberal god. I'm surprised that you would make the comment that you won't be bowing down to the morons in Washington.

What is the matter? Obama didn't enslave Americans fast enough for you?

Immie