Obama Attacked From The Left

[PoliticalChic]

Ok, read the rest. Reagan doubled the debt. You guys are all over Obama for his spending. Did you miss that Reagan had to spend his way out of a recession?

How about we stick with the great RR for a moment, and remind you:

Paul Kengor wrote “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism”
1) Revenue as a result of Reagan Tax Cuts, $600 Billion -> $1 Trillion
2) Reagan inherited a $101 billion deficit from Carter, but it grew to $141 Billion after Reagan. Much of it was defense spending, and some historians feel that this should be considered war spending, since it was aimed at bringing the Soviet Union to the bargaining table.
3) Per Capita income increased from ’81-> ‘89
4) Reagan in top 10 Presidents in C-Span poll
5) Under Carter Foreign Policy, we handed Iran over to Ayotollah, and millions fell under condrol of Soviet Union;
6) In a poll, Russians felt that SDI caused the fall of the Soviet Union.

Let's put "Ron On The Rock!"

That would be Rushmore.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They're allowed to criticize but that should prove to you that the LMSM isn't all that Liberal. You Rs will have to find another excuse for losing elections.

Would the plural in "another excuse for losing elections" be due to math difficulties or short term memory?

 

[Sinatra]

They're allowed to criticize but that should prove to you that the LMSM isn't all that Liberal. You Rs will have to find another excuse for losing elections.

While the Republicans have much blame deservedly placed on themselves, the bias of the mainstream media is hardly disputed - even among those in the media.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased

 

[Sarah G]

I fully expect that Obama's numbers will drop.

They will continue to drop just so long as people are losing their jobs or scared to death about losing them.

It's about the ECONOMY, stupid. (this is directed at no one, of course, but merely parroting the Wm. Clinton campaign mantra)

It's ALWAYS about the economy when the economy is fibrilating.

I could EASILY see Obama numbers dropping into the 30s by 2011 if things don't improve on MAIN street..

The Dow is up, the Feds are saying we could be out of the recession by the end of the year.

Things are going splendedly.

Wingnuts are losiing it. They hare nervous because:

1. They're used to their presidents in failure mode..

2. They are naturally skittish. Democrats should just ignore their jitters and keep moving forward.

 

[Sarah G]

They're allowed to criticize but that should prove to you that the LMSM isn't all that Liberal. You Rs will have to find another excuse for losing elections.

Would the plural in "another excuse for losing elections" be due to math difficulties or short term memory?

Maybe yours.

Democrats won decidedly in both 2006 and 2008. Need a link?

 

[editec]

Goose-step. Oops. I guess you're a bit sensitive with that avatar.

Do you realize you just called Smedley Butler, a Marine General, a two time winner of the Medal of Honor, a man who stopped a coup against our government: a "goose stepper." You need to read your history young lady before you put your foot in it.

As to the blind goose stepping, I fear the message sailed above your far right head. Sensitive, no. Just amazed you would accuse the left of this after the display your elected officials put on of following the leader wherever they may go.

You are correct, I don't know who Smedley Butler is. Sorry, I thought it was you on Halloween.

Semper Fi and G-d Bless America.

You don't know who Smedley Butler is, and you're too damned ignornat to look it up and still you have the audacity to say Sempter Fi?

STFU, you sunshine patriot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans lost the election for a damn good reason. They did a great job of protecting their corporate buddies and running the economy into the ground.

Darn those Democrat talking points.

Economy under President Bush included a historical record of over 52 months of job creation. The average deficit was $250 Billlon, even considering two wars, a Clinton recession, and - you may have missed it- a terrorist attack that killed 3000 of our brothers and sisters.

The economy fell apart when Democrat policy, of CRA, Fannie and Freddie, Clinton HUD policy, Dodd and Frank, caught up with us.

You're welcome.

 

[Sinatra]

Ok, read the rest. Reagan doubled the debt. You guys are all over Obama for his spending. Did you miss that Reagan had to spend his way out of a recession?

How about we stick with the great RR for a moment, and remind you:

Paul Kengor wrote “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism”
1) Revenue as a result of Reagan Tax Cuts, $600 Billion -> $1 Trillion
2) Reagan inherited a $101 billion deficit from Carter, but it grew to $141 Billion after Reagan. Much of it was defense spending, and some historians feel that this should be considered war spending, since it was aimed at bringing the Soviet Union to the bargaining table.
3) Per Capita income increased from ’81-> ‘89
4) Reagan in top 10 Presidents in C-Span poll
5) Under Carter Foreign Policy, we handed Iran over to Ayotollah, and millions fell under condrol of Soviet Union;
6) In a poll, Russians felt that SDI caused the fall of the Soviet Union.

Let's put "Ron On The Rock!"

That would be Rushmore.

Amen - and to those who are actually paying attention to the marked shift in the White House message over the course of the last week - Obama Inc. is sounding far more like Reagan than Carter, or even Clinton. Reagan is the blueprint for the modern American president, and as much as liberals cringe at that thought, (just as they cringe at success in general) such is the reality.

I can stomach an Obamized version of Reagan until a true Reaganite emerges - just such an Obama is proof of Reagan's continued impact on this nation. Anyone catch how many times Obama has repeated the mantra of tax cuts over the last 72 hours? Remarkable!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You don't know who Smedley Butler is, and you're too damned ignornat to look it up and still you have the audacity to say Sempter Fi?

STFU, you sunshine patriot.

Wow, I really got to you yesterday when I ripped your alleged argument apart, and then deconstructed you personally, didn't I? Are we upset?

Can you say "hit a nerve"?

So, what is "ignornat"? Do you mean a gnat? Or that I should ignore it? Do you have a first language?

Now, temper, temper. You know what the doctor said about blood pressure at your age.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They're allowed to criticize but that should prove to you that the LMSM isn't all that Liberal. You Rs will have to find another excuse for losing elections.

Would the plural in "another excuse for losing elections" be due to math difficulties or short term memory?

Maybe yours.

Democrats won decidedly in both 2006 and 2008. Need a link?

Good one! You weren't talking about your messiah?

 

[rayboyusmc]

Sorry, I thought it was you on Halloween.

Hell no. I like to reealllllly scare the little tots. I dress up as a Republican.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How about we stick with the great RR for a moment, and remind you:

Paul Kengor wrote “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism”
1) Revenue as a result of Reagan Tax Cuts, $600 Billion -> $1 Trillion
2) Reagan inherited a $101 billion deficit from Carter, but it grew to $141 Billion after Reagan. Much of it was defense spending, and some historians feel that this should be considered war spending, since it was aimed at bringing the Soviet Union to the bargaining table.
3) Per Capita income increased from ’81-> ‘89
4) Reagan in top 10 Presidents in C-Span poll
5) Under Carter Foreign Policy, we handed Iran over to Ayotollah, and millions fell under condrol of Soviet Union;
6) In a poll, Russians felt that SDI caused the fall of the Soviet Union.

Let's put "Ron On The Rock!"

That would be Rushmore.

Amen - and to those who are actually paying attention to the marked shift in the White House message over the course of the last week - Obama Inc. is sounding far more like Reagan than Carter, or even Clinton. Reagan is the blueprint for the modern American president, and as much as liberals cringe at that thought, (just as they cringe at success in general) such is the reality.

I can stomach an Obamized version of Reagan until a true Reaganite emerges - just such an Obama is proof of Reagan's continued impact on this nation. Anyone catch how many times Obama has repeated the mantra of tax cuts over the last 72 hours? Remarkable!

I think that they share an ability to speak, to communicate frankly.

It does take some of the blush off the rose when the current President needs his teleprompter at all times, though.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry, I thought it was you on Halloween.

Hell no. I like to reealllllly scare the little tots. I dress up as a Republican.

Speaking of the little ones, next time the ball lands in your yard, come on, give it back.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Republicans lost the election for a damn good reason. They did a great job of protecting their corporate buddies and running the economy into the ground.

Darn those Democrat talking points.

Economy under President Bush included a historical record of over 52 months of job creation. The average deficit was $250 Billlon, even considering two wars, a Clinton recession, and - you may have missed it- a terrorist attack that killed 3000 of our brothers and sisters.

The economy fell apart when Democrat policy, of CRA, Fannie and Freddie, Clinton HUD policy, Dodd and Frank, caught up with us.

You're welcome.

Wake up Ms Brooklyn. The economy fell apart with Bush.

 

[Sarah G]

Would the plural in "another excuse for losing elections" be due to math difficulties or short term memory?

Maybe yours.

Democrats won decidedly in both 2006 and 2008. Need a link?

Good one! You weren't talking about your messiah?

There are 3 equal branches... 2 are Democratic, we're looking for that third.

 

[Sinatra]

Amen - and to those who are actually paying attention to the marked shift in the White House message over the course of the last week - Obama Inc. is sounding far more like Reagan than Carter, or even Clinton. Reagan is the blueprint for the modern American president, and as much as liberals cringe at that thought, (just as they cringe at success in general) such is the reality.

I can stomach an Obamized version of Reagan until a true Reaganite emerges - just such an Obama is proof of Reagan's continued impact on this nation. Anyone catch how many times Obama has repeated the mantra of tax cuts over the last 72 hours? Remarkable!

I think that they share an ability to speak, to communicate frankly.

It does take some of the blush off the rose when the current President needs his teleprompter at all times, though.

Agreed - that dependence is among the oddest things seen in a politician at this level in some time.

In the arena of wit and affability, Obama pales next to Reagan. Reagan was well rehearsed as was his personal experience as an actor, but he also had the ability to pull from his many decades of experience to dismantle a political opponent or tough media personality quickly and thus gain the upper hand. He did this time and again.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqc&feature=related]YouTube - Ronald Reagan`s Funny answer[/ame]

Obama has nowhere near that ability. He gives good speech, but even that is starting to ring hollow with an increasing number. Now he must actually lead, and to this point, he has proven not quite up to that task, and has given far too much deference to the leftists in the Democrat Congress to form policy since the election.

He might rise to the occassion though - so I am not giving up on the kid just yet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans lost the election for a damn good reason. They did a great job of protecting their corporate buddies and running the economy into the ground.

Darn those Democrat talking points.

Economy under President Bush included a historical record of over 52 months of job creation. The average deficit was $250 Billlon, even considering two wars, a Clinton recession, and - you may have missed it- a terrorist attack that killed 3000 of our brothers and sisters.

The economy fell apart when Democrat policy, of CRA, Fannie and Freddie, Clinton HUD policy, Dodd and Frank, caught up with us.

You're welcome.

Wake up Ms Brooklyn. The economy fell apart with Bush.

That would be Mrs. Brooklyn, to you.

Now, my post only has imprort if you memory goes back further than 6 months. The CRA is late '70's, so its way beyond your mental abilities, but try this: McCain was ahead of candidate Obama before the financial meltdown. That would be abour six months, can you remember that far back?

Prior to that and for the greatest part of the Bush Administration, the economy seemed to be chuggin' along.

The economy fell apart under President Bush, true, but the provenance was Democrat policy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe yours.

Democrats won decidedly in both 2006 and 2008. Need a link?

Good one! You weren't talking about your messiah?

There are 3 equal branches... 2 are Democratic, we're looking for that third.

I think you've got your finger on it, and it is a scary thought.

I didn't agree with many of President Bush's moves, but the basic reason for voting for him was the Supreme Court.

His two picks may have saved this country.

It appears that President Obame may be picking replacements for the Liberal members- at least that is my fervent hope.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think that they share an ability to speak, to communicate frankly.

It does take some of the blush off the rose when the current President needs his teleprompter at all times, though.

Agreed - that dependence is among the oddest things seen in a politician at this level in some time.

In the arena of wit and affability, Obama pales next to Reagan. Reagan was well rehearsed as was his personal experience as an actor, but he also had the ability to pull from his many decades of experience to dismantle a political opponent or tough media personality quickly and thus gain the upper hand. He did this time and again.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqc&feature=related]YouTube - Ronald Reagan`s Funny answer[/ame]

Obama has nowhere near that ability. He gives good speech, but even that is starting to ring hollow with an increasing number. Now he must actually lead, and to this point, he has proven not quite up to that task, and has given far too much deference to the leftists in the Democrat Congress to form policy since the election.

He might rise to the occassion though - so I am not giving up on the kid just yet.

I think you are right about the experience. If the President had the years in front of large audiences he might also be able to learn to have similar ability.

In general, the impatience of our liberal friends is what gives us a President with such a thin resume. And those surrounding him seem not to have made up for this.

Some might even be yearning for a certain Sec'y of State instead.

 

[Sinatra]

[/B]

Agreed - that dependence is among the oddest things seen in a politician at this level in some time.

In the arena of wit and affability, Obama pales next to Reagan. Reagan was well rehearsed as was his personal experience as an actor, but he also had the ability to pull from his many decades of experience to dismantle a political opponent or tough media personality quickly and thus gain the upper hand. He did this time and again.

YouTube - Ronald Reagan`s Funny answer

Obama has nowhere near that ability. He gives good speech, but even that is starting to ring hollow with an increasing number. Now he must actually lead, and to this point, he has proven not quite up to that task, and has given far too much deference to the leftists in the Democrat Congress to form policy since the election.

He might rise to the occassion though - so I am not giving up on the kid just yet.

I think you are right about the experience. If the President had the years in front of large audiences he might also be able to learn to have similar ability.

In general, the impatience of our liberal friends is what gives us a President with such a thin resume. And those surrounding him seem not to have made up for this.

Some might even be yearning for a certain Sec'y of State instead.[/QUOTE]

Very true! Some of my former colleagues who are life-long liberals (take pity on them!) were intially repeating "Well he has to clean up Bush's mess..." or some version of that basic message.

That has since changed to, "Hopefully the president is up to the job - Hillary might have been a better choice at this particular time..."

That is a significant shift coming from a group that is entrenched in the obsessively liberal world of academia!