Sorry Republicans

[sealybobo]

No incumbent president dating to 1956 has lost when unemployment fell over the two years leading up to his re-election contest.

And none has won when the rate rose.

Unemployment was 9.8 percent in November 2010.

Last month, eight months before Election Day, the rate was 8.2 percent.

Swing-state unemployment down, Obama's chances up - York Dispatch

25 straight months of job growth | Democrats.org

I think the only reason polls show people trust Romney more than Obama when it comes to the economy is because a lot of them don't have all the information yet.

1. Romney and Bain Capital broke up companies and sent a lot of jobs overseas, and bankrupted a lot of pensions. People have baught into the concept that he was a sharp business man and Obama has never run a business. Big difference between running a country and running a business. A country is not For Profit. How does Romney plan on making a profit on social security? Ah! By bankrupting the government and giving it to corporations via tax breaks.

2. People need to remember in 2008 when the economy was bleeding 700,000 jobs a month, Romney said Michigan was just in a one state recession. The rest of the country he said was doing fine. McCain said the fundamentals of our economy were STRONG. Do we really want to go back to bleeding 700,000 jobs and have a president who doesn't realize the problem with that? Then vote Romney.

3. Republicans can't show any difference between Romney's policies and Bush's policies.



2.

 

[sealybobo]

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov

The same thing was true for Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Johnson, Nixon, Kennedy. Did you know that or are you one of the stupid voters this statistic works on?

 

[skookerasbil]

No incumbent president dating to 1956 has lost when unemployment fell over the two years leading up to his re-election contest.

And none has won when the rate rose.

Unemployment was 9.8 percent in November 2010.

Last month, eight months before Election Day, the rate was 8.2 percent.

Swing-state unemployment down, Obama's chances up - York Dispatch

LOL.........you're starting to see on this forum.............the people who are going to need some medication starting November 8th!! And its the usual suspects...........the ones who fall all over themselves finding links from the nether-regions of the internet and post it up like its conventional wisdom.


Whats a good analogy?



Its like Kate Hudson showing up at a "Best Boobs" contest and telling the audience, "its whats inside that counts!!!"

Chris................you're a fucking moron!!!!

 

[Trajan]

Why do they not count the people who fell of the unemployment because their benefits stopped. Because the numbers would be MUCH MUCH higher. IF you are TOO stupid to know this I feel sorry for you.

10,000 Americans a day are retiring.

Next.

you don't even know what you're posting....


so by that math or 'logic' when the LPR (labor force participation rate) hits 58% we will not have ANY unemployed.

Let me blow your mind some more- when a person retires do they get unemployment benefits? if not why and how is this all massaged into the UE rate and LPR.....does a 68 year old who has been retired for 3 years count?

 

[Liability]

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov

The same thing was true for Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Johnson, Nixon, Kennedy. Did you know that or are you one of the stupid voters this statistic works on?

silly bozo: you are suffering from delusions of adequacy.

What you just said makes zero sense in terms of "time" alone, you moron.

The FACT remains: This President is adding so massively to the debt and deficit, so quickly, that we are in very serious trouble. Real trouble, not just some cheap political theater cries of "oh nozie."

There is NO defense for this abysmal President's behavior.

 

[DaGoose]

No incumbent president dating to 1956 has lost when unemployment fell over the two years leading up to his re-election contest.

And none has won when the rate rose.

Unemployment was 9.8 percent in November 2010.

Last month, eight months before Election Day, the rate was 8.2 percent.

Swing-state unemployment down, Obama's chances up - York Dispatch

Thought for the Day



"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money, than what Barack Obama does with mine."

Outstanding!

Yup. It's outstanding that you guys are fine with Bush increasing spending to start wars with nations that posed absolutely no threat to us or anyone else. God forbid that we actually spend it on something that helps Americans.

Is it any wonder why the GOP is so out of touch with the average American?

 

[Liability]

Thought for the Day



"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money, than what Barack Obama does with mine."

Outstanding!

Yup. It's outstanding that you guys are fine with Bush increasing spending to start wars with nations that posed absolutely no threat to us or anyone else. God forbid that we actually spend it on something that helps Americans.

Is it any wonder why the GOP is so out of touch with the average American?

Zzzzzzzz.

President Bush "started" wars with nations that posed no threats?

Dayum. The political hackery is strong with you.

President Bush prosecuted some wars with nations that DID pose a threat to us and others. Congress authorized those wars, by the way.

You liberal Democratics are WAY the fuck out of touch with reality.

 

[old navy]

The telling number is the number of people who are actually employed. That number is the lowest in at least four decades. The present occupant of 1600 has made it desirable to live off the government teet. That of course is not sustainable. I have a house next door full of people living high on that government hog. A regular ol' Obamaville I tell ya.

 

[Full-Auto]

No incumbent president dating to 1956 has lost when unemployment fell over the two years leading up to his re-election contest.

And none has won when the rate rose.

Unemployment was 9.8 percent in November 2010.

Last month, eight months before Election Day, the rate was 8.2 percent.

Swing-state unemployment down, Obama's chances up - York Dispatch

Presidents are sworn in on Jan 20th, but they are stuck with budget of the previous president until almost the end of the year.

Obama added the cost of both wars and the true cost of the drugs for votes bill. Worse, the cost of health care for tens of thousands of American maimed in Iraq will also be assigned to Obama by the Republicans. More rotten legacy from that odious party.

Those costs were added to GWs term.

It is called debt. Meaning, ass wipe that Obama has outspent GW in less time.

 

[skookerasbil]

Shit............now even Zuckerman at USNews is saying this president is a disaster...................

Mort Zuckerman: President Obama's Economic Programs Have Failed - US News and World Report



Hey Chris you Bozo...........nobody reads THE YORK DISPATCH!!!

 

[The T]

Thought for the Day



"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money, than what Barack Obama does with mine."

Outstanding!

Yup. It's outstanding that you guys are fine with Bush increasing spending to start wars with nations that posed absolutely no threat to us or anyone else. God forbid that we actually spend it on something that helps Americans.

Is it any wonder why the GOP is so out of touch with the average American?

How's Obama doing trying to justify his 'Peace Prize'? And why did he IGNORE Congress with Libya?

 

[Lovebears65]

Outstanding!

Yup. It's outstanding that you guys are fine with Bush increasing spending to start wars with nations that posed absolutely no threat to us or anyone else. God forbid that we actually spend it on something that helps Americans.

Is it any wonder why the GOP is so out of touch with the average American?

Zzzzzzzz.

President Bush "started" wars with nations that posed no threats?

Dayum. The political hackery is strong with you.

President Bush prosecuted some wars with nations that DID pose a threat to us and others. Congress authorized those wars, by the way.

You liberal Democratics are WAY the fuck out of touch with reality.

I know right Lib.. As the Dems had the military go into Libya, UGANDA and now talking about Syria.. But, it is all ok because a Dem made that choice LOL

 

[DaGoose]

Outstanding!

Yup. It's outstanding that you guys are fine with Bush increasing spending to start wars with nations that posed absolutely no threat to us or anyone else. God forbid that we actually spend it on something that helps Americans.

Is it any wonder why the GOP is so out of touch with the average American?

Zzzzzzzz.

President Bush "started" wars with nations that posed no threats?

Dayum. The political hackery is strong with you.

President Bush prosecuted some wars with nations that DID pose a threat to us and others. Congress authorized those wars, by the way.

You liberal Democratics are WAY the fuck out of touch with reality.

Go ahead. Tell me what possible threat Iraq posed to us. Especially one that you can use to justify the deaths.

 

[Full-Auto]

Yup. It's outstanding that you guys are fine with Bush increasing spending to start wars with nations that posed absolutely no threat to us or anyone else. God forbid that we actually spend it on something that helps Americans.

Is it any wonder why the GOP is so out of touch with the average American?

Zzzzzzzz.

President Bush "started" wars with nations that posed no threats?

Dayum. The political hackery is strong with you.

President Bush prosecuted some wars with nations that DID pose a threat to us and others. Congress authorized those wars, by the way.

You liberal Democratics are WAY the fuck out of touch with reality.

I know right Lib.. As the Dems had the military go into Libya, UGANDA and now talking about Syria.. But, it is all ok because a Dem made that choice LOL

Just look at the way code pink is protesting now a days. Not a peep if democrats send our boys to war.

 

[Liability]

Yup. It's outstanding that you guys are fine with Bush increasing spending to start wars with nations that posed absolutely no threat to us or anyone else. God forbid that we actually spend it on something that helps Americans.

Is it any wonder why the GOP is so out of touch with the average American?

Zzzzzzzz.

President Bush "started" wars with nations that posed no threats?

Dayum. The political hackery is strong with you.

President Bush prosecuted some wars with nations that DID pose a threat to us and others. Congress authorized those wars, by the way.

You liberal Democratics are WAY the fuck out of touch with reality.

Go ahead. Tell me what possible threat Iraq posed to us. Especially one that you can use to justify the deaths.

Tell you?

Because this debate hasn't already been done to death?

Because you had an open mind the first few hundred times around?

Because if I repeat it AGAIN, suddenly, this time, you will open up your rigidly rusted-shut mind?

 

[DaGoose]

Yup. It's outstanding that you guys are fine with Bush increasing spending to start wars with nations that posed absolutely no threat to us or anyone else. God forbid that we actually spend it on something that helps Americans.

Is it any wonder why the GOP is so out of touch with the average American?

Zzzzzzzz.

President Bush "started" wars with nations that posed no threats?

Dayum. The political hackery is strong with you.

President Bush prosecuted some wars with nations that DID pose a threat to us and others. Congress authorized those wars, by the way.

You liberal Democratics are WAY the fuck out of touch with reality.

I know right Lib.. As the Dems had the military go into Libya, UGANDA and now talking about Syria.. But, it is all ok because a Dem made that choice LOL

You have two choices. Either show me ONE post that shows I supported those actions or admit you're a fucking liar.

 

[The T]

Zzzzzzzz.

President Bush "started" wars with nations that posed no threats?

Dayum. The political hackery is strong with you.

President Bush prosecuted some wars with nations that DID pose a threat to us and others. Congress authorized those wars, by the way.

You liberal Democratics are WAY the fuck out of touch with reality.

I know right Lib.. As the Dems had the military go into Libya, UGANDA and now talking about Syria.. But, it is all ok because a Dem made that choice LOL

Just look at the way code pink is protesting now a days. Not a peep if democrats send our boys to war.

Cindy Sheehan must be so disappointed...Oh, that's right? The Statists threw her to the ashbin of forgotten tools when her purpose was served.

 

[DaGoose]

Zzzzzzzz.

President Bush "started" wars with nations that posed no threats?

Dayum. The political hackery is strong with you.

President Bush prosecuted some wars with nations that DID pose a threat to us and others. Congress authorized those wars, by the way.

You liberal Democratics are WAY the fuck out of touch with reality.

Go ahead. Tell me what possible threat Iraq posed to us. Especially one that you can use to justify the deaths.

Tell you?

Because this debate hasn't already been done to death?

Because you had an open mind the first few hundred times around?

Because if I repeat it AGAIN, suddenly, this time, you will open up your rigidly rusted-shut mind?

Ok. You can't. I didn't think so.

 

[Liability]

Go ahead. Tell me what possible threat Iraq posed to us. Especially one that you can use to justify the deaths.

Tell you?

Because this debate hasn't already been done to death?

Because you had an open mind the first few hundred times around?

Because if I repeat it AGAIN, suddenly, this time, you will open up your rigidly rusted-shut mind?

Ok. You can't. I didn't think so.

Wrong again. Not only can I. But I have. And so have innumerable others.

And as I just finished noting, saying it again to a dork like you with your closed mind is quite obviously pointless.

 

[The T]

Yup. It's outstanding that you guys are fine with Bush increasing spending to start wars with nations that posed absolutely no threat to us or anyone else. God forbid that we actually spend it on something that helps Americans.

Is it any wonder why the GOP is so out of touch with the average American?

Zzzzzzzz.

President Bush "started" wars with nations that posed no threats?

Dayum. The political hackery is strong with you.

President Bush prosecuted some wars with nations that DID pose a threat to us and others. Congress authorized those wars, by the way.

You liberal Democratics are WAY the fuck out of touch with reality.

Go ahead. Tell me what possible threat Iraq posed to us. Especially one that you can use to justify the deaths.

How does Obama justify it, and Take credit for what HE was dead-set against?

Hypocrisy anyone?

Bueller?

Frye?