Stop Bashing Our President, Barack Obama

[Oddball]

Stop Bashing Our President, Buckwheat Obama

Request denied.

 

[csbarry]

Was that supposed to make any sense? Any time someone even says a word to Obama, his goons come out in sack clothe and ashes claiming racism, treason, and intended violence toward their beloved "messiah."

Obama can't even talk without the help of a teleprompter, and liberal over look that and think it's some kind of sign of stupidity that Palin used notes on her palm.

When Palin needs the SEIU beating up people, and a teleprompters to speak let me know. Until then, that's Obama.

And yet he's till 10 times better than the Chimp....maybe the US needs to get better pollies....

Yeah we can tell how much "better" Obama is from Bush by judging the differences between unemployment numbers.

Yeah right!

I can't wait for liberals to tell me it's all Bush's fault for Obama's unemployment numbers.

That's like Bush letting Clinton take credit for Bush's LOW unemployment stats.

Remember when unemployment was 4.6 YET liberals called it a "jobless recovery?"

Now we are at 10.2 (and in Ohio it's much worse) and liberals say the economy is picking up?

What a load of crap!



Give me a break.

I think you're a little confused. I'll admit that the NAFTA was not Bill Clintons finest moment, however, economically speaking the Country was in much better shape economically when he left office than when he took it. Along comes G. W. and almost from the instant he took office our economy began a steady decline. From my point of view, G. W. is the major architect of our Country's economic woes.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah we can tell how much "better" Obama is from Bush by judging the differences between unemployment numbers.

Yeah right!

I can't wait for liberals to tell me it's all Bush's fault for Obama's unemployment numbers.

That's like Bush letting Clinton take credit for Bush's LOW unemployment stats.

Remember when unemployment was 4.6 YET liberals called it a "jobless recovery?"

Now we are at 10.2 (and in Ohio it's much worse) and liberals say the economy is picking up?

What a load of crap!



Give me a break.

 

[teapartysamurai]

And yet he's till 10 times better than the Chimp....maybe the US needs to get better pollies....

Yeah we can tell how much "better" Obama is from Bush by judging the differences between unemployment numbers.

Yeah right!

I can't wait for liberals to tell me it's all Bush's fault for Obama's unemployment numbers.

That's like Bush letting Clinton take credit for Bush's LOW unemployment stats.

Remember when unemployment was 4.6 YET liberals called it a "jobless recovery?"

Now we are at 10.2 (and in Ohio it's much worse) and liberals say the economy is picking up?

What a load of crap!



Give me a break.

I think you're a little confused. I'll admit that the NAFTA was not Bill Clintons finest moment, however, economically speaking the Country was in much better shape economically when he left office than when he took it. Along comes G. W. and almost from the instant he took office our economy began a steady decline. From my point of view, G. W. is the major architect of our Country's economic woes.

Um, hello, asside from even trying to help you take in the reality of the dot.com bubble burst, the fact is we were in a recession when Bill Clinton left office.

It's also true that when unemployment was at 5.6 under Clinton the liberal media made it out like paradise.

When unemployment was at 4.6 under Bush, the liberal media called it a "jobless recovery."

Asside from that, you can't ignore who controlled Congress for each president.

Until Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, the Clinton admin CBO predicted deficits for at least 10 years AFTER Clinton took office AND we were definitely in a recession.

That didn't change until Republicans took control in 1995 and forced Clinton to do what Bush (41) had told the then Democrat controlled Congress what needed to be done -- that was CUT CAPITAL GAINS TAXES YOU MORONS.

What do you know, it worked.

The economy greatly improved under the Republicans despite Clinton's objections to welfare reform and Capital gains cuts. When it worked, Clinton took credit for them in the 1996 elections DESPITE the fact the only reason he signed into law was Republicans threated to embarass him with an override vote.

Conversely, the economy under Bush despite starting with a deficit and the worst attack on American soil ever (9/11) was doing so well, that Bush could accurately boast full employment (4.6).

That didn't change UNTIL Democrats took control in 2006 where upon the economy started to slide.

Bush certainly deserves part of the blame. He should have NEVER signed TARP. It was a bad idea and certainly was the first small push of what was to become the rise of the tea party movement (of which I am now part). (Yes, I called my Congressman and Senators and told them not to vote for TARP)

However, to put all the blame for EXTREMELY BAD leadership from Obama on Bush is ludicrous. Bush hasn't been president since 2008/the very begnning of 2009. Obama has had a year and two months.

Obama is fully in control and is fully responsible for the country.

Liberals can keep on trying to say it's all Bush's fault, but it makes about as much sense as what Hitler did. Hitler blamed the bad economy on the Jews.

The Nazis and the liberals have one thing in common. They are stupid enough to believe such a lame excuse.

 

[Dr Grump]

Um, hello, asside from even trying to help you take in the reality of the dot.com bubble burst, the fact is we were in a recession when Bill Clinton left office.

It's also true that when unemployment was at 5.6 under Clinton the liberal media made it out like paradise.

When unemployment was at 4.6 under Bush, the liberal media called it a "jobless recovery."

Asside from that, you can't ignore who controlled Congress for each president.

Until Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, the Clinton admin CBO predicted deficits for at least 10 years AFTER Clinton took office AND we were definitely in a recession.

That didn't change until Republicans took control in 1995 and forced Clinton to do what Bush (41) had told the then Democrat controlled Congress what needed to be done -- that was CUT CAPITAL GAINS TAXES YOU MORONS.

What do you know, it worked.

The economy greatly improved under the Republicans despite Clinton's objections to welfare reform and Capital gains cuts. When it worked, Clinton took credit for them in the 1996 elections DESPITE the fact the only reason he signed into law was Republicans threated to embarass him with an override vote.

Conversely, the economy under Bush despite starting with a deficit and the worst attack on American soil ever (9/11) was doing so well, that Bush could accurately boast full employment (4.6).

That didn't change UNTIL Democrats took control in 2006 where upon the economy started to slide.

Bush certainly deserves part of the blame. He should have NEVER signed TARP. It was a bad idea and certainly was the first small push of what was to become the rise of the tea party movement (of which I am now part). (Yes, I called my Congressman and Senators and told them not to vote for TARP)

However, to put all the blame for EXTREMELY BAD leadership from Obama on Bush is ludicrous. Bush hasn't been president since 2008/the very begnning of 2009. Obama has had a year and two months.

Obama is fully in control and is fully responsible for the country.

Liberals can keep on trying to say it's all Bush's fault, but it makes about as much sense as what Hitler did. Hitler blamed the bad economy on the Jews.

The Nazis and the liberals have one thing in common. They are stupid enough to believe such a lame excuse.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Um, hello, asside from even trying to help you take in the reality of the dot.com bubble burst, the fact is we were in a recession when Bill Clinton left office.

It's also true that when unemployment was at 5.6 under Clinton the liberal media made it out like paradise.

When unemployment was at 4.6 under Bush, the liberal media called it a "jobless recovery."

Asside from that, you can't ignore who controlled Congress for each president.

Until Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, the Clinton admin CBO predicted deficits for at least 10 years AFTER Clinton took office AND we were definitely in a recession.

That didn't change until Republicans took control in 1995 and forced Clinton to do what Bush (41) had told the then Democrat controlled Congress what needed to be done -- that was CUT CAPITAL GAINS TAXES YOU MORONS.

What do you know, it worked.

The economy greatly improved under the Republicans despite Clinton's objections to welfare reform and Capital gains cuts. When it worked, Clinton took credit for them in the 1996 elections DESPITE the fact the only reason he signed into law was Republicans threated to embarass him with an override vote.

Conversely, the economy under Bush despite starting with a deficit and the worst attack on American soil ever (9/11) was doing so well, that Bush could accurately boast full employment (4.6).

That didn't change UNTIL Democrats took control in 2006 where upon the economy started to slide.

Bush certainly deserves part of the blame. He should have NEVER signed TARP. It was a bad idea and certainly was the first small push of what was to become the rise of the tea party movement (of which I am now part). (Yes, I called my Congressman and Senators and told them not to vote for TARP)

However, to put all the blame for EXTREMELY BAD leadership from Obama on Bush is ludicrous. Bush hasn't been president since 2008/the very begnning of 2009. Obama has had a year and two months.

Obama is fully in control and is fully responsible for the country.

Liberals can keep on trying to say it's all Bush's fault, but it makes about as much sense as what Hitler did. Hitler blamed the bad economy on the Jews.

The Nazis and the liberals have one thing in common. They are stupid enough to believe such a lame excuse.

When you can't refute, just stick your fingers in your ears and scream. It won't make you look more intelligent, but it keeps you from gettin' confused by all those darn inconvenient facts.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Yeah we can tell how much "better" Obama is from Bush by judging the differences between unemployment numbers.

Yeah right!

I can't wait for liberals to tell me it's all Bush's fault for Obama's unemployment numbers.

That's like Bush letting Clinton take credit for Bush's LOW unemployment stats.

Remember when unemployment was 4.6 YET liberals called it a "jobless recovery?"

Now we are at 10.2 (and in Ohio it's much worse) and liberals say the economy is picking up?

What a load of crap!



Give me a break.

Never had a job in the first place, huh?

 

[AquaAthena]

We voted for Barack Obama because he promised to take care of us. Our people, Obama's people, were enslaved by whites and forced to do labor for the white man. Now, generations later, we finally are going to be provided for because of what our ancestors did to build this nation. It's not reparations, it's simply fair. If I ask for a home, utilities and food, this is a basic set of necesssities my nation should provide for me. People who talk about "workfare" want to enslave us again. I know what my ancestors did. I know what they provided. That was their legacy, and now they can rest knowing their progeny can benefit because of their efforts and enslavement. Is that so difficult to understand? Obama promised me medical care, and he lived up to his promise. For each of my four children there is a promise that they can finally enjoy America without the fundamental concern of having to scrape out a living in a tough economy, knowing our President will provide us shelter, food, medical care and at least a little spending money for the simple things we want and need. This is a good thing, and I am proud finally to be an American citizen. The rich don't need all their money and Obama is seeing to it that the rich are punished for their greed and I am rewarded for my family's service to this great, wonderful country. God Bless America, and Praise Allah and Praise President Barack H. Obama. Love Him!

Don't forget to bow??

"In an exclusive Newsmax interview, top-rated Fox News host Bill O’Reilly says President Barack Obama is turning the U.S. into a “nanny state” providing cradle-to-grave entitlements — a vision that will weaken the country. He also reveals why Fox beats CNN and MSNBC so badly in the ratings."

Newsmax - Newsmax.com - Breaking News, Politics, Commentary

 

[Dr Grump]

When you can't refute, just stick your fingers in your ears and scream. It won't make you look more intelligent, but it keeps you from gettin' confused by all those darn inconvenient facts.

No, it's called having these arguments over and over again, easily refuting them, and can't be bothered doing so again..

...maybe you should come up with something original so as to stimulate discussion instead of the same old boring shit....

 

[Dr Grump]

Never had a job in the first place, huh?

Yeah, that must be it...

 

[007]

Well it certainly wasn't the Indians.

It wasn't the Indians who enslaved them either.

Ah... grump. Your comment was, "so the blacks should thank whitey for "freeing" the slaves?" There was no comment about who "ENslaved" them. So yes, it was "whitey" who freed the slaves. First we enslaved them, then we freed them. So my comment, "well it certainly wasn't the Indians," although a joke, was also accurate.

But hey, maybe the Jews should ask the Germans for reparations.

No, using your analogy, the Jews should pay reparations to the Russians, Brits and Yanks for saving them....

You got shit going ass backwards here pard. We have a little miss communication goin' on.

 

[teapartysamurai]

When you can't refute, just stick your fingers in your ears and scream. It won't make you look more intelligent, but it keeps you from gettin' confused by all those darn inconvenient facts.

No, it's called having these arguments over and over again, easily refuting them, and can't be bothered doing so again..

...maybe you should come up with something original so as to stimulate discussion instead of the same old boring shit....

Yeah yeah yeah, liberals can sooooooooooo easily refute these arguments. That's why they never bother to do it, they just throw around names. I mean facts are soooooooooooooooooooo borning to those who's minds are made up and don't want to be confused by the facts.

 

[driveby]

There's not much FREEDOM nor OPPORTUNITY to those in the need of and without access to proper health care.

We are all free to get access to proper healthcare..........

 

[Douger]

That's just Sarge signed in as someone else.
Pyromaniac

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

When you can't refute, just stick your fingers in your ears and scream. It won't make you look more intelligent, but it keeps you from gettin' confused by all those darn inconvenient facts.

No, it's called having these arguments over and over again, easily refuting them, and can't be bothered doing so again..

...maybe you should come up with something original so as to stimulate discussion instead of the same old boring shit....

Yeah yeah yeah, liberals can sooooooooooo easily refute these arguments. That's why they never bother to do it, they just throw around names. I mean facts are soooooooooooooooooooo borning to those who's minds are made up and don't want to be confused by the facts.

Wow did DR Grump just lose an argument.....again....

 

[AquaAthena]

The only person who will enslave you is Obama so get use to saying Yes Master again because you are now living on Obama's Plantation.

Are the slavery comments really necessary? All you're doing is showing yourself to be ignorant while pouring on gasoline on the troll's flames.

The slavery comments are not mentioned in jest here, Dog.

All socialism involves slavery. That which fundamentally distinguishes the slave is that he labours under coercion to satisfy anothers desires. -- Herbert Spencer

I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system. --Noam Chomsky [a self-declared anarcho-syndicalist and socialist.]

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Joke threat alert!

 

[teapartysamurai]

No, it's called having these arguments over and over again, easily refuting them, and can't be bothered doing so again..

...maybe you should come up with something original so as to stimulate discussion instead of the same old boring shit....

Yeah yeah yeah, liberals can sooooooooooo easily refute these arguments. That's why they never bother to do it, they just throw around names. I mean facts are soooooooooooooooooooo borning to those who's minds are made up and don't want to be confused by the facts.

Wow did DR Grump just lose an argument.....again....

He was arguing? News to me. Looked to me like he was attacking someone he COUDLN'T argue with.

 

[teapartysamurai]

The only person who will enslave you is Obama so get use to saying Yes Master again because you are now living on Obama's Plantation.

Are the slavery comments really necessary? All you're doing is showing yourself to be ignorant while pouring on gasoline on the troll's flames.

The slavery comments are not mentioned in jest here, Dog.

All socialism involves slavery. That which fundamentally distinguishes the slave is that he labours under coercion to satisfy anothers desires. -- Herbert Spencer

I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system. --Noam Chomsky [a self-declared anarcho-syndicalist and socialist.]

Amen to that. That's the point of "Animal Farm" (and ironically Orwell was a committed socialist)

Socialism is basically serfdom, and serfdom is slavery.

 

[Intense]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four