The Man's Ego Knows No Bounds

[Conservative65]

OP- BS- That's the new guy. Obama's problem was he couldn't persuade mindless, bought off swine to do the right thing...

Obama had no leadership skills or experience, hence his failures.

McConnell and his drones wouldn't be led period. Nor would the brainwashed ( 50% racist) dupes...

Obama was not a leader. When you have to mandate something like Obamacare that is supposedly so good, tells me it's not worth a shit.

 

[The Original Tree]

105 Million on Foodstamps
93 Million Out of Work and not even counted in The Unemployment Statistics because their benefits are exhausted.
Record Poverty for Children not seen since The Great Depression.
Crime rates for violent crimes up 10% in "Liberal Strongholds"
Record debt created by The Obama Administration which represents more than the combined debt of every single administration added together since George Washington.
1% average GDP growth over 8 years.
250 Billion a year being paid just in Interest on The National Debt.
20 Trillion Dollar National Debt in an 18 Trillion Dollar Economy.
A steady and purposeful erosion of our manufacturing base over 8 years, while China's economy booms with 6%-10% growth yearly in manufacturing job gains.
Record number of Law Enforcement Deaths.
Record number of Riots, and entire cities in flames.
The Rise of ISIS and 500,000 killed
Record number of foreclosures.
Record number of business closings.
Record Cost Increases in Health Care.

Pure crap, like your spectrum, dupe. Best economy in the world DESPITE GOP- obstructed everything O wanted.

"O" stands for Lefty Orgasm.
Has Obama done anything WRONG in your eyes?
Of course not. But fap on, lefty. Fap on.

 

[The Original Tree]

105 Million on Foodstamps
93 Million Out of Work and not even counted in The Unemployment Statistics because their benefits are exhausted.
Record Poverty for Children not seen since The Great Depression.
Crime rates for violent crimes up 10% in "Liberal Strongholds"
Record debt created by The Obama Administration which represents more than the combined debt of every single administration added together since George Washington.
1% average GDP growth over 8 years.
250 Billion a year being paid just in Interest on The National Debt.
20 Trillion Dollar National Debt in an 18 Trillion Dollar Economy.
A steady and purposeful erosion of our manufacturing base over 8 years, while China's economy booms with 6%-10% growth yearly in manufacturing job gains.
Record number of Law Enforcement Deaths.
Record number of Riots, and entire cities in flames.
The Rise of ISIS and 500,000 killed
Record number of foreclosures.
Record number of business closings.
Record Cost Increases in Health Care.

Pure crap, like your spectrum, dupe. Best economy in the world DESPITE GOP- obstructed everything O wanted.

Please feel free to look up and refute each point I made. I can tell you with certainty that these are indeed verifiable facts.
Obama's Legacy is a Lie.
He is a liar, and those that defend his lies are liars.

Your stats are bs spin...80%+ of Obama's debt used to avert ANOTHER corrupt GOP depression- still 300 billion +/year for assistance to victims. Many BB's have retired. Your #'s are all about W's meltdown and GOP obstruction, and lies. Health cost rises have bent down. Reaganism rolls on.

Exactly how is "The Recession" a GOP recession when the Democrats had a Veto Proof Majority in The House and Senate for the last two years of Bush's Presidency, and held a Super Majority for the first two years of Obama's Presidency?

Care to explain that?

It's Congress that legislates and regulates, and authorizes spending. And Congress was controlled by The Dems both The House and Senate from 2006-2010, even giving Obama a Super Majority for some time.

Bush was powerless to stop The Dems his last two years when they began assaulting our economy, and continued to do so in Obama's first two years.

The GOP was powerless to stop Obama and the Dems the first two years of Obama's presidency and did not gain sufficient numbers to do anything in Congress until about two years ago, so The Dems effectively had control of Government from 2006-2014, and still had the Presidency, and all the Agency, Bureau, Department, and Regulatory control still from 2014 until present.

The Dems basically set the tone for the economy and the country and controlled the our Government for 10 Consecutive Years, from 2006 until now. And what we have to show for it is 1% GDP growth, and 20 Trillion in National Debt, and Out of control Healthcare costs, and more divisiveness than has ever been seen in this nation since The Civil War. But worse yet, the complete fracturing of trust the public has in The Main Stream Media.

Obama leaves us with a broken government, broken foreign policy, broken healthcare system, and just flat broke.

He's Fred Sanford of Sanford & Sons, only if he had a son, he'd like like a street thug trying to bash your brains in.

He is King of The Junkyard. That is what he turned America in to.

There is his legacy.

 

[Moonglow]

“I take some responsibility for that,” he admits before shifting instantly to how he wasn’t really responsible, having inherited an economy brutalized by the financial crisis, etc etc. I’d be curious to hear him explain, in detail, where he thinks his share of the blame lies. Stephanopoulos doesn’t press him on it, which may be a symptom of his Democratic sympathies or, more charitably, may be due to him suspecting that Obama would have only given a self-serving answer anyway. You’re never going to hear O say that it was a dumb idea to pass a massive health-care reform bill that was unpopular from day one on a strict party-line vote. The most you’ll get from him is something along the lines of “I overestimated how ready the country was for the sort of forward-looking change I’m interested in.” He was simply too far ahead of his time, and thus must America take a detour into “the wrong side of history” before realizing that Obama was right all along.

The funniest part of this answer is how it develops, of course, into him extolling his own abilities. “Partly because my docket was really full here, I couldn’t be both chief organizer of the Democratic Party and function as commander in chief and president of the United States,” he told Stephanopoulos. “We did not begin what I think needs to happen over the long haul, and that is rebuild the Democratic Party at the ground level.” If only he’d been able to juggle both roles, president and “chief organizer” (whatever that means), the Democratic Party wouldn’t have lost a thousand farking seats at the federal and state level since 2009? I don’t know how to read that answer except as him saying (a) the current “chief organizers” of the party are utter incompetents and (b) there’s no problem with the Democratic Party that a little more Barack Obama couldn’t have cured.

Obama: I can’t help feeling that I’m partly responsible for my party being destroyed - Hot Air

Trump does the same, where is the article on that 411?

 

[Slade3200]

I vote on both sides of the isle and I respect both liberal and conservative viewpoints. I also believe that the majority of people regardless of party seek the smart and effective answers to problems. Often the best course involves strategies from both ideologies.

Oh, a wishy washy fence rider?

A realist... Not a blind partisan... You absolutists are comical

Don't make the mistake of thinking because I've realized conservatism is the best way and liberalism provides nothing worthwhile makes me a partisan. It makes me intelligent. A partisan is one that doesn't look at anything but the name. Big difference in that and knowing what does an doesn't work.

So do you believe that there should be no public education? No social security or healthcare for our elderly?

I believe what the Constitution says. Public education is not mentioned in the Constitution. That makes it a STATE matter. If STATE'S choose to do it, it's Constitutional. Social Security and Medicare are not mentioned in the Constitution. If a STATE chooses to put such a program in place for their people, the Constitution says it's within that STATE'S authority.

Whether those programs come from the Feds or the states, they are still liberal in nature. So I'll ask again, do you support public education, and gov programs that help the elderly?

 

[BluesLegend]

OP- BS- That's the new guy. Obama's problem was he couldn't persuade mindless, bought off swine to do the right thing...

Obama had no leadership skills or experience, hence his failures.

McConnell and his drones wouldn't be led period. Nor would the brainwashed ( 50% racist) dupes...

Obama was not a leader. When you have to mandate something like Obamacare that is supposedly so good, tells me it's not worth a shit.

That is so true of most liberal policies, they are so popular they have to force compliance with threats and fines.

 

[Conservative65]

Oh, a wishy washy fence rider?

A realist... Not a blind partisan... You absolutists are comical

Don't make the mistake of thinking because I've realized conservatism is the best way and liberalism provides nothing worthwhile makes me a partisan. It makes me intelligent. A partisan is one that doesn't look at anything but the name. Big difference in that and knowing what does an doesn't work.

So do you believe that there should be no public education? No social security or healthcare for our elderly?

I believe what the Constitution says. Public education is not mentioned in the Constitution. That makes it a STATE matter. If STATE'S choose to do it, it's Constitutional. Social Security and Medicare are not mentioned in the Constitution. If a STATE chooses to put such a program in place for their people, the Constitution says it's within that STATE'S authority.

Whether those programs come from the Feds or the states, they are still liberal in nature. So I'll ask again, do you support public education, and gov programs that help the elderly?

Whether it's done at the State level or the Federal level is at the heart of the matter. Since education and programs to "help" the elderly are not specifically delegated as a Federal power in the Constitution, they belong as State powers. So, to answer your question, AGAIN, if a STATE wants to put programs related to either within the the borders of their STATE, the Constitution grants them the authority to do so. What the Constitution does not grant is any of them being done in any way, shape, or form on the federal level. If a STATE chooses to do what the Constitution allows, I support a STATE being able to do so and it really doesn't matter whether I support the concept or not. What I don't support, unlike people like you that hate the Constitution and try to make it say things it simply doesn't say, is the Federal government doing things in either one because they have no authority to do so.

I don't support the Obamacare concept of healthcare. However, despite thinking the government should stay out of the healthcare/healthcare coverage business, what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts is in line with what the Constitution says can be done at the STATE level. However, it's not in line with the Constitution for the federal government to do so despite what 5 dumbasses on the Court said. Being in a position to make a decision does not automatically mean the one you make is correct. There is a big difference is doing what the Constitution actually says and playing politics to read into it what you WANT it to say. That's how Liberals do things.

 

[Conservative65]

OP- BS- That's the new guy. Obama's problem was he couldn't persuade mindless, bought off swine to do the right thing...

Obama had no leadership skills or experience, hence his failures.

McConnell and his drones wouldn't be led period. Nor would the brainwashed ( 50% racist) dupes...

Obama was not a leader. When you have to mandate something like Obamacare that is supposedly so good, tells me it's not worth a shit.

That is so true of most liberal policies, they are so popular they have to force compliance with threats and fines.

If something is as good as people say, mandates aren't necessary. When something isn't as good, a mandate by those claiming it is proves they lie. That's Liberals for you. They told us social welfare would solve the problems of poverty yet $22 trillion later and we have the same percentage of people in poverty as we did just before the spending of that $22 trillion began. Liberals don't seem to get that if you give someone something at or above a level at which they can earn based on their skills, there is no incentive to earn what freeloaders know Liberals are willing to give them for nothing.

 

[Slade3200]

A realist... Not a blind partisan... You absolutists are comical

Don't make the mistake of thinking because I've realized conservatism is the best way and liberalism provides nothing worthwhile makes me a partisan. It makes me intelligent. A partisan is one that doesn't look at anything but the name. Big difference in that and knowing what does an doesn't work.

So do you believe that there should be no public education? No social security or healthcare for our elderly?

I believe what the Constitution says. Public education is not mentioned in the Constitution. That makes it a STATE matter. If STATE'S choose to do it, it's Constitutional. Social Security and Medicare are not mentioned in the Constitution. If a STATE chooses to put such a program in place for their people, the Constitution says it's within that STATE'S authority.

Whether those programs come from the Feds or the states, they are still liberal in nature. So I'll ask again, do you support public education, and gov programs that help the elderly?

Whether it's done at the State level or the Federal level is at the heart of the matter. Since education and programs to "help" the elderly are not specifically delegated as a Federal power in the Constitution, they belong as State powers. So, to answer your question, AGAIN, if a STATE wants to put programs related to either within the the borders of their STATE, the Constitution grants them the authority to do so. What the Constitution does not grant is any of them being done in any way, shape, or form on the federal level. If a STATE chooses to do what the Constitution allows, I support a STATE being able to do so and it really doesn't matter whether I support the concept or not. What I don't support, unlike people like you that hate the Constitution and try to make it say things it simply doesn't say, is the Federal government doing things in either one because they have no authority to do so.

I don't support the Obamacare concept of healthcare. However, despite thinking the government should stay out of the healthcare/healthcare coverage business, what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts is in line with what the Constitution says can be done at the STATE level. However, it's not in line with the Constitution for the federal government to do so despite what 5 dumbasses on the Court said. Being in a position to make a decision does not automatically mean the one you make is correct. There is a big difference is doing what the Constitution actually says and playing politics to read into it what you WANT it to say. That's how Liberals do things.

You are talking about federalism not conservatism. You don't want the federal government calling all the shots... I respect that point of view... but it seems that as long as the states make the decisions you are ok with liberal initiatives like government aid for the elderly and government run education.

 

[Conservative65]

Don't make the mistake of thinking because I've realized conservatism is the best way and liberalism provides nothing worthwhile makes me a partisan. It makes me intelligent. A partisan is one that doesn't look at anything but the name. Big difference in that and knowing what does an doesn't work.

So do you believe that there should be no public education? No social security or healthcare for our elderly?

I believe what the Constitution says. Public education is not mentioned in the Constitution. That makes it a STATE matter. If STATE'S choose to do it, it's Constitutional. Social Security and Medicare are not mentioned in the Constitution. If a STATE chooses to put such a program in place for their people, the Constitution says it's within that STATE'S authority.

Whether those programs come from the Feds or the states, they are still liberal in nature. So I'll ask again, do you support public education, and gov programs that help the elderly?

Whether it's done at the State level or the Federal level is at the heart of the matter. Since education and programs to "help" the elderly are not specifically delegated as a Federal power in the Constitution, they belong as State powers. So, to answer your question, AGAIN, if a STATE wants to put programs related to either within the the borders of their STATE, the Constitution grants them the authority to do so. What the Constitution does not grant is any of them being done in any way, shape, or form on the federal level. If a STATE chooses to do what the Constitution allows, I support a STATE being able to do so and it really doesn't matter whether I support the concept or not. What I don't support, unlike people like you that hate the Constitution and try to make it say things it simply doesn't say, is the Federal government doing things in either one because they have no authority to do so.

I don't support the Obamacare concept of healthcare. However, despite thinking the government should stay out of the healthcare/healthcare coverage business, what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts is in line with what the Constitution says can be done at the STATE level. However, it's not in line with the Constitution for the federal government to do so despite what 5 dumbasses on the Court said. Being in a position to make a decision does not automatically mean the one you make is correct. There is a big difference is doing what the Constitution actually says and playing politics to read into it what you WANT it to say. That's how Liberals do things.

You are talking about federalism not conservatism. You don't want the federal government calling all the shots... I respect that point of view... but it seems that as long as the states make the decisions you are ok with liberal initiatives like government aid for the elderly and government run education.

It's not a matter of what I want or don't want but what the CONSTITUTION says.

Don't confuse my thinking that if a STATE does something the Constitution gives it the authority to do I agree with the program. There is a difference. What Romney did in Massachusetts with healthcare was Constitutional for reasons already explained. That doesn't mean I support the concept of such a program.

 

[Slade3200]

So do you believe that there should be no public education? No social security or healthcare for our elderly?

I believe what the Constitution says. Public education is not mentioned in the Constitution. That makes it a STATE matter. If STATE'S choose to do it, it's Constitutional. Social Security and Medicare are not mentioned in the Constitution. If a STATE chooses to put such a program in place for their people, the Constitution says it's within that STATE'S authority.

Whether those programs come from the Feds or the states, they are still liberal in nature. So I'll ask again, do you support public education, and gov programs that help the elderly?

Whether it's done at the State level or the Federal level is at the heart of the matter. Since education and programs to "help" the elderly are not specifically delegated as a Federal power in the Constitution, they belong as State powers. So, to answer your question, AGAIN, if a STATE wants to put programs related to either within the the borders of their STATE, the Constitution grants them the authority to do so. What the Constitution does not grant is any of them being done in any way, shape, or form on the federal level. If a STATE chooses to do what the Constitution allows, I support a STATE being able to do so and it really doesn't matter whether I support the concept or not. What I don't support, unlike people like you that hate the Constitution and try to make it say things it simply doesn't say, is the Federal government doing things in either one because they have no authority to do so.

I don't support the Obamacare concept of healthcare. However, despite thinking the government should stay out of the healthcare/healthcare coverage business, what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts is in line with what the Constitution says can be done at the STATE level. However, it's not in line with the Constitution for the federal government to do so despite what 5 dumbasses on the Court said. Being in a position to make a decision does not automatically mean the one you make is correct. There is a big difference is doing what the Constitution actually says and playing politics to read into it what you WANT it to say. That's how Liberals do things.

You are talking about federalism not conservatism. You don't want the federal government calling all the shots... I respect that point of view... but it seems that as long as the states make the decisions you are ok with liberal initiatives like government aid for the elderly and government run education.

It's not a matter of what I want or don't want but what the CONSTITUTION says.

Don't confuse my thinking that if a STATE does something the Constitution gives it the authority to do I agree with the program. There is a difference. What Romney did in Massachusetts with healthcare was Constitutional for reasons already explained. That doesn't mean I support the concept of such a program.

Then you are talking about federalism and constitutionalism... not conservatism

 

[Conservative65]

I believe what the Constitution says. Public education is not mentioned in the Constitution. That makes it a STATE matter. If STATE'S choose to do it, it's Constitutional. Social Security and Medicare are not mentioned in the Constitution. If a STATE chooses to put such a program in place for their people, the Constitution says it's within that STATE'S authority.

Whether those programs come from the Feds or the states, they are still liberal in nature. So I'll ask again, do you support public education, and gov programs that help the elderly?

Whether it's done at the State level or the Federal level is at the heart of the matter. Since education and programs to "help" the elderly are not specifically delegated as a Federal power in the Constitution, they belong as State powers. So, to answer your question, AGAIN, if a STATE wants to put programs related to either within the the borders of their STATE, the Constitution grants them the authority to do so. What the Constitution does not grant is any of them being done in any way, shape, or form on the federal level. If a STATE chooses to do what the Constitution allows, I support a STATE being able to do so and it really doesn't matter whether I support the concept or not. What I don't support, unlike people like you that hate the Constitution and try to make it say things it simply doesn't say, is the Federal government doing things in either one because they have no authority to do so.

I don't support the Obamacare concept of healthcare. However, despite thinking the government should stay out of the healthcare/healthcare coverage business, what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts is in line with what the Constitution says can be done at the STATE level. However, it's not in line with the Constitution for the federal government to do so despite what 5 dumbasses on the Court said. Being in a position to make a decision does not automatically mean the one you make is correct. There is a big difference is doing what the Constitution actually says and playing politics to read into it what you WANT it to say. That's how Liberals do things.

You are talking about federalism not conservatism. You don't want the federal government calling all the shots... I respect that point of view... but it seems that as long as the states make the decisions you are ok with liberal initiatives like government aid for the elderly and government run education.

It's not a matter of what I want or don't want but what the CONSTITUTION says.

Don't confuse my thinking that if a STATE does something the Constitution gives it the authority to do I agree with the program. There is a difference. What Romney did in Massachusetts with healthcare was Constitutional for reasons already explained. That doesn't mean I support the concept of such a program.

Then you are talking about federalism and constitutionalism... not conservatism

Since Conservatives support the concepts of federalism and constitutionalism, there is no difference.