Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No one blames him for the crash Clayton and you know it. Your posts are shallow and unworthy of serious discussion. Obama OWNS the recovery or lack there of. He had 2 years without the gop to hinder his efforts to help a recovery.
Do you see a recovery?
That is not accurate. Either you know this and are lying or you don't know this and you are stupid.
It's extremely accurate.
Most of us are tired of showing folks like you the facts you refuse to heed.
And the premise of the OP is idiocy, given the reality of American presidential politics, as if the voters have a say whom to vote for.
Once again its hold your nose and vote.
A vote for Obama isnt any more or less misinformed than a vote for Romney/Perry/Cain.
All the choices are rotten, and equally misinformed.
But thats not the problem
The problem is the aberration of the Imperial Presidency, the fact that weve rejected the original intent of the Framers for the Executive Branch, that whomever is president is relatively unimportant, as it was to be Congress to govern the Nation subject to the rule of law the Constitution and its case law.
Sadly, the bane of the Imperial Presidency was likely inevitable, given human nature, Americas standing after the Second World War, and the challenges brought by the Cold War but none of that mitigates the problem the Imperial Presidency has become nor our responsibility to address it.
Of course a vote for Obama is misinformed. How could anyone vote for a president with such a terrible record? Even people on the left are terribly disappointed he didnt do more to complete their agenda. He never pushed for single payer or card check or cap n trade or other liberal issues.
So people voting for him accept the fallacy that none of this is really his fault and he is still an outsider. That is wrong.
As for the "imperial presidency", we have pretty much what the Framers had in mind. They wanted a chief executive because rule by committee didnt work too well.
And the premise of the OP is idiocy, given the reality of American presidential politics, as if the voters have a say whom to vote for.
Once again its hold your nose and vote.
A vote for Obama isnt any more or less misinformed than a vote for Romney/Perry/Cain.
All the choices are rotten, and equally misinformed.
But thats not the problem
The problem is the aberration of the Imperial Presidency, the fact that weve rejected the original intent of the Framers for the Executive Branch, that whomever is president is relatively unimportant, as it was to be Congress to govern the Nation subject to the rule of law the Constitution and its case law.
Sadly, the bane of the Imperial Presidency was likely inevitable, given human nature, Americas standing after the Second World War, and the challenges brought by the Cold War but none of that mitigates the problem the Imperial Presidency has become nor our responsibility to address it.
Of course a vote for Obama is misinformed. How could anyone vote for a president with such a terrible record? Even people on the left are terribly disappointed he didnt do more to complete their agenda. He never pushed for single payer or card check or cap n trade or other liberal issues.
So people voting for him accept the fallacy that none of this is really his fault and he is still an outsider. That is wrong.
As for the "imperial presidency", we have pretty much what the Framers had in mind. They wanted a chief executive because rule by committee didnt work too well.
And the premise of the OP is idiocy, given the reality of American presidential politics, as if the voters have a say whom to vote for.
Once again its hold your nose and vote.
A vote for Obama isnt any more or less misinformed than a vote for Romney/Perry/Cain.
All the choices are rotten, and equally misinformed.
But thats not the problem
The problem is the aberration of the Imperial Presidency, the fact that weve rejected the original intent of the Framers for the Executive Branch, that whomever is president is relatively unimportant, as it was to be Congress to govern the Nation subject to the rule of law the Constitution and its case law.
Sadly, the bane of the Imperial Presidency was likely inevitable, given human nature, Americas standing after the Second World War, and the challenges brought by the Cold War but none of that mitigates the problem the Imperial Presidency has become nor our responsibility to address it.
Of course a vote for Obama is misinformed. How could anyone vote for a president with such a terrible record? Even people on the left are terribly disappointed he didnt do more to complete their agenda. He never pushed for single payer or card check or cap n trade or other liberal issues.
So people voting for him accept the fallacy that none of this is really his fault and he is still an outsider. That is wrong.
As for the "imperial presidency", we have pretty much what the Framers had in mind. They wanted a chief executive because rule by committee didnt work too well.
Misinformed? You have a Perry for President avatar.
Irony is lost on the ironic.
That is not accurate. Either you know this and are lying or you don't know this and you are stupid.
It's extremely accurate.
Most of us are tired of showing folks like you the facts you refuse to heed.
You are claiming that Obama had 2 years in office with no hindrance from the GOP. You are tired of showing folks like me the facts?
You do not have facts to support that claim. You are trying to avoid having to present those facts by claiming that you are tired of showing them. You ain't got shit. And....I ain't gonna let you forget it.
Obama will win reelection in a landslide. This thread is just the right wing conservative's way of dealing with the doubt creeping into their thought process. It's like the beginning of the five stages of grief. They've past denial and now are working their way into anger of the inevitable, the reelection of President Obama.
Start a discussion at work about the Occupy Wall Street crowd and see how many different opinions you get explaining who is really responsible for our lagging economy.
I sometimes start asking people at work what they think is the cause of the bad economy and very few really know.
Blacks almost always say Obama is heading us in the right direct. Things were bad before and they feel confident that he can do something if those Republicans would just get out of his way. The Democrats in the Senate have disappeared, and now, according to them, only the Republicans run our government.
They only want to boot him out of office. They don't care about the country. All of the evils that Democrats were guilty of during the last years of the Bush Administration has been assigned to the GOP. Many of them when you mention the Tea Party think they're terrorists and racists. They forget that the Tea Party just wants us to quit spending. Any criticism of Obama causes them to shut down and stop responding.
Blacks aren't alone. Other ethnic groups are just as lost on the issues. A Senior Citizen told me that Obama tried to stop the Republicans from passing the Stimulus. She claimed that Bush signed it into law, forgetting that not only did Obama sign it but no Republican voted for the thing.
Most of them have forgotten that the reason we can't buy toilet paper at DPW is because Obama hasn't passed a budget since he's been in office.
It can sometimes get frustrating dealing with folks that aren't engaged. They only halfway pay attention to the news which means they're usually so wrong you wonder where they've been. I would have to say that most people here on this site are much more informed then anyone at work that I talk to.
In my opinion Obama's greatest asset is misinformation. He confuses the issues thus he confuses the public. He wants to act like he's the solution rather than problem. He's beginning to promise the world again like he did before he was elected and hopes we fall for it yet again. That's his only hope....because if the unvarnished truth was given to the voters Obama wouldn't have a chance of an ice-cube in Hell of getting re-elected.
The media has a major role in all of this. The other day a caller told Rush Limbaugh during his radio talk-show that he witnessed the burning of the Air Force ROTC building at Kent State University on May 5th, 1970. He claimed the media covering the event gave advice to the arsonists that set the building ablaze. The protestors found it difficult to get a wooden annex to keep burning. Eventually the camera crew that was covering the event started giving advice on how to get it to light and stay lit. After 4 attempts they were finally successful, thus a better story that served the media's interests rather then the public-interests was invented.
There are numerous reports of the media actually participating in OWS protests and acting in conjunction with them to present a better image to the public.
The blame for most of the misinformation out there is a biased press, but much of it can be contributed to the complex nature of issues. I think most of it is the habit of much of the public to take things for granted without fact-checking. It doesn't help much that you really have to dig deep to find the truth. Not all of the press is left-leaning, but most are. Over 70% of them voted for Obama. Unless you work for Fox News you have to keep your own personal politics to yourself unless you're a liberal. You could find yourself out of a job.
Most of the confusion is understandably the fault of the media, but much of it rests with the apathy most Americans inherently carry with them. Life has been good for most of us. Living during a time of decent economies and excellent job growth for the last 20-25 years has spoiled us. Now we have serious problems and it's clear that Obama isn't going to do what needs to be done and the GOP can't make him do it. He has nothing new to offer other than slogans and bumper-sticker ideas.....the exact same thing his campaign is accusing Herman Cain of.
Obama's latest catch-phrase is "We Can't Wait For Congress To Act, So I'm Gonna Act On My Own". He is attempting to make it look like he's the only hope we have, but it's clear to anyone who's been paying attention he is partly if not greatly responsible for the poor economy. Problem is most of us aren't paying attention.
Pew is a liberal site chaired by Madeleine Albright. Does that name ring a bell???
It is funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation based out of California.
Their opinions are definitely left-leaning.
To be honest, I doubt there is any non-biased source out there.
Pew is a liberal site chaired by Madeleine Albright. Does that name ring a bell???
It is funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation based out of California.
Their opinions are definitely left-leaning.
To be honest, I doubt there is any non-biased source out there.
I'm not sure why you're going after Pew, but
-- Pew is not a site (Pew Research Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Pew Research Center is a think tank. Pew Charitable Trusts is an NGO. Pew Global Attitudes Project is chaired by Democrat Albright and Republican John Danforth.
-- Pew is not chaired by Madeleine Albright. Its president is Andrew Kohut (Andrew Kohut, President, Pew Research Center - Pew Research Center) who doesn't seem to have any connections to a political party.
-- William Hewlett seems to have been a life-long Republican, as are many Californians.
Why are you spreading misleading and counterfactual statements in a thread bemoaning how misinformed people are?
Pew is a liberal site chaired by Madeleine Albright. Does that name ring a bell???
It is funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation based out of California.
Their opinions are definitely left-leaning.
To be honest, I doubt there is any non-biased source out there.
I'm not sure why you're going after Pew, but
-- Pew is not a site (Pew Research Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Pew Research Center is a think tank. Pew Charitable Trusts is an NGO. Pew Global Attitudes Project is chaired by Democrat Albright and Republican John Danforth.
-- Pew is not chaired by Madeleine Albright. Its president is Andrew Kohut (Andrew Kohut, President, Pew Research Center - Pew Research Center) who doesn't seem to have any connections to a political party.
-- William Hewlett seems to have been a life-long Republican, as are many Californians.
Why are you spreading misleading and counterfactual statements in a thread bemoaning how misinformed people are?
Most Californians are not life-long Republicans.
William Hewlett is a liberal. He believes in liberal causes such as Global Warming. You would know this if you read the wiki entry for his foundation.
I did not say who the president was. I said who chaired the Pew Research Center.
Albright is a former Sec. of State under Clinton.
Oh, Danforth supported John Kerry in his run for President.
Most Californians are not life-long Republicans.
William Hewlett is a liberal. He believes in liberal causes such as Global Warming. You would know this if you read the wiki entry for his foundation.
I did not say who the president was. I said who chaired the Pew Research Center.
Albright is a former Sec. of State under Clinton.
Oh, Danforth supported John Kerry in his run for President.
I agree that most Californians are not life-long Republicans. As I said, many are, and William Hewlett appears to have been.
I'm not sure in what sense William Hewlett was a "liberal". It's not a word associated with the NRSC, to which he gave money. I'm sure he was more liberal than you are, if that's what you mean.
Your use of the present tense to describe William Hewlett is inaccurate. He died over ten years ago, which is why I have not used the present tense to describe him.
You're right that you did not say who the president was. You said who chaired the Pew Research Center (specifically, you said it was Madeleine Albright). Nobody chairs the Pew Research Center, and Albright is not a member of its senior staff or governing board. Are you still claiming that Albright chairs the Pew Research Center?
The Pew Research Center's work is carried out by seven projects:
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
Pew Global Attitudes Project
Pew Hispanic Center
Pew Internet and American Life Project
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Pew Social and Demographic Trends Project
Project for Excellence in Journalism
The Pew Global Attitudes Project is a series of worldwide public-opinion surveys and reports aimed at understanding worldwide attitudes on various issues. The Project is chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Danforth.[4] The project is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, with a supplemental grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation is a private foundation, established by Hewlett-Packard cofounder William Reddington Hewlett and his wife Flora Lamson Hewlett in 1967. The Foundation has grantmaking programs in education, the environment, global development, the performing arts, philanthropy, and population, and it also makes grants to aid disadvantaged communities in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The truth is a bitch ain't it???
Sure got your panties in a bunch....didn't it???
Oh, btw, try to shorten your responses cuz that is just too much crap to respond to.
DPW stands for Department of Public Works retard.
The truth is a bitch ain't it???
What truth? You said hardly a single thing that was either true or false. In fact, you said hardly a single thing, period. Sure used a lot of words to say nothing, though.
Sure got your panties in a bunch....didn't it???
Not at all. I found the whole thing quite amusing.
Oh, btw, try to shorten your responses cuz that is just too much crap to respond to.
Almost my entire post consisted of your words, not mine. You got a complaint about the length, I suggest you address it to the mirror.
DPW stands for Department of Public Works retard.
There is no federal Department of Public Works. Which government within our federal system is Obama in charge of, once again?
Most Californians are not life-long Republicans.
William Hewlett is a liberal. He believes in liberal causes such as Global Warming. You would know this if you read the wiki entry for his foundation.
I did not say who the president was. I said who chaired the Pew Research Center.
Albright is a former Sec. of State under Clinton.
Oh, Danforth supported John Kerry in his run for President.
I agree that most Californians are not life-long Republicans. As I said, many are, and William Hewlett appears to have been.
I'm not sure in what sense William Hewlett was a "liberal". It's not a word associated with the NRSC, to which he gave money. I'm sure he was more liberal than you are, if that's what you mean.
Your use of the present tense to describe William Hewlett is inaccurate. He died over ten years ago, which is why I have not used the present tense to describe him.
You're right that you did not say who the president was. You said who chaired the Pew Research Center (specifically, you said it was Madeleine Albright). Nobody chairs the Pew Research Center, and Albright is not a member of its senior staff or governing board. Are you still claiming that Albright chairs the Pew Research Center?
The Pew Research Center's work is carried out by seven projects:
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
Pew Global Attitudes Project
Pew Hispanic Center
Pew Internet and American Life Project
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Pew Social and Demographic Trends Project
Project for Excellence in Journalism
The Pew Global Attitudes Project is a series of worldwide public-opinion surveys and reports aimed at understanding worldwide attitudes on various issues. The Project is chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Danforth.[4] The project is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, with a supplemental grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
You're the one who mentioned that William Hewlett was a life-long Republican.....I said that he believes in or believed in liberal causes. His foundation still focuses on the same issues he did during his life. Seems to have been a life-long Republican does not have the same exact meaning as was a life-long Republican.
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation is a private foundation, established by Hewlett-Packard cofounder William Reddington Hewlett and his wife Flora Lamson Hewlett in 1967. The Foundation has grantmaking programs in education, the environment, global development, the performing arts, philanthropy, and population, and it also makes grants to aid disadvantaged communities in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Where the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation is located (San Francisco) is a dead giveaway as well.
Oh, and California has been in the hands of the Democrats for a couple of decades.....so I don't think you can convince me it's swimming with Republicans. Maybe back in the 70s, but not anymore.
Actually this is an attempt to deflect the debate. You can't face the fact that you used a liberal source. So you went to the trouble of putting my post under a microscope to find any flaw no matter the significance.
The Pew Research Center is not a trusted source because of their backing and those they employ.
The Department of Public Works is the maintenance department in military posts and installations.
I've been working at my current post since 2003. I worked in the Department of Public Works at the 32nd Street Naval Shipyard in San Diego California back in the 80s.
not replace ... addThen allow me to replace "misinformed" with "gullible and ignorant".
I agree that most Californians are not life-long Republicans. As I said, many are, and William Hewlett appears to have been.
I'm not sure in what sense William Hewlett was a "liberal". It's not a word associated with the NRSC, to which he gave money. I'm sure he was more liberal than you are, if that's what you mean.
Your use of the present tense to describe William Hewlett is inaccurate. He died over ten years ago, which is why I have not used the present tense to describe him.
You're right that you did not say who the president was. You said who chaired the Pew Research Center (specifically, you said it was Madeleine Albright). Nobody chairs the Pew Research Center, and Albright is not a member of its senior staff or governing board. Are you still claiming that Albright chairs the Pew Research Center?
You're the one who mentioned that William Hewlett was a life-long Republican.....I said that he believes in or believed in liberal causes. His foundation still focuses on the same issues he did during his life. Seems to have been a life-long Republican does not have the same exact meaning as was a life-long Republican.
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation is a private foundation, established by Hewlett-Packard cofounder William Reddington Hewlett and his wife Flora Lamson Hewlett in 1967. The Foundation has grantmaking programs in education, the environment, global development, the performing arts, philanthropy, and population, and it also makes grants to aid disadvantaged communities in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Where the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation is located (San Francisco) is a dead giveaway as well.
Oh, and California has been in the hands of the Democrats for a couple of decades.....so I don't think you can convince me it's swimming with Republicans. Maybe back in the 70s, but not anymore.
Actually this is an attempt to deflect the debate. You can't face the fact that you used a liberal source. So you went to the trouble of putting my post under a microscope to find any flaw no matter the significance.
The Pew Research Center is not a trusted source because of their backing and those they employ.
And it doesnt matter what the views of the founder were. The Ford Foundation is one of the most liberal institutions in philanthropy but Henry Ford wsa hardly a progressive.
