At What Point Did You Decide That You Were Against Obama No Matter What?

[Gadawg73]

No matter WHAT you say, the absolute FACT remains that under Baby Bush's not-so-careful watch, the WORST terrorist attack on US soil occurred.

No amount of partisan spin, opinion or conjecture can change that.

Them's the breaks kid.

So it was FDR's fault the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor under your dumb ass logic Marc.
Give it up Marc, admit you were wrong on this one. Be a man and grow some stones.

The WORST terrorist attack on US soil occurred under George W. Bush's watch.

Did it not? Yes or no? It's a simple question.

Yes but it was not his fault. Not his "baby" as you call it.
Admit you are wrong Marc. You are looking very foolish.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

 

[MarcATL]

So it was FDR's fault the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor under your dumb ass logic Marc.
Give it up Marc, admit you were wrong on this one. Be a man and grow some stones.

The WORST terrorist attack on US soil occurred under George W. Bush's watch.

Did it not? Yes or no? It's a simple question.

Yes but it was not his fault. Not his "baby" as you call it.
Admit you are wrong Marc. You are looking very foolish.

Post where I called it his fault please.

Why are you people seeing stuff that's not there?

Why you gotta make crap up?

 

[MarcATL]

Clinton was the President from 1993-2000.
According to Marc, under his watch it was HIS FAULT that these things happened ON AMERICAN SOIL:
The Branch Davidians slaughter of women, children and ARF agents.
Inaction on the Storm of The Century on the east coast and massive flooding of the Mississippi
Okalhoma City Bombings where Timothy McVeigh killed 168
Truck bomb explodes under World Trade Center killing 6
OJ Simpson murders 2 people
A heat wave kills 780 people in Chicago
Snowstorm on east coast kills 300
TWA flight explodes and kills all aboard 230
Centenial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta
Matthew Shepherd was brutally killed
Columbine students kill 13
Tornadoes in Oklahoma kill 20
EGypt air crashes killing 240 in Massachussetts
Earthquake kills 80 in LA

Stop lying dawg...where did I post that it was "HIS FAULT" as you put it?

Stop being such a hack dude.

 

[Dubya]

Wow...there are progressive Kool Aid drinkers and then there is you! You've got blinders on, my liberal friend.

Historically, the larger a recession the larger the rebound from that recession is once it corrects. We're not seeing a rebound even close to what one would expect despite pouring trillions into so called stimulus. Instead of a rebound we're grinding along at about a 1.5% growth rate...anemic by any measurement but considering the trillions we're going into debt for to stimulate our economy it's gawd awful!!! But none of that is due to Barry's complete incompetence when it comes to economics? You've got millions looking for work and instead of concentrating on fiscal policy that would get the economy growing again, Barack Obama chose instead to chase the progressive "holy grail" of government funded health care for the first year he was in office. Even now, four years into his Administration he STILL doesn't have a clue about what makes the economy work. In a weak economy he sought tax increases? Duh? Whatever small growth we HAD is pretty much doomed. Instead of growth we're probably going to slip back into a double dip recession.

The fact that our Ambassador wasn't in a "safe house" is the crux of the problem, Dubya! He and three other Americans are dead because our State Department bungled the security for them so badly and then the Obama Administration decided that getting their "story" straight before the election was more important than sending aid to people fighting for their lives. The bullshit story that we were fed about the attack being the result of a You Tube video instead of the well planned terrorist attack they KNEW it was is shameful. The only thing MORE shameful is the way the main stream media went along for the ride. Al Queda is not "decimated"...it's not "on the ropes"...it's not "on the run"! It's regaining strength daily. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with your "narrative" of what this President supposedly achieved but it's the truth.

What are you babbling about? There were no "tracking devices" in Fast & Furious. They let those weapons walk even though they KNEW they couldn't trace them. The Holder Justice Department didn't give two shits about the people they were putting in harms way inside Mexico and along our border. This was ALWAYS about showing that gun trafficking was a problem that needed to be addressed with stricter gun control laws and if some "eggs got broke" making that omelet than the people in charge of Fast & Furious were OK with that. This isn't a "witch hunt". It's the exposure of people who put a political agenda before the safety of the people they were supposed to be protecting. Defending what they did is partisan politics at it's worst. It's shameful and immoral.

The Republicans are "slowing down the economic recovery"? Really? How exactly? By not letting Obama, Reid and Pelosi spend as much as they wanted to on progressive pork like Solyndra? By asking for cuts in spending to a government that is so bloated and inefficient that if it was a human being they'd be cutting a hole in the side of the house and bringing in a crane to rescue the 800 pound bed ridden blob? You want to know what the problem is in Washington? They won't stop spending money they don't have...like they can print it in the basement! Oh, wait...that's right...they CAN print it in the basement!!!

You obviously have never studied economics and inflating a depressed economy requires plugging the holes where the money leaks to get a quick recovery. We've never had times with such massive trade imbalances before, so when consumption increases, it isn't our people getting the jobs. To recover quickly, you have to get that positive feedback. You claim a crashed economy recovers quicker and that's bullshit comparing what happened to recessions. We didn't get out of the Great Depression until WWII stimulated the economy. You Republicans didn't create a downturn in the business cycle, you created a full blown financial crisis larger than the financial crisis during the Great Depression. Republicans have proven themselves very good at destroying economies, so remember to tell them that the next time someone calls the Republicans good for nothing.

The rest of what you post is babble. Bengazi involved a safe house and not an embassy, you don't know any of the details about Fast and Furious, so why wouldn't an intelligent human being put a tracking device in the ammo of a .50 cal. rifle or hide it in the weapon? Solyndra was a victim of the collapse in the price of silicon and competition from cadmium telluride PVs. They still have the patents on their thin film process and since cadmium telluride has a limited supply, the thin film silicon will eventually be the best choice in the future. As far as economics is concerned, the Republicans have never wanted an economic recovery and have worked their asses off to keep one from happening. The elite who the Republican Party serves can invest accumulated wealth in amounts that dwarf annual income, so they make more money during bad times in the short run.

As far as talking point goes, I've researched all these things with the best primary source information available. I don't know what the Democrat or liberal talking points are or if they even exist, because I don't visit sites with the potential of bias. You aren't going to find what I know on a blog or some type of online media. I don't use talking points like you obviously do. Your shit is right out of right-wing think tanks and they are pulling your strings without your mind connected. Being brainwashed to believe what they tell you to believe isn't thinking.

Actually I did study economics while in college. I even had the great pleasure of taking an economics class taught by Thomas Sowell at Amherst College. Where did you get YOUR economics background?

Inflating a depressed economy? What exactly does that mean? Let me guess...you're one of those Rshermr types that thinks coming here and talking a bunch of gibberish and pretending you're an authority on economics is going to fly? Good luck...

So did you want to take a crack at explaining why the progressive policies of FDR DIDN'T lead the US out of the Great Depression? And if those policies didn't work then...why would you think they will work now?

The economy crashed primarily because of a housing bubble collapse. How you make THAT the fault of the Republicans I find rather hard to grasp. Wasn't George W. Bush one of the few people in Washington warning about just that before it happened? Wasn't it Barney Frank who pooh poohed that? Remind me who was a Republican and who was a Democrat?

So what if Benghazi involved a "safe house"? What was Ambassador Stevens doing there if it was obviously "unsafe" and why did the US government not respond when it saw that Americans were in mortal danger in Benghazi? Or do you actually BUY the story that we didn't have the capability to put military assets on site in less than seven hours? Are you REALLY that naive?

As for what "intelligent" people would have done in regards to Fast & Furious? I don't think you can assign much intelligence to whoever thought up the plan to flood another sovereign nation with high powered weapons...weapons that they KNEW were going to hyper violent drug cartels...and somehow thought that was a GOOD plan. Once again you have some delusional idea that there were "homing devices" secreted in the guns or ammo. Sorry but that wasn't done under the Fast & Furious program.

Solyndra was destined to be a financial failure before it even started. Their solar panels were so much more expensive than what was being made in China there was absolutely no way they were going to be financially viable. The red flags on that were raised during the Bush Administration...but since some of Solyndra's money people were Obama supporters their loan guarantee got fast tracked once Barry was elected. Hey, that the way things work in Washington but at least have the honesty to admit it and take the blame for wasting billions in tax payer money.

Quite frankly, Dubya...I don't need help from any "sites" to debate your outlandish posts. A little common sense does the trick just fine.

If you've studied economics, you should know what inflating a depressed economy means and that FDR was doing fine, until he tried to cut government spending too quickly in 1937 and caused a downturn in the economy. Just like in Europe, an austerity program before the economy heals is a great way to get it to return to recession. FDR needed to continue to get unemployment lower and increase revenue that way, before cutting government spending. A counter-cyclical approach is what is needed in government spending and it wouldn't hurt to also adjust taxes that way. Governments should cut spending during boom times, inch up taxes and pay off debt. That requires discipline, but it works. That allows the central banking system to keep interest rates low and not have to raise them to slow an economy down and those lower rates stimulate the economy. If the economy goes into a downturn or growth is too slow, the government can increase spending and lower taxes to stimulate the economy. The government changes can be adjusted slightly and doesn't send the shock to the economy that the interest rate increases of a central bank does. It allows an economy to be fine tuned and gives it sustainable growth, instead of ups and downs, booms and busts.

If you really wanted to get creative, you could grow an economy to full employment using guest workers to avoid a wage/price inflation spiral, though presently our markets are suffering by wages being too low. We need to reset wages and use a COLA system to adjust consumer spending in real dollars. Essentially with guest workers, we could have an economy larger than it's population would create, while reducing guest workers during a slowdown, which would always keep our citizens at full employment. "Gee, we had a recession and all those guest workers went home. How will we ever survive?"

The government should work out fair trade policies and emphasize making our own products whenever possible, unless a secure, balanced trade based on competitive advantage is worked out with a particular country. For example, consider the Colombians Free Trade Agreement as it was proposed. I read the agreement when it was proposed and characterize it as page after page of protections for the Colombian economy and no protections for ours. It was a one way street and free trade in name only, free to Colombia and slavery for America. Basically, it was designed to benefit banking at the expense of the American people. A Fair Trade Agreement with Colombia would look like this: Colombia wants to export various products to the United States including some manufactured goods like lingerie, but what American imports will Colombia take to balance the books? We can work out quotas with our lingerie manufacturers that can lower the price of their overall product and still protect American jobs. We allow our lingerie manufacturers to import Colombian lingerie to fill future increases in demand without destroying domestic production. That keeps the unit price of lingerie lower in the future and profitable to the manufacturers, but it doesn't allow them to get too greedy and cut the throat of the American people. The whole Fair Trade Agreement involves allowing Colombia to export their products to our markets, but sets quotas for American products to imported to their markets and keeps this trade in balance. Balanced trade benefits both nations and their economies while a Free Trade Agreement can be a one way street causing a bad economy for one of the nations which hurts that market in the future.

Public resources should be developed and sold at market prices. The Corporations developing the resources can make their profit, but the resources aren't given away for the price of a lease. A brief way to picture this is the Norway example to develop North Sea production. A state owned corporation oversees the development and sells the resources at market prices. The profit from publicly owned resources is returned to the public and not some fat cat corporation running the show by hiring the same corporations the state owned corporation would hire to develop the resources. Handing out leases only profits the rich. The rich don't own those resources and the public does. The profit should go to the public and not the rich. The rich need to make their money the old fashion way and earn it, instead of using their influence to steal it from the public.

It wouldn't hurt to add about 50 million more people to our population in the future. Besides solving the jobs problems created by outsourcing and allowing corporations to generate trade imbalances while giving them access to our markets, it is wise to increase domestic consumption by increasing our population. We presently have a surplus of homes and commercial property. We can rid ourselves of that surplus and get our construction industry moving again by increasing immigration. Illegal immigration reform would also reunite families and prevent money from exiting the country, but growing our population by increasing legal immigration, while encouraging talented people to immigrate to America would solve our governments fiscal problems as well. The smart way to get back to surpluses and pay off government debt is to grow your way out of the problem. The stupid way is to cut government spending during slow economic times and convert America into a third world country.

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle

The economy crashed primarily because of a housing bubble collapse. How you make THAT the fault of the Republicans I find rather hard to grasp. Wasn't George W. Bush one of the few people in Washington warning about just that before it happened? Wasn't it Barney Frank who pooh poohed that? Remind me who was a Republican and who was a Democrat?

This is totally a Republican propaganda, bullshit lie that anyone who has studied economics would see through. The net general effect of any bubble is zero sum. The loses when inflated prices return to market value are offset by the gains during the creation of the bubble. Bubbles just make winners and losers and concentrating on the losers is only looking at half the balance sheet. The economy crashed because there was a financial crisis and there was a financial crisis because Republicans changed regulations to prevent a financial crisis that were created during the Great Depression. GLBA and CFMA were Republican legislations that allowed the financial crisis to happen. Lax regulation during the Bush administration is evident when ABS bonds were allowed to be rated AAA securites and exchange as such. These securities were backed by credit default swaps allowed by the Republican changes. That meant a guarantee to back a bond was allowed to happen without assets to back the guarantee. It was the Investment Banks that created this financial crisis and all of our 5 Investment Banks were destroyed as such in the process, along with banks that used those toxic asset bonds.

The Republican propaganda about the crisis tries to focus on the GSEs and CRA. The fact that they were minor players shows this lie is only a cover up story to keep people from blaming the true causes of the financial collapse. For people who do not trust the right-wing think tank propaganda, an entirely different picture emerges of who is truly responsible and their intentions to make these changes in regulations was so obviously reckless that it's hard to believe the resulting financial crisis wasn't deliberately done. The emphasis at that time was on privatization, so the Investment Banks were making bonds that put the GSEs out of business. They took over the mortgage market and asset markets which involved much more than housing. Housing was a focus during the crisis, because things like adjustable rate mortgages was causing millions of Americans to lose their homes, further depressing the value of the bonds that backed the real estate value. The same thing was happening to commercial real estate. Even student loans came into play, because the law requires repayment. A depressed economy allow the whales to even gobble up some rather big fish who are rich, but not as rich as whales. When it's all said and done the super-rich come out much wealthier. The super-rich has so much wealth they aren't concerned about present day income and are in it for the long haul. The super-rich have so much wealth it's hard to invest without inventing scams to make hugh profits. That's who the Republican Party serves.

Consider the way the Republicans frame the concept of investment! They are always focused on what amounts to yearly net income and completely ignore the hugh amounts of wealth accumulated in centuries of using a capitalist system. They want us to believe that investment is solely the product of what profit someone can presently make as if everyone in the world has been living hand in mouth throughout all those centuries. They want us to believe no one was ever smart enough to squirrel away a fortune in wealth that can be used for an investment in a good economy that offers a business opportunity. The Republicans are always begging for the rich to have more and wanting society to do things like give the rich all the crude and natural gas resources in ANWR so we can produce our own oil. What is this we and our bullshit? The Republican Party wants to con us into giving resources technically owned by every American and future Americans to a Big Oil Corporation that may not even be an American corporation, like BP and Shell, for the price of a lease. The Republican Party are not capitalists, they are corporatists and that's next to communists in my book. The rich do not need more welfare from society, which is the only thing the Republicans stand for.

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle

So what if Benghazi involved a "safe house"? What was Ambassador Stevens doing there if it was obviously "unsafe" and why did the US government not respond when it saw that Americans were in mortal danger in Benghazi? Or do you actually BUY the story that we didn't have the capability to put military assets on site in less than seven hours? Are you REALLY that naive?

Benghazi is Republican talking points about 4 American who were killed in an unstable country. Benghazi is being investigated, but if that is the standard, where was the concern for those almost 3,000 killed on 9/11, when Bush was warned of an al Qaeda attack and did nothing to prevent it? Why aren't the lives of 4,487 of our American military killed in Iraq a concern when it only costed about a 100 American lives to invade a country that didn't have WMD. Were was the outrage for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 American servicemen? The two attacks during the 1998 United States embassy bombings killed approximately 223 people, so where is the outrage for that? To me, every one of those lives was important, even if they weren't Americans, and it shouldn't be up to me to value one of those lives more than the others. I don't have a problem with investigating any incident and try to discover if a way to prevent such needless slaughter can be avoided in the future, but I do have a problem when the focus is partisan politics that isn't intended to be productive. If the Republican Party has the desire to do something, start fixing the problems in this world and stop being the problem.

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle

As for what "intelligent" people would have done in regards to Fast & Furious? I don't think you can assign much intelligence to whoever thought up the plan to flood another sovereign nation with high powered weapons...weapons that they KNEW were going to hyper violent drug cartels...and somehow thought that was a GOOD plan. Once again you have some delusional idea that there were "homing devices" secreted in the guns or ammo. Sorry but that wasn't done under the Fast & Furious program.

What have already discussed Fast and Furious. It's obviously another Republican talking point hack job involving bits of information in a classified investigation by law enforcement. You don't have the facts about what the operation involved and you wouldn't have the facts until those investigations concerning Mexican Drug Cartels are over and done with. There are other facts, like it's a lie that there was a plan to flood Mexico with high powered weapons and you should have the sense to know it's a lie. It's a Republican think tank game to claim allowing weapons to go to Mexico will cause gun control to happen in America and you can see where it coming from. It's Republican gun control policies that made America into an open market for guns and that's why the Mexican Drug Cartels were buying weapons in America. The ATF had and has very limited resources and it can't prevent guns going into Mexico with our present laws. When the ATF nabs some minnow buying the weapons and even tracks down little fish involved in the gun trafficking, even if they make an arrest, another operation takes it's place and it's business as usual. The ATF's evaluation was the weapons would get there regardless of their efforts, so they devised a plan to track down guns to the big fish involved in gun trafficking and the Mexican Drug Cartels behind the effort. These more sophisticated and creative types of law enforcement are nothing new when the efforts of law enforcement are thwarted by the sheer size of the criminal elements they oppose. It happens with the DEA and drugs on a regular basis. They discover shipments and decide to trace them, instead of making an immediate arrest. If there was a coverup, the Fast and Furious operation wouldn't even be known to exist.

It's a tragedy that a border guard lost his life with a weapon that was allowed to go through, but how do you know that weapon wasn't one amongst an arsenal of weapons that current gun laws allow? The weapon the criminal used to kill the border guard could be one weapon amongst thousands available for him to kill that border guard. Why do people who claim it isn't weapon that kills, but the criminal, make an exception here? I seriously doubt the existence of that weapon determined that criminal being there to commit the crime.

I've outlined regulations that would prevent gun trafficking and I haven't seen one Republican right-winger support it. My regulations wouldn't require things like assault weapons bans, would remove guns from criminals and drastically reduce our homicide by gun rates. The problem with Republicans is they make these problems and never take responsibility for it.

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle

Solyndra was destined to be a financial failure before it even started. Their solar panels were so much more expensive than what was being made in China there was absolutely no way they were going to be financially viable. The red flags on that were raised during the Bush Administration...but since some of Solyndra's money people were Obama supporters their loan guarantee got fast tracked once Barry was elected. Hey, that the way things work in Washington but at least have the honesty to admit it and take the blame for wasting billions in tax payer money.

You are a typical Republican hack running their mouth in ignorance. Our government invested money in alternative energy that you Republicans don't support. You ignore the fact that utilities are presently building hugh amounts of electricity generation in our southwest. You ignore the fact that our investment in alternative energy has paid off or utilities wouldn't be interested. You want to nitpick a new segment of our economy to support the Koch Bro. dinosaur technology. So what if one company had problems with a collapse of the silicon market! The company still has it's patents and the panels they made weren't made in China. PV panels are not all the same and there is a future for thin film silicon panels and Solyndra has a future for it's patented process to make them. You also ignore the fact that investments in alternative energy aren't anything new and wind power was increased more with Bush than under Obama.

The reality is, the access to future export markets is being determined by naiton's energy policies of today. In the future, a nation's products will not be acceptable in foreign nations, if they are made with a large carbon footprint. Those markets will require a carbon tax tariff to be placed on those foreign goods and if that carbon tax is high, it will price them out of that market. Of course, Republicans can't get a grasp on reality, because it's a total myth that they are good at doing business. They lack vision and people who became rich by having vision don't support them.

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle

Quite frankly, Dubya...I don't need help from any "sites" to debate your outlandish posts. A little common sense does the trick just fine.

Common sense requires more than claiming you possess it. A person using their common sense doesn't support policies that are the root of the problem and then play a ******* blame game to try to put the responsiblity on someone else. Go ahead and keep on supporting the stupid policies that the Republican Party supports, because my common sense tells me it will put your Republican Party in the grave next to the Whigs, where they belong!

 

[Claudette]

Don't hold your breath.

Marc won't admitt he's wrong just like he won't admitt 9-11 was planned under Clintons watch.

The only thing he see's is that the attack was carried out under Bush's watch. Hence its all Bush's fault and Clintons administration was pure as the driven snow.

As OS says I wonder what his thoughts would be if Gore won instead of Bush??

Wrong about what?

Are you REFUTING the fact that 9/11/2001, the WORST terrorist attack to occur on US soil occurred under George W. Bush's watch?

Are you refuting the fact that the whole thing was planned under Clinton's watch?? That one of his FBI agents knew something was up but couldn't get his bosses to listen??

Are you refuting the fact that Clinton was offered UBL on a silver platter from the Sudan??

Bush would have waterboarded that SOB and got the whole scoop and we probably wouldn't have had a 9-11.

Yes it was the worst terrorist attack on US soil and yes Bush was POTUS. To bad the previous POTUS'S administration dropped the ******* ball.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That just shows how idiotic you are Marc. Bush was POTUS for EIGHT MONTHS when 9-11 rolled around. Clinton was POTUS for 8 YEARS. The planning all took place under his watch. His FBI dropped the ball. Its easy to blame Bush because he was POTUS but Clinton is way more to answer for. His FBI with the exception of John O'Neil didn't take the threats seriously.

I'm wondering if Clintons FBI even passed O'Neils vague info on to Bush's administration. I always assumed they did. Hell. They didn't believe O'Neil so now I wonder if they even bothered to pass that vauge info on to the new administration.

You can blame Bush all you want because he was POTUS but any thinking person will be taking a good hard look at Clinton's FBI.

Clinton also refused to take UBL when the Sudan offered him up on a silver platter. If he had taken that dirtbag they might have been able to get the particulars on the attack that was in the works. Of course you don't want to hear that. You're to busy blamming Bush. God your blind.

You can blame Bush all you wamt. ME? I'll blame the dirtbags who flew the planes and the dirtbags who planned it. I know most of em are rotting in hell.

And as I said. Clinton is on his knees every night thanking God that AQ waited until he was out of office before they struck. I sure as hell would be.

As King Reagan was on his knees thanking God that the American hostages were released just after he was sworn in.

He took the credit for that, did he not?

The American people praised him for that and didn't credit Carter, correct?

He didn't lift a FINGER to do anything, he literally just got sworn in and the American hostages were released based on the work Carter was doing almost up until the hour he was sworn out.

Did you credit Carter? Did the American people did then?

No. He was out of office, King Reagan wore the title then.

Baby Bush had 8 fletchin' months to get his act together...he failed.

He's to be blamed, and rightly so, it was under his watch.

He did NOT keep us safe.

...You know damned well why those hostages were released shortly after Reagan was sworn in. That's because the Iranian government knew Carter was a foreign policy wimp. Plus carter was so extremely anti Semitic , he would never challenge an Arab or Persian.
However, Khomeini knew Reagan would issue orders to turn Iran into a parking lot.
Failure to admit these facts is denial.
Look, you have no standing here. No credibility. You are a far left wing radical with anti Caucasian views. I dismiss you as not intelligent enough to carry on a debate of viewpoints.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No matter WHAT you say, the absolute FACT remains that under Baby Bush's not-so-careful watch, the WORST terrorist attack on US soil occurred.

No amount of partisan spin, opinion or conjecture can change that.

Them's the breaks kid.

No. You just don't want to admit that the attack was planned on Clintons watch. His FBI dropped the ball. Who knows if they even passed O'Neils warning to the new administration?? The warning that they ignored.

Clinton also refused UBL on a silver platter from the Sudan.

Thems the breaks kid.

Don't cry baby...it's going to be OK.

Your response in the above post signifies your level of intelligence.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No. You just don't want to admit that the attack was planned on Clintons watch. His FBI dropped the ball. Who knows if they even passed O'Neils warning to the new administration?? The warning that they ignored.

Clinton also refused UBL on a silver platter from the Sudan.

Thems the breaks kid.

Don't cry baby...it's going to be OK.

Your response in the above post signifies your level of intelligence.

That's why I see this:

Today, 01:51 PM
MarcATL
This message is hidden because MarcATL is on your ignore list.

Post Today, 01:53 PM
MarcATL
This message is hidden because MarcATL is on your ignore list.

 

[zeke]

Blaming Bush for acts not under his control whilst condemning those who blame Obama in the same way.

You have one set of standards for Bush, and a VASTLY different set for Obama.

You know what? From what I read while on here, the right wingers seem to blame Obama for everything bad going on in the country. Would you say that is about correct?

And Bush is not held accountable for anything bad that happened under his Presidency. Does that sound about right?

And you think that is the correct way to judge the two Presidencies. One is not responsible for anything and the other is responsible for everything.

Only in a right wing partisan hacks mind could that be true.

This is just another way of blaming others for what is occurring under Obama's watch.He's in his 5th year of his Presidency and you people STILL cannot get off the predecessor.
Hey, newsflash now that Obama is in his second term, he IS the predecessor.

Dude, I was making an observation about how I see the different Presidents treated by the right sided posters here.

As I see 9/11, and as I understand it, the CLINTON FBI had an agent in place that kept reporting to his superiors that he had knowledge of Middle Eastern men learning to fly jet aircraft but not being concerned with learning to take off or land same jet aircraft. If that bit of info is followed up on, by what is now the BUSH FBI, end of story. No 9/11. Is the way I see it. We had the right intelligence, we just weren't smart enough to follow it up.

And that sums up the entire Bush Presidency I think. He just wasn't very smart. And the people around him didn't make smart decisions. Cheney/Rummy/Rice just didn't do Bush right. IMO. I mean, come on, George was not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

And Obama is too smart. I have a big issue with Obama and I think that if the Repubs fought Obama with this issue, they would pull a lot of Indy voters. And that issue is the use of drones to kill "terrorists", even American citizens, in countries we are not at war with. By a process that has not been approved by Congress and vetted by the SCOTUS. Allowing a President this much power is WAY beyond what the COTUS allows for. And all the supossed COTUS lovers should be going crazy over this. IMO.

Wait till the US uses drone strikes to take out a "terrorist" or maybe just a criminal, on US soil. Or Mexico is drone tracking a narco terrorist and takes him out.... in the desert of AZ. Hell good enough for us..... might be good enough for them.

 

[MarcATL]

Don't hold your breath.

Marc won't admitt he's wrong just like he won't admitt 9-11 was planned under Clintons watch.

The only thing he see's is that the attack was carried out under Bush's watch. Hence its all Bush's fault and Clintons administration was pure as the driven snow.

As OS says I wonder what his thoughts would be if Gore won instead of Bush??

Wrong about what?

Are you REFUTING the fact that 9/11/2001, the WORST terrorist attack to occur on US soil occurred under George W. Bush's watch?

Are you refuting the fact that the whole thing was planned under Clinton's watch?? That one of his FBI agents knew something was up but couldn't get his bosses to listen??

Are you refuting the fact that Clinton was offered UBL on a silver platter from the Sudan??

Bush would have waterboarded that SOB and got the whole scoop and we probably wouldn't have had a 9-11.

Yes it was the worst terrorist attack on US soil and yes Bush was POTUS. To bad the previous POTUS'S administration dropped the ******* ball.

I'm simply stating that it doesn't matter WHEN it was planned?

The FACT of the matter is that Bush FAILED in stopping it from occurring.

The WORST terrorist attack on US soil under Bush's watch, and it happened.

Who cares when it was planned?

When were the Benghazi attacks planned?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You obviously have never studied economics and inflating a depressed economy requires plugging the holes where the money leaks to get a quick recovery. We've never had times with such massive trade imbalances before, so when consumption increases, it isn't our people getting the jobs. To recover quickly, you have to get that positive feedback. You claim a crashed economy recovers quicker and that's bullshit comparing what happened to recessions. We didn't get out of the Great Depression until WWII stimulated the economy. You Republicans didn't create a downturn in the business cycle, you created a full blown financial crisis larger than the financial crisis during the Great Depression. Republicans have proven themselves very good at destroying economies, so remember to tell them that the next time someone calls the Republicans good for nothing.

The rest of what you post is babble. Bengazi involved a safe house and not an embassy, you don't know any of the details about Fast and Furious, so why wouldn't an intelligent human being put a tracking device in the ammo of a .50 cal. rifle or hide it in the weapon? Solyndra was a victim of the collapse in the price of silicon and competition from cadmium telluride PVs. They still have the patents on their thin film process and since cadmium telluride has a limited supply, the thin film silicon will eventually be the best choice in the future. As far as economics is concerned, the Republicans have never wanted an economic recovery and have worked their asses off to keep one from happening. The elite who the Republican Party serves can invest accumulated wealth in amounts that dwarf annual income, so they make more money during bad times in the short run.

As far as talking point goes, I've researched all these things with the best primary source information available. I don't know what the Democrat or liberal talking points are or if they even exist, because I don't visit sites with the potential of bias. You aren't going to find what I know on a blog or some type of online media. I don't use talking points like you obviously do. Your shit is right out of right-wing think tanks and they are pulling your strings without your mind connected. Being brainwashed to believe what they tell you to believe isn't thinking.

Actually I did study economics while in college. I even had the great pleasure of taking an economics class taught by Thomas Sowell at Amherst College. Where did you get YOUR economics background?

Inflating a depressed economy? What exactly does that mean? Let me guess...you're one of those Rshermr types that thinks coming here and talking a bunch of gibberish and pretending you're an authority on economics is going to fly? Good luck...

So did you want to take a crack at explaining why the progressive policies of FDR DIDN'T lead the US out of the Great Depression? And if those policies didn't work then...why would you think they will work now?

The economy crashed primarily because of a housing bubble collapse. How you make THAT the fault of the Republicans I find rather hard to grasp. Wasn't George W. Bush one of the few people in Washington warning about just that before it happened? Wasn't it Barney Frank who pooh poohed that? Remind me who was a Republican and who was a Democrat?

So what if Benghazi involved a "safe house"? What was Ambassador Stevens doing there if it was obviously "unsafe" and why did the US government not respond when it saw that Americans were in mortal danger in Benghazi? Or do you actually BUY the story that we didn't have the capability to put military assets on site in less than seven hours? Are you REALLY that naive?

As for what "intelligent" people would have done in regards to Fast & Furious? I don't think you can assign much intelligence to whoever thought up the plan to flood another sovereign nation with high powered weapons...weapons that they KNEW were going to hyper violent drug cartels...and somehow thought that was a GOOD plan. Once again you have some delusional idea that there were "homing devices" secreted in the guns or ammo. Sorry but that wasn't done under the Fast & Furious program.

Solyndra was destined to be a financial failure before it even started. Their solar panels were so much more expensive than what was being made in China there was absolutely no way they were going to be financially viable. The red flags on that were raised during the Bush Administration...but since some of Solyndra's money people were Obama supporters their loan guarantee got fast tracked once Barry was elected. Hey, that the way things work in Washington but at least have the honesty to admit it and take the blame for wasting billions in tax payer money.

Quite frankly, Dubya...I don't need help from any "sites" to debate your outlandish posts. A little common sense does the trick just fine.

If you've studied economics, you should know what inflating a depressed economy means and that FDR was doing fine, until he tried to cut government spending too quickly in 1937 and caused a downturn in the economy. Just like in Europe, an austerity program before the economy heals is a great way to get it to return to recession. FDR needed to continue to get unemployment lower and increase revenue that way, before cutting government spending. A counter-cyclical approach is what is needed in government spending and it wouldn't hurt to also adjust taxes that way. Governments should cut spending during boom times, inch up taxes and pay off debt. That requires discipline, but it works. That allows the central banking system to keep interest rates low and not have to raise them to slow an economy down and those lower rates stimulate the economy. If the economy goes into a downturn or growth is too slow, the government can increase spending and lower taxes to stimulate the economy. The government changes can be adjusted slightly and doesn't send the shock to the economy that the interest rate increases of a central bank does. It allows an economy to be fine tuned and gives it sustainable growth, instead of ups and downs, booms and busts.

If you really wanted to get creative, you could grow an economy to full employment using guest workers to avoid a wage/price inflation spiral, though presently our markets are suffering by wages being too low. We need to reset wages and use a COLA system to adjust consumer spending in real dollars. Essentially with guest workers, we could have an economy larger than it's population would create, while reducing guest workers during a slowdown, which would always keep our citizens at full employment. "Gee, we had a recession and all those guest workers went home. How will we ever survive?"

The government should work out fair trade policies and emphasize making our own products whenever possible, unless a secure, balanced trade based on competitive advantage is worked out with a particular country. For example, consider the Colombians Free Trade Agreement as it was proposed. I read the agreement when it was proposed and characterize it as page after page of protections for the Colombian economy and no protections for ours. It was a one way street and free trade in name only, free to Colombia and slavery for America. Basically, it was designed to benefit banking at the expense of the American people. A Fair Trade Agreement with Colombia would look like this: Colombia wants to export various products to the United States including some manufactured goods like lingerie, but what American imports will Colombia take to balance the books? We can work out quotas with our lingerie manufacturers that can lower the price of their overall product and still protect American jobs. We allow our lingerie manufacturers to import Colombian lingerie to fill future increases in demand without destroying domestic production. That keeps the unit price of lingerie lower in the future and profitable to the manufacturers, but it doesn't allow them to get too greedy and cut the throat of the American people. The whole Fair Trade Agreement involves allowing Colombia to export their products to our markets, but sets quotas for American products to imported to their markets and keeps this trade in balance. Balanced trade benefits both nations and their economies while a Free Trade Agreement can be a one way street causing a bad economy for one of the nations which hurts that market in the future.

Public resources should be developed and sold at market prices. The Corporations developing the resources can make their profit, but the resources aren't given away for the price of a lease. A brief way to picture this is the Norway example to develop North Sea production. A state owned corporation oversees the development and sells the resources at market prices. The profit from publicly owned resources is returned to the public and not some fat cat corporation running the show by hiring the same corporations the state owned corporation would hire to develop the resources. Handing out leases only profits the rich. The rich don't own those resources and the public does. The profit should go to the public and not the rich. The rich need to make their money the old fashion way and earn it, instead of using their influence to steal it from the public.

It wouldn't hurt to add about 50 million more people to our population in the future. Besides solving the jobs problems created by outsourcing and allowing corporations to generate trade imbalances while giving them access to our markets, it is wise to increase domestic consumption by increasing our population. We presently have a surplus of homes and commercial property. We can rid ourselves of that surplus and get our construction industry moving again by increasing immigration. Illegal immigration reform would also reunite families and prevent money from exiting the country, but growing our population by increasing legal immigration, while encouraging talented people to immigrate to America would solve our governments fiscal problems as well. The smart way to get back to surpluses and pay off government debt is to grow your way out of the problem. The stupid way is to cut government spending during slow economic times and convert America into a third world country.



This is totally a Republican propaganda, bullshit lie that anyone who has studied economics would see through. The net general effect of any bubble is zero sum. The loses when inflated prices return to market value are offset by the gains during the creation of the bubble. Bubbles just make winners and losers and concentrating on the losers is only looking at half the balance sheet. The economy crashed because there was a financial crisis and there was a financial crisis because Republicans changed regulations to prevent a financial crisis that were created during the Great Depression. GLBA and CFMA were Republican legislations that allowed the financial crisis to happen. Lax regulation during the Bush administration is evident when ABS bonds were allowed to be rated AAA securites and exchange as such. These securities were backed by credit default swaps allowed by the Republican changes. That meant a guarantee to back a bond was allowed to happen without assets to back the guarantee. It was the Investment Banks that created this financial crisis and all of our 5 Investment Banks were destroyed as such in the process, along with banks that used those toxic asset bonds.

The Republican propaganda about the crisis tries to focus on the GSEs and CRA. The fact that they were minor players shows this lie is only a cover up story to keep people from blaming the true causes of the financial collapse. For people who do not trust the right-wing think tank propaganda, an entirely different picture emerges of who is truly responsible and their intentions to make these changes in regulations was so obviously reckless that it's hard to believe the resulting financial crisis wasn't deliberately done. The emphasis at that time was on privatization, so the Investment Banks were making bonds that put the GSEs out of business. They took over the mortgage market and asset markets which involved much more than housing. Housing was a focus during the crisis, because things like adjustable rate mortgages was causing millions of Americans to lose their homes, further depressing the value of the bonds that backed the real estate value. The same thing was happening to commercial real estate. Even student loans came into play, because the law requires repayment. A depressed economy allow the whales to even gobble up some rather big fish who are rich, but not as rich as whales. When it's all said and done the super-rich come out much wealthier. The super-rich has so much wealth they aren't concerned about present day income and are in it for the long haul. The super-rich have so much wealth it's hard to invest without inventing scams to make hugh profits. That's who the Republican Party serves.

Consider the way the Republicans frame the concept of investment! They are always focused on what amounts to yearly net income and completely ignore the hugh amounts of wealth accumulated in centuries of using a capitalist system. They want us to believe that investment is solely the product of what profit someone can presently make as if everyone in the world has been living hand in mouth throughout all those centuries. They want us to believe no one was ever smart enough to squirrel away a fortune in wealth that can be used for an investment in a good economy that offers a business opportunity. The Republicans are always begging for the rich to have more and wanting society to do things like give the rich all the crude and natural gas resources in ANWR so we can produce our own oil. What is this we and our bullshit? The Republican Party wants to con us into giving resources technically owned by every American and future Americans to a Big Oil Corporation that may not even be an American corporation, like BP and Shell, for the price of a lease. The Republican Party are not capitalists, they are corporatists and that's next to communists in my book. The rich do not need more welfare from society, which is the only thing the Republicans stand for.



Benghazi is Republican talking points about 4 American who were killed in an unstable country. Benghazi is being investigated, but if that is the standard, where was the concern for those almost 3,000 killed on 9/11, when Bush was warned of an al Qaeda attack and did nothing to prevent it? Why aren't the lives of 4,487 of our American military killed in Iraq a concern when it only costed about a 100 American lives to invade a country that didn't have WMD. Were was the outrage for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 American servicemen? The two attacks during the 1998 United States embassy bombings killed approximately 223 people, so where is the outrage for that? To me, every one of those lives was important, even if they weren't Americans, and it shouldn't be up to me to value one of those lives more than the others. I don't have a problem with investigating any incident and try to discover if a way to prevent such needless slaughter can be avoided in the future, but I do have a problem when the focus is partisan politics that isn't intended to be productive. If the Republican Party has the desire to do something, start fixing the problems in this world and stop being the problem.



What have already discussed Fast and Furious. It's obviously another Republican talking point hack job involving bits of information in a classified investigation by law enforcement. You don't have the facts about what the operation involved and you wouldn't have the facts until those investigations concerning Mexican Drug Cartels are over and done with. There are other facts, like it's a lie that there was a plan to flood Mexico with high powered weapons and you should have the sense to know it's a lie. It's a Republican think tank game to claim allowing weapons to go to Mexico will cause gun control to happen in America and you can see where it coming from. It's Republican gun control policies that made America into an open market for guns and that's why the Mexican Drug Cartels were buying weapons in America. The ATF had and has very limited resources and it can't prevent guns going into Mexico with our present laws. When the ATF nabs some minnow buying the weapons and even tracks down little fish involved in the gun trafficking, even if they make an arrest, another operation takes it's place and it's business as usual. The ATF's evaluation was the weapons would get there regardless of their efforts, so they devised a plan to track down guns to the big fish involved in gun trafficking and the Mexican Drug Cartels behind the effort. These more sophisticated and creative types of law enforcement are nothing new when the efforts of law enforcement are thwarted by the sheer size of the criminal elements they oppose. It happens with the DEA and drugs on a regular basis. They discover shipments and decide to trace them, instead of making an immediate arrest. If there was a coverup, the Fast and Furious operation wouldn't even be known to exist.

It's a tragedy that a border guard lost his life with a weapon that was allowed to go through, but how do you know that weapon wasn't one amongst an arsenal of weapons that current gun laws allow? The weapon the criminal used to kill the border guard could be one weapon amongst thousands available for him to kill that border guard. Why do people who claim it isn't weapon that kills, but the criminal, make an exception here? I seriously doubt the existence of that weapon determined that criminal being there to commit the crime.

I've outlined regulations that would prevent gun trafficking and I haven't seen one Republican right-winger support it. My regulations wouldn't require things like assault weapons bans, would remove guns from criminals and drastically reduce our homicide by gun rates. The problem with Republicans is they make these problems and never take responsibility for it.

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle

Solyndra was destined to be a financial failure before it even started. Their solar panels were so much more expensive than what was being made in China there was absolutely no way they were going to be financially viable. The red flags on that were raised during the Bush Administration...but since some of Solyndra's money people were Obama supporters their loan guarantee got fast tracked once Barry was elected. Hey, that the way things work in Washington but at least have the honesty to admit it and take the blame for wasting billions in tax payer money.

You are a typical Republican hack running their mouth in ignorance. Our government invested money in alternative energy that you Republicans don't support. You ignore the fact that utilities are presently building hugh amounts of electricity generation in our southwest. You ignore the fact that our investment in alternative energy has paid off or utilities wouldn't be interested. You want to nitpick a new segment of our economy to support the Koch Bro. dinosaur technology. So what if one company had problems with a collapse of the silicon market! The company still has it's patents and the panels they made weren't made in China. PV panels are not all the same and there is a future for thin film silicon panels and Solyndra has a future for it's patented process to make them. You also ignore the fact that investments in alternative energy aren't anything new and wind power was increased more with Bush than under Obama.

The reality is, the access to future export markets is being determined by naiton's energy policies of today. In the future, a nation's products will not be acceptable in foreign nations, if they are made with a large carbon footprint. Those markets will require a carbon tax tariff to be placed on those foreign goods and if that carbon tax is high, it will price them out of that market. Of course, Republicans can't get a grasp on reality, because it's a total myth that they are good at doing business. They lack vision and people who became rich by having vision don't support them.

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle

Quite frankly, Dubya...I don't need help from any "sites" to debate your outlandish posts. A little common sense does the trick just fine.

Common sense requires more than claiming you possess it. A person using their common sense doesn't support policies that are the root of the problem and then play a ******* blame game to try to put the responsiblity on someone else. Go ahead and keep on supporting the stupid policies that the Republican Party supports, because my common sense tells me it will put your Republican Party in the grave next to the Whigs, where they belong!

Reading a book about economics in 4th grade is not studying economics.

 

[zeke]

No, just like the right wingers insist that Obama should have had a embassy security review and beefed up security around the world for the 9/11 anniv. (and he should have done that), then you have to say that George Bush, after being given a heads up by the Clinton folk, should have ordered his people to review every bit of intelligence being generated, domestic and foreign, to uncover any plot against us by terrorists. No bit of intelligence should have not been reviewed. Of course this would have brought out the we want to fly but no land Middle Eastern men. And our history might not have been changed forever for the bad.

Because no doubt about it, it the terrorists wanted, as an objective, to change the way we live and view ourselves in the world, and not for the better I might add, then they have been very successful. Especially as it only took one attack. And we've changed forever.

Billions of dollares, hundreds of thousnds of lives, changes we would have not thought possible and all because we were sloppy with our own security and a handful of terrorists got lucky. Amazing.

 

[bornright]

Clearly, this is directed to The Republicans and self-proclaimed Conservatives of USMB.

When, exactly, did you realize that you really didn't like Obama and were going to be against him no matter what?

I'll answer the question in the reverse as an example. Some years ago, when Bush was first elected, I disliked him. I didn't like what he stood for, didn't like what he said, I didn't even like the way he sounded, he sounds dumb and he's proven himself to be such. Anyway, I wasn't totally or automatically against him. What turned me against him permanently, was what he did with the good will of The American People after the country was attacked.

He lied about the WMDs, he kept the country in state of constant fear, and he waged two unnecessary wars. To top it off, he didn't pay for it at the time and sent the bill to our kids and grandkids.

To be precise, from the instant he began that fear campaign war campaign, he lost me forever. I will NEVER forgive him for that.

So, when did you Republicans, Conservatives and other assorted RWers of USMB decide to be against Obama no matter what?

C'mon, be honest.

There have been many things that have turn me sour to Obama but the thing that 1st turned me against him no matter what was the Obama care.

 

[bornright]

Wrong about what?

Are you REFUTING the fact that 9/11/2001, the WORST terrorist attack to occur on US soil occurred under George W. Bush's watch?

Are you refuting the fact that the whole thing was planned under Clinton's watch?? That one of his FBI agents knew something was up but couldn't get his bosses to listen??

Are you refuting the fact that Clinton was offered UBL on a silver platter from the Sudan??

Bush would have waterboarded that SOB and got the whole scoop and we probably wouldn't have had a 9-11.

Yes it was the worst terrorist attack on US soil and yes Bush was POTUS. To bad the previous POTUS'S administration dropped the ******* ball.

I'm simply stating that it doesn't matter WHEN it was planned?

The FACT of the matter is that Bush FAILED in stopping it from occurring.

The WORST terrorist attack on US soil under Bush's watch, and it happened.

Who cares when it was planned?

When were the Benghazi attacks planned?

Do you doubt that Obama would have claimed it was an accident that the two planes flew into the two building had he been president at the time?

 

[Avatar4321]

Ive never decided I am against him no matter what. In fact, if he decided to put conservative principles in policy, I'd support him. Im not expecting that. But my objections to him have always been based on principles and policies. I don't want policies in place that will make the nation worse. The President has been doing nothing but putting those bad policies in place.

So until he starts supporting good policies based on sound principles, I will continue to oppose his actions.

You were a supporter of Bush, correct?

Which of his policies were based on sound principles to you?

I supported him when he had good policies. I opposed him when he had bad ones. Tax cuts, for instance were principled and good policy as it lead to 6 years of strong economic growth.

 

[Claudette]

Wrong about what?

Are you REFUTING the fact that 9/11/2001, the WORST terrorist attack to occur on US soil occurred under George W. Bush's watch?

Are you refuting the fact that the whole thing was planned under Clinton's watch?? That one of his FBI agents knew something was up but couldn't get his bosses to listen??

Are you refuting the fact that Clinton was offered UBL on a silver platter from the Sudan??

Bush would have waterboarded that SOB and got the whole scoop and we probably wouldn't have had a 9-11.

Yes it was the worst terrorist attack on US soil and yes Bush was POTUS. To bad the previous POTUS'S administration dropped the ******* ball.

I'm simply stating that it doesn't matter WHEN it was planned?

The FACT of the matter is that Bush FAILED in stopping it from occurring.

The WORST terrorist attack on US soil under Bush's watch, and it happened.

Who cares when it was planned?

When were the Benghazi attacks planned?

The Benghazi attacks happened because the State Department refused to beef up security after repeated requests by the chancellory. There were warnings of a pending attack.

Hell. Other embassies and the Red Cross pulled out. No one closes an embassy for no reason. The attack happened just as the threats predicted. If security had been beefed up or we had closed the embassy and sent our folks home as other smarter folks did then Benghazi wouldn't have happened. Those four men would still be alive.

You don't care when 9-11 was planned because it was under Clintons watch. You're content to blame Bush while totally ignoring Clintons part in it.

He had UBL in the palm of his hand and refused to take him. Bush would have waterboarded that SOB and learned about the attack. 9-11 might not even have happend and there would be no 3,000 dead.

 

[asaratis]

The WORST terrorist attack on US soil occurred under George W. Bush's watch.

Did it not? Yes or no? It's a simple question.

Yes but it was not his fault. Not his "baby" as you call it.
Admit you are wrong Marc. You are looking very foolish.

Post where I called it his fault please.

Why are you people seeing stuff that's not there?

Why you gotta make crap up?

I've been against everything Obama and his ilk promote ever since I was turned against Marxism and communism as a child....back in the '50s.


Putting up opposition to being governed by socialism/communism might require a degree of hatred, not of individuals but philosophies and dogma. **** Marxism...therefore **** Obama...the hatred has been there since before he was born.

 

[Dubya]

The Republicans took over the House in January 2011. According to Obama's team the economy was going to be in full recovery mode by then.

Blaming Republicans for the stimulus failure is just foolish.

I've been in political forums much longer than the report containing that chart. I was there when idiots like you first made that claim about what Obama said, so I posted the report. Throughout the report and on both sides of that chart were disclaimers, saying it was just an estimate. The unemployment rate exceeded the chart when the report was made public, proving that the estimates were done long before in the Bush administration. You right-wingers know the facts, but you insist on lying after it's been proven a lie over and over. What a bunch of lying ass losers you right-wingers are!

And once again as we have seen countless times on this board, when a lib's argument runs out of factual steam he or she plays the "liar" card.
You're done pal.

How did you come up with the right-wing talking points about that chart and avoid the report that was the source of the chart? When a chart has disclaimers on both sides of it and the report is released when unemployment data is already beyond the high point in the chart, why isn't a lie to keep claiming Obama said unemployment would only reach a certain level?

Explain why that isn't a lie!

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm not "against Obama no matter what"

If fact if he wanted to resign I'd be with him 100%