Defeat From the Jaws of Victory

[Common Sense]

none of them. and none of Bush's either. unless you count bailing out the banks.

TARP and the Stimulus package,

TARP was half GWB half BHO, the stimulus was all BHO.

Bo pissed away over a trillion dollars with nothing to show for it. Now Mexico? Mexico has a brand new 800 million dollar GM plant. That was so ******* nice of you little demonRats. Meanwhile our unemployment is hoverin at ten percent. More than that in demonRat states such as Californication. Nice job demonRats. that's sure as **** snatching Victory innit?

any proof of this or just more BS? link?

 

[WillowTree]

What about those waivers? Anybody?

They were up to 222 at the beginning of December - double the amount at the beginning of November.

And that's just the start!

So obie wan knows it's so ******* pathetic he grans 222 waivers? Wow, and I think 22 states are on the fast tract to the Supreme Court. Take a victory lap Jillie. Are you up to it?

 

[jillian]

Obama cares about the deficit? He tripled Bush's deficits. $400B looks pretty good now.

Still a lie. You can keep saying it though, if it makes you feel better.

it won't be a lie in 2016.

i don't agree. they'll have to address that if they don't want the S&P rating to go down. S&P rating goes down, they can forget the presidency in 2012. plus, the repubs will run on it as "obama's deficit" even though it isn't and even though the tax cuts are a huge problem.

i have to wonder, though, if the repubs were so concerned about deficit reduction, why make tax cuts for the top 1% the only think they demanded.

 

[Yurt]

repeal of DADT is bloated meaningless govt?

people who dug out the bodies at ground zero are meaningless?

unemployed people are meaningless?

and the above is why you guys ultimately blow up any victory you get.

meh, DADT was put in place by executive order, it should have gone out the same way

thats if Obama really had those gonads you talked about later

yeah, but then he'd have been criticized for doing it unilaterally. this way it was almost bi-partisan and he got to do a star turn with the congress and everyone oohing and ahhing. as PR goes, I think he did better.

Though i would prolly have agreed with you two years ago.

really....so two years into his presidency and he did better....

tell that to those who have been discharged under DADT

 

[Common Sense]

Obama cares about the deficit? He tripled Bush's deficits. $400B looks pretty good now.

Bush didnt put either of the wars into the budget as they were passed as emergency spending measures. Obama ended that practice.

"the U.S. military has largely paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency spending measures, in effect keeping wartime costs off the books. In addition to masking skyrocketing budget growth at the Department of Defense, this process has allowed the services to treat budget supplementals as a piggy bank for new procurement. Members of Congress may have grumbled about poor oversight, but they have largely acquiesced.
Obama’s message? Not anymore."

Obama: No More War Spending Tricks | Danger Room | Wired.com

 

[EriktheRed]

Not really. Many in his own party were in favor of extension. Letting rates rise would have provoked another recession. Even Obama could see that much.
But the other things cited hardly show him "running to the center."

my point is he'll have to work with republicans or he won't get anything done. DADT is small potatoes, imo.

lol, the new rightwing talking point.

Depends on which rightwinger is talking about it. The theo-cons are pretty incensed about it, so it's not "small potatoes" to them, at least.

 

[DiveCon]

He is referring to fact that Obama should not have won in the primaries.

Especially in Texas.

Yeah. i love how they count votes twice there.

that was just for the democrats in TX
they did both a primary(meaningless vote) and a caucus(what really assigned the delegates)

 

[Yurt]

Still a lie. You can keep saying it though, if it makes you feel better.

it won't be a lie in 2016.

i don't agree. they'll have to address that if they don't want the S&P rating to go down. S&P rating goes down, they can forget the presidency in 2012. plus, the repubs will run on it as "obama's deficit" even though it isn't and even though the tax cuts are a huge problem.

i have to wonder, though, if the repubs were so concerned about deficit reduction, why make tax cuts for the top 1% the only think they demanded.

because pubs are idiots on this and were pandering to their base

how can you call deficits under bush bush's deficits, but now under obama they are no longer obama's deficits....the extension to the tax cuts did not raise the deficit....UB did and obama's trillion other dollars have as well....but strangely you're not going to call any of it obama's deficit

 

[goldcatt]

They also solved world peace, cured cancer and harnessed fusion...

Awesome...

no, hon.. that's next term.

Wow, pass a couple of lefty favorites and she's already sucking his large Negro cock again. No wonder Obama's popularity shifts with the Left. They have no loyalty whatsoever.

You really are nothing but brain dead scum.

 

[WillowTree]

TARP and the Stimulus package,

TARP was half GWB half BHO, the stimulus was all BHO.

Bo pissed away over a trillion dollars with nothing to show for it. Now Mexico? Mexico has a brand new 800 million dollar GM plant. That was so ******* nice of you little demonRats. Meanwhile our unemployment is hoverin at ten percent. More than that in demonRat states such as Californication. Nice job demonRats. that's sure as **** snatching Victory innit?

any proof of this or just more BS? link?

proof of what bodink?

 

[Vast LWC]

He is referring to fact that Obama should not have won in the primaries.

Especially in Texas.[/QUOTE]

LOL, you guys are still bitching about how the Democrats defeated your efforts to fix the primary there?

You crack me up.

 

[elvis]

He is referring to fact that Obama should not have won in the primaries.

Especially in Texas.

LOL, you guys are still bitching about how the Democrats defeated your efforts to fix the primary there?

You crack me up.[/QUOTE]

Preach it, Oliver. Preach it.

 

[kiwiman127]

it won't be a lie in 2016.

i don't agree. they'll have to address that if they don't want the S&P rating to go down. S&P rating goes down, they can forget the presidency in 2012. plus, the repubs will run on it as "obama's deficit" even though it isn't and even though the tax cuts are a huge problem.

i have to wonder, though, if the repubs were so concerned about deficit reduction, why make tax cuts for the top 1% the only think they demanded.

because pubs are idiots on this and were pandering to their base

how can you call deficits under bush bush's deficits, but now under obama they are no longer obama's deficits....the extension to the tax cuts did not raise the deficit....UB did and obama's trillion other dollars have as well....but strangely you're not going to call any of it obama's deficit

Yeah, you're right. Once Obama took office even the futre deficits from past presidents are now his (Per example Medicare Part B @ around 100 billion per year, or the continued costs of the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan and the continued care of our physically/mentally wounded troops, estimated in the trillions of dollars).
The next prez will be stuck with the costs of Obamacare if it surives repeal and other Obaba programs that are classifed as future deficits..

 

[Dr Grump]

That's how he holds office. He even stole THAT.

Er, Bush is no longer president..
...and, um, if you are talking about Obama, um, I never took you for a troofer....

 

[EriktheRed]

That's how he holds office. He even stole THAT.

Er, Bush is no longer president..
...and, um, if you are talking about Obama, um, I never took you for a troofer....

Don't you mean "Birther"?

 

[Yurt]

i don't agree. they'll have to address that if they don't want the S&P rating to go down. S&P rating goes down, they can forget the presidency in 2012. plus, the repubs will run on it as "obama's deficit" even though it isn't and even though the tax cuts are a huge problem.

i have to wonder, though, if the repubs were so concerned about deficit reduction, why make tax cuts for the top 1% the only think they demanded.

because pubs are idiots on this and were pandering to their base

how can you call deficits under bush bush's deficits, but now under obama they are no longer obama's deficits....the extension to the tax cuts did not raise the deficit....UB did and obama's trillion other dollars have as well....but strangely you're not going to call any of it obama's deficit

Yeah, you're right. Once Obama took office even the futre deficits from past presidents are now his (Per example Medicare Part B @ around 100 billion per year, or the continued costs of the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan and the continued care of our physically/mentally wounded troops, estimated in the trillions of dollars).
The next prez will be stuck with the costs of Obamacare if it surives repeal and other Obaba programs that are classifed as future deficits..

thats not what i said....why is it people have to twist other's comments around in order to try and score a cheap interweb message board point?

 

[elvis]

That's how he holds office. He even stole THAT.

Er, Bush is no longer president..
...and, um, if you are talking about Obama, um, I never took you for a troofer....

Bush and obama both won because of weaknesses in our electoral system.

 

[jillian]

because pubs are idiots on this and were pandering to their base

how can you call deficits under bush bush's deficits, but now under obama they are no longer obama's deficits....the extension to the tax cuts did not raise the deficit....UB did and obama's trillion other dollars have as well....but strangely you're not going to call any of it obama's deficit

if you call the 'base' what bush did... 'the rich and the richer', i suppose that's true. but isn't that silly?

as to your question, that's a good one. and i'm not sure how he does get around it. if he reminds everyone constantly that he was forced into it by the repubs holding all the rest of the legislation hostage then he looks weak. if he owns it, he looks irresponsible. it's a lose/lose which is what i said from the beginning. however, in terms of approval rating and backing from the center, which is what he needs for re-election, then he did absolutely the right thing. and because it was absolutely the right thing, i never never expected mcconnell to be able to lose control of his senators. but he did.

and that makes it interesting. i do think they'll have to raise the social security age, though.

 

[jillian]

That's how he holds office. He even stole THAT.

Er, Bush is no longer president..
...and, um, if you are talking about Obama, um, I never took you for a troofer....

Bush and obama both won because of weaknesses in our electoral system.

obama won with 365 electoral votes and the majority of the electorate... unlike bush who was appointed by his daddy's appointee who should have recused from hearing bush v gore.

 

[elvis]

Er, Bush is no longer president..
...and, um, if you are talking about Obama, um, I never took you for a troofer....

Bush and obama both won because of weaknesses in our electoral system.

obama won with 365 electoral votes and the majority of the electorate... unlike bush who was appointed by his daddy's appointee who should have recused from hearing bush v gore.

i was referring to the primaries with obama and the electoral college with bush.